Regional water resource implications of bioethanol production in the Southeastern United States

Abstract

AbstractThe Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates US production of 136 billion L of biofuel by 2022. This target implies an appropriation of regional primary production for dedicated feedstocks at scales that may dramatically affect water supply, exacerbate existing water quality challenges, and force undesirable environmental resource trade offs. Using a comparative life cycle approach, we assess energy balances and water resource implications for four dedicated ethanol feedstocks – corn, sugarcane, sweet sorghum, and southern pine – in two southeastern states, Florida and Georgia, which are a presumed epicenter for future biofuel production. Net energy benefit ratios for ethanol and coproducts range were 1.26 for corn, 1.94 for sweet sorghum, 2.51 for sugarcane, and 2.97 for southern pine. Corn also has high nitrogen (N) and water demand (11.2 kg GJnet−1 and 188 m3 GJnet−1, respectively) compared with other feedstocks, making it a poor choice for regional ethanol production. Southern pine, in contrast, has relatively low N demand (0.4 kg GJnet−1) and negligible irrigation needs. However, it has comparatively low gross productivity, which results in large land area per unit ethanol production (208 m2 GJnet−1), and, by association, substantial indirect and incremental water use (51 m3 GJnet−1). Ultimately, all four feedstocks require substantial land (10.1, 3.1, 2.5, and 6.1 million ha for corn, sugarcane, sweet sorghum, and pine, respectively), annual N fertilization (3230, 574, 396, 109 million kg N) and annual total water (54 400, 20 840, 8840, and 14 970 million m3) resources when scaled up to meet EISA renewable fuel standards production goals. This production would, in turn, offset only 17.5% of regional gasoline consumption on a gross basis, and substantially less when evaluated on a net basis. Utilization of existing waste biomass sources may ameliorate these effects, but does not obviate the need for dedicated primary feedstock production. Careful scrutiny of environmental trade‐offs is necessary before embracing aggressive ethanol production mandates.