IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i23p8796-d980399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural and Forestry Biomass for Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard: Implications for Land Use and GHG Emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Weiwei Wang

    (School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

Abstract

Agricultural land and forestland are considered as two largest potential biomass sources for meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate for cellulosic biofuels. However, the land use change and greenhouse gas (GHG) savings with both agricultural and forest biomass production are yet to be examined systematically. This paper examines the effects of implementing a 16-billion gallon (60 billion liters) cellulosic biofuel mandate by 2035 on the mix of agricultural and forest biomass, land use change and GHG emissions by using a dynamic partial equilibrium model of the agricultural, forestry and transportation sectors in the US. Our results show that crop residues play a significant role in supplying cellulosic ethanol before 2030, while energy crops are the major feedstocks used for meeting the RFS cellulosic mandate after 2030. Milling and logging residues are economically viable supplements to agricultural biomass for cellulosic ethanol production, though their role in total biomass is small. Across different scenarios of cellulosic ethanol mandate that can be met with either agricultural biomass only or with both agricultural and forest biomass, we find GHG savings from displacing the gasoline range from 0.61 to 0.82 B MgCO 2 e over the 2015–2035 period. Induced land use change effects associated with expanded feedstock production are modest between and within the agricultural and forestry sectors. We conclude that a mixed feedstock base maximizes the economic and environmental benefits of cellulosic biofuel production. The mitigation potential of cellulosic biofuels is severalfold larger than natural-based solutions such as grassland restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiwei Wang, 2022. "Agricultural and Forestry Biomass for Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard: Implications for Land Use and GHG Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:23:p:8796-:d:980399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8796/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8796/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hayri Önal & Bruce A. McCarl, 1991. "Exact Aggregation in Mathematical Programming Sector Models," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 39(2), pages 319-334, July.
    2. Gillingham, Kenneth, 2014. "Identifying the elasticity of driving: Evidence from a gasoline price shock in California," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 13-24.
    3. Bansal, Ankit & Illukpitiya, Prabodh & Tegegne, Fisseha & Singh, Surendra P., 2016. "Energy efficiency of ethanol production from cellulosic feedstock," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 141-146.
    4. Galik, Christopher S. & Abt, Robert C. & Latta, Gregory & Vegh, Tibor, 2015. "The environmental and economic effects of regional bioenergy policy in the southeastern U.S," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 335-346.
    5. Latta, Gregory S. & Baker, Justin S. & Beach, Robert H. & Rose, Steven K. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2013. "A multi-sector intertemporal optimization approach to assess the GHG implications of U.S. forest and agricultural biomass electricity expansion," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 361-383.
    6. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    7. Xiaoguang Chen & Hayri Önal, 2012. "Modeling Agricultural Supply Response Using Mathematical Programming and Crop Mixes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 674-686.
    8. Robert H. Beach & Yuquan W. Zhang & Bruce A. Mccarl, 2012. "Modeling Bioenergy, Land Use, And Ghg Emissions With Fasomghg: Model Overview And Analysis Of Storage Cost Implications," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 1-34.
    9. John Sheehan & Andy Aden & Keith Paustian & Kendrick Killian & John Brenner & Marie Walsh & Richard Nelson, 2003. "Energy and Environmental Aspects of Using Corn Stover for Fuel Ethanol," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 117-146, July.
    10. Malcolm, Scott A., 2008. "Weaning Off Corn: Crop Residues and the Transition to Cellulosic Ethanol," Environmental and Rural Development Impacts Conference, October 15-16, 2008, St. Louis, Missouri 53500, Farm Foundation, Transition to a Bio Economy Conferences.
    11. Madhu Khanna & Deepak Rajagopal & David Zilberman, 2021. "Lessons Learned from US Experience with Biofuels: Comparing the Hype with the Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 67-86.
    12. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2005. "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1276-1289, September.
    13. Searchinger, Timothy D. & Beringer, Tim & Strong, Asa, 2017. "Does the world have low-carbon bioenergy potential from the dedicated use of land?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 434-446.
    14. Evelyne Thiffault & Ariane Béchard & David Paré & Darren Allen, 2015. "Recovery rate of harvest residues for bioenergy in boreal and temperate forests: A review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(5), pages 429-451, September.
    15. Ince, Peter J. & Kramp, Andrew D. & Skog, Kenneth E. & Yoo, Do-il & Sample, V. Alaric, 2011. "Modeling future U.S. forest sector market and trade impacts of expansion in wood energy consumption," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 142-156, April.
    16. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Raud, M. & Kikas, T. & Sippula, O. & Shurpali, N.J., 2019. "Potentials and challenges in lignocellulosic biofuel production technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 44-56.
    18. Robert H. Beach & Yuquan W. Zhang & Bruce A. McCarl, 2017. "Modeling Bioenergy, Land Use, and GHG Mitigation with FASOMGHG: Implications of Storage Costs and Carbon Policy," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Madhu Khanna & David Zilberman (ed.), Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II, pages 239-271, Springer.
    19. Austin, K.G. & Jones, J.P.H. & Clark, C.M., 2022. "A review of domestic land use change attributable to U.S. biofuel policy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    20. Vassilis Daioglou & Jonathan C. Doelman & Elke Stehfest & Christoph Müller & Birka Wicke & Andre Faaij & Detlef P. van Vuuren, 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission curves for advanced biofuel supply chains," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 920-924, December.
    21. Tara W. Hudiburg & WeiWei Wang & Madhu Khanna & Stephen P. Long & Puneet Dwivedi & William J. Parton & Melannie Hartman & Evan H. DeLucia, 2016. "Impacts of a 32-billion-gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Weiwei & Khanna, Madhu & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2013. "Optimal Mix of Feedstock for Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and GHG Emissions," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150736, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Chen, Xiaoguang & Önal, Hayri, 2016. "Renewable energy policies and competition for biomass: Implications for land use, food prices, and processing industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 270-278.
    3. Chen, Xiaoguang, 2016. "Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 141-149.
    4. Weiwei Wang, 2023. "Integrated Assessment of Economic Supply and Environmental Effects of Biomass Co-Firing in Coal Power Plants: A Case Study of Jiangsu, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu, 2018. "Effect of corn ethanol production on Conservation Reserve Program acres in the US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 124-134.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri & Chen, Xiaoguang, 2013. "Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 5-15.
    8. Johnston, Craig M.T. & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2015. "Back to the past: Burning wood to save the globe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 185-193.
    9. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu, 2014. "Indirect Land Use Effects of Corn Ethanol in the U.S: Implications for the Conservation Reserve Program," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170284, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Landry, Joel R. & Bento, Antonio M., 2020. "On the trade-offs of regulating multiple unpriced externalities with a single instrument: Evidence from biofuel policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Khanna, Madhu & Wang, Weiwei & Wang, Michael, 2018. "Assessing the Carbon Neutrality of Biofuel: An Anticipated Baseline Approach," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Miao, Ruiqing & Khanna, Madhu, 2017. "Costs of meeting a cellulosic biofuel mandate with perennial energy crops: Implications for policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 321-334.
    13. Chen, Xiaoguang & Khanna, Madhu & Onal, Hayri, 2009. "The Economic Potential of Second-Generation Biofuels: Implications for Social Welfare, Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Illinois," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49484, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2017. "Integrated Assessment Models of the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus: A Review and an Outline of Research Needs," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 143-163, October.
    15. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    16. Kooten, G. Cornelis van, 2013. "Modeling Forest Trade in Logs and Lumber: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis," Working Papers 149182, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    17. Xian, Hui & Colson, Gregory & Karali, Berna & Wetzstein, Michael, 2017. "Do nonrenewable-energy prices affect renewable-energy volatility? The case of wood pellets," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 42-48.
    18. Khoo, Hsien H., 2015. "Review of bio-conversion pathways of lignocellulose-to-ethanol: Sustainability assessment based on land footprint projections," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 100-119.
    19. Lochhead, Kyle & Ghafghazi, Saeed & Havlik, Petr & Forsell, Nicklas & Obersteiner, Michael & Bull, Gary & Mabee, Warren, 2016. "Price trends and volatility scenarios for designing forest sector transformation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 184-191.
    20. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:23:p:8796-:d:980399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.