Renewable

Fuel Standard

POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF

U.S. Biofuel Policy

Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources
Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was funded by the Department of Treasury under Award TOS-09-051. Any opinions, find- ings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-18751-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-18751-6 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington met- ropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its ad- ministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also spon- sors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertain- ing to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Acad- emy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to as- sociate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the Na- tional Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INCREASING BIOFUELS PRODUCTION LESTER B. LAVE, Chair (until May 9, 2011), IOM,1 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania INGRID (INDY) C. BURKE, Cochair (from May 9, 2011), University of Wyoming, Laramie WALLACE E. TYNER, Cochair (from May 9, 2011), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana VIRGINIA H. DALE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee KATHLEEN E. HALVORSEN, Michigan Technological University, Houghton JASON D. HILL, University of Minnesota, St. Paul STEPHEN R. KAFFKA, University of California, Davis KIRK C. KLASING, University of California, Davis STEPHEN J. MCGOVERN, PetroTech Consultants, Mantua, New Jersey JOHN A. MIRANOWSKI, Iowa State University, Ames ARISTIDES (ARI) PATRINOS, Synthetic Genomics, Inc., La Jolla, California JERALD L. SCHNOOR, NAE,2 University of Iowa, Iowa City DAVID B. SCHWEIKHARDT, Michigan State University, East Lansing THERESA L. SELFA, State University of New York – College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse BRENT L. SOHNGEN, Ohio State University, Columbus J. ANDRES SORIA, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Project Staff KARA N. LANEY, Study Codirector EVONNE P.Y. TANG, Study Codirector KAMWETI MUTU, Research Associate KAREN L. IMHOF, Administrative Coordinator ROBIN A. SCHOEN, Director, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Editor PAULA TARNAPOL WHITACRE, Full Circle Communications, LLC 1 Institute of Medicine. 2 National Academy of Engineering. v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES NORMAN R. SCOTT, Chair, NAE,1 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York PEGGY F. BARLETT, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia HAROLD L. BERGMAN, University of Wyoming, Laramie RICHARD A. DIXON, NAS,2 Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore, Oklahoma DANIEL M. DOOLEY, University of California, Oakland JOAN H. EISEMANN, North Carolina State University, Raleigh GARY F. HARTNELL, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri GENE HUGOSON, Global Initiatives for Food Systems Leadership, St. Paul, Minnesota MOLLY M. JAHN, University of Wisconsin, Madison ROBBIN S. JOHNSON, Cargill Foundation, Wayzata, Minnesota A.G. KAWAMURA, Solutions from the Land, Washington, DC JULIA L. KORNEGAY, North Carolina State University, Raleigh KIRK C. KLASING, University of California, Davis VICTOR L. LECHTENBERG, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana JUNE BOWMAN NASRALLAH, NAS,2 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York PHILIP E. NELSON, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana KEITH PITTS, Marrone Bio Innovations, Davis, California CHARLES W. RICE, Kansas State University, Manhattan HAL SALWASSER, Oregon State University, Corvallis ROGER A. SEDJO, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC KATHLEEN SEGERSON, University of Connecticut, Storrs MERCEDES VAZQUEZ-AÑON, Novus International, Inc., St. Charles, Missouri Staff ROBIN A. SCHOEN, Director CAMILLA YANDOC ABLES, Program Officer RUTH S. ARIETI, Research Associate KAREN L. IMHOF, Administrative Coordinator KARA N. LANEY, Program Officer AUSTIN J. LEWIS, Senior Program Officer JANET M. MULLIGAN, Senior Program Associate for Research KATHLEEN REIMER, Senior Program Assistant EVONNE P.Y. TANG, Senior Program Officer PEGGY TSAI, Program Officer 1 National Academy of Engineering. 2 National Academy of Sciences. vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ANDREW BROWN, JR., Chair, NAE,1 Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE,1 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana WILLIAM BANHOLZER, NAE,1 The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta MICHAEL CORRADINI, NAE,1 University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL A. DeCOTIS, New York State Energy R&D Authority, Albany, New York CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE,1 Texas A&M University, College Station SHERRI GOODMAN, CNA, Alexandria, Virginia NARAIN HINGORANI, NAE,1 Independent Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California ROBERT J. HUGGETT, Independent Consultant, Seaford, Virginia DEBBIE A. NIEMEIER, University of California, Davis DANIEL NOCERA, NAS,2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, New Jersey DAN REICHER, Stanford University, California BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE,1 Daimler-Chrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS,2 University of California, San Diego RICHARD WHITE, Oppenheimer & Company, New York City Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director K. JOHN HOLMES, Associate Director DANA CAINES, Financial Associate ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer JONNA HAMILTON, Program Officer LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator ALICE WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant 1 National Academy of Engineering. 2 National Academy of Sciences. vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
In Memoriam Lester B. Lave (1939-2011) The committee dedicates this report to Dr. Lester Lave, chair for the majority of the duration of the study until his passing. Dr. Lave was a supremely accomplished scholar and educa- tor, who conducted work of international significance and dedicated much of his time to National Research Council and Institute of Medicine studies. Dr. Lave was an inspirational leader. He framed complex questions in tractable ways, stimulated productive discussion on critical topics, listened carefully, and provided a strong hand to focus the committee’s work. This report and each member of the committee benefited from his commitment to excellence. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future. —Niels Bohr I n the United States, we have come to depend upon plentiful and inexpensive energy to support our economy and lifestyles. In recent years, many questions have been raised regarding the sustainability of our current pattern of high consumption of nonrenewable energy and its environmental consequences. Further, because the United States imports about 55 percent of the nation’s consumption of crude oil, there are additional concerns about the security of supply. Hence, efforts are being made to find alternatives to our cur- rent pathway, including greater energy efficiency and use of energy sources that could lower greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions such as nuclear and renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels. This study focuses on biofuels and evaluates the economic and environmental consequences of increasing biofuel production. The state- ment of task asked this committee to provide “a qualitative and quantitative description of biofuels currently produced and projected to be produced by 2022 in the United States under different policy scenarios. . . .” The United States has a long history with biofuels. Recent interest began in the late 1970s with the passage of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978, which established the first biofuel subsidy, applied in one form or another to corn-grain ethanol since then. The corn-grain ethanol industry grew slowly from the early 1980s to around 2003. From 2003 to 2007, ethanol production grew rapidly as methyl tertiary butyl ether was phased out as a gasoline oxygenate and replaced by ethanol. Interest in providing other incentives for biofuels increased also because of rising oil prices from 2004 and beyond. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established a new and much larger Renewable Fuel Standard and set in motion the drive toward 35 billion gallons of ethanol- equivalent biofuels plus 1 billion gallons of biodiesel by 2022. This National Research Council committee was asked to evaluate the consequences of such a policy; the nation is on a course charted to achieve a substantial increase in biofuels, and there are challenging and important questions about the economic and environmental consequences of continu- ing on this path. xi

OCR for page R1
xii PREFACE The committee brings together expertise on the many dimensions of the topic. In addi- tion, we called upon numerous experts to provide their perspectives, research conclusions, and insight. Yet, with all the expertise available to us, our clearest conclusion is that there is very high uncertainty in the impacts we were trying to estimate. The uncertainties in- clude essentially all of the drivers of biofuel production and consumption and the complex interactions among those drivers: future crude oil prices, feedstock costs and availability, technological advances in conversion efficiencies, land-use change, government policy, and more. The U.S. Department of Energy projects crude oil price in 2022 to range between $52 and $191 per barrel (in 2008 dollars), a huge range. There are no commercial cellulosic biofuel refineries in the United States today. Consequently, we do not know much about growing, harvesting, and storing such feedstocks at scale. We do not know how well the conversion technologies will work nor what they will cost. We do not have generally agreed upon estimates of the environmental or GHG impacts of most biofuels. We do not know how landowners will alter their production strategies. The bottom line is that it simply was not possible to come up with clear quantitative answers to many of the questions. What we tried to do instead is to delineate the sources of the uncertainty, describe what factors are important in understanding the nature of the uncertainty, and provide ranges or conditions under which impacts might play out. Under these conditions, scientists often use models to help understand what future conditions might be like. In this study, we examined many of the issues using the best models available. Our results by definition carry the assumptions and inherent uncertain- ties in these models, but we believe they represent the best science and scientific judgment available. We also examined the potential impacts of various policy alternatives as requested in the statement of work. Biofuels are at the intersection of energy, agricultural, and envi- ronmental policies, and policies in each of these areas can be complex. The magnitude of biofuel policy impacts depends on the economic conditions in which the policy plays out, and that economic environment (such as growth of gross domestic product and oil price) is highly uncertain. Of necessity, we made the best assumptions we could and evaluated impacts contingent upon those assumptions. Biofuels are complicated. Biofuels are controversial. There are very strong advocates for and political supporters of biofuels. There are equally strong sentiments against biofuels. Our deliberations as a committee focused on the scientific aspects of biofuel production— social, natural, and technological. Our hope is that the scientific evaluation sheds some light on the heat of the debate, as we have delineated the issues and consequences as we see them, together with all the inherent uncertainty. Ingrid C. Burke Wallace E. Tyner Cochairs, Committee on Economic and Environmental Effects of Increasing Biofuels Production

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments T his report is a product of the cooperation and contribution of many people. The mem- bers of the committee thank all the speakers who provided briefings to the committee. (Appendix C contains a list of presentations to the committee.) Members also wish to express gratitude to Nathan Parker, University of California, Davis, and Alicia Rosburg, Iowa State University, who provided input to the committee. This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse per- spectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com- ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Robert P. Anex, University of Wisconsin, Madison Dan L. Cunningham, University of Georgia William E. Easterling, Pennsylvania State University R. Cesar Izaurralde, Joint Global Change Research Institute and University of Maryland James R. Katzer, ExxonMobil (retired) Eric F. Lambin, Stanford University and University of Louvain Bruce Lippke, University of Washington Heather MacLean, University of Toronto K. Ramesh Reddy, University of Florida John Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology James C. Stevens, Dow Chemical Company Scott Swinton, Michigan State University William Ward, Clemson University xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Dr. Thomas E. Graedel, Yale University, appointed by the Division on Earth and Life Studies, and Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents 1 SUMMARY 1 13 INTRODUCTION Interest in Biofuels, 16 Renewable Fuel Standard, 20 Impetus for Study, 22 References, 26 2 29 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN Food-Based Biofuels, 29 Nonfood-Based Biofuels, 39 Other Feedstocks and Processing Technologies in Development, 70 Conclusion, 71 References, 72 3 79 PROJECTED SUPPLY OF CELLULOSIC BIOMASS Potential Supply of Biofuel Feedstock and Location of Biorefineries, 80 Uncertainties about Cellulosic Feedstock Production and Supply, 99 Conclusion, 100 References, 101 4 THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 105 BIOFUEL PRODUCTION Estimating the Potential Price of Cellulosic Biomass, 106 Primary Market and Production Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy, 123 Effects of Biofuel Production on the Balance of Trade, 146 Budget, Welfare, and Social Value Effects of RFS2, 147 Effects of Adjustments to and Interactions with U.S. Biofuel Policy, 166 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi CONTENTS Conclusion, 174 References, 175 181 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND TRADEOFFS OF BIOFUELS Life-Cycle Approach for Assessing Environmental Effects: An Overview, 182 Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, 185 Air Quality, 203 Water Quality, 206 Water Quantity and Consumptive Water Use, 217 Effects on Soil, 227 Biodiversity, 229 Ecosystem Services, 233 Regional and Local Environmental Assessments, 234 Uncertainties about Environmental Effects of Biofuel Production, 241 Opportunities to Minimize Negative Environmental Effects, 242 Conclusion, 245 References, 247 263 6 BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING RFS2 Economic Barriers, 264 Policy Barriers, 270 Environmental Barriers, 274 Social Barriers, 277 Conclusion, 281 References, 281 287 APPENDIXES A STATEMENT OF TASK 289 B BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES 291 C PRESENTATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE 297 D GLOSSARY 301 E SELECT ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 303 F CONVERSION FACTORS 307 G PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL ECONOMICS 309 H ETHANOL BIOREFINERIES IN OPERATION OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2010 317 I BIODIESEL REFINERIES IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2010 329 J ECONOMIC MODELS USED TO ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES 337 K BIOBREAK MODEL: ASSUMPTIONS FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT 341 L BIOBREAK MODEL ASSUMPTIONS 351 M SUMMARY OF LITERATURE ESTIMATES 355 N BLEND WALL 383 O SAFETY AND QUALITY OF BIOFUEL COPRODUCTS AS ANIMAL FEED 391

OCR for page R1
List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES S-1 Estimated Unit Price That Biorefineries Are Willing to Pay (WTP) for Biofuel Feedstock and Estimated Unit Price That Suppliers Are Willing to Accept (WTA) for Cellulosic Biomass When Oil Is $111 per Barrel and No Policy Incentives Exist, 4 1-1 History of U.S. Ethanol and Biofuel Legislation, 18 1-2 Equivalence Values Assigned to Renewable Fuels, 21 2-1 Range, Advantages, and Limitations for Commercial Biomass Tree Species in the Southeastern United States, 50 2-2 Ethanol Production from the Iogen Demonstration Facility in Ottawa, Canada, 2005-2010, 60 2-3 Companies That Have Secured Funding for Demonstration of Nonfood-Based Biofuel Refineries, 61 2-4 Advanced Biofuel Projects Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 67 3-1 Comparison of Assumptions in Biomass Supply Analyses, 81 3-2 Biomass Feedstocks for Integrated Biorefineries Projected by the National Biorefinery Siting Model in Selected Regions of the United States, at Prices Sufficient to Meet RFS2 Mandates, 85 3-3 Potential Production of Biomass-Based Diesel, Advanced Biofuel, and Cellulosic Biofuel to Meet RFS2 in Different Regions of the United States as Projected by USDA, 92 3-4 Comparison of Models Used to Estimate Biomass Production by Region and Biorefinery Locations, 97 xvii

OCR for page R1
xviii LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 4-1 BioBreak Simulated Mean WTP, WTA, and Difference per Dry Ton Without Policy Incentives, 115 4-2 BioBreak Simulated WTA Value Without Policy Incentives by Percentile, 119 4-3 Summary of Economics of Biofuel Conversion, 122 4-4 Estimates of Effect of Biofuel Production on Agricultural Commodity Prices, 2007- 2009, 131 4-5 Energy Subsidies as Percentage of Consumer Spending on That Source, 153 4-6 Selected Federal Programs to Reduce Production Costs of Cellulosic Biofuel Refineries, 160 4-7 Growth Characteristics of Alternative Timber Types, 173 5-1 Fertilizer Use for Corn and Soybean Production in the United States, 187 5-2 GHG Emissions from Market-Mediated Indirect Land-Use Changes as a Result of Expanding Corn-Grain Ethanol Production in the United States Estimated by Various Authors, 193 5-3 Published Estimates of and Some of the Assumptions Used in Estimating Life- Cycle Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Emissions of Corn-Grain Ethanol, 199 5-4 Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Emissions from Corn-Grain Ethanol Relative to Gasoline as Determined by EPA in its Final Rule for RFS2, 201 5-5 Average Percent Change in Tailpipe Emissions Compared to a Reference Fuel Containing No Ethanol, 204 5-6 Nationwide Emission Inventories for 2022 for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and RFS2, 207 5-7 Net Change in Flow-Normalized Nitrate Concentration and Flux Between 1980 and 2008, 211 5-8 Application Rates onto Land for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Pesticides (and Soil Erosion) as a Result of Growing Corn as Feedstock for Ethanol Production, 213 5-9 Compositional Analysis of Two Ethanol Plant Discharges Adapted from NRC 2008, 216 5-10 Comparison of Water Requirements for Ethanol Production from Corn Grain, Sugarcane, and Other Potential Energy Crops, 221 5-11 Inputs Used for Life-Cycle Analysis of Biofuel Consumptive Water Use in Different Studies, 224 5-12 Embodied Water in Ethanol (EWe) and Total Consumptive Water Use (TCW) in the 19 Ethanol-Producing States in 2007, Ranked According to Each State’s EWe, 226 5-13 Consumptive Water Use over the Life Cycle of Biofuel and Petroleum-Based Fuel Production Estimated by Different Studies, 227 6-1 Complexities of Starch-Based Ethanol Production to Biomass-Based Ethanol Production via Fermentation, 268 6-2 Life-Cycle Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Reduction Thresholds Specified in RFS2, 275 FIGURES S-1 Renewable fuel volume consumption mandated by RFS2, 2 1-1 Structure of the report, 14

OCR for page R1
xix LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 1-2 Mandated consumption target under the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct RFS) and mandated consumption targets for different categories of biofuels under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), 20 1-3 Amount of fuel ethanol produced projected by EIA in 2005 (before enactment of EPAct), 2006 (after enactment of EPAct), and 2010 (after enactment of EISA), 23 1-4 Amount of biodiesel produced projected by EIA in 2007 (before enactment of EISA) and 2010 (after enactment of EISA), 23 2-1 Distribution of planted corn acres in the United States in 2008, 30 2-2 Processing steps for converting corn grain to ethanol, 31 2-3 U.S. corn production and use as fuel ethanol from 1980 to 2009, 33 2-4 Installed capacity of all ethanol biorefineries in the United States combined, from January 2002 to January 2010, 34 2-5 Location of ethanol biorefineries in the United States as of September 2010, 35 2-6 Distribution of planted soybean acres in the United States in 2008, 35 2-7 Process flow of biodiesel production, 36 2-8 Biodiesel refineries in the United States (2008), 38 2-9 Long-term (30-year average) switchgrass yield in the United States as simulated by the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model, 43 2-10 Map of potential switchgrass yield in low-land ecotype predicted by Jager et al.’s empirical model, 44 2-11 Projected annual average harvestable yield of M. × giganteus in the third year after planting, 45 2-12 Net primary forest productivity in the conterminous United States, 51 2-13 Forestland in the conterminous United States by ownership category, 51 2-14 Model of a lignocellulosic-based ethanol biochemical refinery, 54 2-15 Thermochemical conversion pathways and products, 56 2-16 Schematic diagram of a thermochemical conversion refinery to produce ethanol, 56 2-17 Percent companies with secured funding for demonstration of nonfood-based biofuel refineries that plan to produce drop-in fuels, ethanol, and oil feedstock, 66 2-18 Percent companies with secured funding for demonstration of nonfood-based biofuel refineries that plan to produce algal biofuels or cellulosic biofuels via biochemical or thermochemical pathways, 66 3-1 Biofuel supply and fuel pathways estimated from the National Biorefinery Siting Model, 83 3-2 Biomass supply curves estimated by the National Biorefinery Siting Model, 84 3-3 Principal amounts and locations of landscape-derived biomass feedstocks for biofuels from the National Biorefinery Siting Model, 87 3-4 Biomass deliveries to the biorefineries needed to meet the RFS2 consumption mandate in 2022 projected by the National Biorefinery Siting Model, 88 3-5 Locations of cellulosic facilities projected by the EPA Transport Tool, 89 3-6 Projected locations and quantities of cropland and forest resources for producing 20 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel based on REAP and POLYSYS, 93 3-7 Locations of advanced biofuel projects including pilot-scale, demonstration- scale, and commercial-scale projects funded by DOE (red dots) and proposed by industry (blue dots), 95

OCR for page R1
xx LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 4-1 Biomass supplier WTA per dry ton projected by BioBreak model, 114 4-2 Gap between supplier WTA and processor WTP projected by BioBreak model, 116 4-3 Components of trees and their use and value in markets, 117 4-4 Sensitivity of WTP for switchgrass (SC) to the price of oil and ethanol conversion rate without policy incentives, 118 4-5 Gap between supplier WTA and processor WTP with blender’s credit only projected by BioBreak model, 118 4-6 Breakdown of biomass conversion costs, 123 4-7 Allocation and use of U.S. cropland from 1965 to 2006, 124 4-8 Harvested acres of corn for grains, soybean (all), wheat, and hay (all) from 1965 to 2009, 125 4-9 Real prices for corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 126 4-10 U.S. corn-grain production from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 126 4-11 U.S. soybean and wheat (all) production from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 127 4-12 U.S. domestic consumption of corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 127 4-13 U.S. net exports of corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 128 4-14 Annual yields for corn grain, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year, 128 4-15 Trends in real international prices of key cereals: 1960 to May 2008, 129 4-16 Historical U.S. timber stumpage prices for the Pacific Northwest west-side of the Cascades softwood sawtimber (PNWW), Southern softwood (SW) sawtimber, Southern softwood pulpwood, and Southern hardwood (HW) pulpwood, 138 4-17 Wood used in energy, 139 4-18 Effect of subsidy (panel A) and increase in demand (panel B) on extraction of residues from the forest floor for biomass energy markets, 141 4-19 Industrial wood output in the United States, 144 4-20 Net imports of wood into the United States (Imports – exports), 145 4-21 Price and quantity of biofuel demanded and supplied with and without RFS2 mandate and tax credit, 148 4-22 Effect of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit on price and quantity of ethanol, 150 4-23 Projected carbon price needed for feedstock market ($ per metric ton) based on BioBreak and using GREET 1.8d GHG emissions savings from biofuel relative to conventional gasoline along with the price gap to derive a minimum carbon credit or carbon price necessary to sustain a feedstock-specific cellulosic ethanol market, 169 4-24 Typical carbon accumulation on mixed hardwood stands in the Eastern Corn Belt of the United States, 171 4-25 Growth of growing stock biomass, 173 5-1 Historical trend in corn-grain ethanol biorefinery energy use, 198 5-2 Contribution of different emission categories to life-cycle emissions of corn- grain ethanol production as measured in an attributional GHG accounting of a Midwestern U.S. facility, 198 5-3 Probability distributions for U.S. industry greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions for corn and switchgrass (SW) biofuels, 200

OCR for page R1
xxi LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 5-4 Life-cycle emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfure oxides (SOx), nitrous oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and primary particulate matter2.5 (PM2.5) from gasoline, dry-mill corn-grain ethanol produced using natural gas at the biorefinery, cellulosic ethanol from corn stover, and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, 205 5-5 Human health damage costs (dollars per gallon of gasoline equivalent) of life-cycle air-quality impacts of gasoline, corn-grain ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol, 206 5-6 Model estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus yield from runoff in the Mississippi River Basin for 1992-2002, 209 5-7 Groundwater drawdown in the surficial aquifer (High Plains Aquifer) in Nebraska as a result of years of agricultural and municipal withdrawals, 218 5-8 U.S. irrigation corn for grain, 219 5-9 Total water withdrawals (from agriculture, municipalities, and industry) in the United States by county in 2000, 220 5-10 Ethanol biorefineries superimposed on a map of the major bedrock aquifers and their water usage rates, 223 5-11 Conceptual framework for comparing tradeoffs of ecosystem services under different land uses, 234 5-12 Average 2004-2006 saturated thickness for the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas, 238 5-13 Usable lifetime of the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas estimated on the basis of groundwater trends from 1996 to 2006 and the minimum saturated requirements to support well yields of 400 gallons per minute under a scenario of 90 days of pumping with wells on ¼ sections, 239 BOXES S-1 Definitions of Renewable Fuels in RFS2, 2 1-1 Structure of the Report, 14 4-1 Calculating Willingness to Pay (WTP), 108 4-2 Calculating Willingness to Accept (WTA), 110 4-3 Gap in Forest Residue Demand and Supply, 117 4-4 Biomass Crop Assistance Program, 142 4-5 State and Federal Subsidy Expenditures on Energy in Texas, 153 4-6 Comparison of Southern Pine and Hybrid Poplar in Producing Timber and Biomass on Similar Sites, 172 5-1 Illustration of How Different Approaches of Life-Cycle Assessment are Used for Different Purposes, 184 5-2 Methodological Assumptions Affecting GHG LCA Analyses, 197 5-3 Sustainability Concerns Associated with Using Forest Resources to Meet RFS2, 243

OCR for page R1