This work estimates the energy embedded in wasted food annually in the United States. We calculated the energy intensity of food production from agriculture, transportation, processing, food sales, storage, and preparation for 2007 as 8080 ± 760 trillion BTU. In 1995 approximately 27% of edible food was wasted. Synthesizing these food loss figures with our estimate of energy consumption for different food categories and food production steps, while normalizing for different production volumes, shows that 2030 ± 160 trillion BTU of energy were embedded in wasted food in 2007. The energy embedded in wasted food represents approximately 2% of annual energy consumption in the United States, which is substantial when compared to other energy conservation and production proposals. To improve this analysis, nationwide estimates of food waste and an updated estimate for the energy required to produce food for U.S. consumption would be valuable.

This report consists of a top-level aggregate analysis of the total potential for converting livestock manure into a domestic renewable fuel source (biogas) that could be used to help states meet renewable portfolio standard requirements and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the US, livestock agriculture produces over one billion tons of manure annually on a renewable basis. Most of this manure is disposed of in lagoons or stored outdoors to decompose. Such disposal methods emit methane and nitrous oxide, two important GHGs with 21 and 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, respectively. In total, GHG emissions from the agricultural sector in the US amounted to 536 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 7% of the total US emissions in 2005. Of this agricultural contribution, 51 to 118 MMT of carbon dioxide equivalent resulted from livestock manure emissions alone, with trends showing this contribution increasing from 1990 to 2005. Thus, limiting GHG emissions from manure represents a valuable starting point for mitigating agricultural contributions to global climate change.Anaerobic digestion, a process that converts manure to methane-rich biogas, can lower GHG emissions from manure significantly. Using biogas as a substitute for other fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity generation, replaces two GHG sources-manure and coal combustion-with a less carbon-intensive source, namely biogas combustion.The biogas energy potential was calculated using values for the amount of biogas energy that can be produced per animal unit (defined as 1000 pounds of animal) per day and the number of animal units in the US. The 95 million animal units in the country could produce nearly 1 quad of renewable energy per year, amounting to approximately 1% of the US total energy consumption. Converting the biogas into electricity using standard microturbines could produce 88 ± 20 billion kWh, or 2.4 ± 0.6% of annual electricity consumption in the US. Replacing coal and manure GHG emissions with the emissions from biogas would produce a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 ± 59 million metric tons or 3.9 ± 2.3% of the annual GHG emissions from electricity generation in the US.

No abstract

Abstract:The two major pathways for energy utilization from biomass are conversion to a liquid fuel (i.e., biofuels) or conversion to electricity (i.e., biopower). In the United States (US), biomass policy has focused on biofuels. However, this paper will investigate three options for biopower: low co-firing (co-firing scenarios refer to combusting a given percentage of biomass with coal) (5%-10% biomass), medium co-firing (15%-20% biomass), and dedicated biomass firing (100% biomass). We analyze the economic and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact of each of these options, with and without CO2 capture and storage (CCS). Our analysis shows that in the absence of land use change emissions, all biomass co-combustion scenarios result in a decrease in GHG emissions over coal generation alone. The two biggest barriers to biopower are concerns about carbon neutrality of biomass fuels and the high cost compared to today's electricity prices. This paper recommends two policy actions. First, the need to define sustainability criteria and initiate a certification process so that biomass providers have a fixed set of guidelines to determine whether their feedstocks qualify as renewable energy sources. Second, the need for a consistent, predictable policy that provides the economic incentives to make biopower economically attractive.

No abstract