Native Grasses for Biomass Production at High Elevations - Industrial Crops: Breeding for BioEnergy and Bioproducts - page 117

rising diesel prices. This subsequently increases transportation and agricultural
production costs, eventually leading to inflation. Policymakers take considerable
measures to diversify energy sources for transportation, electricity generation, and
aviation so that energy costs remain stable. Adequate diversification and domestic
production of fuel sources is defined by many policymakers as “energy security”
[ 112 ]. An energy portfolio diversified with biomass-based energy could improve
the Mountain West's energy security. Policies that encourage market development,
energy diversification, and energy security could jump-start the market for cool-
season biomass grasses, although long-term market viability hinges upon whether
crops can be produced at competitive costs.
Ideally, profitability calculations should include net environmental costs. Laws
and regulations require policymakers to balance energy security with environmen-
tal targets that consider greenhouse gas emissions, soil reclamation and remedia-
tion, and nutrient management. As established earlier in the chapter, cool-season
biomass grasses may provide several of these environmental benefits. If a full
environmental cost accounting of environmental impacts is conducted, then
biomass-based energy cost-competitiveness may improve. Energy security and
environmental policy goals provide both opportunities and challenges for biofuel
production in the Mountain West.
On a national level, biofuels have been promoted as a means for increasing
domestic energy production while meeting environmental regulations, although the
effectiveness to which biofuels fulfill these objectives is continually under discus-
sion. As previously stated, EISA and the RFS policies have attempted to increase
domestic biofuel energy production. These policies are linked with considerable US
biodiesel production increases from 87 million L in 2004 to 3,107 million L in
2011. The RFS calls for 136 billion L of biofuels to be created annually by the
year 2020.
Based on current examples, biofuel policies have arguably been successful in
establishing markets for US biofuels. Recent studies demonstrate that biofuel
production is a commercially viable enterprise in some regions of the USA. For
example, in the Midwest, there is sufficient supply and demand for corn ethanol,
and the market in this region is now considered economically viable. At this writing
the corn ethanol market can function without the support of many US subsidies
[ 113 ]. Results from life cycle analysis that evaluate environmental impacts from
“cradle to grave” note varying degrees of environmental benefits. There are notable
concerns as to whether biofuel feedstocks displace food and whether US biofuel
policies could contribute to higher domestic and international agricultural prices
along with food prices. Some authors have demonstrated a strong correlation
between biofuel production and rising global food prices, although other econo-
mists have noted that periods of high global food prices have resulted from a
complex set of issues and that only select US biofuel policies have a minimal effect
on food prices [ 114 ]. This debate will likely continue into the future as additional
data become available. Nevertheless, what is relevant is that biofuel crops produced
in the Mountain West states should be produced at low-input costs and ideally
should not compete with crops intended for established uses such as food and feed.