BIOEN

• Home
• Programs
• Research Innovation
• BIOEN

Distinguishing the Proposed Study From Prior Work

Given the number of studies already carried out involving bioenergy, it is incumbent upon any proposed study to clearly identify what new questions will be addressed and what new value will be realized.

The landscape of bioenergy studies can be characterized in terms of factors presented in Factors Defining the Landscape of Bioenergy Resource Availability Studies (below). Table 1 (below) presents numerical ratings representing the extent to which the factors in Factors Defining the Landscape of Bioenergy Resource Availability Studies are addressed in prominent studies of biomass resource availability.

Figure 2 (below) plots cumulative numerical ratings for the studies listed in Factors Defining the Landscape of Bioenergy Resource Availability Studies along two axes: changes fostering sustainable biofuel production, and technological maturity. It may be observed that most prior studies occupy the "little change, current technology" quadrant, and that no studies occupy the "aggressive change, mature technology" quadrant. Studies that consider modest levels of change and technological maturation have value for many purposes, including better understanding of paths that society would do well to avoid. However, illumination of potential paths to a sustainable world - for all resources and all end-use sectors - requires consideration of both motivated changes and mature technology. The proposed project will be the first to bring this approach to the field of biomass resource availability.



Table 1. Summary of studies of bioenergy resource availability (more studies will likely be added)*
Click here for larger image. See References section (below) for references.



Figure 2. Representation of studies evaluating the potential of biomass energy indicating the degree of assumed technological maturity and system changes to foster sustainable bioenergy.
 

Factors Defining the Landscape of Bioenergy Resource Availability Studies

Changes fostering sustainable bioenergy production

• Integrating feedstock production into agricultural and other managed lands. This involves strategies such as growing energy crops on abandoned or degraded land (Smeets et al., 2007), sustainably harvesting agricultural residues (Perlack et al., 2005) - perhaps enhanced by new crop rotations (Liebig et al., 2007), double crops (Heggenstaller et al., 2008), forestry thinnings (Perlack et al., 2005), and coproduction of animal feed protein and bioenergy feedstocks from early-cut grasses (Dale et al., 2009).
• Increase the land efficiency of food production via strategies other than dietary change. Strategies to increase food output per unit land include increasing grain yields, pasture intensification, and changed animal feed rations.
• Increase the land efficiency of food production via dietary changes. Given that far more agricultural land is used to grown animals than people, and that the land required to produce a unit of nutritional value differs widely for different animal products, changes in the kind or amount of animal products consumed can have profound effects - positive or negative - on land availability for bioenergy production.
• Increase end-use efficiency. The land required to provide for a given energy service (e.g. mobility, light, shaft work) from biomass is inversely proportional to end-use efficiency. Large increases in vehicle efficiency are clearly possible, are arguably necessary to achieve a sustainable transportation sector, and similar considerations apply to a multiplicity of electrically-powered energy services.

Technological maturity

• Feedstock production. The land required to produce a given amount of biofuel is inversely proportional to the productivity (e.g. tons/ha/year) of feedstock production. Large productivity increases are reasonable to expect for bioenergy feedstocks.
• Conversion technology. The land required to produce a given amount of biofuel is inversely proportional to the fuel yield (e.g. liter/ton) realized by the conversion process. Large yield increases are reasonable to expect for many bioenergy conversion processes.

Other factors

• Distributed land models. Use of geographically-distributed data on variables important to agriculture and bioenergy feedstock production (e.g. precipitation, temperature, soil) is essential in order to undertake a broad analysis of alternative land use scenarios.
• Global scope. Of the prior studies of bioenergy resource sufficiency, some have been carried out on a global scale while others have been carried out on a national or regional scale.
• Climate change. Climate change will impact production of both bioenergy feedstocks and food and is thus important to consider.

References

• Dale, BE, MS Allen, M Laser, LR Lynd, 2009. Protein feeds coproduction in biomass conversion to fuels and chemicals. Biofuels, Bioproducts, & Biorefining, 3:219-230.
• DOE, 2008. World biofuels production potential: understanding the challenges to meeting the U.S. renewable fuels standard. U.S. DOE Office of Policy Analysis; Office of Policy and International Affairs; Washington DC.
• Dornburg V, Faaij A, Verweij P, Langeveld H, Ven GWJ van de, Wester P, Keulen H van, Diepen K van, Meeusen MJG, Banse MAH, Ros J, Vuuren D van, Born GJ van den, Oorschot M van, Smout F, Vliet J van, Aiking H, Londo M, Mozaffarian H, Smekens H, 2008. Biomass assessment : assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy. Main report. Climate Change Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency MNP, WAB report 500102012.
• Field CB, JE Campbell, DB Lobell, 2008. Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:65-72.
• Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L, 2001. Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass and Bioenergy 20:151-159.
• Fischer G, S Prieler, H van Velthuizen, 2005. Biomass potentials of miscanthus, willow and poplar: results and policy implications for Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia. Biomass and Bioenergy 28:119-132.
• Greene, N, FE Celik, B Dale, M Jackson, K Jayawardhana, H Jin, ED Larson, M Laser, L Lynd, D MacKenzie, J Mark, J McBride, S McLaughlin, D Saccardi, 2004. Growing energy. How biofuels can help end America's oil dependence. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY; (www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf) Also described in 8 papers in Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining 3:113 - 270 (2009).
• Heggenstaller, AH, RP Anex, M Liebman, DN Sundberg, LR Gibson, 2008. Productivity and nutrient dynamics in bioenergy double-cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 100:1740-1748.
• Hoogwijk M, A Faaij, B de Vries, WC Turkenburg, 2004. Global potential of biomass for energy from crops under four GHG emission scenarios. In: M. Hoogwijk, On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources, PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, 2004.
• Kline K, GA Oladosu, AK Wolfe, RD Perlack, VH Dale, M McMahon, 2007. Biofuel feedstock assessment for selected countries. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Report ORNL/TM-2007/224; Oak Ridge, TN.
• Leite RCdC, Leal MRLV, Cortez LAB, Griffin WM, Scandiffio MIG, 2008. Can Brazil replace 5% of the 2025 gasoline world demand with ethanol? Energy (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.11.001
• Liebig MA, DL Tanaka, JM Krupinsky, SD Merrill, JD Hanson, 2007. Dynamic cropping systems: contributions to improve agroecosystem sustainability. Agronomy Journal 99:899-903.
• Lynd LR, M Laser, J McBride, K Podkaminer, J Hannon, 2007. Energy myth three - High land requirements and an unfavorable energy balance preclude biomass ethanol from playing a large role in providing energy services. pp 75 to 101 In: B. Sovacool and M. Brown (eds) Energy and Society: Thirteen Myths About the Environment, Electricity, Efficiency, and Energy Policy in the United States. Springer.
• Moreira JR, 2006. Global biomass energy potential. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11:313-342.
• Obersteiner M, G Alexandrov, PC Benitez, I McCallum, F Kraxner, K Riahi, D Rokityanskiy, Y Yamagata, 2006. Global supply of biomass for energy and carbon sequestration from afforestation/reforestation activities. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change 11(5-6):1003-1021.
• Perlack RD, LL Wright, AF Turhollow, RL Graham, BJ Stokes, DC Erbach, 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORLN/TM-2005/66.
• Reilly J, S Paltsev, 2007. Biomass energy and competition for land. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 145.
• Rokityanskiy D, PC Benitz, F Kraxner, I McCallum, M Obersteiner, E Rametsteiner, Y Yamagata, 2007. Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74:1057-1082.
• Smeets EMW, APC Faaij, IM Lewandowski, WC Turkenburg, 2007. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 33:56-106.
• Wolf J, PS Bindraban, JC Luijten, LM Vleeshouwers, 2003. Exploratory study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global production of bioenergy. Agricultural Systems 76:841-861.