An ARS Researchers Perspective on the Revised Billion Ton Report - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
an ars researcher s perspective on the revised billion
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

An ARS Researchers Perspective on the Revised Billion Ton Report - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 23, 2023 152 likes •309 views

An ARS Researchers Perspective on the Revised Billion Ton Report (BT2) Douglas L. Karlen USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Sustainable Biofuel is Essential For Americas Energy Future! The 2005 BTS Identified the Challenge If one

slide-1
SLIDE 1

An ARS Researcher’s Perspective on the Revised Billion Ton Report (BT2)

Douglas L. Karlen USDA – Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Sustainable Biofuel is Essential

For America’s Energy Future!

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The 2005 BTS Identified the Challenge

If one ton = 1 sq in 1 billion tons = 145 football fields A billion ton equals a row of 5-ft long, 1000 lb round bales that if placed end-to-end would wrap 75 times around the earth

Just how much is a Billion Tons?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

The 2011 BT2 Focused the Challenge

By providing: Spatial inventories Price-based supply curves An emphasis on sustainability

slide-5
SLIDE 5

BT2 – Involved Many Contributors

Oak Ridge National al Lab aborat atory Robert D. Perlack Craig C. Brandt Anthony F. Turhollow Lynn L. Wright Laurence M. Eaton Anna M. Shamey Jacob M. Kavkewitz Matt H. Langholtz Mark E. Downing Robin L. Graham Idaho N

  • Nation
  • nal Labor
  • rator
  • ry

David J. Muth

  • J. Richard Hess

Jared M. Abodeely Kans nsas S State Uni University Richard G. Nelson State Uni University o

  • f N

New Y York Timothy A. Volk Thomas S. Buchholz Lawrence P. Abrahamson Iowa Sta State te Univers rsity ty Robert P. Anex CNJV LLC LLC Bryce J. Stokes Uni University o

  • f T

Tenne nnessee Chad Hellwinckel Daniel De La Torre Ugarte Daniel C. Yoder James P. Lyon Timothy G. Rials USD SDA Agri gricu cultu ltura ral R l Research rch Se Serv rvice ce Douglas L. Karlen Jane M. F. Johnson Robert B. Mitchell Kenneth P. Vogel Edward P. Richard John Tatarko Larry E. Wagner Uni University o

  • f M

Minne nnesota William Berguson Don E. Riemenschneider Texas A&M Uni University William L. Rooney USD SDA Fore rest Se t Serv rvice ce Kenneth E. Skog, Patricia K. Lebow Dennis P. Dykstra Marilyn A. Buford Patrick D. Miles

  • D. Andrew Scott

James H. Perdue Robert B. Rummer Jamie Barbour John A. Stanturf David B.McKeever Ronald S. Zalesny Edmund A. Gee USD SDA Nati tional l Insti titu tute te of Food and nd A Agriculture

  • P. Daniel Cassidy

US USDA Natural Resources Cons nservation n Service David Lightle Uni University o

  • f I

Illino nois Thomas B. Voigt

slide-6
SLIDE 6

2005 Original 2010 Update

National estimates – no spatial information County-level with aggregation to state, regional and national levels No cost analyses – just quantities Supply curves by feedstock by county – farmgate/forest landing Crop residue removal sustainability addressed from national perspective; erosion only Crop residue removal sustainability modeled at soil – scale; erosion & soil C No explicit land use change modeling Land use change modeled for energy crops Long-term, inexact time horizon (2005, ~2025 & 2040) 2010 – 2030 timeline (annual) 2005 USDA agricultural baseline and 2000 forestry RPA/TPO 2010 USDA agricultural baseline 2010 FIA inventory and 2007 forestry RPA/TPO Erosion constraints to forest residue collection Greater erosion plus wetness constraints to forest residue collection

BTS and BT2 Comparisons

slide-7
SLIDE 7

BT2 Contributions

  • Better supply estimates for multiple feedstocks
  • Greater attention to:
  • Soil carbon issues
  • Harvest strategies
  • Sustainability indicators
  • The residue

management tool

switchgrass bagasse

Corn grain

Energy Cane Corn stover Cereal straws Woody species

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Residue Tool Contributions to BT2

Evaluated multiple soil characteristics including

  • rganic matter and sand

fraction for all relevant agricultural soils (a & b) Calculated available residue (e) from those soils using county level yields and average slope Provided a general guide for available residue, but site-specific slope and yield data (c &d) will provide better guidance for sustainable harvest (f)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

BT2 Limitations

  • Continued focus on biomass supply rather than

demand

  • No attempt to project demand for bioenergy
  • r bioproducts
  • No attempt to estimate what biomass price

might be in an expanded market

  • No estimate of how current biomass uses

might be affected at a given biomass price

slide-10
SLIDE 10

BT2 is a Positive Step, BUT Not the End !

slide-11
SLIDE 11

What’s next? – Landscape Management

  • What is LM? – Recognizing nature’s diversity
  • Why is landscape management important?
  • Diverse landscapes provide multiple ecosystem services

Energy efficiency Multiple feedstock sources Enhanced nutrient cycling Multiple C sequestration pathways Food, feed & fiber resources Filtering & buffering processes Wildlife food & habitat Soil protection & enhancement Economic opportunities for humankind

slide-12
SLIDE 12

How Can Producers Implement Landscape Management?

  • Assess current practices
  • Erosion
  • Soil, water & air quality
  • Livestock management
  • Identify management options
  • Buffers
  • Waterways
  • Cropping practices
  • Design & implement

new strategies

  • Verify responses

REAP

slide-13
SLIDE 13

What Prevents Landscape Management?

Always focusing on individual problems Always seeking a single solutions

Bioenergy, air quality, water quality, soil quality, C sequestration, rural development, wildlife habitat, & many other issues must be addressed as an integrated system (e.g. SWAPA+E+H)

Fermentation Erosion Water Quality Pyrolysis Crop Residues Switchgrass

REAP AP

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Any Questions?