Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 1562–1573 | Cite as

Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Production from Perennial Grasses in Marginal Lands of South Europe

  • Peter SoldatosEmail author
Article

Abstract

The pressure for environmental protection and reduction of energy dependence combined with strong economic motivation for lowering fossil fuel consumption and energy prices has driven Europe and other countries toward the exploitation of biomass for energy. More recently, after a good number of very ambitious national programmes for the promotion of energy from dedicated crops, we are facing the problem of food shortages and food price pressures worldwide, due to changes in the use of land. This article examines the economics of cultivation of giant reed (Arundo donax L.), miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), in marginal lands of South Europe, and investigates the conditions under which such cultivations would be justified on economic grounds. By using life cycle costing analysis (LCCA) and discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology, the annual equivalent costs estimated are expressing in the most comprehensive way lifetime costs. It has been found that under current economic and climatic conditions in South Europe, perennial grass production cost in marginal lands is significantly affected by the degree of “land marginality”. We estimate an average yield loss of approximately 40 % due to land marginality. In northern regions of Mediterranean Europe with high precipitation levels, irrigation costs are lower and yields are higher. In the south, the cost of irrigation can be as high as 20 % of total cost. The cost of producing and delivering biomass to the market ranges between 60 and 80 €/dry tonne. Giant reed has been found to be the most cost-effective of the three crops, mainly because of its relatively high yields in comparison to the other two crops. Considerable data variability, indicative of regional distinctiveness, does not allow definitive conclusions.

Keywords

Miscanthus Giant reed Switchgrass Marginal land Economic Cost 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is based on the work of all partners of project OPTIMA, which was funded by the FP7 EU project “Optimisation of Perennial Grasses for Biomass Production” (Grant Agreement 289642).

References

  1. 1.
    EU Directive 2009/28/EC, On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, https://www.energy-community.org/pls/portal/docs/360177.PDF
  2. 2.
    EUFORES, 2014, EU Tracking Roadmap 2014, Keeping track of renewable energy targets towards 2020, http://www.keepontrack.eu/contents/publicationseutrackingroadmap/kot_eutrackingroadmap2014.pdf
  3. 3.
    Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soldatos P, Asimakis D, Lychnaras V (2015) ABC©: Activity Based Costing software package, www.abc.aua.gr
  5. 5.
    Capinski M. and Zastawniak T (2011) Mathematics for finance: an introduction to financial engineering, second edition, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OPTIMA (2015) Optimisation of perennial grasses for biomass production “, Grant agreement no: 289642,www.optimafp7.eu
  7. 7.
    Soldatos P, Osborne B, Scordia D, Cosentino SL (2013) What is marginal land? Review of current perceptions, Workshop: can European agriculture feed sustainably both the energy and biobased industries of the future?, 21st European Biomass Conference, Copenhagen – Denmark, 06/06/2013Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soldatos P, Osborne B, Scordia D, Cosentino SL (2015) What is marginal land? A review of definitions and concepts with regard to the cultivation of energy crops in Europe, Unpublished paperGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission of the European Communities (2009) Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps, Annexes 8–12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EU-JRC (2013) “Definition and scientific justification for the common biophysical criteria. Updated common bio-physical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe”, http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/Updated-ANC-biophysical.pdf
  11. 11.
    Terres JM, Nisini L, Anguiano E (2013) Assessing the risk of farmland abandonment in the EU, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 25783 ENGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ciaian P, d’ Artis Kanes, J. Swinmen, K. Van Herck, L. Vranken (2012) Key issues and developments in farmland rental markets in EU Member States and candidate countries, Factor Markets, Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teagasc (Crops Research Centre) and AFBI (Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute), “Miscanthus best practice guidelines”, Edited by Barry Caslin, DR. John Finnan, Dr Alistair McCraken, September 2010Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angelini L et al (2005) Biomass yield and energy balance of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cropped in central Italy as related to different management practices. Eur J Agron 22:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Angelini L et al (2009) Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 33:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosentino SL et al (2009) Biomass yield and energy balance of three perennial crops for energy use in the semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Field Crop Res 114:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cosentino SL et al (2006) First results on evaluation of Arundo donax L. clones collected in Southern Italy. Ind Crop Prod 23:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    FAIR: giant reed (Arundo donax L.) network: improvement, productivity and biomass quality, FAIR-CT96-2028 (2002) Private communication with Dr. M. ChristouGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smeets EMW, Lewandowski IM, Faaij APC (2009) The economical and environmental performance of Miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting. Renew Sust Enereg Rev 13:1230–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soldatos P (2004) Bioenergy chains from perennial crops in South Europe, EU project ENK6-CT2001-00524, Economics Final Report. http://www.cres.gr/bioenergy_chains/
  22. 22.
    EuroBioRef: European multilevel integrated biorefinery design for sustainable biomass processing, http://www.eurobioref.org/index.php/about-eurobioref, private communication with Dr M. Christou, 2013
  23. 23.
    Panoutsou C (2007) Socio-economic impacts of energy crops for heat generation in Northern Greece. Energ Policy 35:6046–6059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    CALU (2006) Technical notes, energy crops, “Economics of Miscanthus and SRC production”, Ref 010102Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heaton E et al (2012/ Revision) Miscanthus for biofuel production, Iowa State University, View as web pageGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khanna M et al (2008) 2008, Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brechbill S, Tyner W (2008) The economics of biomass collection, transportation, and supply to Indiana cellulosic and electric utility facilities. Working paper #08-03, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Monti A et al (2007) A full economic analysis of switchgrass under different scenarios in Italy estimated by BEE model. Biomass Bioenergy 31:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    FIBRA: fibre crops as a sustainable source of biobased material for industrial products in Europe and China, http://www.fibrafp7.net/Home.aspx, private communication with Dr E. Alexopoulou, 2013
  30. 30.
    Duffy M (2008) Estimated costs for production, storage and transportation of switchgrass. File A1-22, Ag decision maker, University Extension, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Epplin F, Clark C, Roberts R, Hwang S (2007) Challenges to the development of a dedicated energy crop. Am J Agric Econ 89(5):1296–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gerloff DC et al. (2009) Guideline switchgrass establishment and annual production budgets over three year planning horizon, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture, report E12-4115-00-001-08Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Halich G and Smith R (2010) Switchgrass vs. hay comparative budgets, University of Kentucky, College of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perrin R, Sesmero J, Wamisho K, Bacha D (2012) Biomass supply schedules for Great Plains delivery points. Biomass Bioenergy 37:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    USEPA (2009) Draft regulatory impact analysis: changes to renewable fuel standard program. EPA-D-09-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    USEPA (2009) Regulation of fuel and fuel additives: changes to renewable fuel standard program. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Fed Regist 74(99):24904–25143Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vadas P, Barnett K, Undersander D (2008) Economics and energy of ethanol production from alfalfa, corn, and switchgrass in the upper Midwest. Bioenergy Res 1(1):44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Soldatos P (2015) Hohenheim biomass conference, perennial biomass crops for a resource constrained world,, Stuttgart, Hohenheim, Germany, 7–10 Sept 2015 www.biomass2015.eu

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations