Next Article in Journal
Does the Increase in Renewable Energy Influence GDP Growth? An EU-28 Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimal N Application Rates on Switchgrass for Producers and a Biorefinery
Previous Article in Journal
Prioritizing Energy-Intensive Machining Operations and Gauging the Influence of Electric Parameters: An Industrial Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulating the Feasibility of Dual Use Switchgrass on Cow-Calf Operations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing the Trade-Offs between Meeting Biorefinery Production Capacity and Feedstock Supply Cost: A Chance Constrained Approach

1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University; Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
2
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
3
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food & Ag Products Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(16), 4763; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164763
Submission received: 17 July 2021 / Accepted: 30 July 2021 / Published: 5 August 2021

Abstract

:
Commercial-scale switchgrass production for cellulosic biofuel remains absent in U.S. A well-recognized difficulty is the steady provision of high-quality feedstock to biorefineries. Switchgrass yield is random due to weather and growing conditions, with low yields during establishment years. Meeting biorefinery production capacity requirements 100% of the time or at any other frequency requires contracting sufficient amount of agricultural land areas to produce feedstock. Using chance-constrained programming, the trade-offs between the degree of certainty that refinery demand for feedstock and the cost of contracting production acreage is assessed. Varying the certainty from 60% to 95%, we find the costs of production, logistics and transportation ranged from 27% to 96% of the cost of 100% certainty. Investors and managers need to consider the cost of certainty of biomass acquisition when contracting for production acreage.

1. Introduction

The United States (U.S.) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates the production of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. The U.S. cellulosic biofuel industry is well behind this target. Little cellulosic biofuel is currently produced at the commercial scale in the U.S. Of the existing commercial cellulosic ethanol plants, three are idled, one is on hold, one is under construction, and one is operational [1].
Challenges and opportunities facing the development of the cellulosic biofuel development have been extensively researched. Previous studies primarily focus on cellulosic feedstock production, conversion technologies, end uses, and segments along the value chain in the U.S. Among all the cellulosic feedstock options, perennial switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is a promising cellulosic feedstock because it can be produced on marginal agricultural land. This feature reduces land substitution for food production, reduces soil erosion potential on environmentally sensitive land, offsets greenhouse gas emissions, and supports biodiversity [2,3]. Financial support through federal programs are available for establishing switchgrass and to assist with the logistical costs of transporting feedstock to biorefineries [4]. Previous research suggests growing switchgrass can be profitable with vertical contracting systems between farmers and biorefineries [5]. Further, landowners are willing to plant switchgrass if the opportunity cost of converting from current uses to switchgrass production is low and downside risk can be prevented [6,7].
Technical and economic analyses demonstrate that commercial-scale switchgrass-driven biofuel production is feasible under certain market conditions [8,9,10]. Deterministic and stochastic studies have analyzed feedstock production and costs, logistic, and optimal facility location to invest and establish the preprocessing centers and biorefineries in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Dakotas (e.g., [11,12,13,14,15]). Yet, the absence of cellulosic ethanol production in these well-studied states indicates that the investment risk remains high for biofuel industry [16].
Like all dryland perennial crops, switchgrass yield is stochastic and affected by weather and growing conditions. In addition, switchgrass requires two to three years to establish and reach yield potential. Switchgrass yields vary with soil quality and annual weather conditions [17]. Many feedstock supply chain and economic studies assumed deterministic switchgrass yields over a 10 to 15 year lifetime (e.g., [11,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]). However, an increasing number of recent studies consider feedstock supply uncertainty as an important determinant of optimal facility and preprocessing locations (e.g., [16,21,25,26,27,28]), in addition to considering economic, social, and environmental goals (e.g., [29,30]). For biorefinery management, capacity utilization is likely a critical factor for profitability. Ignoring the three-year establishment period for switchgrass and the inherent variability in yield may translate into biomass shortages at the biorefinery or high costs of contracting production acres. Assuming switchgrass yields follow a roughly symmetric distribution, if acres are contracted to meet plant capacity using mean yields, the facility will experience a biomass shortfall in roughly 50% of the operating years.
This research extends previous economic modeling efforts on optimal biomass contracting by incorporating spatial and temporal yield variability for switchgrass establishment and production. A chance constrained program [31,32] is developed to model the biorefinery by minimizing the sum of costs of acquiring biomass feedstock over a ten-year period. The programming model is constrained to require that feedstock demand is met with a degree of certainty in each of the ten-year planning horizon. The analysis focuses on the state of Oklahoma, which has a substantial amount of pasture and hay land that could be converted to switchgrass production.

2. Chance Constrained Programming and Application in Biofuel Supply Chain Research

Chance constrained programming (CCP) is a useful approach for modeling uncertainty in optimization problems. CCP was introduced by [31,32]. CCP assumes that the decision maker faces uncertain circumstances, and is forced to make a decision based on the predetermined frequency of which constraints must be satisfied. For a producer, the probability (or likelihood) of a resource constraint (or a production targeted level) being satisfied is set to be greater than or equal to some predetermined values. The advantage of CCP is its simplicity with respect to satisfying a constraint at some probability. CCP is widely applicable to problems that involve making decisions (or plans) under risk and uncertainty, including water resource management (e.g., [33,34,35,36,37,38]), agriculture (e.g., [39,40,41]), finance (e.g., [42,43]), power flow and generation (e.g., [44,45]), and renewable energy (e.g., [46,47]). One of the main critiques of CCP is that it cannot provide alternative solutions to decision makers if constraints are not met (e.g., [48,49]).
CCP has been used in a handful of biofuel supply chain analysis. [50] formulated a chance constrained model to determine a biofuel supply chain network while ensuring that the probability of utilizing certain amount municipal wastes was satisfied. [51] demonstrates the use of CCP with multiple distribution assumptions for biofuel demand. Compared with deterministic and two-stage stochastic programming model results, CCP provides the most conservative, risk-averse solution [51]. CCP has also been used along with other stochastic programming approaches such as two-stage or multi-stage stochastic programming in municipal solid waste power supply [52] and renewable energy storage [53]. While CCP had shown this is a useful tool in early stage planning of biofuel industry, it appears that this approach has not been applied in switchgrass acquisition and biorefinery capacity fulfillment. If a biorefinery contracts farmers to produce switchgrass as its main feedstock, the foremost question for the biorefinery is how much land will be needed and what are the optimal locations of these acres. Uncertainty in biomass supply will affect realized biorefinery output as unmet demand or oversupply of feedstock.

3. Materials and Methods

The application of chance constrained approach in a switchgrass supply is formulated considering feedstock production area and location, logistic costs, travel distance from the location of switchgrass production to a biorefinery, and the associated costs. The analysis in this manuscript assumes that all potential switchgrass producers have identical opportunity costs and receive the same contracting prices from each biorefinery.

3.1. Optimization Model

A linear chance constrained programming model is formulated to determine optimal switchgrass production areas and shipping routes between that biomass supply and demand. The model’s objective is to minimize total costs of feedstock production, logistics, and transportation, assuming that each biorefinery has a t-year contract with farmers to supply switchgrass biomass (Equation (1)).
min x 0 E C P + E C L + E C S
where E C P is total expected switchgrass production costs, E C L is total expected switchgrass logistic costs, and E C S   is total expected switchgrass transportation costs. Each biorefinery j contracts acres x i j from producer i.
In Equation (2) expected production costs E C P are calculated using the mean yield of switchgrass Y i t at location i, in year t, multiplied by the per acre cost production ( α i j ) and contracted acres xij:
E C P = i j t α x i j Y i t
Transportation costs per ton from production location i to biorefinery j are β i j , E C S the total expected cost of switchgrass transportation is calculated as:
E C S = i j t β i j x i j Y i t .
Equation (4) calculates the total expected logistic costs, where γ is the logistic costs per dry Mg of switchgrass.
E C L = i j t γ x i j Y i t
Model constraints include acreage constraints and chance constraints on the probability of delivering the annual capacity to each biorefinery. The switchgrass production area in location i cannot exceed the available land ( L i _) that can be used for switchgrass production (Equation (5)).
j x i j L i   i
Given yield variability during the establishment through post-establishment years, the minimum probability of meeting annual switchgrass demand is denoted θ t (Equation (6)). The annual biomass demand M j for each biorefinery ensures that the probability (Pr) of meeting M j in year t is at least θ t .
P r [ i x i j y i t   M j ]   θ t   t
In Equations (5) and (6), yit is a random yield at location i, in year t, with the probability density function f ( y i t ) . A triangular distribution is imposed on dryland switchgrass yield [54,55] assuming yields are not serially correlated. A triangular distribution for switchgrass yield was used because the yield data for each period t is limited, given that switchgrass would be new to many producers. Information on minimum, maximum, and most likely yields are comparatively easier to obtain. These are all parameters needed of the triangular distribution. The triangular distribution is fully parameterized with the maximum yield Y i t m a x , the minimum yield Y i t m i n , and the yield mode Y i t m o d . Further, the cumulative density function can be expressed as a linear equation (Equation (7)):
M j i x i j [ Y i t m a x θ t ( Y i t m a x Y i t m i n ) ( Y i t m a x Y i t m o d ) ] 0   j ,   t .
Then, expected yield Y i t for each location i , year t , is the sum of minimum yield, maximum yield, and most likely yield Y i t m o d e divided by three (Equation (8)):
Y i t = Y i t m a x + Y i t m i n + Y i t m o d 3   i ,   t .

3.2. Study Region and Data

3.2.1. Oklahoma and Decision Making Unit

Oklahoma, located in south central of the U.S., is a transition zone from humid continental (north) to humid subtropical (east and southeast) to semi-arid (west). Oklahoma is primarily an agricultural state. Over 70% of the state land areas, more than 13 million ha, are employed for agricultural production [56] with about 20% of agricultural hectares cropped. About 40% of crop hectares are in hay production to support the state’s large cattle industry. Most of Oklahoma’s counties are relatively sparsely populated with most of its population located in central and northeastern counties.
Two biorefinery locations are selected based on previous research in Oklahoma (Figure 1). The first location is in Grady County [57], and the second is in Okfuskee County [27]. A cost minimizing switchgrass-based biofuel supply chain was formulated assuming these biorefineries vertically contract with farmers to convert hay production land to establish and produce switchgrass. Investors or managers of these biorefineries choose least cost switchgrass production sites, mainly determined by regional agricultural productivity, as well as logistics and transportation costs to situate the switchgrass contracting areas. The biorefinery planning period of contracting switchgrass production is ten years, although the biorefinery project life period could be twenty years. This is a common assumption that the expected life a switchgrass stand is ten years [58] (Recent research have shown that switchgrass lifetime can be longer than 10 years [59]).
A distance matrix was generated between centroids of counties where biorefineries are located and centroids of other nearby counties with hay land available to produce switchgrass using ArcGIS [60]. If the switchgrass contracting areas are located in the Grady and Okfuskee counties (i.e., biorefinery locations), the distance is measured from the centroid of these two counties to its furthest boundary. The maximum one-way transportation distance is 80 km as suggested by [18].

3.2.2. Switchgrass Yields

Lengthy switchgrass yield time series data are not available for multiple Oklahoma locations. The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model [61] is employed to simulate switchgrass yield for Oklahoma Crop Reporting Districts (CRDs). Each CRD is considered a homogeneous production area. CRDs are composed of five or more counties in Oklahoma (Figure 1). There are nine CRDs in Oklahoma.
Data required for simulating switchgrass in EPIC include weather, soil type, and operation inputs (fertilizers), and planting, fertilizer, and harvesting dates. Weather and wind data from weather stations located in the center of each CRD were used. Representative agricultural land soil types for each CRD were identified from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSRUGO). Twenty-six representative cropland soil types were identified. Each EPIC evaluation was 100 years long, with switchgrass re-establishment every ten years. Switchgrass was planted in May at the beginning of each ten-year interval, harvested annually in December, and then terminated at the end of each ten-year period. On April 1, starting in year two of each ten-year cycle, 100 kg per ha of nitrogen was applied. Over the 100 simulated years, ten observations of switchgrass yields were generated for each year in the ten-year cycle. For example, ten yield observations were generated for the establishment year of switchgrass. Table 1 presents the statistics of yield observations for each year and CRD generated by EPIC simulations. CRD-3 and CRD-6, located in humid northeastern Oklahoma, have higher modal switchgrass yields compared with other CRDs. Each county in a CRD was assumed to have the annual simulated CRD switchgrass yield.

3.2.3. Production, Logistic, and Transportation Costs and Land Availability

A production cost of USD 58.39 per dry Mg [62] and a logistic cost of USD 23.70 per dry Mg for switchgrass [62] were assumed (Table 2). Production costs are composed of payments to biomass, harvesting and collection, and field storage. Logistic costs are the sum of processing, handling, and queuing at the biorefinery. Transportation costs include the movement of material from location i to biorefinery j , plus loading, trucking, and unloading. A linear regression determined by [63] is used to calculate unit transportation costs for different routes. The fixed transportation cost of USD 3.62 per Mg, and variable transportation cost USD 0.0708 per dry Mg-km. The cost function is (Equation (9)):
β i j = 3.62 + 0.0708 d i j
where β i j is the transport cost per dry Mg if transport biomass from location i to location j , and d i j is the round-trip distance in km between locations i and j .
Land available for each county is constrained to the 2017 harvested hay land areas (USDA-NASS). Hay land is a good candidate for switchgrass production in Oklahoma because of its proximity to roads, and because existing haying equipment can be used to harvest switchgrass. Although Oklahoma has a vast amount of pasture land, 65% of its pasture land is rangeland [64]. Rangeland may not be accessible or suitable for switchgrass production because of its relatively low productivity, inaccessible terrain, or critical ecological service.

3.2.4. Biorefinery Production Capacity and Switchgrass Biomass Demand Scenarios

A facility with a biomass demand of 2205 dry Mg per day of biomass operating at 90% efficiency will require 724,000 dry Mg per year [65] (Table 2). Given a 10-year growth period for switchgrass, it may be cost prohibitive for a biorefinery to expect that 100 percent of this demand can be met annually. Table 3 presents a set of demand scenarios for switchgrass based on the probability of meeting each biorefinery annual targeted conversion capacity. The scenario SA constraints the preassigned probability of meeting biorefinery conversion capacity is 100% from years 1 to 10. Scenarios S100, S95, S90, S85, S80, S75, S70, S65, and S60 require that over the first three years, the probability of meeting annual biorefinery demand are 35%, 45%, and 55%, respectively. From year four to year ten, the probabilities of meeting demand vary from 100% to 60%.

4. Results

4.1. Switchgrass Production Area and Locations

The optimal solution for contracting switchgrass areas and locations is determined under each biorefinery demand scenario (Figure 2 and Table 4). Although the two biorefineries, Grady and Okfuskee, have the same capacity, their solutions on feedstock draw areas are different. Under the SA scenario, a 100% probability of meeting biorefinery annual demand, the feedstock draw areas for a biorefinery in Grady is 124,135 ha of land, while the Okfuskee biorefinery is 116,493 ha. The feedstock draw area for the biorefinery in Grady is smaller than the Okfuskee biorefinery feedstock draw area if preassigned probabilities for the first three years are less than 100% (S100 ~ S60). The difference is mainly due to land productivity where feedstocks were drawn. Both Grady and Okfuskee birefineries are located in CRD-5 which is the central crop district. The Okfuskee biorefinery is near the eastern boundary of the CRD-5 while the Grady biorefinery is near the southwestern end of the CRD-5 (Figure 1). Beside drawing feedstock from counties located in CRD-5, Okfuskee draws feedstock from counties located in CRD-3 and CRD-6, while Grady draws feedstock from counties located in CRD-7 and CRD-8. The switchgrass yields are higher in CRD-3 and CRD-6 than CRD-7 and CRD-8 because of projected higher precipitation.
As the probability of meeting biorefinery annual capacity decreases during the switchgrass post-establishment period (years 4 to 10), the feedstock draw area is reduced for both biorefineries (Figure 2 and Table 4). If meeting the annual capacity post establishment years 75% of the time (S75) is acceptable, the total draw area for both biorefineries is 193,987 acres, or about 84% of draw area under S100. For the Okfuskee biorefinery, feedstock draw areas in Lincoln county were affected the most, decreasing from 13,171 under S100 to 226 under S75. Lincoln is 74 km from the Okfuskee biorefinery and located in CRD-5. From McIntosh county to the Okfuskee biorefinery, the travel distance is longer compared with from Lincoln county to the Okfuskee biorefinery. McIntosh is located in CRD-6, where switchgrass yields are higher. Seven counties supply switchgrass to the Grady biorefinery under S100, but only five counties are need to meet a 75% level of certainty (S75).

4.2. Estimated Costs

Total production, transportation, and logistics costs decline as the preassigned probability of meeting biorefinery production capacity over establishment- and post-establishment decrease (Table 5). Switchgrass transportation costs were affected most, compared with the costs of production and logistics. Smaller, more local feedstock draw areas were required and the distance traveled from producing county to biorefinery shortened as the chance of meeting the biorefinery full capacity drops. Comparing S75 to S100, transportation costs decreased by 20%, production and logistic costs fell by 16%, and total costs dropped by 17%. As is expected, due to increasing marginal cost on probability of meeting biorefinery production capacity, total costs increase at an increasing rate as this probability is increased from 60% (S60) to 100% (SA). Figure 3 shows the resulting convex cost curve and the trade-offs between the total expected cost and probability of meeting the production capacity. Higher probability reflects a higher degree of certainty to meet the biorefinery production capacity. However, as expected, higher degrees of certainty required even higher economic costs. A biorefinery manager and owner could be better off without achieving the 100% certainty in meeting production capacity if the costs are much higher than profits or the remaining capacity can be met with other feedstock.

4.3. Excess Supply of Switchgrass

The expected annual volume of switchgrass produced and transported from fields to biorefineries is higher than the facility capacity. Requiring the biorefinery meeting the annual capacity 100% of establishment and post-establishment (SA) generates excess supply from years 2–10 for Grady biorefinery and years 2–7 for Okfuskee biorefinery (Figure 4). A lower degree of certainty during establishment period (years 1 to 3) results in higher excess supply in the first three years under all scenarios. However, a lower probability of meeting biomass demand for first three years results in lower excess supply of switchgrass or even eliminated it in years 4 to 10, and lower biomass acquisition costs. A decrease in the probability of meeting annual biorefinery capacity during the establishment and post-establishment reduces excess supply across the project period and associated cost.

5. Conclusions

One of the well-recognized reasons that hinge the second-generation biofuel industry development is feedstock production uncertainty. Existing technical and economic analysis demonstrate the feasibility of scaled-up biofuel production from converting switchgrass to drop-in fuel. However, uncertainty in procuring a steady flow of feedstock to meet the biorefinery capacity is an important planning issue. Resulting acquisition costs can be high for higher levels of biomass supply certainty.
In this research, the Oklahoma case study used a chance constrained approach to model the cost of acquiring biomass feedstock with a predetermined probability of meeting the full capacity assuming switchgrass as the only feedstock available. Results show the land area required and the costs of meeting biorefinery production capacity increase at an increasing rate as the probability of meeting the full capacity increases. Land required, costs, and excess supply amount also differ between biorefinery locations with identical capacity due to transportation distances and spatial and temporal land productivity. A lower probability of meeting the full production capacity during switchgrass establishment years (years 1–3) is a reasonable strategy as the total costs can be reduced by more than 4%. If further reduce the probability in the switchgrass post-establishment year, the cost can be dropped by 27% compared with 100% of the time to meet biorefinery production capacity in years 1 to 10.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.H.L., E.A.D., B.C.E. and R.H.; methodology, L.H.L., E.A.D. and B.C.E.; formal analysis, L.H.L. and E.A.D.; data curation, L.H.L. and B.C.E.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H.L.; writing—review and editing, L.H.L., E.A.D., B.C.E. and R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES), the University of Tennessee AgResearch and Education Centers, and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Hatch Project OKL03162.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Padella, M.; O’Connell, A.; Prussi, M. What is still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Naik, S.; Goud, V.V.; Rout, P.K.; Dalai, A.K. Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 578–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carriquiry, M.A.; Du, X.; Timilsina, G.R. Second generation biofuels: Economics and policies. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4222–4234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Federal Register. Rules and Regulations. Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Energy/ccc_2015_0001_0001 (accessed on 18 June 2021).
  5. Larson, J.A.; English, B.C.; He, L. Economic analysis of farm-level supply of biomass feedstocks for energy produc-tion under alternative contract scenarios and risk. In Proceedings of the Integration of Agricultural and Energy Systems Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 12–13 February 2008. [Google Scholar]
  6. Yoder, J.R.; Alexander, C.E.; Ivanic, R.; Rosch, S.; Tyner, W.E.; Wu, S.Y. Risk Versus Reward, a Financial Analysis of Alternative Contract Specifications for the Miscanthus Lignocellulosic Supply Chain. BioEnergy Res. 2014, 8, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burli, P.; Forgoston, E.; Lal, P.; Billings, L.; Wolde, B. Adoption of switchgrass cultivation for biofuel under uncertainty: A dis-crete-time modeling approach. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 105, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schmer, M.R.; Vogel, K.P.; Mitchell, R.B.; Perrin, R.K. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wang, M.; Han, J.; Dunn, J.B.; Cai, H.; Elgowainy, A. Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 045905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Field, J.L.; Evans, S.G.; Marx, E.; Easter, M.; Adler, P.R.; Dinh, T.; Willson, B.; Paustian, K. High-resolution techno–ecological modelling of a bioenergy landscape to identify climate mitigation opportunities in cellulosic ethanol production. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Epplin, F.M.; Haque, M. Policies to Facilitate Conversion of Millions of Acres to the Production of Biofuel Feedstock. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2011, 43, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Osmani, A.; Zhang, J. Stochastic optimization of a multi-feedstock lignocellulosic-based bioethanol supply chain under multiple uncertainties. Energy 2013, 59, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roni, S.; Ekşioğlu, S.D.; Searcy, E.; Jacobson, J.J.; Roni, M. Estimating the variable cost for high-volume and long-haul transportation of densified biomass and biofuel. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014, 29, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yu, T.E.; English, B.C.; He, L.; Larson, J.A.; Calcagno, J.; Fu, J.; Wilson, B. Analyzing Economic and Environmental Performance of Switchgrass Biofuel Supply Chains. BioEnergy Res. 2016, 9, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sharma, B.P.; Yu, T.E.; English, B.C.; Boyer, C.N.; Larson, J.A. Stochastic optimization of cellulosic biofuel supply chain incorporating feedstock yield uncertainty. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 1009–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mamun, S.; Hansen, J.K.; Roni, M. Supply, operational, and market risk reduction opportunities: Managing risk at a cellulosic biorefinery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 121, 109677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jager, H.I.; Baskaran, L.; Brandt, C.C.; Davis, E.B.; Gunderson, C.A.; Wullschleger, S. Empirical geographic modeling of switchgrass yields in the United States. GCB Bioenergy 2010, 2, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Epplin, F.M. Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion facility in the southern plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 1996, 11, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumar, A.; Sokhansanj, S. Switchgrass (Panicum vigratum L.) delivery to a biorefinery using integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1033–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khanna, M.; Dhungana, B.; Clifton-Brown, J. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Awudu, I.; Zhang, J. Uncertainties and sustainability concepts in biofuel supply chain management: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1359–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, J.; Osmani, A.; Awudu, I.; Gonela, V. An integrated optimization model for switchgrass-based bioethanol supply chain. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1205–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Park, Y.S.; Szmerekovsky, J.; Osmani, A.; Aslaam, N.M. Integrated Multimodal Transportation Model for a Switchgrass-Based Bioethanol Supply Chain: Case Study in North Dakota. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2628, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. He-Lambert, L.; English, B.C.; Lambert, D.M.; Shylo, O.; Larson, J.A.; Yu, T.E.; Wilson, B. Determining a geographic high resolution supply chain network for a large scale biofuel industry. Appl. Energy 2018, 218, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Meyer, A.; Cattrysse, D.; Rasinmäki, J.; Van Orshoven, J. Methods to optimise the design and management of biomass-for-bioenergy supply chains: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Huang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Chen, C.-W. An Integrated Biofuel Supply Chain to Cope with Feedstock Seasonality and Uncertainty. Transp. Sci. 2014, 48, 540–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Debnath, D.; Stoecker, A.L.; Epplin, F.M. Impact of Environmental Values on the Breakeven Price of Switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Sharma, B.P.; Yu, T.E.; English, B.C.; Boyer, C.N.; Larson, J.A. Impact of government subsidies on a cellulosic biofuel sector with diverse risk preferences toward feedstock uncertainty. Energy Policy 2020, 146, 111737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, J.; Realff, M.J.; Lee, J.H. Optimal design and global sensitivity analysis of biomass supply chain networks for biofuels under uncertainty. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2011, 35, 1738–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tenerelli, P.; Carver, S. Multi-criteria, multi-objective and uncertainty analysis for agro-energy spatial modelling. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 724–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Chance-Constrained Programming. Manag. Sci. 1959, 6, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Deterministic Equivalents for Optimizing and Satisficing under Chance Constraints. Oper. Res. 1963, 11, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eisel, L.M. Chance constrained reservoir model. Water Resour. Res. 1972, 8, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Askew, A.J. Chance-constrained Dynamic Programing and the Optimization of Water Resource Systems. Water Resour. Res. 1974, 10, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Loucks, D.P.; Dorfman, P.J. An evaluation of some linear decision rules in chance-Constrained models for reservoir planning and operation. Water Resour. Res. 1975, 11, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guo, P.; Huang, G.H. Two-stage fuzzy chance-constrained programming: Application to water resources management under dual uncertainties. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2008, 23, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grosso, J.; Ocampo-Martinez, C.; Puig, V.; Joseph, B. Chance-constrained model predictive control for drinking water networks. J. Process. Control. 2014, 24, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Xu, J.; Huang, G.; Li, Z.; Chen, J. A two-stage fuzzy chance-constrained water management model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 12437–12454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Danok, A.B.; McCarl, B.A.; White, T.K. Machinery Selection Modeling: Incorporation of Weather Variability. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1980, 62, 700–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, M.; Taylor, D.B.; Sarin, S.C.; Kramer, R.A. Chance Constrained Programming Models for Risk-Based Economic and Policy Analysis of Soil Conservation. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 1994, 23, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Moghaddam, K.S.; DePuy, G.W. Farm management optimization using chance constrained programming method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 77, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mills, E.F.E.A.; Yu, B.; Gu, L. On meeting capital requirements with a chance-constrained optimization model. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Sun, Y.; Aw, G.; Loxton, R.; Teo, K.L. Chance-constrained optimization for pension fund portfolios in the presence of default risk. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 256, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Lubin, M.; Dvorkin, Y.; Backhaus, S. A Robust Approach to Chance Constrained Optimal Power Flow with Renewable Generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 31, 3840–3849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Roald, L.; Andersson, G. Chance-Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow: Reformulations and Efficient Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 33, 2906–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Cai, Y.; Huang, G.; Yang, Z.; Lin, Q.; Tan, Q. Community-scale renewable energy systems planning under uncertainty—An interval chance-constrained programming approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 721–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dall’Anese, E.; Baker, K.; Summers, T. Chance-Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow for Distribution Systems with Renewables. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 3427–3438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hogan, A.J.; Morris, J.G.; Thompson, H.E. Decision Problems Under Risk and Chance Constrained Programming: Dilemmas in the Transition. Manag. Sci. 1981, 27, 698–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nau, R.F. Note—Blau’s Dilemma Revisited. Manag. Sci. 1987, 33, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Quddus, M.A.; Ibne Hossain, N.U.; Mohammad, M.; Jaradat, R.M.; Roni, M.S. Sustainable Network Design for Multi-Purpose Pellet Processing Depots under Biomass Supply Uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 110, 462–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhao, S.; You, F. Distributionally Robust Chance Constrained Programming with Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). AIChE J. 2020, 66, e16963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Wu, C.B.; Huang, G.H.; Li, W.; Xie, Y.L.; Xu, Y. Multistage Stochastic Inexact Chance-Constraint Programming for an Integrated Biomass-Municipal Solid Waste Power Supply Management under Uncertainty. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 1244–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, Y.; Feng, B.; Li, G.; Qi, J.; Zhao, D.; Mu, Y. Optimal Distributed Generation Planning in Active Distribution Networks Considering Integration of Energy Storage. Appl. Energy 2018, 210, 1073–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. North, R.M. Risk analyses applicable to water resources program and project planning and evaluation. In Risk Benefit Analysis in Water Resources Planning and Management; Haimes, Y.Y., Ed.; Plenum Press: Now York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  55. Dixon, J.A.; James, D.E.; Sherman, P.B. The Economics of Dryland Management; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  56. Farmland Information Center Oklahoma Data and Statistics. 2019. Available online: https://farmlandinfo.org/statistics/oklahoma-statistics/ (accessed on 25 January 2021).
  57. Haque, M.; Epplin, F.M.; Biermacher, J.T.; Holcomb, R.B.; Kenkel, P.L. Marginal cost of delivering switchgrass feedstock and producing cellulosic ethanol at multiple biorefineries. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Fike, J.H.; Parrish, D.J.; Wolf, D.D.; Balasko, J.A.; Green, J.T.; Rasnake, M.; Reynolds, J.H. Long-Term Yield Potential of Switchgrass-for-Biofuel Systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alexopoulou, E.; Zanetti, F.; Papazoglou, E.G.; Christou, M.; Papatheohari, Y.; Tsiotas, K.; Papamichael, I. Long-Term Studies on Switchgrass Grown on a Marginal Area in Greece under Different Varieties and Nitrogen Fertilization Rates. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 107, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  61. Williams, J.R. The EPIC model. In Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology; Singh, V.P., Ed.; Water Resources Publications: Englewood, CO, USA, 1995; pp. 909–1000. [Google Scholar]
  62. Roni, M.S.; Thompson, D.N.; Hartley, D. Distributed biomass supply chain cost optimization to evaluate multiple feedstocks for a biorefinery. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, 113660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Roni, M.S.; Thompson, D.; Hartley, D.; Searcy, E.; Nguyen, Q. Optimal blending management of biomass resources used for biochemical conversion. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 2018, 12, 624–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Doye, D.; Brorsen, B.W. Pasture Land Values: A “Green Acres” Effect? Choices 2011, 26. Available online: http://choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/farmland-values/pasture-land-values-a-green-acres-effect (accessed on 15 May 2021).
  65. Davis, R.; Tao, L.; Scarlata, C.; Tan, E.C.D.; Ross, J.; Lukas, J.; Sexton, D. Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulo-Sic Biomass to Hydrocarbons: Dilute-Acid and Enzymatic Deconstruction of Biomass to Sugars and Catalytic Conversion of Sug-Ars to Hydrocarbons; Technical Report NREL/TP-5100-62498; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Study Region, Crop Reporting Districts (CRD), and Location of the Biorefineries.
Figure 1. Study Region, Crop Reporting Districts (CRD), and Location of the Biorefineries.
Energies 14 04763 g001
Figure 2. Switchgrass draw area and locations under scenarios. (a) SA-100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met; (b) S100-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 100% for years 4 to 10; (c) S80-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 80% for years 4 to 10; (d) S60-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 60% for years 4 to 10.
Figure 2. Switchgrass draw area and locations under scenarios. (a) SA-100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met; (b) S100-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 100% for years 4 to 10; (c) S80-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 80% for years 4 to 10; (d) S60-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 60% for years 4 to 10.
Energies 14 04763 g002
Figure 3. Trade-offs between total expected cost and probability of meeting the production capacity.
Figure 3. Trade-offs between total expected cost and probability of meeting the production capacity.
Energies 14 04763 g003
Figure 4. Expected biomass volume exceed annual demand under different scenarios. (a) SA-100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met; (b) S100-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 100% for years 4 to 10; (c) S95-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 95% for years 4 to 10; (d) S90-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 90% for years 4 to 10; (e) S85-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 85% for years 4 to 10; (f) S80-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 80% for years 4 to 10; (g) S75-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 75% for years 4 to 10; (h) S70-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 70% for years 4 to 10; (i) S65-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 65% for years 4 to 10; (j) S60-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 60% for years 4 to 10.
Figure 4. Expected biomass volume exceed annual demand under different scenarios. (a) SA-100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met; (b) S100-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 100% for years 4 to 10; (c) S95-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 95% for years 4 to 10; (d) S90-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 90% for years 4 to 10; (e) S85-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 85% for years 4 to 10; (f) S80-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 80% for years 4 to 10; (g) S75-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 75% for years 4 to 10; (h) S70-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 70% for years 4 to 10; (i) S65-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 65% for years 4 to 10; (j) S60-probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35%, 45%, and 55% for the first three years respectively, and 60% for years 4 to 10.
Energies 14 04763 g004
Table 1. Statistics of switchgrass yields (dry Mg per ha) in each CRD in years 1–10.
Table 1. Statistics of switchgrass yields (dry Mg per ha) in each CRD in years 1–10.
Crop Reporting District (CRD)StatisticYear
12345678910
CRD-1 min a3.933.985.384.645.335.023.224.374.634.24
max b11.1214.4311.4512.4711.6611.4315.6412.7514.3410.24
mode c7.217.318.267.798.968.147.518.189.057.14
CRD-2 min3.593.092.734.164.034.142.92.813.612.57
max14.7217.314.9219.5616.0716.7519.4113.9513.1114.74
mode7.167.667.318.577.567.27.196.367.216.1
CRD-3 min2.722.992.323.013.43.292.182.342.572.27
max14.4620.5619.9619.4120.8218.1219.5617.4215.3615.95
mode77.757.437.827.627.397.117.17.085.9
CRD-4 min3.293.082.743.593.413.862.883.393.272.91
max16.2716.3916.5720.4317.2517.7418.3314.2415.7216.54
mode6.847.297.357.987.566.737.446.836.836
CRD-5 min3.173.733.033.623.553.892.913.273.433.08
max13.8516.4320.5318.4119.5718.6317.5614.7413.7517.36
mode6.787.877.617.647.597.347.116.566.665.98
CRD-6 min3.753.712.763.513.974.223.133.453.943.04
max15.1517.7519.5323.4521.0117.2817.1215.5214.4716.16
mode7.267.947.638.638.317.887.297.147.066.3
CRD-7 min2.623.242.873.183.183.942.663.093.282.89
max12.3318.716.5820.4516.8321.3423.0717.1118.1313.64
mode6.477.77.987.917.3387.676.947.746.49
CRD-8 min3.172.813.453.743.6842.553.743.473.18
max13.1516.8719.5320.2621.7520.2321.7516.1116.4918.12
mode7.057.877.998.087.927.77.467.67.216.48
CRD-9min2.72.792.192.942.483.532.312.912.642.45
max9.7811.2614.1315.7615.6914.1314.3911.0411.5313.99
mode5.415.575.595.795.915.75.455.445.154.72
a. min refers to minimum yield level. b. max refers to maximum yield level. c. mode refers to ‘most likely yield level’. Median yields were used as mode.
Table 2. Parameters.
Table 2. Parameters.
SymbolParametersValueSource
αProduct Cost (USD/Mg)58.39Roni et al., 2019
γLogistic Cost (USD/Mg)23.7Roni et al., 2019
Mbiomass demand (dry Mg/year)724,000Davis et al., 2015
Table 3. Definition of scenarios based on probability meeting biorefinery annual demand.
Table 3. Definition of scenarios based on probability meeting biorefinery annual demand.
Scenarios aEstablishment YearsPost-Establishment Years
Year 1Year 2Year 3Years 4~10
SA100%100%100%100%
S10035%45%55%100%
S9535%45%55%95%
S9035%45%55%90%
S8535%45%55%85%
S8035%45%55%80%
S7535%45%55%75%
S7035%45%55%70%
S6535%45%55%65%
S6035%45%55%60%
a. Scenarios defined using probability meeting biorefinery annual demand. SA:100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met. S100-S60: probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35% for the first year, 45% for the second year, 55% for the third year, and varies from 100% to 60% for years 4 to 10.
Table 4. Switchgrass area (ha) and location under different scenarios.
Table 4. Switchgrass area (ha) and location under different scenarios.
BiorefineryCounty (Crop Reporting District)Scenarios a
SAS100S95S90S85S80S75S70S65S60
GradyCaddo (CRD-7)958214,13016,49419,48119,63722,21724,67425,56925,56925,569
Canadian (CRD-5)22,21581701317
Cleveland (CRD-5)8940894089408940
Garvin (CRD-8)18,41818,41818,41812,90217,29511,35857391733
Grady (CRD-5)31,21431,21431,21431,21431,21431,21431,21431,21431,21431,214
McClain (CRD-5)18,76518,76518,76518,76518,76518,76518,76518,76518,76518,765
Stephens (CRD-8)15,00215,00215,00215,00215,00215,00215,00215,00213,70010,749
OkfuskeeCreek (CRD-5)16,19416,19416,19416,19416,19416,19416,19413,30110,2667307
Hughes (CRD-6)15,77215,77215,77215,77215,77215,77215,77215,77215,77215,772
Lincoln (CRD-5)18,12620,88213,75610,19667623442226
McIntosh (CRD-6)16,29813,17116,29816,29816,29816,29816,29816,29816,29816,298
Okfuskee (CRD-5)17,04317,04317,04317,04317,04317,04317,04317,04317,04317,043
Okmulgee (CRD-6)21,02821,02821,02821,02821,02821,02821,02821,02821,02821,028
Seminole (CRD-5)12,03212,03212,03212,03212,03212,03212,03212,03212,03212,032
Total240,627230,761222,272214,867207,041200,364193,987187,756181,687175,777
a. SA:100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met. S100-S60: probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35% for the first year, 45% for the second year, 55% for the third year, and varies from 100% to 60% for years 4 to 10.
Table 5. Cost Associated with Each Scenario (million U.S. dollars).
Table 5. Cost Associated with Each Scenario (million U.S. dollars).
Scenarios aProduction CostTransportation CostLogistic CostTotal
SA13172965352147
S10012642815132058
S9512202694951984
S9011792574781914
S8511382484621848
S8011012374471785
S7510652274321724
S7010302184181666
S659962104041611
S609642023911557
a. SA:100% of the time the biorefinery annual demand can be met. S100–S60: probability of meeting biorefinery demand is 35% for the first year, 45% for the second year, 55% for the third year, and varies from 100% to 60% for years 4 to 10.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lambert, L.H.; DeVuyst, E.A.; English, B.C.; Holcomb, R. Analyzing the Trade-Offs between Meeting Biorefinery Production Capacity and Feedstock Supply Cost: A Chance Constrained Approach. Energies 2021, 14, 4763. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164763

AMA Style

Lambert LH, DeVuyst EA, English BC, Holcomb R. Analyzing the Trade-Offs between Meeting Biorefinery Production Capacity and Feedstock Supply Cost: A Chance Constrained Approach. Energies. 2021; 14(16):4763. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164763

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lambert, Lixia H., Eric A. DeVuyst, Burton C. English, and Rodney Holcomb. 2021. "Analyzing the Trade-Offs between Meeting Biorefinery Production Capacity and Feedstock Supply Cost: A Chance Constrained Approach" Energies 14, no. 16: 4763. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164763

APA Style

Lambert, L. H., DeVuyst, E. A., English, B. C., & Holcomb, R. (2021). Analyzing the Trade-Offs between Meeting Biorefinery Production Capacity and Feedstock Supply Cost: A Chance Constrained Approach. Energies, 14(16), 4763. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164763

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop