Biofuel Benefit or Bummer? A Review Comparing Environmental Effects, Economics, and Feasibility of North American Native Perennial Grass and Traditional Annual Row Crops When Used for Biofuel

Abstract

While biofuels have been touted as a benefit for growers—with the ability to be planted on marginal lands, for improved wildlife habitat, to sustain soils, and to reduce runoff—there remains to be a general summary of how beneficial they really are. This paper aims to review the environmental effects, feasibility, and economic aspects of using native perennial grasses in North America as biofuels as opposed to traditional annual crops. The Scopus database was used to search for manuscripts relating to each topic. In some instances, very few results appeared, so a second database, Digitop, was also used. Native perennial grasses have been found to sequester carbon and cultivating them can create a carbon sink in the soil. Overall, wildlife benefit more by having native perennial grass for biofuels planted than annual maize and having fewer harvests a season is better for wildlife over the entire year. Economically, growing native perennial grasses can be advantageous especially on marginal land, where it has a comparatively high yield. Although the second-generation biofuel supply chain is susceptible to changing market prices, it can be made more resilient and has advantages, for example resistance against the impacts of drought. Although there are many cultivars to choose from, factors like climate, soil, and genetics can provide pertinent information to match each specimen’s ideal growing conditions to the right location.

Keywords

• biofuels
• perennial grasses
• second generation biofuels
• bioenergy crops