Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eneeco

Modeling net energy balance of ethanol production from native warm

season grasses
Prabodh Illukpitiya a,⁎, K.C. Reddy b, Ankit Bansal c
a
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Tennessee State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd, Nashville, TN 37209, USA
b
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Tennessee State University
c
StatMinds LLC 515, Shoemaker Road, Suite 201, King of Prussia, PA 19406, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There has been an increasing interest in the use of perennial grasses as potential feedstock for ethanol production.
Received 15 May 2014 The characteristics which make perennial grasses attractive for bioenergy feedstock development initiative are
Received in revised form 3 April 2017 their high yield potential and the high contents of lignin and cellulose. The objective of the study is to model en-
Accepted 8 April 2017
ergy input and output and simulate Net Energy Value (NEV) of producing ethanol from native warm season
Available online 13 April 2017
grasses. According to simulated results, the mean NEV of ethanol production from native warm season grasses
JEL classification:
considered in the analysis was positive. Mean NEV for switchgrass and eastern gammagrass was higher com-
C15 pared to Indiangrass and big bluestem. Although the probability of having positive NEV is high, there is a risk
C67 of having negative energy balance under low output scenarios.
Q16 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Q42
Q48
Q57

Keywords:
Biofuel
Native grass
Net energy
Probability distribution
Simulation

1. Introduction According to Milbrandt (2005), the total biomass resources available

The increasing demand for energy in the U.S has ranked the U.S as the
world's largest energy consumer, with increasing gasoline consumption
as the single most important factor behind rising dependence on oil. At
present gasoline has no major substitute fuel that can be quickly and broad-
ly disseminated into widespread use across the United States during a
major disruption or oil pricing shock (Alvarez et al., 2010). The absence of
major substitutes called for efforts to ensure an ever increasing production
of ethanol to substitute or compliment fossil fuel, which can only be
achieved by exploring the economic competitiveness of other sources of
biomass, especially the promising native warm-season grasses. The Federal
Government has recently created various initiatives to push ethanol as a U.S
transportation fuel. The Energy Independent and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) set the following targets: renewable fuels of 36 billion per year by
2022, corn ethanol production at 15 billion gallon per year or close to 1 mil-
lion barrels a day by 2015, 16 billion gallons per year from cellulosic ethanol
by 2022 (Alvarez et al., 2010).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pillukpi@tnstate.edu (P. Illukpitiya).
in the United States are 423 million tons/year. The Southern states of
Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee produce
12.3, 7.8, 13.1, 16.1 and 6.7 million tons of biomass per year respectively.
Out of the Mid-South biomass resources of 56 million tons, dedicated
energy grasses accounted for 21.1 million tons. Switchgrass on Conser-
vation Reserve Program (CRP) land alone contributed 83.6 million tons
to the total biomass resources in the United States (Pimental and Patzek,
2005). These figures justify the increasing interest in the use of perenni-
al grasses as energy crops in the US. The characteristics which make pe-
rennial grasses attractive for biomass production are their high yield
potential and the high contents of lignin and cellulose. Energy crops
are produced with the express purpose of using their biomass energet-
ically (Lewandowski et al., 2003). In the United States there are various
candidate perennial grasses available which are considerable in their
potential productivity, chemical and physical properties, environmental
demands and crop management requirements. There has been an in-
creasing interest in the use of perennial grasses as energy crops in the
US and Europe. The characteristics which make perennial grasses attrac-
tive for biomass production are its high yield potential, the high
contents of lignin and cellulose and generally anticipated positive

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.008
0140-9883/Published by Elsevier B.V.
 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352 347

Table 1 2. Methodology
Estimated embodied energy in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.

