From BioenergyWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Bioenergy > Publications > Reports

The BioenergyWiki is no longer being actively updated -- but we welcome new content.
You can create a new user account by following the instructions available at the Login page.

This page lists and links to reports dealing with all aspects of bioenergy, arranged on thematic and geographical basis. Papers whose primary purpose is to advocate a specific policy or approach are in Position papers.



Reports by the United Nations or dealing with international issues (newest first):

  • The Energy Report (PDF file) - The Energy Report, produced by WWF and Ecofys, envisions a possible scenario in which the world’s energy supply is provided by renewable and sustainable sources by 2050; February 2011.
  • Risk governance guidelines for bioenergy policies (PDF file) - This International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) Policy Brief identified several substantial deficits in the current governance of the opportunities and risks of bioenergy, and proposes a number of recommendations for improving the assessment and the management of major risks related to an unsustainable development of bioenergy, and in particular liquid biofuels. October 2008.
  • Bioenergy - UN FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), April 2005.


  • Historical Analysis and Projection of Oil Palm Plantation Expansion on Peatland in Southeast Asia by Jukka Miettinen, Al Hooijer, Daniel Tollenaar, Sue Page, Chris Malins, Ronald Vernimmen, Chenghua Shi, and Soo Chin Liew; ICCT, February 2012. "Study using satellite mapping data of historical and projected rates at which oil palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia have expanded and will expand onto peat soils."
    • "This study demonstrates that the area of industrial oil palm (OP) plantations in the peatlands of insular Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia, except the Papua Provinces) has increased drastically over the past 20 years. From a small area in 1990 to at least 2.15 million hectares in 2010, expansion has affected every region of Malaysia and Indonesia reviewed here."
    • See also indirect land use change (ILUC). [1]
  • Midwest U.S. landscape change to 2020 driven by biofuel mandates by Megan Mehaffey, Elizabeth Smith, and Rick Van Remortel, January 2012. "Meeting future biofuel targets set by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) will require a substantial increase in production of corn. The Midwest, which has the highest overall crop production capacity, is likely to bear the brunt of the biofuel-driven changes. In this paper, we set forth a method for developing a possible future landscape and evaluate changes in practices and production between base year (BY) 2001 and biofuel target (BT) 2020.... Understanding where changes are likely to take place on the landscape will enable the evaluation of trade-offs between economic benefits and ecosystem services allowing proactive conservation and sustainable production for human well-being into the future." [2]
    • PDF available at:
  • Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets by Petr Havlík, Uwe A. Schneider, Erwin Schmid, Hannes Böttcher, Steffen Fritz, Rastislav Skalský, Kentaro Aoki, Stéphane De Cara, Georg Kindermann, Florian Kraxner, Sylvain Leduc, Ian McCallum, Aline Mosnier, Timm Sauer and Michael Obersteiner, April 2010. "In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the iLUC effect, and further address the issues of deforestation, irrigation water use, and crop price increases due to expanding biofuel acreage. We use GLOBIOM – an economic partial equilibrium model of the global forest, agriculture, and biomass sectors with a bottom-up representation of agricultural and forestry management practices. The results indicate that second generation biofuel production fed by wood from sustainably managed existing forests would lead to a negative iLUC factor, meaning that overall emissions are 27% lower compared to the 'No biofuel' scenario by 2030."

Climate change

  • Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral by Ernst-Detlef Schulze1, Christian Körner, Beverly E. Law, Helmut Haber, and Sebastiaan Luyssaert, April 2012. "Owing to the peculiarities of forest net primary production humans would appropriate ca. 60% of the global increment of woody biomass if forest biomass were to produce 20% of current global primary energy supply. We argue that such an increase in biomass harvest would result in younger forests, lower biomass pools, depleted soil nutrient stocks and a loss of other ecosystem functions."
    • "The proposed strategy is likely to miss its main objective, i.e. to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because it would result in a reduction of biomass pools that may take decades to centuries to be paid back by fossil fuel substitution, if paid back at all.
    • "Eventually, depleted soil fertility will make the production unsustainable and require fertilization, which in turn increases GHG emissions due to N2O emissions. Hence, large-scale production of bioenergy from forest biomass is neither sustainable nor GHG neutral." [4]
  • The Effect of Assessment Scale and Metric Selection on the Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Woody Biomass by Christopher S. Galik and Robert C. Abt, February 2012. "Recent media attention has focused on the net greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of using woody biomass to produce energy. In particular, a great deal of controversy has erupted over the biomass accounting techniques used to evaluate these GHG effects."
    • "This paper informs the present debate over the GHG effects of woody biomass use by conducting a comparative analysis of these accounting techniques. It compares these techniques in a hypothetical scenario in which coal-fired power plants in Virginia add woody biomass to their fuel mix—a process known as 'cofiring.' It finds that these techniques strongly influence the calculated GHG balance. The paper also assesses the relative effect of the accounting approach on differences in GHG balance, and concludes with implications for policy makers." [5]
  • Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies by David Laborde of the International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI) for the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission, October 2011: This report follows up on the 2010 European Commission report “Global Trade and Environmental Impact Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate”.
    • "This new study contains several important changes compared to the previous report. It uses an updated version of the global computable general equilibrium model (CGE), MIRAGE-Biof, as well as a revised scenario describing the EU mandate based on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the 27 member states. In addition, a stronger focus has been placed on specific feedstock Land Use Change (LUC) computation and the uncertainties surrounding these values. Systematic sensitivity analysis is used to measure the potential range of LUC coefficients." [6]
  • Land Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Conventional Oil Production and Oil Sands by Sonia Yeh, Sarah Jordaan, Adam Brandt, Merritt Turetsky, Sabrina Spatari, and David Keith, October 2010. "When contrasting land use GHG intensity of fossil fuel and biofuel production, it is the energy yield that greatly distinguishes the two. Although emissions released from land disturbed by fossil fuels can be comparable or higher than biofuels, the energy yield of oil production is typically 2-3 orders of magnitude higher, (0.33-2.6, 0.61-1.2, and 2.2-5.1 PJ/ha) for conventional oil production, oil sands surface mining, and in situ production, respectively."[8]
  • Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in south-east Asia (PDF) by John Couwenberg, Rene Dommain, and Hans Joosten HANS, June 2010. "This paper provides a review and meta-analysis of available literature on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat soils in south-east Asia. As in other parts of the world, water level is the main control on greenhouse gas fluxes from south-east Asian peat soils. Based on subsidence data we calculate emissions of at least 900 g CO2 m−2 a−1 (∼250 g C m−2 a−1) for each 10 cm of additional drainage depth."[9]
  • The Copenhagen Accord Fact Sheet (PDF) by the National Wildlife Federation, April 2010. This report highlights the outcomes of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Copenhagan in December of 2009.
    • "While the Copenhagen Accord falls short of this benchmark, it does represent a step forward by acquiring voluntary pledges from both developed and developing nations to make new commitments to address their emissions, allowing some third-party oversight of these actions, and providing crucial “fast start” financing to help the least developed countries that will be the most impacted by climate change. The Copenhagen Accord also marks the first time that major emitting developing countries such as China and India, have put forward pledges to the UN to reduce the future growth of their emissions."[10]
  • Financing the Response to Climate Change (PDF file) IMF staff position note by Hugh Bredenkamp and Catherine Pattillo, 25 March 2010. "This note outlines a scheme for mobilizing financing to help developing countries confront the challenges posed by climate change. The idea is to create a “Green Fund” with the capacity to raise resources on a scale commensurate with the Copenhagen Accord ($100 billion a year by 2020)."
    • "By providing a unified resource mobilization framework, with up-front agreement on burden-sharing and the capacity to meet the financing needs identified at Copenhagen, the Green Fund could facilitate progress toward a binding global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and allow developing countries to begin scaling up their climate change responses without delay."[12]


  • Biochar: A critical review of science and policy by Biofuelwatch, 2011. "This report takes a critical look at the claims around biochar, reviews the science underlying the claims, provides an overview of what biochar advocates are pushing for in terms of policies and supports, and presents an outline of the companies involved."
  • Poor people’s energy outlook 2010 by Practical Action, 2010. "The report proposes an ecosystem of government, civil society and private organisations working together towards creation of universal energy access by 2030."
    • "This publication will be of interest to anyone seeking to better understand energy access and its role in development at a human scale."


Environmental impacts

  • Growing Risk: Addressing the Invasive Potential of Bioenergy Feedstocks by Aviva Glaser and Patty Glick, April 2012. "Bioenergy is one homegrown source of renewable energy that could help meet some of our energy needs. However, in order to create a truly clean energy future, bioenergy must be produced in a way that has long-term economic viability, helps address climate change, and protects and enhances native habitats and ecosystems."
    • "The explosion in federal and state mandates and incentives for renewable energy in recent years has led to a greatly increased demand for cheap and plentiful biomass from a variety of plants and microorganisms. This increased demand for bioenergy has led to considerable interest in a number of non-native and potentially invasive species that are currently being cultivated or considered for use as bioenergy crops."
    • "In fact, some of the very characteristics that make a plant particularly useful as a source of biomass energy (e.g., rapid growth, competitiveness, tolerance of a range of climate conditions) are the same characteristics that make a plant a potentially highly invasive species." [13]
    • Download the Report PDF here.
  • Grandfathering options under an EU ILUC policy by Ecofys, March 2012: "The European Commission is expected to publish an Impact Assessment and legislative proposal on the issue of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) associated with biofuel production. The introduction of an ILUC policy measure in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) could impact current investments and jobs in the EU biofuel industry. Ecofys investigated on behalf of Transport&Environment to what extent the biofuel sector may need protection - so called 'grandfathering'- against the introduction of an EU policy measure.
    • "The report starts with an overview of the EU biofuels market and sector and analyses the impact of possible ILUC policy options on the sector and the level of protection of current investments and jobs that would be required. Subsequently, the report analyses the grandfathering clause as currently included in the RED and FQD as well as other possible grandfathering options."
    • "The study concludes that the introduction of an ILUC policy measure is possible while maintaining employment and paying back current investments in biofuel production installations if the 2010-2012 EU biofuel consumption level would be exempted from ILUC policy up to 2020. This means that an ILUC policy option would be targeted towards the future increase in biofuel production until 2020. The ILUC policy would not significantly reduce the total quantity of biofuels used in the EU because the RED and FQD 2020-targets will remain unchanged...." [14]
    • Read the full study here (PDF file)
  • Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment by Felix Creutzig, Alexander Popp, Richard Plevin, Gunnar Luderer, Jan Minx & Ottmar Edenhofer, March 2012. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) assesses the role of bioenergy as a solution to meeting energy demand in a climate-constrained world. Based on integrated assessment models, the SRREN states that deployed bioenergy will contribute the greatest proportion of primary energy among renewable energies and result in greenhouse-gas emission reductions."
    • "The report also acknowledges insights from life-cycle assessments, which characterize biofuels as a potential source of significant greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental harm. The SRREN made considerable progress in bringing together contrasting views on indirect land-use change [ (ILUC) ] from inductive bottom-up studies, such as life-cycle analysis, and deductive top-down assessments. However, a reconciliation of these contrasting views is still missing. Tackling this challenge is a fundamental prerequisite for future bioenergy assessment." [15]
  • Recipes for Success: Solutions for Deforestation-Free Vegetable Oils by The Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2012."Global demand for vegetable oils has recently increased, which impacts not only the global economy, but also the atmosphere and ecosystems. Increasing demand for vegetable oils has traditionally translated into demand for more land to grow oil crops... Over the last decade much of that land has come at the expense of tropical forests, and this is particularly true for palm and soybean oil."
    • "Our report, Recipes for Success: Solutions for Deforestation-Free Vegetable Oils examines the vegetable oil market and details how businesses can produce and use vegetable oil without causing deforestation." [17]
  • Proceedings of the "Workshop on Biofuels and Indirect Land Use Change" by Uwe R. Fritsche, Hans Van Steen, Jan-Erik Petersen, Luisa Marelli, Kjell Andersson, Göran Berndes, Nuša Urbancic, January 2012. "Expecting the release of the European Commission’s impact assessment on 'indirect land use change (ILUC) related to biofuels and bioliquids on greenhouse gas emissions and addressing ways to minimize it', the Coordinators of the ENVI Committee requested the organisation of a workshop on this issue. The workshop consisted of different presentations and an exchange of views with Members and established experts in the area of the biofuels and ILUC. This report summarises the presentation, discussions and conclusions." [18]
  • The Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy, First edition by the Global Bioenergy Partnership, 2011. "This report presents 24 indicators of sustainability regarding the production and use of modern bioenergy, broadly defined. These indicators were developed to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders a set of analytical tools that can inform the development of national bioenergy policies and programs and monitor the impact of these policies and programs. The indicators were developed by the Partners and Observers of GBEP and provide a framework for assessing the relationship between production and use of modern bioenergy and sustainable development. The indicators were intentionally crafted to report on the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development."
  • The dilemma of indirect land-use changes in EU biofuel policy – An empirical study of policy-making in the context of scientific uncertainty by Lorenzo Di Lucia, Serina Ahlgren, Karin Ericsson, 2011. "The potential impact of policies promoting transport biofuels on the use of land due to the indirect effects of feedstock cultivation has generated a controversy in the EU. Policy-makers are urged to regulate the matter without conclusive scientific evidence concerning the scale and severity of indirect land-use change (iLUC). By looking at this situation as an instance of policy making in the context of scientific uncertainty, this study analyses ways to deal with iLUC of biofuels policies learning from policy fields where similar dilemmas were confronted in the past. The experience with technologies such as genetically modified organisms, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and radioactive waste, and transport biofuels is instructive for this purpose. Policy approaches identified in the case studies are applied to the case of iLUC."
  • A review of environmental issues in the context of biofuel sustainability frameworks by M.R. Guariguata, O.R. Masera, F.X. Johnson, G. von Maltitz, N. Bird, P. Tella, R. Martínez-Bravo, 2011. "This report examines how the most developed sustainability frameworks for feedstock production (including biofuels) address key environmental issues. It identifies critical gaps in these frameworks and proposes areas for improvement. The main finding is that the frameworks share broad sustainability principles yet they differ greatly in terms of their comprehensiveness and how they apply specific indicators for environmental issues, particularly with respect to land use change (both direct and indirect), allocation of degraded land for feedstock cultivation, and related accounting of greenhouse gas emissions."
  • Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems (PDF) by Allen C. McBride, Virginia H. Dale, Latha M. Baskaran, Mark E. Downing, Laurence M. Eaton, Rebecca A. Efroymson, Charles T. Garten Jr. , Keith L. Kline, Henriette I. Jager, Patrick J. Mulholland, Esther S. Parish, Peter E. Schweizer, John M. Storey, January 2011. The authors "identify 19 measurable indicators for soil quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gases, biodiversity, air quality, and productivity, building on existing knowledge and on national and international programs that are seeking ways to assess sustainable bioenergy. Together, this suite of indicators is hypothesized to reflect major environmental effects of diverse feedstocks, management practices, and post-production processes."
  • Grand Challenges for Life-Cycle Assessment of Biofuels by T. E. McKone, W. W. Nazaroff, P. Berck, M. Auffhammer, T. Lipman, M. S. Torn, E. Masanet, A. Lobscheid, N. Santero, U. Mishra, A. Barrett, M. Bomberg, K. Fingerman, C. Scown, B. Strogen, and A. Horvath, January 2011. The authors "identified seven issues as grand challenges for applying LCA to biofuels. In the subsequent sections of this paper, [they] elaborate on each of these challenges and, where possible, note how progress might be made toward effectively addressing them."
  • Biofuels: indirect land use change and climate impact (PDF) by H.J. Croezen, G.C. Bergsma, M.B.J. Otten and M.P.J. van Valkengoed, June 2010. "The objectives of this study are to compile the available recent literature on ILUC emissions, compare these emissions with the assumed gains of biofuels, assess how ILUC changes the carbon balance of using biofuels and formulate policies to avoid these extra emissions associated with ILUC."
  • The Water Requirements of Biofuels, 2010 in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. From the abstract: "We assess the connection between water and energy production and conduct a comparative analysis for estimating the energy return on water invested (EROWI) for several renewable and non-renewable energy technologies using various Life Cycle Analyses. Our results suggest that the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude greater than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water."[20]
  • The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy (PDF) by Joanneum Research, May 2010. When a raw material such as wood is burned, "the time needed to re-absorb the CO2 emitted in the atmosphere can be long, depending very much on the source of wood. This delay can create an upfront “carbon debt” that would substantially reduce the capability of bioenergy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the atmosphere in the short to medium term."

Sustainability standards

  • Accounting for indirect land-use change in the life cycle assessment of biofuel supply chains by Susan Tarka Sanchez, Jeremy Woods, Mark Akhurst, Matthew Brander, Michael O'Hare, Terence P. Dawson, Robert Edwards, Adam J. Liska, Rick Malpas, [[April 2012]. "The expansion of land used for crop production causes variable direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; and other economic, social and environmental effects."
    • "We analyze the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) for estimating the carbon intensity of biofuel production from indirect land-use change (ILUC). Two approaches are critiqued; direct, attributional life cycle analysis (ALCA) and consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA). A proposed hybrid “combined model” of the two approaches for ILUC analysis relies on first defining the system boundary of the resulting full LCA. Choices are then made as to the modeling methodology (economic equilibrium or cause-effect), data inputs, land area analysis, carbon stock accounting and uncertainty analysis to be included."
    • "We conclude that CLCA is applicable for estimating the historic emissions from ILUC, although improvements to the hybrid approach proposed, coupled with regular updating, are required, and uncertainly values must be adequately represented; however, the scope and the depth of the expansion of the system boundaries required for CLCA remain controversial." [21]
  • Greenhouse Gas Accounting: Lifecycle Analysis of Biofuels and Land Use Change by John A. Miranowski for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 23 April 2012. "By definition, an LCA [lifecycle analysis] is a comprehensive accounting of all the energy inputs into the process and outputs out of the process, including GHG and other emissions. Ideally, sustainability should be incorporated into the system. Others have argued that increased GHG emissions in the biofuel system from global LUC [land use change] should be included in the LCA for biofuel as well."
    • "The high level of uncertainty created by model incompatibility and by aggregate agricultural models not capable of capturing necessary refinements in LUC and agricultural management practices has led to two positions on including indirect LUC in LCA models. First, we know that indirect LUC and associated GHG emissions are not zero, so we are doing a disservice to society by not including them in LCA estimates, even though the “confidence interval” is extremely wide (Hertel et al., 2010). Second, we do not have the tools to obtain a reasonably accurate estimate of the GHG emission effects of indirect LUC, and we are doing a disservice by trying to measure the unmeasurable (Babcock, 2009b)."
    • "Although there are a number of qualifiers, the same LCA model should be used to derive GHG

emission estimates when comparing different feedstocks or different fuels since cross-model comparisons simply highlight model differences (i.e., it is important to create a stable market environment when comparing fuels). Yet, in order to provide a complete understanding of the sensitivity of LCA results and policy impacts to model assumptions, it is important to consider alternative LCA models (and assumptions)." [[22]

  • Accounting for Indirect Land Use Change in the Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuel Supply Chains by Susan Tarka Sanchez, Jeremy Woods, Mark Akhurst, Matthew Brander, Michael O'Hare, Terence P. Dawson, Robert Edwards, Adam J. Liska and Rick Malpas, March 2012. "We analyse the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) for estimating the carbon intensity of biofuel production from indirect land-use change (ILUC). Two approaches are critiqued: direct, attributional life cycle analysis and consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA)...We conclude that CLCA is applicable for estimating the historic emissions from ILUC, although improvements to the hybrid approach proposed, coupled with regular updating, are required, and uncertainly values must be adequately represented; however, the scope and the depth of the expansion of the system boundaries required for CLCA remain controversial." [23]
  • Evaluating biofuel opportunities from a landscape perspective. "This brief describes three systems for biofuel production and identifies opportunities and risks for biodiversity conservation, rural livelihoods and farm production. How can we manage landscapes to produce greener biofuels that are better for the environment and the people? The brief discusses six landscape design principles and four areas for policy development." from Ecoagriculture Partners, May 2008.


  • The Rising Trend of Green Protectionism: Biofuels and the European Union by ECIPE (European Centre for International Political Economy), 2012.
    • "This paper surveys and discusses the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) in the European Union and its compatibility with EU obligations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). More particularly, it intends to shed light on the evolvement of policies in Europe to protect biofuels producers from foreign competition. While the effectiveness of traditional protective tools of trade policy – tariffs and subsidies – are diminishing, local producers have embraced the introduction of specific sustainability criteria that would have the effect of protecting incumbent market actors while increasing the cost for new foreign market entrants."
    • "Europe’s biofuels consumption is dominated by local supply. Imports play a growing yet small role. However, import is likely to grow in the near future as the cost of local production of biodiesel and ethanol are comparatively high. The local industry, however, has invested on the premise that demand for its production – especially of biodiesel – will continue to grow rapidly." [[25]



Reports dealing with Africa in general:


  • Bioenergy and Poverty in Kenya: Attitudes, Actors and Activities Prepared for Pisces by Practical Action Consulting in Eastern Africa, May 2010. "This report presents the findings of socio-economic baseline surveys carried out by the Eastern Africa office of Practical Action Consulting in Kenya... This was part of a broader baseline data creation exercise carried out across the respective PISCES countries around the same period to help provide a better understanding of some of the current issues relating to bioenergy use, access and delivery at the community level."


South Africa

  • National Biofuels Study (PDF file) - African Sustainable Fuels Centre, 20 March 2007. "An investigation into the feasibility of establishing a biofuels industry in the Republic of South Africa which was prepared to assist in the development of a national strategy."[26]



Reports dealing with Asia in general:




  • Historical Analysis and Projection of Oil Palm Plantation Expansion on Peatland in Southeast Asia (PDF) by Jukka Miettinen, Al Hooijer, Daniel Tollenaar, Sue Page, Chris Malins, Ronald Vernimmen, Chenghua Shi, and Soo Chin Liew; ICCT, February 2012. "Study using satellite mapping data of historical and projected rates at which oil palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia have expanded and will expand onto peat soils."
    • "This study demonstrates that the area of industrial oil palm (OP) plantations in the peatlands of insular Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia, except the Papua Provinces) has increased drastically over the past 20 years. From a small area in 1990 to at least 2.15 million hectares in 2010, expansion has affected every region of Malaysia and Indonesia reviewed here."
    • See also indirect land use change (ILUC).

Sri Lanka



Reports dealing with the European Union and other European countries:





Climate change






Latin America and the Caribbean

Reports dealing with Latin America and the Carribean in general:


Costa Rica


North America

United States

Reports dealing with the US:

  • Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 27 September 2011. "The purpose of this study is to consider the scientific and technical issues associated with accounting for biogenic CO2 emitted from stationary sources and to develop a framework to account for those emissions. It presents a methodology for 'adjusting' estimates of onsite biogenic CO2 emissions on the basis of information about the carbon cycle."[29]
The March 2010 report by the National Wildlife Federation, Growing a Green Energy Future, examines issues related to the sustainability of biomass utilization in the United States.







Cellulosic ethanol

Corn ethanol

Climate change


Renewable energy

Publications edit
Books and Periodicals | Position papers | Reports |
Scientific papers | Websites


What is bioenergy? | Benefits/Risks | Who is doing what?
Events | Glossary | News | Organizations | Publications | Regions | Technologies/Feedstocks | Policy | Timeline | Voices
Wiki "sandbox" - Practice editing | About this Wiki | How to edit

Personal tools