Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing Economic and Environmental Performance of Switchgrass Biofuel Supply Chains

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study optimized the net present value (NPV) of profit of various switchgrass-based ethanol supply chains and estimated associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in west Tennessee. Three configurations of feedstock harvesting and storage, including a large round baler system, a large square baler system, and a chopping/densification system, were evaluated. A mixed-integer mathematical programming model incorporating high-resolution spatial data was used to determine the optimal locations and capacities of cellulosic ethanol plants and feedstock preprocessing facilities, and associated feedstock-draw areas by maximizing the NPV of profit over 20 years. The optimized outputs were then used to estimate the GHG emissions produced in the biofuel supply chain (BSC) per year. The study shows that BSC configurations have important implications for the economic and environmental performance of the system. The harvest and storage configurations affect the locations of conversion and preprocessing facilities, and associated feedstock-draw areas, hence impacting the cost and emissions of both feedstock and biofuels transportation. The findings suggest the BSC system that harvests feedstock with forage choppers and utilizes stretch-wrap balers to increase feedstock density has the highest NPV of profit. The BSC system that uses large square balers for harvest and storage emits the lowest amount of GHGs per year. In addition, the sensitivity analysis suggests that biofuel price and scaling factor of facility capital was influential to the economics of BSC systems. The breakeven price of biofuel for the three BSCs was around $0.97 L−1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted, however, that the model is not overly sensitive to road type at the project level scale.

  2. Map of system (b) is not included because of the same location of conversion facilities and very similar feedstock-draw area as system (a), but is available from the authors upon request.

References

  1. U.S. Congress (2007) Energy independence and security act of 2007. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf . Accessed 5 March 2013

  2. U.S. Department of Energy (2007) Roadmap for bioenergy and biobased products in the United States. Report of the biomass research and development technical advisory committee. U.S. Department of Energy, Biomass Research and Development Initiative, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  3. An H, Wilhelm WE, Searcy SW (2011) Biofuel and petroleum-based fuel supply chain research: a literature review. Biomass Bioenergy 35:3763–3774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. De Meyer A, Cattrysse D, Rasinmaki J, van Orshoven J (2014) Methods to optimise the design and management of biomass-for-bioenergy supply chains: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 31:657–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu TE, Wang Z, English BC, Larson JA (2014) Designing a dedicated energy crop supply system in Tennessee: a multiobjective optimization analysis. J Agric Appl Econ 46(3):357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharma B, Ingalls R, Jones C, Khanchi A (2013) Biomass supply chain design and analysis: basis, overview, modeling, challenges, and future. Renew Sust Energ Rev 24:608–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar A, Sokhansanj S (2007) Switchgrass (Panicum vigratum, L) delivery to a biorefinery using integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model. Bioresour Technol 98:1033–1044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Turhollow A, Kumar A, Bransby D, Lynd L, Laser M (2009) Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (Panicum Virgatum L) – current technology and envisioning a mature technology. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 3:124–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Larson JA, Yu T, English BC, Mooney DF, Wang C (2010) Cost evaluation of alternative switchgrass producing, harvesting, storing, and transporting systems and their logistics in the southeastern US. Agric Financ Rev 70:184–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang J, Osmani A, Awudu I, Gonela V (2013) An integrated optimization model for switchgrass-based bioethanol supply chain. Appl Energy 102:1205–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaliyan N, Morey RV, Tiffany DG (2015) Economic and environmental analysis for corn stover and switchgrass supply logistics. Bioenerg Res 8:1433–1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Daystar J, Gonzalez CR, Venditti RA, Treasure T, Abt R, Kelley S (2014) Economics, environmental impacts, and supply chain analysis of cellulosic biomass for biofuels in the southern US: pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged hardwoods, forest residues, switchgrass, and sweet sorghum. Bioresources 9:393–444

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jäppinen E, Korpinen OJ, Ranta T (2013) The effects of local biomass availability and possibilities for truck and train transportation on the greenhouse gas emissions of a small-diameter energy wood supply chain. Bioenerg Res 6:166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Archer DW, Johnson M (2012) Evaluating local crop residue biomass supply: economic and environmental impacts. Bioenerg Res 5:699–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jäppinen, E, Korpinen OJ, Ranta T (2011) Effects of local biomass availability and road network properties on the greenhouse gas emissions of biomass supply chain. ISRN Renewable Energy. Article ID 189734: 6 pages

  16. Wright L, Turhollow A (2010) Switchgrass selection as a “model” bioenergy crop: a history of the process. Biomass Bioenergy 34:851–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Humbird, D, Davis R, Tao L, Kinchin C, Hsu D, Aden A, Schoen P, Lukas J, Olthof B, Worley M, Sexton D, Dudgeon D (2011) Process design and economics for biochemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Harris Group. Technical Report No. NREL/TP-5100-47764 May

  18. McLaughlin SB, Kszos LA (2005) Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 28:515–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mooney DF, Larson JA, English BC, Tyler DD (2012) Effect of dry matter loss on profitability of outdoor storage of switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 44:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu TE, He L, English BC, Larson JA (2014) GIS-based optimization for advanced biofuels supply chains: a case study in Tennessee. Lecture Notes Manag Sci 6:217–227

    Google Scholar 

  21. Song F, Zhao J, Swinton SM (2011) Switching to perennial energy crops under uncertainty and costly reversibility. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):768–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jager HI, Baskaran LM, Brandt CC, Davis EB, Gunderson CA, Wullschleger SD (2010) Empirical geographic modeling of switchgrass yields in the United States. GCB Bioenergy 2:248–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2011) CropScape−Cropland Data Layer Database. Available at: http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape. Accessed 18 February 2013

  24. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nature Resources Conservation Service (2012) Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/. Accessed 25 April 2012

  25. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2010) Crop values: 2010 summary. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-16-2011.pdf. Accessed 29 November 29 2013

  26. USDA NASS (2012) Tennessee farm facts. Vol. 12;14. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Tennessee/Publications/Farm_Facts/ff091812.pdf

  27. University of Tennessee Extension (2009) Guideline switchgrass establishment and annual production budgets over three year planning horizon, E12-4115-00-001-08, Knoxville, TN. Available at: http://economics.ag.utk.edu/budgets/2009/Switchgrass2009.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2013

  28. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Geographic Products Branch. (2012) Topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing (TIGER/Line®) Shapefiles. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger. Accessed 5 November 2012

  29. Höltinger S, Schmidt J, Schönhart M, Schmid E (2014) A spatially explicit techno-economic assessment of green biorefinery concepts. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 8:325–341. doi:10.1002/bbb.1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang MC, Saricks C, Santini D (1999) Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne

    Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014) Tennessee state energy profile. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=TN. Accessed 10 July 2014

  32. Donahue DJ, Meyer S, Thompson W (2010) RIN risks: using supply and demand behavior to assess risk in the markets for renewable identification numbers used for renewable fuel standard compliance. Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management. St. Louis, MO

  33. Parton WJ, Hartman M, Ojima D, Schimel D (1998) DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: description and testing. Glob Planet Chang 19:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Argonne National Laboratory (2013) The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation model (GREET). Available at: http://greet.es.anl.gov. Accessed 5 March 2013

  35. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014) State electricity profiles. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/tennessee/. Accessed 6 May 2014

  36. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the IPCC. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA

  37. Hsu D, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A (2010) Life cycle environmental impacts of selected US ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 44:5289–5297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Development of emission rates for heavy-duty vehicles in the motor vehicle emissions simulator MOVES2010—final report. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality: EPA-420-B-12-049. August 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm

  39. Jack MW (2009) Scaling laws and technology development strategies for biorefineries and bioenergy plants. Bioresour Technol 100:6324–6330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kocoloski M, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2011) Impacts of facility size and location decisions on ethanol production cost. Energy Policy 39:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haque M, Epplin FM, Biermacher JT, Holcomb RB, Kenke PL (2014) Marginal cost of delivering switchgrass feedstock and producing cellulosic ethanol at multiple biorefineries. Biomass Bioenergy 66:308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Khanna M, Dhungana B, Brown JC (2008) Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32:482–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kwon HY, Mueller S, Dunn JB, Wander MM (2013) Modeling state-level soil carbon emission factors under various scenarios for direct land use change associated with United States biofuel feedstock production. Biomass Bioenergy 55:299–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the US Department of Transportation (grant no. DT0S5907G00050). We would acknowledge the comments and edits provided by Dr. Roland Roberts and Mr. Robert Menard for the manuscript. We are also grateful for research assistance by Ms. Jia Zhong. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996-4518, USA

    T. Edward Yu, Burton C. English, Lixia He, James A. Larson & Brad Wilson

  2. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996-2313, USA

    James Calcagno & Joshua S. Fu

Authors
  1. T. Edward Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burton C. English
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lixia He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James A. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Calcagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joshua S. Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brad Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Edward Yu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by US Department of Transportation (grant no. DT0S5907G00050).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, T.E., English, B.C., He, L. et al. Analyzing Economic and Environmental Performance of Switchgrass Biofuel Supply Chains. Bioenerg. Res. 9, 566–577 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9699-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9699-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation