Elsevier

Applied Energy

Volume 172, 15 June 2016, Pages 264-274
Applied Energy

Meeting renewable energy and land use objectives through public–private biomass supply partnerships

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.047Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Reducing encroachment and increased use of renewable energy are U.S. military goals.

  • Strong forest markets and high forest land rent can affect land use change patterns.

  • Military bioenergy demand may stimulate forest markets and expand forest area.

  • GHG benefits of increased bioenergy demand accrue regionally but not nationally.

  • Targeted bioenergy market development may be preferable to region-wide deployment.

Abstract

Bioenergy is a significant source of renewable energy in the U.S. and internationally. We explore whether creation of localized bioenergy markets near existing military installations in the southeastern U.S. could simultaneously address military renewable energy generation objectives while reducing urban encroachment. We model the use of public–private partnerships to stimulate the creation of these markets, in which stable installation demand is paired with stable supply from surrounding landowners. We employ two economic models – the SubRegional Timber Supply (SRTS) model and the Forest and Agricultural Sector Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) – to assess how markets influence forest and agriculture land use, renewable energy production, and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation at the regional and national levels. When all selected installations increase bioenergy capacity simultaneously, we find increased preservation of forest land area, increased forest carbon storage in the region, and increased renewable energy generation at military installations. Nationally, however, carbon stocks are depleted as harvests increase, increasing GHG emissions even after accounting for potential displaced emissions from coal- or natural gas-fired generation. Increasing bioenergy generation on a single installation within the southeast has very different effects on forest area and composition, yielding greater standing timber volume and higher forest carbon stock. In addition to demonstrating the benefits of linking two partial equilibrium models of varying solution technique, sectoral scope, and resource detail, results suggest that a tailored policy approach may be more effective in meeting local encroachment reduction and renewable energy generation objectives while avoiding negative GHG mitigation consequences.

Introduction

Bioenergy provides a substantial portion of existing renewable energy generation in the U.S. and internationally. It is feasible that bioenergy could make even greater contributions to global and national renewable energy generation, but expansion is often constrained by technical, logistical, environmental, social, and economic factors. Against the backdrop of this potential, the U.S. Department of Defense is seeking both to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels by increasing the production and use of renewable energy and to address the encroachment of incompatible land uses in the vicinity of existing installations. The question explored here is whether bioenergy supply partnerships between military installations and surrounding private landowners and feedstock producers can help to address both sets of concerns—increasing the generation of renewable energy for on-base consumption while slowing or redirecting the urbanization of surrounding landscapes. The resulting analysis bridges the divide between research and practice by demonstrating how separate partial equilibrium (PE) forest and agricultural models may be linked to better explore real-world policy scenarios with spatially complex environmental and economic outcomes.

Bioenergy, defined here as the use of forest and agricultural materials to generate electricity, has emerged as a possible means to decrease fossil fuel consumption, mitigate GHG emissions, and provide economic opportunities to rural communities. In 2012, bioenergy supplied approximately 370 TW h of global electricity, or approximately 1.5% of total global production [1]. In the U.S., bioenergy contributed approximately 57 GW h of electricity in 2012, or approximately 11.6% of utility-scale renewable electricity generation in that year [2]. Analysis suggests that the use of biomass for heating and energy purposes is likely to increase in the U.S., as is the availability of biomass feedstock to supply expanding capacity [3]. The extent to which these potential increases are realized has been a subject of considerable research.

From an individual biomass producer perspective, for example, research has shown that market uncertainty can impede participation in nascent bioenergy markets, particularly when changes in production practices are necessary [4], [5], [6]. From an individual installation perspective, the spatial distribution of available biomass supply and the configuration of the end-use application have been cited as important factors to consider [7]. From a broader market perspective, research has shown that subsidies and continued technological development, particularly with regard to potential feedstock, are required for bioenergy to be competitive with fossil fuels and achieve sizable market penetration [8], [9]. Other so-called non-technical factors have likewise been found to inhibit bioenergy market development, specifically integration with other economic activities, scale effects, competition both inside and outside bioenergy markets, attributes of bioenergy markets themselves, social constraints, and local and national policy [10], [11], [5].

These collective technical and non-technical factors underscore the important role that policy plays in the emergence of viable bioenergy systems, giving rise to both multiple layers and types of policy interventions (e.g., [12], [13]) and a variety of analyses examining bioenergy market response to their deployment. For example, multiple analyses have assessed the influence of renewable portfolio standard implementation on bioenergy system response at the state [14], [15], regional [16], and national [17], [18] levels, finding generally that bioenergy is capable of meeting substantial renewable energy targets, often with positive greenhouse gas mitigation benefits. Apart from policy-driven changes in bioenergy generation at the state, regional, and national levels, analyses also continue to explore novel bioenergy applications in the pursuit of diverse economic, social, and environmental objectives at the local and sub-regional level, as well (e.g., [19], [20]).

What is less represented in the literature, however, are assessments that link these separate but related areas of work: the design and implementation of state, regional, or national bioenergy policy and the role of bioenergy markets in helping to achieve localized land use or management objectives. Though this particular area of work is wanting, recent research on the benefits and complexities associated with broader market analysis coupled with detailed disaggregation has established methodological precedent for how such analyses might be pursued. For example, Igos et al. [21] link a computable general equilibrium (CGE) and PE model in their analysis of six different sets of energy commodities and resulting life cycle assessment (LCA) of energy system development. Britz and Hertel [22] likewise integrate CGE and PE models in their analysis of the GHG consequences of EU biofuels mandates. These studies demonstrate the viability of such an approach as a decision support tool for policy makers, while also highlighting the complexities of linking models with different objectives and data structures. Elsewhere in the literature, recent work has explored the influence of disaggregated technology options on the cost of GHG reduction, finding generally that increased disaggregation can lend greater insight into the economic implications of the policy assessed [23], [24].

We build upon these collective works by linking separate PE modeling frameworks to assess the national and localized land use change and forest carbon response associated with targeted bioenergy generation deployment. The novelty and significance of this analysis is twofold. Methodologically, we demonstrate the viability of linking two PE models of varying solution technique, sectoral scope, and resource detail, providing insight into how such cross-platform assessments may be undertaken in the future and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach. From a policy perspective, we explore how traditional energy-focused policy decisions may be leveraged to achieve non-energy objectives through the use of novel interventions, an important issue generally, but of particular importance for bioenergy [25].

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the federal government’s energy use [26]. Internal DoD analyses have found the military’s fossil fuel dependence to present a strategic risk, and that renewable energy and energy efficiency investments are key measures to mitigate this risk [27]. Accordingly, recent years have witnessed a concerted effort to both reduce DoD fossil fuel consumption and increase the production and use of renewable sources of energy.

The production of renewable energy on military installations is influenced by a variety of federal policies, such as the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (P.L. 109-364), and the 2013 Presidential Memorandum on Federal Leadership on Energy Management [28]. Pursuant to these broad mandates, each branch of service has developed an energy strategic plan. For example, the U.S. Army seeks to derive 25% of total energy consumed from renewable energy sources by 2025 and to deploy 1 GW of renewable energy projects by that same year [29]. The Air Force meanwhile seeks to increase facility consumption of renewable or alternative energy to 25 percent of total electricity use by 2025, to achieve 1 GW of on-site capacity by 2016, and to acquire 50% of its domestic aviation fuel from alternative fuel blends by 2025 [30]. The Department of the Navy aims to derive 50 percent of total energy consumption from alternative and/or renewable sources, to deploy 1 GW of renewable energy on Navy installations, and to obtain 50 percent of the fleet’s liquid fuel from alternative sources, all by 2020 [31]. For its part, the U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan seeks to increase alternative and/or renewable energy consumption on bases and installations to 50% of total energy consumption by 2025 [32]. These collective strategies have led to the expansion of renewable energy generally, and biomass energy, specifically, in affiliation with U.S. military installations and operations (Table 1).

In addition to increasing renewable energy production and consumption, the U.S. DoD is also investing in efforts to minimize conflicts between military training and off-base land uses. Encroachment of incompatible land uses around existing military installations and the “away spaces” needed for flight operations can alter methods, timing, or duration of critical training activities. Such encroachment holds the potential to undercut training capabilities and, by extension, military readiness, prompting the DoD to undertake an increasing number of off-base mitigation measures (e.g., [33]).

The most prominent DoD encroachment reduction initiative is the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration program (REPI). Initiated in 2003, the REPI program seeks to reduce military-community-environmental conflicts resulting from urban encroachment [34]. Through the REPI program, DoD funds cost-sharing partnerships among the Military Departments, private conservation groups, and state and local governments to support military readiness by protecting compatible land uses and preserving natural habitat on non-DoD lands [35]. Another, more recent initiative to address encroachment is Sentinel Landscapes, a collaboration between federal, state, local, and private stakeholders that employs a variety of tools and strategies to preserve and sustainably manage working lands near a small number of targeted installations [33]. Also operating within the Southeast is the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS), a multi-state partnership comprised of state and federal agencies working to improve resource-use decisions that support conservation of natural resources, working lands, and defense readiness opportunities [36].

It is possible that creation of a new or expanded bioenergy market, one targeted to producers in the vicinity of existing military installations, could jointly pursue both DoD objectives simultaneously—increasing the on-base generation of renewables while affecting land use change around DoD facilities. In creating an additional demand for forest and agricultural feedstock, such efforts could help maintain compatible working lands in the vicinity of existing installations. Research indicates that land rent—the value one receives from his or her land—is an important driver of land use change [37], [38], and the imposition of new demand for a given biomass feedstock could have a positive effect on land use affiliated with the new market opportunity [39], [40], [41], [16]. By targeting markets to discrete geographic areas, such efforts could also create a steady supply of locally-available biomass feedstock, thus helping to address supply concerns and logistical inefficiencies that could increase costs (e.g., [42], [43]).

In the sections that follow, we assess whether such a hypothetical public–private bioenergy partnership, one targeted to the vicinity of existing military installations in the southeastern U.S., can help to jointly achieve compatible land use preservation and renewable energy generation objectives. The specific attributes of the hypothetical policy initiative are outlined in Section 2, as is the modeling framework we employ to assess its effects on land use change and other environmental and economic indicators of concern. That is followed with a brief review of the results in Section 3 and further discussion of findings and conclusions in Section 4. The article concludes with a review of policy and methodological lessons learned, with recommendations on how both may be further leveraged in future analysis and policy development.

Section snippets

Material and methods

Assessing the local and national implications of a public–private bioenergy partnership in the Southeast U.S. first requires parameterization of economic models and the policy to be evaluated. This process is outlined below, with an emphasis on justification of key inputs and assumptions. We begin with an overview of the process used to define individual installation bioenergy targets and how these targets were then applied to individual installation supply areas. We then provide an overview of

Results

The central policy question explored by this analysis is whether bioenergy supply partnerships targeted in the vicinity of military installations in the Southeast U.S. can affect land use change in the surrounding landscape while leading to an increase in the aggregate generation of renewable energy regionally and nationally. With regard to the first component—land use change—our results suggest that increased demand for bioenergy leads to an increase in forest land area in all

Discussion

The modeled onset of new demand for bioenergy in the Southeast U.S. brings about several changes, locally, regionally, and nationally. Assuming that all installations increase capacity simultaneously causes significant changes in southeastern U.S. forest markets, leading to substantial gains in forest acreage and forest carbon storage in the near- to mid-term horizon. Agreement in regional forest carbon trends as estimated by the different models (Fig. 5, Fig. 7) provides an added measure of

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided under USDA NIFA Grant Number 2012-67009-19918. The authors likewise appreciate the helpful comments provided by Tom Darden, George Miller and two anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors are the authors’ alone.

References (60)

  • C.S. Galik et al.

    The environmental and economic effects of regional bioenergy policy in the southeastern U.S

    Energy Policy

    (2015)
  • G.S. Latta et al.

    A multi-sector intertemporal optimization approach to assess the GHG implications of U.S. forest and agricultural biomass electricity expansion

    J Forest Econ

    (2013)
  • E.M. White et al.

    Biomass production from the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors in support of a renewable electricity standard

    Energy Policy

    (2013)
  • M. Saha et al.

    Geospatial assessment of potential bioenergy crop production on urban marginal land

    Appl Energy

    (2015)
  • A.M. Pantaleo et al.

    Integration of biomass into urban energy systems for heat and power. Part I: an MILP based spatial optimization methodology

    Energy Convers Manage

    (2014)
  • E. Igos et al.

    Combination of equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios

    Appl Energy

    (2015)
  • S. Fujimori et al.

    Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology

    Appl Energy

    (2014)
  • Y. Cai et al.

    Disaggregating electricity generation technologies in CGE models: a revised technology bundle approach with an application to the U.S. clean power plan

    Appl Energy

    (2015)
  • A. Veldkamp et al.

    Predicting land-use change

    Agric Ecosyst Environ

    (2001)
  • S.-W. Choi et al.

    An assessment of the influence of bioenergy and marketed land amenity values on land uses in the Midwestern U.S

    Ecol Econ

    (2011)
  • R.P. Overend

    The average haul distance and transportation work factors for biomass delivered to a central plant

    Biomass

    (1982)
  • L. Gustavsson et al.

    Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

    Appl Energy

    (2015)
  • International energy agency. Bioenergy; 2015. <https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/bioenergy/> [last...
  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly, September 2015; 2015b....
  • U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack...
  • B.A. McCarl et al.

    Competitiveness of biomass-fueled electrical power plants

    Ann Oper Res

    (2000)
  • C.S. Galik et al.

    Forest biomass supply in the Southeastern United States – implications for industrial roundwood and bioenergy production

    J Forest

    (2009)
  • W. Britz et al.

    Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality: an integrated PE, global CGE analysis

    Agric Ecosyst Environ

    (2013)
  • V.H. Dale et al.

    Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy

    Front Ecol Environ

    (2015)
  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. Defense department energy use falls to lowest level since at least 1975; 2015a....
  • Cited by (18)

    • A conceptual biomass liquefaction system with supercritical water for bio-oil, power and heating trigeneration: Thermodynamic and environmental analysis

      2021, Energy Conversion and Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Growing energy demand attributed to the population density and the economic progression around the world is not satiated with the limited fossil fuels [1]. Bioenergy is considered as a solution to alleviate the heavy dependence on fossil fuels and to meet the global greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set by the Paris Agreement [2,3]. In the past decade, biomass energy has been consistently ranked as the fourth main source of global energy, accounting for 10–14% of final energy consumption, following coal, gas and electricity [4].

    • Effective bioeconomy policies for the uptake of innovative technologies under resource constraints

      2019, Biomass and Bioenergy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Detailed simulations in cases where no innovation dynamics are present, have shown that policies that tackle this resource constraint can lead to significant increases in the industrial use of renewable resources [34,35]. Also public-private partnerships are helpful to create new supply chains of biomass [36]. In these cases a mix of policy instruments are necessary.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text