National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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, findings, 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 metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

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 government 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 administration 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 sponsors 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 pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy 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 associate 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 National 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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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

image

1Institute of Medicine.

2National Academy of Engineering.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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

image

1National Academy of Engineering.

2National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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

image

1National Academy of Engineering.

2National Academy of Sciences.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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 educator, 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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

Preface

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.

—Niels Bohr

In 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 current 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 statement 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 continuing on this path.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

The committee brings together expertise on the many dimensions of the topic. In addition, 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 include 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 uncertainties 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 environmental 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

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

Acknowledgments

This report is a product of the cooperation and contribution of many people. The members 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 perspectives 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 comments 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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

4-1    BioBreak Simulated Mean WTP, WTA, and Difference per Dry Ton Without Policy Incentives

4-2    BioBreak Simulated WTA Value Without Policy Incentives by Percentile

4-3    Summary of Economics of Biofuel Conversion

4-4    Estimates of Effect of Biofuel Production on Agricultural Commodity Prices, 2007-2009

4-5    Energy Subsidies as Percentage of Consumer Spending on That Source

4-6    Selected Federal Programs to Reduce Production Costs of Cellulosic Biofuel Refineries

4-7    Growth Characteristics of Alternative Timber Types

5-1    Fertilizer Use for Corn and Soybean Production in the United States

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

5-3    Published Estimates of and Some of the Assumptions Used in Estimating Life-Cycle Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Emissions of Corn-Grain Ethanol

5-4    Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Emissions from Corn-Grain Ethanol Relative to Gasoline as Determined by EPA in its Final Rule for RFS2

5-5    Average Percent Change in Tailpipe Emissions Compared to a Reference Fuel Containing No Ethanol

5-6    Nationwide Emission Inventories for 2022 for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and RFS2

5-7    Net Change in Flow-Normalized Nitrate Concentration and Flux Between 1980 and 2008

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

5-9    Compositional Analysis of Two Ethanol Plant Discharges Adapted from NRC 2008

5-10  Comparison of Water Requirements for Ethanol Production from Corn Grain, Sugarcane, and Other Potential Energy Crops

5-11  Inputs Used for Life-Cycle Analysis of Biofuel Consumptive Water Use in Different Studies

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

5-13  Consumptive Water Use over the Life Cycle of Biofuel and Petroleum-Based Fuel Production Estimated by Different Studies

6-1    Complexities of Starch-Based Ethanol Production to Biomass-Based Ethanol Production via Fermentation

6-2    Life-Cycle Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) Reduction Thresholds Specified in RFS2

FIGURES

S-1    Renewable fuel volume consumption mandated by RFS2

1-1    Structure of the report

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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)

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)

1-4    Amount of biodiesel produced projected by EIA in 2007 (before enactment of EISA) and 2010 (after enactment of EISA)

2-1    Distribution of planted corn acres in the United States in 2008

2-2    Processing steps for converting corn grain to ethanol

2-3    U.S. corn production and use as fuel ethanol from 1980 to 2009

2-4    Installed capacity of all ethanol biorefineries in the United States combined, from January 2002 to January 2010

2-5    Location of ethanol biorefineries in the United States as of September 2010

2-6    Distribution of planted soybean acres in the United States in 2008

2-7    Process flow of biodiesel production

2-8    Biodiesel refineries in the United States (2008)

2-9    Long-term (30-year average) switchgrass yield in the United States as simulated by the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model

2-10  Map of potential switchgrass yield in low-land ecotype predicted by Jager et al.’s empirical model

2-11  Projected annual average harvestable yield of M. × giganteus in the third year after planting

2-12  Net primary forest productivity in the conterminous United States

2-13  Forestland in the conterminous United States by ownership category

2-14  Model of a lignocellulosic-based ethanol biochemical refinery

2-15  Thermochemical conversion pathways and products

2-16  Schematic diagram of a thermochemical conversion refinery to produce ethanol

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

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

3-1    Biofuel supply and fuel pathways estimated from the National Biorefinery Siting Model

3-2    Biomass supply curves estimated by the National Biorefinery Siting Model

3-3    Principal amounts and locations of landscape-derived biomass feedstocks for biofuels from the National Biorefinery Siting Model

3-4    Biomass deliveries to the biorefineries needed to meet the RFS2 consumption mandate in 2022 projected by the National Biorefinery Siting Model

3-5    Locations of cellulosic facilities projected by the EPA Transport Tool

3-6    Projected locations and quantities of cropland and forest resources for producing 20 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel based on REAP and POLYSYS

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)

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

4-1    Biomass supplier WTA per dry ton projected by BioBreak model

4-2    Gap between supplier WTA and processor WTP projected by BioBreak model

4-3    Components of trees and their use and value in markets

4-4    Sensitivity of WTP for switchgrass (SC) to the price of oil and ethanol conversion rate without policy incentives

4-5    Gap between supplier WTA and processor WTP with blender’s credit only projected by BioBreak model

4-6    Breakdown of biomass conversion costs

4-7    Allocation and use of U.S. cropland from 1965 to 2006

4-8    Harvested acres of corn for grains, soybean (all), wheat, and hay (all) from 1965 to 2009

4-9    Real prices for corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-10  U.S. corn-grain production from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-11  U.S. soybean and wheat (all) production from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-12  U.S. domestic consumption of corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-13  U.S. net exports of corn, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-14  Annual yields for corn grain, soybean, and wheat from 1965 to 2010 crop year

4-15  Trends in real international prices of key cereals: 1960 to May 2008

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

4-17  Wood used in energy

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

4-19  Industrial wood output in the United States

4-20  Net imports of wood into the United States (Imports – exports)

4-21  Price and quantity of biofuel demanded and supplied with and without RFS2 mandate and tax credit

4-22  Effect of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit on price and quantity of ethanol

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

4-24  Typical carbon accumulation on mixed hardwood stands in the Eastern Corn Belt of the United States

4-25  Growth of growing stock biomass

5-1    Historical trend in corn-grain ethanol biorefinery energy use

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

5-3    Probability distributions for U.S. industry greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions for corn and switchgrass (SW) biofuels

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

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

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

5-6    Model estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus yield from runoff in the Mississippi River Basin for 1992-2002

5-7    Groundwater drawdown in the surficial aquifer (High Plains Aquifer) in Nebraska as a result of years of agricultural and municipal withdrawals

5-8    U.S. irrigation corn for grain

5-9    Total water withdrawals (from agriculture, municipalities, and industry) in the United States by county in 2000

5-10  Ethanol biorefineries superimposed on a map of the major bedrock aquifers and their water usage rates

5-11  Conceptual framework for comparing tradeoffs of ecosystem services under different land uses

5-12  Average 2004-2006 saturated thickness for the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas

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

BOXES

S-1    Definitions of Renewable Fuels in RFS2

1-1    Structure of the Report

4-1    Calculating Willingness to Pay (WTP)

4-2    Calculating Willingness to Accept (WTA)

4-3    Gap in Forest Residue Demand and Supply

4-4    Biomass Crop Assistance Program

4-5    State and Federal Subsidy Expenditures on Energy in Texas

4-6    Comparison of Southern Pine and Hybrid Poplar in Producing Timber and Biomass on Similar Sites

5-1    Illustration of How Different Approaches of Life-Cycle Assessment are Used for Different Purposes

5-2    Methodological Assumptions Affecting GHG LCA Analyses

5-3    Sustainability Concerns Associated with Using Forest Resources to Meet RFS2

Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R20
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R21
Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2011. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13105.
×
Page R22
Next: Summary »
Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the United States, we have come to depend on 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 current 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. The United States has a long history with biofuels and the nation is on a course charted to achieve a substantial increase in biofuels.

Renewable Fuel Standard evaluates the economic and environmental consequences of increasing biofuels production as a result of Renewable Fuels Standard, as amended by EISA (RFS2). The report describes biofuels produced in 2010 and those projected to be produced and consumed by 2022, reviews model projections and other estimates of the relative impact on the prices of land, and discusses the potential environmental harm and benefits of biofuels production and the barriers to achieving the RFS2 consumption mandate.

Policy makers, investors, leaders in the transportation sector, and others with concerns for the environment, economy, and energy security can rely on the recommendations provided in this report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!