Source Unit Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium The modeling of Net Energy Value (NEV) was based on direct and in-
FAO, 2000 MJ/kg 65 9 6
direct energy use for feedstock production and processing. Direct ener-
Pimental and Patzek, 2005 MJ/kg 67 17.39 13.68 gy is the energy that is used directly on crop production while indirect
Shapouri, 2001 MJ/kg 56.84 9.2 6.96 energy is the energy that embodies in inputs to a process. Energy em-
Bhat et al., 1994 MJ/kg 55.48 4.52 4.80 bodied in a process is the direct energy required in manufacturing of a
Shapouri et al., 2002 MJ/kg 42.71 2.17 12.45
particular input plus energy embodied in inputs required in
manufacturing that particular input (Treloar, 1998). Energy input can
be further segregated as follows (see Bansal et al., 2016; Romanelli
environmental impacts (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Also, a number of and Milan, 2004 for details).
studies have suggested recently that marginal and abandoned lands Total energy used in biofuel production (input energy)
could potentially be converted to cellulosic feedstock production
which would avoid a large scale conversion of current crop land to bio- EIn ¼ EL þ ES þ EI þ EM þ E F þ ELa þ ET þ EP ð1Þ
fuel feedstock production (Tulbure et al., 2012).
The contribution of renewable energy resources is vital for economic where:
growth as well as an effective tool for the confrontation of climate change
(Zafeiriou et al., 2016). However, to qualify as a viable supplement to fos- EIn total energy input (MJ/ha).
sil fuel, an alternative fuel should not only have superior environmental EL energy used in land preparation (MJ/ha).
and economic benefits and potential of high production but also has en- ES energy embodied in grass seeds (MJ/ha).
ergy gains over the energy sources used to produce it (Hill et al., 2006). EI energy embodied in applied inputs (MJ/ha).
Net energy production has been constantly used to determine energy ef- EM energy embodied in farm machinary (MJ/ha).
ficiency of ethanol production from cellulosic as well as grain crops such EF energy embodied in fuel used By farm machinary (MJ/ha).
as corn (Hammerschlag, 2006). In order to qualify for a promising alter- ELa energy embodies in farm labor (MJ/ha).
native to fossil fuel, it is necessary for the biofuel to have a potential of off- ET energy used in transporting feedstock to biorefinery (MJ/ha).
setting cost of extracting and burning fossil fuel. The net energy benefit of EP energy used in processing cellulose in to ethanol (MJ/ha).
replacing the fossil fuel will be determined by not only energy contained
in biomass but also energy required to grow the biomass feedstock and 2.1. Energy used in applied inputs
convert in to usable form of energy (McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998).
Among the tools available for determining energy efficiency of ethanol Energy used in applied input can be further divided in to energy used
production, Net Energy Value (NEV) is an important tool. NEV for ethanol in solid input (fertilizer) and liquid input (pesticides).
production can be defined as the difference between output energy ob-
EI ¼ Es þ E l ð2Þ
tained from ethanol production and energy required to produce ethanol
(Schmer et al., 2008). Life-cycle analysis is use to estimate energy require- where:
ments and demands to determine the environmental and societal risk/
benefits (Schmer et al., 2008). Net Energy Value (NEV) is widely used Es energy of solid inputs (MJ/ha).
to evaluate net gain; however the estimates are not consistent due to dif- El energy of liquid inputs (MJ/ha).
ferent reasons (Shapouri et al., 2002; Ferrel et al., 2006).
The variation in the net energy gains among different studies could Energy in solid input can be can be derived as follows:
partially be explained by the difference in the biomass yield. Biomass
yield of native warm season grasses are sensitive to environmental fac- Es ¼ Q  EC ð3Þ
tors hence could vary significantly from region to region. Also, the incre-
mental biomass losses during harvest and storage can decrease effective where:
yield at refinery gate. These losses will result in increased input used to
produce per unit of ethanol (Emery et al., 2014). However, Pimental Q quantity applied (kg)
(2003) reported a negative net energy or an energy loss for ethanol pro- EC energy embodied per unit of fertilizer (MJ/kg).
duction from both grain crops and cellulosic feedstocks. These studies
have further been criticized by other authors for using obsolete data, Accordingly, estimated embodied energy in nitrogen, phosphorous
and incorrectly ignoring some important co-products (Ferrel et al., 2006). and potassium from various sources is given in Table 1.

Table 2
Energy embodied in fertilizers for native grass production.

Fertilizer and herbicide quantity needed/ha Energy embodied/kg Energy

of fertilizer and required
herbicide (MJ/ha)

Category Quantity Source Value (MJ/kg) Source

(kg/ha)

Nitrogen 68.03 UT Extension, 2009 65 FAO, 2000 4421.63

P2O5 45.35 9 408.15
K2O 90.70 6 544.20
Herbicide 12.5 FAO, 2000 240 3000
Total 8373.98

Source: Bansal et al., 2016.

348 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352

Table 3
Machinery used for native grass production.

Machinery name Specification Cost of new equipment Life in hours Hours required/ha

Value ($) Source

Farm tractor 160 HP 146,000 Lazarus, 2013 4000

Mini till planter 12 raw, 9.1 m 85,000 1000 1.96
Tandem disk 6.4 m rigid 36,500 1000 1.38
Boom sprayer 27.4 m 43,000 200 0.46
Rotary mower 3.0 m 20,000 Hwang, 2007 2500 4.13
Rake, twin wheel 3.0 m 6000 2500 4.12
Large square baler (1.2X1.2X2.4) m 67,000 3000 10.31
Total cost 403,500 Total hrs/ha 22.36

Source: Bansal et al., 2016.

Among the above mentioned studies, Bhat et al. (1994) provides Accordingly,
with detailed explanation of embodied energy calculations for fertilizers
based on production technologies in late 1980s. Shapouri (2001) used E f ¼ TFC  E ð8Þ
embodied energy in fertilizers based on an various estimates however,
in their later study (Shapouri et al., 2002) the data of manufacturing fer-
tilizers and pesticides were based on Argonne's Green House Gases Reg-
ulated Emissions and energy use in transportation (GREET) model. In where:
this analysis, embodied energy calculations in fertilizers were based
on FAO (2000), fertilizer input and herbicide requirements and for na- TFC total fuel consumption (g/ha)
tive warm season grass species were based on FAO (2000). E 114,000 Btu/g

Energy in liquid inputs such as herbicides can be classified as:

2.4. Energy embodied in planting materials
El ¼ ðECI ∗ active ingredient VP Q Þ=Va
∗ ∗ ð4Þ
The native warm season grasses are propagated through pure live
where: seed (PLS). Energy embodied in respective native grass seed/ha was cal-
culated using equation below.
ECI energy embodied in herbicide per unit
VP used volume (l) Es ¼ quantity of seed ðkgÞ  Energy embodied=kg of seed ð9Þ
Q application flow (l/second)
Va volume to be applied (l)
Energy embodied/kg of seed was based on Schmer et al. (2008) esti-
mates for switchgrass. Seed requirements for planting of eastern
Table 2 shows the embodied energy in fertilizer and herbicide use gammagrass were from Roberts and Kallenbach (2006) and for
for the production of native warm season grass species. Indiangrass and big bluestem were from USDA-NRCS (2002).

2.2. Energy consumed by labor 2.5. Energy used for transportation and processing

Energy embodied in labor for cellulosic feedstock production was Energy used in transporting bales from field to processing facility
based on Pimental and Patzek (2005). Accordingly, the calculation −1
and conversion to ethanol was based on Schmer et al. (2008). These
for embodied energy in 5 h of labor use was − 120,000 kcal/ha year
values were based on GREET (Wang, 2001), Meta model (RAEL, 2007)
which is equivalent to 83.7 MJ/ha year (1 kcal is equal to and Pimental and Patzek (2005).
0.0042 MJ). It is assumed that 12 h of labor requirement for a hect- Accordingly, energy required for processing can be estimated as:
are of grasses hence−1 the estimated energy input of labor was
200.88 MJ/ha year .
Ep ¼ Eds þ Epc þ Epw þ Ese ð10Þ
2.3. Energy embodied in fuel consumed by farm machinery
where:
Embodied energy in fuel was based on the per hectare fuel con-
sumption for growing and harvesting feedstock. Ep energy of diesel use (MJ/ha).
Ep energy of plant capital and equipment (MJ/ha).
Distance travelled by tractor ðmetersÞ Ep energy of processing water (MJ/ha).
Tractor hour required ¼   ð6Þ Ep energy of sewage effluent (MJ/ha).
meters
Tractor speed
hour
2.6. Energy embodied in farm machinery
Average Fuel Consumption ¼ Tractor HP
 Diesel or gasolin consumtion factor ð3:25Þ Energy embodied in machinery was calculated by using economic
input–output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) model of Carnegie Mellon
University (CMU). This model estimates the materials and energy re-
Diesel consumption factor 0.04.
sources required for, and the environmental emissions resulting from,
Gasoline consumption factor 0.06
activities in the economy (GDI-CMU). However the model does not pro-
vide with embodied energy in specific farm machinery for example trac-
tors and harvesters. Model uses North American Industry Classification
Fuel consumed ¼ Tractor hour required ∗ Average fuel consumption ð7Þ System (NAICS) 2002 and groups all farm machinery in to one sector.
 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352
The energy embodied in machinery was estimated based on farm ma-
chinery requirements (Table 3) from Lazarus (2013) and Hwang (2007).
2.7. Energy output
Energy output is based on the dry matter yield of biomass and the
conversion technology of the biomass to ethanol. Various studies have
reported dry matter yield of warm season grasses (Anderson et al.,
2008; Owsley, 2002; Tober et al., 2009; Weimer and Springer, 2007).
Recent yield estimates (Keyser et al., 2015) and the ethanol conversion
rate (NREL, 2011) were used in estimating energy output in producing
ethanol form selected native grasses.
3. Result and discussion
Net energy value of ethanol production from switchgrass, eastern
gammagrass, big bluestem and Indiangrass is given in Figs. 1–4 respec-
tively. The estimated mean NEV for switchgrass and eastern
gammagrass (35,909 and 20,425 MJ/ha) was higher compared to
other two grass species (3884 and 9359 MJ/ha for big bluestem and
Indiangrass respectively) mainly because of comparatively higher bio-
mass yield of switchgrass and eastern gammagrass. According to net en-
ergy distribution, there was a 90% probability that NEV of switchgrass
range from 6833 to 69,223 MJ/ha with only 0.7% probability of having
negative NEV (Fig. 1). For eastern gammagrass, there is a 90% probabil-
ity that NEV range from − 1357–47,160 MJ/ha with 7% probability of
getting negative NEV (Fig. 2). For the big bluestem, 90% interval of
NEV ranges from −8643–17,775 MJ/ha with 34.6% probability of having
negative NEV (Fig. 3). The 90% range of NEV of Indiangrass is between −
4500–21,862 MJ/ha with 14% probability of having negative NEV (Fig.
4). On a volume basis, the mean NEV for switchgrass and eastern
gammagrass was 7.9 MJ/L (with the range of − 1.9–11.5 MJ/L) and
5.8 MJ/L (range of −3.8–10.4 MJ/L) of ethanol respectively. For big blue-
stem and Indiangrass the mean NEV was 1.39 (range of −7.6–6.5 MJ/L)
and 2.8 (range −8.2–6.5 MJ/L) respectively.
For native grass production, most energy intensive categories were
farm machinery, fuel and fertilizers. Among the fertilizers, nitrogenous
fertilizer is found to have higher contribution in GHG emission due to
N2O emissions (Kumar and Murthy, 2012). Proper management of ni-
trogenous fertilizer and use the natural alternatives such as legume
Fig. 1. Net energy balance of ethanol production from switchgrass.
349
intercropping can significantly reduce its negative environmental im-
pacts (Ashworth et al., 2015).
All four native grass species considered showed positive mean net
energy value when used as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production.
Therefore, producing ethanol from native grasses would require less en-
ergy than it produces as an output however there is a probability of end-
ing with negative NEV under low yield scenarios which result low
energy output (see Fig. 5 for distribution patterns of energy output
based on potential yield scenarios).
Some studies have reported NEV of 21.5–23 MJ/L of ethanol (Ferrel
et al., 2006; Schmer et al., 2008) from cellulosic ethanol production al-
though our analysis shows relatively lower mean NEV from ethanol pro-
duction from grasses. In contrast, Pimental (2003) and Pimental and
Patzek (2005) reported a negative NEV of ethanol production from
both grain crops and cellulosic biomass. The risk analysis shows higher
probability of having positive NEV and lower chance of having negative
NEV of ethanol from the native warm season grasses considered for this
study.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
The main objective of this study was to analyze NEV of production of
ethanol from switchgrass, eastern gammagrass, big bluestem and
Indiangrass. As highlighted by Hill et al. (2006), lignocellulosic feed-
stocks have been proposed to offer energy, environmental and econom-
ic advantages over first generation biofuel sources since second
generation feedstocks can be successfully grown on marginal lands
with low agricultural inputs. Energy crop production is considered as
environmentally benign and socially acceptable, offering ecological ben-
efits over fossil fuels through their contribution to the reduction of
greenhouse gases and acidifying emissions. Energy crops are subjected
to persistent policy support despite their limited or even marginally
negative impact on the greenhouse effect (Zafeiriou et al., 2016). Net
energy and carbon balance are two important areas to be considered
when studying the impact of cellulosic feedstock to the environment.
The prime reason for investigating biofuel as an alternative to fossil
fuel is saving non-renewable energy with lesser negative impact on en-
vironment. A positive Net Energy Value (NEV) of ethanol is an indicator
of net energy gain in the whole process and a negative value will imply
unsustainability of a production process therefore NEV provides essen-
tial information to evaluate the potential feedstock as alternative source
350 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352

Fig. 2. Net energy balance of ethanol production from Eastern Gammagrass.

Fig. 3. Net energy balance of ethanol production from Big Bluestem.

Fig. 4. Net energy balance of ethanol production from Indiangrass.

 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352
Fig. 5. Distribution of potential energy output of native warm season grasses.
of energy. The energy required for manufacturing machinery, farm
equipment, conversion facilities, and other related capital factors
which have been omitted in some related studies (see Adusumilli
et al., 2013) were considered in the analysis. The model variables and
detailed estimation procedures were clearly stated as a reference for
similar studies. Although, energy embodied in planting materials is
not common in literature, the energy embodied in recommended quan-
tity of seeds use in planning grasses was included.
In this analysis, mean NEV for four native grass species considered
showed positive energy balance. However, NEV for switchgrass was
higher (7.96 MJ/L of ethanol) in compared to eastern gammagrass, big
bluestem and Indiangrass (5.8, 1.4 and 2.6 MJ/L of ethanol respectively).
A positive NEV also establishes all four grasses as potential biofuel feed-
stock. The alternative of energy crops must be adapted to regional con-
ditions and needs, both in minimizing transportation costs as well as
avoiding the current long-distance distribution limitations of ethanol.
In the southeastern U.S.A, where accessible inventory and infrastructure
for diverse feedstock production operations are already well
established, native warm season grasses provides an advantage for bio-
mass production. Since, recent investigations (Hao et al., 2015) among
the markets shows no price impact effects across crop and livestock
markets hence a waiver relaxing the ethanol-fuel mandate would
have minimal impact on crop and livestock prices. Therefore, in meeting
future renewable energy demand it is recognized that multiple, inte-
grated approaches with a variety of different crop species and produc-
tion systems that include native warm season grasses are required to
meet renewable energy production in the region.
351
Acknowledgement
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Evans-Allen project.
References
Adusumilli, N.C., Lacewell, R.D., Rister, M.E., 2013. Energy balance with cellulosic biofuels.
Bio energy policy brief. Available at. http://www.ag.auburn.edu/biopolicy/ (accessed
17.02.25).
Alvarez, P., Burken, J., Coan, J., Dominguez-Faus, R., Gomez, D., Jaffe, Medlock, K., Powers,
S., Soligo, R., Smulcer, L., 2010. Fundamental of a sustainable U.S biofuel policy. Paper
Prepared by the Energy Forum of the James a. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of
Rice University, Houston, TX and Rice University Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering.
Anderson, W., Casler, M., Baldwin, B., 2008. Improvement of perennial forage species as
feedstock for bioenergy. In: Vermerris, W. (Ed.), Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy
Crops. Springer, New York, pp. 309–345.
Ashworth, A.J., Taylor, A.M., Reed, D.L., Allen, F.L., Keyser, P.D., Tyle, D.D., 2015. Environmen-
tal impact assessment of regional switchgrass feedstock production comparing nitro-
gen input scenarios and legume-intercropping systems. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 227–234.
Bansal, A., Illukpitiya, P., Tegegne, F., Singh, S.P., 2016. Energy efficiency of ethanol produc-
tion from cellulosic feedstock. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 58 (1), 141–146.
Bhat, M.G., English, B.C., Turhollow, A.F., Nyangito, H.O., 1994. Energy in Synthetic
Fertilizers and Pesticides: Revisited. Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1994. ORN USU
b/90-99732/2.
Emery, I., Dunn, J.B., Han, H., Wang, M., 2014. Biomass storage options influence net ener-
gy and emissions of cellulosic ethanol. Bioenergy Res. 8 (2), 590–604.
FAO, 2000. The energy and agriculture nexus. Environment and Natural Resources, Work-
ing Paper No. 4. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Ferrel, A.E., Plevin, R.J., Turner, B.T., Jones, A.D., O'Hare, M., Kammen, D.M., 2006. Ethanol
can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 211, 506–508.
352 P. Illukpitiya et al. / Energy Economics 64 (2017) 346–352
Hammerschlag, R., 2006. Ethanol's energy return on investment: a survey of the literature
1990-present. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1744–1750.
Hao, N., Colson, G., Seong, B., Park, C., Wetzstein, M., 2015. Drought, ethanol, and livestock.
Energy Econ. 49, 301–307.
Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Tiffany, D., 2006. Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 103 (30):11206–11210 (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206,
accessed 16.05.17).
Hwang, S., 2007. Days Available for Harvesting Switchgrass and the Cost to Deliver
Switchgrass to a Biorefinery. (PhD dissertation). Oklahoma State University.
Keyser, P., Bates, G., Waller, J., Harper, C., Allen, F., Holcomb, E.D., McIntosh, D., 2015. Pro-
ducing Hay From Native Warm-season Grasses in the Mid-south. University of Ten-
nessee (http://nativegrasses.utk.edu/publications/SP731-D.pdf, accessed 17.03.05).
Kumar, D., Murthy, G.S., 2012. Life cycle assessment of energy and GHG emissions during
ethanol production from grass straws using various pretreatment processes. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (4), 388–401.
Lazarus, W.L., 2013. Machinery cost estimates. University of Minnesota: Extension, 2013.
http://sheboygan.uwex.edu/files/2010/08/Machinery-Cost-Estimates.pdf (accessed
16.12.11).
Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., Christou, M., 2003. The development and
current status of perennial rhizomatus grasses as energy crops in the US and
Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 335–361.
McLaughlin, S.B., Walsh, M.E., 1998. Evaluating environmental consequences of producing
herbaceous crops for bio-energy. Biomass Bioenergy 14 (4), 317–324.
Milbrandt, A., 2005. A geographic perspective on the current biomass resources availabil-
ity in the United States. [Technical Report] NREL/TP-560-39181.
NREL, 2011. Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic
Biomass to Ethanol, Dilute-acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Sto-
ver. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL/TP-5100-47764).
Owsley, C.M., 2002. Review of big Bluestem. United States Department of Agriculture –
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC.
Pimental, D., Patzek, T.W., 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood;
biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat. Resour. Res. 14 (1), 65–76.
Pimental, D., 2003. Ethanol fuels: energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts
are negative. Nat. Resour. Res. 12 (2), 127–134.
RAEL, 2007. Energy and Resources Group Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM), renew-
able and appropriate energy laboratory. http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM (accessed
16.05.12).
Roberts, C., Kallenbach, R., 2006. Eastern Gamagrass. Agricultural Publication G4671. Dept.
of Agronomy, University of Missouri-Columbia http://extension.missouri.edu/p/
G4671.
Romanelli, T.L., Milan, M., 2004. Energy balance methodology and modeling of supple-
mentary forage production. Proceedings of IV Biennial International Workshop
“Advances in Energy Studies”. Unicamp, Campinas, SP, Brazil, pp. 315–321 (June
16-19).
Schmer, M.R., Vogel, K.P., Mitchell, R.B., Perrin, R.K., 2008. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol
from switchgrass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (2), 464–469.
Shapouri, H., 2001. The Net Energy Balance of Corn-ethanol. United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/net_energy_
balance_2004.pdf?nocdn=1, accessed 16.04.22).
Shapouri, H., Duffield, J.A., Wang, M., 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy
and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report. No. 813.
Tober, D., Duckwitz, W., Knudson, M., 2009. Indiangrass (Sorghastrumnutans) Biomass
Trials. North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. US Department of Agriculture –
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bismarck, ND.
Tulbure, M.G., Wimberly, M.C., Boe, A., Owens, V.O., 2012. Climatic and genetic controls of
yields of switchgrass, a model bioenergy species. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146,
121–129.
Treloar, G.J., 1998. A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework. Unpublished
Ph.D dissertation 1998. Faculty of Science and Technology, Deakin University,
Australia.
USDA-NRCS, 2002. Plant fact sheet. https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_sonu2.pdf.
UT Extension, 2009. Guideline Switchgrass Establishment and Annual Production Budgets
Over Three Year Planning Horizon. University of Tennessee (AE 10-02, 2009).
Wang, M., 2001. Development and use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model for Transportation
Fuels and Vehicle Technologies. Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy, Argonne, IL (ANL/ESD/TM-163.www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.
pdf, accessed 14.06.20).
Weimer, P.J., Springer, T.L., 2007. Fermentability of eastern gammagrass, big bluestem and
sand bluestem grown across wide variety of environments. Bioresour. Technol. 98,
1615–1621.
Zafeiriou, E., Petridis, K., Karelakis, C., Arabatzis, G., 2016. Optimal combination of energy
crops under different policy scenarios. The case of Northern Greece. Energy Policy 96,
607–616.