A billion tons of biomass a viable goal, but at high price, new research shows

Feb 16, 2011

A new study from the University of Illinois concludes that very high biomass prices would be needed in order to meet the ambitious goal of replacing 30 percent of petroleum consumption in the U.S. with biofuels by 2030.

A team of researchers led by Madhu Khanna, a professor of agricultural and consumer economics at Illinois, shows that between 600 and 900 million metric tons of biomass could be produced in 2030 at a price of $140 per metric ton (in 2007 dollars) while still meeting demand for food with current assumptions about yields, production costs and land availability.

The paper, published in the , is the first to study the technical potential and costs associated with producing a billion tons of biomass from different agricultural – including corn stover, wheat straw, switchgrass and miscanthus – at a national level.

According to the study, not only would this require producing about a billion tons of biomass every year in the U.S., it would also mean using a part of the available land currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program for energy crop production, which could significantly increase biomass production and keep biomass costs low.

"Most studies only tell you how much biomass is potentially available but they don't tell you how much it's going to cost to produce and where it is likely to be produced," Khanna said.

"Our economic model looks at some of the major feedstocks that could produce biomass at various prices."

Khanna and her team concluded that high-yielding grasses such as miscanthus are needed to achieve the 30 percent replacement goal, "but even then it's going to be a fairly expensive proposition," she said.

When miscanthus is added to the mix, the goal of 1 billion tons of biomass can be achieved, but at a cost of more than $140 per ton.

"Most studies consider costs in the range of $40 to $50 per ton, which is fine when we're talking about biomass production to meet near-term targets for cellulosic production," Khanna said. "But if we really want to get to the 30 percent replacement of gasoline, at least with the current technology, then that's going to be much more costly."

According to Khanna, miscanthus has been excluded from previous studies because it's a crop that has yet to be grown commercially, and most of the research about it is recent and still considered experimental.

"But across the various scenarios and prices our model considered, miscanthus has the potential to provide 50 to 70 percent of the total biomass yield," she said. "In most parts of the U.S., miscanthus is cheaper to produce than switchgrass, making it a very promising high-yield crop."

The study also contends that the economic viability of cellulosic biofuels depends on significant policy support in the form of the biofuel mandate and incentives for agricultural producers for harvesting, storing and delivering biomass as well as switching land from conventional crops to perennial grasses.

"Unless biomass prices are really high, these perennial grasses are going to have a hard time competing with crops like corn, soybean and wheat for prime agricultural land," Khanna said. "The economics works in favor of using the marginal, less productive lands, where corn and soybean productivity is much lower. But even then there are limits as to how much we would like to use that land for biomass. The more efficiently we can use the land, the better."

With biofuels, there's also the common perception that there's an unavoidable trade-off between fuel and food, Khanna said.

"That concern is much more prevalent when we talk about first-generation biofuels like corn-based ethanol," she said. "But for second-generation fuels, you can use crop residues as well as dedicated energy crops that can be grown on marginal land. This reduces the need to divert cropland away from food crop production. I'm optimistic that we can get considerable amounts of without disrupting food production."

But relying on crop residues alone won't be sufficient to scale production up to levels set by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which limits the production of corn ethanol to 56 billion liters after 2015, and mandates the production of at least 80 of the 136 billion liters of ethanol from non–corn starch–based cellulosic feedstocks by 2022.

"Crop residue yields tend to be relatively low per unit of land – 2 to 3 tons per hectare," Khanna said. "That can get costly pretty quickly. There are also concerns about how much you want to take away because at some point it has a negative effect on soil productivity as well as water quality because it affects run-off. So there are limits to , which is why we have to take a closer look at energy crops."

Because even marginal land is costly and has some alternative use, both now and in the future, using it as efficiently as possible means focusing more on the highest-yielding energy crops, Khanna said.

"Clearly the way to go is with the high-yielding grasses, which means switchgrass and miscanthus, but what we found is that it's not going to be a single feedstock but really a mix of feedstocks," she said.

Different regions of the country have a comparative advantage in different types of feedstocks.

"Corn stover is more common in the upper Midwest and West, whereas miscanthus is more prevalent in the southern part of the country and switchgrass in the real northern and southern areas," Khanna said.

Explore further: Study finds Illinois is most critical hub in food distribution network

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Grasses have potential as alternate ethanol crop, study finds

Nov 01, 2010

Money may not grow on trees, but energy could grow in grass. Researchers at the University of Illinois have completed the first extensive geographic yield and economic analysis of potential bioenergy grass crops in the Midwestern ...

Study estimates land available for biofuel crops

Jan 10, 2011

Using detailed land analysis, Illinois researchers have found that biofuel crops cultivated on available land could produce up to half of the world's current fuel consumption – without affecting food crops or pastureland.

Energy crops impact environmental quality

Apr 04, 2010

Crop residues, perennial warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops are potential biomass sources for cellulosic ethanol production. While most research is focused on the conversion of cellulosic feeedstocks into ...

Recommended for you

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

16 hours ago

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

danlgarmstrong
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2011
That billion tons will be greatly facilitated with gene engineered algae and fungi. Lots of work to be done, but petroleum dependency is on its way out. One thing that has me perplexes me is why they don't plan on using the sea for a source of biomass. Algae or Kelp farms could be HUGE. Drying it out might be a problem, but you have the sun to help there....Trying to predict the cost of biomass in 25 years seems to me to be a waste of the taxpayers money at best and a ploy to hold back the progress of alternatives to petroleum at worst.
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2011
I find this article quite frustrating. There is no mention of seaweed or single cell marine algae.

I am proposing that we can grow a billion tonnes of extra kelp and other seaweed within a few decades by following my suggested method for creating kelp forests across the oceans in a region 5 to 8 degrees north and south of the equator. Nutrients can be supplied from the deep ocean bottom waters which are only 4 or so kilometres away.

An outline of the proposal is at
http: // weareanewspecies . blogspot . com/
erich_knight
1 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2011
The final arbiter, accountancy & measure of sustainable biofuels will be soil carbon content.
Biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis, Gasification or Hydrothermal Carbonization conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.
Then Every 1 G Ton of Biomass will yield;
1/3 G Ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration equal to 1 G Ton CO2e, plus Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1GWh electricity, so would be a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Since we have filled the air, filling the seas to full, Soil is the Only Beneficial place left.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.