Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An Agent-Based Modeling Approach for Determining Corn Stover Removal Rate and Transboundary Effects

Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bioenergy production involves different agents with potentially different objectives, and an agent’s decision often has transboundary impacts on other agents along the bioenergy value chain. Understanding and estimating the transboundary impacts is essential to portraying the interactions among the different agents and in the search for the optimal configuration of the bioenergy value chain. We develop an agent-based model to mimic the decision making by feedstock producers and feedstock-to-biofuel conversion plant operators and propose multipliers (i.e., ratios of economic values accruing to different segments and associated agents in the value chain) for assessing the transboundary impacts. Our approach is generic and thus applicable to a variety of bioenergy production systems at different sites and geographic scales. We apply it to the case of producing ethanol using corn stover in Iowa, USA. The results from the case study indicate that stover removal rate is site specific and varies considerably with soil type, as well as other factors, such as stover price and harvesting cost. In addition, ethanol production using corn stover in the study region would have strong positive ripple effects, with the values of multipliers varying with greenhouse gas price and national energy security premium. The relatively high multiplier values suggest that a large portion of the value associated with corn stover ethanol production would accrue to the downstream end of the value chain instead of stover producers.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • Altman I, Sanders S (2012) Producer willingness and ability to supply biomass: evidence from the US Midwest. Biomass Bioenergy 36:176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Davis SC, Masters MD, Delucia EH (2009) Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. GCB Bioenergy 1:75–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Antares Group (2008) Strategic assessment of bioenergy development in the West: bioenergy conversion technology characteristics. Technical Report, Western Governors Association

  • Avila-Segura M, Barak P, Hedtcke JL, Posner JL (2011) Nutrient and alkalinity removal by corn grain, stover and cob harvest in upper midwest USA. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1190–1195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biemans M, Waarts Y, Nieto A, Goba V, Jones-Walters L, Zöckler C (2008) Impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity in Europe. ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Börjesson P (1999) Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden–I: identification and quantification. Biomass Bioenergy 16:137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S, Huntington HG (2010) Reassessing the oil security premium. RFF DP 10-05. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Transportation Research (2012) GREET life-cycle model: user guide. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production (2011) Renewable fuel standard: potential economic and environmental effects of U.S. biofuel policy. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Delucchi MA, Murphy JJ (2008) US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles. Energy Policy 36:2253–2264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitriou J, Aronsson P (2011) Wastewater and sewage sludge application to willows and poplars grown in lysimeters: plant response and treatment efficiency. Biomass Bioenergy 35:161–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2008) The climate and energy package. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2012

  • Feedstock Production Interagency Working Group (2011) Biomass feedstock best management practices: summary and research needs. http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/bioenergy_feedstocks_bmps.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2013

  • Gan J, McCarl BA (2010) Forestry and carbon: market, measurement and management. In: Gan J, Grado S, Munn I (eds) Global change and forestry: economic and policy impacts and responses. Nova Science, New York, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan J, Smith CT (2010) Coupling greenhouse gas credits with biofuel production cost in determining conversion plant size. Silva Fenn 44(3):497–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan J, Smith CT (2011) Optimal plant size and feedstock supply radius: a modeling approach to minimize bioenergy production costs. Biomass Bioenergy 35:3350–3359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldemberg J, Coelho ST, Guardabassi P (2008) The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36:2086–2097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idaho National Laboratory (2013) Bioenergy landscape design tool (beta). http://bioenergyldt.inl.gov/. Accessed 25 Sep 2013

  • IEA (2012) Golden rules for a golden age of gas. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/WEO2012_GoldenRulesReport.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2012

  • Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2013) Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf#page=1&zoom=190,0,796. Accessed 25 Sep 2013

  • Langeveld JWA, Quist-Wessel PMF, Dimitriou J, Aronsson P, Baum C, Schulz U, Bolte A, Baum S, Köhn J, Weih M, Gruss H, Leinweber P, Lamersdorf N, Schmidt-Walter P, Berndes G (2012) Assessing environmental impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) expansion: model definition and preliminary results. Energy Res 5:621–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiby P (2007) Estimating the energy security benefits of reduced US oil imports. ORNL/TM-2007/028. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontief WW (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Londo M, Lensink S, Wakker A, Fischer F, Prieler S, van Velthuizen H, de Wit M, Faaij A, Junginger M, Berndes G, Hansson J, Egeskog A, Duer H, Lundbaek J, Wisniewskif G, Kupczyk A (2010) The REFUEL EU road map for biofuels in transport: application of the project’s tools to some short-term policy issues. Biomass Bioenergy 34(2):244–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall L, Sugg Z (2009) Corn stover removal for ethanol production: potential and pitfalls. Policy note 4. World Resources Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Meki M, Marcos J, Atwood J, Norfleet L, Steglich E, Williams J, Gerik T (2011) Effects of site-specific factor on corn stover removal thresholds and subsequent environmental impacts in the upper Mississippi river basin. J Soil Water Conserv 66(6):386–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) Economic assessment of biofuel support policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels (2013) Project Liberty: a decade of cellulosic research. http://poet-dsm.com/liberty. Accessed 25 Sep 2013

  • Sawyer J, Mallarino A (2007) Nutrient removal when harvesting corn stover. Integr Crop Manag 498(22):251–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh Dillon H, Laan T, Setyaka Dillon H (2008) Biofuels—at what cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in Indonesia. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokhansanj S, Turhollow A, Cushman J, Cundiff J (2002) Engineering aspects of collecting corn stover for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 23:347–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern A, Doraiswamy P, Akhmedov B (2008) Crop rotation changes in Iowa due to ethanol production. In: Proceedings of geoscience and remote sensing symposium 2008, IGARSS 2008, IEEE International, vol 5, pp V200–V203

  • Thomas MA, Engel BA, Chaubey I (2011) Multiple corn stover removal rates for cellulosic biofuels and long-term water quality impacts. J Soil Water Conserv 66(6):431–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twomey KM, Stillwell AS, Webber ME (2010) The unintended energy impacts of increased nitrate contamination from biofuels production. J Environ Monit 12:218–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall JC, Berg E, Colletti JP (2011) Corn stover as a dedicated feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: an Iowa farmer survey. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1485–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Congress (2007) Energy independence and security act of 2007. Public law 110–140. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm. Accessed 19 Oct 2013

  • US Department of Energy (2011) US billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack RD and Stokes BJ (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

  • USDA Agricultural Research Service (2010) Revised universal soil loss equation 2—overview of RUSLE2. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/docs.htm?docid=6010. Accessed 10 Apr 2012

  • USDA Economic Research Service (2012) Fertilizer use and price. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/. Accessed 1 Apr 2012

  • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012) Soil data mart. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/SSURGOMetadata.aspx. Accessed 6 Apr 2012

  • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2013) Official NRCS RUSLE2 programs and official NRCS databases. http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Index.htm. Accessed 19 Oct 2013

  • Wilhelm WW, Johnson JMF, Hatfield JL, Voorhees WB, Linden DR (2004) Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: a literature review. Agron J 96(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported in part by IEA Bioenergy Task 43, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Energy, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, and the University of Toronto.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianbang Gan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gan, J., Langeveld, J.W.A. & Smith, C.T. An Agent-Based Modeling Approach for Determining Corn Stover Removal Rate and Transboundary Effects. Environmental Management 53, 333–342 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0208-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0208-4

Keywords

Navigation