Energy is key in achieving sustainable societies. There have been great efforts towards improving energy access worldwide. Despite the advances in energy access, energy poverty remains a major problem in many parts of the world, particularly in rural communities. Modern energy, in particular electricity, can help rural communities develop through improving education and health. During the last two decades, there have been improvements on bioenergy technological innovations, e.g. electricity generation from bioenergy from residual biomass from several agricultural crops in biorefineries. Most research has focussed on large biorefineries, with limited research on small-scale gasifiers’ location and contribution to energy poverty. This paper is aimed at assessing technological options to generate electricity in situ from biomass to reduce energy poverty of rural communities. This is done using four analysis methods: (1) crops availability data; (2) poverty and marginalisation data; (3) electricity provision/distribution; and, (4) GIS/Geographical latitude and longitude to locate municipalities in Mexico. The results shows that the generating potential for electricity using residual biomass with gasifiers could improve the welfare of almost 10 million people communities using residual biomass from crops harvested in such communities. This research provides location solutions on the best places to locate small-scale biorefineries. The research also provides systemic analysis to reduce energy poverty through in situ electricity generation using cheap accessible small plant technologies and biomass as raw material, as well as their location. Generating electricity in a decentralised way through agricultural residual biomass can help lift rural communities from poverty and improve their well-being, and, thus, make societies more sustainable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Sustainable development (SD) and sustainability have appeared as concepts to help address the economic, environmental, and social impacts from previous generations, on this generation, and future ones through a holistic perspective [1,2,3]. One of the most recent initiatives for SD are the 17 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and their 169 targets were agreed by 195 states and cover the most important points that modern societies need to address to become less unsustainable [4, 5]. The SDGs are indivisible, i.e. they need to be addressed as a whole, and not through a silo mentality .
Energy is key in making modern societies sustainable [7,8,9]. According to the latest report on SDG7 (Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all), 2.6 billion people use dangerous and inefficient cooking systems and 759 million people lack access to electricity . Energy improves welfare and supports economic well-being (e.g. through the use of modern sources reliant on electricity) , and can thus contribute to SDG 1 (End poverty in its forms everywhere) [4, 5]. Energy and social evolution are closely connected, as explained by White  through “culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased”.
There have been great improvements in energy access worldwide ; however, energy poverty remains a major problem in many parts of the world [7, 8], particularly in rural communities. Energy poverty, i.e. the minimum quantity of energy needed to perform such basic tasks as cooking, heating homes, and lighting [9, 11], accentuates the existence of social asymmetry in conditions of living [11, 13]. Around 2 billion people worldwide, mostly in rural areas, continue to suffer from energy poverty . It is estimated that the minimum energy monthly per capita requirement is over 4 kgOE .
Energy poverty directly affects rural communities, which are dependent on biomass (from agriculture, forest residues, and energy crops) to satisfy their energy needs for cooking and heating, with around 2.7 billion using biomass for cooking . Low quality fuels, particularly from biomass, are usually the only choice available, although not always the cheapest ; however, using biomass generates indoor air pollution and become a health hazard [9, 14, 15].
Modern energy, in particular electricity, can help rural communities develop [11, 13] through improving education and health ; however, around 1.4 billion people lack access to electricity [7, 15], and many of those who have access are constrained by connections to the grid or high costs of electricity [11, 13].
Electricity can be produced through bioenergy from residual biomass from several agricultural crops . During the last two decades, there have been improvements on bioenergy technological innovations as alternatives to grid expansion, such as microgeneration and renewable energy technologies, which can benefit rural electrification through complementary in situ energy production [13, 15]; however, the share of such innovations is less than 1% in most developing countries, due to factors such as: cost barriers for new technologies; lack of awareness of benefits relative to costs; technical problems; lack of market acceptance; and lack of incentives for individuals and industry .
Electricity production through bioenergy can be done through: (1) large biorefineries that have the advantage of economies of scale, but they require large quantities of residual biomass availability, high transportation costs, and coordination between rural communities ; or, (2) small-scale biorefineries can provide in situ electrical energy for small rural communities are more suitable due to their advantages in investment and operation costs . Research on small-scale biorefineries’ location and contribution to energy poverty has been quite limited (see ).
This paper’s aim is to assess technological options to generate electricity in situ from biomass to reduce energy poverty of rural communities based on small-scale biorefineries.
The remainder of paper is structured in the following way: Sect. 2 provides an overview of bioenergy generation; Sect. 3 explains the methods used; Sect. 4 presents the results; Sect. 5 discusses the results; and presents the conclusions.
2 Bioenergy generation overview
Bioenergy is an alternative to produce sustainable energy . Research on this topic has included he use of biofuels scenarios based on technical and economic feasibility of using renewable energy sources for using biofuels in electricity generation and transportation sectors , and energy production using residual biomass, minimising production costs under several restrictions, production sites location, connection to markets, and the potential to produce energy .
Residual biomass from several agricultural crops can be used to produce energy , and to avoid clearing land for increasing agriculture or forestry . Worldwide, there is a large amount of residual biomass that is potentially available, in the order of 1000 million barrels of diesel equivalent from cereals, legumes, and food crops . An analysis in Italy showed the availability of 22.2 Tg/year residual biomass, which could provide 192 PJ of energy, and help meet the European Union (EU) energy targets . A study of the potential use of residual biomass in Croatia analysed the its use as feedstock for power plants, whilst considering biomass price level, transport cost and plant location . Research on residual biomass in China, taking into account environmental and conservation issues, as well as transportation costs and technology issues, highlighted that there were 506 Tg/year available .
Agricultural residual biomass can be transformed to energy through gasification [see 16]. Gasification technologies allow to generate a gas mixture that can be used to produce electricity . There are different equipment sizes [as presented in Table 1 [26,27,28], from 150 to 10 kW. When residual biomass availability is low (below 30,000 Mg/year), small-scale gasifiers with an internal combustion engine, coupled to an electricity generator, provides in situ electrical energy for small rural communities are more suitable due to their advantages in investment and operation costs. A study that evaluated small-scale gasification units to produce electricity in the Czech Republic , considering electrical power gasifiers from 10 to 200 kWhel, showed that there is profit only for the largest size assessed (200 kWel), and highlighted that these units are under development in Central and Southern Europe. An assessment for biomass gasification combined heat and power (CHP) systems in different sizes concluded that for larger sizes the Net Present Value is higher, the smallest system considered [100 kWthermal (13.6 kWel)] generating a profit yearly .
A literature review for the small-scale and micro-scale combined heat and power systems (15–100 kWel) showed that they have high market potential ; however, more research and development is needed for these technologies, particularly on their commercialisation.
In addition to costs and biomass availability, it is necessary to consider the location of storage depots and the processing facilities, as well as transportation cost from harvesting sites to warehouses, which can help to minimise production and capital [32, 33]
A number of approaches have been used in decision-making for processing plant location selection, including: the incorporation of economic, environmental, and social indicators for site selection; the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to model residual biomass availability and sustainability indicators in the USA that estimate availability of 1.6 Tg/year of cotton stalks is available, enough to support 7 pellet plants ; and, the use of GIS based heuristics resulting in biomass availability to process 184 Tg/year of biomass in 77 biorefineries and 171 storage depots ; and .
This paper uses four analysis methods to assess the potential to generate electricity in situ to reduce poverty: (1) crops availability data; (2) poverty and marginalisation data; (3) electricity provision/distribution; and (4) GIS/Geographical latitude and longitude to locate municipalities. These methods are used to expand and provide more insights on previous research on transformation of agricultural residual biomass to energy, where the economic feasibility and close-by availability of the biomass determined the location for the processing facilities [see 16]. The focus of the current paper is on small-scale gasifiers (10–150 kW) processing agricultural residual biomass as feedstock in sites with biomass less than 30,000 Mg/year.
3.1 Residual biomass from agricultural crops availability data and GIS location
Crops that generate large residual biomass and can be processed through a gasification process (to be discussed further down). These crops are corn, wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, sugarcane, agave, and pecan nut. The ratio of residue to crop is shown in Table 2.
The use of GIS for residual biomass has been used to assess the processing sites location for large scale residual biomass in Mexico for the crops presented in Table 1 considering uncertainty in crop yield, restrictor layers related to protected areas, terrain slope, community type, water bodies, power plants and grids, roads and highways; frequency of hurricanes, frosts, and droughts . The location method was fine-tuned by using a sequential method linking GIS and mathematical programming for optimal energy production, where a set of products were considered, such as: ammonia, formaldehyde, Fischer–Tropsch liquids, urea, electricity and refrigeration through gasification, and methanol . The chosen municipalities for this study are based on the results from the potential corn stover processing site location, as shown in Fig. 1, where the regions in yellow and orange colours represent residual biomass from 0.1 to 2000 Mg/year .
The crops in Table 2 represent in Mexico a total amount of 98,710 Gg for 2014, with an estimate of 48,974 Gg of residual biomass available. A summary map for the residual biomass types per state is shown in Fig. 2. Corn stover is widely distributed in the country, as it would be expected for corn, which originates from Mexico. Wheat is grown mainly in North-western Sonora state, while sugarcane bagasse is clustered in coastal Veracruz state and western Jalisco state. Sorghum straw is concentrated in North-eastern Tamaulipas state, as well as Central Guanajuato state and Western Sinaloa state.
Corn stover is available through most of Mexico’s region. This residue is, thus, taken as the basis for estimating electricity generation in situ in this paper.
3.2 Poverty, marginalisation index, and human development index data
Evaluating the Human Development Index (HDI) can help to assess poverty worldwide, and the Marginalisation Index (IM) in Mexico can be used to evaluate poverty at a municipality level.
The IM is a database generated by the Mexican Government [44, 45]. It is based on socio-economic indicators for each municipality for all Mexican states. It calculates the index using total population; deficiencies associated with inhabited dwellings, dwellings having either electricity, toilets, and sewage; and population older than 15 years illiterate or having finished primary education. Positive index values indicate high poverty levels in municipalities.
Mexican states and some of their municipalities have a low Human Development Index (HDI) and a large poverty index (PI), that is correlated to the Marginalisation Index (IM for its acronym in Spanish) as established by CONAPO [Consejo Nacional de Población (National Population Council)]. Figure 7 presents the HDI for Mexico in 2014, where it can be seen that the Southern states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca have the lowest value for HDI from 0.648 to 0.671. Figure 8 shows the population percentage in poverty for each Mexican state, where the aforementioned states have the largest percentage of population in poverty. The Marginalisation Index (IM) is shown in Fig. 9, which highlights that the above-mentioned states have the largest value for IM.
The following states were selected for more detailed analysis because of their high poverty incidence: Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, and México. The data from municipalities in those states were used to generate Fig. 10, where it can be seen that on average the IM data is higher than 0. Table 3 shows the total municipalities, population, municipalities with a IM higher than 0 and their percentage against the total municipalities, and the population with a IM higher than 0 and their percentage against the total population in each state.
3.3 Electricity provided by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) to México’s municipalities
Electricity in Mexico is distributed by Federal Electricity Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) (CFE) where data for electricity user and consumers in municipalities is given in , the decentralised government entity that by law manages distribution. The municipalities in the chosen states receive electricity, but consumption per user is related to the marginalisation index. Electricity tariff categories are shown in Table 4.
3.4 Municipalities’ location
The location of municipalities in maps need information on latitude and longitude. These data are obtained from National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI is its acronym in Spanish). For the selected states the data was obtained for Geographical areas at the state and municipality level for Guerrero , Chiapas , Oaxaca , Veracruz , Puebla , and Mexico .
3.5 Methods limitations
The residual biomass availability was obtained from governmental databases across time for different years, and some municipalities and months there might be some gaps in the available data. The marginalisation index, linked to poverty is a similar situation where data must be available and validated regarding the index and population for municipalities, also it is obtained from governmental databases where there might be gaps in the data. Data from the public facility providing electricity (CFE), there are several tariff rates from low consumption to higher, and consumption from industry and agriculture uses, herein data availability and reliability might be with gaps for the various rate categories and municipalities. Regarding GIS data the resolution is 1:250,000, where the state and municipalities limits are given.
4.1 Relating residual biomass availability and gasifiers’ electricity generation
Table 5 shows an extract for some municipalities in the state of Oaxaca, showing the number of gasifiers and potential electricity produced, the residual biomass available, residual biomass used for gasification, and the capital investment needed.
For residual biomass availability lower than 30,000 Mg/year the map in Fig. 11 presents a magnification of the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guerrero with municipalities where gasifiers from 10 to 150 kW, which generate electricity in situ, are shown. The gasifiers’ location is clustered in mountain areas of Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, and Veracruz, presenting a high to very high marginalisation grade. The Gulf of Mexico coastal plane and Tehuantepec isthmus do not have such gasifiers since the available residual biomass is larger than 30,000 Mg/year, and they better highways and roads to transport residual biomass to possible processing sites.
4.2 Relating residual biomass availability with marginalisation index
This section presents the link between potential electricity produced for municipalities and the marginalisation index (IM). The Mexican states chosen for the analysis were Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Puebla, and Veracruz.
A summary for the states of Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Puebla is presented in Table 7, showing the gasifier type, the marginalisation grade, and the average for the marginalisation index; besides the communities’ population and the electricity generated (MWh/year). The population that could benefit from electricity generation for the chosen municipalities is in the order of 9.8 million, with a high marginalisation grade, while electrical energy is in the order of 1360 GWh/year. Table 7 also presents the potential to produce electricity with various gasifiers and its relation to population with high and very high marginalisation grade providing a potential benefit to 3,459,688 (Chiapas); 1,885,019 (Guerrero); 790,498 (Oaxaca); and 1,508,254 (Puebla) persons.
4.3 Criteria selection and analysis regarding marginalisation index and potential electricity produced
The analysis was carried out on the municipalities that have the Marginalisation Index (IM) greater than zero, since this represents the population with higher poverty situation. As shown in the frequency graph versus IM for the chosen states (see Fig. 12a–f).
The histogram for Marginalisation Index in municipalities with IM > 0 for several states is shown in Fig. 12, for Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Puebla, and Mexico states, with bins corresponding to the marginalisation index (IM), the IM weighted value is around 1.05 for Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz; while for Puebla is slightly lower 0.88, and México state the lowest 0.43.
The average marginalisation index for all municipalities, and for all values of IM is shown in Fig. 13, where Guerrero, Chiapas and Oaxaca have the highest values for IM, these states have 68%, 79%, and 67% of their population in poverty (see Fig. 8).
The data for electricity consumed per capita in municipalities with IM > 0 is presented as histograms in Fig. 14, where for Guerrero and Chiapas the consumption values are the lowest, which emphasises the high poverty for those states, while the data for Mexico state has the highest values, and the lowest IM. The values for the weighted average electricity consumed in kWh/capita are: 25 (Guerrero), 90 (Chiapas), 281 (Oaxaca), 292 (Veracruz), and 457 (México). The increase in electricity consumed per capita indicating a lower poverty level.
The data for marginalisation index (IM) and electricity consumed per capita from CFE for each municipality, for IM > 0, can be used to generate plots for the states of Oaxaca and Puebla (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16), where it can be seen that for higher IM values there are lower values per capita of electricity consumed. The summary for the average values of marginalisation index and per capita electricity consumption is shown in Fig. 17, which highlights that at higher IM values there is lower per capita consumption. The data trend as IM increases goes to a lower consumption per capita; see Fig. 15 and Fig. 16, decreasing from around 300 to 100 kWh/capita for both states. Figure 17 shows the per capita consumption versus IM for all states, with the highest value of 548 kWh/capita and IM = 0.383 is for México state, and the lowest value of 19 kWh/capita and IM = 1.348 is for the state of Guerrero. The trend to lower consumption is related to a higher marginalisation index, Guerrero having a 68% of its population in poverty (see Fig. 8) and IM = 1.11 (see Fig. 9).
4.4 Comparison of electricity consumed from the public company (CFE), potential electricity produced through gasifiers, equipment number and marginalisation index (IM)
Summary tables were prepared with an extract of municipalities in several states based on data from the previous sections and the results of potential electricity produced using the gasifiers.
The state extracts for Oaxaca, Veracruz, Puebla, and México are presented in Tables 8, 910, and 11 respectively. Data are ordered from the highest IM value in the state to the lowest, and overall municipalities selection has the constraint that IM > 0. The last column in each table presents the ratio between the potential electricity produced and electricity consumed in each municipality, representing the possible energy surplus for the municipalities. The marginalisation index for the municipalities in Oaxaca state is in the range of 1.81 to 3.05; for Veracruz state the range is 0.51 to 3.33; for Puebla state the range is 1.4 to 2.43; and Mexico state the range is 0.20 to 0.79. This highlights the high poverty level of Oaxaca and Veracruz.
The results show that the ratio of potential electricity produced to consumed (i.e. PEP/C) has a large dispersion (see last column in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11), with an average of the extract in the sampled states of 2.17 (see Table 12, 7th column) meaning that there is a 117% increase in electrical energy that can be produced. For each state the ratio is different with a large standard deviation of 144%.
The PEP/C has wide variation for certain states and municipalities. The PEP/C range for all states analysed is between 9.11 and 0.37 as shown in Table 12, 7th column. For the state of Oaxaca, as shown in Table 8, the PEP/C ranges between 5.365 and 0.030, with 0.59 as the average value. For Veracruz state, the PEP/C is between 1.809 and 0.086 (leaving out the largest value of 44.99), as shown in Table 9, with 0.37 as the average value. For Puebla state (see Table 10) the PEP/C ranges between 2.493 and 0.127. For México state (see Table 11) the PEP/C ranges between 3.058 and 0.554.
Table 12 provides a summary, where the population benefitted with this electrical energy is around 9.6 million people. The potential electricity produced is 1497 GWh/year, the average ratio of potential electricity produced to consumed (PEP/C) is 2.17; for municipalities with an averaged of 0.82 for the marginalisation index.
Corn crop is widespread in all Mexican regions and, thus, there is adequate corn stover availability in the municipalities analysed in the results section. The latter can be used as raw material for the small-scale gasifiers, herein considered having the potential to produce electricity in situ for these municipalities, as shown in the results obtained in Table 12 supplementing the electricity consumed from the public facility.
The aforementioned results show that using the gasifiers coupled to electricity generators can potentially alleviate energy poverty.
The results show that electricity consumption from the public facility, CFE, is low when the IM values are high.
5 Discussion and conclusions
The results show that small-scale gasifiers have great potential to generate energy in small rural communities (as discussed by [13, 15, 18]), particularly through gasification . Biomass can be an excellent option as input for such small-scale gasifiers due to its availability and low transportation and storage costs (see ).
The results provide a method to locate the gasifiers using GIS (complementing the proposals by [34,35,36]). This research shows the potential that in situ bioenergy production through small-scale gasifiers has to reduce energy poverty in small rural communities (addressing the gaps highlighted by ).
Energy is key in achieving sustainable societies. During the last two decades, there have been improvements on bioenergy technological innovations. Nonetheless, energy poverty remains a major problem in many parts of the world, particularly in rural communities, which are dependent on biomass (from agriculture, forest residues, and energy crops) to satisfy their energy needs. Modern energy, in particular electricity, can help rural communities develop; however, around 1.4 billion people lack access to electricity, and many of those who have access are constrained by connections to the grid or high costs of electricity.
Electricity can be produced through bioenergy from residual biomass from several agricultural crops in biorefineries. There has been limited research on small-scale gasifiers’ location and contribution to energy poverty. This work addresses the technical aspects of electricity generation through small scale gasifiers (complementing previous research [see 29–31]).
This paper uses four analysis methods to assess the potential to generate electricity in situ of small-scale gasifiers (10 to 150 kW) to reduce poverty: (1) crops availability data; (2) poverty and marginalisation data; (3) electricity provision/distribution; and (4) GIS/Geographical latitude and longitude to locate municipalities.
This research provides an in-depth analysis into technological approaches to generate energy. It shows the generating potential for electricity using residual biomass with gasifiers, the potential for electricity production using gasifiers that can impact 9.6 million people in communities where poverty is high, and the possible use of 60% of residual biomass from crops harvested in such communities. The research also analyses the best places to locate small-scale gasifiers.
This article provides systemic analysis to reduce energy poverty through in situ electricity generation using cheap accessible small plant technologies and biomass as raw material, as well as their location.
Assessing the potential for installing small-scale gasifiers is relevant from a societal stance, because normally those communities are not close to the power grid and proper communication through good quality roads.
In countries where rural communities cannot afford to pay electricity from the grid, having residual biomass available; with a decentralised approach aiming to reduce poverty, and improving well-being, fostering sustainability, and contributing to SDG 7 (Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all) and SDG 1 (End poverty in its forms everywhere).
Further research needs to be carried out considering seasonal variations of the crops, and how to combine technologies, as well as the associated technical knowledge and training for maintenance, infrastructure needed if generation is in situ or needed for connection to the public facility grid, considering also educational, social and cultural aspects with economic and policy instruments.
To estimate residual biomass, actual agricultural produce is needed and has been obtained from the following:
Data for agricultural produce on a monthly or yearly base for each municipality and irrigation district is available from:
Annual data in Excel format for agricultural produce in each municipality and irrigation district.
CFE [Comisión Federal de Electricidad (Federal Electricity Commision)].
Users and electricity consumption for municipalities.
Poverty and Marginalisation Index obtained from CONAPO [Consejo Nacional de Población (Population National Council)].
Lozano R. Envisioning Sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod. 2008;16:1838–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008.
WCED. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
Hjorth P, Bagheri A. Navigating towards sustainable development: a system dynamics approach. Futures. 2006;38:74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.005.
UN. Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development A/73/204. 2018.
UN. Sustainable development goals knowledge platform: resource library. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/resourcelibrary. 7 Nov 2022.
UNEP. The SDGs are indivisible. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/sustainable-development-goals-are-indivisible. 7 Nov 2022.
Kaygusuz K. Energy for sustainable development: a case of developing countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16:1116–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.013.
Nussbaumer P, Bazilian M, Modi V. Measuring energy poverty: focusing on what matters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16:231–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.150.
González-Eguino M. Energy poverty: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;47:377–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.013.
United Nations. Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. United Nations. 2022.
Barnes DF, Khandker SR, Samad HA. Energy poverty in rural Bangladesh. Energy Policy. 2011;39:894–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.014.
White LA. The evolution of culture: the development of civilization to the fall of Rome. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2007.
Kaygusuz K. Energy services and energy poverty for sustainable rural development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2011;15:936–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.003.
Sagar AD. Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor. Energy Policy. 2005;33:1367–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.001.
Bouzarovski S, Petrova S. A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: overcoming the energy poverty-fuel poverty binary. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2015;10:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007.
Lozano FJ, Lozano R. Assessing the potential sustainability benefits of agricultural residues: biomass conversion to syngas for energy generation or to chemicals production. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:4162–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.037.
Brown E, Mann M, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.). Initial market assessment for small-scale biomass-based CHP. 2008.
Lozano FJ, Molina A, Mendoza A. Energy issues and transition to a low carbon economy: insights from Mexico. New York: Springer; 2021.
Aldana H, Lozano FJ, Acevedo J. Evaluating the potential for producing energy from agricultural residues in México using MILP optimization. Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;67:372–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.022.
Islas J, Manzini F, Masera O. A prospective study of bioenergy use in Mexico. Energy. 2007;32:2306–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.07.012.
de Wit M, Faaij A. European biomass resource potential and costs. Biomass Bioenerg. 2010;34:188–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.07.011.
Lal R. World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ Int. 2005;31:575–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.09.005.
Paiano A, Lagioia G. Energy potential from residual biomass towards meeting the EU renewable energy and climate targets. The Italian case. Energy Policy. 2016;91:161–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.039.
Ćosić B, Stanić Z, Duić N. Geographic distribution of economic potential of agricultural and forest biomass residual for energy use: case study Croatia. Energy. 2011;36:2017–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.009.
Jiang D, Zhuang D, Fu J, Huang Y, Wen K. Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: availability and distribution. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16:1377–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.012.
All-Power-Labs. Introducing the power pallet. 10, 20, 100 kW. 2012.
All-Power-Labs. Affordable • Portable • On-Demand Carbon-negative energy From Biomass-Powered Gensets. 2011.
All-Power-Labs. Chapter 3 GEK TOTTI Gasifier System. 2010.
Malat’áková J, Jankovský M, Malat’ák J, Velebil J, Tamelová B, Gendek A, Aniszewska M. Evaluation of small-scale gasification for CHP for wood from salvage logging in the Czech Republic. Forests. 2021;12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12111448.
Colantoni A, Villarini M, Monarca D, Carlini M, Mosconi EM, Bocci E, Rajabi Hamedani S. Economic analysis and risk assessment of biomass gasification CHP systems of different sizes through Monte Carlo simulation. Energy Rep. 2021;7:1954–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.028.
Dong L, Liu H, Riffat S. Development of small-scale and micro-scale biomass-fuelled CHP systems—A literature review. Appl Therm Eng. 2009;29:2119–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.12.004.
Paulo H, Azcue X, Barbosa-Póvoa AP, Relvas S. Supply chain optimization of residual forestry biomass for bioenergy production: the case study of Portugal. Biomass Bioenerg. 2015;83:245–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.09.020.
Sharifzadeh M, Garcia MC, Shah N. Supply chain network design and operation: systematic decision-making for centralized, distributed, and mobile biofuel production using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) under uncertainty. Biomass Bioenerg. 2015;81:401–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.07.026.
Sahoo K, Hawkins GL, Yao XA, Samples K, Mani S. GIS-based biomass assessment and supply logistics system for a sustainable biorefinery: a case study with cotton stalks in the South-Eastern US. Appl Energy. 2016;182:260–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.08.114.
Gonzales DS, Searcy SW. GIS-based allocation of herbaceous biomass in biorefineries and depots. Biomass Bioenerg. 2017;97:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2016.12.009.
Martinkus N, Rijkhoff SAM, Hoard SA, Shi W, Smith P, Gaffney M, Wolcott M. Biorefinery site selection using a stepwise biogeophysical and social analysis approach. Biomass Bioenerg. 2017;97:139–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.12.022.
Santibanez-Aguilar JE, Flores-Tlacuahuac A, Betancourt-Galvan F, Lozano-García DF, Lozano FJ. Facilities location for residual biomass production system using geographic information system under uncertainty. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03303.
Santibanez-Aguilar JE, Lozano-García DF, Flores-Tlacuahuac A, Lozano FJ. Sequential use of geographic information system and mathematical programming for the optimal planning for energy production system from residual biomass. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2019;58:15818–37.
Santibañez-Aguilar JE, Flores-Tlacuahuac A, Lozano-García DF, Lozano FJ. Novel approach for weighting in the geographic information system focused on a multistakeholder problem: case for the residual biomass processing system. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04759.
Lozano-García DF, Santibañez-Aguilar JE, Lozano FJ, Flores-Tlacuahuac A. GIS-based modeling of residual biomass availability for energy and production in Mexico. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109610.
CONAPO. Base_Indice_de_marginacion_municipal_90-15. 2015.
CFE. Datos Abiertos de México—Usuarios y consumo de electricidad por municipio (A partir de 2018) [Mexico’s open data—Users and consumption of electricity at municipal level], https://datos.gob.mx/busca/dataset/usuarios-y-consumo-de-electricidad-por-municipio-a-partir-de-2018. 7 Nov 2022.
SAGARPA. Datos Abiertos [Open data]. SIAP, http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx/gobmx/datosAbiertos.php. 7 Nov 2022.
CONAPO. Índice de marginación (carencias poblacionales) por localidad, municipio y entidad [Marginalization index (population deficiencies) by locality municipality and state]. Consejo Nacional de Población. 2023.
CONAPO. Índice de marginación por localidad 2020. Consejo Nacional de Población. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Guerrero. INEGI. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Chiapas. INEGI. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Oaxaca. INEGI. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Veracruz. INEGI. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Puebla. INEGI. 2023.
INEGI. Mexico en cifras [Mexico in figures]. Mexico. INEGI. 2023.
Iñiguez-Covarrubias G, Díaz-Teres R, Sanjuan-Duenas R, Anzaldo-Hernández J, Rowell RM. Utilization of by-products from the tequila industry. Part 2: potential value of Agave tequilana Weber azul leaves. Biores Technol. 2001;77:101–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00167-X.
Girard P, Fallot A, Dauriac F. Review of existing and emerging technologies for the large scale production of biofuels and identification of promising innovations for developing countries. 2002.
Chen JCP. Manual del azúcar de caña : para fabricantes de azúcar de caña y químicos especializados [Cane sugar handbook: for cane sugar manufacturers and specialty chemists]. Limusa, México D.F. 1991.
Open access funding provided by University of Gävle.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Lozano, F.J., Lozano, R., Lozano-García, D.F. et al. Reducing energy poverty in small rural communities through in situ electricity generation. Discov Sustain 4, 13 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-023-00128-8