Policy considerations for biomass commercialization and its impact on the Chariton Valley biomass project Page: 5 of 10
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
BioEnergy '98: Expanding BioEnergy Partnerships
act has since been amended and strengthened many times. Most recently the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 significantly revised U.S. air pollution laws and mandated
stringent regulations designed to become stricter and more comprehensive over time
(Cropper and Oates, 1992). Even with this oversight, utility power plants still account for
72% of SO2, 35% of CO2 and 33% of NOQ emissions into the nation's air (Energy
Information Administration, 1994). According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, coal is
the worst contributor and that substituting any other major fuel including biomass reduces
emissions of these key pollutants (ORNL, 1994). As utilities are required to abate
harmful emissions, the value of biomass use can be valued within the context of damage
costs associated with coal emissions and cost of expensive control systems.
While biomass may have a quantifiable value to electric utilities that currently use coal,
the greatest value of biomass may be in the agricultural sector to prevent non-point
pollution, reduce government expenditures for soil and water conservation and to
increase rural economic development. Policies enacted over the past 60 years by the
federal government have provided farmers with economic subsidies that have greatly
influenced production decisions and land use (Halcrow, et al., 1994). These production
oriented policies have not always had a positive effect on the rural economy and have
negatively impacted soil and water resources (Miranoski, 1986). Subsidies were paid to
producers regardless of the soil and water impacts that resulted during production.
Commodity programs directed at production controls created competing objectives with
long term resource conservation losing out to short term individual economic self-
interests.
Protection of soil and water has only recently emerged as a distinct policy area with
objectives not primarily concerned with commodity production. Beginning with the 1985
farm bill, legislation established incentives such as the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) to idle highly erodible land and set conservation compliance requirements for
participation in subsidy programs. (NRC, 1993). As of December 1996, the CRP covered
approximately 33 million acres of idled cropland. These acres are concentrated in the
Great Plains and western Corn Belt. Annual erosion reductions for the acreage in the
program as of December 1996 totaled 626 million tons, or about 19 tons per acre. This is
a 20% reduction in cropland erosion compared with conditions prior to the CRP. The
scope and the environmental impacts of CRP are both impressive and not without
considerable expenditures by USDA. CRP funding for FY 1996 was $1.7 billion. (ERS,
1996).
BIOMASS COMMERCIALIZATION THROUGH PUBLIC POLICY
Use of marginal lands (less productive, more erosive) for energy crop production has
been closely associated with benefits from reduced erosion, increased farm income and
improved water quality, an alternative to traditional farm commodity programs and a
major strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Dovring, 1988; Bluhm etal, 1993).
The Midwest, especially Iowa has been recognized as having a high potential for energy
crop production (Brower, 1993). Switchgrass, a herbaceous species native to Iowa has
been cited as having high potential as an energy crop (Woolsey, 1992; McLaughlin et al.31
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Cooper, J. Policy considerations for biomass commercialization and its impact on the Chariton Valley biomass project, article, December 31, 1998; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc679994/m1/5/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.