bioenergy

Landscape design provides an approach under which bioenergy production systems can be integrated into other components of the land, environment and socioeconomic system. Landscape design is a spatially explicit collaborative plan for resource allocation and management. It should be applied to a particular area and developed with the involvement of key stakeholders. Appropriately applied, landscape design can guide choices toward more sustainable provision of bioenergy and other services.  The approach includes elements of design, monitoring and reporting of measures of sustainability along the bioenergy supply chain and within specific contexts. Landscape designs should be implemented in a way that is achievable from the perspective of producers along the supply chain.  Hence it requires clear communication of environmental and socioeconomic opportunities and concerns to both the participants in production and other stakeholders. The landscape design approach contains three basic steps:

(1) Develop landscape design scenarios with stakeholders for a defined spatial and temporal context
(2) Evaluate the scenarios applying best available science, data and tools
(3) Communicate landscape designs that best meet the multiple development goals (those prioritized for the defined spatial and temporal context).  Links to each presentation and the field trip briefing book can be found at http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/workshop.shtml.

Landscape ecology focuses on the spatial patterns and processes of ecological and human interactions. These patterns and processes are being altered by both changing resource-management practices of humans and changing climate conditions associated, in part, with increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Dominant resource-extraction and land-management activities involve energy, and the use of fossil energy is one of the key drivers behind increasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as land-use changes. Alternative energy sources (such as wind, solar, nuclear, and bioenergy) are being explored to reduce greenhouse gas emission rates. Yet, energy production, including alternative-energy options, can have a wide range of effects on land productivity, surface cover, albedo, and other factors that affect carbon, water, and energy fluxes and, in turn, climate. Meanwhile, climate influences the potential output, relative efficiencies, and sustainability of alternative energy sources. Thus, land use, climate change, and energy choices are linked, and any comprehensive analysis in landscape ecology that considers one of these factors should be cognizant of these interactions. This analysis explores the implications of linkages between land use, climate change, and energy and points out ecological patterns and processes that may be affected by their interaction.

Landscape implications of bioenergy feedstock choices are significant and depend on land-use practices and their environmental impacts. Although land-use changes and carbon emissions associated with bioenergy feedstock production are dynamic and complicated, lignocellulosic feedstocks may offer opportunities that enhance sustainability when compared to other transportation fuel alternatives. For bioenergy sustainability, major drivers and concerns revolve around energy security, food production, land productivity, soil carbon and erosion, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, air quality, and water quantity and quality. The many implications of bioenergy feedstock choices require several indicators at multiple scales to provide a more complete accounting of effects. Ultimately, the long-term sustainability of bioenergy feedstock resources (as well as food supplies) throughout the world depends on land-use practices and landscape dynamics. Land-management decisions often invoke trade-offs among potential environmental effects and social and economic factors as well as future opportunities for resource use. The hypothesis being addressed in this paper is that sustainability of bioenergy feedstock production can be achieved via appropriately designed crop residue and perennial lignocellulosic systems. We find that decision makers need scientific advancements and adequate data that both provide quantitative and qualitative measures of the effects of bioenergy feedstock choices at different spatial and temporal scales and allow fair comparisons among available options for renewable liquid fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program sponsored the Land-Use Change and Bioenergy workshop in Vonore, Tennessee, from May 11 to May 14, 2009. More than 50 experts from around the world gathered to review the state of the science, identify opportunities for collaboration, and prioritize next steps for the research and data needed to address key issues regarding the land-use effects of bioenergy policies. A key outcome of the workshop was the identification of research areas that may improve our understanding of land-use change in a bioenergy context.

ABSTRACT. Adding bioenergy to the U.S. energy portfolio requires long‐term profitability for bioenergy producers and long‐term protection of affected ecosystems. In this study, we present steps along the path toward evaluating both sides of the sustainability equation (production and environmental) for switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). We modeled production of switchgrass and river flow using SWAT for current landscapes at a regional scale. To quantify feedstock production, we compared lowland switchgrass yields simulated by SWAT with estimates from a model based on empirical data for the eastern U.S. The two produced similar geographic patterns. Average yields reported in field trials tended to be higher than average SWAT‐predicted yields, which may nevertheless be more
representative of production‐scale yields. As a preliminary step toward quantifying bioenergy‐related changes in water quality, we evaluated flow predictions by the SWAT model for the Arkansas‐White‐Red river basin. We compared monthly SWAT flow predictions to USGS measurements from 86 subbasins across the region. Although agreement was good, we conducted an analysis of residuals (functional validation) seeking patterns to guide future model improvements. The analysis indicated that differences between SWAT flow predictions and field data increased in downstream subbasins and in subbasins with higher percentage of water. Together, these analyses have moved us closer to our ultimate goal of identifying areas with high economic and environmental potential for sustainable feedstock production.

Peer-reviewed letter written in response to a March 11, 2015, letter to US EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (http://bit.ly/1HsSaWf), in which the Ecological Society of America objected to EPA’s proposal that sustainably harvested woody biomass could reduce carbon emissions. Citing a November 2014 EPA memorandum (known as the McCabe memo; http://1.usa.gov/1zMeZf2), the Ecological Society letter argued that the EPA’s stance would undermine federal efforts to “deter rapid deforestation, lower carbon emissions, and mitigate the effects of global climate change”.

The sustainability of future bioenergy production rests on more than continual improvements in its environmental, economic, and social impacts. The emergence of new biomass feedstocks, an expanding array of conversion pathways, and expected increases in overall bioenergy production are connecting diverse technical, social, and policy communities. These stakeholder groups have different—and potentially conflicting—values and cultures, and therefore different goals and decision making processes. Our aim is to discuss the implications of this diversity for bioenergy researchers. The paper begins with a discussion of bioenergy stakeholder groups and their varied interests, and illustrates how this diversity complicates efforts to define and promote ‘‘sustainable’’ bioenergy production.  We then discuss what this diversity means for research practice. Researchers, we note, should be aware of stakeholder values, information needs, and the factors affecting stakeholder decision making if the knowledge they generate is to reach its widest potential use. We point out how stakeholder participation in research can increase the relevance of its products, and argue that stakeholder values should inform research questions and the choice of analytical assumptions. Finally, we make the case that additional natural science and technical research alone will not advance sustainable bioenergy production, and that important research gaps relate to understanding stakeholder decision making and the need, from a broader social science perspective, to develop processes to identify and accommodate different value systems. While sustainability requires more than improved scientific and technical understanding, the need to understand stakeholder values and manage diversity presents important research opportunities.

Land-use change (LUC) estimated by economic models has sparked intense international debate. Models estimate how much LUC might be induced under prescribed scenarios and rely on assumptions to generate LUC values. It is critical to test and validate underlying
assumptions with empirical evidence. Furthermore, this modeling approach cannot answer if any specific indirect effects are actually caused by biofuel policy. The best way to resolve questions of causation is via scientific methods. Kim and Dale attempt to address the question of if, rather than how much, market-induced land-use change is currently detectable based on the analysis of historic evidence, and in doing so, explore some modeling assumptions behind the drivers of change. Given that there is no accepted approach to estimate the global effects of biofuel policy on land-use change, it is critical to assess the actual effects of policies through careful analysis and interpretation of empirical
data. Decision makers need a valid scientific basis for policy decisions on energy choices.

A framework for selecting and evaluating indicators of bioenergy sustainability is presented.
This framework is designed to facilitate decision-making about which indicators are useful for assessing
sustainability of bioenergy systems and supporting their deployment. Efforts to develop sustainability
indicators in the United States and Europe are reviewed. The fi rst steps of the framework for
indicator selection are defi ning the sustainability goals and other goals for a bioenergy project or program,
gaining an understanding of the context, and identifying the values of stakeholders. From the
goals, context, and stakeholders, the objectives for analysis and criteria for indicator selection can
be developed. The user of the framework identifi es and ranks indicators, applies them in an assessment,
and then evaluates their effectiveness, while identifying gaps that prevent goals from being met,
assessing lessons learned, and moving toward best practices. The framework approach emphasizes
that the selection of appropriate criteria and indicators is driven by the specifi c purpose of an analysis.
Realistic goals and measures of bioenergy sustainability can be developed systematically with the help
of the framework presented here. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

For analyzing sustainability of algal biofuels, we identify 16 environmental indicators that fall into six categories: soil quality, water quality and quantity, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, and productivity. Indicators are selected to be practical, widely applicable, predictable in response, anticipatory of future changes, independent of scale, and responsive to management. Major differences between algae and terrestrial plant feedstocks, as well as their supply chains for biofuel, are highlighted, for they influence the choice of appropriate sustainability indicators. Algae strain selection characteristics do not generally affect which indicators are selected. The use of water instead of soil as the growth medium for algae determines the higher priority of water- over soil-related indicators. The proposed set of environmental indicators provides an initial checklist for measures of algal biofuel sustainability but may need to be modified for particular contexts depending on data availability, goals of stakeholders, and financial constraints. Use of these indicators entails defining sustainability goals and targets in relation to stakeholder values in a particular context and can lead to improved management practices.