U.S. Billion-ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry

Date
2011-08-01
Authors
Perlack, Robert
Karlen, Douglas
Eaton, Laurence
Turhollow, Anthony
Langholtz, Matt
Brandt, Craig
Downing, Mark
Graham, Robin
Wright, Lynn
Kavkewitz, Jacob
Shamey, Anna
Nelson, Richard
Stokes, Bryce
Rooney, William
Muth, David
Hess, J. Richard
Abodeely, Jared
Hellwinckel, Chad
De La Torre Ugarte, Danial
Yoder, Daniel
Lyon, James
Rials, Timothy
Volk, Timothy
Buchholz, Thomas
Abrahamson, Lawrence
Anex, Robert
Voigt, Thomas
Berguson, William
Riemenschneider, Don
Karlen, Douglas
Johnson, Jane
Mitchell, Robert
Vogel, Kenneth
Richard, Edward
Tatarko, John
Wagner, Larry
Skog, Kenneth
Lebow, Patricia
Dykstra, Dennis
Buford, Marilyn
Miles, Patrick
Scott, D. Andrew
Perdue, James
Rummer, Robert
Barbour, Jamie
Stanturf, John
McKeever, David
Zalesny, Ronald
Gee, Edmund
Cassidy, P. Daniel
Lightle, David
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Altmetrics
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Series
Department
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
Abstract

The Report, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (generally referred to as the Billion-Ton Study or 2005 BTS), was an estimate of “potential” biomass within the contiguous United States based on numerous assumptions about current and future inventory and production capacity, availability, and technology. In the 2005 BTS, a strategic analysis was undertaken to determine if U.S. agriculture and forest resources have the capability to potentially produce at least one billion dry tons of biomass annually, in a sustainable manner—enough to displace approximately 30% of the country’s present petroleum consumption. To ensure reasonable confidence in the study results, an effort was made to use relatively conservative assumptions. However, for both agriculture and forestry, the resource potential was not restricted by price. That is, all identified biomass was potentially available, even though some potential feedstock would more than likely be too expensive to actually be economically available.

In addition to updating the 2005 study, this report attempts to address a number of its shortcomings

Comments
Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Source
Collections