We develop a framework for modeling the technological, economic, environmental, and social impacts of the life cycle of seven transportation fuels (Corn, Stover, Switchgrass, Yellow Poplar, Newsprint and Municipal Solid Waste Ethanol Blends, as well as Gasoline), by linking engineering based life cycle analysis of transportation fuels with choice analysis techniques for eliciting and understanding the social preferences for multi-attribute consumption vectors. The use of life-cycle data allows us to account for a broad range of environmental, natural resource, and health effects over the entire production and consumption life cycle of each fuel. Combining these life cycle and stated choice analyses allows for social preferences to be established for the externalities resulting from the use of the different transportation fuels. This results in a unique physical-economic feedback model allowing for improved design and evaluation of transportation policy. Our results indicate first generation biofuels, such as Corn E10 and Corn E85, actually result in a net increase in the value of environmental damage, natural resource use and human health risk relative to gasoline. After accounting for life cycle costs, these popular “alternative” fuel options offer little apparent environmental or health benefits, calling into question policies encouraging their adoption as “green” fuels. For policies with the intent of reducing foreign oil dependency and encouraging resource conservation, these same fuels may have merit. Most of the cellulosic, or second generation, biofuels have the potential to create a net improvement in environmental, natural resource, and human health impacts. Our results indicate significant trade-offs between environmental damage, human health risks and resource depletion rates will have to be made in any attempt to implement alternative fuel policy at a national level.
