BioEnergy Research

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 258–275 | Cite as

Agent-Based Analysis of Biomass Feedstock Production Dynamics

  • Yogendra Shastri
  • Luis Rodríguez
  • Alan Hansen
  • K. C. Ting
Article

Abstract

The success of the bioenergy sector based on lignocellulosic feedstock will require a sustainable and resilient transition from the current agricultural system focused on food crops to one also producing energy crops. The dynamics of this transition are not well understood. It will be driven significantly by the collective participation, behavior, and interaction of various stakeholders such as farmers within the production system. The objective of this work is to study the system dynamics through the development and application of an agent-based model using the theory of complex adaptive systems. Farmers and biorefinery, two key stakeholders in the system, are modeled as independent agents. The decision making of each agent as well as its interaction with other agents is modeled using a set of rules reflecting the economic, social, and personal attributes of the agent. These rules and model parameters are adapted from literature. Regulatory mechanisms such as Biomass Crop Assistance Program are embedded in the decision-making process. The model is then used to simulate the production of Miscanthus as an energy crop in Illinois. Particular focus has been given on understanding the dynamics of Miscanthus adaptation as an agricultural crop and its impact on biorefinery capacity and contractual agreements. Results showed that only 60% of the maximum regional production capacity could be reached, and it took up to 15 years to establish that capacity. A 25% reduction in the land opportunity cost led to a 63% increase in the steady- state productivity. Sensitivity analysis showed that higher initial conversion of land by farmers to grow energy crop led to faster growth in regional productivity.

Keywords

Agent-based model Bioenergy feedstock Dynamics Miscanthus Stakeholder 

References

  1. 1.
    Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Tech. Rep. DOE/GO-102005-2135, ORNL/TM-2005/66 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TNGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Somerville C (2006) The billion-ton biofuels vision. Science 312:1277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koonin SE (2006) Getting serious about biofuels. Science 311:435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cushman JH, Easterly JL, Erbach DC et al (2003) Roadmap for agriculture biomass feedstock supply in the United States. Tech. Rep. DOE/NE ID - 11129 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Somerville C, Young H, Taylor C, Davis S, Long S (2010) Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329:790–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rossi AM, Hinrichs CC (2011) Hope and skepticism: farmer and local community views on the socio-economic benefits of agricultural bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 35(4):1418–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain A, Khanna M, Erickson M, Huang H (2010) An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 2:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khanna M, Dhungana B, Clifton-Brown J (2008) Costs of producing Miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walsh M, De La Torre Ugarte D, Shapouri H, Slinsky S (2003) Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 24:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De La Torre Ugarte DG, Ray D (2000) Biomass and bioenergy applications of the POLYSYS modeling framework. Biomass Bioenergy 18:291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shastri Y, Hansen A, Rodriguez L, Ting K (2011) Development and application of BioFeed model for optimization of herbeceous biomass feedstock production. Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):2961–2974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shastri Y, Hansen A, Rodriguez L, Ting K (2011) Optimization of Miscanthus harvesting and handling as an energy crop: BioFeed model application. Biol Eng 3(1):37–69Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sokhansanj S, Mani S, Turhollow A et al (2009) Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)—current technology and envisioning a mature technology. Biofuel Bioprod Bioref 3:124–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bitra VS, Womac AR, Igathinathane C et al (2009) Direct measures of mechanical energy for knife mill size reduction of switchgrass, wheat straw, and corn stover. Bioresour Technol 100(24):6578–6585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burns J, Fisher D, Pond K (1993) Ensiling characteristics and utilization of switchgrass preserved as silage. Postharvest Biol Technol 3(4):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravula P, Grisso R, Cundiff J (2008) Comparison between two policy strategies for scheduling trucks in a biomass logistic system. Bioresour Technol 99:5710–5721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mapemba LD, Epplin FM, Huhnke RL, Taliaferro CM (2008) Herbaceous plant biomass harvest and delivery cost with harvest segmented by month and number of harvest machines endogenously determined. Biomass Bioenergy 32:1016–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petrolia DR (2008) The economics of harvesting and transporting corn stover for conversion to fuel ethanol: a case study for Minnesota. Biomass Bioenergy 32(7):603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tyndall JC, Berg EJ, Colletti JP (2011) Corn stover as a biofuel feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: an Iowa farmer survey. Biomass Bioenergy 35(4):1485–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paulrud S, Laitila T (2010) Farmers’ attitudes about growing energy crops: a choice experiment approach. Biomass Bioenergy 34(12):1770–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rämö AK, Järvinen E, Latvala T, Toivonen R, Silvennoinen H (2009) Interest in energy wood and energy crop production among Finnish non-industrial private forest owners. Biomass Bioenergy 33(9):1251–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wen Z, Ignosh J, Parrish D, Stowe J, Jones B (2009) Identifying farmers’ interest in growing switchgrass for bioenergy in southern Virginia. J Ext 47(5):1–10Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Villamil MB, Silvis AH, Bollero GA (2008) Potential Miscanthus’ adoption in Illinois: information needs and preferred information channels. Biomass Bioenergy 32(12):1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jensen K, Clark CD, Ellis P et al (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 31(11–12):773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guckenheimer J, Ottino J (2008) Foundations for complex systems research in the physical sciences and engineering. Tech. Rep. National Science FoundationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lucia A (2010) Multi-scale methods and complex processes: a survey and look ahead. Comput Chem Eng 34:1467–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li J, Kwauk M (2003) Exploring complex systems in chemical engineering—the multi-scale methodology. Chem Eng Sci 58:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ottino J (2003) Complex systems. AIChE J 49(2):292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srbljinovic A, Skunca O (2003) An introduction to agent based modelling and simulation of social processes. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 1(1–2):1–8Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kempener R, Beck J, Petrie J (2009) Design and analysis of bioenergy networks: a complex adaptive systems approach. J Ind Ecol 13(2):284–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beck J, Kempener R, Cohen B, Petrie J (2008) A complex systems approach to planning, optimization and decision making for energy networks. Energy Policy 36:2795–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bing Z, Qinqin Y, Jun B (2010) Policy design and performance of emissions trading markets: an adaptive agent-based analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44:5693–5699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Happe K, Kellermann K, Balmann A (2006) Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: an illustration of the Agricultural Policy Simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation and behavior. Ecol Soc 11(1):49–74Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lobianco A, Esposti R (2010) The regional multi-agent simulator (RegMAS): an open-source spatially explicit model to assess the impact of agricultural policies. Comput Electron Agric 72:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Julka N, Srinivasan R, Karimi I (2002) Agent-based supply chain management—1: framework. Comput Chem Eng 26:1755–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scheffran J, BenDor T (2009) Bioenergy and land use: a spatial-agent dynamic model of energy crop production in Illinois. Int J Environ Pol 39(1–2):4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bunn DW, Oliveira FS (2007) Agent-based analysis of technological diversification and specialization in electricity markets. Eur J Oper Res 181:1265–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jennings NR (2000) On agent-based software engineering. Artif Int 117:277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Booch G (1994) Object-oriented analysis and design with applications. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stubbs G (2010) Biomass crop assistance program (BCAP): status and issues. Tech. Rep. Congressional Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heaton E, Voigt T, Long S (2004) A quantitative review of comparing the yields of two candidate C4 biomass crops. Biomass Bioenergy 27:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kempener R, Kaufmann P, Stagl S, Stirling A, Perez K (2009) The role of agricultural diversity and rural sustainable development: a dynamic systems approach. Tech. Rep. Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial PlanningGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bellmann A (1997) Farm-based modelling of regional structural change: a cellular automata approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ 24(1):85–108Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shastri Y, Hansen A, Rodriguez L, Ting K (2011) A novel decomposition and distributed computing approach for the solution of large scale optimization models. Comput Electron Agric 76(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heaton E, Clifton-Brown J, Voigt T, Jones M, Long S (2004) Miscanthus for renewable energy generation: European union experience and projections for Illinois. Mit Adapt Strat Glob Change 9(4):433–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jones M, Walsh M (eds) (2001) Miscanthus for energy and fibre. James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lewandowski I, Scurlock JM, Lindvall E, Christou M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25:335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clifton-Brown J, Stampfel PF, Jones M (2004) Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions. Glob Chang Biol 10:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown J, Scurlock J, Huisman W (2000) Micanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 19(4):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yogendra Shastri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luis Rodríguez
    • 2
  • Alan Hansen
    • 2
  • K. C. Ting
    • 2
  1. 1.Energy Biosciences InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations