Integrated Cost and Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Biomass

Supply Systems for Biofuels and Bioenergy

Jesse S. Daystar North Carolina State University, jsdaysta@ncsu.edu
Carter W. Reeb North Carolina State University, cwreeb@ncsu.edu
Ronalds Gonzalez North Carolina State University, Ronalds_Gonzalez@ncsu.edu
Richard A. Venditti North Carolina State University, Richard_Veditti@ncsu.edu
Abstract. The production of six regionally important cellulosic biomass feedstocks, including
pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged hardwoods, forest residues, switchgrass, and sweet sorghum,
was analyzed using consistent life cycle methodologies and system boundaries to identify
feedstocks with the lowest cost and environmental impacts. Supply chain analysis models were
created for each feedstock calculating costs and supply chain requirements for the production
453,592 dry tonnes of biomass per year. Cradle-to-gate environmental impacts from these
supply systems were quantified for nine mid-point indicators using SimaPro 7.2 LCA software.
Conversion of grassland to managed forest for bioenergy resulted in large reductions in GHG
emissions, due to carbon sequestration associated with direct land use change. However,
converting forests to energy cropland resulted in large increases in GHG emissions. Production
of forest-based feedstocks for biofuels resulted in lower delivered cost, lower greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and lower overall environmental impacts than the studied agricultural
feedstocks. Forest residues had the lowest environmental impact and delivered cost per dry
tonne. Using forest-based biomass feedstocks instead of agricultural feedstocks would result in
lower cradle-to-gate environmental impacts and delivered biomass costs for biofuel production
in the southern U.S.
Introduction. Production of cellulosic biofuels and other bio-based products are expected to
increase national energy independence, improve rural economies, and reduce greenhouse
gases (GHG) compared to conventional transportation fuels (Demirbas 2008). To ensure
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and a sustainable bioenergy industry, the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) established the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
thresholds (percent reduction) compared to the 2005 base line, with reductions of 20% for
renewable fuels, 50% for advance fuels, 50% for biomass-based fuels and 60% for cellulosic
biofuels (EPA 2012). The feedstock type used for biofuels conversion can play a central role in
determining the overall GHG emissions as well as the financial and technological feasibility of a
renewable biofuel. This study evaluated six potential biomass supply system scenarios for
renewable energy production (liquid and/or solid fuels) in the southern U.S. Supply chain
logistics, delivered cost and environmental burdens of these biomass feedstocks were qualified
and quantified from cradle-to-gate. Feedstocks analyzed included loblolly pine, eucalyptus,
unmanaged hardwood, forest residues, switchgrass and sweet sorghum. Previous studies have
revealed feedstock production and delivery as the single largest contributor to the financial
feasibility of bioenergy
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Melissa Bilec and Jun-ki Choi, co-editors.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2013 by Jesse S. Daystar, Carter W. Reeb, Ronalds Gonzalez, Richard A. Venditti. Licensed under
CC-BY 3.0.
Cite As:
Integrated Cost and Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Biomass Supply Systems for Biofuels and Bioenergy.
Proc. ISSST, Jesse S. Daystar, Carter W. Reeb, Ronalds Gonzalez, Richard A. Venditti. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.810432. v1 (2013)
Copyright 2013 by the Authors
technologies, accounting for 35 45% of the total production cost (Tao and Aden 2009,
Gonzalez et al. 2011b, Gonzalez et al. 2011c, Pirraglia et al. 2012).
Key biomass supply system metrics were used to compare feedstocks, including: delivered cost
and kg CO
2
-equivalent GHG emissions per dry metric tonne, per metric tonne of carbohydrates,
per million BTU, per hectare over 100 years. These metrics have been identified as key
parameters for measurement of feedstock supply chain efficiency due to industry use of these
metrics to compare feedstock feasibility for specific conversion pathways (Gonzalez et al. 2011).
Due to manuscript length limitations, only the per tonne basis will be discussed here, however,
the full analysis can be found in Daystar et al 2013.
Goal. The goal of this study was to explore and define the tradeoffs between delivered cost and
environmental impacts for each biomass feedstock supply system and to provide insight for
industry, academic, and governmental stakeholders about specific parameters of feedstock
production for bioenergy in the southern U.S.
Investigative Method. Several key parameters were identified from Gonzalez et al. (2011) as
integral to the selection of feedstocks for bioenergy or biofuel production, including:
1. High biomass productivity (dry tonnes per hectare per year).
2. High carbohydrate content, and suitable for biochemical conversion into ethanol.
3. Current availability of that biomass in the southern U.S.
4. Species studied previously for biofuel or bioenergy use.
5. Convertibility of feedstock types for biofuel or bioenergy.
A constant biomass supply of 500,000 dry short tons (equivalent) year -1 (453,592 metric
tonnes year -1) was assumed for all biomass scenarios. Collection area and land used,
transportation distance, land use change, and many other aspects of each scenario were
calculated from delivery quantity using productivity and yield in the integrated cost, supply chain
and life cycle assessment models.
A sensitivity analysis was performed for different biomass productivity levels by using three
different multipliers: low (0.75), medium (1.00) and high (1.25), relative to a central assumption
of biomass productivity per hectare per year. Biomass productivity is presented here in metric
tonnes (dry tonnes) and in some cases data is also presented as bone dry short ton equivalent.
The delivered cost per dry tonne includes the cost of growing the biomass (IRS 2007), profit for
the farmer (estimated at 8% Internal Rate of Return [IRR]), harvesting cost, and freight cost. For
this study an 8% IRR was used for all feedstock supply chain models. The discount rate (the
opportunity cost of using capital for a specific investment; often called the hurdle rate) used in
the analysis was 8% (Brealey and Myers 1996, Ross et al. 2004). The base year for the
analysis, prices, and costs is first quarter 2012. Table 1 outlines the various productivity values
and other parameters of the supply systems analyzed. Figure 1shows the system boundary for
the analyzed biomass supply systems and the life cycle stages and activities for which impacts
and costs were quantified.

Copyright 2013 by the Authors
Table 1. Feedstock productivity, management, and moisture content assuming medium productivity and 10%
covered area.

Sources: a = Amateis et al. 2001, Gonzalez et al. 2011a; b = Gonzalez et al. 2011a; c = SunGrant-Bio Web
2008, USDA 2012, Gonzalez et al. 2011a; d = Gonzalez et al. 2011a; e = McLaughlin; f = Irvin et al. 2001,
Gonzalez et al. 2011a




Figure 1: Biomass Life Cycle. Stages and system boundary for the production and delivery of biomass feedstocks.
Note, the unmanaged hardwoods and forest residue biomass analysis does not include biomass production.
Agricultural biomass types require storage before delivery to the biorefinery

During the growth of biomass, carbon in the form of CO
2
is absorbed from the atmosphere
through photosynthesis. This carbon can be stored in the above ground biomass, forest litter, or
below-ground biomass (root system). Only the carbon captured in the harvested above ground
biomass was counted as a negative emission within this study (Rabl et al. 2007).

Previous studies have shown that land use change impacts can represent a substantial share of
the life cycle burdens for biomass to bioenergy supply chain scenarios (Walsh 2003,
Gnansounou et al. 2009, Mathews and Tan 2009, Mala and Freire 2012). The Forest Industry
Carbon Assessment Tool (FICAT) was used to analyze twenty conversion scenarios. This multi
scenario approach covers many ways in which land would be changed to grow biomass for
biofuels and bioenergy.

Emissions from forest operations required to establish and maintain the biomass, harvest, and
collect forest based biomass were calculated using U.S. LCI data. Sweet sorghum and
Description
Loblolly
pine
a

Eucalyptus
b

Unmanaged
hardwoods
c

Forest
residues
d

Switchgrass
e

Sweet
sorghum
f

Productivity (dry
tonne ha
-1
year
-1
)
17.1 17.6 2.2 1.0 17.9 15.7
Rotation length 12 4 50 n/a n/a n/a
Harvesting window
Year-
round
Year-round Year-round Year-round Three months
Three
months
Moisture content 45% 45% 45% 45% 16% 74%
Delivery form Logs Logs Logs Chips Square bales Cane
Trees per ha 2,965 1,400 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Establishment cost
($/ha)
638 552 n/a n/a 182 416
Maintenance cost
($/ha)
62.4
1
62.4
1
n/a n/a 85.3
2
n/a
1 = Second year of plantation; 2 = Maintenance cost per year, year 2 through 10


1
Biorefinery
Gate
Plantation
Establishment
Maintenance Harvesting Transportation
Fertilizer
Herbicide
Diesel
CO
2
Fertilizer
Herbicide
Diesel Diesel
Diesel
Processing
Biomass Production

Copyright 2013 by the Authors
switchgrass, agricultural crops with seasonal growing periods, required storage to ensure a
constant annual supply. Emissions and costs from the storage of 70% of the annual agricultural
biomass supply were modeled in this study. During this storage period, the biomass released
GHGs through aerobic and anaerobic decomposition. In this study, decomposition was
assumed to occur only aerobically (Wortmann et al. 2010). Transportation emissions were
calculated using emission factors from the U.S. LCI database.

The primary functional unit was one dry delivered tonne of biomass. A second functional unit
was used for additional analysis purposes incorporating land use efficiency: one managed
hectare of each feedstock over 100 years. LCI data from the Excel based supply chain models
were used as input data for the SimaPro modeling software which calculated direct and indirect
emissions due to chemical use, transportation, electrical use, and storage emissions (Glew et al.
2012, Gonzlez-Garca et al. 2012, You et al. 2012). The Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) impact assessment
method (Bare et al. 2003, Jolliet et al. 2004), Eco-invent database (Neupane et al. 2011) and
the US Life Cycle Inventory database (You et al. 2012) were used to calculate the cradle-to-
grave feedstock production and delivery environmental impacts.

Results. It was determined that a feasible supply chain for continuous biomass supply to
bioenergy and bioethanol facilities is possible and that woody feedstocks offer advantages over
agricultural feedstocks. Biomass supply chains for loblolly pine, eucalyptus, switchgrass and
sweet sorghum resulted in lower transportation distance ranging from 20 40 kilometers.
Forest residues and unmanaged hardwood production resulted in the highest transportation
distance (101 180 kilometers). Transportation distances did not influence the environmental
impacts greatly, however, transportation costs associated with lower biomass productivity did
increase the overall delivered cost.

Delivered cost per dry tonne equivalent (biomass is actually delivered green) was calculated for
each of the three productivity levels (low, medium, and high) and are shown in Figure 2. Forest
residues had the lowest delivered cost ranging from $51.2 to $56.7 BD tonne-1, followed by
loblolly pine with values ranging from $51.3 to $61.4 BD tonne-1. Forest residue had a lower
delivered cost per BD tonne primarily due to no land rent, establishment or maintenance costs.
The increased transportation costs due to lower yield did not exceed the savings due to lower
biomass cost. Delivered cost per tonne of carbohydrate and per MMBTU were examined,
however, are not reported in figures due to length limitations. The delivered cost per MMBTU
and tonne of carbohydrate produced similar results to the per tonne basis, except the cost per
tonne of carbohydrate for sweet sorghum. Sweet sorghum, with carbohydrate contents around
80%, can be delivered at a cost of around $87, lower than all other biomass feedstocks other
than forest residues. In addition to lower carbohydrate cost, sweet sorghum has high levels of
soluble sugars which are more easily fermented to bioethanol.

The renewable fuels standards are primarily focused on GHG emissions, however, other
emissions and environmental impacts occur due to the production biomass feedstocks.
Environmental impacts were calculated on a per dry tonne basis for each feedstock scenario
and reported in Figure 3. Forest based feedstock production resulted in similar environmental
impacts in most impact categories. Unmanaged hardwoods and forest residues, requiring no
fertilizers or herbicides, had lower impacts several impact in several impact categories.
Agricultural feedstocks production, switchgrass and sweet sorghum, resulted in higher
environmental impacts primarily due to yearly harvesting and more intensive biomass
management operations.

Copyright 2013 by the Authors

Figure 2: Annual Delivered Costs. Delivered biomass cost at 500,000 BDT (453,592 metric tonnes) per year and
GHG captured per tonne of biomass, assuming medium productivity and 10% covered area. The error bars
represent the range of uncertainty due to feedstock productivity.


Figure 3: Environmental Impacts. Environmental and human health impacts from SimaPro using TRACI 2 impact
assessment method for biomass feedstocks relative to the feedstock scenario with the highest impact for each
impact category. Assumptions: 500,000 BDT (453,592 metric tonnes) delivered per year to a single facility, medium
biomass productivity, and 10% covered area.

The production of biomass for biofuels and bioenergy may require land conversion to dedicated
energy crops. When such land is converted, land carbon stores are disturbed resulting in either
carbon sequestration or carbon emissions, Figure 4. The FICAT model, used in this study,

Copyright 2013 by the Authors
showed converting non forest land to forest land resulted in negative emissions due to direct
land use change. Converting forest land to grow agricultural feedstocks, as switchgrass or
sweet sorghum, resulted in significantly GHG emissions. It is worth noting that only direct land
use change was considered in this study, while in reality, both indirect and direct land use
change may occur.


Figure 4: Land Use Change Impacts. Direct LUC GHG emissions from converting one hectare of land to biomass
feedstock growth over 100 years. Also shown is the net GHG emissions with no LUC impacts considered as a
comparison, assuming 500,000 BDT/year (453,592 metric tonnes/year), medium productivity and 10% covered area.

Conclusions. Forest based biomass types with lower delivered cost and net GHG emissions
per dry tonne may be more feasible for commercial utilization in the southern U.S. than
agricultural feedstocks. For biochemical conversion processes, sweet sorghum with a lower
cost per tonne of carbohydrates and easily fermentable sugars, may produce a higher financial
return than forest based feedstocks, however, with higher cradle to gate environmental impacts.
A cradle to grave analysis would be required to fully understand the overall environmental
impacts of biofuels and energy from these feedstocks.

The use of the three cost metrics (cost per tonne, cost per tonne of carbohydrate, and cost per
million BTU) was an effective methodology for a cradle-to-gate analysis of biomass supply
system cost and environmental burden. The incorporation of delivered cost, supply chain
logistics and life cycle environmental impacts into one study was beneficial to create more
points of comparison between the scenarios and therefore more effectively differentiate the
forest-based feedstocks from the agricultural feedstocks. These findings can be combined with
a full cradle-to-grave LCA of biomass-to-biofuel scenarios such as biochemical conversion,
thermochemical conversion, and combustion for power to inform stakeholders about the
economic, social and environmental costs of renewable energy feedstock options for
commercial facilities.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to acknowledge the Biofuels Center of North
Carolina, the Southeast Partnership for Integrated Biomass Supply Systems (IBSS). The IBSS
project is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-
68005-30410 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
-3,200,000
-2,700,000
-2,200,000
-1,700,000
-1,200,000
-700,000
-200,000
300,000
From
Cropland
From
Grassland
From
Deciduous
Natural Forest
From
Coniferous
Natural Forest
From
Deciduous
Managed
Forest
From
Coniferous
Managed
Forest
Net GHG/ha
over 100
years (No
LUC)
t
o
n
n
e

C
O
2
e
q
.

p
e
r

h
a

o
v
e
r

1
0
0

y
e
a
r
s
Pine
Eucalyptus
Unmanaged Hardwoods
Switchgrass
Sweet Sorghum

Copyright 2013 by the Authors
References
Amateis, R., Burkhart, H., Allen, H., and Montes, C. (2001). FASTLOB: Fertilized and
Selectively thinned loblolly pine plantations (a stand-level growth and yield model for
fertilized and thinned loblolly pine plantations). Loblolly Pine Growth and Yield Cooperative.
VPI&SU. Blacksburg, VA. 21pp.
Bare, J.C., Norris, G.A., Pennington, D.W., and McKone. T. 2003. TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction
and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 6(3): 49-78.
Bennett, A.S. and Anex, R.P. 2009. Production, transportation and milling costs of sweet
sorghum as a feedstock for centralized bioethanol production in the upper Midwest.
Bioresource Technology, 100(4): 1595-1607.
Brealey, R. and Myers, S. 1996. Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH.
Carpenter, D., Bain, R.L., Davis, R., Dutta, A., Feik, C., Gaston, K., Jablonski, W., Phillips, S.,
and Nimlos, M. 2010. Pilot-Scale Gasification of Corn Stover, Switchgrass, Wheat Straw,
and Wood: 1. Parametric Study and Comparison with Literature. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 49: 1859-1871.
Demirbas, A. 2008. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel
projections. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(8): 2106-2116.
Daystar, J., Reeb, W., Gonzalez, W.,Venditti, R., Treasure, T., Abt, R., Kelley, S. 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. . Bioresource Technolog, 2013.
EPA. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Thresholds. Environmental Protection Agency website,
Retrieved: February 8th, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10007.htm.
Glew, D., Stringer, L.C., Acquaye, A.A., and McQueen-Mason, S. 2012. How do end of life
scenarios influence the environmental impact of product supply chains? comparing
biomaterial and petrochemical products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29-30: 122-131.
Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Villegas, J., and Panichelli, L. 2009. Life cycle assessment of
biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technology, 100(21): 4919-
4930.
Gonzlez-Garca, S., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., and Murphy, J.R. 2012. Comparative life cycle
assessment of ethanol production from fast-growing wood crops (black locust, eucalyptus
and poplar). Biomass and Bioenergy, 39: 378-388.
Gonzalez, R., Phillips, R., Saloni, D., Jameel, H., Abt, R., Pirraglia, A., and Wright, J. 2011a.
Biomass to Energy in the Southern United States: Supply Chain and Delivered Cost.
BioResources, 6(3): 2954-2976.
Gonzalez, R., Treasure, T., Phillips, R., Jameel, H., and Saloni, D.. 2011b. Economics of
Cellulosic Ethanol Production: Green Liquor Pretreatment for Softwood and Hardwood,
Greenfield and Repurpose Scenarios. BioResources, 6(3): 2551-2567.
Gonzalez, R., Treasure, T., Wright, J., Saloni, D., Phillips, R., Abt, R., and Jameel, H. 2011c.
Exploring the potential of Eucalyptus for energy production in the Southern United States:
Financial analysis of delivered biomass. Part I. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35: 755-766.
IRS. 2007. Business expenses. Department of Treasury. Internal Revenue Service.
Irvin, C., Dwayne, R., and hunter, E. (2001). Biomass production and ethanol potential from
sweet sorghum, Retrieved April 18th, 2013, from
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/eco_files/EnergyGrantsSpecProj.pdf.
Jolliet, O., Muller-Wenk, R., Bare, J.C., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N., Pena,
C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., de Haes, H., and Weiderma, B.
2004. The LCIA Midpoint-damage Framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 9(6): 394-404.

Copyright 2013 by the Authors
Junfeng, L., Runqing, H., Yanqin, S., Jingli, S., Bhattacharya, S.C., and Salam, P.A. 2005.
Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-plantation biomass resources in China.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(3): 167-177.
Mala, J. and Freire, F. 2012. Addressing land use change and uncertainty in the life-cycle
assessment of wheat-based bioethanol. Energy, 45(1): 519-527.
Mani, S., Tabil, L.G., and Sokhansanj, S. 2004. Grinding performance and physical properties of
wheat and barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 27(4): 339-
352.
Mathews, J. A. and Tan, H. 2009. Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate
continues. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 3(3): 305-317.
McLaughlin, S. B., and Kszos, L. A. (2005). Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as
a bioenergy feedstock in the United States, Biomass and Bioenergy 28(6), 515-535.
Neupane, B., Halog, A., and Dhungel, S. 2011. Attributional life cycle assessment of woodchips
for bioethanol production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6-7): 733-741.
Parigiani, J., Desai, A., Mariki, R., and Miner, R. 2011. The Carbon Footprint of an East African
Forestry Enterprise. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3): 152-162.
Pirraglia, A., Gonzalez, R., Saloni, D., Wright, J., and Denig, J. 2012. Fuel Properties and
Suitability of Eucalyptus Benthamii and Eucalyptus Macarthurii for Torrefied Wood and
Pellets. BioResources, 7(1): 217-235.
Rabl, A., Benoist, A., Dron, D., Peuportier, B., Spadaro, J.V., and Zoughaib, A. 2007. How to
account for CO2 emissions from biomass in an LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 12(5): 281-281.
Ross, S., Westerfield, R., and Jaffe, J. 2004. Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH
Sokhansanj, S., Mani, S., Turhollow, A., Kumar, A., Bransby, D., Lynd, L., and Laser, M. 2009.
Large-scale production, harvest and logistics of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) - current
technology and envisioning a mature technology. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 3(2):
124-141.
SunGrant-Bio Web. (2008). Hybrid Poplar, Retrieved April 18th, 2013, from
http://bioweb.sungrant.org/Technical/Biomass+Resources/Agricultural+Resources/New+Cro
ps/Short+Rotation+Woody+Crops/Hybrid+Poplar/Default.htm
Tao, L. and Aden, A. 2009. The economics of current and future biofuels. In Vitro Cellular &
Developmental Biology Plant, 45(3): 199-217.
USDA. (2012). Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, Retrieved April 18
th
, 2013
from http://fia.fs.fed.us/.
Walsh, M.E., de la Torre Ugarte, D.G., Shapouri, H., and Slinsky, S.P. 2003. Bioenergy crop
production in the United States: potential quantities, land use changes, and economic
impacts on the agricultural sector. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(4): 313.
Wortmann, C., Liska, A.J., Ferguson, R., Lyon, D., Klein, R.N., and Dweikat, I. 2010. Dryland
Performance of Sweet Sorghum and Grain Crops for Biofuel in Nebraska. Agronomy
Journal, 102(1): 319-326.
You, F., Tao, L., Graziano, D.J., and Snyder, S.W. 2012. Optimal design of sustainable cellulosic
biofuel supply chains: Multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and
input-output analysis. AIChE Journal, 58(4): 1157-1180.