Abstract
Sustainable transportation biofuels may require considerable changes in land use to meet mandated targets. Understanding the possible impact of different policies on land use and greenhouse gas emissions has typically proceeded by exploring either ecosystem or economic modelling. Here we integrate such models to assess the potential for the US Renewable Fuel Standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through the use of cellulosic biofuels. We find that 2022 US emissions are decreased by 7.0 ± 2.5% largely through gasoline displacement and soil carbon storage by perennial grasses. If the Renewable Fuel Standard is accompanied by a cellulosic biofuel tax credit, these emissions could be reduced by 12.3 ± 3.4%. Our integrated approach indicates that transitioning to cellulosic biofuels can meet a 32-billion-gallon Renewable Fuel Standard target with negligible effects on food crop production, while reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. However, emissions savings are lower than previous estimates that did not account for economic constraints.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chen, X., Huang, H. & Khanna, M. Land-use and greenhouse gas implications of biofuels: Role of technology and policy. Clim. Change Econ. 3, 1250013 (2012).
Khanna, M., Onal, H., Chen, X. G. & Huang, H. X. Meeting biofuels targets: Implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and nitrogen use in Illinois. Handbook Bioenerg. Econ. Policy 33, 287–305 (2010).
Beach, R. H., Zhang, Y. W. & McCarl, B. A. Modeling bioenergy, land use, and GHG emissions with FASOMGHG: Model overview and analysis of storage cost implications. Clim. Change Econ. 3, 1250012 (2012).
Gelfand, I. et al. Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 493, 514–517 (2013).
Kang, S. J. et al. Global simulation of bioenergy crop productivity: Analytical framework and case study for switchgrass. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 6, 14–25 (2014).
Miguez, F. E., Maughan, M., Bollero, G. A. & Long, S. P. Modeling spatial and dynamic variation in growth, yield, and yield stability of the bioenergy crops Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum across the conterminous United States. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 4, 509–520 (2012).
Wang, D. A. N., Lebauer, D. S. & Dietze, M. C. A quantitative review comparing the yield of switchgrass in monocultures and mixtures in relation to climate and management factors. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 2, 16–25 (2010).
Lesur, C. et al. Modeling long-term yield trends of Miscanthus x giganteus using experimental data from across Europe. Field Crops Res. 149, 252–260 (2013).
Mishra, U., Torn, M. S. & Fingerman, K. Miscanthus biomass productivity within US croplands and its potential impact on soil organic carbon. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 5, 391–399 (2013).
Davis, S. C. et al. Impact of second-generation biofuel agriculture on greenhouse-gas emissions in the corn-growing regions of the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 69–74 (2012).
Davis, S. C. et al. Comparative biogeochemical cycles of bioenergy crops reveal nitrogen-fixation and low greenhouse gas emissions in a Miscanthus x giganteus agro-ecosystem. Ecosystems 13, 144–156 (2010).
Heaton, E. A., Dohleman, F. G. & Long, S. P. Seasonal nitrogen dynamics of Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 1, 297–307 (2009).
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Davis, S. C., Masters, M. D. & DeLucia, E. H. Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 1, 75–96 (2009).
Chen, X., Huang, H., Khanna, M. & Önal, H. Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 67, 241–257 (2014).
Georgescu, M., Lobell, D. B. & Field, C. B. Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4307–4312 (2011).
Del Grosso, S. J. et al. Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases: Coordinated Agricultural Research through Gracenet to Address Our Changing Climate 241–250 (Elsevier, 2012).
Parton, W. J., Hartman, M., Ojima, D. & Schimel, D. DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: Description and testing. Glob. Planet. Change 19, 35–48 (1998).
Khanna, M., Dhungana, B. & Clifton-Brown, J. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenerg. 32, 482–493 (2008).
Drabik, D. & DeGorter, H. Biofuel policies and carbon leakage. AgBioForum 14, 104–110 (2011).
Rajagopal, D., Hochman, G. & Zilberman, D. Indirect fuel use change (IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energ. Policy 39, 228–233 (2011).
Thompson, W., Whistance, J. & Meyer, S. Effects of US biofuel policies on US and world petroleum product markets with consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Energ. Policy 39, 5509–5518 (2011).
Chen, X. & Khanna, M. The market-mediated effects of low carbon fuel policies. AgBioForum 15, 89–105 (2012).
Rajagopal, D. The fuel market effects of biofuel policies and implications for regulations based on lifecycle emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024013 (2013).
Bento, A. M., Klotz, R. & Landry, J. R. Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets Proceedings paper: 2011 (Social Science Research Network, 2011); http://purl.umn.edu/104008
Del Grosso, S. J., Mosier, A. R., Parton, W. J. & Ojima, D. S. DAYCENT model analysis of past and contemporary soil N2O and net greenhouse gas flux for major crops in the USA. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 9–24 (2005).
Campbell, E. E. et al. Assessing the soil carbon, biomass production, and nitrous oxide emission impact of Corn Stover Management for bioenergy feedstock production using DAYCENT. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 491–502 (2014).
Hudiburg, T. W., Davis, S. C., Parton, W. & DeLucia, E. H. Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 7, 366–374 (2015).
Tyner, W. E. Induced land use emissions due to first and second generation biofuels and uncertainty in land use emission factors. Econ. Res. Int. 2013, 1–12 (2013).
Dwivedi, P. et al. Cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2512–2522 (2015).
Liska, A. J. et al. Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions. Nature Clim. Change 4, 398–401 (2014).
DeLucia, E. H. et al. The theoretical limit to plant productivity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9471–9477 (2014).
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Altered belowground carbon cycling following land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops. Ecosystems 10, 508–520 (2013).
Zeri, M. et al. Carbon exchange by establishing biofuel crops in Central Illinois. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 144, 319–329 (2011).
Dondini, M., Hastings, A., Saiz, G., Jones, M. B. & Smith, P. The potential of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: Comparing field measurements in Carlow, Ireland to model predictions. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg. 1, 413–425 (2009).
Felten, D., Froba, N., Fries, J. & Emmerling, C. Energy balances and greenhouse gas-mitigation potentials of bioenergy cropping systems (Miscanthus, rapeseed, and maize) based on farming conditions in Western Germany. Renew. Energ. 55, 160–174 (2013).
Liebig, M. A., Schmer, M. R., Vogel, K. P. & Mitchell, R. B. Soil carbon storage by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenerg. Res. 1, 215–222 (2008).
Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Masek, J. & Goward, S. N. Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 26, GB1005 (2012).
Lapan, H. & Moschini, G. Second-best biofuel policies and the welfare effects of quantity mandates and subsidies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 63, 224–241 (2012).
Cui, J., Lapan, H., Moschini, G. & Cooper, J. Welfare impacts of alternative biofuel and energy policies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 1235–1256 (2011).
Moschini, G., Lapan, H., Cui, J. & Cooper, J. Assessing the welfare effects of US biofuel policies. AgBioForum 13, 370–374 (2011).
Searchinger, T. et al. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008).
Searchinger, T., Edwards, R., Mulligan, D., Heimlich, R. & Plevin, R. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 347, 1420–1422 (2015).
Chen, X. G. & Onal, H. Modeling agricultural supply response using mathematical programming and crop mixes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 674–686 (2012).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding from the North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University through a grant provided by the US Department of Energy Office of Biomass Programs under award number DE-FG36-08GO88073, with additional support provided by the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois and University of California, Berkeley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.W.H., E.H.D., W.W. and M.K. designed and implemented the study with help from P.D., S.P.L., W.J.P. and M.H. T.W.H., W.W., E.H.D. and M.K. co-wrote the paper and W.J.P. and M.H. contributed to parts of the analysis. S.P.L. provided essential data and methods for the analysis and valuable comments on the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hudiburg, T., Wang, W., Khanna, M. et al. Impacts of a 32-billion-gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US. Nat Energy 1, 15005 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.5
This article is cited by
-
N2O and CH4 emission from Miscanthus energy crop fields in the infertile Loess Plateau of China
Biotechnology for Biofuels (2018)
-
The spatial distribution of welfare costs of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States electricity sector
Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences (2018)
-
The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels
Nature Communications (2017)
-
Land-use change from poplar to switchgrass and giant reed increases soil organic carbon
Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2017)
-
The vital role of citrate buffer in acetone–butanol–ethanol (ABE) fermentation using corn stover and high-efficient product recovery by vapor stripping–vapor permeation (VSVP) process
Biotechnology for Biofuels (2016)