• Energy Research
• 2. Zero hunger close

AbstractBioenergy (i.e., bioheat and bioelectricity) could simultaneously address energy insecurity and climate change. However, bioenergy’s impact on climate change remains incomplete when land use changes (LUC), soil organic carbon (SOC) changes, and the auxiliary energy consumption are not accounted for in the life cycle. Using data collected from Belgian farmers, combined heat and power (CHP) operators, and a life cycle approach, we compared 40 bioenergy pathways to a fossil-fuel CHP system. Bioenergy required between 0.024 and 0.204MJ (0.86MJth+0.14 MJel)−1, and the estimated energy ratio (energy output-to-input ratio) ranged from 5 to 42. SOC loss increased the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of residue based bioenergy. On average, the iLUC represented ∼67% of the total GHG emissions of bioenergy from perennial energy crops. However, the net LUC (i.e., dLUC+iLUC) effects substantially reduced the GHG emissions incurred during all phases of bioenergy production from perennial crops, turning most pathways based on energy crops to GHG sinks. Relative to fossil-fuel based CHP all bioenergy pathways reduced GHG emissions by 8–114%. Fluidized bed technologies maximize the energy and the GHG benefits of all pathways. The size and the power-to-heat ratio for a given CHP influenced the energy and GHG performance of these bioenergy pathways. Even with the inclusion of LUC, perennial crops had better GHG performance than agricultural and forest residues. Perennial crops have a high potential in the multidimensional approach to increase energy security and to mitigate climate change. The full impacts of bioenergy from these perennial energy crops must, however, be assessed before they can be deployed on a large scale.

We would like to thank Herman Beckers, Metin Bulut, Frans Snijkers, Joris van der Have, Jan Vanderheyden, Leen Bastiaens, and Lies Eykens for the provision of technological and economic data and the useful discussions on the assumptions in the model. We would also like to thank Eva Cordery for proofreading the article and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Fundacion Novia Salcedo.

Abstract The main barrier in the commercialization of phytoextraction as a sustainable alternative for remediating metal contaminated soils is its long time period, which can be countered by biomass valorization. From an environmental point of view, fast pyrolysis of the biomass is promising because its lower process temperature prevents metal volatilization. The remaining question is whether fast pyrolysis is also preferred from an economic point of view. Therefore, a techno-economic assessment of fast pyrolysis has been performed for a case study in the Campine region in Belgium. For this region, willow trees cultivated in short rotation have the right characteristics to serve as a phytoextracting crop. A techno-economic assessment requires by definition a multidisciplinary approach. The problem statement urges for a focus on the economic profitability from the viewpoint of an investor, including economic risk analysis. Fast pyrolysis seems more profitable than gasification. The profit is dependent on the scale of operation, the policy support (subsidies) and the oil yield. The economic risk can be reduced by increasing the scale of operation by means of complementing feedstocks, and by valorization of the char byproduct by subsequent processing to activated carbon.