CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementBioenergy crop production and managementEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

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

Open access
Daystar, Jesse, Gonzalez, Ronalds, Reeb, Carter, Venditti, Richard A., Treasure, Trevor, Abt, Robert, Kelley, Steve·2013·BioResources
DOI 10.15376/biores.9.1.393-444
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 was performed for each feedstock, calculating costs and supply requirements for the production of 453,592 dry tonnes of biomass per year.Cradle-togate environmental impacts from these modeled 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 uptake associated with direct land use change.By contrast, converting forests to 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 agricultural feedstocks studied.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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15376/biores.9.1.393-444

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The delivered cost of a feedstock accounts for the total costs of cultivation/plantation, harvesting and other post-harvest processing, storage, and transporting to the biorefinery.

    “The delivered cost of a feedstock accounts for the total costs of cultivation/plantation, harvesting and other post-harvest processing, storage, and transporting to the biorefinery (Gonzalez et al. 2011, Daystar et al. 2014).”

    From Bio-aviation Fuel: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of the Supply Chain Components (2020) · cites this paper as Daystar et al. 2014

    The supply-system description (Feedstock chemical composition section; page unavailable) includes establishment, maintenance, harvest, storage when required, and transportation to the processing facility. The delivered-cost sections also model establishment, harvesting, freight, and applicable storage costs. Although a system-boundary diagram shows processing, the passages do not establish that separate post-harvest processing costs are included in the delivered-cost calculation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [4]4. Austin, A. (2010a). "Scientists evaluate switchgrass yields across the US," Biomass Magazine 4(9), 18-19.
  2. [5]5. Austin, A. (2010b). "Studying switchgrass," Biomass Magazine 4(11), 46-51.
  3. [9]9. Bare, J. C. (2002). "TRACI," Journal of Industrial Ecology 6(3-4), 49-78.
  4. [11]11. 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.
  5. [36]36. Edmonds, P., Edmonds, C., McNair, F., Olds, P., Tsay, B., and Milam, E. (2007). Survey of Accounting, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 560-565.
  6. [60]60. Gonzalez, R., Wright, J., and Saloni, S. (2009). "Filling a need: Forest plantation for bioenergy in the southern US," Biomass Magazine 3(8), 44-47.
  7. [77]77. Jackson, S. (2011). "Establishing a switchgrass biomass supply chain," Southeast Bioenergy Conference, August 9, 2011, http://www.sebioenergy.org/2011/speakers/Jackson_8-9.pdf.
  8. [78]78. Jackson, S. W., Rials, T. G., Taylor, A. M., Bozell, J. G., and Norris, K. M. (2010). Wood2Energy: A State of the Science and Technology Report, S. W. Jackson (ed.), University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, Knoxville, TN, USA, www.wood2energy.org.
  9. [86]86. Khachatryan, H., Jessup, E., and Casavant, K. (2008). "Delivered transportation costs of forest residue for cellulosic ethanol processing," 2008 IAMA Forum and Symposium, June 14-17, Monterey, CA, USA, 1-17.
  10. [137]137. Pimentel, D. (2001). "Limits of biomass utilization," Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Third Edition, Vol. 2, R. Meyers (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 159-171.
  11. [151]151. Ross, S., Westerfield, R., and Jaffe, J. (2004). Corporate Finance, 7 th Edition, McGraw- Hill, New York, NY, 1-931.
  12. [162]162. Smith, R. (2011). "Bioenergy sorghum offers versatility," Southwest Farm Press 38(6), 1-3.
  13. [173]173. Timber Mart South Market News Quarterly (2011), The Journal of South Timber Market News, 1st Quarter (16 (1)).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daystar, J., Gonzalez, R., Reeb, C., Venditti, R. A., Treasure, T., Abt, R., & Kelley, S.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
BioResources
Publisher
BioResources
Published
2013-11-22
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
1930-2126 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.15376/biores.9.1.393-444
OpenAlex
W2020574359
Cited by
50
References
175
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioResources (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011‐68005‐30410)
  • Biofuels Center of North Carolina
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2011-68005-30410)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
cellulosic biomass, biofuels, forest residues, switchgrass, sweet sorghum, pine, Eucalyptus, land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, delivered cost, supply chain analysis, cradle-to-gate environmental impact, Southern United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review