Navy to Conduct Full Power Demo of Riverine Command Boat Fueled by Blend with 50% Algae-Based F-76 Fuel
New 3.0L Diesel for Audi Q7 SUV Offers 32.7 mpg

USDA and FAA to Partner to Develop Biomass Feedstocks for Renewable Jet Fuel

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding under which they will work together with the airline industry over the next 5 years to develop appropriate feed stocks that can be most efficiently processed into jet fuel.

Doing so will decrease the industry’s current dependence on foreign oil and help stabilize fuel costs in the long run, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack during a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Under the partnership, the agencies will bring together their experience in research, policy analysis and air transportation sector dynamics to assess the availability of different kinds of feedstocks that could be processed by bio-refineries to produce jet fuels.

The participants will develop a tool to evaluate the status of different components of a feedstock supply chain, such as availability of biomass from farms and forests, the potential of that biomass for production of jet fuel, and the length of time it will take to ramp up to full-scale production. The agencies already have existing programs and collaborative agreements with private and public partners and resources to help biorefiners develop cost-effective production plans for jet aircraft biofuels.

This cooperative agreement supports a larger research plan led by USDA through its five Regional Biomass Research Centers, which will help accelerate the development of a commercial advanced biofuels industry across the United States.

Secretary Vilsack also announced other measures to support the growth of the advanced biofuels industry, including the publication of a final rule to implement the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). Under the BCAP final rule, USDA will resume making payments to eligible producers. The program had operated as a pilot, pending publication of the final rule.

Authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, BCAP is designed to ensure that a sufficiently large base of new, non-food, non-feed biomass crops is established in anticipation of future demand for renewable energy consumption.

BCAP uses a dual approach to support the production of renewable energy. First, BCAP provides assistance for the establishment and production of eligible renewable biomass crops within specified project areas. Producers who enter into BCAP contracts may receive payments of up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing eligible perennial crops. Further, they can receive payments for up to five years for annual or non-woody perennial crops and up to 15 years for woody perennial crops. FSA is accepting project area proposals and, after project area proposals have been approved, eligible producers may participate by enrolling at their FSA county office.

In addition, BCAP also assists agricultural and forest landowners and operators by providing matching payments for the transportation of certain eligible materials that are sold to qualified biomass conversion facilities. The facilities convert the materials into heat, power, biobased products or advanced biofuels.

The Secretary also discussed a biofuels report prepared by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) that says replacing more petroleum with cost-competitive domestic biofuels reduces crude oil imports, thereby lowering prices for energy and benefiting the US economy. Findings of the report include:

  • The biofuels industry becomes more productive as cost-reducing technology is applied, which results in higher wages for workers.
  • Gains in Gross Domestic Product and real income are driven largely from the contribution from technological progress in biofuels, which increases the productivity of the economy.
  • Next-generation biofuels are considered to be a decreasing cost industry.



Could priority be given to waste (garbage) as feed stock? USA may produce enough domestic, commercial, industrial, farming and forestry waste to produce most of the aviation fuel required.


A waste conversion plant at or close to every major airport would reduce feed stock and fuel transportation cost.


Harvey, I am with you. But not sure the waste2fuel plant need be at an airport. Usually waste is generated in quantity in the commercial/industrial areas. More likely best to put a fuel plant near municipal waste dumps and land fills.

This report has merit. And suggest correctly that biofuels play a big role in stabilizing economies and creating sustainable energy.


"Renewable" jet fuel will probably be much too expensive for mass-market aviation to continue.


Too expensive ....? it depends a lot on taxes. One could always tax fossil fuels more or enough to make it more expensive than locally produced bio-fuels. More revenues for the States and more local jobs at the same time. And no more smelly garbage mountains.


You won't make bio-alkanes cheaper by taxing petroleum, and subsidies just hide the costs.

If getting rid of garbage mountains requires subsidies, they'll reappear as soon as the government stops paying (like, when it goes broke... as it is now). Really fixing things requires other approaches.


Towns and cities good pay $100+/tonne to have their garbage recycled or transformed into fuel. If $100/tonne is not sufficient, why not raise the price to $200/tonne and more if required to produce competitive bio-fuel.
Make garbage mountains and dumps illegal and duly enforce such laws.

Secondly, all fuels could be taxed in proportion to GHG created to generate enough funds to build and maintain all roads-streets and bridges. If and extra $0.25+/gal is required, so be it. The average American will never agree to a new fuel tax.

Why wait for something that may never happened. It's like waiting for the majority to approve banning the death penalty. It would never happen. but the law was passed in many countries. Most if not all minorities rights had the same problems and were passed without receiving the approval of the majority. Sometimes, the authorities must do what is right for the country, even when the majority has been convinced by other self interested forces to be against it.


Correction and cities COULD or SHOULD pay .....


All fuels should NOT be taxed according to GHG since it is a dead metric. Fuels COULD be taxed on locale and sustainability. i.e. imported fuel is taxed greater than domestic. Fuel from further away should cost more than that produced in local markets. Likely impossible to get this through Congress - but far better chance than taxing GHGs.


If synthetic jet fuel makes a $200 ticket $300, maybe that is where it should be. Flying in a commercial jet plane was a luxury, but has been made into a necessity and a right. Perhaps the traveling public has to pay the real price of flying in a jet airplane.

The comments to this entry are closed.