• Energy Research

This research investigates how biomass supply chains (BSChs) for bioenergy within the broader bioeconomy could contribute to the post-COVID-19 recovery in three dimensions: boosting economic growth, creating jobs, and building more resilient and cleaner energy systems in four future scenarios, in the short term (by 2023) and long term (by 2030). A SWOT analysis on BSChs was used for generating a questionnaire for foresight by a two-round Delphi study. To interpret the results properly, a short survey and literature review is executed to record BSChs behavior during the pandemic. In total, 23 (55% response rate) and 28 (46% response rate) biomass experts from three continents participated in the Delphi and the short survey, respectively. The strongest impact from investment in BSChs would be on economic growth, followed by a contribution to the resilient and cleaner energy systems and job creation. The effects would be more visible in the long- than in the short-term period. Investments with the most impact on recovery are those that improve biomass material efficiency and circularity. Refurbishment of current policies to enhance the supply of biomass as a renewable resource to the future economy is a must.

Biomass sources are geographically scattered, and seasonal changes influence their availability. Variations in location, type, and feedstock quality impose logistical and storage challenges. Such a dispersion and variety of biomass sources, as well as the dispersion of demand points, may undermine the economies of scale and increase the risk of supply shortage. By consolidating biomass preprocessing and distribution activities in bio-hub facilities, they can contribute to the overall resilience of biomass supply chains (BSCs) and ensure a more sustainable and cost-efficient approach to bioenergy production. As such, investigating the advantages and challenges associated with bio-hub implementation can offer invaluable insights on the efficiency and sustainability of BSCs. Despite its critical role, a major part of the literature on BSCs is confined to the decision-making processes related to biomass suppliers and bioconversion facilities. To bridge this research gap, the current study conducts a systematic literature review on bio-hub implementation within BSCs in the period of the last ten years. Shortlisted papers are classified and analyzed meticulously to extract possible improvements from BSC and modeling perspectives. From the BSC viewpoint, one notable gap is the little attention to mid-term and short-term decisions of bio-hub operations such as inventory control, resource management and production planning. Furthermore, the results revealed that environmental and social aspects of bio-hub implementation require considerable attention. From the modeling perspective, findings illustrate the underutilization of integrated approaches to incorporate micro-level and macro-level information in decision-making. In this regard, a number of areas are suggested for further exploration. ; 2024

AbstractAs the global population increases and becomes more affluent, biomass demands for food and biomaterials will increase. Demand growth is further accelerated by the implementation of climate policies and strategies to replace fossil resources with biomass. There are, however, concerns about the size of the prospective biomass demand and the environmental and social consequences of the corresponding resource mobilization, especially concerning impacts from the associated land‐use change. Strategically integrating perennials into landscapes dominated by intensive agriculture can, for example, improve biodiversity, reduce soil erosion and nutrient emissions to water, increase soil carbon, enhance pollination, and avoid or mitigate flooding events. Such “multifunctional perennial production systems” can thus contribute to improving overall land‐use sustainability, while maintaining or increasing overall biomass productivity in the landscape. Seven different cases in different world regions are here reviewed to exemplify and evaluate (a) multifunctional production systems that have been established to meet emerging bioenergy demands, and (b) efforts to identify locations where the establishment of perennial crops will be particularly beneficial. An important barrier towards wider implementation of multifunctional systems is the lack of markets, or policies, compensating producers for enhanced ecosystem services and other environmental benefits. This deficiency is particularly important since prices for fossil‐based fuels are low relative to bioenergy production costs. Without such compensation, multifunctional perennial production systems will be unlikely to contribute to the development of a sustainable bioeconomy.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Systems and Infrastructure Bioenergy > Climate and Environment Energy Policy and Planning > Climate and Environment

The use of forest biomass for bioenergy in Australia represents only 1% of total energy production but is being recognized for having the potential to deliver low-cost and low-emission, renewable energy solutions. This review addresses the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production in Australia relative to the amount of biomass energy measures available for production, harvest and transport, conversion, distribution and emission. Thirty-Five Australian studies on forest biomass for bioenergy are reviewed and categorized under five hierarchical terms delimiting the level of assessment on the biomass potential. Most of these studies assess the amount of biomass at a production level using measures such as the allometric volume equation and form factor assumptions linked to forest inventory data or applied in-field weighing of samples to predict the theoretical potential of forest biomass across an area or region. However, when estimating the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production, it is essential to consider the entire supply chain that includes many limitations and reductions on the recovery of the forest biomass from production in the field to distribution to the network. This review reiterated definitions for theoretical, available, technological, economic and environmental biomass potential and identified missing links between them in the Australian literature. There is a need for further research on the forest biomass potential to explore lower cost and lowest net emission solutions as a replacement to fossil resources for energy production in Australia but methods the could provide promising solutions are available and can be applied to address this gap.

Research Highlights: A set of 128 potential bioenergy facility locations is established and evaluated based on the transport cost to select optimal locations. Background and Objectives: The identification of optimal facility locations to process recovered forest biomass is an important decision in designing a bioenergy supply chain at the strategic planning level. The result of this analysis can affect supply chain costs and the overall efficiency of the network, due to the low density and dispersed nature of forest biomass and the high costs associated with its logistics operations. In this study, we develop a two-stage decision support system to identify the optimal site locations for forest biomass conversion based on biomass availability, transport distance and cost. Materials and Methods: In the first stage, a GIS-based analysis is designed to identify strategic locations of potential bioenergy sites. The second stage evaluates the most cost-effective locations individually using a transportation cost model, based on the results from stage one. The sensitivity of inputs, such as maximum allowable transport cost, the distance of transport and their relations to the profit balance, and changes in fuel price are tested. The method is applied to a real case study in the state of Queensland, Australia. Results and Conclusions: The GIS analysis resulted in 128 strategic candidate locations being suggested for bioenergy conversion sites. The logistics analysis estimated the optimal cost and transportation distance of each one of the locations and ranked them according to the overall performance between capacities of 5 and 100 MW.

AbstractIn emerging markets, investment costs tend to be associated with uncertainty, especially if the investment is policy driven. Globally, nations have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the temperature increase below 1.5°C by 2100. Australia faces challenges in achieving its Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions and Agenda 2030 commitments, mostly given the extraction profile of its economy. Introducing renewable carbon from forest residues in the niche markets could increase the competitiveness of the forest industry not only in terms of reduced energy costs but also in terms of ‘greening’ the primary product. Growing interest in the bioenergy market, linked with large volumes of available biomass feedstocks including forest residues, presents opportunities in Australia. Yet, ambiguity about costs and concerns about biomass supply throttle the investment potential. This paper aims to estimate a range of forest residue costs along the supply chain for the Australian market by projecting the biomass supply costs from a mature bioenergy market onto it using a benchmarking process reinforced by expert opinion. A three‐round Delphi method in which experts indicated direction and range of costs along the forest biomass supply chain revealed that roadside costs of forest residues (other than stumps), and biomass transportation costs, are lower than or equal to and equal to or higher than, the EU costs respectively. Experts ranked investment and supply‐side support as priority areas for the development of forest bioenergy in Australia. The expert estimations of forest residue cost ranges along the supply chain offer the first layer for framing a national policy for forest bioenergy within the broader bioeconomy.