• Energy Research
• Embargo close
• 2. Zero hunger close
• NL close
• US close
• DE close
• GB close
• FR close

AbstractTransition to a bio‐based economy will create new demand for biomass, e.g. the increasing use of bioenergy, but the impacts on existing markets are unclear. Furthermore, there is a growing public concern on the sustainability of biomass. This study proposes a methodological framework for mapping national biomass flows based on domestic production‐consumption and cross‐border trade, and respective share of sustainably‐certified biomass. A case study was performed on the Netherlands for 2010‐2011, focusing on three categories: (i) woody biomass, (ii) oils and fats, and (iii) carbohydrates. Between 2010‐2011 few major shifts were found, besides the increasing biofuel production. The share of sustainably‐certified feedstock is growing in many categories. Woody biomass used for energy amounted to 3.45 MT, including 1.3 MT imported wood pellets ( >85% certified). About 0.6 MT of oils and fats and 1.2 MT (estimation) of carbohydrates were used for biofuel production. It is assumed that only certified materials were used for biofuel production. For non‐energy purpose, more than 50% of woody biomass used was either certified or derived from recycled streams. Certified oils has entered the Dutch food sector since 2011, accounted for 7% of total vegetable oils consumption. It is expected that carbohydrates will also be certified in the near future. Methodological challenges encountered are: inconsistency in data definitions, lack of coherent cross‐sectorial reporting systems, low reliability of bilateral trade statistics, lack of transparency in biomass supply chains, and disparity in sustainability requirements. The methodology may be expanded for future projection in different scenarios. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

AbstractTransition to a bio‐based economy will create new demand for biomass, e.g. the increasing use of bioenergy, but the impacts on existing markets are unclear. Furthermore, there is a growing public concern on the sustainability of biomass. This study proposes a methodological framework for mapping national biomass flows based on domestic production‐consumption and cross‐border trade, and respective share of sustainably‐certified biomass. A case study was performed on the Netherlands for 2010‐2011, focusing on three categories: (i) woody biomass, (ii) oils and fats, and (iii) carbohydrates. Between 2010‐2011 few major shifts were found, besides the increasing biofuel production. The share of sustainably‐certified feedstock is growing in many categories. Woody biomass used for energy amounted to 3.45 MT, including 1.3 MT imported wood pellets ( >85% certified). About 0.6 MT of oils and fats and 1.2 MT (estimation) of carbohydrates were used for biofuel production. It is assumed that only certified materials were used for biofuel production. For non‐energy purpose, more than 50% of woody biomass used was either certified or derived from recycled streams. Certified oils has entered the Dutch food sector since 2011, accounted for 7% of total vegetable oils consumption. It is expected that carbohydrates will also be certified in the near future. Methodological challenges encountered are: inconsistency in data definitions, lack of coherent cross‐sectorial reporting systems, low reliability of bilateral trade statistics, lack of transparency in biomass supply chains, and disparity in sustainability requirements. The methodology may be expanded for future projection in different scenarios. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

AbstractThis study compared the economic and environmental impacts of torrefaction on bioenergy supply chains against conventional pellets for scenarios where biomass is produced in Mozambique, and undergoes pre‐processing before shipment to Rotterdam for conversion to power and Fischer‐Tropsch (FT) fuels. We also compared the impacts of using different land quality (productive and marginal) for feedstock production, feedstocks (eucalyptus and switchgrass), final conversion technologies (XtY and CXtY) and markets (the Netherlands and Mozambique). At current conditions, the torrefied pellets (TOPs) are delivered in Rotterdam at higher cost (7.3–7.5 $/GJ) than pellets (5.1–5.3 $/GJ). In the long term, TOPs costs could decline (4.7–5.8 $/GJ) and converge with pellets. TOPs supply chains also incur 20% lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than pellets. Due to improved logistics and lower conversion investment, fuel production costs from TOPs are lower (12.8–16.9 $/GJFT) than from pellets (12.9–18.7 $/GJFT). Co‐firing scenarios (CXtY) result in lower cost fuel (but a higher environmental penalty) than 100% biomass fired scenarios (XtY). In most cases, switchgrass and the productive region of Nampula provide the lowest fuel production cost compared to eucalyptus and the marginally productive Gaza region. Both FT and ion in Mozambique are more costly than in Rotterdam. For the Netherlands, both FT and power production are competitive against average energy costs in Western Europe. The analysis shows that large‐scale bioenergy production can become competitive against fossil fuels. While the benefits of TOPs are apparent in logistics and conversion, the current higher torrefaction costs contribute to higher biofuel costs. Improvements in torrefaction technology can result in significant performance improvements over the future chain. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

AbstractThis study compared the economic and environmental impacts of torrefaction on bioenergy supply chains against conventional pellets for scenarios where biomass is produced in Mozambique, and undergoes pre‐processing before shipment to Rotterdam for conversion to power and Fischer‐Tropsch (FT) fuels. We also compared the impacts of using different land quality (productive and marginal) for feedstock production, feedstocks (eucalyptus and switchgrass), final conversion technologies (XtY and CXtY) and markets (the Netherlands and Mozambique). At current conditions, the torrefied pellets (TOPs) are delivered in Rotterdam at higher cost (7.3–7.5 $/GJ) than pellets (5.1–5.3 $/GJ). In the long term, TOPs costs could decline (4.7–5.8 $/GJ) and converge with pellets. TOPs supply chains also incur 20% lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than pellets. Due to improved logistics and lower conversion investment, fuel production costs from TOPs are lower (12.8–16.9 $/GJFT) than from pellets (12.9–18.7 $/GJFT). Co‐firing scenarios (CXtY) result in lower cost fuel (but a higher environmental penalty) than 100% biomass fired scenarios (XtY). In most cases, switchgrass and the productive region of Nampula provide the lowest fuel production cost compared to eucalyptus and the marginally productive Gaza region. Both FT and ion in Mozambique are more costly than in Rotterdam. For the Netherlands, both FT and power production are competitive against average energy costs in Western Europe. The analysis shows that large‐scale bioenergy production can become competitive against fossil fuels. While the benefits of TOPs are apparent in logistics and conversion, the current higher torrefaction costs contribute to higher biofuel costs. Improvements in torrefaction technology can result in significant performance improvements over the future chain. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

This paper presents an overview of 67 ongoing certification initiatives to safeguard the sustainability of bioenergy. Most recent initiatives are focused on the sustainability of liquid biofuels. Content-wise, most of these initiatives have mainly included environmental principles. Despite serious concerns in various parts of the world on the socio-economic impacts of bioenergy production, these are generally not included in existing bioenergy initiatives. At the same time, the overview shows a strong proliferation of standards. The overview shows that certification has the potential to influence direct, local impacts related to environmental and social effects of direct bioenergy production. Key recommendations to come to an efficient certification system include the need for further harmonization, availability of reliable data and linking indicators on a micro, meso and macro levels. Considering the multiple spatial scales, certification should be combined with additional measurements and tools on a regional, national and international level. The role of bioenergy production on indirect land use change (ILUC) is still very uncertain and current initiatives have rarely captured impacts from ILUC in their standards. Addressing unwanted LUC requires first of all sustainable land use production and good governance, regardless of the end-use of the product. It is therefore recommended to extend measures to mitigate impacts from LUC to other lands and feedstock. PDF (776 K)

This paper presents an overview of 67 ongoing certification initiatives to safeguard the sustainability of bioenergy. Most recent initiatives are focused on the sustainability of liquid biofuels. Content-wise, most of these initiatives have mainly included environmental principles. Despite serious concerns in various parts of the world on the socio-economic impacts of bioenergy production, these are generally not included in existing bioenergy initiatives. At the same time, the overview shows a strong proliferation of standards. The overview shows that certification has the potential to influence direct, local impacts related to environmental and social effects of direct bioenergy production. Key recommendations to come to an efficient certification system include the need for further harmonization, availability of reliable data and linking indicators on a micro, meso and macro levels. Considering the multiple spatial scales, certification should be combined with additional measurements and tools on a regional, national and international level. The role of bioenergy production on indirect land use change (ILUC) is still very uncertain and current initiatives have rarely captured impacts from ILUC in their standards. Addressing unwanted LUC requires first of all sustainable land use production and good governance, regardless of the end-use of the product. It is therefore recommended to extend measures to mitigate impacts from LUC to other lands and feedstock. PDF (776 K)

This article assesses the current technical and economic potential of three bioenergy production systems (cassava ethanol, jatropha oil and fuelwood) in semi-arid and arid regions of eight sub-Saharan African countries. The results indicate that the availability of land for energy production ranges from 2% (1.3 Mha) of the total semi-arid and arid area in South Africa to 21% (12 Mha) in Botswana. Land availability for bioenergy production is restricted mainly by agricultural land use, but also by steep slopes and biodiversity protection. The current total technical potential for the semi-arid and arid regions of the eight countries is calculated to be approximately 300 PJ y−1 for cassava ethanol production, 600 PJ y−1 for jatropha biodiesel or 4000 PJ y−1 for fuelwood. The analysis of economic potentials shows that in many semi-arid regions, cassava ethanol, jatropha oil and fuelwood can compete economically with the reference energy sources. However, fuelwood, jatropha oil, and cassava ethanol production costs in most arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa are often above average national market prices of gasoline, diesel, and fuelwood. Nevertheless, for example, in arid Kenya 270 PJ could be produced annually with fuelwood at production costs of less than 3 US$ GJ−1. Despite high production costs, it is important to investigate and invest in sustainable bioenergy production in semi-arid and arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa because of its potential to drive rural economic and social development.

This article assesses the current technical and economic potential of three bioenergy production systems (cassava ethanol, jatropha oil and fuelwood) in semi-arid and arid regions of eight sub-Saharan African countries. The results indicate that the availability of land for energy production ranges from 2% (1.3 Mha) of the total semi-arid and arid area in South Africa to 21% (12 Mha) in Botswana. Land availability for bioenergy production is restricted mainly by agricultural land use, but also by steep slopes and biodiversity protection. The current total technical potential for the semi-arid and arid regions of the eight countries is calculated to be approximately 300 PJ y−1 for cassava ethanol production, 600 PJ y−1 for jatropha biodiesel or 4000 PJ y−1 for fuelwood. The analysis of economic potentials shows that in many semi-arid regions, cassava ethanol, jatropha oil and fuelwood can compete economically with the reference energy sources. However, fuelwood, jatropha oil, and cassava ethanol production costs in most arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa are often above average national market prices of gasoline, diesel, and fuelwood. Nevertheless, for example, in arid Kenya 270 PJ could be produced annually with fuelwood at production costs of less than 3 US$ GJ−1. Despite high production costs, it is important to investigate and invest in sustainable bioenergy production in semi-arid and arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa because of its potential to drive rural economic and social development.