Advertisement

Biorefinery pp 37-48 | Cite as

Biomass for Biorefineries: Availability and Costs

  • Niclas Scott BentsenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Biomass for biorefineries or in support of a wider bioeconomy can be sourced from various sources. Currently forest or woody biomass makes up the largest contribution to bioenergy production, but future supply potentials include dedicated production of biomass for energy or biorefineries and an increased use of agricultural or forest residues. By 2050 a technical potential of agricultural residues between 10 and 66 EJ has been identified, constituting a significant resource. Also processing residues and food waste constitute a significant biomass resource each with a potential between 5 and 50 EJ per year by 2050. Residue biomass, be it from the field or from processing of agricultural produce, has a low cost compared to other biomass resources. However, due to its low energy density and geographically dispersed production, long-range transport is prohibitively costly, which could limit the biorefinery concept from being broadly implemented. Development towards densification and to ensure uniform material characteristics may reduce cost and risk in the supply chain.

A significant resource base at a reasonable cost and with a manageable risk is not enough to ensure mobilisation of the resource and the establishment of a viable supply chain. A number of institutional, technical, social and economic barriers must be overcome. A consistent policy framework that supports a bioeconomy, biorefineries or production based on biomass and waste is required. Awareness about credible knowledge on process costs and sustainability aspects must be developed among stakeholders along the supply chain.

Keywords

Biomass Biorefinery Feedstock Bioenergy High-value products Biomass costs Biomass mobilisation 

References

  1. Belbo H, Talbot B (2014) Performance of small-scale straw-to-heat supply chains in Norway. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energ Environ 3(4):400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentsen NS (2017) Carbon debt and payback time—lost in the forest? Renew Sust Energ Rev 73:1211–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentsen NS, Felby C (2012) Biomass for energy in the European Union—a review of bioenergy resource assessments. Biotechnol Biofuels 5:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentsen NS, Felby C, Thorsen BJ (2014) Agricultural residue production and potentials for energy and materials services. Prog Energy Combust Sci 40:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentsen NS, Nilsson D, Larsen S, Stupak I (2016) Agricultural residues for energy in Denmark and Sweden—differences and commonalities, IEA Bioenergy Task 43. TR2016:05Google Scholar
  6. Bentsen NS, Lamers P, Lalonde C, Wellisch M, Dale VH, Bonner I, Jacobson J, Stupak I, Gan J, Girouard P (2017) Mobilisation of agricultural residues for bioenergy and higher value bio-products: resources, barriers and sustainability, IEA Bioenergy Taks 43. TR2017:01Google Scholar
  7. Bentsen NS, Nilsson D, Larsen S (2018) Agricultural residues for energy—a case study on the influence of resource availability, economy and policy on the use of straw for energy in Denmark and Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 108:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BP (2018) BP statistical review of world energy. BP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Bureau J-C, Guyomard H, Jacquet F, Tréguer D (2010) European biofuel policy: how far will public support go? In: Khanna M, Scheffran J, Zilberman D (eds) Handbook of bioenergy economics and policy. Springer, New York, pp 401–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, Gabrielle B, Eng AG, Lucht W, Mapako M, Cerutti OM, McIntyre T, Minowa T, Pingoud K (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Daioglou V, Stehfest E, Wicke B, Faaij A, van Vuuren DP (2016) Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry. GCB Bioenergy 8(2):456–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeLucia EH, Gomez-Casanovas N, Greenberg JA, Hudiburg TW, Kantola IB, Long SP, Miller AD, Ort DR, Parton WJ (2014) The theoretical limit to plant productivity. Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9471–9477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demirbas A (2011) Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Convers Manag 52(2):1280–1287MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(31):12942–12947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, Ricketts T, Loucks C, Harriss R, Lawrence WT (2004) Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429(6994):870–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krausmann F, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Lauk C, Haberl H (2008) Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: a comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecol Econ 65(3):471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kummu M, de Moel H, Porkka M, Siebert S, Varis O, Ward PJ (2012) Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci Total Environ 438:477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamers P, Hamelinck C, Junginger M, Faaij A (2011) International bioenergy trade—a review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(6):2655–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamers P, Junginger M, Hamelinck C, Faaij A (2012) Developments in international solid biofuel trade—an analysis of volumes, policies, and market factors. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(5):3176–3199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamers P, Tan ECD, Searcy EM, Scarlata C, Cafferty KG, Jacobson JJ (2015) Strategic supply system design—a holistic evaluation of operational and production cost for a biorefinery supply chain. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin 9(6):648–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsen S, Jaiswal D, Bentsen NS, Wang D, Long SP (2016) Comparing predicted yield and yield stability of willow and Miscanthus across Denmark. GCB Bioenergy 8(6):1061–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsen S, Bentsen NS, Dalgaard T, Jørgensen U, Olesen JE, Felby C (2017) Possibilities for near-term bioenergy production and GHG-mitigation through sustainable intensification of agriculture and forestry in Denmark. Environ Res Lett 12(11):114032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin CSK, Pfaltzgraff LA, Herrero-Davila L, Mubofu EB, Abderrahim S, Clark JH, Koutinas AA, Kopsahelis N, Stamatelatou K, Dickson F, Thankappan S, Mohamed Z, Brocklesby R, Luque R (2013) Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ Sci 6(2):426–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marchand L (2015) Cost assessment for cornstalk supply chain for bioprocessing purposes. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  25. Mauzerall D (2013) Thermodynamics of primary photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 116(2):363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakada S, Saygin D, Gielen D (2014) Global bioenergy: supply and demand projections. IRENA, Abu DahbiGoogle Scholar
  27. Peake S (ed) (2018) Renewable energy—power for a sustainable future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. REN21 (2018) Renewables 2018 global status report. REN21 Secretariat, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Resch G, Held A, Faber T, Panzer C, Toro F, Haas R (2008) Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 36(11):4048–4056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robledo-Abad C, Althaus H-J, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Corbera E, Creutzig F, Garcia-Ulloa J, Geddes A, Gregg JS, Haberl H, Hanger S, Harper RJ, Hunsberger C, Larsen RK, Lauk C, Leitner S, Lilliestam J, Lotze-Campen H, Muys B, Nordborg M, Ölund M, Orlowsky B, Popp A, Portugal-Pereira J, Reinhard J, Scheiffle L, Smith P (2017) Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited. GCB Bioenergy 9(3):541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Running SW (2012) A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337(6101):1458–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scarlat N, Martinov M, Dallemand J-F (2010) Assessment of the availability of agricultural crop residues in the European Union: potential and limitations for bioenergy use. Waste Manag 30(10):1889–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Searle SY, Malins CJ (2016) Waste and residue availability for advanced biofuel production in EU member states. Biomass Bioenergy 89:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slade R, Bauen A, Gross R (2014) Global bioenergy resources. Nat Clim Change 4(2):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smil V (1999) Crop residues: agriculture’s largest harvest—crop residues incorporate more than half of the world agricultural phytomass. Bioscience 49(4):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smil V (2018) Energy and civilization: a history. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith WK, Zhao M, Running SW (2012) Global bioenergy capacity as constrained by observed biospheric productivity rates. Bioscience 62(10):911–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith CT, Lattimore B, Berndes G, Bentsen NS, Dimitriou I, Langeveld JWA, Thiffault E (2017) Opportunities to encourage mobilization of sustainable bioenergy supply chains. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energ Environ 6:e237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WEC (2016) World energy resources—bioenergy. World Energy Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu X-G, Long SP, Ort DR (2010) Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61(1):235–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations