Global Biomass Energy Potential

Article

Abstract

The intensive use of renewable energy is one of the options to stabilize CO2atmospheric concentration at levels of 350 to 550ppm. A recent evaluation of the global potential of primary renewable energy carried out by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sets a value of at least 2800EJ/yr, which is more than the most energy-intensive SRES scenario forecast for the world energy requirement up to the year 2100. Nevertheless, what is really important to quantify is the amount of final energy since the use of renewable sources may involve conversion efficiencies, from primary to final energy, different from the ones of conventional energy sources. In reality, IPCC does not provide a complete account of the final energy from renewables, but the text claims that using several available options to mitigate climate change, and renewables is only one of them, it is possible to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration at a low level. In this paper, we evaluate in detail biomass primary and final energy using sugarcane crop as a proxy, since it is one of the highest energy density forms of biomass, and through afforestation/reforestation using a model presented in IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR). The conclusion is that the primary-energy potential for biomass has been under-evaluated by many authors and by IPCC, and this under-evaluation is even larger for final energy since sugarcane allows co-production of electricity and liquid fuel. Regarding forests we reproduce IPCC results for primary energy and calculate final energy. Sugarcane is a tropical crop and cannot be grown in all the land area forecasted for biomass energy plantation in the IPCC/TAR evaluation (i.e. 1280Mha). Nevertheless, there are large expanses of unexploited land, mainly in Latin America and Africa that are subject to warm weather and convenient rainfall. With the use of 143Mha of these lands it is possible to produce 164EJ/yr (1147GJ/hayr or 3.6W/m2on average) of primary energy and 90EJ/yr of final energy in the form of liquid fuel (alcohol) and electricity, using agricultural productivities near the best ones already achievable and biomass gasification technology. More remarkable is that these results can be obtained with the operation of 4,000 production units with unitary capacity similar to the largest currently in operation. These units should be spread over the tropical land area yielding a plantation density similar to the one presently observed in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, where alcohol and electricity have been commercialized in a cost-effective way for several years. Such an amount of final energy would be sufficiently large to fulfill all the expected global increase in oil demand, as well as in electricity consumption by 2030, assuming the energy demand of such sources continues to grow at the same pace observed over the last two decades. When sugarcane crops are combined with afforestation/reforestation it is possible to show that carbon emissions decline for some IPCC SRES scenarios by 2030, 2040 and 2050. Such energy alternatives significantly reduce CO2emissions by displacing fossil fuels and promote sustainable development through the creation of millions of direct and indirect jobs. Also, it opens an opportunity for negative CO2emissions when coupled with carbon dioxide capture and storage.

Keywords

biomass mitigation carbon dioxide intensive culture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexandratos, N.: 1995, World Agriculture: Towards 2010. An FAO Study. FAO, Rome. 488 p.Google Scholar
  2. Azar, C., Lindgren, K. and Andersson, B.A.: 2003, ‘Global energy scenarios meeting stringent CO2 constraints – cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector’, Energy Policy 31, 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolin, B., Sukumar, R., Ciais, P., Cramer, W., Jarvis, P., Kheshgi, H., Nobre, C., Semenov, S. and Steffen, W.: 2000, ‘Global perspective’, in R.T. Watson, I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath and D.J. Dokken (eds.), Land Use Change and Forestry. A Special report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–51.Google Scholar
  4. Bot, A.J., Nachtergaele, F.O. and Young, A.: 2000, Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels, Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, U.N., Rome.Google Scholar
  5. BP Statistical Review of World Energy: 2003, British Petroleum, June, http://www.bp.com/centres/energy.
  6. Carpentieri, E., Larson, E. and Woods, J.: 1993, ‘Future biomass-based power generation in Northeast Brazil’, Biomass and Bioenergy 4(3), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CPFL: 2003, Personal Information provide by Mr Paulo Cesar Tavarez, Vice-President of Companhia Paulista de Força e Luz, Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
  8. Criqui, P., Kouvariatakis, N. and Schrattenholzer, L.: 2000, The Impact of Carbon Constraints on Power Generation and Renewable Energy Technology, IPCC Workshop, Eisenach, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Dessus, B., Devin, B. and Pharabod, F.: 1992, World Potential of Renewable Energies, La Hoille Blanche, 1, p. 1–50.Google Scholar
  10. ExxonMobil: 2004, 2003 Financial&Oprating Review – Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges, p31, ExxonMobil Co., USA.Google Scholar
  11. FAO annual. Production yearbook. FAO. Rome.Google Scholar
  12. FAO, ongoing. FAOSTAT [FAO statistical database]. http://apps.fao.org
  13. Fischer, G. and Schrattenholzer, L.: 2001, ‘Global bioenergy potentials through 2050’, Biomass and Bioenergy 20, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freund, P. and Davison, J.E.: 2002, General overview of costs, IPCC Workshop, Regina.Google Scholar
  15. Fujino, J., Yamaji, K. and Yamamoto, H.: 1999, ‘Biomass-balance table for evaluating bioenergy resources’, Applied Energy 63, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fulton, L. and Howes, T.: 2004, Biofuels for Transport: An International Perspective, IEA/EET.Google Scholar
  17. Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J.: 1997, State of the world's protected areas at the end of twentieth century, Paper presented at the IUCN Commission on Protected Areas Symposium. “Protected areas in the 21st century: from islands to networks”. Albany, Australia, 24–29 November 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, D.O. and Rao, K.K.: 1999, Photosynthesis, 6th Edition, Studies in Biology, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, D., Rosillo-Calle, F., Williams, R. and Woods, J.: 1993, ‘Biomass for Energy: Supply Prospects’, in: T. Johansson, H. Kelly, A. K. Reddy and R. Williams (eds.), Renewable Energy – Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A., Eickhout, B., de Vries, B. and Turkenburg, W.: 2003, Submitted for publication. Potential of grown biomass for energy under four land-use scenarios.Google Scholar
  21. IPCC: 1996, Climate Change 1995 – Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses-Contribution of Working Group II to the Assessment Report, Cambridge Univ. Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCC–SAR: 1996, ‘Brown, S. et al. Management of Forests for Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, in R. Watson, et al. (eds.), Climate Change 1995 Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, WG II Second Assessment Report of The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. IPCC: 2000 (Nakicenovic, N. et al.), Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, London.Google Scholar
  24. IPCC: 2001 (Moomaw, W. et al.), Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction, in B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan (eds.), Climate Change 2001–Mitigation–Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press. London.Google Scholar
  25. IPCC–TAR-Mitigation: 2001 (Kauppi, P. et al.), Technological and Economic Potential of Options to Enhance, Maintain, and Manage Biological Caron Reservoirs and Geo-engineering’, in B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan (eds.), Climate Change 2001 – Mitigation – Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press. London.Google Scholar
  26. IPCC SRES: 2001, Emissions Scenarios – IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  27. Johansson, T., Kelly, H., Reddy, A.K. and Williams, R.: 1993, ‘Renewable Fuel and Electricity for a Growing World Economy: Defining and Achieving the Potential’, in: T. Johansson, H. Kelly, A. K. Reddy and R. Williams (eds.), Renewable Energy – Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  28. Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A.K.N. and Williams, R.: 1993, ‘Renewable Fuels and Electricity for a Growing World Economy: Defining and Achieving the Potential’, Chapter 1, pp. 1–72 in T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy and R. Williams (eds.), Renewable Energy-Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Johansson, T., et al.: 2004, The Potential of Renewable Energy presented at the International Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn, Germany, January.Google Scholar
  30. Lightfoot, H. D. and Green, C.: 2002, An assessment of IPCC Working Group III findings in Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of the potential contribution of renewable energies to atmospheric carbon dioxide stabilization, C2GCR Report No 2002-5, Center for Climate and Global Change Research, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, November.Google Scholar
  31. Macedo, I.C., Lima Verde Leal, R. and Silva, J.E.A.R.: 2004, Assessment of greenhouse gas emission in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil, Secretariat of the Environment, Government of the State of São Paulo, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  32. Möllersten, K., Yan, J. and Moreira, J.: 2003, ‘Promising market niches for biomass energy with CO2 removal and disposal – Opportunities for energy supply with negative CO2 emissions’, Biomass and Bioenergy 25, 273–285l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreira, J.R.: 2002, Can Renewable Energy Make Important Contribution to GHG Atmospheric Stabilization?, LAMNET Third Project Workshop, Brasilia, Brazil, December 2002.Google Scholar
  34. Moreira, J.R. and Goldemberg, J.: 1999, ‘The alcohol program’, Energy Policy 27, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilson, S. and Schopfhause, W.: 1995, ‘The carbon-sequestration potential of a global afforestation program’, Climatic Change 30, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogner, H.-H., et al.: 2000, Energy Resources in Word Energy Assessment – Energy and the Challenges of Sustainability, UNDP Bureau for Developing Policy, New York, NY, p. 160.Google Scholar
  37. Smeets, E., Faaij, A. and Lewandowski, I.: 2004, A quickscan of global bio-energy potentials to 2050 – An analysis of the regional availability of biomass resources for export in relation to the underlying factors. Study prepared for NOVEN B.V. – Copernicus Institute, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Htpp://www.copernicus.un.nl.Google Scholar
  38. Swisher, J. and Wilson, D.: 1993, ‘Renewable energy potentials in Nakicenovic, N., et al., Long-Term Strategies for Mitigating Global Warming’, Energy 18(5), 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Kooten, G.C.: 1991, Economic Issues Relating to Climate Change Effects on Canada's Forests. Working Paper 151, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  40. WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderunen): 1998, Die Anrechnung biologischer Quellen und Senken im Kyoto-Protokol: Fortschritt oder Rückschlag für den globalen Umweltschutz? Sondergutachten 1998, WBGU, Bremerhaven, Germany, 76 pp., (available in English).Google Scholar
  41. Williams, R. and Larson, E.: 1993, ‘Advanced Gasification-Based Biomass Power Generation’, in T. Johansson, H. Kelly, A. K. Reddy and R. Williams (eds.), Renewable Energy – Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, R.H.: 1995, Variants of a low CO2-emitting energy supply system (LESS) for the world: Prepared for the IPCC Second Assessment Report Working Group IIa, Energy Supply Mitigation Options. 1995, Pacific Northwest Laboratories.Google Scholar
  43. Wood, S., Nachtergaele, F.O., Brunner, J., Dai, A. and Sebastian, K.: 1998, Spatial aspects of the design and targeting of development strategies for fragile lands. Proceedings of the International Conference on Strategies for poverty alleviation and sustainable resource management in the fragile lands of Sub-Saharan Africa, Entebbe, Uganda, University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Woods, Brown and Rosillo-Calle: 2005.Google Scholar
  45. World Resources Institute et al., biannual. World resources: a guide to the global environment. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Yamamoto, H., Yamaji, K. and Fujino, J.: 1999, ‘Evaluation of bioenergy resources with a global land use and energy model formulated with SD technique’, Applied Energy 63, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENBIO – Brazilian Reference Center on BiomassSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations