Modeling Bioenergy, Land Use, and GHG Mitigation with FASOMGHG: Implications of Storage Costs and Carbon Policy

  • Robert H. BeachEmail author
  • Yuquan W. Zhang
  • Bruce A. McCarl
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 40)


Biofuels production has increased rapidly in recent years due to heightened concerns regarding climate change and energy security. Biofuels produced from agricultural feedstocks increase pressure on land resources. Competition for land is expected to continue growing in the future as mandated biofuels volumes increase along with rising demand for food, feed, and fiber, both domestically and internationally. In response to concerns regarding impacts such as indirect land use change and higher food prices, U.S. policy is focusing on second-generation (cellulosic) feedstocks to contribute the majority of the mandated increase in biofuels volume through 2022. However, there has been little work exploring supply logistics, feedstock mix, and net GHG effects of combining renewable fuels mandates with climate policy. Using the recently updated Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG), we explore implications of alternative assumptions regarding feedstock storage costs and carbon price for renewable energy production mix, land use, and net GHG emissions. The model is used to quantify the magnitude and regional distribution of changes in the optimal mix of bioenergy feedstocks when accounting for storage costs. Further, combining a volume mandate with carbon price policy impacts feedstock mix and provides substantially larger net reduction in GHG.


Agriculture Bioenergy Biomass storage FASOMGHG Forests GHG mitigation Transportation costs 

JEL Codes

C61 Q15 Q18 


  1. Abbott, P.C., C. Hurt, and W.E. Tyner. What’s Driving Food Prices? March 2009 Update. Farm Foundation Issue Report, March 2009.
  2. Adams, D., R. Alig, B.A. McCarl, and B.C. Murray. 2005. FASOMGHG Conceptual Structure and Specification: Documentation. Available at
  3. Adams, D.M., and R.W. Haynes (eds). 2007. Resource and Market Projections for Forest Policy Development: Twenty-Five Years of Experience with the US RPA Timber Assessment. Managing Forest Ecosystems Series #14. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers, 615 p.Google Scholar
  4. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1999. Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture (C.E.E.M.A. Version 1.0) Report 1: Model Description. Available at:
  5. Alig, R.J., A. Plantinga, D. Haim, and M. Todd. 2010. Area Changes in U.S. Forests and other Major Land Uses, 1982–2002, with Projections to 2062. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 587, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 92 p.Google Scholar
  6. An, H., and S.W. Searcy. 2012. Economic and energy evaluation of a logistics system based on biomass modules. Biomass and Bioenergy 46(0)(11):190–202.Google Scholar
  7. An, H., W.E. Wilhelm, and S.W. Searcy. 2011. A mathematical model to design a lignocellulosic biofuel supply chain system with a case study based on a region in central Texas. Bioresource Technology 102(17)(9):7860–7870.Google Scholar
  8. Beach, R.H., and B.A. McCarl. 2010. U.S. Agricultural and Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Security Act: FASOM Results and Model Description. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at
  9. Beach, R.H., D. Adams, R. Alig, J. Baker, G.S. Latta, B.A. McCarl, B.C. Murray, S.K. Rose, and E. White. 2010. Model Documentation for the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG). Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  10. Beach, R.H., Y.W. Zhang, and B.A. McCarl. 2012. Modeling bioenergy, land use, and GHG emissions with FASOMGHG: Model overview and analysis of storage cost implications. Climate Change Economics 3(3):1250012-1–1250012-34.Google Scholar
  11. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program. Available at: Website Last Reviewed 22 March 2011.
  12. Collins, M., D. Dirtsch, J.C. Henning, L.W. Turner, S. Isaacs, and G.D. Lacefield. 1997. Round Bale Hay Storage in Kentucky. AGR-171, Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
  13. French, B.C. 1960. Some considerations in estimating assembly cost functions for agricultural processing operations. Journal of Farm Economics 62 (1960): 767–778.Google Scholar
  14. Gonzalez, R., R. Phillips, D. Saloni, H. Jameel, R. Abt, A. Pirraglia, and J. Wright. 2011. Biomass to energy in the southern United States: Supply chain and delivered cost. BioResources 6 (3): 2954–2976.Google Scholar
  15. Hess, J.R., C.T. Wright, and K.L. Kenney. 2007. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks and logistics for ethanol production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 1 (3): 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howitt, R. E., D. MacEwan, J. Medellin-Azuara, and J. R. Lund. 2010. Economic Modeling of Agriculture and Water in California Using the Statewide Agricultural Production Model: A Report for the California Department of Water Resources. Available at:
  17. Huhnke, R.L. 2006. Round Bale Hay Storage. BAE-1716, Oklahoma Extension Service.Google Scholar
  18. Johansoon, R., M. Peters, and R. House. 2007. Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming Model (REAP). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Technical Bulletin No. (TB-1916), March 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Khanna, M., B. Dhungana, and J. Clifton-Brown. 2008. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (6): 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarl, B.A., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, and J.T. Chmelik. 2000. Analysis of biomass fueled electrical power plants: Implications in the agricultural and forestry sectors. Annals of Operations Research 94: 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarl, B.A., and Y.W. Zhang. 2011. Use of advanced energy crops: An economic analysis of food, greenhouse gas and energy implications. In Advances in Energy Research, vol. 6, ed. M.J. Acosta. New York, NY: NOVA Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Nickerson, C., R. Ebel, A. Borchers, and F. Carriazo. 2011. Major uses of land in the United States, 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-89), December 2011.Google Scholar
  23. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shinners, K.J., B.N. Binversie, R.E. Muck, and P.J. Weimer. 2007. Comparison of wet and dry corn stover harvest and storage. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sokhansanj, S., S. Mani, A. Turhollow, A. Kumar, D. Bransby, L. Lynd, and M. Laser. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephen, J.D., W.E. Mabee, and J.N. Saddler. 2010. Biomass logistics as a determinant of second-generation biofuel facility scale, location and technology selection. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 4 (5): 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2007. Major Land Uses. Dataset Available at: Last updated 14 Feb 2014.
  28. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA FSA). 2009. CRP Contract Summary and Statistics.
  29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory Summary Report. USDA, NRCS. 90 p.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Renewable Fuel Standard. Available at: Website last updated October 13, 2010.
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA 420-R-10-006. Available at
  32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Research, Education & Economics Information System (USDA REEIS). 2011. Enhancement of dedicated-energy sorghums through compositional analysis—TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY [cited 12/13/2012 2012]. Available from (Accessed 13 Dec 2012).
  33. University of Illinois Extension. 2011. Production of bioenergy crops in the Midwest. Farm Economics: Facts & Opinions, FEFO 11–06.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Beach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuquan W. Zhang
    • 1
  • Bruce A. McCarl
    • 2
  1. 1.Agricultural, Resource & Energy Economics and Policy ProgramRTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations