This study conducted the updated simulations to depict a life cycle analysis (LCA) of the biodiesel production from soybeans and other feedstocks in the U.S. It addressed in details the interaction between LCA and induced land use change (ILUC) for biodiesel. Relative to the conventional petroleum diesel, soy biodiesel could achieve 76% reduction in GHG emissions without considering ILUC, or 66-72% reduction in overall GHG emissions when various ILUC cases were considered. Soy biodiesel's fossil fuel consumption rate was also 80% lower than its petroleum counterpart. Furthermore, this study examined the cause and the implication of each key parameter affecting biodiesel LCA results using a sensitivity analysis, which identified the hot spots for fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions of biodiesel so that future efforts can be made accordingly. Finally, biodiesel produced from other feedstocks (canola oil and tallow) were also investigated to contrast with soy biodiesel and petroleum diesel.

Camelina sativa could be a potential feedstock to help meet the U.S. biodiesel production goal of 36 billion gallons by 2022, as set forth by Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This research is focused on assessing the energy balance and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of camelina biodiesel production in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the U.S. Field data were collected from a camelina farm in the region, and crushing and transesterification data were measured using facilities at the University of Idaho. It was estimated that use of camelina biodiesel reduces GHG emissions by 69% compared to 2005 baseline diesel. However, camelina biodiesel does not meet the ASTM D6751 specification for oxidative stability without an additive. Camelina has a smaller seed size compared to canola and required 23% more energy for crushing. The net energy ratio for camelina biodiesel was found to be 3.6, and the fossil energy ratio was found to be 4.2. From an agronomic standpoint, camelina can be incorporated into low rainfall areas of the PNW as a rotational crop. Wheat areas of the PNW with annual rainfall of 19 to 38 cm that currently incorporate fallow into their rotations were considered as potential areas for camelina production. There were 846,500 ha (2.1 million acres) of land meeting the criteria in the region that could potentially produce 443.0 million L of biodiesel (117.1 million gal) and 1.2 billion kg of meal per year. This is 12.1% of the approved amount of camelina meal that could be used in livestock feed within the PNW. It was concluded that camelina biodiesel qualifies as an advanced biofuel, and camelina meal has potential to be consumed locally as a feed mix for livestock.

This study updates the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for soybean biodiesel with revised system boundaries and the inclusion of indirect land use change using the most current set of agricultural data. The updated results showed that life cycle GHG emission from biodiesel use was reduced by 81.2% compared to 2005 baseline diesel. When the impacts of lime application and soil N2O emissions were excluded for more direct comparison with prior results published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the reduction was 85.4%. This is a significant improvement over the 78.5% GHG reduction reported in the NREL study. Agricultural lime accounted for 50.6% of GHG from all agricultural inputs. Soil N2O accounted for 18.0% of total agricultural emissions. The improvement in overall GHG reduction was primarily due to lower agricultural energy usage and improved soybean crushing facilities. This study found that soybean meal and oil price data from the past ten years had a significant positive correlation (R-2 = 0.73); hence, it is argued that soybean meal and oil are both responsible for indirect land use change from increased soybean demand It is concluded that when there is a strong price correlation among co-products, system boundary expansion without a proper co-product allocation for indirect land use change produces erroneous results. When the emissions associated with predicted indirect land use change were allocated and incorporated using U.S. EPA model data, the GHG reduction for biodiesel was 76.4% lower than 2005 baseline diesel.

The first comprehensive life-cycle assessment (LCA) for soybean biodiesel produced in the U.S. was completed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 1998, and the energy inventory for this analysis was updated in 2009 using 2002 data. The continual adoption of new technologies in farming, soybean processing, and for biodiesel conversion affects the life-cycle energy use over time, requiring that LCA practitioners update their models as often as possible. This study uses the most recently available data to update the energy life-cycle of soybean biodiesel and makes comparisons with the two past studies. The updated analysis showed that the fossil energy ratio (FER) of soybean biodiesel was 5.54 using 2006 agricultural data. This is a major improvement over the FER of 3.2 reported in the 1998 NREL study that used 1990 agricultural data and significantly better than the FER of 4.56 reported using 2002 data. The improvements are primarily due to improved soybean yields and more energy-efficient soybean crushing and conversion facilities. The energy input in soybean agriculture was reduced by 52%, in soybean crushing by 58% and in transesterification by 33% per unit volume of biodiesel produced. Overall, the energy input reduction was 42% for the same amount of biodiesel produced. The addition of secondary inputs, such as farm machinery and building materials, did not have a significant effect on the FER. The FER of soybean biodiesel is likely to continue to improve over time because of increases in soybean yields and the development of increasingly energy-efficient technologies.

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 90, Issue 5 p. 1239-1240 Principal Paper Session Bioenergy in a Global Environment: Discussion James A. Duffield, James A. Duffield Senior agricultural economist Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Search for more papers by this author James A. Duffield, James A. Duffield Senior agricultural economist Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01210.x This article was presented in a principal paper session at the 2008 AAEA annual meeting in Orlando, FL. The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Babcock B. and L. McPhail Fuel Subsidies: Is There an Impact on Food Supply and Prices? Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Hearing on Fuel Subsidies and Impact on Food Prices 2008 May 7 June 2008 Available at: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Homee Glauber J. USDA Officials Briefing with Reporters on the Case for Food and Fuel 2008 May 19 June 2008 Available at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome Lazear E. Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on ‘Responding to the Global Food Crisis’ 2008 May 14 June 2008 Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/lazear20080514.html Volume90, Issue5December 2008Pages 1239-1240 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Although several studies have found biodiesel to be a renewable source of energy, there has been a claim that it is not. This article investigates models used to calculate the net energy ratio (NER) of biodiesel production to point out the reasons for the contradictory results, compares their strengths and weaknesses, and proposes a uniform model for interpretation of the final result. Four commonly referenced models were compared for their assumptions and results. The analysis revealed that the most significant factors in altering the results were the proportions of energy allocated between biodiesel and its coproducts. The lack of consistency in defining system boundaries has apparently led to very different results. The definitions of NER used among the models were also found to be different. A unified model is proposed for biodiesel energy analysis to answer the renewability question. Using the unified boundary, a range of probable NERs was calculated using bootstrapping. The mean NER on a mass basis was 2.55 with a standard deviation of 0.38. The economic sustainability ratio (ESR) is defined as the monetary value ratio of biodiesel to biodiesel's share of the energy inputs. The average ESR was found to be 4.43 with a standard deviation of 0.6.

Historically, renewable energy policies were first adopted to establish domestic fuel reserves during emergencies, such as wartime, when imported and regional fuel supplies could be interrupted (Yergin, 1991). As U.S. dependence on foreign oil increased, energy policies began to focus on encouraging new domestic energy production, including renewable energy. For example, in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s the U.S. Congress funded the Alaskan pipeline and created the strategic petroleum reserve. Policymakers began to look to agriculture as a source of energy supply, and Federal and State legislation was passed to encourage renewable fuel production and fund research on developing ethanol, biodiesel, solar, and wind power. More recently, President George W. Bush’s National Energy Policy Group advocated the use of Federal programs to promote alternative fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, to help reduce U.S. reliance on petroleum-based fuels. The energy crisis also motivated the Government and private sectors to adopt a number of polices aimed at conserving energy. American households became more conservation-minded and industries increased their energy efficiency. U.S. farmers also decreased their energy use significantly. Between 1978 and 1993, energy (excluding electricity) used by agriculture declined 25% (USDA, 1997; USDA, 1980-94). The U.S. Congress set fuel efficiency standards for the automobile industry. The U.S. government adopted building energy-efficiency standards and required government motor fleets to purchase alternative fueled vehicles. Supply and demand adjustments helped reverse the trend of rising oil prices of the 1970s and 1980s. However, by the end of the 1990s, increasing world energy demand began to exert upward pressure on oil prices and supply disruptions in the natural gas industry caused major price shocks in the U.S. energy sector. Uncertain energy supplies and homeland security concerns triggered by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 have caused policymakers to intensify their efforts to secure our long-term energy sources. The purpose of this paper is to review U.S. renewable energy policy and describe its effectiveness in advancing the use of renewable fuels.

Dramatic increases in levels and volatility of gasoline prices observed in recent years may create market incentives for adoption of alternative fuels characterized by lower price volatility. This hypothesis is investigated by applying the real-options pricing approach to develop optimal thresholds for switching from conventional gasoline to alternative fuels such as ethanol blends. The main result of the paper is that given the historical price patterns of conventional gasoline and ethanol, switching to ethanol blends is an economically sound decision provided this does not decrease efficiency of the vehicle. Analysis of data subsamples during the periods of higher volatility of gasoline prices (Gulf War and War on Terrorism) provides even stronger support for this result.

This chapter first examines the evolution of today's energy risks, and the challenge of energy risk for US agriculture. It continues with an overview of US agriculture as an energy producer and consumer. Sections discuss: the interaction between agriculture and energy markets; agriculture's response to energy market developments; agriculture's contribution to energy security; and the role of farm and energy policies. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the major issues discussed at the conference entitled 'Agriculture as a producer and consumer of energy', held on 24-25 June 2004.

Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value (NEV) of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate. We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34 and 1.53 under a best-case scenario.

Policy makers should consider price volatility effects when determining appropriate spending levels for alternative fuel programs.

This report presents the findings from a study of the life cycle inventories (LCIs) for petroleum diesel and biodiesel. An LCI is a comprehensive quantification of all the energy and environmental flows associated with a product from “cradle to grave.” It provides information on raw materials extracted from the environment; energy resources consumed; air, water, and solid waste emissions generated.

With environmental and energy source concerns on the rise, using agricultural fats and oils as fuel in diesel engines has captured increasing attention. Substituting petroleum diesel with biodiesel may reduce air emissions, increase the domestic supply of fuel, and create new markets for farmers. US agricultural fats and oils could support a large amount of biodiesel, but high production costs and competing uses of biodiesel feedstocks will likely prevent mass adoption of biodiesel fuel. Higher-priced niche markets could develop for biodiesels as a result of environmental regulations. Biodiesel has many environmental advantages relative to petroleum diesel, such as lower CO, CO{sub 2}, SO{sub x}, and particulate matter emissions. Enhancing fuel properties by genetically modifying oil crops could improve NO{sub x} emissions, cold flow, and oxidative stability, which have been identified as potential problems for biodiesel. Research activities need to be directed toward cost reduction, improving fuel properties, and analyzing the economic effects of biodiesel development on US agriculture.