Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Identifying Suitable Indicators for Measuring Sustainability of Bioenergy Products Derived from Pine Forests in the U.S. South (Phase-1)
EPA Grant Number: SU833913Title: Identifying Suitable Indicators for Measuring Sustainability of Bioenergy Products Derived from Pine Forests in the U.S. South (Phase-1)
Investigators: Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. , Acevedo, Miguel F. , Fletcher, Jr., Robert J. , Reddy, Konda R. , Lindener, Angela S. , Martin, Melissa , Lal, Pankaj , Dwivedi, Puneet
Institution: University of Florida
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: I
Project Period: August 31, 2008 through July 31, 2009
Project Amount: $9,955
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2008) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Awards , P3 Challenge Area - Air Quality , P3 Challenge Area - Chemical Safety , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
These students contributed to this project: Pankaj Lal (student team leader), School of Forest and Resource Conservation, University of Florida; Melissa Martin, Department of Soil and Water Science, University of Florida; Puneet Dwivedi, School of Forest and Resource Conservation, University of Florida; Miguel Acevedo, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, University of Florida
The purpose of the phase 1 work was to come out with a sustainability assessment framework (comprised of baseline indicators) that can be used to field test and certify forest bioenergy production from southern pine forest as sustainable.The project developed a basic framework for four sustainability indices for bioenergy production namely: 1) economic; 2) biodiversity; 3) greenhouse gas emission reduction and net energy ratio; and 4) soil and water quality. Specifically, the objectives were to:
1. Review existing studies on U.S. bioenergy production in general and southern states in particular, and assess applicability of existing forestry and agriculture certification schemes for bioenergy.
2. Review estimates of biodiversity, soil and water quality, GHG emissions and economic impacts in southern states using meta-analytic approaches (where appropriate) and identify major issues that may influence variation in these estimates.
3. Prepare a methodology framework that can be used to asses sustainability of bioenergy from biodiversity, soil and water quality, GHG and net energy, and economic view points.
4. Conduct preliminary field level life cycle analyses at a selected site to attribute energy and emission values for a pine ecosystem.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
In this phase of the project, a sustainability framework was developed for four sustainability indices namely: 1) economic; 2) biodiversity; 3) greenhouse gas emission reduction and net energy ratio; and 4) soil and water quality. A set of forest bioenergy sustainability indicators has been compiled for each of the four indices based on the review and analysis of existing and suggested certification systems in the field of forestry (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council), agriculture (e.g. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), electricity (e.g. Green power), states biomass harvest guidelines and forestry BMP manuals, current scientific literature regarding forest management practices in general and forest biomass-based energy in particular and through interviews with researchers, and discussions with stakeholders.
In this sustainability framework, 17 indicators have been suggested to ensure that soil and water quality at the site is maintained and enhanced (including acceptable deviation limits in soil biogeochemistry indicators and water quality indicators); 10 indicators to ensure biodiversity conservation and maintenance of floral and faunal value of the site; 5 indicators on energy and emissions to ensure net GHG reduction; and 14 socioeconomic indicators to ensure that cellulosic ethanol produced from pine is economically beneficial and socially acceptable. The framework comprises of suite of indicators which are qualitative and quantitative in nature based on the type data availability. This framework can be customized to suit other forest species as well as other sources of bioenergy such as corn or switchgrass.
Under the project two case studies were prepared for cellulosic ethanol production from slash pine (Pinus elliottii) in Florida. The former dealt with preliminary life cycle analyses for producing bioenergy using two-stage dilute sulfuric acid hydrolysis technology, while latter calculated unit cost (the point where Net Present Value of cellulosic ethanol becomes zero) of ethanol at 10% discount rate. The results from these case studies are outlined below:
Energy use: For producing 100 litres of cellulosic ethanol within the system boundary, total energy use for came out to be 7,083 MJ. Here, energy obtained from lignin was not accounted for as lignin is co-product of ethanol production. It was also found that majority of the total energy used within the system boundary was in the form of embodied energy (about 54%). Through life cycle analyses, it was determined that the maximum energy consumption within the system was associated with diesel (4,429 MJ) accounted for maximum energy consumption followed by electricity (1,152 MJ) in ethanol production at the ethanol mill, ammonia (705 MJ) used in fermentation process at ethanol mill, and fertilizers (490 MJ) used at forestland, nursery, and orchard. All the above-mentioned four materials accounted for 95% of the total energy.
Net Energy Ratio (NER): The NER (total output energy/total input energy) of pine based ethanol was found to be 3.3 under the situation that co-products, produced at ethanol mill, are allocated on a volumetric basis. The calculated NER was significantly higher than NER of other bioenergy corn ethanol (1.25), ethanol obtained from corn stover (1.7) but was about 59% of the NER of switchgrass-based cellulosic ethanol.
Global warming impact (GWI): When system boundary was extended to include the use of ethanol in automobiles in the form of E85 (a mixture of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) for assessing the GWI, it was found that the net reduction in GWI, when compared to gasoline is about 53.31%. It is less than 60% as outlined in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The corresponding GWI values for other ethanol sources such as corn, corn stover, and switchgrass based ethanol were 12%, 65% and 90% respectively.
Unit cost of production: The unit cost of cellulosic ethanol came out to be $0.56/lt using a delivered feedstock cost of $36.52/Mg (green). When we incorporate the lower energy content of ethanol relative to gasoline, the cost of an energy equivalent liter of ethanol increased to $0.83/lt. The calculated unit cost value was higher than the value of ethanol produced from corn ($0.68/lt) and corn stover ($0.55/lt) but lower than switchgrass ($0.93/lt). It was found that the cost of biomass feedstock (42%) is the largest single contributor to the unit cost followed by initial project investment, fixed operating costs, and ammonia as next three largest contributors with 26%, 7%, and 7% contributions respectively.
The life cycle and unit cost analyses did not consider land use change effects. The economic analysis proposed in the second phase can be used to delineate land use change effects. These land use change can be integrated with these case studies at a later stage to improve their findings.
Conclusions:
Based on literature review and stakeholder inputs it is suggested that existing certification systems such as Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, American Tree Farm System can be appropriately revised to incorporate woody biomass issues. Strictness, extent and level of detail of the indicators so developed, can be adapted to local conditions and priorities. The benchmarks can also be revisited to arrive at measurable quantitative indicators to set the allowable limit or accepted deviations in soil and water quality as well as setting net GHG reduction and conversion ratio for pine based bioenergy. These revisions should be based on feedback gathered through field evidence and stakeholder responses.
Gathering evidence from the field as well as from the stakeholders regarding various concerns such as GHG balance, energy balance, sustainable forestry, biodiversity impact, job creation, equity issue, economic returns are necessary. There is also need to address potential landscape level impacts arising from aggregate land use change (involving both forested and agricultural landscapes) and incorporating market based mechanism such as cap and trade or voluntary market scheme such as Chicago Climate Exchange. Further work on life cycle analysis is also required in term of incorporating land use change effects as well as determining sensitivity of different forest management options towards GWI and NER. These evidences can act as policy inputs for the government and guiding principles for other stakeholders such as industry, landowners, foresters, biomass buyers, loggers and site preparation and reforestation contractors.
Proposed Phase II Objectives and Strategies:
The first phase approach was based on an implicit second phase scaling up. The second phase research, comprise of two parts-field assessment and economic analyses. The first part will empirically test the methodology developed in first phase, refine and fine tune it, to arrive at framework that can be used to certify biofuel production from pine forests. While, the latter part will assess impact on forest biomass based bioenergy production in the southern region under a cap and trade regime and associated land use change affects at regional and micro scale.
Field assessment of the developed framework will be conducted at two sites-one in Florida and other in Virginia. This assessment will be conducted in five steps namely: reviewing existing knowledge of the forest site; identifying the system boundaries of the sites; preparing for on-site analyses; on-site data collections and validation; evaluation and analyses of field information; and conducting sensitivity analyses to determine factors that are critical for particular sustainability indicator. Pilot testing sustainability framework will aid in fine tuning the framework and expose the practical difficulties of applying indicators.
The first step involves selection of the field site and collecting information with the landowner such as stand density and age, level of fertilization, current management and harvesting plan, silvicultural regimes, inputs and machinery used, costs and financial returns, floral and faunal species, critical wildlife habitats. Relevant information will also be collected and governments agencies such as USFS. In the second step, system boundary will be drawn in term of supply chain of cellulosic biofuels (whether assessment considers the biomass production or processing as well or); spatial (whether assessment considers just the landowners area or nearby rivers, streams that can be potentially impacted by biomass harvesting or bioenergy production); and processes (such as silvicultural operations, fertilizer and chemicals etc.) and the impacts (for e.g. direct or indirect land use impacts) that are included in the assessment.
Under step three and four of field assessment, sampling sub-plots will be established in two sites based on key landscape features, forest stand stages, and management strategies. Soil and water samples will be collected three times at sites- pre-harvest, immediate post harvest and eight months after post harvest. The data on soil and water will be gathered in terms of soil biogeochemistry and water quality. The control samples from an adjacent area that represents a natural or undisturbed forest stand will also be collected. Information on biodiversity, energy and emissions and socio-economic attributes will be collected as well. In step five, the sustainability indicators will be divided into one of three categories: Class I or high importance, Class II or moderate importance, and Class III or regular importance. The classification above will be based on the site-specific vulnerability for soil and water, biodiversity, socio-economic and energy and emissions attributes. The observed performance for each indicator so developed will be compared against the expected performance. In the last step, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to look at the advantages and disadvantages of selected forest management options available to landowners.
Under second part of Phase II project, an economic analyses will be conducted that can be interpolated at the site level to delineate per unit (hectare) benefit to the landowner. Under an assumption that cap and trade regime is implemented in U.S., an optimization model (such as FASOM-GHG) will be used to assess land use change, associated emissions and carbon market effects. Different scenarios will be developed based on term of carbon sequestration benefits ($/tCO2); eligible activities such as afforestation, sustainable management of forests, forest biomass based bioenergy production (from bioenergy feedstock production to ethanol production at processing plant); and different cap and trade options. Based on developed scenarios, biofuels production levels and associated emission will be assessed at national level. Information for southern region will be culled out in the next step to help estimate potential of Southern forest lands for bioenergy based emission reduction and the associated impacts on income distribution, prices, employment, and forest based industries. The regional level results will be interpolated at the micro level to arrive at economic returns for landowners.
The approach proposed above is based on certain key principles, namely, tapping into wider experiences and learning in the domain of forestry certification; regular interactions with stakeholders throughout the duration of the project; and most of all focusing on complementarities and relations between different disciplines in which these indexes are rooted.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 2 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Bioethanol, feedstock production and conversion, biomass supply chain, clean technologies, land use change, water quality, soil quality, cost benefit analyses, life cycle assessment, wood crop rotation, biofuel sustainability framework, economic efficiency, carbon cap and trade, biofuel indicators, bioenergy certification, biofuel certification inventory, net social benefits, economic welfare change, GHG, soil degradation, fuel efficiency, biodiesel, alternative energy, carbon emissions, RFA, pollution prevention, biomass, environmental sustainability, sustainable development, biodiesel fuel, alternative materials, energy efficiency, Sustainable Industry/Business, RFA, Scientific Discipline, POLLUTION PREVENTION, Technology for Sustainable Environment, Sustainable Environment, Environmental Chemistry, Energy, energy technology, alternative energy source, environmental sustainability, sustainable development, bio-based energy, alternative materials, biodiesel fuel, biomass, energy efficiencyRelevant Websites:
http://www.pinchot.org/uploads/download?fileId=247
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.