Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Energy Return on Investment (EROI), Liquid Fuel Production, and Consequences for Wildlife

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation

  • 1014 Accesses

Abstract

Current liquid-fuel supplies in the United States are derived primarily from relatively inexpensive fossil fuels. The low cost and widespread availability of petroleum has, over the last 150 years, facilitated enormous growth in the U.S. and global economies, in their respective human populations and resource consumption, and in their attendant impacts on ecosystems worldwide. Concerns are growing, however, as to whether alternative fuel sources can fill the void left by future declines in the supply of this inexpensive and energy-rich resource, concepts expressed in phrases such as “Peak Oil,” “end of cheap oil,” and “second half of the age of oil.”

A key concept in the assessment of current and future fuel supplies is the Energy Return on Investment (EROI), the amount of energy used in the extraction and processing of a fuel source divided by the energy gained from these activities. The EROI of petroleum was as high as 80:1 — 100:1 in the first third of the 20th century. However, both the quantity of oil remaining to be exploited and its EROI are declining to from 10:1 to 20:1. Biomass is being promoted as a renewable feedstock that can be used to produce liquid fuels as a domestic alternative to current petroleum-based liquid fuels, which are derived mostly and increasingly from imported sources. However, our summary shows that the EROI of liquid fuels from different alternative sources varies from less than 1:1 to about 10:1, far less than even present day petroleum. In addition, the potential supply from these sources is limited and is projected to replace no more than 30% of current petroleum use in the U.S. by 2030 under very optimistic assumptions. These lower grade resources are expected to have greater impacts on wildlife per unit delivered to society than present fuels, primarily due to the extensive nature of the resource and the potential conversion of forested lands to agriculture. While the production of large amounts of biomass feedstocks has the potential to add a modest amount of badly needed liquid fuel to our national supplies, there are sustainability, biodiversity, climate change, and water resource issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure that these resources are used as effectively as possible and with the least negative impact. Here we review the literature on several major potential biomass-based liquid fuels for use in the U.S.: corn ethanol, sugar-cane ethanol, lignocellulosic ethanol, and vegetable oil biodiesel. For each, we summarize the fuel’s EROI, potential magnitude, and potential impacts on the environment and wildlife.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Adelman MA, Lynch MC (1997) Fixed view of resource limits creates undue pessimism. Oil Gas J 95:56–60

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alén R (2000) Structure and chemical composition of wood. In: Stenius P (ed) Forest products chemistry (papermaking science and technology, book 3). TAPPI Fapet Oy, Helsinki, pp 12–57

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amidon TE (2006) The biorefinery in New York: woody biomass into commercial ethanol. Pulp Pap Can 107:T150–T153 (147–150)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amidon TE, Wood CD, Shupe AM, Wang Y, Graves M, Liu S (2008) Biorefinery: conversion of woody biomass to chemicals, energy and materials. J Biobased Mater Bioenerg 2:100–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ash M, Dohlman E (2006) Oil crops situation and annual outlook yearbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture OCS-2006

    Google Scholar 

  6. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) (2007). http://www.peakoil.net/Default.htm. Accessed 3 Aug 2007

  7. Best LB, Campa H, Kemp KE, Robel RJ, Ryan MR, Savidge JA, Weeks HP, Winterstein SR (1997) Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the Midwest: a regional approach. Wildl Soc Bull 25:864–877

    Google Scholar 

  8. Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB) (2008) National biofuels action plan. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biomass Research Development Board. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/nbap.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2010.

  9. Boddey R, Oliveira M, Urquiaga S, Reis V (1995) Biological nitrogen fixation in sugar cane: a key to energetically viable biofuel production. Plant Soil 174:195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In: Jarrett H (ed) Environmental quality in a growing economy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 3–14

    Google Scholar 

  11. Braunbeck O, Bauen A, Rosillo-Calle F, Cortez I (1999) Prospects for green cane harvesting and cane residue use in Brazil. Biomass Bioenerg 17:495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell CJ, Laherrère JH. (1998). The end of cheap oil. Scientific Am March:78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleveland CJ (2005) Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States. Energy Int J 30:769–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cleveland CJ, O’Connor PA (2011) Energy return on investment (EROI) of oil shale. Sustainability 3:2307–2322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cleveland CJ, Constanza R, Hall CAS, Kauffmann R (1984) Energy and the U.S. economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225:890–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cleveland C, Hall CAS, Herendeen R (2006) Energy returns on ethanol production. Science (letters) 312:1746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clyde N (2004) Canola prices will stay strong through ’04. Canola Digest (March/April). Canola Council of Canada, Winnipeg.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cortez LAB, Rosillo-Calle F. (1998). Towards ProAlcool II: a review of the Brazilian bioethanol programme. Biomass Bioenerg 14:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Czech B (2000) Shoveling fuel for a runaway train: errant economists, shameful spenders, and a plan to stop them all. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  20. Czech B (2008) Prospects for reconciling the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological progress. Conserv Biol 22:1389–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis A, Gold R (2009) U.S. biofuel boom running on empty. Wall Str J (Aug 27). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125133578177462487.html. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  22. Deffeyes KJ (2005) Beyond oil: the view from Hubbert’s peak. Hill and Wang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dhondt AA, Wrege PH (2003) Avian biodiversity studies in short-rotation woody crops. Final report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative agreement No. DE-FC36-96GO10132. Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dhondt AA, Wrege PH, Sydenstricker KV, Cerretani J (2004) Clone preference by nesting birds in short-rotation coppice plantations in central and western New York. Biomass Bioenerg 27:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG, Alvarez PJ (2009) The water footprint of biofuels: a drink or drive issue? Environ Sci Technol 43:3005–3010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Downing M, McLaughlin S, Walsh M (1995) Energy, economic, and environmental implications of production of grasses as biomass feedstock. In: Proceedings, second biomass conference of the Americas: energy, environment, agriculture, and industry. Meeting held 21–24 Aug 1995, Portland, Oregon. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado, USA, pp 288–297

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ebringerova A, Heinze T (2000) Naturally occurring xylans: structures, isolation procedures, and properties. Macromol Rapid Commun 21:542–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, Ortare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 31:506–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Phalan B (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:538–545

    Google Scholar 

  31. Foreman L, Livezey J (2002) Characteristics and production costs of U.S. soybean farms. U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Bulletin No. 974-4

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fukuda H, Kondo A, Noda H (2001) Biodiesel fuel production by transesterification of oils. J BioSci Bioeng 92:403–416

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gagnon N, Hall CAS, Brinker L (2009) A preliminary investigation of energy return on energy invested for global oil and gas production. Energies 2:490–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldenberg J, Moreira J (1999) The alcohol program. Energy Policy 27:229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldenberg J, Coelho ST, Nastari PM, Lucon O (2004) The ethanol learning curve-the Brazilian experience. Biomass Bioenerg 26:301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Graboski MS, McCormick RL (1998) Combustion of fat and vegetable oil derived fuels in diesel engines. Prog Energy Combust Sci 24:301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Guilford MC, Hall CAS, O’Connor P, Cleveland CJ (2011) A new long term assessment of energy return on investment (EROI) for U.S. oil and gas discovery and production. Sustainability 3:1866–1887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WC, Foglia TA (2006) A process model to estimate biodiesel production costs. Bioresour Technol 97:671–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hall CAS (1972) Migration and metabolism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecology 53:585–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hall C (2011) Introduction to special issue on new studies in EROI (Energy Return on Investment). Sustainability 3:1773–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hall CAS, Benemann JR (2011) Oil from algae? BioScience 61:741–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hall CAS, Day JW (2009) Revisiting the limits to growth after Peak Oil. Am Sci 97:230–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hall CAS, Klitgaard K (2012) Energy and the wealth of nations: understanding the biophysical economy. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Hall CAS, Cleveland CJ, Kaufmann R (1986) Energy and resource quality: the ecology of the economic process. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hall CAS, Balogh S, Murphy D (2009) What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have? Energies 2:25–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hall CAS, Dale BE, Pimentel D (2011) Seeking to understand the reasons for different energy return on investment (EROI) estimates for biofuels. Sustainability 3:2413–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hamelinck C, Faaij A, den Uil H, Boerrigter H (2004) Production of Fischer-Trosch transportation fuels from biomass. Energy 29:1743–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hammerschlag R (2006) Ethanol’s energy return on investment: a survey of the literature 1990-present. Environ Sci Technol 40:1744–1750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hill J (2007) Environmental costs and benefits of transportation biofuel production from food- and lignocullulose-based energy crops: a review. Agronom Sustain Dev 27:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:11206–11210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hirsch RL, Bezdek RH, Wendling RM (2005) Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation and risk management. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Unpublished Report. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2010

  52. Hopkinson CS, Day JW (1980) Net energy analysis of alcohol production from sugarcane. Science 207:302–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Inderwildi OI, King DA (2009) Quo vadis biofuels? Energy Environ Sci 2:343–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011) Technology roadmap: biofuels for transport. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Biofuels_Roadmap.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2013

  55. International Network for Sustainable Energy (INFORSE) (2006) Alternative fuels for transportation: ethanol. http://www.inforse.dk/europe/dieret/altfuels/ethanol.htm. Accessed 2 Aug 2007

  56. Jeffries TW, Jin Y-S (2000) Ethanol and thermotolerance in the bioconversion of xylose by yeasts. Adv Appl Microbiol 47:221–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jin Y-S, Laplaza J, Jeffries T (2004) Saccharomyces cerevisiae engineered for xylose metabolism exhibits a respiratory response. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 70:6816–6825

    Google Scholar 

  58. Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:385–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kim S, Holtzapple MT (2005) Lime pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:1994–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kim TH, Lee YY (2005) Pretreatment and fractionation of corn stover by ammonia recycle percolation process. Bioresour Technol 96:2007–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Koh LP, Wilcove DS (2008) Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conserv Lett 1:60–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lave LB, Griffin WM (2006) Import ethanol, not oil. Issues Sci Technol 22:40–42

    Google Scholar 

  63. Liebig MA, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Soil carbon storage by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenergy Res 1:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Liu C, Wyman CE (2005) Partial flow of compressed-hot water through corn stover to enhance hemicellulose sugar recovery and enzymatic digestibility of cellulose. Bioresour Technol 96:1978–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lloyd TA, Wyman CE (2005) Combined sugar yields for dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment of corn stover followed by enzymatic hydrolysis of the remaining solids. Bioresour Technol 96:1967–1977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Londo M, Dekker J, ter Keurs W (2005) Willow short-rotation coppice for energy and breeding birds: an exploration of potentials in relation to management. Biomass Bioenerg 28:281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lynch MC (2002) Forecasting oil supply: theory and practice. Quart Rev Econ Financ 42:373–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lynd LR (1996) Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass. Annu Rev Energy Environ 21:403–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lynd LR, Wang MQ (2004) A product-nonspecific framework for evaluating the potential biomass-based products to displace fossil fuels. J Ind Ecol 7:17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ma F, Hanna MA (1999) Biodiesel production: a review. Bioresour Technol 70:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Macedo IC (1998) Greenhouse gas emission and energy balances in bio-ethanol production and utilization in Brazil (1996). Biomass Bioenerg 14:77–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Maciel M (2006) Ethanol from Brazil and the USA. ASPO-USA/Energy Bulletin. Paper presented at ASPO-USA 2006 Peak Oil Conference, 26–27 Oct, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maguire K (2012) Prices or politics? The influence of markets and political party changes on oil and gas development in the Unitied States. Energy Econ 34:2013–2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Malcolm S, Aillery M (2009) Growing crops for biofuels has spillover effects. Amber Waves, March 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March09/Features/Biofuels.htm. Accessed 30 July 2010

  75. Milbrandt A (2005) A geographic perspective on the current biomass resource availability in the United States. NREL/TP-560-39181. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mok WSL, Antal MJ Jr (1992). Uncatalyzed solvolysis of whole biomass hemicellulose by hot compressed liquid water. Ind Eng Chem Res 31:1157–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mosier N, Hendrickson R, Ho N, Sedlak M, Ladisch MR (2005) Optimization of pH controlled liquid hot water pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:1986–1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Murphy DJ, Hall CAS, Dale M, Cleveland C (2011a) Order from chaos: a preliminary protocol for determining the EROI of fuels. Sustainability 3:1888–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Murphy DJ, Hall CAS, Powers B (2011b) New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol. Environ Dev Sustain 13:179–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Murray LD, Best LB, Jacobsen TJ, Braster ML (2003) Potential effects on grassland birds of converting marginal cropland to switchgrass biomass production. Biomass Bioenerg 25:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) (2012) Corn. Rooted in history. 2012 world of corn. http://www.ncga.com/uploads/useruploads/woc_2012.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2012

  82. National Energy Board (NEB) (2005) Response to David Pimentel biodiesel life analysis. http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/etcfc/docs/pr/PimentelStudy-NBBDetailedResponse~July05.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2007

  83. Nelson RG, Schrock MD (2006) Energetic and economic feasibility associated with the production, processing, and conversion of beef tallow to a substitute diesel fuel. Biomass Bioenerg 30:584–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Oliveira de MED, Vaughan BE, Rykiel EJ Jr (2005) Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. BioScience 55:593–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Odum HT (1971) Environment, power, and society. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  86. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. ORNL/TM-2005/66. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pimentel D, Patzek TW (2005) Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat Resour Res 14:65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Poisson A, Hall CAS (in press) Time series EROI for Canadian oil, gas, and tar sands. Energies

    Google Scholar 

  89. Radich A (2004) Biodiesel performance, costs, and use. Energy information analysis paper http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/index.html. Accessed 2 Aug 2007

  90. Rodenhouse NL, Best LB, O’Connor RJ, Bollinger EK (1995) Effects of agriculture practices and farmland structures. In: Martin TE, Finch DM (eds) Ecology and management of neotropical birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 269–293

    Google Scholar 

  91. Roth AM, Sample DW, Ribic CA, Paine L, Undersander DJ, Bartelt GA (2005) Grassland bird response to harvesting switchgrass as a biomass energy crop. Biomass Bioenerg 28:490–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sage RB, Robertson PA (1996) Factors affecting songbird communities using new short rotation coppice habitats in spring. Bird Study 43:201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Semere T, Slater FM (2007) Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus  ×  giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass Bioenerg 31:20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Shapouri H, Salassi M (2006) The economic feasibility of ethanol production from sugar in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, and Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

    Google Scholar 

  95. Shapouri H, Duffield JA, Wang M (2002) The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 814

    Google Scholar 

  96. Shay EG (1993) Diesel fuel from vegetable oils: status and opportunities. Biomass Bioenerg 4:227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Sheehan J, Camobreco V, Duffield J, Graboski M, Shapouri H (1998) Life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus. Final report. NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA

    Google Scholar 

  98. Shiflet TN, Darby GM (1985) Forages and soil conservation. In: Heath ME, Barnes RF, Metcalfe DS (eds) Forages: the science of grassland agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 21–32

    Google Scholar 

  99. Solomon BD, Barnes JR, Halvorsen KE. (2007). Grain and cellulosic ethanol: history, economics, and energy policy. Biomass Bioenerg 31:416–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Teymouri F, Laureono-Perez L, Alizedeh H, Dale BE (2005) Optimization of the ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX) treatment parameters for enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:2014–2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomes. Science 314:1598–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2006) EU-25. Oilseeds and products. EU rapeseed crop reaches record levels as biofuels market boost demand. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report Number: E36035

    Google Scholar 

  103. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2006) Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: a joint research agenda. DOE/SC-0095. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://genomicscience.energy.gov/biofuels/2005workshop/2005low_bioprocess.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2010

  104. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. R. D. Perlack and B. J. Stokes, leads. ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  105. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2006) Eliminating MTBE in gasoline in 2006. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2006/mtbe2006/mtbe2006.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2010

  106. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012a) Annual energy review 2012. DOE/EIA-0383. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed 21 Sept 2012

  107. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012b) Petroleum products consumption. Petroleum supply annual 2006, Volume 1. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/annual/volume1/. Accessed 2 Oct 2012

  108. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012c) U.S. crude oil, natural gas, and ng liquids proved reserves report. http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/index.cfm. Accessed 25 Feb 2013

  109. U.S. Environmental Protecton Agency (EPA) (2002) Comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions. EPA420-P-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  110. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2000) World energy assessment team: the world energy assessment 2000. U.S. Geological Survey digital data series 60, version 2.1.

    Google Scholar 

  111. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2004) World energy assessment overview: 2004 update. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Energy Council, New York

    Google Scholar 

  112. Van Gerpen J, Soylu S, Tat M (1999) Evaluation of the lubricity of soybean oil-based additives in diesel fuel. ASAE Paper No. 996134. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1999 Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  113. Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2:411–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Walter WD, Vercauteren KC, Gilsdorf JM, Hygnstrom SE (2009) Crop, native vegetation, and biofuels: response of white-tailed deer to changing management priorities. J Wildl Manage 73:339–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Wang M (1999) ANL/ESD-39; GREET 1.5-transportation fuel-cycle model vol.1: methodology, development, use, and results. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne

    Google Scholar 

  116. West TO, Marland G (2002) A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agric Ecosyst Environ 91:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Westcott PC 2007. Ethanol expansion in the United States: how will the agricultural sector adjust? FDS-07D-01. U.S. Department of Agriculure, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  118. White LA (1959) The evolution of culture: the development of civilization to the fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  119. Wu M, Wu Y, Wang M (2006) Energy and emission benefits of alternative transportation liquid fuels derived from switchgrass: a fuel life cycle assessment. Biotechnol Progr 22:1012–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York (SUNY), 1 Forestry Drive, 13210, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Jason M. Townsend, Charles A. S. Hall, Timothy A. Volk, David Murphy, Godfrey Ofezu, Bobby Powers, Amos Quaye & Michelle Serapiglia

Authors
  1. Jason M. Townsend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles A. S. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy A. Volk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Godfrey Ofezu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bobby Powers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Amos Quaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michelle Serapiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason M. Townsend .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland Center for Enviro Appalachian Laboratory, Frostburg, Maryland, USA

    J. Edward Gates

  2. University of Maryland Center for Enviro Appalachian Laboratory, Frostburg, Maryland, USA

    David L. Trauger

  3. Center for the Advancement of the Steady, Arlington, Virginia, USA

    Brian Czech

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Townsend, J. et al. (2014). Energy Return on Investment (EROI), Liquid Fuel Production, and Consequences for Wildlife. In: Gates, J., Trauger, D., Czech, B. (eds) Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1954-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1954-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1953-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1954-3

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation