Laurence Eaton

U.S. Billion-ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry

The Report, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (generally referred to as the Billion-Ton Study or 2005 BTS), was an estimate of “potential” biomass within the contiguous United States based on numerous assumptions about current and future inventory and production capacity, availability, and technology. In the 2005 BTS, a strategic analysis was undertaken to determine if U.S. agriculture and forest resources have the capability to potentially produce at least one billion dry tons of biomass annually, in a sustainable manner—enough to displace approximately 30% of the country’s present petroleum consumption. To ensure reasonable confidence in the study results, an effort was made to use relatively conservative assumptions. However, for both agriculture and forestry, the resource potential was not restricted by price. That is, all identified biomass was potentially available, even though some potential feedstock would more than likely be too expensive to actually be economically available. In addition to updating the 2005 study, this report attempts to address a number of its shortcomings

Global economic effects of US biofuel policy and the potential contribution from advanced biofuels

Background: This study evaluates the global economic effects of the current US RFS2, and the potential contribution from advanced biofuels. Results & discussion: Our simulation results suggest that these mandates lead to an increase of 0.21% in the global gross domestic product in 2022, including an increase of 0.8% in the USA and 0.02% in the rest of the world, relative to our baseline no-RFS scenario. The incremental contributions to gross domestic product from advanced biofuels in 2022 are estimated at 0.41 and 0.04% in the USA and the rest of the world, respectively. Conclusion: Although production costs of advanced biofuels are higher than for conventional biofuels in our model, their economic benefits result from reductions in oil use and their smaller impacts on food markets compared with conventional biofuels. Thus, the US advanced biofuels targets are expected to have positive net economic benefits.

Simulated impact of the renewable fuels standard on US Conservation Reserve Program enrollment and conversion

A socioeconomic model is used to estimate the land‐use implications on the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program from potential increases in second‐generation biofuel production. A baseline scenario with no second‐generation biofuel production is compared to a scenario where the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) volumes are met by 2022. We allow for the possibility of converting expiring CRP lands to alternative uses such as conventional crops, dedicated second‐generation biofuel crops, or harvesting existing CRP grasses for biomass. Results indicate that RFS2 volumes (RFS2‐v) can be met primarily with crop residues (78% of feedstock demand) and woody residues (19% of feedstock demand) compared with dedicated biomass (3% of feedstock demand), with only minimal conversion of cropland (0.27 million hectares, <1% of total cropland), pastureland (0.28 million hectares of pastureland, <1% of total pastureland), and CRP lands (0.29 million hectares of CRP lands, 3% of existing CRP lands) to biomass production. Meeting RFS2 volumes would reduce CRP re‐enrollment by 0.19 million hectares, or 4%, below the baseline scenario where RFS2 is not met. Yet under RFS2‐v scenario, expiring CRP lands are more likely to be converted to or maintain perennial cover, with 1.78 million hectares of CRP lands converting to hay production, and 0.29 million hectares being harvested for existing grasses. A small amount of CRP is harvested for existing biomass, but no conversion of CRP to dedicated biomass crops, such as switchgrass, are projected to occur. Although less land is enrolled in CRP under RFS2‐v scenario, total land in perennial cover increases by 0.15 million hectares, or 2%, under RFS2‐v. Sensitivity to yield, payment and residue retention assumptions are evaluated.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Indicators for Bioenergy Sustainability as Applied to Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus is a fast-growing tree native to Australia and could be used to supply biomass for bioenergy and other purposes along the coastal regions of the southeastern United States (USA). At a farmgate price of

Environmental limitation mapping of potential biomass resources across the conterminous United States

66 dry Mg−1, a potential supply of 27 to 41.3 million dry Mg year−1 of Eucalyptus could be produced on about 1.75 million ha in the southeastern USA. A proposed suite of indicators provides a practical and consistent way to measure the sustainability of a particular situation where Eucalyptus might be grown as a feedstock for conversion to bioenergy. Applying this indicator suite to Eucalyptus culture in the southeastern USA provides a basis for the practical evaluation of socioeconomic and environmental sustainability in those systems. Sustainability issues associated with using Eucalyptus for bioenergy do not differ greatly from those of other feedstocks, for prior land-use practices are a dominant influence. Particular concerns focus on the potential for invasiveness, water use, and social acceptance. This paper discusses opportunities and constraints of sustainable production of Eucalyptus in the southeastern USA. For example, potential effects on sustainability that can occur in all five stages of the biofuel life cycle are depicted.

Impacts analysis regarding partially hydrogenated oils

Several crops have recently been identified as potential dedicated bioenergy feedstocks for the production of power, fuels, and bioproducts. Despite being identified as early as the 1980s, no systematic work has been undertaken to characterize the spatial distribution of their long‐term production potentials in the United states. Such information is a starting point for planners and economic modelers, and there is a need for this spatial information to be developed in a consistent manner for a variety of crops, so that their production potentials can be intercompared to support crop selection decisions. As part of the Sun Grant Regional Feedstock Partnership (RFP), an approach to mapping these potential biomass resources was developed to take advantage of the informational synergy realized when bringing together coordinated field trials, close interaction with expert agronomists, and spatial modeling into a single, collaborative effort. A modeling and mapping system called PRISM‐ELM was designed to answer a basic question: How do climate and soil characteristics affect the spatial distribution and long‐term production patterns of a given crop? This empirical/mechanistic/biogeographical hybrid model employs a limiting factor approach, where productivity is determined by the most limiting of the factors addressed in submodels that simulate water balance, winter low‐temperature response, summer high‐temperature response, and soil pH, salinity, and drainage. Yield maps are developed through linear regressions relating soil and climate attributes to reported yield data. The model was parameterized and validated using grain yield data for winter wheat and maize, which served as benchmarks for parameterizing the model for upland and lowland switchgrass, CRP grasses, Miscanthus, biomass sorghum, energycane, willow, and poplar. The resulting maps served as potential production inputs to analyses comparing the viability of biomass crops under various economic scenarios. The modeling and parameterization framework can be expanded to include other biomass crops.

Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) [21 United States Code (U.S.C.) 301 et seq.] for assuring that the U.S. food supply is safe, sanitary, wholesome, and honestly labeled. Toward that end, FDA exercised approval authority over substances permitted for use as food additives. Substances that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) are not subject to regulation as food additives under the FD&C Act.