Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Bioenergy Economics and Policy in US and Brazil: Effects on Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Modeling Bioenergy, Land Use, and GHG Mitigation with FASOMGHG: Implications of Storage Costs and Carbon Policy

Authors : Robert H. Beach, Yuquan W. Zhang, Bruce A. McCarl

Published in: Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II

Publisher: Springer New York

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Biofuels production has increased rapidly in recent years due to heightened concerns regarding climate change and energy security. Biofuels produced from agricultural feedstocks increase pressure on land resources. Competition for land is expected to continue growing in the future as mandated biofuels volumes increase along with rising demand for food, feed, and fiber, both domestically and internationally. In response to concerns regarding impacts such as indirect land use change and higher food prices, U.S. policy is focusing on second-generation (cellulosic) feedstocks to contribute the majority of the mandated increase in biofuels volume through 2022. However, there has been little work exploring supply logistics, feedstock mix, and net GHG effects of combining renewable fuels mandates with climate policy. Using the recently updated Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG), we explore implications of alternative assumptions regarding feedstock storage costs and carbon price for renewable energy production mix, land use, and net GHG emissions. The model is used to quantify the magnitude and regional distribution of changes in the optimal mix of bioenergy feedstocks when accounting for storage costs. Further, combining a volume mandate with carbon price policy impacts feedstock mix and provides substantially larger net reduction in GHG.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and Policy
next chapter Empirical Findings from Agricultural Expansion and Land Use Change in Brazil
Footnotes
1
The results reported for each 5-year interval are intended to be representative of the average annual results for that 5-year time step. In previous versions of the model, results were generated at 10-year time steps and represented average annual results for that 10-year period.
 
2
Although timberland is not explicitly modeled because the focus of the model is on private decision-maker responses to changing incentives, FASOMGHG includes an exogenous timber supply from public forestlands.
 
3
Note that FASOMGHG does not include all cropping activities conducted in the United States. For instance, tobacco, vineyards, and most fruits and vegetables are not included within the model.
 
5
Note that the developed land category tracked in the model refers to land that was initially in forest or agricultural use in the initial model period only, not land that was already developed prior to that time.
 
6
As noted by an anonymous reviewer for an earlier version of this chapter, there is considerable uncertainty regarding changes to the CRP that may be introduced in the future. However, in this study, we assume that the U.S. would continue supporting CRP indefinitely at acreage levels consistent with the 2008 Farm Bill. We have explored alternative assumptions for the CRP in previous model runs and found that, as expected, allowing greater conversion of CRP land reduces commodity market impacts.
 
7
The national subsidy included in FASOMGHG is based on the subsidy included in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R.1424), signed into law in October 2008. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R.6), which extended the biodiesel credit specified as part of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4520), provided a subsidy equal to $1 per gallon for “agri-biodiesel” (diesel fuel made from virgin oils derived from agricultural commodities and animal fats) and $0.50 per gallon for “biodiesel” (diesel fuel made from agricultural products and animal fats). The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 eliminated the distinction between agri-biodiesel and biodiesel such that all biodiesel qualified for the $1-per-gallon subsidy.
 
8
A multiplicative factor of 2 is included in the calculation to represent round-trip costs.
 
9
FASOMGHG assumes a standard plant size of 75 million gallons per year for starch-based ethanol and 100 million gallons per year for cellulosic ethanol, with the exception of sweet sorghum, which is assumed to be used in 40 million gallon-per-year plants. The quantity of feedstock required to produce that amount of ethanol varies based primarily on differences in starch/sugar content or potential to convert cellulose to ethanol that lead to variation in ethanol yield per unit of feedstock.
 
10
No additional storage costs are included for grain crops because they are routinely stored for year-round consumption in other markets using a well-established infrastructure and their storage costs are assumed to be reflected in their market prices.
 
11
The average number of months feedstock is stored is calculated based on an assumption of equal monthly withdrawals from storage over the number of months that feedstock is stored; that is, if residues are stored for up to 10 months, then it was assumed that 10/12 of total plant feedstock requirements are stored for 1 month, 9/12 for 2 months, and so on. In this example, the average number of months that a ton of crop residues would be stored is 4.5833 months.
 
Literature
Adams, D.M., and R.W. Haynes (eds). 2007. Resource and Market Projections for Forest Policy Development: Twenty-Five Years of Experience with the US RPA Timber Assessment. Managing Forest Ecosystems Series #14. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers, 615 p.
Alig, R.J., A. Plantinga, D. Haim, and M. Todd. 2010. Area Changes in U.S. Forests and other Major Land Uses, 1982–2002, with Projections to 2062. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 587, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 92 p.
An, H., and S.W. Searcy. 2012. Economic and energy evaluation of a logistics system based on biomass modules. Biomass and Bioenergy 46(0)(11):190–202.
An, H., W.E. Wilhelm, and S.W. Searcy. 2011. A mathematical model to design a lignocellulosic biofuel supply chain system with a case study based on a region in central Texas. Bioresource Technology 102(17)(9):7860–7870.
Beach, R.H., D. Adams, R. Alig, J. Baker, G.S. Latta, B.A. McCarl, B.C. Murray, S.K. Rose, and E. White. 2010. Model Documentation for the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG). Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Beach, R.H., Y.W. Zhang, and B.A. McCarl. 2012. Modeling bioenergy, land use, and GHG emissions with FASOMGHG: Model overview and analysis of storage cost implications. Climate Change Economics 3(3):1250012-1–1250012-34.
Collins, M., D. Dirtsch, J.C. Henning, L.W. Turner, S. Isaacs, and G.D. Lacefield. 1997. Round Bale Hay Storage in Kentucky. AGR-171, Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service.
French, B.C. 1960. Some considerations in estimating assembly cost functions for agricultural processing operations. Journal of Farm Economics 62 (1960): 767–778.
Gonzalez, R., R. Phillips, D. Saloni, H. Jameel, R. Abt, A. Pirraglia, and J. Wright. 2011. Biomass to energy in the southern United States: Supply chain and delivered cost. BioResources 6 (3): 2954–2976.
Hess, J.R., C.T. Wright, and K.L. Kenney. 2007. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks and logistics for ethanol production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 1 (3): 181–190.CrossRef
Huhnke, R.L. 2006. Round Bale Hay Storage. BAE-1716, Oklahoma Extension Service.
Johansoon, R., M. Peters, and R. House. 2007. Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming Model (REAP). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Technical Bulletin No. (TB-1916), March 2007.
Khanna, M., B. Dhungana, and J. Clifton-Brown. 2008. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (6): 482–493.CrossRef
McCarl, B.A., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, and J.T. Chmelik. 2000. Analysis of biomass fueled electrical power plants: Implications in the agricultural and forestry sectors. Annals of Operations Research 94: 37–55.CrossRef
McCarl, B.A., and Y.W. Zhang. 2011. Use of advanced energy crops: An economic analysis of food, greenhouse gas and energy implications. In Advances in Energy Research, vol. 6, ed. M.J. Acosta. New York, NY: NOVA Science Publishers.
Nickerson, C., R. Ebel, A. Borchers, and F. Carriazo. 2011. Major uses of land in the United States, 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-89), December 2011.
Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.CrossRef
Shinners, K.J., B.N. Binversie, R.E. Muck, and P.J. Weimer. 2007. Comparison of wet and dry corn stover harvest and storage. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 211–221.CrossRef
Sokhansanj, S., S. Mani, A. Turhollow, A. Kumar, D. Bransby, L. Lynd, and M. Laser. 2009. Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (panicum virgatum L.): Current technology and envisioning a mature technology. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 3 (2): 124–141.CrossRef
Stephen, J.D., W.E. Mabee, and J.N. Saddler. 2010. Biomass logistics as a determinant of second-generation biofuel facility scale, location and technology selection. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 4 (5): 503–518.CrossRef
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory Summary Report. USDA, NRCS. 90 p.
University of Illinois Extension. 2011. Production of bioenergy crops in the Midwest. Farm Economics: Facts & Opinions, FEFO 11–06.
Metadata
Title
Modeling Bioenergy, Land Use, and GHG Mitigation with FASOMGHG: Implications of Storage Costs and Carbon Policy
Authors
Robert H. Beach
Yuquan W. Zhang
Bruce A. McCarl
Copyright Year
2017
Publisher
Springer New York
Book
Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II

Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6904-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4939-6906-7

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6906-7_10