CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 ?

(2 0 0 9 ) 1 1 4 0 - 1 1 4 6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

ELSEVIER
journal homepage: www,elsevier,coni/iocate/cherd

Relation of biofuel to bioelectricity and agriculture: Food security, fuel security, and reducing greenhouse emissions
v.M.
-^', D.G. Choi^ D. Luo^ A. Ofeiuo^/.H.
School 0/ Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States School 0/Public Policy, Georgio Institute o/Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States

A B S T R A C T

Biofuels are being developed in the context of three broad economic and policy drivers: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy security, and supporting agriculture. Projections of the land and feedstock potentially available for bioenergy indicate that bioenergy development could be resource limited, and food crops maybe partially displaced by biofuel feedstocks. One motivation for biofuel development is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet bioelectricity typically provides greater greenhouse gas reductions than biofuel. Moreover, carbon prices affect electricity prices more than petroleum prices, Biofuel development can reduce petroleum supply risks, and the relative balance of policy emphasis on climate change and petroleum security will shape the policies for biofuel development. 2009 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B,V, All rights reserved. Keywords: Biofuel; Bioelectricity; Policy; Agriculture; Climate change; Energy security

1.

Introduction

Large-scale biofuel production could have a significant effect on agriculture and patterns of land use. While energy security concerns may well justify the development of biofuels, the proposed scale of development has raised questions about trade-offs between biofuels and food crops, as well as between biofuels and bioelectricity. In addition, the production of biofuels can have significant environmental impacts. These inter-related issues could constrain biofuel development, both through market prices for feedstocks and through policies that may directly or indirectly limit biofuel production. Here we examine the scale of land use change that can result from projected production of biofuels through 2022, as well as the concomitant land use change that can result from projected production of bioelectricity on the same time scale. With this land use picture as a starting point, we explore the relative economics of growing food versus growing feedstocks for biofuel, and we review the literature on the potential impact of biofuel development on food prices. To the extent that there is a trade-off between decisions to use biomass feedstocks for electricity or fuel, greenhouse

gas policy and fuel security policy can have somewhat different implications. Whereas fuel security policy could promote biomass used for fuel, greenhouse gas policy, if evenly applied, would tend to promote the use of biomass with the lowest greenhouse gas profile. We explore the relative greenhouse gas impacts of bioelectricity and biofuel, and discuss how the greenhouse gas profile of biofuels might be improved. 2. 2.1. Materials and methods Land use implications o/bio/uels

The European Union has proposed that biofuel production comprise 10% of EU transportation fuel consumption by 2020, With a total transportation fuel use of 300 million tonnes as of 2007, this would require production of about 24 billion liters per year of biofuel (European Commission, 2007). There has been considerable controversy in the European Union regarding the agricultural and environmental impacts of biofuels, and reaching the 10% target remains uncertain. In the United States, however, much larger amounts of biofuel production have been mandated. The U.S. Renewable

' Corresponding author at: School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 765 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 3O332-020S, USA, E-mail address: vthomas@isye.gatech.edu (V,M. Thomas), Received 24 November 2008; Received in revised form 13 June 2009; Accepted 19 June 2009 0263-8762/$ - see front matter 2009 The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Published by Elsevier B,V, All rights reserved, doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2009.06,017

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 7 { 2 O O 9 )

1140-1146

1141

225 200 175 V 150 3 Ib

Corn ethanol Corn ethanol cap * Total renewable fkjel Advanced renewable tjel CeDulosic fuel - Biodieset Perlack et al.

V 125

100 V c 75
V

ce
(A ^^ 3 25 0 2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Fig. 1 - Scenario for U.S. biofuel production, including past corn-derived ethanol production, the mandates contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2005, and the estimated production potential from Perlack et al. (2005). Fuel Standard, included in the December 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires production of 136 billion liters per year of renewable fuel by the year 2022, more than five times the proposed European Union production (Fig. 1). This includes 61 billion liters of cellulosic ethanol, a maximum of 57 billion liters of corn-derived ethanol, 3.8 billion liters of biodiesel, and 15 billion liters from unspecified sources (EISA, 2007). Production of one liter of corn ethanol requires 2.5 kg of corn {Shapouri et al., 2002). The average agricultural yield of corn in the U.S. between 2004 and 2008 was 0,96kg/m^, although corn yields have been increasing approximately linearly for several decades, with an average increase of 0.01 kg/mVyear (USDA, 2008b). If yields continue to increase at this rate, corn yields in 2022 would be 1.12 kg/m^ and the 57 billion liters of corn-derived ethanol could be produced on 130 billion m^ of land, about 40% of the and currently devoted to corn in the U.S. For cellulosic ethanol, the land requirements can vary significantly depending on the feedstock. Among the feedstocks commonly discussed for widespread development in the U.S., yield of biomass ranges from 0.5 to 1.1 k^m^ for switchgrass (Schmer et al., 2008), to 1.3 for loblolly pine (Williams and Gresham, 2006), 2.2 to 3 for miscanthus (Heaton et al., 2008), and 3 for energy sorghum. Yields can be expected to increase over time, although with the choices of cellulosic ethanol feedstocks as yet undetermined, the average yield still can be expected tobe somewhere in the range of 0.7-3kg/m^. Higher yields are possible, as is the case for energy cane, but the warm growing conditions required for energy cane may limit its use as an ethanol feedstock to the warmer regions ofthe U.S. or Europe. Both fermentation and thermochemical processes can be employed in the production of cellulosic biofuels. For fermentation processes, theoretical ethanol production potential is typically in the range of 0.38-0.4I/kg of dry biomass 0echura, 2006). This theoretical yield does not take into account loss due to carbohydrate consumed by the yeast, and non-ethanol products produced by the yeast; actual yields are in the range of 60-90 percent of the theoretical yield. Ethanol production from corn stover via a fermentation process is projected to yield 0.37 I/kg of dry corn stover (Aden et al., 2002). For a thermochemical process, the projected yield is 0.331iters of ethanol per kilogram, and 0.39 liters of total alcohol per kilogram (Phillips et al., 2007). To meet the U.S. biofuel mandate with a yield of 0.37 liters of fuel per kilogram of biomass, production of the 61 billion liters of cellulosic ethanol, requiring 160 billion kg of biomass, can be expected to require anywhere from 55 to 230 billion m^ of land. Overall, with the 150 billion m^ for corn-derived ethanol, 55-230 billion m^ for cellulosic ethanol, and on the order of another 50 billion m^ or more for the biodiesel and additional renewable fuel, total biofuel land use can be expected to be in the range of 250-450 billion m^ of land. Current U.S. cropland is 1300 billion m^ (USDA, 2008b), and total U.S. timberland is 1700 billion m^ (USDA, 2008a), so the biofuel mandate couM be met with an amount of land in the range of, for example, 13% of current U.S. cropland and 10% of US. timberland. In addition, there is 2400 billion m^ of U.S. pasture land, some of which could potentially be used for bioenergy feedstock production (USDA, 2009). Forest and agricultural land areas in the European Union are somewhat comparable: total EU-27 forested land is 1770 billion m' (FAO, 2005) and total agricultural land is 1800 billion m^ (Eurostat, 2008). The implications of using some 10-15% of both cropland and timberland for bioenergy will be explored in the following sections. To meet the policy goals for bioenergy production, Europe and the United States could draw on both domestic and international markets for feedstocks and fuels. There is significant potential for production in South America, India, and other regions. Alfstad concluded that global production of biofuel is limited primarily by the capacity to convert biomass to fuel, rather than by biomass feedstock availability per se, and that by 2030, as much as 30% of global biofuel production could be produced outside of Europe, the U.S. and Brazil (de Vries et al., 2007; Alfstad, 2008). Studies of global bioenergy potential have concluded that on the order of 10,000 billion kg of biomass feedstock could be available for cost-effective electricity or fuel production; this is more than an order of magnitude more biomass than the production discussed above for Europe and the U.S. (Nakicenovic et al., 2000; World Energy Assessment, 2004; de Vries et al., 2007). Global production of bioenergy feedstocks could reduce bioenergy land use impacts within Europe and the United States, potentially by increasing the land use impacts elsewhere.
2.2. Land use implications o/bioelectricity

Demand for renewable electricity is also growing. Biomass is a low cost option, and it is likely to be a key component

1142

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN

87

1140-1146

of renewable electricity production, particularly in regions without outstanding wind and solar resources (NREL, 2006). The European Commission has a goal of 55MToe from bioelectricity by 2010, which would require approximately 170 billion kg/year of dry biomass, as well as the use of 75 MToe of biomass to provide both residential and district heating, requiring another 230 billion kg/year of biomass (European Commission, 2005). In the United States as of 2009, 27 states and the District of Columbia have implemented renewabfe electricity standards, which require an increasing percentage of a state's electricity to be produced from renewable sources (US DOE, 2008e). Biorefineries have potential for contributing to renewable electricity policy goals, by producing some electricity for export. For the purposes of energy and environmental assessment, a cellulosic biorefinery model has been developed that projects an electricity export of 0.2kWhe/kg biomass input (Aden et al., 2002; Sheehan et a!., 2004). With this electricity production, 60.6 billion liters of cellulosic ethanol would be accompanied by export of 40 billion kWhe, equal to 2% of current U.S. electric generation from coal (US DOE, 2008b). Although helpful in the development of renewable sources of electricity, demand for renewable electricity in the range of 20% or more will considerably exceed that provided by biorefineries. One of the simplest and currently most accessible approaches to generating electricity from biomass is to co-fire biomass with coal. Facilities with existing coal-fired boilers are well suited for biomass co-firing of up to 10-15% since only minor modifications are needed for biomass handling, storage, and feed systems (US DOE, 2004; Fernando, 2005; NREL, 2006; van Loo and Koppejan, 2008). The retrofit costs for biomass co-firing varies depending on different coal boilers, the biomass moisture content, and boiler delivery methods, and ranges from 100 to 1000/kW (lEA, 2007). Increased use of biomass to generate electricity would plausibly include a mix of co-firing of biomass with coal, development of dedicated biomass-fired utility boilers, as well as electricity exports from biorefineries. To understand the magnitude of biomass possibly dedicated to electricity generation, consider a scenario in which 10 percent of coal consumed by utility plants is replaced by biomass. This could be achieved through a combination of co-firing biomass with coal at existing power plants, the conversion of some existing coal-fired power plants entirely to biomass, and the installation of new biomass-fired power plants. As of 2007, U.S. electricity generadon from coal was 2 trillion kwh/year, consuming 1 billion tonnes of coal (US DOE, 2007b). Coal used in U.S. coal-fired power plants has a typical energy content (LHV) of 23.4 M]/kg (US DOE, 2007b), whereas dry biomass has an energy content of roughly 16 MJ/kg. Replacing 10% of the coal with the equivalent energy value of biomass would require approximately 0.15 billion tonnes/year of biomass, implying a land use of anywhere from 50 to 200 billion m^ of land. Greater use of cofiring or other direct biomass use for electricity generation would require correspondingly greater amounts of land. Adding the 250-450 billion m^ of land for biofuei feedstock to the 50-200 billion m^ for bioelectricity indicates, with rounding, a potential land requirement for bioenergy in the range of 300-650 billion m^. !f bioelectricity and biofuel feedstocks were both more or less evenly divided between cropland and timberland species, then 10-20 percent of both U.S. cropland and timberland would be dedicated to bioenergy. Perlack et al. (2005) have reported an annual potential biomass availability in the U.S. of 1.3 billion tonnes, consid-

erably more than would be required to meet the current U.S. biofuel mandate and to provide a modest amount of bioelectricity as well (Fig. 1). This biomass is projected to come 75% from croplands and includes both agricultural residues and dedicated bioenergy crops, as well as 25% from logging residues and other unmerchantable timber or low cost forest residues. The magnitude of land use and accompanying environmental and ecosystem impacts of large-scale bioenergy development suggests that low-impact feedstocks will be highly favored. High impact feedstocks, in terms of land use per se, or accompanying impacts on nitrogen use and emissions, agricultural environmental impacts and ecosystem impacts, may face significant policy obstacles (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger, 2008). 2.3. Effects of biofuel and bioelectricity on agriculture

There has been considerable concern that biofuel development could displace food crops, raising food prices and potentially reducing food availability in developing countries (Naylor, 2007). In 2008, a combination of rising fuel prices, increased food consumption worldwide, and diversion of corn to make fuel was blamed for increases in food prices worldwide. While ethanol production from corn has increased, the land devoted to corn has remained relatively constant in the U.S., suggesting that corn for feed and food has been displaced by corn ethanol. Some of this decrease may have been balanced by increased corn production in other countries. At what price does production of bioenergy become more economical than production of food or other products? This will depend on the price of fuel, the price of food products and overall biorefinery production costs. Cellulosic biorefinery production costs are as yet unknown, but some insight can be gained by considering the relative economics of corn for food and corn for ethanol, and the projected economics of cellulosic ethanol production. Assuming the ethanol market will be perfectly competitive in the long run, a simple calculation can be used to determine the maximum price an ethanol refinery would pay for its feedstock. In perfectly competitive markets there are zero economic profits, and the breakeven pointthe point at which revenue and costs are equalcan be used to estimate the feedstock price at which an ethanol plant will remain in operation.^ This type of calculation was previously developed by Elobeid et al. (2006) for corn-derived ethanol, and we extend it here for cellulosic biofuel feedstocks. Total revenues include the sale of ethanol, sale of byproducts from ethanol production and the various subsidies and credits for producing ethanol. Total costs include operating costs, capital costs and feedstock costs (Eq. (1)). max feedstockcost = i>(0.66Pgas + Vc) + Pb - "(Cop +
Cost

(1)

where Pgas is the price of gasoline per liter, Vc is the value of subsidies or credits per liter of ethanol, Fb is the price received for coproducts per unit of feedstock. Cop are operating costs per liter ethanol, CK are capital costs per liter ethanol, i> is the ethanol yield per unit feedstock, 0.66 is the energy content of ethanol relative to gasoline. ' It is possible forfirmsto operate at a loss or to make positive economic profit in the short-run.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN S ;

(2 0 0 9} 1140-1146

1143

Table 1 - Breakeven price for ethanol feedstocks. Corn-derived ethanol

Assumed ethanol price {/L) Subsidies (/L) Coproducts {/tonne) DDGS and furfural Ethanol yield (17kg) Costs (/kg corn; /tonne stover) Capital cost Operating cost Breakeven price (/tonne com; com stover) Aden et al. (2002), USDA (2005, 20Sc). 1 euro = US$1.24. 0.26 0.09 120 0.40
0.04 0.03

Celiulosic ethanol
0.26 0.20 900 0.37
20 S3

110

266

As an illustrative example, we can calculate the maximum price an ethanol refinery would be willing to pay for feedstock under these assumptions. Since unblended gasoline is a substitute for ethanol-gasoline blends, we can assume a consumer would pay at most the energy equivalent price of gasoline for a liter of ethanol; ethanol has two-third the energy content of gasoline. The average U.S. city retail price for gasoline in March 2009 was $2.00 (US DOE, 2008d) or 0.39/1. The U.S. federal tax credit for corn-derived ethanoi blended with gasoline is 0.09/1 ($0.45/gal) and the average price for a tonne of distiller's dried grain with solubles (DDGS) is 120 ($149) (USDA, 2008c). According to the USDA's 2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey, net of feedstock costs, operating costs for 21 dry-mill plants averaged 0.07/1 ($0.38/gal) and capital costs for expanding existing plants averaged 0.10/1 ($0.50/ga]} (USDA, 2005). Assuming conversion rates of 0.4 I/kg corn and coproduction of 0.30 kg DDGS/kg corn (Wang, 2007), the breakeven price for corn is 0.11/kg($3.67/bushel). In 2002, the average feedstock cost of surveyed ethanol plants was 0.11/1 ($0.54/gal) (USDA, 2005) or 0.04/kgcorn ($1.61/bushel) (Table 1). This calculation shows that 2008 corn prices of $4 per bushel are near or above the break-even price for ethanol production. For cellulosic ethanol, a similar calculation can be done to determine the breakeven price for cellulosic feedstocks. Using economic projections developed at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Aden et ai., 2002), incorporating the 0.20/1 ($1.01/gaI) tax credit provided by the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill, and including the sale of furfural - an industrial chemical and coproduct of celluiosic ethanol production - the breakeven feedstock price for corn stover is 266/tonne ($328) (Table 1). The relative balance between diversion of biomass feedstock from food to fuel, and increased production will depend on market forces as well as on agricultural policies. The production of corn or any other feedstock can be expressed as a function of its price, the price of alternative crops, and the supply elasticities. Specifically, the quantity of feedstock i can be expressed as a function of its price p,, the price elasticity of supply fi, the price of alternative crops or land uses pj, and the cross price elasticities f^. In principle, the yield will be a function of prices and elasticities, but in practice yield increases have been linear in time for many crops.

of corn appears to be low, with U.S. corn production largely unchanged despite decades of price changes, both up and down, but this may change as corn-derived ethanol production continues to increase. Despite the uncertainties, demand and supply models similar to Eq. (2) have been used to explore potential agricultural price increases from biofuel development. One such study projected that in the year 2020 with 40.9 billion liters (10.8 billion gal) of ethanol production, corn prices increase by 7.6% over 2007 levels (De La Torre Ugarte et al., 2007). A study using a different model found that for production of 55 billion liters (14.5 billion gal) of corn-derived ethanol in 2020, corn prices would increase by 29% (Msangi et al., 2007). A key difference between these models is the adoption rate for celtulosic biofuel technologies; longer reliance on com as a feedstock for biofuels implies greater price increases for corn. Both these models assumed that cellulosic feedstock use had no effect on the price of food. However, cellulosic energy crops can displace food crops on agricultural land, which may affect agricultural prices. A better understanding of the effect of feedstock choice and land use decisions on agriculture will provide a basis for developing agricultural and energy policy and practices. Low-cost bioelectricity will also require ow-cost feedstocks; The 2009 US. average delivered coal price was 1.5/GJ ($2/GJ), which corresponds to a delivered biomass price of 23/dry tonne ($30/dry tonne). The U.S. DOE estimates that there is enough biomass available in the U.S. to generate about 3 GW of electricity at a delivered biomass price of $1.25/GJ and that 26GW could be generated at $2.50/GJ (Haq, 2002). This indicates that generating significant amounts of bioelectricity will put pressure on electricity and biomass prices. 2.4. Greenhouse gas comparison o/bioelectricity and bio/uels As of 2006, average carbon dioxide emissions from coat used in electric utilities averaged 94.7 billion kg CO2 per quadrillion Btu (US DOE, 2008c). The average thermal efficiency of U.S. coal-fired power plants is about 33.5% (US DOE, 2000), and as a result coal-fired power plants release on average about 0.96 kg C02/kWh of electricity. Coal combusted at U.S. coal-fired power plants, as of 2006, has an average lower heating value of 23.4M]/kg (US DOE, 2007b). Dry biomass may have a lower heating value of about 15 MJ/kg, but moisture content may lower the effective heating value to about 10 MJ/kg. Under these conditions, generating electricity using biomass rather than coal will displace 0.9 kg C02/kg dry biomass, while producing 0.

(2)

Land devoted to different crops is slow to change, and elasticities of supply can change over time. The price elasticity

1144

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 7 [ 2 0 0 9 )

1140-1146

For the model fermentation biorefinery, each kilogram of dry biomass produces 0.371 ethanol and an export of 0.18kWhe (Sheehan et al., 2004). This electricity can be assumed to displace a typical U,S. electricity generation carbon emission of 0.6 kg C02/kwhe, corresponding to a mix of coal, natural gas and nuclear generation. Each liter of ethanol can replace about 2/3 of a liter of gasoline on an equal heating value basis, and each liter of gasoline emits 2.3 kg of CO2 when combusted. The carbon savings from the 0.3 kg of ethanol is 0.41 kg C02/kg of dry biomass, and the savings from the 0.18 kWhe of electricity is 0.11 kg C02/kg of dry biomass, for a total carbon savings of 0.52 kg C02/kg of dry biomass. The factor of almost two difference between carbon savings for basic bioelectricity production in comparison with biorefinery ethanol production can be expected to provide an ongoing interest in bioelectricity production, particularly given the relatively low cost and established technology for bioelectricity. This relatively low carbon balance of biorefineries could potentially be improved through carbon capture and sequestration. 1\vo-thirds of the biomass carbon is released as CO2 during the fermentation process (Eq, (3)).
2CO2

