An Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Energy Crops in the USA: Methodologies, Conclusions and Recommendations.

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 9 Jim Cook and Jan Beyea National Audubon Society Abstract : Methodologies, Conclusions and Recommendations. Concerns about global climate change and air quality are driving increased interest in biomass and other energy sources that are potentially CO2-neutral and less polluting. Large-scale bioenergy development could bring significant environmental benefits -- or equally significant damages -- depending on the specifics. In particular, the land requirements for biomass production could be immense. Various entities in the United States have done cost-supply assessments, environmental impact assessments, life cycle analyses and externality impact assessments for biomass crops and other potential biomass energy feedstocks. Most of these efforts have focused on perennial herbaceous crops and fastgrowing woody crops. Simultaneously, various national and regional groups of bioenergy stakeholders have issued consensus recommendations and guidelines for sustainable bioenergy development. It is a consistent conclusion from these efforts that displacing annual agricultural crops with native perennial biomass crops would very likely help restore natural ecosystem functions in worked landscapes, and help to preserve natural biodiversity. Conversely, if biomass crops displace more natural land cover -- such as forests and wetlands -- there would very likely be a loss of ecosystem functions and reduced biodiversity. Introduction Concerns about global climate change and air quality are driving increased interest in energy sources that are potentially CO2-neutral and less polluting (Rubin et al., 1992; Brower et al., 1993; US Congress OTA, 1995). Four such alternatives are being seriously considered for large scale implementation: biomass, wind, solar and geothermal. Because biomass can readily supply base load electrical power and be converted to liquid transportation fuels, it will likely be a key part of the solution. The US Department of Energy (DOE) Biofuels Feedstock Development Program (BFDP) has explored a wide variety of annual and perennial plant species herbaceous species and 125 tree species -- as potential biomass crops (Tolbert and Schiller, 1996). US DOE BFDP efforts have focused in recent years on switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) -- a perennial grass native to the US prairie -- and several fastgrowing woody crops -- hybrid poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and maple (Acerspp.) -- as model species for testing at larger scales. The US paper industry is also exploring fast-growing woody crops as an environmentally sound fiber resource (Malcolm, 1994). Large scale biomass energy development could bring significant environmental benefits -- or equally significant damages -- depending on the path taken. Sustainable bioenergy development could 1) reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, 2) improve air quality and reduce acid deposition, 3) reduce landfilling, 4) reduce agricultural chemical runoff, and 5) improve habitat for native wildlife. Conversely, inappropriate bioenergy development could do great environmental damage. In particular, the land requirements for biomass production could be immense. The nature and extent of the impacts of these changes in land use will depend on the specifics. Various entities in the United States have done cost-supply assessments (Graham and Downing, 1995;

2 Page 2 of 9 Graham et al.,???; Walsh and Graham,???), environmental impact assessments (Cook et al., 1991; Miles and Miles, 1992; Perlack et al., 1992; Antares, 1993; US Congress OTA, 1993; Tolbert and Downing, 1995; Tolbert and Schiller, 1996), life cycle analyses (DynCorp EENSP, 1995) and externality impact assessments (Fang and Galen, 1994; Swezey et al., 1994) for biomass crops and other potential biomass energy feedstocks. Most of these efforts have focused on perennial herbaceous crops and fast-growing woody crops. These efforts have addressed such issues as energy and greenhouse-gas budgets, soil health and erosion, surface water and groundwater pollution, biodiversity and landscape ecology, and emissions from conversion facilities. Other studies have explored biomass production as an alternative to the Conservation Reserve Program for environmentally sensitive cropland (US GAO, 1995; Walsh et al.,???). Simultaneously, a wide range of bioenergy stakeholders -- farmers, utilities, fuel producers, environmental NGOs and government agencies -- have convened workshops and roundtables to share concerns and engage in a process of joint fact finding, negotiation and consensus building. These efforts have resulted in recommendations and guidelines for developing and implementing bioenergy technologies in ways that are economically viable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable (Beyea et al., 1992; National Biofuels Roundtable, 1994; CONEG Governors' Biomass Policy Roundtable, 1995; Southeast Bioenergy Roundtable, 1996). Global Climate Change The risk of eventual climate changes due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has been cited by the US EPA Science Advisory Board as one of the highest priority issues facing the Agency (US EPA, Science Advisory Board, 1990). Increasing energy efficiency and displacing fossil fuels with renewable energy are two of the leading options for reducing emissions of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas. The main US sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions -- accounting for about two thirds of the US total -- are fossil-based power generation and transportation. Biomass will likely play key roles in reducing CO2 emissions in both of these sectors, because it can readily supply base load electrical power and be converted to fluid transportation fuels. Biomass can also displace fossil fuels indirectly as durable products that replace products made from such energy-intensive materials as steel, plastics and aluminum (Schlamadinger and Marland, 1996). Generally speaking, the effectiveness of biomass in reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels depends on two main factors: 1) the net effective greenhouse gas flux for the overall biomass production-use cycle and 2) the relative efficiency of the biomass conversion or end-use process (Williams, 1985; Hall et al., 1991; Overend, 1996; Schlamadinger and Marland, 1996; Williams and Larson, 1996). Although conversion and end-use efficiencies for biomass energy feedstocks are currently lower than those for fossil fuels, these may be transient symptoms of technological immaturity and small-scale implementation. Even now there are exceptions -- biomass can be co- fired in large and efficient coalfired electrical power plants with minimal modifications and efficiency penalty (Overend, 1996). For the longer term, new technologies -- such as pre-drying, new combustion technologies, gasification, gas turbines and combined cycle systems -- promise even greater efficiencies (Bryden et al., 1994; Overend, 1996; Williams and Larson, 1996). The net effective greenhouse-gas flux for a particular biomass feedstock depends primarily on two characteristics of the biomass production-use cycle: 1) the net greenhouse gas flux, and 2) the order and timing of the component source and sink terms (Schlamadinger and Marland, 1996; Marland et al., 1997). Fluxes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases for bioenergy systems involve several sources and sinks. The principle ones are 1) CO2 fixation during biomass growth, 2) changes in the organic matter content of the soil, and 3) CO2 emissions during biomass conversion and/or use. Other emissions for bioenergy systems include 1) CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled equipment used to manage, harvest, process and transport

3 Page 3 of 9 biomass, 2) CO2 emissions from fossil energy used in the production of fertilizers and pesticides, and 3) N2O emissions from nitrogen- fertilized soil (Perlack et al., 1992; Wright et al., 1992; DynCorp EENSP, 1995; Turnbull and Boman, 1995; Schlamadinger and Marland, 1996). Changes in the Organic Matter Content of the Soil Generally speaking, the conversion of land from natural cover to intensive annual crop production progressively decreases the organic matter content of the soil. The major factors are 1) decreased detrital inputs and 2) increased erosional and metabolic losses caused by increased soil temperature and aeration. For organic-rich soils, this loss of organic matter can result in obvious subsidence. However, we will assume for this analysis that most cropland has already lost the most labile component of its soil carbon, and that ongoing losses are therefore minimal. Conversely, the conversion of land from intensive annual crop production to perennial herbaceous species progressively increases the soils' organic matter content. For example, the conversion of land from annual crops (cotton, wheat and corn) to native perennial grasses (as part of the Conservation Reserve Program) added an average of 1.1 Mg C per ha per yr to the soil (Gebhart et al., in press). Bransby and coworkers obtained similar results for the conversion of land from annual crops to switchgrass (Bransby et al., 1996). The conversion of land from annual crops to fast-growing woody crops added an average of ca. 1-2 Mg C per ha per yr over the course of the rotation, although there was a transient loss of soil carbon from increased erosion and mineralization until canopy closure at ca. 6 years (Hansen, 1993; also see Harmon et al., 1990). Other workers have failed to find the expected increase (Grigal and Berguson, 1996). Additional studies of soil carbon changes are planned for larger scale ( ha) hybrid poplar plantings near Alexandria, Minnesota, USA (Tolbert and Downing, 1995). Projected yields of harvestable biomass on good agricultural sites are Mg dry biomass per ha per yr for perennial herbaceous crops and Mg dry biomass per ha per yr for woody crops (Perlack et al., 1992). Assigning the net increase in soil carbon to the harvested biomass crop -- as a negative component of its net carbon flux -- yields Kg C per Mg dry biomass for perennial herbaceous crops and Kg C per Mg dry biomass for woody crops. Fossil Energy Inputs The major fossil energy inputs for biomass crop production are fertilizers (mostly nitrogen) and fuel (for planting, management and harvesting). Nitrogen fertilizers are made from natural gas. Shapouri and coworkers estimated that fossil energy inputs for corn production currently average 2.3 GJ per Mg -- with 0.9 GJ per Mg as nitrogen fertilizer and 0.5 GJ per Mg as fuel (Shapouri et al., 1995). Lorenz and Morris estimated a current average of 2.8 GJ per Mg -- with 1.2 GJ per Mg as nitrogen fertilizer and 0.3 GJ per Mg as fuel (Lorenz and Morris, 1995). These estimates are equivalent to Kg C per Mg based on the CO2 emissions from the mix of fossil feedstocks used. Including most of the stover with the harvest reduces the estimate to ca. 20 Kg C per Mg. Projected fossil inputs for perennial crop production are considerably lower GJ per Mg for switchgrass and 0.48 GJ per Mg for hybrid poplar (Perlack et al., 1992). Although projected fuel requirements are 0.30 GJ per Mg for both crops, switchgrass is projected to require more nitrogen fertilizer than hybrid poplar GJ per Mg vs GJ per Mg. These projections are equivalent to 12 Kg C per Mg for switchgrass and 8.3 Kg C per Mg for hybrid poplar based on the CO2 emissions from the mix of fossil feedstocks used.

4 Page 4 of 9 Order and Timing of CO2 Fixation and Emission Woody crops sequester CO2 during growth, serving as a transient carbon sink. Taking the carbon content of dry wood to be ca. 540 Kg C per Mg, assuming linear tree growth and using a discount rate of 3% per year for past CO2 uptake (Marland et al., 1997), this adds 30 Kg C per Mg for a three year rotation (e.g., willow) and 90 Kg C per Mg for a 10 year rotation (e.g., hybrid poplar). Summary Although the estimated net effective CO2 flux for the corn production-use cycle is positive to 40 Kg C per Mg dry biomass -- it is relatively small compared to the total carbon content of the corn (ca. 400 Kg C per Mg. In contrast, the estimated net effective CO2 fluxes for perennial biomass crops are actually negative to -70 Kg C per Mg for switchgrass, -220 to -20 Kg C per Mg for willow, and -280 to -80 Kg C per Mg for poplar. Indeed -- especially for woody crops -- the reduction in anthropogenic climate forcing via transient CO2 sequestration during growth and CO2 fixation as soil organic matter may be appreciable compared to that from direct fossil fuel displacement. Air Quality and Acid Precipitation Biomass feedstocks contain little sulfur compared with oil and coal, and varying amounts of nitrogen. Uncontrolled SOX emissions from biomass combustion are negligible compared to uncontrolled SOX emissions from coal and oil combustion, but uncontrolled NOX emissions can be comparable -- and are dependent on the conversion process and nitrogen content of the biomass (Antares, 1993). NOX emissions comprise fuel-bound NOX and thermal NOX. Generally, wood contains less nitrogen (i.e., protein) than perennial herbaceous crops or crop residues. Fluidized bed boilers generate less thermal NOX than gratefired boilers or gasifier-based boilers and gas turbines because of their lower and more uniform temperatures. Land Use Change The ecological effects of growing large quantities of biomass for energy -- the effects on wildlife habitat and biodiversity, on soil fertility and erosion, and on water quality -- will depend on the specifics. The ecological implications of this land use change would very likely be positive -- as long as perennial biomass crops displaced annual agricultural crops. However, the ecological implications of displacing more natural land cover (such as forests and wetlands) with energy crops would very likely be negative (Cook et al., 1991; Miles and Miles, 1992; US Congress OTA, 1993; Tolbert and Downing, 1995; Tolbert and Schiller, 1996). Soil Erosion and Water Quality It has been projected that displacing annual crops with perennial biomass crops would reduce runoff -- decreasing soil erosion and improving water quality (Perlack et al., 1992; US Congress OTA, 1993). Even so, runoff during crop establishment could be comparable to or greater than that from annual row crops, especially for tree crops treated with herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. Steady state infiltration rates do appear to increase with tree crop age, with comparable rates for one year old sycamore, soybean and corn (Bandaranayake et al., in press). First year data from a series of switchgrass and tree crop trials in the Southeastern USA (Joslin and Schoenholtz, in press) show little difference between the perennial crops and annual crops (corn and cotton) -- although runoff from one of the cottonwood plots began to decrease dramatically by Spring of the second year (Thornton et al., in press; Green et al., in press). Although cover crops (winter rye grass, tall fescue, crimson clover and

5 Page 5 of 9 interstate sericea) do appear to reduce first year erosion in sweetgum, they also inhibit tree growth (Malik et al., in press). Displacing annual crops with perennial biomass crops would significantly reduce net pesticide use -- and could also reduce net fertilizer use, depending on which biomass crops were deployed and what agricultural uses they displaced (Perlack et al., 1992; US Congress OTA, 1993). Habitat and Biodiversity Displacing annual agricultural crops with perennial biomass crops could also improve habitat for native wildlife -- especially if native crop species were used in ecologically appropriate locations. Perennial energy crops could also be integrated with annual crops as buffers around remnant natural areas -- perennial herbaceous crops around grassland remnants and woody crops around forest remnants -- and as filter strips along streams. The introduction of such crops in worked landscapes could improve wildlife habitat, preserve natural biological diversity and restore natural ecosystem functions -- and simultaneously diversify the income mix of landowners. Results from field research in hardwood plantations (Beyea et al., 1994; Christian et al., in press; Hanowski et al., in press; Hoffman, in preparation; Christian et al., in preparation) support the hypothesis that replacing row crops with native woody biomass crops (or hybrids with a native parent) in formerly forested regions will help increase populations of some forest-dependent bird species whose habitat has been -- and continues to be -- eliminated and fragmented by human activities. In particular, our results support the recommendation that such woody crops be sited to surround and fill gaps between remaining forest fragments, buffering them from cleared areas, reducing habitat fragmentation and increasing the availability of valuable forest-interior habitat. Initial results from our field research in large switchgrass plantings (Beyea et al., 1994; Hoffman et al., 1995) support an analogous possibility -- that native perennial grasses grown as energy crops in former grasslands may provide suitable habitat for some prairie-dependent bird species. This could be a lucky break for grassland songbirds, many which are in very serious condition (with declines of 90-95% being not uncommon). Efforts are underway at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to evaluate biomass crops as an alternative to Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) set-asides for controlling soil erosion and chemical runoff. Although farmers have commonly planted perennial grasses (and trees) on CRP set-aside lands, harvesting has not been permitted. It appears that biomass crops can provide many of the wildlife habitat benefits of CRP management if they are managed and harvested appropriately. References Antares Group, Inc Electricity from Biomass: An Environmental Assessment and Strategy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Bandaranayake, W.M., D.D. Tyler, A.E. Houston, M. Shiers, B.R. Bock, J.D. Joslin, F.C. Thornton and M.D. Mullen in press 'Vegetative Cover Effects on Infiltration and Other Soil Physical Parameters in a No-Till Loess Soil' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Bioenergy '96. Beyea, J., J. Cook, D. Hall, R. Socolow and R. Williams 1992 Toward Ecological Guidelines for Large- Scale Biomass Energy Development: Report of a Workshop for Engineers, Ecologists and Policy Makers. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA and Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

6 Page 6 of 9 Beyea, J., W.A. Hoffman and J.H. Cook 1994 Vertebrate Species Diversity in Large-Scale Energy Crops and Associated Policy Issues. Annual Report for Subcontract No. 1BX-SL237C with Martin Marietta Energy Systems. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA. Bransby, D.; D. Parrish and S.B. McLaughlin 1996 'Soil Carbon Changes and Nutrient Cycling Associated with Switchgrass' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Environmental Effects of Biomass Crop Production: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know? Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Brower, M.C., M.C. Tennis, E.W. Denzler and M.M. Kaplan 1993 Powering the Midwest: Renewable Electricity for the Economy and the Environment. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Bryden, K.M., K.W. Ragland and L.D. Ostlie 1994 'Modeling the Performance of the Whole Tree Energy Combustor' in: Bioenergy '94: Using Biofuels for a Better Environment. (J. Farrell, S. Sargent, D. Swanson et al., Eds.) Western Regional Biomass Energy Program, Reno, Nevada, USA. pp Christian, D.P. in press 'Wintertime Use of Hybrid Poplar Plantations by Deer and Medium- Sized Mammals in the Midwestern US' in: Biomass and Bioenergy. Christian, D.P., P.T. Collins, J.M. Hanowski and G.J. Niemi in press 'Bird and Small Mammal Use of Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar Plantations' in: Journal of Wildlife Management. Christian, D.P., W. Hoffman, J.M. Hanowski, G.J. Niemi and J. Beyea in preparation 'Biological Diversity on Woody Biomass Plantations in North America'. in: Proceedings of the Conference, Environmental Effects of Biomass Crop Production: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know? Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. CONEG Governors' Biomass Policy Roundtable 1995 Economic and Environmental Opportunities Through Biomass Development. Coalition of Northeastern Governors Policy Research Center, Washington, D.C., USA. Cook, J.H., J. Beyea and K.H. Keeler 1991 'Potential Impacts of Biomass Production in the United States on Biological Diversity' in: Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, vol. 16, pp DynCorp EENSP 1995 Capturing Environmental and Economic Externalities: Evaluating the Total Fuel- Cycle Impact of Biomass. Coalition of Northeastern Governors Policy Research Center, Washington, D.C., USA. Fang, J.M. and P.S. Galen 1994 Issues and Methods in Incorporating Environmental Externalities into the Integrated Resource Planning Process. NREL/TP National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Gebhart, D.L., H.B. Johnson, H.S. Mayeux and H.W. Polley in press 'The CRP Increases Soil Organic Carbon' in: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Graham, R.L. and M.E. Downing 1995 Potential Supply and Cost of Biomass from Energy Crops in the TVA Region. ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Graham, R.L., E. Lichtenberg, V.O. Roningen, H. Shapouri and M.E. Walsh??? 'The Economics of Biomass Production in the United States' in:???.

7 Page 7 of 9 Green, T.H., G.F. Brown, L. Bingham, D. Mays, K. Sistani, J.D. Joslin, B.R. Bock and F.C. Thornton in press 'Environmental Impacts of Conversion of Cropland to Biomass Production' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Bioenergy '96. Grigal, D.F. and W.E. Berguson 1996 'Soil Carbon Changes Associated with Short Rotation Systems' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Environmental Effects of Biomass Crop Production: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know? Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Hall, D.O., H.E. Mynick and R.H. Williams 1991 'Carbon Sequestration Versus Fossil Fuel Substitution: Alternative Roles for Biomass in Coping with Greenhouse Warming' in: Global Climate Change: the Economic Costs of Mitigation and Adaptation (J.C. White, Ed.). ISBN Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York, USA. pp Hall, D.O. and J.I. House 1994 'Trees and Biomass Energy: Carbon Storage and/or Fossil Fuel Substitution?' in: Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 6, pp Hanowski, J.M., G.J. Niemi and D.P. Christian in press 'Influence of Within-Plantation Heterogeneity and Surrounding Landscape Composition on Avian Communities in Hybrid Poplar Plantations' in: Conservation Biology. Hansen, E.A 'Soil Carbon Sequestration Beneath Hybrid Poplar Plantations in the North Central United States' in: Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 5, pp Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell and J.F. Franklin 1990 'Effects on Carbon Storage of Conversion of Old- Growth Forests to Young Forests' in: Science, vol. 247, pp Hoffman, W.A. in preparation The Habitat Value of Short-Rotation Populus Plantations to Bird Populations. Hoffman, W., J. Beyea and J. Cook 1995 'Ecology of Agricultural Monocultures: Some Consequences for Biodiversity in Biomass Energy Farms' in: Proceedings of the Second Biomass Conference of the Americas: Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry. Portland, Oregon, USA. NREL/CP National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Holling, C.S. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management; John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Joslin, J.D. and S.H. Schoenholtz in press 'Measuring the Environmental Effects of Converting Cropland to Short-Rotation Woody Crops: A Research Approach' in: Proceedings of an IEA/BA Workshop, Environmental Guidelines for Developing Sustainable Energy from Biomass, New Zealand Journal of Forestry Research. Lorenz, D. and D. Morris 1995 How Much Energy Does it Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol? Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Lynd, L.R 'Cellulose Ethanol: Leading Sustainable Alternative or Distraction?' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Is Technology Enough? Sustainable Transportation - Energy Strategies. Malcolm, E.W A National Initiative for the Development of an Environmentally Sound Commercial Wood Resource for the 21st Century. Institute of Paper Science and Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

8 Page 8 of 9 Malik, R.K., T.H. Green, D. Mays, B.R. Bock, J.D. Joslin, F.C. Thornton, V.R. Tolbert, G.F. Brown and K. Sistani in press 'Cover Crops for Erosion Control in Bioenergy Hardwood Plantations' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Bioenergy '96. Marland, G., B. Schlamadinger and P. Leiby 1997 'Forest/Biomass Based Mitigation Strategies: Does the Timing of Carbon Reductions Matter?' in: Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 27 (Special): S Miles, Sr., T.R. and T.R. Miles, Jr Environmental Implications of Increased Biomass Energy Use. NREL/TP National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. National Biofuels Roundtable 1994 Principles and Guidelines for the Development of Biomass Energy Systems. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Overend, R.P Production of Electricity from Biomass Crops - US Perspective. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Perlack, R.D., J.W. Ranney and L.L. Wright 1992 Environmental Emissions and Socioeconomic Considerations in the Production, Storage, and Transportation of Biomass Energy Feedstocks. ORNL/TM Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Rubin, E.S., R.N. Cooper, R.A. Frosch, T.H. Lee, G. Marland, A.H. Rosenfeld and D.D. Stine 1992 'Realistic Mitigation Options for Global Warming' in: Science, vol. 257, pp and Schlamadinger, B. and G. Marland 1996 'The Role of Forest and Bioenergy Strategies in the Global Carbon Cycle' Biomass and Bioenergy,???. Shapouri, H., J.A. Duffield and M.S. Graboski 1995 Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. Agricultural Economic Report No Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA. Southeast Bioenergy Roundtable 1996 Bioenergy in the Southeast: Status, Opportunities and Challenges. Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA. Swezey, B.G., K.L. Porter and J.S. Feher 1994 The Potential Impact of Externalities Considerations on the Market for Biomass Power Technologies. NREL/TP National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. Thornton, F.C., T. Green, J.D. Joslin, A. Houston, B.R. Bock, S. Schoenholtz, D.D. Tyler and D. Pettry in press 'Environmental Impacts of Converting Cropland to Short-Rotation Woody Crop Production: First Year Results' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Bioenergy '96. Tolbert, V.R. in preparation 'A Time to Address Results to Date and Questions Remaining on Increasing Environmental Benefits from Biomass Crop Production' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Environmental Effects of Biomass Crop Production: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know? Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Tolbert, V.R. and M. Downing 1995 'Environmental Effects of Planting Biomass Crops at Larger Scales on Agricultural Lands' in: Proceedings of the Second Biomass Conference of the Americas: Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry. Portland, Oregon, USA. NREL/CP National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. pp

9 Page 9 of 9 Tolbert, V.R. and A. Schiller 1996 'Environmental Enhancement Using Short-Rotation Woody Crops and Perennial Grasses as Alternatives to Traditional Agricultural Crops' in: Proceedings of the Conference, Environmental Enhancement Through Agriculture. Tufts University, Medford, Medford, Massachusetts, USA. Turnbull, J.H. and U. Boman 1995 'Greenhouse Gas Implications and Mitigation Opportunities for Integrated Biomass Systems' in: Proceedings from a Symposium on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Research.??? US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1993 Potential Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production -- Background Paper. OTA-BP-E-118. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1995 Renewing Our Energy Future. OTA-ETI US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Science Advisory Board 1990 Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. SAB-EC US Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C., USA. US General Accounting Office 1995 Conservation Reserve Program: Alternatives Are Available for Managing Environmentally Sensitive Cropland. GAO/RCED US General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., USA. Walsh, M.E., D. Becker, R. Graham and E. Lichtenberg??? 'Estimated Government Savings from Biomass Production on CRP Acres' in:???. Walsh, M.E. and R.L. Graham??? 'Biomass Feedstock Supply Analysis: Production Costs, Land Availability, Yields' in:???. Williams, R 'Potential Roles for Bioenergy in an Energy-efficient World' in: Ambio, vol. 14, pp Williams, R.H. and E.D. Larson 1996 'Biomass Gasifier Gas Turbine Power Generating Technology' in: Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 10, pp Wright, L.L., R.L. Graham, A.F. Turhollow and B.C. English 1992 'Opportunities to Mitigate Carbon Dioxide Buildup Using Short-Rotation Woody Crops' in: Forests and Global Warming, Vol. 1 (R.N. Sampson and D. Hair, Eds.) American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C., USA. Wright, L.L., J.H. Cushman, A.R. Ehrenshaft, S.B. McLaughlin, S.A. Martin, W.A. McNabb, J.W. Ranney, G.A. Tuskan and A.F. Turhollow 1993 Biofuels Feedstock Development Program Annual Progress Report for ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.