Technological Forecasting & Social Change: Jennifer L. Trumbo, Bruce E. Tonn

TFS-18374; No of Pages 15
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technological Forecasting & Social Change
Biofuels: A sustainable choice for the United States' energy future?

Jennifer L. Trumbo a,, Bruce E. Tonn b
a
b
Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA

Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 April 2015
Received in revised form 26 October 2015
Accepted 11 November 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Climate change
Environmental scanning
Algal biofuel
Cellulosic biofuel
Energy policy
Futures analysis
a b s t r a c t
In the United States and elsewhere, climate change, peak oil, and other political and socioeconomic factors have
spurred the development of alternate energy sources. Biofuels, derived from living organisms rather than
petroleum-laden rock, are the focus of current energy research. To better understand the future composition
and sustainability of biofuels within the U.S. energy portfolio the authors conducted an environmental scanning
methodology and futures analysis. The authors developed a model representing the relationships between many
important economic, environmental, political, and social factors to illuminate potential future trends in cellulosic
and algal biofuel over the next twenty years. This innovative, exible approach compared the sustainability of
biofuel sources in many areas over time. The resulting analysis identies environmental degradation as the
most inuential adverse factor. The environmental scanning exercise suggests that cellulosic biofuel may be a
more sustainable option than algal biofuel under the model's assumptions. This analysis yields insightful trends
that predict the sustainability of two biofuel sources over the next twenty years in relation to other important
socio-politico-economic factors. In the future, this methodology can be applied to other biofuel sources and
energy problems.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The earth contains a wide variety of energy resources, although
many of these are limited. Energy infrastructure around the world
largely relies upon these inadequate supplies (Lianos, 2013). The
United States and many other countries are still dependent upon nonrenewable resources, despite modest research, industrial, economic, and
political initiatives (Driesen, 2009). Regardless, resource depletion
could play a large role in the condition of human populations around
the world (Lima and Berryman, 2011; Cellarier and Day, 2011).
Motesharrei, Rivas, and Kalnay (Motesharrei et al., 2014) suggest that
the world will face a population collapse unless resources are consumed
sustainably. This can be achieved in a variety of ways. In the United
States, energy is derived through many techniques; some of which are
more sustainable than others (Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic, 2014).
In particular, it relies upon oil and related products for many energy
needs (Reynolds, 2014). Yet, some scientists have suggested that society
has (or will soon reach) peak oil, or the maximum level of oil production
(Hallock et al., 2014; Hubbert, 1962). After this point, oil production will
begin to decline (Brandt et al., 2013). Renewable energy options provide
answers to resource depletion, including peak oil.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2013 predicts that the national energy portfolio will be
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Trumbo).
dominated by renewable energy sources by 2040 (U.S. Energy

Information Administration, 2014a). Biofuels are one example of
renewable energy (Yue et al., 2014). While biofuels only account
for a small portion of renewable energy currently, production is predicted
to increase by 1.4% annually, or near 40% by 2040 (see Table S1) (U.S.
Energy Information Administration, 2014a). This trend could encourage
political, industrial, and technological progress for biofuels in the
United States.
Biofuel resources are processed through biochemical and thermochemical means, such as sugar fermentation, cellulose hydrolysis, pyrolysis, and gasication (Hoekman, 2009; Sims et al., 2010). These processes
yield ethanol, biodiesel, and other fuel types that can be used in sparkignition and compression ignition engines (Fig. 1) (Nigam and Singh,
2011; Bennion et al., 2015). Cellulosic biomass, microbes and algae, soybeans, corn, and sugarcane are common biofuel feedstocks. Each feedstock is processed differently to produce fuel. Infrastructure must exist
to support each process and fuel type. One example of a biofuel limited
by current infrastructure, corn ethanol, is discussed below.
Corn ethanol is the most well-known form of biofuel in the United
States (Hoekman, 2009; Baeyens et al., 2015). Policies (e.g. renewable
fuel standards) have encouraged corn ethanol production, yet infrastructure and demand issues have hindered its ultimate success
(Anderson and Coble, 2010). Namely, the E10 blend wall, or the 10%
maximum amount of ethanol allowed in conventional fuel, signicantly
limits the future growth of this biofuel type (Qiu et al., 2014). This is
because ethanol is produced at a rate with meets the highest potential
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.015
0040-1625/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Trumbo, J.L., Tonn, B.E., Biofuels: A sustainable choice for the United States' energy future?, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.015
J.L. Trumbo, B.E. Tonn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxxxxx
1.1. Driving forces in the U.S. biofuel portfolio
Fig. 1. Popular biomass resources in the United States and the fuels produced from them.
Adapted from data in Nigam and Singh (2011), Argonne National Laboratory (2010) and
Adenle et al. (2013).
demand of the industry. Ethanol is already produced at a high enough

level to meet the 10% demand for conventional fuel blends. Therefore,
ethanol demand can increase only through the use of higher ethanol
blends like 15% (E15) and 85% (E85). Yet, vehicle fuel infrastructure is
not capable of handling these high ethanol blends. Extensive fuel system
changes would involve huge nancial and temporal investments. In other
words, ethanol demand is likely to stay stagnant until infrastructure can
meet the demands of high ethanol blends (Strogen and Zilberman,
2014; Zhang et al., 2010). Consequently, current corn ethanol research
focuses on limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, securing infrastructure, and improving vehicle technology, but further growth is unlikely
(Hoekman, 2009; Tyner, 2011).
Other biofuel types avoid the blend wall issue, require less land
and water use, and involve lower greenhouse gas emissions (although
they do have other limitations like limited numbers of reneries and
complex processing requirements). For example, alternative biomass
resources include cellulosic forest resources (as shown in Fig. 1), including
fast-growing trees, residues from logging, crop and wood processing
(Hoekman, 2009). Cellulosic materials produce a variety of fuels,
including ethanol and butanol. While many potential biofuel crops, such
as cellulosic products are not typically consumed as food, they can
use land that would otherwise cultivate food products (Baffes, 2013;
Ajanovic, 2011). Sugarcane and soybean are also biofuel resources,
yielding ethanol, biodiesel and butanol (Swapna and Srivastava, 2012;
Ziolkowska, 2013). Alternatively, algae and microbes can be used to
produce biofuel and do not typically require as much land or compete
with food markets. While algae and microbe-based biofuels have yet
to be applied on commercial scales, there are around thirty cellulosic
biofuel projects in over twenty U.S. states (Nigam and Singh, 2011;
Scheel and Ltke-Eversloh, 2013; Advanced Ethanol Council, 2013). As
interest in renewable fuels increases, more projects using the abovementioned resources will likely begin (Algieri, 2014).
Many factors will determine which biofuels dominate the U.S. energy
portfolio in the next 30 years. For example, energy security, economic
productivity, environmental impacts, political viability, and technological feasibility guide the production and distribution of biofuels
(Table 1). Biofuels that maximize benecial factors while minimizing
negative ones will likely be more successful. Currently, socioeconomic
and political challenges limit the market penetration of biofuels
(Szulczyk and McCarl, 2010). Energy security is also a major issue for
the United States; the nation imports over 11 quadrillion British thermal
units (btu) each year (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014a).
In 2013, the United States received 33% of its petroleum and 50% of its
crude oil from foreign countries (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2014b). Widespread biofuel production could increase
the domestic supply of energy signicantly, and provide additional reliability and distribution of fuels within the country (Kruyt et al., 2009). A
rise in energy security could also increase economic growth, price stability, and global competitiveness (Demirbas, 2009).
Dominant biofuels are also driven by political viability and technological concerns (Table 1). Sustainable biofuel portfolios depend upon
sufcient funding through a strong policy framework, an environment
in which policy can function effectively and efciently, and a clear
idea of potential effects on U.S. welfare (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008; Cui
et al., 2011). Technology, in combination with policy, drives the success
of particular biofuels by supporting development and applicability. In
addition, transportation and production infrastructure and the lack
thereof, optimization of resource processing and storage facilities will
determine whether a particular biomass product will be more economically and environmentally sustainability compared to another (Nigam
and Singh, 2011; Taylor, 2008; Bauen, 2006).
Research suggests that climate change inuences how energy
security, economic productivity, political viability, and technological
feasibility drive biofuel portfolio pathways (Fig. 1) (He et al., 2015;
Jian-Kun, in press; Uddin and Taplin, in press). The most signicant
GHG, carbon dioxide (CO2), is now nearly double the global average before the Industrial Revolution at around 400 ppm (Tans and Keeling,
2014). The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased intense
climate activity (i.e. stronger storms and heat waves, and decreased air
quality). In addition, climate change has triggered ocean acidication
and warming, and sea level rise (Lenton et al., 2008; Zeng et al., 2015).
The change in ocean and atmosphere temperatures reduces plant and
animal biodiversity (United Nations Environment Programme and
World Meteorological Organization, 2011). Because gases causing climate
change are largely released during the burning of fossil fuels, and fuel use
increases with population, these events are predicted to intensify over
time (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013). If this
prediction stands, consequences would be devastating to the Earth
and all of its inhabitants. To mitigate the progression of climate change,
many scientists have focused on limiting fossil fuel consumption
(Bauen, 2006).
Table 1
Driving factors of biofuel composition. Potential driving factors in the composition of biofuels within the U.S. energy portfolio. These factors include sustainability indicators such as land
and water use. The critical issues listed under each factor impact biofuel success over time. A particular biofuel will be most effective in a varied energy portfolio when it limits negative
factors (e.g. high land and water use) and maximizes positive factors (e.g. infrastructure availability).
Adapted from data in Hoekman (2009), Nigam and Singh (2011) and Cui et al. (2011).
Driving factors
Critical issues
Improved energy security
Economic productivity
Environmental impacts
Political viability
Technological feasibility
Domestic fuel supply

Distributed fuel resources
Fuel supply reliability
Petroleum reduction
Fuel price stability

Rural development
Trade equality
Global competitiveness
Land and water use

Criteria air pollutants
Greenhouse gases
Wildlife habitat
Biodiversity
Carbon sequestration
U.S. welfare
Political climate
Funding accessibility
Infrastructure availability and stability

Technological optimization
Storage facilities
Indeed, biofuels could help mitigate the progression of climate

change. Biofuels emit lower levels of GHG over time and encourage
reduced consumption of petroleum (Charles et al., 2007; Panwar et al.,
2011). Yet, climate change has already impacted energy technologies
and systems. This could make the cultivation of biofuels more challenging in a variety of ways. For example, increased climate variability could
damage ecosystem health, while decreased groundwater quality could
hinder biofuel agronomics (Klve et al., 2014). A decrease in biomass
supply would likely lead to higher prices, limiting economic and political feasibility of biofuel systems (Li et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2009). To
combat these potential issues, many of the biofuel species cultivated
currently thrive on marginal lands and require less water than typical
crops. These traits allow biomass feedstocks to withstand a variety of
weather conditions including drought and ooding (Porensky et al.,
2014). Recent biotechnology developments increase crop yield and
decrease pesticide and fertilizer demands (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008;
Nageswara-Rao et al., 2013). These developments decrease the amount
of land needed for crop cultivation (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008;
Nageswara-Rao et al., 2013). Above all, continued technological
development will determine how much climate change will affect
the biofuel industry.
1.2. Methods to assess portfolio options
As previously discussed, climate change in combination with
political, economic, and technological considerations has encouraged
the development of sustainable energy sources. These sources are
often assessed to in reference to environmental health in long-term
scenarios. While there are many ways to assess relationships between
these topics, sustainability metrics are particularly suited to examine
energy scenarios. Sustainability indicators take into account potential
economic, societal and environmental impacts, including climate change
(as shown in Table 1). Sustainability indicators include life cycle energy
efciency (LCEE), fossil energy ratio (FER), contribution to global
warming (GW), land use intensity (LUI), and carbon stock change
emissions (CSCE) (Mata et al., 2013). LCEE and FER measure energy
content and input required for production, while GW, LUI and CSCE
quantify potential environmental impacts. These indicators are represented by equations that yield comparable values (Mata et al., 2013).
Many sustainability metrics incorporate data that are similar to those
used when calculating LCEE, FER, GW, LUI, and CSCE (Ziolkowska, 2013;
Madlener et al., 2009). Conversely, other indicators measure differences
in availability, technology, logistics and infrastructure in optimization
and logic-based models. These indicators collectively quantify how
sustainable biofuels are in the present and future (Table 2) (Ziolkowska,
2013; Alfonso et al., 2009; Gnansounou, 2011; Madlener et al., 2009; Liu
et al., 2012). Various biofuel types can be evaluated in the current energy
environment using comparable indicator values. While valuable, these
evaluations are dependent upon on the data used to generate indicators.
Data availability can limit a model's ability to project inferences into the
future (Ramirez-Villegas and Challinor, 2012). Fuzzy set methods
integrate the unknowns of policy and economic trends into many sustainability indicator-based models. Future models, such as the one employed
in this manuscript, hope to relay a more comprehensive, realistic view of
the future of sustainability (Ziolkowska, 2014).
1.3. Applying driving factors and sustainability indicators
Current sustainability indicators and driving factors are valuable in
determining the composition of energy portfolios in the present and
future, despite their limitations. As discussed in Section 1.1, drivers
and sustainability indicators address similar topics. Drivers broadly
encompass biofuel pathway prospects (as described in Table 1),
while indicators represent these and other issues through comparable
numerical values. One of the most well-known models to examine
indicators and drivers simultaneously is the National Energy Modeling
System (NEMS). NEMS projects economic, resource availability,

behavioral, demographic, and technological impacts upon future energy
portfolios, policies and markets (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2009). Alternatively, the World Energy Model (WEM), used by the International Energy Agency, produces scenarios predicting future energy
trends. WEM projections can demonstrate how different policies inuence future energy scenarios (International Energy Agency, 2013).
Another popular method to simulate world energy projections is the
Prospective Outlook on Long-Term Energy System (POLES) model.
POLES incorporates energy demand, new and renewable energy
technologies, fossil fuel supplies, and conventional infrastructure
(European Commission, 2009). WEM, NEMS, and POLES are large-scale
simulation models that replicate energy markets and generate detailed
information about national energy portfolios, including the biofuel
sector (Bhattacharyya, 2010).
Small scale sustainability assessments can be conducted through
numerous modeling approaches, including life cycle analysis, system
dynamics, and optimization (Gnansounou, 2011; Baos et al., 2011).
Some models used to assess future biofuel composition within the
national energy portfolio are similar to those used to incorporate
sustainability data. Optimization models, including heuristic approaches,
parallel processing, and Pareto-based multi-objective optimization have
yielded varying results (Baos et al., 2011). Like models that integrate
sustainability indicators, small scale energy portfolio models typically
reect present data, but some can predict future trends (Alfonso et al.,
2009; Evans et al., 2010; Zeng et al., 2011). These approaches provide
useful information that can help decision-makers balance environmental,
economic and social energy needs while mitigating GHG emissions and
supporting sustainability.
This paper investigates the potential future pathways of biofuel
within future U.S. energy portfolios. It considers the effects of driving
factors in the composition of biofuel supplies. The author applies a
model-based methodology to quantify the results of environmental
scanning and futures analysis to demonstrate potential impacts of technological developments and other factors upon the sustainability of biomass feedstocks (Tonn, 2008). The underlying system model takes into
account the overarching inuence of climate change and highlights potential driving factors that affect sustainability, including energy demand and related policies. Sustainability indicators assess differences
in sustainability across multiple axes. This research advances the ability
of key decision-makers to plan for future developments in the biofuel
sector to maximize sustainable energy production in the United States.
2. Materials and methods
Model projections of future biofuel sustainability depend upon a
number of driving factors. For example, the consequences of past GHG
emissions will affect U.S. energy pathways regardless of biofuel use.
Despite this, ecosystem health and future GHG emissions can be
improved through the use of sustainable energy sources. Environmental
scanning and futures analysis of biomass feedstocks enable the assessment of energy sustainability while acknowledging such conditions.
While environmental scanning was originally developed to aid businesses
in realizing information trends, it can easily be adapted to novel
situations. In particular, it has recently been used to determine impacts
of various forces upon future ecosystem health (Tonn, 2008; Jennings
and Lumpkin, 1992).
While environmental scanning has been applied to environmental
problems, the Tonn methodology improves the technique to produce
data that are expandable and comparable (Tonn, 2008; Liu et al.,
2009). Environmental scanning using the Tonn methodology can incorporate varying geographical and temporal ranges (Tonn, 2008). This
method integrates information from standard and non-standard
sources (e.g. science, policy and technology journals, industry reports,
government agencies, internet dialogue, and developer, funder, and
gray literature). The environmental scanning technique assimilates a
Table 2
Sustainability indicator and evaluation method summary of ndings. This table depicts various sustainability indicators, their focus, evaluation method, and the study where they originated to
indicate the large variability in sustainability assessment. Sustainability indicators pertain to environmental, economic, efciency and security issues.
Indicator
Focus
Evaluation method
Reference
Availability
Economics
Bioption optimization
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
Logic-based model
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
Data envelopment analysis/
multi-criteria decision analysis
Comparative (aggregated index)
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
Life cycle analysis/
fuzzy inference system
Logic-based model
PROMETHEE method/
Fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
Logic-based model
PROMETHEE method/
fuzzy set theory
Alfonso et al. (2009)
Creating new jobs
Economics
Demand
Economic performance
Economics
Economics
Increasing consumer welfare
Economics
Reducing biofuels production costs
Economics
Securing farmers' incomes
Economics
Supporting local communities
Economics
Digestate handling and disposal
Efciency
Fossil energy ratio
Efciency
Increasing biofuels productivity/ha
Efciency
Infrastructure
Efciency
Life cycle energy efciency

Logistics
Efciency
Efciency
Production yield
Efciency
Technology
Efciency
Utilization of heat and electricity
Efciency
Abiotic depletion potential
Environment
Acidication potential
Environment
Carbon stock change emissions

CO2 savings
Contribution to global warming
Effects on global environment
Environment
Environment
Environment
Environment
GHG emissions
Environment
Global warming potential
Environment
Improving health and safety issues
Environment
Land use intensity
Environment
Photochemical ozone creation potential
Environment
Protecting biodiversity and landscapes
Environment
Reducing land use
Environment
Reducing water usage
Environment
Social performance
Environment
Insuring national food security
Security
large amount of information in a short period of time (unlike

complex models like WEM, NEMS, POLES, and even comparably
simpler optimization models) to generate general trends. These
trends can guide decision-making processes for a variety of
organizations.
The authors developed a systems model to organize and quantify the
impacts of collected data upon components (i.e. sustainability indicators
and other factors) of interest. An exponential function then aggregates
the total impact of leads and components. The aggregated scores can
be compared over time (Fig. 2).
2.1. Systems model
The systems model helps to organize the pattern of inuence among
different components and dene the gathering of information for environmental scanning. It provides a large-scale perspective upon areas of
Ziolkowska (2013)
Gnansounou (2011)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Madlener et al. (2009)
Mata et al. (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Mata et al. (2013)
Liu et al. (2012)
Liu et al. (2012)
Mata et al. (2013)
Mata et al. (2013)
Gnansounou (2011)
Liu et al. (2012)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Mata et al. (2013)
Liu et al. (2012)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Ziolkowska (2013)
Gnansounou (2011)
Ziolkowska (2013)
interest and the outcomes that these areas affect. This study uses an
original biofuel sustainability system model that employs previously
identied driving factors and sustainability indicators as components
(Tables 1 and 2). Many components impact other components in the
model. For example, ecosystem health is affected by climate change
(Fig. 3). All models were constructed using Lucidchart web-based
diagramming software (Lucid Software Inc., 2014). The model represents
the main energy-related areas that determine biofuel sustainability, and
ultimately the welfare of the United States. Aggregated components
(biofuel demand and national technological development) are impacted
by many other components. While the model is a simplistic representation of the interaction between these factors, it is accessible to a broader
community. This technique can address topics and trends of interest
while more in-depth studies in the biofuel industry continue to grow. In
this instance, selected model components incorporate factors from
Tables 1 and 2 for holistic view of biofuel sustainability.
Fig. 2. The process summary of the environmental scanning process. The data analysis
procedure begins by selecting the environmental scanning technique. This is followed
by constructing a system model, revolving around the biofuels of interest. Leads are
collected and tracked through the model. Impacts between components are compiled
with lead impacts to yield overall scores for each component. Finally, the changes between
scores are interpreted and compared over time. This process demonstrates that the nal
analysis heavily depends upon the construction of a viable system model.
In this model, transportation fuel demand, peak oil, energy availability, alternative energy national energy policy, and climate change components converge upon the biofuel demand component. Climate change
also inuences the environmental degradation component. Biofuel
demand directly inuences algal and cellulosic biofuel components.
Environmental degradation and national technological development
inuence these components as well. Economic and science policies
inuence national energy policy and national technological development components. U.S. venture capital and international technological development inuence the national technological development
component. Indeed, this model incorporates many of the driving
factors in energy development and indicators in sustainability and
climate change.
This model is particularly useful because it can be applied to many
biofuel feedstocks. The addition of different components and leads can
increase the model's exibility. Depending upon the data sources and
biofuel feedstock, the model produces different scores for each component over time. The large amount of information available allows environmental scanning of biofuel feedstocks to be sensitive and responsive
to changing conditions and even opposing data.
While including many different types of information can better

inform the model, this can introduce several issues with credibility
and bias. To approach this process systematically, the authors used a
rubric (Table 3). This rubric describes the organization of leads by
many criteria including reference quality, publication date, and source
type. A particular lead would likely place in more than one level of
credibility. Therefore, impact scores were assigned based on which
category a lead placed in the majority of the time (4 or more criteria
in the high, medium or low credibility column). To incorporate this
into the model, credibility categories were associated with effects
to impact scores and probability score ranges. Higher credibility
was reected in smaller probability score ranges over time. For
example, developers and technology funder leads, while still important
to some aspects of the analysis, were clearly not as objective as peerreviewed papers. Therefore, credibility was incorporated by assigning
wide probability ranges to these components ( 0.03). The lower the
credibility of a particular source, the lower its impact was on the entire
model (Table 3). For example, a medium credibility lead received a 5%
deduction in impact score after it was assigned (as discussed in the
following section).
In addition, leads relating to biofuel feedstocks were assigned to
appropriate components, ensuring that each component had at least
ve leads to yield a balanced perspective. Each lead was then condensed
into a short form and scored (Fig. 4). The remainder of leads can be
found in Table S2 and Fig. S1. Excluding leads from the study could
incorporate bias. Instead, leads were not exempted from the study unless they did not impact model components or did not t into the source
type criteria classications in Table 3.
The scoring process relies upon the quantication of the impact of
leads over 20 years. The main impact score ranges from 10 to 10. A
complete decline to a model's condition is denoted by 10, while a
large increase in a model's condition is denoted by 10 (Tables 4, 5).
Lower and upper probabilities represent the uncertainty of the lead
impact. Probabilities range from P (A) = 0.0, which is certainty that
an impact will not occur, to P (A) = 1.0, or certainty that an impact
will occur. These estimations are imprecise probabilities, which represent a range of probability to yield exibility to the model. The addition
of new knowledge is possible with imprecise probabilities (Tonn, 2008).
Environmental scanning inherently involves subjectivity and uncertainty, as discussed previously. When projecting lead impacts into the
future, the inclusion of an uncertainty metric is essential for realistic
analysis of real-world systems to incorporate temporal and source
variability (like the U.S. energy market).
2.2. Discovering and assessing leads

2.3. Compiling scores and aggregating results
The next step in the process is to implement environmental
scanning to locate leads (Amanatidou et al., 2012). Leads are factors
that inuence the component to which they connect. Some leads can
affect one component, while others can affect more than one. An example of a lead in the algal biofuels component is Bioalgene. Bioalgene is a
company that uses GHG emissions from power plants to help algae
grow for biofuel production (Bioalgene, 2009). This lead was located
from industry scanning procedures. It could greatly increase fuel
production, sustainability, and efciency from algal feedstock. This
example is considered a lead because it impacts many components
including sustainability indicators. Leads were assembled for every
component of the model from a range of sources to gain a wide
perspective on the system as a whole. Lead scans were conducted
using broad key word searches in the following eight areas: algal
and cellulosic biofuel types, biofuel technologies, biofuel economics,
biofuel security, biofuel and policy, energy demand, energy-related
environmental degradation, and climate change. These broad searches
ensured the inclusion of the maximal amount of information available
from various sources. This study gathered over 130 leads. They were
organized through the methods discussed in the following sections
and analyzed using the general biofuel model (Fig. 3).
After impact scores and probabilities were assigned, expected scores

for each lead were calculated. Let Pi,t(Lj) equal the lower probability
that the lead j will have the estimated impact on component i in year t
and let i,t (Lj) equal the upper probability. The lower projected impact
of lead j on component i in time period t is Ei,t(Li) = Ii,t(Lj) Pi,t(Lj) and
the upper projected impact is i,t(Li) = Ii,t(Lj) i,t(Lj) (Tonn, 2008).
Following this calculation, lead impacts were tracked through the
systems model. The Tonn methodology uses the following equations
to complete this task (Tonn, 2008). Let E((Ci,t)) and ((Ci)) dene
the lower and upper expected values of the change in component Ci in
time period t. Let I(Ci,t) and (Ci,t) dene the lower and upper expected
values of the aggregated impacts of leads (Li's) on component Ci in t
years. Then, the lower expected value of aggregated impacts of leads
(Li's) on component Ci in t years is calculated by Eq. (1) and the upper
expected value is calculated by Eq. (2) (Tonn, 2008):

E C i;t 1eI C i;t = 1 eI C i;t whereI C i;t
i;t L1 i;t L1 i;t L2 i;t L2 i;t L
i;t L
Fig. 3. General biofuel sustainability system model that depicts the relationship between many environmental, economic and social factors. These factors will guide biofuel development in
the next twenty years. This model can be applied to a variety of biofuel feedstocks. All leads used in the analysis are not depicted, and can be found in supplementary sections A and B. The
legend describes the gure shapes and line types used in the model.
.

1 eC i;t where
C i;t 1eC i;t

C i;t i;t L1 i;t L1 i;t L2 i;t L2 i;t L i;t L :
These equations essentially compute the total expected changes in

the components from the impacts and associated probabilities over
time. Following this is the computation of the impacts that components
have on other components throughout the model. Essentially, component
impacts become leads when applied to other components. Therefore, let
Pi,t(Cj) Ii,t(Cj) and i,t(Cj) Ii,t(Cj) delineate the lower and upper expected
impacts of component Cj on component Ci. In order to combine the
component impacts upon one another Eqs. (1) and (2) are modied
into Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively (Tonn, 2008):

C i;t 1eI C i;t = 1 eI C i;t whereI C i;t
i;t L1 i;t L1 i;t L2 i;t L2 i;t L
i;t L i;t C 1 i;t C 1 i;t C 2 i;t C 2
i;t C i;t C

C i;t 1eC i;t = 1 eC i;t where

C i;t i;t L1 i;t L1 i;t L2 i;t L2 i;t L i;t L i;t C 1 i;t C 1
i;t C 2 i;t C 2 i;t C i;t C :
4
To complete the analysis process, the estimated change in a component must be converted to an impact score on the next component.
These values are not the same; instead they must be estimated subjectively. The model assumes that impacts are sequential so impact recursion
cannot be included (Tonn, 2008). Therefore, the impact of each component upon another was calculated like leads on one component.
3. Results
The environmental scanning exercise yielded overall component

changes that reect the future of each biofuel feedstock in a quantitative
and systematic way. While these numbers may not represent any direct
Table 3
Lead credibility rubric. The rubric describes how leads were systematically collected and scored to minimize bias and subjectivity. Each lead ts into different categories among the six
criteria: high credibility, medium credibility and low credibility. The category that the lead places in the majority of the time determines how its credibility impacts its impact score
and probability score range. Tables 4 and 5 describe the scoring process in more detail.
High credibility
Medium credibility
Low credibility
Original sources
Journal leads
Peer-reviewed
Low
12 years
Future-focused data
Secondary sources
Gray literature
Some peer reviewed
Mid
25 years
Present-focused data
Tertiary sources
Website of technology funder, website of developer
Few/none peer reviewed
High
5 years or later
Past-focused data
Score
High-low 0.01
Score 5%
High-low 0.02
Score 10%
High-low 0.03
Criteria
Source type
Information type
Reference quality
Sponsor
Publication date
Projectability
Model effects
Impact score
Probability score range
indicators of each component, they can be used in many ways to elucidate the relationships between components. Energy science is inherently
complex and relies upon many factors. While the model cannot possibly
take into account every potential inuence, it gains insight into the major
areas of interest in the future role of biofuels in the United States. Climate
change and peak oil has driven the energy portfolio of the United States
by encouraging the growth of renewable and low-emission sources like
biofuels. Cellulosic and algal feedstocks are prominent pathways to
mitigate emissions causing climate change while maintaining energy
supplies.
Many of the components included in the biofuel model are related
to the sustainability of the selected biofuel source. They connect how
ecology, culture, economics, and politics unite to provide viable energy
for the future. Results of the analysis are shown in Figs. 57 and Table 6.
There are two important values in these results. Lower and upper
expected changes dene trends in components over time. The total
change per component measures the difference between the twenty
year expected impact value and the ve year expected impact value.
This value demonstrates the future trends of components. The distance
between the lower and upper expected values indicates the level of
condence in the impact values. A higher distance between two components shows lower levels of certainty.
scores than the algal biofuel component due to negative lead scores.
The inuence of all leads and components is also generally small, as
5 years is not a signicant amount of time for change. Components
like climate change, environmental degradation, national energy policy
and U.S. venture capital inuence the model negatively during the
5 year time period.
During the 10-year time period, magnitudes increase universally.
Positive trends become more pronounced generally among economic
values. Climate change and environmental degradation become less
prominent, but still inuential. Biofuel leads are signicantly more
positive, especially for cellulosic biofuels. This is due to very positive
aggregated lead scores. Policy impact scores are slightly negative to positive. Biofuel demand impact scores increase signicantly during this time.
As expected, magnitudes of aggregated impact scores are particularly
high in the 20-year biofuel sustainability model. Patterns emerge among
selected biofuels. Due to increasingly positive leads, cellulosic biofuel
possesses an aggregated impact score almost double that of algal biofuel.
While climate change and environmental degradation still exert negative
inuences upon the model, policy-related scores have increased dramatically. U.S. venture capital impact scores have also increased dramatically.
Interestingly, aggregated biofuel demand impact scores are signicantly
negative in this model, likely due to the impact of the climate change
component.
3.1. Annotated biofuel model results

3.2. Color scale results
Annotated biofuel models for each time period (Figs. 57) indicate
interesting patterns between component and lead impact scores. The
magnitude of lead impact scores is generally smaller than that of
component impact scores. This is to be expected, as component impact
scores compile aggregated lead and component scores. In the rst 5
years, the majority of components are not positive inuences on both
biofuels. Leads and components impacting both biofuels are negative.
The cellulosic biofuel component hold signicantly more negative
The color scale analysis depicts broad trends in expected impact

values between and within all components (Table 7). This perspective
provides the change in the aggregated component impact scores over
time without distinguishing between component and lead impacts.
Darker colors indicate high impact while lighter colors indicate
moderate to slight impact, with red representing negative and green
positive numbers (Table 7). Overall, expected values are low during
Fig. 4. An example of a lead summary that identies the associated component, a summary of the lead information, impact and probability scores over 20 years (Cellulose Sciences International, 2010).
Table 4
Impact score summary. The table depicts a variety of impact scores and their associated
changes with qualitative descriptions adapted from (Tonn, 2008).
Qualitative change in
lead or component
Change in lead or
component score
Impact
score
Extremely massive increase

Extreme increase
Substantial increase
~20% increase
~10% increase
~1 in a million increase
~1 in one hundred million increase
No change
~1 in one hundred million decrease
~1 in a million decrease
~10% decrease
~20% decrease
Substantial decrease
Extreme reduction
Reduction to very close to zero
0.99999
0.986
0.46
0.2
0.1
0.0005
0.000005
0
0.000005
0.0005
0.1
0.2
0.46
0.986
0.99999
10
5
1
0.4
0.2
0.001
0.00001
0
0.00001
0.001
0.2
0.4
1
5
10
the ve year period and increase in intensity by the twenty year mark.
This is demonstrated by increasing color intensity from left to right.
The majority of model elements show mild positive trends. The
maximum magnitude of negative and positive expected impact scores
is dissimilar, at 0.076 and 0.236 respectively.
The environmental degradation component has the most negative
impact scores in the model over time, as supported in Figs. 57. Between
ve and twenty years, its negative score decreases and then increases
again in magnitude (Table 6). Climate change, energy availability, and
peak oil component changes decrease over time. Many components,
like biofuel demand and cellulosic biofuels, begin with a negative
score but increase over time. International technological development,
liquid transportation fuel demand, and science policy have positive
scores over time. In addition, economic policy, national energy policy,
venture capital, national technological development and alternative
energy have moderate positive trends. Cellulosic biofuel has the highest
expected impact factors over time in the impact model. It increases to
double the positive values of algal biofuels. Many of the abovementioned components have very slight component score changes
over time due to minimal aggregated lead impacts (Figs. 57).
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
As discussed previously, lead gathering and score assignment can be
inuenced by bias. In order to assess whether the model was sensitive
to the most unreliable data, the authors conducted a sensitivity analysis.
International technological development and energy availability held
the largest average range of lead probability scores, 0.47 and 0.28
respectively. This indicates a large number of low credibility leads,
as described in Section 2.2. These components were removed from the

model individually to view potential differences in the model. Climate
change and environmental degradation were also removed individually
to test how the removal of highly negative components assumed to
impact biofuels affects the model over time.
The most notable sensitivity analysis is the model without climate
change. As expected, the climate change model widely inuence on
many model components. For example, its removal almost halves the
algal biofuel component impact score change over 15 years (Table 8).
Climate change interacts with environmental degradation and biofuel
demand. This interaction subsequently minimizes the positive trend in
algal biofuel scores over time. This pattern isn't observed as strongly
with cellulosic biofuel, whose scores are generally comparable among
sensitivity models. To reiterate, this data considers the change of each
component impact score over the 15 year analysis. Therefore, differences
in the change do not indicate positive or negative impact scores, rather
the overall trends. Thus, a smaller magnitude positive trend in algal
biofuel impact scores still produces positive cumulative impact
scores, although they are smaller than cellulosic biofuel cumulative
component scores. So the addition of the climate change component
appears to moderate differences between algal and cellulosic biofuel
components (3-fold vs 4-fold difference in 15 year impact score
changes, respectively). In addition, the environmental degradation
component change decreases 2-fold compared to the standard
model with the removal of the climate change component. In other
words, the environmental degradation cumulative impact score was
less negative than the standard model, due to the lack of interaction
between the two components.
Conversely, the analysis removing the international technological
development component revealed insignicant positive changes among
algal and cellulosic biofuels. Despite its high range of probabilities, the
lower credibility leads in this component appeared to only slightly affect
model trends. The change increased the algal component impact score
change over time slightly (high expected change: 0.1713 compared to
the standard model: 0.1422). Removal of the energy availability component increased algal and cellulosic biofuel scores moderately, but proportionally. It also increased biofuel demand. Comparatively, removal of the
environmental degradation component yielded positive effects on algal
and cellulosic biofuel component score changes and minimal effects on
other component scores.
One important observation is that many peripheral components in the
model were unaffected by component removal, including transportation
fuel demand and economic policy. These components did not interact
with the altered components (i.e. climate change, international technological development) directly. In the real world, these areas interact
with each other in many ways. This is one limitation of environmental
scanning and many other methodologies, as the real world is complicated
and difcult to conceptualize in such models. Ultimately, the model
Table 5
General impact scoring interpretations. The components in the general biofuel model and their associated score descriptions.
Component
Positive score
Negative score
Algal biofuels
Alternative energy
Biofuel demand
Cellulosic biofuels
Climate change
Economic policy
Energy availability
Environmental degradation
International technological development
Liquid transportation fuel demand
National energy policy
National technological development
Peak oil
Science policy
Venture capital
Algal biofuel development

Alternative energy development
Increased biofuel demand
Promoted cellulosic biofuel use
Climate change solutions
Biofuel development support
Increased availability
Ecosystem protection or improvement
International innovative solutions
Increased demand
Pro-biofuel use policy actions
National innovative solutions
Minimal peak oil effects
Biofuel development support
Biofuel investment
Algal biofuel limitation

Alternative energy use limitation
Limited biofuel demand
Limited cellulosic biofuel use
Climate change impacts
Biofuel development challenge
Decreased availability
Ecosystem degradation
International technological challenges
Decreased demand
Actions against biofuel use
National technological challenges
Maximum peak oil effects
Limit or disengage from biofuel development
Lack of biofuel investment
Fig. 5. Annotated 5-year biofuel sustainability model. This model contains aggregated component scores (in the blue shapes), lead scores (in the pink shapes) and component impacts (in
the yellow shapes). 5 Y-L indicates the aggregated low probability impact score for the 5 year period. 5 Y-H indicates the aggregated high probability impact score for the 5 year period.
Lead impact score paths are delineated with dashed lines while component upon component scores are delineated with solid lines. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
outcome, while altered with the removal of the climate change component,
yielded a similar conclusion. Algal and cellulosic biofuel trends are positive
over time. Cellulosic biofuel impact scores increase more rapidly over time
than algal biofuels. Yet, removing climate change appears to have a broad,
wide impact on several components. It would be wise in future studies to
explore this relationship and related trends in more detail to see which
parts of these complex, broad components are interacting.
4. Discussion
Cellulosic biofuel was less inuenced by negative factors than algae
in the environmental scanning methodology. Climate change and environmental degradation have strong negative impacts on both analyses.
This suggests that the positive trends in other components cannot overcome the negative effects of peak oil, climate change and other factors
that damage the environment. Energy availability has substantial negative scores over time. Perhaps switching to either type of biofuel will not
be enough to fuel society as it moves towards renewable energy
sources. Energy availability will be an important factor in future energy
policy decisions. Positive biofuel and liquid transportation fuel
demands, industrialization and continued population growth support
the greater need for energy. In contrast, national energy policy appears
to be positive component in addition to the biofuel types. This illustrates
the importance of energy policy in biofuel production. Economic and
science policy components increased quickly over time, indicating
potential positive impacts very quickly if efciently and effectively

employed. Climate change became less negative over time, indicating
that although climate change will have drastic effects, biofuels and
other mitigation techniques can limit damage to the environment. The
high number of components that have positive impacts over time
suggests that biofuels would still provide a good alternative to petroleum. Without the moderating effect of biofuels, the model's negative
impacts like climate change could be much higher.
The differences between the cellulosic and algal-derived biofuels also
suggest potential future biofuel trends. International technological development has much less of a positive impact score than that of national technological development. Focusing on national efforts, supported by solid policy
ensures engagement with local sources and higher energy security. In addition, while national technological development will likely meet with challenges during the next ve years, it still increases dramatically.
4.1. Predicting biofuel trends
The data above suggest that sustainability is demonstrated through
the compilation of many components included in the model. Because
the most negative components were related to environmental degradation, it is clear that overall biofuels are not a stand-alone answer to the
world's energy needs. Each component related to sustainability
demonstrates the positive impact of each biofuel type on society.
While the model reveals generally similar trends among component
10
the yellow shapes). 10 Y-L indicates the aggregated low probability impact score for the 10 year period. 10 Y-H indicates the aggregated high probability impact score for the 10 year
period. Lead impact score paths are delineated with dashed lines while component upon component scores are delineated with solid lines. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
changes, some differences are noteworthy. While the environmental

scanning methodology did not produce a denitive choice between
the two biofuel types, cellulosic biofuel does appear to have higher
positive expected impact values in the standard and sensitivity analyses.
This suggests that it is somewhat more sustainable than algal biomass
in terms of the sustainability indicators considered. Nevertheless,
environmental degradation and perhaps a lack of demand for biofuels
could negatively affect their future. With the implementation of many
mitigation techniques and the adoption of biofuels like cellulose biomass
and algae this impact is sure to decrease.
Other sustainability models project varied biofuel outcomes in the
future. Despite this, many studies suggest than biofuels will be a sustainable option for future national energy portfolios (Demirbas, 2009;
Escobar et al., 2009; Marques and Fuinhas, 2011). For example, Mata
et al. suggest that sugarcane is the most sustainable option for ethanol
production, although it is not particularly applicable to many locations
in the United States (Mata et al., 2013). Similarly, Ziolkowska found
that algae and switchgrass were most sustainable through economic,
environmental and social criteria (Ziolkowska, 2014). Groom, Grey,
and Townsend also found that algae could be the most sustainable
option because of its small ecological footprint (Groom et al., 2008). In
contrast, Tyner stated that cellulosic biofuels would be the ideal choice
to increase energy security and reduce GHG emissions (Tyner, 2011).
While there are various biofuel sustainability opinions, the results of
this analysis are well supported by the cited scientic literature.
4.2. Future perspectives

The environmental scanning methodology and futures analysis have
generally been used in business and ecological settings (Tonn, 2008).
The application of this methodology to energy science provides a new
avenue for future research. The method offers exibility to assess the
relationships between various objectives and constraints of interest.
Positive and negative impact scores provide a way to assess different
driving forces and the model can be constructed to address a variety
of research questions. Leads can be gathered from certain sources to
change the time span and area of data. Imprecise probabilities provide
measures of condence for the impacts of particular leads or components over time. Sensitivity analysis can examine how variability in
lead credibility can impact (or not impact) ultimate model outcomes.
Therefore, the model can accommodate many scenarios and achieve a
wide variety of goals.
It is difcult to integrate information from economic, political,
scientic, and social information into one model (Mangoyana et al.,
2013). This model provides a holistic, simplistic view to the future of
complex problems. Environmental scanning with the Tonn methodology
can be more readily accessible to a diverse group of decision-makers
compared to other models (Tonn, 2008). The annotated model and
color scale analyses yielded potential considerations for decisionmakers as future U.S. energy policies and portfolios are formed. In the
future, this model should be applied to the remainder of biofuel types
11
the yellow shapes). 20 Y-L indicates the aggregated low probability impact score for the 20 year period. 20 Y-H indicates the aggregated high probability impact score for the 20 year
period. Lead impact score paths are delineated with dashed lines while component upon component scores are delineated with solid lines. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
to get a fuller view of the most sustainable biofuel portfolio composition

for the United States. A more comprehensive view of the biofuel market
using this same methodology would provide interesting insights on the
future of energy in the United States. In addition, collecting more leads
would provide more comprehensive data over a longer period of time.
The model could then project more reliable, comparable data for future
applications.
4.3. Policy implications
This analysis revealed that national energy policy will be a positive
driving force in the development of the biofuel industry. Effort must
be given to ensure that there is a suitable policy foundation on which
sustainable biofuels can ourish. One of the biggest issues with the biofuel industry right now is economics (Nigam and Singh, 2011). The price
for many biofuels is much higher than standard petroleum-based
biofuels (Jaeger and Egelkraut, 2011). The U.S. renewable portfolio standards have propelled the growth of corn ethanol by creating demand,
but the blend wall is hindering further development. Renewable portfolio
standards will likely support the use of other biofuels as well, but should
consider this problem. All biofuel options, including algae, should be
incorporated into the portfolio standards framework based upon their
sustainability levels (Witcover et al., 2013).
There are still no commercial cellulosic or algal biofuel plants in the

United States, so the cost factor is largely uncertain (Koh and Ghazoul,
2008; Koar and Civa, 2013). Even so, price premiums could be instated
for produces in compliance with sustainability standards to cover adaptation costs (Pacini et al., 2013). A reverse auction process, where investors bid amounts to invest in biofuels over time and the lowest bids
receive contracts, may incentivize industry investment, and minimize
uncertainty (Tyner, 2011). Subsidies could also expand market penetration of various biofuels by allowing prices to stay competitive (Szulczyk
and McCarl, 2010). Overall, greater federal investment in research and
development should also be implemented to optimize the sustainability
of biofuel production and processing and mitigate climate change
(Ponte, 2014).
5. Conclusion
Climate change, peak oil, and other factors have driven many societies
away from petroleum-based fuels. In an effort to increase the sustainability of energy options, the U.S. has taken several steps to engage many
untraditional fuel types. Because many of these fuels are not yet widely
commercially available, the role they will play in future national energy
portfolios is largely unknown. Biofuels present particularly optimal
options for sustainable energy because they can replace petroleum-
12
Table 6
General aggregated biofuel comparison model component changes. The aggregated component changes as tracked through the general biofuel comparison model.
Scores reect low and high changes for each component over 20 years. Cell color denotes the level at which a particular score compares to zero in order to visualize
score changes.
Component
5 years
10 years
20 years
15 year
Algal biofuels
Low expected
0.0469
0.0278
0.0536
0.1005
Algal biofuels
High expected
0.0465
0.0432
0.0821
0.1286
Alternative energy
Low expected
0.0018
0.0012
0.0020
0.0038
Alternative energy
High expected
0.0023
0.0017
0.0029
0.0052
Biofuel demand
Low expected
0.0464
0.0299
0.0131
0.0333
Biofuel demand
High expected
0.0986
0.0381
0.0111
0.0875
Cellulosic biofuels
Low expected
0.0894
0.1500
0.1409
0.2303
Cellulosic biofuels
High expected
0.1063
0.1954
0.2357
0.3420
Climate change
Low expected
0.0156
0.0016
0.0049
0.0106
Climate change
High expected
0.0595
0.0025
0.0081
0.0514
Economic policy
Low expected
0.0064
0.0024
0.0071
0.0135
Economic policy
High expected
0.0084
0.0022
0.0211
0.0295
Energy availability
Low expected
0.0011
0.0013
0.0457
0.0446
Energy availability
High expected
0.0017
0.0033
0.0591
0.0574
Low expected
0.0422
0.0379
0.0519
0.0097
High expected
0.0922
0.0515
0.0764
0.0157
Low expected
0.0005
0.0002
0.0004
0.0001
High expected
0.0011
0.0005
0.0008
0.0004
Low expected
0.0003
0.0005
0.0024
0.0020
High expected
0.0004
0.0007
0.0032
0.0028
Low expected
0.0220
0.0000
0.0195
0.0415
High expected
0.0272
0.0024
0.0473
0.0745
Low expected
0.0112
0.0064
0.0157
0.0269
High expected
0.0166
0.0122
0.0323
0.0489
Peak oil
Low expected
0.0005
0.0008
0.0102
0.0107
Peak oil
High expected
0.0007
0.0011
0.0133
0.0140
Science policy
Low expected
0.0010
0.0019
0.0102
0.0092
Science policy
High expected
0.0022
0.0041
0.0226
0.0204
Venture capital
Low expected
0.0152
0.0006
0.0105
0.0257
Venture capital
High expected
0.0242
0.0006
0.0263
0.0505
based fuels without extensive changes in energy infrastructure. Cellulosic

and algal biofuels are rapidly developing in the United States, but the
sustainability metrics and models used to compare them are variable. Through an environmental scanning methodology, the authors
Table 7
Legend for color scales in environmental scanning results. Interpretations
for the chosen color scales used to compare impact scores.
Color
Interpretation
Red
Orange
Light orange
Yellow
Light green
Dark green
Substantial decrease
Moderate decrease
Slight decrease/neutral
Slight increase
Moderate increase
Substantial increase
investigated the sustainability of cellulosic and algal biofuels.

Criteria like climate change, energy security, technological optimization, and energy policy composed a model that dened the relationship between economic, social, environmental, and political aspects
over time.
The analysis revealed mutual trends among the two biofuel sources
over the next twenty years. For example, since component impacts accrue over time, the majority of components have positive impacts. Environmental degradation is a negative factor that impacts both biofuels
heavily. National energy policy is a key positive driving factor at 20
years. Cellulosic biofuels possess higher component change scores than
algal biomass. Therefore, the analysis suggests that cellulosic biofuels
may be a more sustainable biofuel choice according to the available
data and system model analysis. Negative energy availability scores suggest the need for alternative renewable energy sources as well. This
methodology has yielded future biofuel trends that can aid decision-
13
Table 8
Sensitivity analysis results. The overall change in 15 year impact scores among all components. The graph shows the standard model values, the model without the international technological development component (Model-ITD), the model without the energy availability component (Model-EA), the model without the climate change
component (Model-CC), and the model without the environmental degradation component (Model-ED). Color scales correspond to Table 7.
15 year
Component
Model
Model
ITD
Model
EA
Model
CC
Model
ED
Low expected
0.1218
0.1218
0.1230
0.0640
0.1207
Algal biofuels
High expected
0.1422
0.1713
0.1969
0.0829
0.1655
Alternative energy
Low expected
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
Alternative energy
High expected
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
Biofuel demand
Low expected
0.0333
0.0333
0.0817
0.0226
0.0333
Biofuel demand
High expected
0.0875
0.0875
0.1501
0.0361
0.0875
Cellulosic biofuels
Low expected
0.2516
0.2516
0.2983
0.2392
0.2505
Cellulosic biofuels
High expected
0.3835
0.3835
0.4091
0.2354
0.3777
Climate change
Low expected
0.0106
0.0106
0.0106
0.0000
0.0106
Climate change
High expected
0.0514
0.0514
0.0514
0.0000
0.0514
Economic policy
Low expected
0.0135
0.0135
0.0135
0.0135
0.0135
Algal biofuels
Economic policy
High expected
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
0.0295
Energy availability
Low expected
0.0446
0.0446
0.0000
0.0446
0.0446
Energy availability
High expected
0.0574
0.0574
0.0000
0.0574
0.0574
Low expected
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0203
0.0000
High expected
0.0157
0.0157
0.0157
0.0357
0.0000
International technological
Low expected
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
International technological
development
High expected
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Liquid transportation
Low expected
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
High expected
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
Low expected
0.0415
0.0415
0.0415
0.0415
0.0415
High expected
0.0745
0.0745
0.0745
0.0745
0.0745
National technological
Low expected
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
High expected
0.0492
0.0492
0.0489
0.0489
0.0489
Peak oil
Low expected
0.0107
0.0107
0.0107
0.0107
0.0107
Peak oil
High expected
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
Science policy
Low expected
0.0092
0.0092
0.0092
0.0092
0.0092
Science policy
High expected
0.0204
0.0204
0.0204
0.0204
0.0204
Venture capital
Low expected
0.0257
0.0257
0.0257
0.0257
0.0257
Venture capital
High expected
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505
development
fuel demand
Liquid transportation
fuel demand
development
National technological
Development
makers in the formation of energy policies. In addition, it provides insight

into the driving forces and composition of biofuels within potential sustainable national energy portfolios in the future. The modeling aspect of
the methodology provides exibility, simplication, and accessibility to
the process (Tonn, 2008). Future analyses should include corn, soybean,
and sugarcane feedstocks and other alternative sources like wind and
solar with a greater number of leads per component in different areas
and over extended time periods. This research has addressed key areas
in the future of energy science and policy. An environmental methodology has been applied to energy science to assess the sustainability and
overall differences between cellulosic and algal-derived biofuel sources.
Energy policies will be crucial in dening the success of biofuels. Sustainability will direct the composition of biofuels within future U.S. energy
pathways.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.015.
14
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. John R. Dreyer and reviewers for their valuable comments that have greatly improved the manuscript. We appreciate funding
from the University of Tennessee Knoxville.
References
Adenle, A.A., Haslam, G.E., Lee, L., 2013. Global assessment of research and development
for algae biofuel production and its potential role for sustainable development in
developing countries. Energ Policy 61, 182195.
Advanced Ethanol Council, 2013. Cellulosic Biofuels Industry Progress Report 20122013.
Ajanovic, A., 2011. Biofuels versus food production: does biofuels production increase
food prices? Energy 36, 20702076.
Alfonso, D., Perpi, C., Prez-Navarro, A., Pealvo, E., Vargas, C., Crdenas, R., 2009.
Methodology for optimization of distributed biomass resources evaluation, management
and nal energy use. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 10701079.
Algieri, B., 2014. The inuence of biofuels, economic and nancial factors on daily returns
of commodity futures prices. Energ Policy 69, 227247.
Amanatidou, E., Butter, M., Carabias, V., Knnl, T., Leis, M., Saritas, O., Schaper-Rinkel, P.,
van Rij, V., 2012. On concepts and methods in horizon scanning: lessons from initiating
policy dialogues on emerging issues. Sci. Public Policy 39, 208221.
Anderson, J.D., Coble, K.H., 2010. Impact of renewable fuels standard ethanol mandates on
the corn market. Agribusiness 26, 4963.
Argonne National Laboratory, 2010. Fuel Pathways. U.S. Department of Energy.
Baeyens, J., Kang, Q., Appels, L., Dewil, R., Lv, Y., Tan, T., 2015. Challenges and opportunities
in improving the production of bio-ethanol. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 47, 6088.
Baffes, J., 2013. A framework for analyzing the interplay among food, fuels, and biofuels.
Glob. Food Secur. 2, 110116.
Baos, R., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Montoya, F.G., Gil, C., Alcayde, A., Gmez, J., 2011.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 17531766.
Bauen, A., 2006. Future energy sources and systemsacting on climate change and energy
security. J. Power Sources 157, 893901.
Bennion, E.P., Ginosar, D.M., Moses, J., Agblevor, F., Quinn, J.C., 2015. Lifecycle assessment
of microalgae to biofuel: comparison of thermochemical processing pathways. Appl.
Energy 154, 10621071.
Bhattacharyya, S.C., 2010. A review of energy system models. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manage.
4, 494518.
Bioalgene, 2009. Next generation biofuels and products from algae.
Brandt, A.R., Millard-Ball, A., Ganser, M., Gorelick, S.M., 2013. Peak oil demand: the role of
fuel efciency and alternative fuels in a global oil production decline. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 47, 80318041.
Cellarier, L., Day, R., 2011. Structural instability and alternative development scenarios.
J. Popul. Econ. 24, 11651180.
Cellulose Sciences International, 2010. Biomass treatment.
Charles, M.B., Ryan, R., Ryan, N., Oloruntoba, R., 2007. Public policy and biofuels: the way
forward? Energ Policy 35, 57375746.
Chen, X., Khanna, M., Onal, H., 2009. The Economic Potential of Second-Generation
Biofuels: Implications for Social Welfare, Land use and Greenhouse gas Emissions in
Illinois. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
Cui, J., Lapan, H.E., Moschini, G., Cooper, J.C., 2011. Welfare impacts of alternative biofuel
and energy policies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 12351256.
Demirbas, A., 2009. Biofuels securing the planet's future energy needs. Energy Convers.
Manag. 50, 22392249.
Driesen, D.M., 2009. Sustainable development and air quality: the need to replace basic
technologies with cleaner alternatives. Widener Law J. 18, 883895.
Escobar, J.C., Lora, E.S., Venturini, O.J., Yez, E.E., Castillo, E.F., Almazan, O., 2009. Biofuels:
environment, technology and food security. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, 12751287.
European Commission, 2009. In: Russ, P., Ciscar, J.C., Saveyn, B., Soria, A., Szb, L., Ierland,
T.V., Rosella Virdis, D.V.R. (Eds.), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies,
Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies.
Evans, A., Strezov, V., Evans, T.J., 2010. Sustainability considerations for electricity
generation from biomass. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 14191427.
Gnansounou, E., 2011. Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: a logic-based model.
Energy 36, 20892096.
Groom, M.J., Gray, E.M., Townsend, P.A., 2008. Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for
creating better policies for biofuel production. Conserv. Biol. 22, 602609.
Hallock Jr., J.L., Wu, W., Hall, C.A.S., Jefferson, M., 2014. Forecasting the limits to the
availability and diversity of global conventional oil supply: validation. Energy 64,
130153.
He, C., Zhao, Y., Huang, Q., Zhang, Q., Zhang, D., 2015. Alternative future analysis for
assessing the potential impact of climate change on urban landscape dynamics. Sci.
Total Environ. 532, 4860.
Hoekman, S.K., 2009. Biofuels in the U.S. challenges and opportunities. Renew. Energy
34, 1422.
Hubbert, M.K., 1962. Energy Resources. National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council, Washington.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical
science basis. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 1535
(United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA).
International Energy Agency, 2013. World Energy Model Documentation.
Jaeger, W.K., Egelkraut, T.M., 2011. Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives
and unintended consequences. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 43204333.
Jennings, D.F., Lumpkin, J.R., 1992. Insights between environmental scanning activities
and porter's generic strategies: an empirical analysis. J. Manag. 18, 791803.
Jian-Kun, H.E., 2015. Objectives and strategies for energy revolution in the context of tackling
climate change. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. (in press).
Klve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., Gurdak, J.J., Kupfersberger, H., Kvrner, J., Muotka, T.,
Mykr, H., Preda, E., Rossi, P., Uvo, C.B., Velasco, E., Pulido-Velazquez, M., 2014. Climate
change impacts on groundwater and dependent ecosystems. J. Hydrol. 518, 250266
(Part B).
Koar, G., Civa, N., 2013. An overview of biofuels from energy crops: current status and
future prospects. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 28, 900916.
Koh, L.P., Ghazoul, J., 2008. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: understanding the conicts
and nding opportunities. Biol. Conserv. 141, 24502460.
Kruyt, B., van Vuuren, D.P., de Vries, H.J.M., Groenenberg, H., 2009. Indicators for energy
security. Energ Policy 37, 21662181.
Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H.J.,
2008. Tipping elements in the earth's climate system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
105, 17861793.
Li, X., Takahashi, T., Suzuki, N., Kaiser, H.M., 2011. The impact of climate change on maize
yields in the United States and China. Agric. Syst. 104, 348353.
Lianos, T.P., 2013. The world budget constraint. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15, 15431553.
Lima, M., Berryman, A.A., 2011. Positive and negative feedbacks in human population
dynamics: future equilibrium or Collapse? Oikos 120, 13011310.
Liu, D., Shih, M.-J., Liau, C.-J., Lai, C.-H., 2009. Mining the change of event trends for
decision support in environmental scanning. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 972984.
Liu, G., Baniyounes, A., Rasul, M.G., Amanullah, M.T.O., Khan, M.M.K., 2012. Fuzzy logic
based environmental indicator for sustainability assessment of renewable energy
system using life cycle assessment. Procedia Eng. 49, 3541.
Lucid Software Inc., 2014. Lucidchart.
Madlener, R., Antunes, C.H., Dias, L.C., 2009. Assessing the performance of biogas
plants with multi-criteria and data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197,
10841094.
Mangoyana, R.B., Smith, T.F., Simpson, R., 2013. A systems approach to evaluating sustainability of biofuel systems. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 25, 371380.
Marques, A.C., Fuinhas, J.A., 2011. Drivers promoting renewable energy: a dynamic panel
approach. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 16011608.
Mata, T.M., Caetano, N.S., Costa, C.A.V., Sikdar, S.K., Martins, A.A., 2013. Sustainability analysis
of biofuels through the supply chain using indicators. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 3,
5360.
Motesharrei, S., Rivas, J., Kalnay, E., 2014. Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): modeling
inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies. Ecol. Econ.
101, 90102.
Nageswara-Rao, M., Soneji, J.R., Kwit, C., Stewart Jr., C.N., 2013. Advances in biotechnology
and genomics of switchgrass. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 77.
Nigam, P.S., Singh, A., 2011. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 37, 5268.
Pacini, H., Assuno, L., van Dam, J., Toneto Jr., R., 2013. The price for biofuels sustainability.
Energ Policy 59, 898903.
Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C., Kothari, S., 2011. Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 15131524.
Ponte, S., 2014. Roundtabling sustainability: lessons from the biofuel industry. Geoforum
54, 261271.
Porensky, L.M., Davison, J., Leger, E.A., Miller, W.W., Goergen, E.M., Espeland, E.K.,
Carroll-Moore, E.M., 2014. Grasses for biofuels: a low water-use alternative for cold
desert agriculture? Biomass Bioenergy 66, 133142.
Qiu, C., Colson, G., Wetzstein, M., 2014. An ethanol blend wall shift is prone to increase
petroleum gasoline demand. Energy Econ. 44, 160165.
Ramirez-Villegas, J., Challinor, A., 2012. Assessing relevant climate data for agricultural
applications. Agric. For. Meteorol. 161, 2645.
Reynolds, D.B., 2014. World oil production trend: comparing hubbert multi-cycle curves.
Ecol. Econ. 98, 6271.
Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Azapagic, A., 2014. Sustainability assessment of energy systems:
integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 80,
119138.
Scheel, M., Ltke-Eversloh, T., 2013. New options to engineer biofuel microbes: development
and application of a high-throughput screening system. Metab. Eng. 17, 5158.
Sims, R.E.H., Mabee, W., Saddler, J.N., Taylor, M., 2010. An overview of second generation
biofuel technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 15701580.
Strogen, B., Zilberman, D., 2014. Complex infrastructurevehicleconsumer considerations
for enabling increased consumption of fuel ethanol. Energy Procedia 61, 27712777.
Swapna, M., Srivastava, V., 2012. Molecular marker applications for improving sugar
content in sugarcane. Plant Sci. 149.
Szulczyk, K.R., McCarl, B.A., 2010. Market penetration of biodiesel. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 14, 24262433.
Tans, P., Keeling, R., 2014. Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2. NOAA/ESRL.
Taylor, G., 2008. Biofuels and the biorenery concept. Energ Policy 36, 44064409.
Tonn, B.E., 2008. A methodology for organizing and quantifying the results of environmental
scanning exercises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75, 595609.
Tyner, W.E., 2011. The future of biofuels. Comment to C. F. Runge and R. S. Johnson, the
Dismal State of Biofuels Policy, p. 22.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2009. The National Energy Modeling System: An
Overview.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014a. Annual Energy Outlook 2014.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014b. U.S. Net Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum
Products.
Uddin, N., Taplin, R., 2015. Regional cooperation in widening energy access and also
mitigating climate change: current programs and future potential. Glob. Environ.
Chang. (in press).
United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, 2011l.
Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision
Makers, in.
Witcover, J., Yeh, S., Sperling, D., 2013. Policy options to address global land use change
from biofuels. Energ Policy 56, 6374.
Yue, D., You, F., Snyder, S.W., 2014. Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain
optimization: overview, key issues and challenges. Comput. Chem. Eng. 66, 3656.
Zeng, Y., Cai, Y., Huang, G., Dai, J., 2011. A review on optimization modeling of energy
systems planning and GHG emission mitigation under uncertainty. Energies 4,
16241656.
Zeng, X., Chen, X., Zhuang, J., 2015. The positive relationship between ocean acidication
and pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 91, 1421.
Zhang, Z., Qiu, C., Wetzstein, M., 2010. Blend-wall economics: relaxing US ethanol regulations can lead to increased use of fossil fuels. Energ Policy 38, 34263430.
Ziolkowska, J.R., 2013. Evaluating sustainability of biofuels feedstocks: a multi-objective
framework for supporting decision making. Biomass Bioenergy 59, 425440.
Ziolkowska, J.R., 2014. Optimizing biofuels production in an uncertain decision environment:
conventional vs. advanced technologies. Appl. Energy 114, 366376.
15
Jennifer L. Trumbo is a former Energy Science and Engineering PhD student in the University of Tennessee's Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education.
Ms. Trumbo is currently pursuing education in public health and nutrition at the University
of Tennessee. Ms. Trumbo is interested in integrating scientic ndings with policy, social
and economic problem-solving and is a reviewer for the journal Futures. She hopes to inform
environmental planning through energy, social, health, and economic priorities and trends.
Ms. Trumbo received a B.S. in Biology with a concentration in ecology and environmental
science from Capital University.
Dr. Bruce Tonn is a full, tenured professor in the Department of Political Science, University
of Tennessee and president of Three3, Inc., a scientic and educational 501 (c) (3) non-prot
organization. He recently served as co-chair of a National Science Foundation study panel on
the Societal Benets and Implications of Converging Knowledge and Technology. He is an Associate Editor for the journal Futures. Dr. Tonn received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from
Stanford University, a Masters in City and Regional Planning from Harvard University, and
a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning from Northwestern University.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change: Jennifer L. Trumbo, Bruce E. Tonn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technological Forecasting & Social Change: Jennifer L. Trumbo, Bruce E. Tonn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technological Forecasting & Social Change: Jennifer L. Trumbo, Bruce E. Tonn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TFS-18374; No of Pages 15

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Biofuels: A sustainable choice for the United States' energy future?

Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA

dominated by renewable energy sources by 2040 (U.S. Energy

1.1. Driving forces in the U.S. biofuel portfolio

demand of the industry. Ethanol is already produced at a high enough

Improved energy security

Domestic fuel supply

Fuel price stability

Land and water use

Infrastructure availability and stability

Indeed, biofuels could help mitigate the progression of climate

System (NEMS). NEMS projects economic, resource availability,

Alfonso et al. (2009)

Creating new jobs

Increasing consumer welfare

Reducing biofuels production costs

Securing farmers' incomes

Supporting local communities

Digestate handling and disposal

Fossil energy ratio

Increasing biofuels productivity/ha

Life cycle energy efciency

Utilization of heat and electricity

Abiotic depletion potential

Carbon stock change emissions

Global warming potential

Improving health and safety issues

Land use intensity

Photochemical ozone creation potential

Protecting biodiversity and landscapes

Reducing land use

Reducing water usage

Insuring national food security

large amount of information in a short period of time (unlike

While including many different types of information can better

2.2. Discovering and assessing leads

After impact scores and probabilities were assigned, expected scores

These equations essentially compute the total expected changes in

The environmental scanning exercise yielded overall component

3.1. Annotated biofuel model results

The color scale analysis depicts broad trends in expected impact

Extremely massive increase

as described in Section 2.2. These components were removed from the

Algal biofuel development

Algal biofuel limitation

potential positive impacts very quickly if efciently and effectively

changes, some differences are noteworthy. While the environmental

4.2. Future perspectives

to get a fuller view of the most sustainable biofuel portfolio composition

There are still no commercial cellulosic or algal biofuel plants in the

International technological development

International technological development

Liquid transportation fuel demand

Liquid transportation fuel demand

National energy policy