Table 2 - Baseline levelized cost of electricity from a pulverized coal power plant.
Performance Efficiency (%) Life time (year) Cost Total plant (/kW) Investment charge (/kWh) Fuel cost (/kWh) O&M cost (/kWh) Total cost (/kWh)
34.3 (HHV) 30

1200 0.0085

0.0124 0,0040 0,0249

(3)

in a gasoline production cost of 0.6/1 ($3.09/gal). Carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline combustion include 2.32 kg/1 (8.79 kg/gal) from the gasoline itself, plus 0,31 kg/1 (l,18kg/gal) from refining for a total of 2.63 kg CO2/I gasoline (9.97 kg/gal). If the carbon dioxide price was 20/tonne CO2, the cost of gasoline would rise to 0.65/1, an increase of 8,3% over the price with no CO2 cost. This carbon price behavior suggests that carbon fees would affect the price of electricity much more than the price of gasoline, and thereby provides a greater incentive to use biomass to produce electricity rather than fuel. 3.

This C02 emission corresponds to approximately 0,98 kg CO^/kg of dry biomass. If this carbon dioxide could be captured and sequestered with energy that emits less than 0.5 kg CO/kg of biomass input, biorefineries could provide a carbon saving equal to or better than standard bioelectricity produced at existing power plants. Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of biofuel and bioelectricity result from both the fossil energy input to feedstock production and refining, and also from nitrous oxide and soil carbon impacts of land use change associated with bioenergy development (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger, 2008), These additional greenhouse gas emissions, which could be substantial, accrue regardless of the end-use of the biomass. 2.5. Potential impacts of carbon prices

Results and discussion

Production of significant amounts of biofuel implies significant land use change. Part of this will be from current cropland, and part is likely to be from current timberland as well as land that is currently not used for crops or timber, such as pastureland or, potentially, land that has been set aside for conservation. Land use impacts will affect export markets, and increased production of agricultural crops to replace imports will affect land use worldwide. Because of the land requirements for bioenergy, agricultural policies can be expected to be a significant factor in

If carbon is priced, either through auction of carbon emission permits, or through direct taxation, the price of bioenergy will only be affected to the extent of its greenhouse gas emissions, if bioenergy has lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, fossil fuel prices will increase more than bioenergy prices. The capital cost of coal-fired power plants as of 2007 is approximately 1200/kW ($1562/kW) for sub-critical pulverized coal plants with HHV thermal efficiency of 34,3%, and 1400/kW ($1841/kW) for integrated gasier combined cycle (IGCC) technology with HHV thermal efficiency of about 40% (MIT, 2007; US DOE, 2007a). The price of coal delivered to U.S. electric power plants in 2007 was roughly 30/tonne (averaging $36/short tonne) (US DOE, 2008f). With standard operation and maintenance costs and assuming a 30-year plant life, the levelized cost of producing electricity from coal at a sub-critical pulverized coat plant is 0.025/kWhe (3.4/kWhe) (Table 2), For a carbon dioxide price of 20/tonne of CO2, this would rise to 0.044/kWhe (6,0c/kWhe), an increase of more than 50% (Fig. 2). For gasoline, a crude oil price of 72/barrel ($98/bbl) and a refining cost of 0.15/1 (76t/gal) (US DOE, 2008a) results

10

15

20

25

30

35

45

50

C02 Price (F/tonne)

Fig. 2 - Effect of carbon prices on the cost of electricity from pulverized coal and the cost of gasoline. The red line with large slope is the cost of electricity; the blue line with small slope is the cost of gasoline. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 7 (2 0 0 9) 1140-1146

1145

the development of feedstocks for biofueis. Whereas biofuel feedstocks present an economic opportunity for farmers and owners of timberland, the potential for increased prices for agricultural goods will affect consumers and may drive agricultural policy. To some extent, food production is insulated from biofuel production because some food crops are more profitable than biomass feedstocks are likely to be. However, the cost of corn ethanol production relative to gasoline prices is low enough that a considerable increase in production is feasible. That is, for sufficiently high gasoline prices, corn-ethanol production is limited only by the capacity of ethanol refineries. Although the cost of cellulosic ethanol production is as yet unknown, projections of biorefinery costs indicate that bioenergy crops will also be able to compete favorably with food crops. However, it is at least equally plausible that low feedstock prices will be needed to support early cellulosic ethanoi development, and thus cellulosic ethanol refineries may be more subject to agricultural economics than has been the case for corn-derived ethanol.
4.

Conclusions

The development of biofueis is founded on policy and economic imperatives for energy security, and on the growing policy mandates for production of low-carbon electricity, as well as to a considerable extent to support agricultural economies. While all three of these policy goals can support development of a biofuet industry, large-scale biofuel development will potentially compete with renewable electricity production from biomass, and with other agricultural and forest products. Studies to date have indicated that competition with agriculture can be moderated by an early transition away from edible feedstocks. However, the land use implications of even non-food feedstocks suggest that large-scale biofuel production will put pressure on both agricultural and forest products markets. Bioelectricity is already a widely used technology, whereas cellulosic biofuel production is still under development. Technological progress could improve the relative greenhouse gas benefits of biofuels versus bioelectricity, through better management of greenhouse gases at the biorefinery, and through improved energy efficiency in biorefinery processes. Broadly, however, of that land that will be devoted to bioenergy feedstock production, the trade-off between biofuel and bioelectricity can be characterized as a trade-off between policy emphasis on energy security - favoring biofuels - and policy emphasis on greenhouse gas emission reduconfavoring bioelectricity. Acknowledgements We thank David Koch, Michelle Long, John Muzzy, Matthew Realff, and John Wind for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Anderson Interface Fund of the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, and by Chevron Technology Ventures.

References
Aden, A., Ruth, M,, Ibsen, K., Jechura, J,, Neeves, K., Sheehan. J. and Wallace, R.. 2002, Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol

process design and economics utilizating c-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for com stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-510-32438, Alfstad, T, (2008), World Bio/uels Study: Scenario Analysis o/Global Biofuel Marfects, (Brookhaven National Laboratory. US DOE). De La Torre Ugarte, D.G.. English, B.C, and Jensen, K.. 2007, Sixty billion gallons by 2030: economic and agricultural impacts of ethanol and biodiesel expansion, American Joumal of Agricultural Economics. 89:1290-1295, de Vries, B,J.M., Vuuren, D,Pv, and Hoogwijk, M,M,, 2007. Renewable energy sources: their global potential for the first half of the 21st century at a global leve!. An integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35: 2590-2510, Elobeid. A,, Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Babcock. B. and Hart, C, 2006, The long-run impact of corn-based ethanol on the grain, oilseed, and livestock sectors: a preliminary assessment, 06-BP 49. Energy Independence and Security Act {EISA), 2007, US Public Law 110-140, European Commission. 2005, Biomass Action Plan, COM(200S) 628 final. http://ec,europa,eu/energy/res/biomass_action.plan/ doc/2005,12,07 _comm.biomass.action ..plan-en, pdf. European Commission. 2007, Biofuels Progress Report, COM{2006) 845 final. http://ec,europa,eu/energy/energy-policy/doc/07. biofue Is progress-repo rt.en.pdf, Eurostat. 2008, Statistics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ portal/, FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment, United Nations. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra2005/en/, Fargione, J,, Hill. J.. Tilman. D.. Polasky. S. and Hawthorne, P., 2008, Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 318: 1235-1238. Fernando. R., 2005, Fuels for Biomass Cofiring, IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC-102, Haq. Z.. 2002, Biomass for Electricity Generation, US DOE, Energy Information Administration. http://www,eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ analysispaper/biomass/. Heaton, E,A,, Dohleman. F.G, and Long, S,P, 2008, Meeting us biofuel goals with less land: the potential of miscanthus. Global Change Biology. 14: 2000-2014. IEA, 2007, Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the World's Future Energy Demand, ExCo:2007:02. http://wvirw.ieabioenergy. com/MediaItem,aspx?id=55S6. Jechura, J,. (2006). Maximum Yield of Liquid Fuels/rom Biomass Based on Stoichiometry, {National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US DOE), MIT, 2007. The Future of Coal, http://web.mit,edu/coal/. Msangi, S,, Sulser, T., Rosegrant, M., Valmonte-Santos, R, and Ringler. C. {2007). Global Scenarios/or Biofuels: Impacts and Implications. (International Food Policy Research Institute), Nakicenovic N.. Alcamo J., Davis G., Vries B.d. and Fenham J,, 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (sres), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Naylor, R,L,, 2007, The ripple effect. Biofuels. food security and the environment. Environment, 49: 30-43. NREL, 2006. Biomass Cofiring: A Renewable Alternative for Utilities, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28009,pdf. PeHack, R,D,. Wright. L,L.. Tlirhollow. A,F. Graham. R.L.. Stokes. B.J. and Erbach. D.C, (2005), Biomass as Feedstock/or a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-ton Annual Supply, (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), http://feed Stockreview, or nl,gov/pdf/bil lion.ton _vision, pdf Phillips, S,, Aden, A.. Jechura, J,, Dayton. D. and Eggeman. E,, (2007), Thermochemical Ethanol uia Indirect Gasi/ication and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass, (National Renewable Energy laboratory) {NREiyTP-510-41168} Schmer, M,R,. Vogel, K.P, Mitchell, R.B, and Perrin. R,K,, 2008. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, 105: 464-^69. Searchinger. T., 2008, Use of U,S, croplands for biofuels increases greeenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 318:1238-1240.

1146

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 7 2 O O 9 }

1140-1146

Shapoud, H., Dufeld, J.A. and Wang, M.. 2002, The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, 813. Sheehan, J,, Aden, A., Paustian, K., Killian, K., Brenner, J., Walsh, M. and Nelson, R., 2004, Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. Journal of industrial Ecology, 7: 117-146. US DOE, 2000, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ en eaf/electricity/page/co2.report/co2emiss.pdf. USDA, 2005, USDA's 2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey, 841. US DOE, 2004, Biomass co-firing and coal-red boilers. US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE/EE-0288. http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/ biomass/pdfs/33811.pdf. US DOE, 2007a, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. DOE/NETL-2007/1281. http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline.Final%20Report.pdf. US DOE, 2007b. Electric Power Annual. US Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration, httpy/www.eia.doe.gov/ en eaf/electricity/epa/ep at4p7.html. US DOE, 2008a, A Primer on Casoline Prices, DOE/EIA-X040. http:// www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepdcesprimer/. US DOE, 2008b, Annual Electric Generator Report: 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html. US DOE, 2008c, Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006- http://www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/1605/ggrpt/documentation/pdf/0638{2006).pdf.

US DOE. 2OO8d. September 2008 Monthly Energy Review. T^ble 9.4 "Motor gasoline retail prices. U.S. City average". US DOE, 2OO8e. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards, http:// appsl.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable-portfolio.states. cfm. US DOE, 2O08f, Table 34, Average Price of Coal Delivered to End Use Sector by Census Division and State. DOE/EIA 0584 (2007). http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html, USDA, 2008a, Forest Inventory Data. US Forest Service, http:// fia.fs.fed.us/. USDA. 2008b, National Agricultural Statistics Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.nass.usda.gov/. USDA. 2008c. USDA-MO Department of Agriculture Market News. http://www.ams, usda.gov/mnreports/sj .-gr225.txt. USDA, 2009, Major Land Uses. http://vAvw.ers.usda.gov/Data/ MajorLandUses/. van Loo. S. and Koppejan. J., (2008). The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-firing. (Earthscan, London). Wang, M., 2007, Greet 1.8a. Argonne National Laboratory, http:// www.transportation.anl.gov/modelingjimulation/GREET/ index.html. WiUiams, T,M. and Gresham, C.A., 2006, Biomass accumulation in rapidly growing loblolly pine and sweetgum. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30: 370-377, World Energy Assessment. 2004, Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, 2004 Update. United Nations Development Program, http://www.undp.org/energy/weaover2004.htm.