Chapter 2

2 Bioenergy

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Helena Chum (USA/Brazil), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), José Moreira (Brazil)

Lead Authors:
Göran Berndes (Sweden), Parveen Dhamija (India), Hongmin Dong (China),
Benoît Gabrielle (France), Alison Goss Eng (USA), Wolfgang Lucht (Germany),
Maxwell Mapako (South Africa/Zimbabwe), Omar Masera Cerutti (Mexico),
Terry McIntyre (Canada), Tomoaki Minowa (Japan), Kim Pingoud (Finland)

Contributing Authors:
Richard Bain (USA), Ranyee Chiang (USA), David Dawe (Thailand, USA),
Garvin Heath (USA), Martin Junginger (The Netherlands), Martin Patel (The Netherlands),
Joyce Yang (USA), Ethan Warner (USA)

Review Editors:
David Paré (Canada) and Suzana Kahn Ribeiro (Brazil)

This chapter should be cited as:

Chum, H., A. Faaij, J. Moreira, G. Berndes, P. Dhamija, H. Dong, B. Gabrielle, A. Goss Eng, W. Lucht, M. Mapako,
O. Masera Cerutti, T. McIntyre, T. Minowa, K. Pingoud, 2011: Bioenergy. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth,
P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

209
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 216

2.1.1 Current pattern of biomass and bioenergy use and trends ............................................................................... 216

2.1.2 Previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

2.2 Resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

2.2.1.1 Methodology assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
2.2.1.2 Total aboveground net primary production of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
2.2.1.3 Human appropriation of terrestrial net primary production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

2.2.2 Global and regional technical potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

2.2.2.1 Literature assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
2.2.2.2 The contribution from residues, dung, processing by-products and waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
2.2.2.3 The contribution from unutilized forest growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
2.2.2.4 The contribution from biomass plantations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

2.2.3 Economic considerations in biomass resource assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

2.2.4 Factors influencing biomass resource potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

2.2.4.1 Residue supply in agriculture and forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2.2.4.2 Dedicated biomass production in agriculture and forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2.2.4.3 Use of marginal lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
2.2.4.4 Biodiversity protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

2.2.5 Possible impact of climate change on resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

2.2.6 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................. 232

2.3 Technologies and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

2.3.1 Feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

2.3.1.1 Feedstock production and harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.3.1.2 Synergies with the agriculture, food and forest sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

2.3.2 Logistics and supply chains for energy carriers from modern biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2.3.2.1 Solid biomass supplies and market development for utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2.3.2.2 Solid biomass and charcoal supplies in developing countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
2.3.2.3 Wood pellet logistics and supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

210
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

2.3.3 Conversion technologies to electricity, heat, and liquid and gaseous fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
2.3.3.1 Development stages of conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
2.3.3.2 Thermochemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
2.3.3.3 Chemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
2.3.3.4 Biochemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

2.3.4 Bioenergy systems and chains: Existing state-of-the-art systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

2.3.4.1 Bioenergy chains for power, combined heat and power, and heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
2.3.4.2 Bioenergy chains for liquid transport fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

2.3.5 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................. 244

2.4 Global and regional status of market and industry development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

2.4.1 Current bioenergy production and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

2.4.2 Traditional biomass, improved technologies and practices, and barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
2.4.2.1 Improved biomass cook stoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
2.4.2.2 Biogas systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

2.4.3 Modern biomass: Large-scale systems, improved technologies and practices, and barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

2.4.4 Global trade in biomass and bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

2.4.5 Overview of support policies for biomass and bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

2.4.5.1 Intergovernmental platforms for exchange on bioenergy policies and standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2.4.5.2 Sustainability frameworks and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

2.4.6 Main opportunities and barriers for the market penetration and international trade of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.4.6.1 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.4.6.2 Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

2.4.7 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................ 257

2.5 Environmental and social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

2.5.1 Environmental effects ................................................................................................................................ 258

2.5.2 Modern bioenergy: Climate change excluding land use change effects .............................................................. 259

2.5.3 Modern bioenergy: Climate change including land use change effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

2.5.4 Traditional biomass: Climate change effects ................................................................................................. 268

211
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.5.5 Environmental impacts other than greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

2.5.5.1 Impacts on air quality and water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
2.5.5.2 Biodiversity and habitat loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
2.5.5.3 Impacts on soil resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

2.5.6 Environmental health and safety implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

2.5.6.1 Feedstock issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
2.5.6.2 Biofuels production issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

2.5.7 Socioeconomic aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

2.5.7.1 Socioeconomic impact studies and sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
2.5.7.2 Socioeconomic impacts of small-scale systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
2.5.7.3 Socioeconomic aspects of large-scale bioenergy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
2.5.7.4 Risks to food security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
2.5.7.5 Impacts on rural and social development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
2.5.7.6 Trade-offs between social and environmental aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

2.5.8 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................. 274

2.6 Prospects for technology improvement and innovation .............................................................. 276

2.6.1 Improvements in feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

2.6.1.1 Yield gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
2.6.1.2 Aquatic biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

2.6.2 Improvements in biomass logistics and supply chains ..................................................................................... 278

2.6.3 Improvements in conversion technologies for secondary energy carriers from modern biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2.6.3.1 Liquid fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.6.3.2 Gaseous fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
2.6.3.3 Biomass with carbon capture and storage: long-term removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
2.6.3.4 Biorefineries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
2.6.3.5 Bio-based products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

2.6.4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................. 287

2.7 Cost trends .......................................................................................................................................... 288

2.7.1 Determining factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

2.7.1.1 Recent levelized costs of electricity, heat and fuels for selected commercial systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

212
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

2.7.2 Technological learning in bioenergy systems ................................................................................................. 292

2.7.3 Future scenarios of cost reduction potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

2.7.3.1 Future cost trends of commercial bioenergy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
2.7.3.2 Future cost trends for pre-commercial bioenergy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

2.7.4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................................. 295

2.8 Potential Deployment ........................................................................................................................ 296

2.8.1 Current deployment of bioenergy ................................................................................................................ 296

2.8.2 Near-term forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

2.8.3 Long-term deployment in the context of carbon mitigation ............................................................................. 297

2.8.4 Conditions and policies: Synthesis of resource potentials, technology and economics, and environmental
and social impacts of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
2.8.4.1 Resource potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
2.8.4.2 Bioenergy technologies, supply chains and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
2.8.4.3 Social and environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

2.8.5 Conclusions regarding deployment: Key messages about bioenergy ................................................................. 306

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

213
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Executive Summary

Bioenergy has a significant greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, provided that the resources are developed
sustainably and that efficient bioenergy systems are used. Certain current systems and key future options including
perennial cropping systems, use of biomass residues and wastes and advanced conversion systems are able to deliver
80 to 90% emission reductions compared to the fossil energy baseline. However, land use conversion and forest man-
agement that lead to a loss of carbon stocks (direct) in addition to indirect land use change (d+iLUC) effects can lessen,
and in some cases more than neutralize, the net positive GHG mitigation impacts. Impacts of climate change through
temperature increases, rainfall pattern changes and increased frequency of extreme events will influence and interact
with biomass resource potential. This interaction is still poorly understood, but it is likely to exhibit strong regional dif-
ferences. Climate change impacts on biomass feedstock production exist but if global temperature rise is limited to less
than 2oC compared with the pre-industrial record, it may pose few constraints. Combining adaptation measures with
biomass resource production can offer more sustainable opportunities for bioenergy and perennial cropping systems.

Biomass is a primary source of food, fodder and fibre and as a renewable energy (RE) source provided
about 10.2% (50.3 EJ) of global total primary energy supply (TPES) in 2008. Traditional use of wood, straws,
charcoal, dung and other manures for cooking, space heating and lighting by generally poorer populations in develop-
ing countries accounts for about 30.7 EJ, and another 20 to 40% occurs in unaccounted informal sectors including
charcoal production and distribution. TPES from biomass for electricity, heat, combined heat and power (CHP), and
transport fuels was 11.3 EJ in 2008 compared to 9.6 EJ in 2005 and the share of modern bioenergy was 22% compared
to 20.6%.

From the expert review of available scientific literature, potential deployment levels of biomass for energy
by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ. However, there are large uncertainties in this potential such as
market and policy conditions, and it strongly depends on the rate of improvement in the production of food and fodder
as well as wood and pulp products.

The upper bound of the technical potential of biomass for energy may be as large as 500 EJ/yr by 2050.
Reaching a substantial fraction of the technical potential will require sophisticated land and water management, large
worldwide plant productivity increases, land optimization and other measures. Realizing this potential will be a major
challenge, but it could make a substantial contribution to the world’s primary energy supply in 2050. For comparison,
the equivalent heat content of the total biomass harvested worldwide for food, fodder and fibre is about 219 EJ/yr
today.

A scenario review conducted in Chapter 10 indicates that the contribution of bioenergy in GHG stabiliza-
tion scenarios of different stringency can be expected to be significantly higher than today. By 2050, in the
median case bioenergy contributes 120 to 155 EJ/yr to global primary energy supply, or 150 to 190 EJ/yr for the 75th
percentile case, and even up to 265 to 300 EJ/yr in the highest deployment scenarios. This deployment range is roughly
in line with the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) regionally oriented A2 and B2 and globally oriented
A1 and B1 conditions and storylines. Success in implementing sustainability and policy frameworks that ensure good
governance of land use and improvements in forestry, agricultural and livestock management could lead to both high
(B1) and low (B2) potentials. However, biomass supplies may remain limited to approximately 100 EJ/yr in 2050 if such
policy frameworks and enforcing mechanisms are not introduced and if there is strong competition for biomaterials
from other (innovative future) sectors. In that environment, further biomass expansion could lead to significant regional
conflicts for food supplies, water resources and biodiversity, and could even result in additional GHG emissions, espe-
cially due to iLUC and loss of carbon stocks. In another deployment scenario, biomass resources may be constrained
to use of residues and organic waste, energy crops cultivated on marginal/degraded and poorly utilized lands, and to
supplies in endowed world regions where bioenergy is a cheaper energy option compared to market alternatives (e.g.,
sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil).

214
Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Bioenergy has complex societal and environmental interactions, including climate change feedback, bio-
mass production and land use. The impact of bioenergy on social and environmental issues (e.g., health, poverty,
biodiversity) may be positive or negative depending on local conditions and the design and implementation of specific
projects. The policy context for bioenergy, and particularly biofuels, has changed rapidly and dramatically in recent
years. The food versus fuel debate and growing concerns about other conflicts are driving a strong push for the devel-
opment and implementation of sustainability criteria and frameworks. Many conflicts can be reduced if not avoided
by encouraging synergisms in the management of natural resource, agricultural and livestock sectors as part of good
governance of land use that increases rural development and contributes to poverty alleviation and a secure energy
supply.

Costs vary by world regions, feedstock types, feedstock supply costs for conversion processes, the scale
of bioenergy production and production time during the year. Examples of estimated commercial bioenergy
levelized cost ranges are roughly USD2005 2 to 48/GJ for liquid and gaseous biofuels; roughly US cents2005 3.5 to 25/kWh
(USD2005 10 to 50/GJ) for electricity or CHP systems larger than about 2 MW (with feedstock costs of USD2005 3/GJfeed
and a heat value of USD2005 5/GJ for steam or USD2005 12/GJ for hot water); and roughly USD2005 2 to 77/GJ for domestic
or district heating systems with feedstock costs in the range of USD2005 0 to 20/GJ (solid waste to wood pellets). These
calculations refer to 2005 to 2008 data and are expressed in USD2005 at a 7% discount rate.

Recent analyses of lignocellulosic biofuels indicate potential improvements that enable them to compete
at oil prices of USD2005 60 to 70/barrel (USD2005 0.38 to 0.44/litre) assuming no revenue from carbon dioxide
(CO2) mitigation. Scenario analyses indicate that strong short-term research and development (R&D) and market
support could allow for commercialization around 2020 depending on oil and carbon pricing. In addition to ethanol
and biodiesel, a range of hydrocarbons and chemicals/materials similar to those currently derived from oil could provide
biofuels for not only vehicles but also for the aviation and maritime sectors. Biomass is the only renewable resource
that can currently provide high energy density liquid fuels. A wider variety of bio-based products can also be produced
at biorefineries to enhance the economics of the overall conversion process. Short-term options (some of them already
competitive) that can deliver long-term synergies include co-firing, CHP, heat generation and sugarcane-based ethanol
and bioelectricity co-production. Development of working bioenergy markets and facilitation of international bioenergy
trade can help achieve these synergies.

Further improvements in power generation technologies, supply systems of biomass and production of
perennial cropping systems can bring bioenergy costs down. There is clear evidence that technological learning
and related cost reductions occur in many biomass technologies with learning rates comparable to other RE technolo-
gies. This is true for cropping systems where improvements in agricultural management of annual crops, supply systems
and logistics, conversion technologies to produce energy carriers such as heat, electricity and ethanol from sugarcane or
maize, and biogas have demonstrated significant cost reductions.

Combining biomass conversion with developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) could lead to long-term
substantial removal of GHGs from the atmosphere (also referred to as negative emissions). Advanced bioma-
terials are promising as well from both an economic and a GHG mitigation perspective, though the relative magnitude
of their mitigation potential is not well understood. The potential role of aquatic biomass (algae) is highly uncertain
but could reduce land use conflict. More experience, research, development and demonstration (RD&D), and detailed
analyses of these options are needed.

Multiple drivers for bioenergy systems and their deployment in sustainable directions are emerging.
Examples include rapidly changing policy contexts, recent market-based activities, the increasing support for advanced
biorefinery and lignocellulosic biofuel options and, in particular, development of sustainability criteria and frameworks.
Sustained cost reductions of key technologies in biomass production and conversion, supply infrastructure development,
and integrated systems research can lead to the implementation of strategies that facilitate sustainable land and water
use and gain public and political acceptance.

215
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.1 Introduction Biomass is used (see Table 2.1) with varying degrees of energy efficiency
in various sectors:
Bioenergy is embedded in complex ways in global biomass systems for
food, fodder and fibre production and for forest products; in wastes • Low-efficiency traditional biomass 2 such as wood, straws, dung and
and residue management; and in the everyday living of the develop- other manures are used for cooking, lighting and space heating,
ing countries’ poor. Bioenergy includes different sets of technologies for generally by the poorer populations in developing countries. This
applications in various sectors. biomass is mostly combusted, creating serious negative impacts on
health and living conditions. Increasingly, charcoal is becoming a
secondary energy carrier in rural areas. As an indicator of the magni-
2.1.1 Current pattern of biomass and bioenergy use tude of traditional biomass use, Figure 2.1 (bottom) illustrates that
and trends the global primary energy supply from traditional biomass parallels
the world’s industrial roundwood production.
Biomass provided about 10.2% (50.3 EJ/yr) of the annual global primary
energy supply in 2008, from a wide variety of biomass sources feeding In the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Statistics
numerous sectors of society (see Table 2.1; IEA, 2010a). The biomass (IEA, 2010a) and World Energy Outlook (WEO: IEA, 2010b) TPES
feedstocks used for energy are shown in Figure 2.1 (top), and more from traditional biomass amounts to 30.7 EJ/yr based on national

Table 2.1 | Examples of traditional and select modern biomass energy flows in 2008 according to the IEA (2010 a,b) and supplemented by Masera et al., 2005, 2006; Drigo et al.,
2007, 2009.

Approximate Primary Approximate Average Approximate Secondary

Type Energy (EJ/yr) Efficiency (%) Energy (EJ/yr)

Traditional Biomass
Accounted for in IEA energy statistics 30.7 3–6
10–20
Estimated for informal sectors (e.g., charcoal) 6–12 0.6–2.4
Total Traditional Biomass 37–43 3.6–8.4
Modern Bioenergy
Electricity and CHP from biomass, MSW, and biogas 4.0 32 1.3
Heat in residential, public/commercial buildings from solid biomass and biogas 4.2 80 3.4
Road transport fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) 3.1 60 1.9
Total Modern Bioenergy 11.3 58 6.6

Notes: According to the IEA (2010a,b), the 2008 TPES from biomass of 50.3 EJ was composed primarily of solid biomass (46.9 EJ); biogenic MSW used for heat and CHP (0.58 EJ); and
biogas (secondary energy) for electricity and CHP (0.41 EJ) and heating (0.33 EJ). The contribution of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels (e.g., ethers) used in the transport sector
amounted to 1.9 EJ in secondary energy terms. Examples of specific flows: output electricity from biomass was 0.82 EJ (biomass power plants including pulp and paper industry surplus,
biogas and MSW) and output heating from CHP was 0.44 EJ. Modern residential heat consumption was calculated by subtracting the IEA estimate of traditional use of biomass (30.7
EJ) from the total residential heat consumption (33.7 EJ).
Some table numbers were taken directly from the IEA global energy statistics, such as secondary biofuels at 1.9 EJ (whereas the derived primary energy input is based on the assumed
efficiency of 60% which could be lower) as well as output electricity and heat at 1.3 EJ for all feedstocks. Primary input for MSW and biogas (secondary) and the corresponding output
were available and efficiencies are calculated. Solid biomass primary input was calculated from the average efficiency for MSW. Not included in the numbers above are solid biomass
(3.4 EJ) used to make charcoal (1.15 EJ) for heating (0.88 EJ, traditional mostly) and industry, such as the iron/steel industry (0.22 EJ), mostly in Brazil. Heat for making charcoal is
included in Figure 1.18 in the 5.2 EJ from biomass for electricity, CHP, and heat plants. Not included in Table 2.1 is the industry sector that consumed 7.7 EJ, but the electricity sold by
the pulp and paper industry is included.

than 80% are derived from wood (trees, branches, residues) and shrubs. databases that tend to systematically underestimate fuelwood con-
The remaining bioenergy feedstocks came from the agricultural sector sumption. Although international forestry and energy data (FAO,
(energy crops, residues and by-products) and from various commercial 2005) are the main reference sources for policy analyses, they are
and post-consumer waste and by-product streams (biomass product
recycling and processing or the organic biogenic fraction of municipal 2 Traditional biomass is defined as biomass consumption in the residential sector in
developing countries and refers to the often unsustainable use of wood, charcoal,
solid waste1 (MSW)). agricultural residues and animal dung for cooking and heating (IEA, 2010b and
Annex I). All other biomass use is defined as modern biomass; this report further
1 MSW is used throughout the chapter with the same meaning as the term municipal differentiates between highly efficient modern bioenergy and industrial bioenergy
wastes as defined by EUROSTAT. applications with varying degrees of efficiency (Annex I). The renewability and
sustainability of biomass use is primarily discussed in Sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5,
respectively (see also Section 1.2.1 and Annex I).

216
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

• High-efficiency modern bioenergy uses more convenient solids,

Forest Residues 1% liquids and gases as secondary energy carriers to generate heat,
Black Liquor 1% electricity, combined heat and power (CHP) and transport fuels for
Wood Industry Residues 5% various sectors (Figure 2.2). Many entities in the process industry,
Recovered Wood 6% municipalities, districts and cooperatives generate these energy
Charcoal
7% products, in some cases for their own use, but also for sale to
Animal national and international markets in the increasingly global trade.
By-Products 3%
Liquid biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are used for global
road transport and some industrial uses. Biomass-derived gases, pri-
Agriculture Agricultural
Fuelwood 10% By-Products marily methane from anaerobic digestion of agricultural residues
67% 4%
and waste treatment streams, are used to generate electricity, heat
Energy Crops or CHP for multiple sectors. The most important contribution to these
3%
energy services is, however, based on solids, such as chips, pellets,
recovered wood previously used etc. Heating includes space and
MSW and Landfill Gas 3%
hot water heating such as in district heating systems. The estimated
TPES from modern bioenergy is 11.3 EJ/yr and the secondary energy
delivered to end-use consumers is roughly 6.6 EJ/yr (IEA, 2010a,b).
4.0
Modern bioenergy feedstocks such as short-rotation trees (poplars
[Billion m3]

or willows) and herbaceous plants (Miscanthus or switchgrass) are

discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.6.1. The discussion of modern
3.0 bioenergy includes biomass logistics and supply chains (Sections
2.3.2 and 2.6.2); conversion of biomass into secondary carriers or
Fuelwood
Indoor Heating, Cooking and Lighting in energy through existing (Section 2.3.3) or developing (Section 2.6.3)
Developing Countries (95%)
2.0 technologies; integration into bioenergy systems and supply chains
(Section 2.3.4); and market and industry development (Section 2.4).

1.0
World Industrial Roundwood • High energy efficiency biomass conversion is found typically in the
For Products industry sector (with a total consumption of ~7.7 EJ/yr) associ-
ated with the pulp and paper industry, forest products, food and
0.0
chemicals. Examples are fibre products (e.g., paper), energy, wood
61
63

67

71

75

79

83

87

91

95

99

03

07
19
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

products, and charcoal for steel manufacture. Industrial heating is

Figure 2.1 | Top: Shares of global primary biomass sources for energy (IPCC, 2007a,d; primarily steam generation for industrial processes, often in conjunc-
IEA Bioenergy, 2009); Bottom: Fuelwood used in developing countries parallels world tion with power generation. The industry sector’s final consumption
industrial roundwood1 production levels (UNECE/FAO Timber Database, 2011).
of biomass is not shown in Table 2.1 since it cannot be unambigu-
Note: 1. Roundwood products are saw logs and veneer logs for the forest products ously assigned. Also see Section 8.3.4, which addresses the biomass
industry and wood chips that are used for making pulpwood used in paper, newsprint industry sector.
and Kraft paper. In 2009, reflecting the downturn in the economy, there was a decline to
3.25 (total) and 1.25 (industrial) billion m3; the data can be retrieved from a presentation
on Global Forest Resources and Market Developments: timber.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ Global bioenergy use has steadily grown worldwide in absolute terms
other/GlobalResMkts300311.pdf. in the last 40 years, with large differences among countries. In 2006,
China led all countries and used 9 EJ of biomass for energy, followed by
often in contradiction when it comes to estimates of biomass con- India (6 EJ), the USA (2.3 EJ) and Brazil (2 EJ) (GBEP, 2008). Bioenergy
sumption for energy, because production and trade of these solid provides a relatively small but growing share of TPES (1 to 4 % in 2006)
biomass fuels are largely informal.3 A supplement of 20 to 40% to in the largest industrialized countries (grouped as the G8 countries: the
the global TPES of biomass in Table 2.1 is based on detailed, multi- USA, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Italy, the UK and Russia). The
scale, spatially explicit analyses performed in more than 20 countries use of solid biomass for electricity production is particularly important
(e.g., Masera et al., 2005, 2006; Drigo et al., 2007, 2009). Traditional in pulp and paper plants and in sugar mills. Bioenergy’s share in total
biomass is discussed in later sections on feedstock logistics and sup- energy consumption is generally increasing in the G8 countries through
ply (Section 2.3.2.2), improved technologies, practices and barriers the use of modern biomass forms (e.g., co-combustion or co-firing for
(Sections 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2), climate change effects (Section 2.5.4) electricity generation, space heating with pellets) especially in Germany,
and socioeconomic aspects (Section 2.5.7). Italy and the UK (see Figure 2.8; GBEP, 2008).

3 See the Glossary in Annex I for a definition of informal sector/economy. By contrast, in 2006, bioenergy provided 5 to 27% of TPES in the larg-
est developing countries (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa),

217
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Feedstock1 Conversion Routes2 Heat and/or Power*

(Biomass Upgrading3) +
Oil Crops Combustion
(Rape, Sunflower, Soya etc.) Liquid Fuels
Waste Oils, Animal Fats
Transesterification
Biodiesel*
or Hydrogenation

Sugar and Starch Crops (Hydrolysis) + Fermentation* Ethanol*, Butanols,

or Microbial Processing Hydrocarbons

Gasification Syndiesel / Renewable

Lignocellulosic Biomass (+ Secondary Process)4 Diesel*
(Wood, Straw, Energy Crop,
MSW, etc.) Pyrolysis5 Methanol, Ethanol,
(+ Secondary Process) Alcohols
Biodegradable MSW, Other Fuels and Fuel
Sewage Sludge, Manure, Wet Anaerobic Digestion
(+ Biogas Upgrading) Additives
Wastes (Farm and Food Wastes)
Macroalgae
Other Biological / Gaseous Fuels
Chemical Routes
Photosynthetic Biomethane*
Microorganisms,
e.g. Microalgae and Bacteria Bio-Photochemical Routes DME, Hydrogen

Figure 2.2 | Schematic view of the variety of commercial (solid lines, see Figure 2.6) and developing bioenergy routes (dotted lines) from biomass feedstocks through thermochemical,
chemical, biochemical and biological conversion routes to heat, power, CHP and liquid or gaseous fuels (modified from IEA Bioenergy, 2009). Commercial products are marked with
an asterisk.

Notes: 1. Parts of each feedstock, for example, crop residues, could also be used in other routes. 2. Each route also gives coproducts. 3. Biomass upgrading includes any one of the
densification processes (pelletization, pyrolysis, torrefaction, etc.). 4. Anaerobic digestion processes release methane and CO2 and removal of CO2 provides essentially methane, the
major component of natural gas; the upgraded gas is called biomethane. 5. Could be other thermal processing routes such as hydrothermal, liquefaction, etc. DME=dimethyl ether.

mainly through the use of traditional forms, and more than 80% of TPES short-lived GHGs such as methane and carbon monoxide (CO), which
in the poorest countries. The bioenergy share in India, China and Mexico are related to the burning of biomass in traditional open fires and kilns.
is decreasing, mostly as traditional biomass is substituted by kerosene If improperly designed or implemented, the large-scale expansion of
and liquefied petroleum gas within large cities. However, consumption bioenergy systems is likely to have negative consequences for climate
in absolute terms continues to grow. This trend is also true for most and sustainability, for example, by inducing d+iLUC that can alter sur-
African countries, where demand has been driven by a steady increase face albedo and release carbon from soils and vegetation, reducing
in wood fuels, particularly in the use of charcoal in booming urban areas biodiversity or negatively impacting local populations in terms of land
(GBEP, 2008). tenure or reduced food security, among other effects.

Turning from the technological perspectives of bioenergy to environmen- The literature on the resource potential of biomass is covered in Section
tal and social aspects, the literature assessments in this chapter reveal 2.2, which discusses a variety of global modelling studies and the fac-
positive and negative aspects of bioenergy. Sustainably produced and tors that influence the assessments. Section 2.2 also presents examples
managed, bioenergy can provide a substantial contribution to climate of resource assessments from countries and specific regions, which
change mitigation through increasing carbon stocks in the biosphere provide cost dimensions for these resources. The overall technology
(e.g., in degraded lands), reducing carbon emissions from unsustain- portfolio is shown in Figure 2.2 and includes commercial and develop-
able forest use and replacing fossil fuel-based systems in the generation ing energy carriers from modern biomass. The commercially available
of heat, power and modern fuels. Additionally, bioenergy may provide energy products and (conversion) technologies are discussed in Section
opportunities for regional economic development (see Sections 9.3.1 2.3. These are based on sugar crops (perennial sugarcane and beets),
and 2.5.4). Advanced bioenergy systems and end-use technologies starch crops (maize, wheat, cassava etc.), and oil crops (soy, rapeseed)
can also substantially reduce the emissions of black carbon and other as feedstocks, and they expand food and fodder processing to bioenergy

218
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

production. Current bioenergy production is also coupled with forest will be useful in further developing bioenergy sustainably with climate
products industry residues and the pulping industry that has tradition- mitigation.
ally self generated heat and power; with dry and wet municipal wastes;
with sewage sludge; and with a variety of organic wet wastes from
various sectors. These wastes and residues, if left untreated, can have a 2.1.2 Previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
major impact on climate through methane emission releases. The bioen- Change assessments
ergy market is described in Section 2.4 for traditional and modern forms,
as are evolving international trade and sustainability frameworks for Bioenergy has not been examined in detail in previous IPCC reports. In
bioenergy. The advanced technologies for production of feedstocks and the most recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the analysis of GHG
conversion to energy products are discussed in Section 2.6. mitigation from bioenergy was scattered among seven chapters, making
it difficult to obtain an integrated and cohesive picture of the resource
In Section 2.5, the environmental and social impacts of biomass use and mitigation potential, challenges and opportunities. The main conclu-
are addressed with emphasis on the climate change effects of bioen- sions from the AR4 report (IPCC, 2007b,d) are as follows:
ergy. Because of the complexity of GHG impacts and of the bioenergy
chains, impacts are analyzed without and with LUC separately. These • Biomass energy demand. Primary biomass requirements for the
impacts span micro-, meso- and macro- scales and depend on the land production of transportation fuels were largely based on the WEO
cover conversion and water availability, among other factors, in specific (IEA, 2006) global projections, with a relatively wide range of about
regions. Direct land use impacts occur locally by changes in crop use or 14 to 40 EJ/yr of primary biomass, or 8 to 25 EJ/yr of biofuels in
the dedication of a crop to bioenergy. The iLUC results from a market- 2030. However, higher demand estimates of 45 to 85 EJ/yr for pri-
mediated shift in land management activities (i.e., dLUC) outside the mary biomass in 2030 (roughly 30 to 50 EJ/yr of biofuel) were also
region of primary production expansion. Both are addressed in Section included. For comparison, the scenario review in Chapter 10 shows
2.5. The social impacts of modern and traditional biomass use are pre- biofuel production ranges of 0 to 14 EJ/yr in 2030 and 2 to 50 EJ/
sented and related to key issues such as the impact of bioenergy on food yr in 2050 with median values of 5 to 12 EJ/yr and 18 to 20 EJ/yr in
production and sustainable development in Section 2.5.7 (also refer to the two GHG mitigation scenario categories analyzed. The demand
Sections 9.3 and 9.4). for biomass-generated heat and power was stated to be strongly
influenced by the availability and introduction of competing tech-
To reach high levels of bioenergy production and minimize envi- nologies such as CCS, nuclear power, wind energy, solar heating and
ronmental and social impacts, it is necessary to develop a variety of others. The projected biomass demand in 2030 would be around
lignocellulosic biomass sources and a portfolio of conversion routes for 28 to 43 EJ according to the data used in the AR4. These estimates
power, heat and gaseous and liquid fuels that satisfy existing and future focus on electricity generation. Heat was not explicitly modelled or
energy needs (Figure 2.2). With these prospects for technology improve- estimated in the WEO (IEA, 2006), on which the AR4 was based,
ment, innovation and integration, key conversion intermediates derived therefore underestimating the total demand for biomass.
from biomass such as sugars, syngas, pyrolysis oils (or oils derived from
other thermal treatments), biogas and vegetable oils (lipids) can be Potential future demand for biomass in industry (especially new uses
upgraded in conversion facilities that are capable of making a variety such as biochemicals, but also expansion of charcoal use for steel
of products including biofuels, power and process heat, alongside other production) and the built environment (heating as well as increased
products as discussed in Section 2.6. In Section 2.7, the costs of exist- use of biomass as a building material) was also highlighted as
ing commercial technologies and their trends are discussed, highlighting important, but no quantitative projections were included in the
that over the past 25 years technological learning occurred in a variety potential demand for biomass at the medium and longer term.
of bioenergy systems in specific countries. Finally, Section 2.8 addresses
the potential deployment of biomass for energy. It also compares • Biomass resource potential (supply). According to the AR4, the
biomass resource assessments from Section 2.2, informed by environ- largest contribution to technical potential could come from energy
mental and social impacts discussions, with the levels of deployment crops on arable land, assuming that efficiency improvements in
indicated by the scenario literature review described in Chapter 10. The agriculture are fast enough to outpace food demand so as to avoid
role of biomass and its multiple energy products alongside food, fod- increased pressure on forests and nature areas. A range of 20 to
der, fibre and forest products is viewed through IPCC scenario storylines 400 EJ/yr is presented for 2050, with a best estimate of 250 EJ/yr.
(IPCC, 2000a,d) to reach significant penetration levels with and with- Using degraded lands for biomass production (e.g., in reforestation
out taking into account sustainable development and climate change schemes: 8 to 110 EJ/yr) can contribute significantly. Although such
mitigation pathways. High and low penetration levels can be reached low-yielding biomass production generally results in more expen-
with (and without) climate change mitigation and sustainable develop- sive biomass supplies, competition with food production is almost
ment strategies. Many insights into bioenergy technology developments absent and various co-benefits, such as regeneration of soils (and
and integrated systems can be gleaned from these sketches, and they carbon storage), improved water retention and protection from

219
Bioenergy Chapter 2

(further) erosion may also offset part of the establishment costs. A This in turn depends on natural conditions (climate, soils, topography),
current example of such biomass production schemes is the estab- on agronomic and forestry practices, and on how societies understand
lishment of Jatropha crops (oilseeds) on marginal lands. and prioritize nature conservation and soil/water/biodiversity pro-
tection and on how production systems are shaped to reflect these
The technical potential in residues from forestry is estimated at 12 to priorities (Figure 2.3).
74 EJ/yr, that from agriculture at 15 to 70 EJ/yr and that from waste
at 13 EJ/yr. These biomass resource categories are largely available This section focuses on long-term biomass resource potential and how
before 2030, but also partly uncertain. The uncertainty comes from it has been estimated based on considerations of the Earth’s biophysi-
possible competing uses (e.g., increased use of biomaterials such as cal resources (ultimately net primary production: NPP) and restrictions
fibreboard production from forest residues and use of agricultural on their energetic use arising from competing requirements, includ-
residues for fodder and fertilizer) and differing assumptions about ing non-extractive requirements such as soil quality maintenance/
sustainability criteria deployed with respect to forest management improvement and biodiversity protection. Additionally, approaches
and agricultural intensity. The technical potential for biogas fuel to assessing biomass resource potentials—and results from selected
from waste, landfill gas and digester gas is much smaller. studies—are presented with an account of the main determining fac-
tors. These factors are treated explicitly, including the constraints on
• Carbon mitigation potential. The mitigation potential for elec- their utilization. The section ends by summarizing conclusions about
tricity generation from biomass reaches 1,220 Mt CO2eq for the biomass resource assessments, including uncertainties.
year 2030, a substantial fraction of it at costs lower than USD2005
19.5/t CO2. From a top-down assessment, the economic mitigation
potential of biomass energy supplied from agriculture is estimated 2.2.1.1 Methodology assessment
to range from 70 to 1,260 Mt CO2eq/yr at costs of up to USD2005
19.5/t CO2eq, and from 560 to 2,320 Mt CO2eq/yr at costs of up to Studies quantifying biomass resource potential have assessed the
USD2005 48.5/t CO2eq. The overall mitigation from biomass energy resource base in a variety of ways. They differ in the extent to which
coming from the forest sector is estimated to reach 400 Mt CO2/yr the influence of natural conditions (and how these can change in the
up to 2030. future) are considered as well as in the extent to which the types and
details of important additional factors are taken into account, such as
socioeconomic considerations, the character and development of agri-
2.2 Resource potential culture and forestry, and factors connected to nature conservation and
soil/water/biodiversity preservation (Berndes et al., 2003). Different
2.2.1 Introduction types of resource potentials are assessed but the following are com-
monly referred to (see Glossary in Annex I):
Bioenergy production interacts with food, fodder and fibre produc-
tion as well as with conventional forest products in complex ways. • Theoretical potential refers to the biomass supply as limited
Bioenergy demand constitutes a benefit to conventional plant produc- only by biophysical conditions (see discussion below in this same
tion in agriculture and forestry by offering new markets for biomass sub-section);
flows that earlier were considered to be waste products; it can also
provide opportunities for cultivating new types of crops and inte- • Technical potential considers the limitations of the biomass
grating bioenergy production with food and forestry production to production practices assumed to be employed and also takes into
improve overall resource management. However, biomass for energy account concurrent demand for food, fodder, fibre, forest prod-
production can intensify competition for land, water and other pro- ucts and area requirements for human infrastructure. Restrictions
duction factors, and can result in overexploitation and degradation connected to nature conservation and soil/water/biodiversity pres-
of resources. For example, too-intensive biomass extraction from the ervation can also be considered. In such cases, the term sustainable
land can lead to soil degradation, and water diversion to energy plan- potential is sometimes used (see Section 2.2.2); and
tations can impact downstream and regional ecological functions and
economic services. • Market potential refers to the part of the technical potential that
can be produced given a specified requirement for the level of eco-
As a consequence, the magnitude of the biomass resource potential nomic profit in production. This depends not only on the cost of
depends on the priority given to bioenergy products versus other production but also on the price of the biomass feedstock, which
products obtained from the land—notably food, fodder, fibre and is determined by a range of factors such as the characteristics of
conventional forest products such as sawn wood and paper—and on biomass conversion technologies, the price of competing energy
how much total biomass can be mobilized in agriculture and forestry. technologies and the prevailing policy regime (see Section 2.2.3).

220
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Technology Change
Biodiversity
Agricultural and
Forestry Policies Food, Agricultural /
Fodder, Land prices Forestry Efficiency Different Indicators
(Yields) Reference
Forestry*
Demand
Land areas
Materials Forestlands
Nano, Bio, ... Cropland Pasture and other Woodlands Urban Other
Production Plantations
Diet

Energy Potential (Primary Bio-Energy)

(Crop Types, Land Requirement)
Population
and Demand Conversion Processes
Economy Prices
Yields
Potential (Secondary Bioenergy) Land Degradation
Production
(Costs and Potential) Residues
Nature Conservation
Technology Change

Climate Policy
Other Energy
Carriers
Energy Policy Energy Use
Fertilizer Use
Consequences for Greenhouse Soil Carbon/Land Cover
Water Gas Emissions Non-CO2

Demand

Water Use Efficiency

Supply

* Includes Short Rotation Forestry and Products

Climate Change Uncertainties

Figure 2.3 | Overview of key relationships relevant to assessment of biomass resource potentials (modified from Dornburg et al., 2010). Indirect land use and social issues are not
displayed. Reproduced with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Three principal categories are—more or less comprehensively—consid- Given that resource potential assessments quantify the availability
ered in assessments of biomass resource potentials (see also Section of residue flows in the food and forest sectors, the definition of how
2.3.1.1): these sectors develop is central for the outcome. As discussed below,
consideration of various environmental and socioeconomic factors as
• Primary residues from conventional food and fibre production in a rule reduces the assessed resource potential to lower levels.
agriculture and forestry, such as cereal straw and logging residues;
Most assessments of the biomass resource potential considered in
• Secondary and tertiary residues in the form of organic food/forest this section are variants of technical/market potentials employing a
industry by-products and retail/post consumer waste; and ‘food/fibre first principle’, applied with the objective of quantifying
biomass resource potentials under the condition that global require-
• Plants produced for energy supply, including conventional food/fod- ments for food and conventional forest products such as sawn wood
der/industrial crops, surplus roundwood forestry products, and new and paper are met with priority (see, e.g., WBGU, 2009; Smeets and
agricultural, forestry or aquatic plants. Faaij, 2007).

221
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Studies that start out from such principles should not be understood as significant part of global terrestrial NPP takes place within production
providing guarantees that a certain level of biomass can be supplied systems that provide bioenergy feedstocks (removing their NPP from the
for energy purposes without competing with food or fibre production. trophic chains of ecosystems). In addition, total terrestrial NPP may have
They quantify how much bioenergy could be produced in a certain to be increased through fertilizer, irrigation and other inputs on lands
future year based on using resources not required for meeting food managed for food, fodder, fibre, forest products and bioenergy.
and fibre demands, given a specified development in the world or in
a region. But they do not analyze how bioenergy expansion towards
such a future level of production would—or should—interact with 2.2.1.3 Human appropriation of terrestrial net primary
food and fibre production. production

Studies using integrated energy/industry/land use cover models (see, A comparison with biomass production in agriculture and forestry can
e.g., Leemans et al., 1996; Strengers et al., 2004; Johansson and Azar, give a perspective on the potential bioenergy supply in relation to what
2007; van Vuuren et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2009; Lotze-Campben, is presently harvested. Today’s global industrial roundwood production
2009; Melillo et al., 2009; Wise et al., 2009; Figure 2.4) can provide corresponds to 15 to 20 EJ/yr, and the global harvest of major crops
insights into how an expanding bioenergy sector interacts with other (cereals, oil crops, sugar crops, roots, tubers and pulses) corresponds to
sectors in society including land use and the management of biospheric about 60 EJ/yr (FAOSTAT, 2011). One immediate conclusion from this
carbon stocks. Studies focused on sectors can contain more detailed comparison is that biomass extraction by agriculture and forestry will
information on interactions with other biomass uses. Restricted have to increase substantially in order to provide feedstocks for a bioen-
scope (only selected biofuel/land uses and/or regions covered) or ergy sector large enough to make a significant contribution to the future
lack of sufficiently detailed empirical data can limit the confidence in energy supply.
results—especially in prospective studies. This is further discussed in
Sections 2.5 and 2.8. Studies estimating the overall human appropriation of terrestrial NPP
across all human uses of biomass (HANPP, taking into account all NPP
By considering the upper level of productivity of biomass plantations gained or lost due to human activities, including harvesting and back-
on land while assuming theoretical potentials also for worldwide agri- flows) suggest that societies already appropriate a substantial share
culture and fully taking into account conservation of a viable biosphere, of the world’s aboveground terrestrial NPP. This provides a context
global modelling studies by Smeets et al. (2007) derived a maximum for prospective future biomass extraction for bioenergy. Estimates of
global potential of biomass for energy of 1,548 EJ/yr.4 In this chapter, HANPP vary depending on its definition as well as the models and data
this figure is considered to be an estimate of theoretical potential. used for the calculations. A spatially explicit calculation by Haberl et al.
(2007) estimated that in the year 2000, aboveground HANPP amounted
to nearly 29% of the modelled global aboveground NPP. Total human
2.2.1.2 Total aboveground net primary production of biomass biomass harvest alone was estimated to amount to about 20% (includ-
ing utilized residues and grazing), with all harvested biomass used by
A first qualitative understanding of biomass technical potentials can humans containing an energy of 219 EJ/yr (Krausmann et al., 2008).
be gained from considering the total annual aboveground net primary
production (NPP: the net amount of carbon assimilated in a time period Other HANPP estimates range from a similar level down to about half
by vegetation) on the Earth’s terrestrial surface. This is estimated to be of this level (D. Wright, 1990; Imhoff et al., 2004). The HANPP concept
about 35 Gt carbon, or 1,260 EJ/yr assuming an average carbon content cannot directly be used to define a certain level of biomass use that
of 50% and 18 GJ/t average heating value (Haberl et al., 2007), which would be ‘safe’ or ‘sustainable’ because the impacts of human land use
can be compared to the current world primary energy supply of about depend on how agriculture and forestry systems are shaped (Bai et al.,
500 EJ/yr (IEA, 2010a). This comparison shows that total terrestrial 2008). However, it can be used as a measure of the human domination
aboveground NPP is larger, but by no more than a factor of around three, of the biosphere and provide a reference for assessing the comparative
than what is required to meet society’s energy demand. Establishing magnitude of prospective additional biomass resource potentials.
bioenergy as a major source of future primary energy requires that a
Besides biophysical factors, socioeconomic conditions also influence the
4 Smeets et al. (2007) model a scenario with a fully landless animal production system biomass resource potential by defining how—and how much—biomass
with globally high feed conversion efficiency and a 4.6-fold increase in global
agricultural productivity by 2050 due to technological progress and deployment that can be produced without causing socioeconomic impacts that might be
is considerably faster than has historically ever been achieved (a 1.9-fold increase considered unacceptable. Socioeconomic restrictions vary around the
for Europe and a 7.7-fold increase in sub-Saharan Africa). In that case, 72% of world, change as society develops and depend on how societies pri-
current agricultural area could be used for bioenergy production in 2050 and supply
a theoretical potential of 1,548 EJ/yr, which is of the same magnitude as the total
oritize bioenergy in relation to other socioeconomic objectives (see also
energy content of the world’s natural aboveground net primary production on land. Sections 2.5 and 2.8).

222
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

2.2.2 Global and regional technical potential regarding societal preferences with respect to trade-offs in environ-
mental impacts and the implications of increased intensification in food
2.2.2.1 Literature assessment and fibre production, and regarding potential synergies between differ-
ent forms of land use.
In an assessment of technical potential based on an analysis of the
literature available in 2007 and additional modelling, Dornburg et al. Although assessments employing improved data and modelling capac-
(2008, 2010) arrived at the conclusion that the upper bound of the tech- ity have not succeeded in providing narrow distinct estimates of the
nical potential in 2050 can amount to about 500 EJ. The study assumes technical potential of biomass, they do indicate the most influential fac-
policy frameworks that secure good governance of land use and major tors that affect this technical potential. This is further discussed below,
improvements in agricultural management and takes into account water where approaches used in the assessments are treated in more detail.
limitations, biodiversity protection, soil degradation and competition
with food. Residues originating from forestry, agriculture and organic
wastes (including the organic fraction of MSW, dung, process residues 2.2.2.2 The contribution from residues, dung, processing by-
etc.) are estimated to amount to 40 to 170 EJ/yr, with a mean estimate products and waste
of around 100 EJ/yr. This part of the technical potential is relatively cer-
tain, but competing applications may push net availability for energy As can be seen in Table 2.2, biomass resource assessments indicate
applications to the lower end of the range. Surplus forestry other than that retail/post-consumer waste, dung and primary residues/processing
from forestry residues has an additional technical potential of 60 to 100 by-products in the agriculture and forestry sectors have prospects for
EJ/yr. providing a substantial share of the total global biomass supply in the
longer term. Yet, the sizes of these biomass resources are ultimately
The findings of the Dornburg et al. (2008, 2010) reviews for biomass determined by the demand for conventional agriculture and forestry
produced via cropping systems is that a lower estimate for energy crop products and the sustainability of the land resources.
production on possible surplus, good quality agricultural and pasture
lands is 120 EJ/yr. The potential contribution of water-scarce, marginal Assessments of the potential contribution from these sources to the
and degraded lands could amount up to an additional 70 EJ/yr. This future biomass supply combine data on future production of agriculture
would comprise a large area where water scarcity provides limita- and forestry products obtained from food/forest sector scenarios, the
tions and soil degradation is more severe. Assuming strong learning in possibility of use of degraded lands, and the residue factors that account
agricultural technology for improvements in agricultural and livestock for the amount of residues generated per unit of primary product pro-
management would add 140 EJ/yr. The three categories added together duced. For example, harvest residue generation in agricultural crops
lead to a technical potential from this analysis of up to about 500 EJ/yr cultivation is estimated based on harvest index data, that is, the ratio of
(Dornburg et al., 2008, 2010). For example, Hoogwijk et al. (2005, 2009) harvested product to total aboveground biomass (e.g., Wirsenius, 2003;
estimate that the biomass technical potential could expand from 290 to Lal, 2005; Krausmann et al., 2008; Hakala et al., 2009). The generation
320 EJ/yr in 2020 to 330 to 400 EJ/yr in 2030. Developing the technical of logging residues in forestry, and of additional biomass flows such
potential would require major policy efforts; therefore, actual deploy- as thinning wood and process by-products, is estimated using similar
ment is likely to be lower and the biomass resource base will be largely methods (see Ericsson and Nilsson, 2006; Smeets and Faaij, 2007).
constrained to a share of the biomass residues and organic wastes,
some cultivation of bioenergy crops on marginal and degraded lands, The shares of the biomass flows that are available for energy (i.e., recov-
and some regions where biomass is a cheaper energy supply option erability fractions) are then estimated based on consideration of other
compared to the main reference options (e.g., sugarcane-based ethanol extractive uses and requirements (e.g., soil conservation, animal feed-
production), amounting to a minimum of about 50 EJ/yr (Dornburg et ing or bedding in agriculture, and fibre board production in the forest
al., 2008, 2010). sector).

Table 2.2 shows ranges in the assessed global technical potential for
the year 2050 explicitly for various biomass categories. The wide ranges 2.2.2.3 The contribution from unutilized forest growth
shown are due to differences in the studies’ approaches to consider-
ing important factors, which are in themselves uncertain: population, In addition to the residue flows that are linked to industrial round-
economic and technology development assumed or computed can vary wood production and processing into conventional forest products,
and evolve at different regional paces; biodiversity, nature conserva- forest growth currently not harvested is considered in some studies.
tion and other environmental requirements are difficult to assess and This biomass resource is quantified based on estimates of the biomass
depend on numerous factors and social preferences; and the magni- increment in parts of forests that are assessed as being available for
tude and pattern of climate change and land use can strongly influence wood supply. This increment is compared with the estimated level of
the biophysical capacity of the environment. Furthermore, technical forest biomass extraction for conventional industrial roundwood pro-
potentials cannot be determined precisely while uncertainties remain duction—and sometimes for traditional biomass, notably heating and

223
Bioenergy Chapter 2

cooking—to obtain the unutilized forest growth. Smeets and Faaij and the biomass yields that can be obtained on the available lands are
(2007) provide illustrative quantifications showing how this technical two critical determinants of the technical potential. Given that surplus
potential of biomass can vary from being a major source of bioenergy agricultural land is commonly identified as the major land resource for
to being practically zero as a consequence of competing demand and the plantations, food sector development is critical. Methods for deter-
economic and ecological considerations. A comparison with the present mining land availability and suitability should consider requirements for
industrial roundwood production of about 15 to 20 EJ/yr shows that a maintaining the economic, ecological and social value of ecosystems.
drastic increase in forest biomass output is required to reach the higher- There are different approaches for considering such requirements, as
end technical potential assessed for the forest biomass category in Table described for a selection of studies below.
2.2. A special case that can play a role is forest growth that becomes
available after extensive tree mortality from insect outbreaks or fires Most earlier assessments of biomass resource potentials used rather
(Dymond et al., 2010). simplistic approaches to estimating the technical potential of biomass
plantations (Berndes et al., 2003), but the continuous development of
modelling tools that combine databases containing biophysical infor-
2.2.2.4 The contribution from biomass plantations mation (soil, topography, climate) with analytical representations of
relevant crops and agronomic systems and the use of economic and
Table 2.2 indicates that substantial supplies from biomass plantations full biogeochemical vegetation models has resulted in improvements
are required for reaching the high end of the technical potential range. over time (see, e.g., van Vuuren et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2008; Lotze-
Land availability (and its suitability) for dedicated biomass plantations Campen et al., 2009; Melillo et al., 2009; WBGU, 2009; Wise et al., 2009;

Table 2.2 | Global technical potential overview for a number of categories of land-based biomass supply for energy production (primary energy numbers have been rounded). The
total assessed technical potential can be lower than the present biomass use of about 50 EJ/yr in the case of high future food and fibre demand in combination with slow productivity
development in land use, leading to strong declines in biomass availability for energetic purposes.

Biomass category Comment 2050 Technical potential (EJ/yr)

Category 1. By-products associated with food/fodder production and processing, both primary (e.g., cereal straw from
15 – 70
Residues from agriculture harvesting) and secondary (e.g., rice husks from rice milling) residues.

Includes both conventional agriculture crops and dedicated bioenergy plants including oil crops, lignocellulosic
grasses, short-rotation coppice and tree plantations. Only land not required for food, fodder or other agricul-
Category 2. tural commodities production is assumed to be available for bioenergy. However, surplus agriculture land (or
abandoned land) need not imply that its development is such that less total land is needed for agriculture: the
Dedicated biomass production 0 – 700
lands may become excluded from agriculture use in modelling runs due to land degradation processes or cli-
on surplus agricultural land mate change (see also ‘marginal lands’ below). Large technical potential requires global development towards
high-yielding agricultural production and low demand for grazing land. Zero technical potential reflects that
studies report that food sector development can be such that no surplus agricultural land will be available.
Refers to biomass production on deforested or otherwise degraded or marginal land that is judged unsuitable
for conventional agriculture but suitable for some bioenergy schemes (e.g., via reforestation). There is no
globally established definition of degraded/marginal land and not all studies make a distinction between such
Category 3.
land and other land judged as suitable for bioenergy. Adding categories 2 and 3 can therefore lead to double
Dedicated biomass production counting if numbers come from different studies. High technical potential numbers for categories 2 and 3 0 – 110
assume biomass production on an area exceeding the present global cropland area (ca. 1.5 billion ha or 15
on marginal lands million km2). Zero technical potential reflects low potential for this category due to land requirements for, for
example, extensive grazing management and/or subsistence agriculture or poor economic performance if using
the marginal lands for bioenergy.
Forest sector by-products including both primary residues from silvicultural thinning and logging, and secondary
residues such as sawdust and bark from wood processing. Dead wood from natural disturbances, such as fires
and insect outbreaks, represents a second category. Biomass growth in natural/semi-natural forests that is not
Category 4. required for industrial roundwood production to meet projected biomaterials demand (e.g., sawn wood, paper
0 – 110
Forest biomass and board) represents a third category. By-products provide up to about 20 EJ/yr implying that high forest
biomass technical potentials correspond to a much larger forest biomass extraction for energy than what is
presently achieved in industrial wood production. Zero technical potential indicates that studies report that
demand from sectors other than the energy sector can become larger than the estimated forest supply capacity.
Category 5. Animal manure. Population development, diets and character of animal production systems are critical deter-
5 – 50
Dung minants.

Category 6. Biomass associated with materials use, for example, organic waste from households and restaurants and dis-
carded wood products including paper, construction and demolition wood; availability depends on competing 5 – >50
Organic wastes uses and implementation of collection systems.

Total <50 – >1000

Notes: Based on Fischer and Schrattenholzer (2001); Hoogwijk et al. (2003, 2005, 2009); Smeets and Faaij (2007); Dornburg et al. (2008, 2010); Field et al. (2008); Hakala et al. (2009);
IEA Bioenergy (2009); Metzger and Huttermann (2009); van Vuuren et al. (2009); Haberl et al. (2010); Wirsenius et al. (2010); Beringer et al. (2011).

224
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Beringer et al., 2011). Important conclusions are: a) the effects of LUC Figure 2.4—representing one example (Fischer et al., 2009)—shows
associated with bioenergy expansion can considerably influence the cli- the modelled global land suitability for selected first-generation biofuel
mate benefit of bioenergy (see Section 2.5) and b) biofuel yields from feedstocks and for lignocellulosic plants (see caption to Figure 2.4 for
crops have frequently been overestimated by neglecting spatial varia- information about plants included). By overlaying spatial data on global
tions in productivity (Johnston et al., 2009). land cover derived from the best available remote sensing data combined

Undefined
SI > 75: Very High
SI > 63: High
SI > 50: Good
SI > 35: Medium
SI > 20: Modearte
SI > 10: Marginal
SI > 0: Very Marginal
Not Suitable
Water

Undefined
SI > 75: Very High
SI > 63: High
SI > 50: Good
SI > 35: Medium
SI > 20: Modearte
SI > 10: Marginal
SI > 0: Very Marginal
Not Suitable
Water

Figure 2.4 | Global land suitability for bioenergy plantations. The upper map shows suitability for herbaceous and woody lignocellulosic plants (Miscanthus, switchgrass, reed canary
grass, poplar, willow, eucalyptus) and the lower map shows suitability for first-generation biofuel feedstocks (sugarcane, maize, cassava, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil, Jatropha). The
suitability index (SI)1 describes the spatial suitability of each pixel and reflects the match between crop requirements and prevailing climate, soil and terrain conditions. The map shows
suitability under rain-fed cultivation and advanced management systems that assume availability of sufficient nutrients, adequate pest control and mechanization, and other practices.
Results for irrigated conditions or low-input management systems would result in different pictures (Fischer et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from the International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)).

Note: 1. SI: suitability index. The SI used reflects the spatial suitability of each pixel and is calculated as SI = VS*0.9+S*0.7+MS*0.5+mS*0.3, where VS, S, MS and mS correspond to
yield levels at 80–100%, 60–80%, 40–60% and 20–40% of the modelled maximum, respectively (Fischer et al., 2009).

225
Bioenergy Chapter 2

with statistical information and data on protected areas, it is possible to under a ‘food and environment first’ paradigm excluding forests and
quantify suitable lands for different land cover types. A suitability index land currently used for food and fodder production. The latter includes
has been used in order to represent both yield potentials5 and suitability estimates of unprotected grassland and woodland required today for
(see caption to Figure 2.4). For instance, almost 700 Mha (7,000 km2), ruminant livestock feeding. Calculations are based on FAOSTAT data on
or about 20%, of currently unprotected grasslands and woodlands are fodder utilization of crops, and national livestock numbers, estimated
assessed as suitable for soybean while less than 50 Mha (500 km2) are fodder energy requirements of the national herds and derived fodder
assessed as suitable for oil palm (note that these land suitability num- gaps filled by grassland and pastures. Grassland and woodland with
bers cannot be added because areas overlap). Considering unprotected very low productivity or steep sloping conditions were considered
forest land, an area roughly 10 times larger (almost 500 Mha or 5,000 unsuitable for lignocellulosic feedstock production. The results, shown
km2) is suitable for oil palm cultivation (Fischer et al., 2009, their Annex in Table 2.3, represent one example of estimates of regional technical
5 and 6). However, converting large areas of forests into biomass plan- potentials of biomass resulting from a specific set of assumptions with
tations would negatively impact biodiversity and might—depending respect to nature protection requirements, biofuel feedstock crop choice
on the carbon density of converted forests—also lead to large initial and agronomic practice determining attainable yield levels and livestock
CO2 emissions that can drastically reduce the annual accumulated production systems determining grazing requirements. Furthermore, the
climate benefit of substituting fossil fuels with the bioenergy derived results represent current agriculture practice and productivity, popula-
from such plantations. Converting grass- and woodlands with high soil tion, diets, climate etc. Quantifications of the technical potential of the
carbon content to intensively cultivated annual crops can similarly lead future biomass resource need to consider how such parameters change
to large CO2 emissions, while if degraded and C-depleted pastures are over time.
cultivated with herbaceous and woody lignocellulosic plants soil carbon
may instead accumulate, enhancing the climate benefit. This is further A similar analysis (WBGU, 2009; Beringer et al., 2011) reserved current
discussed in Section 2.5. and near-future agricultural land for food and fibre production and also

Table 2.3 | Example of the technical potential of rain-fed lignocellulosic plants on unprotected grassland and woodland (i.e., forests excluded) where land requirements for food
production, including grazing, have been considered at 2000 levels. Calculated based on Fischer et al. (2009); reproduced with permission from the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA).

Unproductive Bioenergy area

Total grass- and Protected Technical potential
or very low also excluding Technical Potential2
Region woodland area areas (Mha)
productive areas grazing land (Mha)
(average yield,1 GJ/
(total, EJ/yr)
(Mha) [million km2] [million km2] ha/yr) [GJ/km2/yr]
(Mha) [million km2] [million km2]

North America 659 [6.59] 103 [1.03] 391 [3.91] 111 [1.11] 165 [16,500] 19

Europe and Russia 902 [9.02] 76 [0.76] 618 [6.18] 122 [1.22] 140 [14,000] 17
Pacific OECD 515 [5.15] 7 [0.07] 332 [3.32] 97 [0.97] 175 [17,500] 17
Africa 1,086 [10.68] 146 [1.46] 386 [3.86] 275 [2.75] 250 [2,500] 69
South and East Asia 556 [5.56] 92 [0.92] 335 [3.35] 14 [0.14] 285 [28,500] 4
Latin America 765 [7.65] 54 [0.54] 211 [2.11] 160 [1.6] 280 [28,000] 45
Middle East and North Africa 107 [1.07] 2 [0.02] 93 [0.93] 1 [0.01] 125 [12,500] 0.2
World 4,605 [46.05] 481 [4.81] 2,371 [23.71] 780 [7.80] 220 [22,000] 171

Notes: 1. Calculated based on average yields of rain-fed lignocellulosic feedstocks on grass- and woodland area given in Fischer et al. (2009, p.174) and assuming an energy content of
18 GJ/t dry matter (rounded numbers). 2. If livestock grazing area can be freed up by intensification of agricultural practices and pasture use, these areas could be used for additional
bioenergy production. The technical potential in this case could increase from 171 up to 288 EJ/yr.

Technical potentials of biomass plantations can thus be calculated based excluded unmanaged land from bioenergy production if its conversion
on assessed land availability and corresponding yield levels. Based to biomass plantations would lead to large net CO2 emissions to the
on the results as shown in Figure 2.4, Fischer et al. (2009) estimated atmosphere, or if the land was degraded, a wetland, environmentally
regional land balances of unprotected grassland and woodland poten- protected or rich in biodiversity. If dedicated biomass plantations were
tially available for rain-fed lignocellulosic biofuel feedstock production established in the available lands, an estimated 26 to 116 EJ/yr could
be produced (52 to 174 EJ with irrigation). The spatial variation of tech-
5 Yield potential is the yield obtained when an adapted cultivar (cultivated variety of nical potential was computed from biogeochemical principles, that
a plant) is grown with the minimal possible stress that can be achieved with best
management practices, a functional definition by Cassman (1999). is, photosynthesis, transpiration, soil quality and climate. Haberl et

226
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

al. (2010) considered the land available after meeting prospective 2.2.3 Economic considerations in biomass resource
future food, fodder and nature conservation targets, also taking into assessments
account spatial variation in projected future productivity of bioenergy
plantations, and arrived at a technical potential in 2050 in the range Some studies exclude areas where attainable yields are below a cer-
of 160 to 270 EJ/yr. Of the 210 EJ/yr average technical potential, 81 tain minimum level. Other studies exclude biomass resources judged as
EJ/yr are provided by dedicated plantations, 27 EJ/yr by residues in being too expensive to mobilize, given a certain biomass price level.
forestry and 100 EJ/yr by crop residues, manure and organic wastes, These assessments address biomass resource availability and cost for
emphasizing the importance of process optimization and cascading given levels of production so that an owner of a facility for secondary
biomass use. energy production from modern biomass could assess a location and the
size of a facility for a cost-effective business with a guaranteed supply
Water constraints are highlighted in the literature for agriculture of biomass throughout the year. Costs models are based on combining
(UN-Water, 2007) and for bioenergy (Berndes, 2002; Molden, 2007; land availability, yield levels and production costs to obtain plant- and
De Fraiture et al., 2008; Sections 9.3.4.4 and 2.5.5.1). In a number region-specific cost-supply curves (Walsh, 2008). These are based on
of regions the technical potential can decrease to lower levels than projections or scenarios for the development of cost factors, including
what is assessed based on approaches that do not involve explicit opportunity cost of land, and can be produced for different contexts
geo-hydrological modelling (Rost et al., 2009). Such modelling can and scales—including feasibility studies of supplying individual bioen-
lead to improved quality bioenergy potential assessments. Planting ergy plants and estimating the future global cost-supply curve. Studies
of trees and other perennial vegetation can decrease erosive water using this approach at different scales include Dornburg et al. (2007),
run-off and replenish groundwater but may lead to substantial reduc- Hoogwijk et al. (2009), de Wit et al. (2010) and van Vuuren et al. (2009).
tions in downstream water availability (Calder et al., 2004; Farley et P. Gallagher et al. (2003) exemplify the production of cost-supply curves
al., 2005). for the case of crop harvest residues and Gerasimov and Karjalainen
(2009) for the case of forest wood.
Illustrative of this, Zomer et al. (2006) report that large areas deemed
suitable for afforestation within the Clean Development Mechanism The biomass production costs can be combined with technological and
(CDM) would exhibit evapotranspiration increases and/or decreases in economic data for related logistic systems and conversion technologies
runoff if they become forested, that is, a decrease in water potentially to derive market potentials at the level of secondary energy carriers such
available offsite for other uses. This would be particularly evident in drier as bioelectricity and biofuels for transport (e.g., Gan, 2007; Hoogwijk et
areas, the semi-arid tropics, and in conversion from grasslands and sub- al., 2009; van Dam et al., 2009c). Using biomass cost and availability data
sistence agriculture. Similarly, based on a global analysis of 504 annual as exogenously defined input parameters in scenario-based energy sys-
catchment observations, Jackson et al. (2005) report that afforestation tem modelling can provide information about levels of implementation
dramatically decreased stream flow within a few years of planting. in relation to a specific energy system context and possible climate and
Across all plantation ages in the database, afforestation of grasslands, energy policy targets. Cost trends are discussed further in Section 2.7.
shrublands or croplands decreased stream flow by, on average, 38%.
Average losses for 10- to 20-year-old plantations were even greater, Figure 2.5(a) shows projections of European market potential estimated
reaching 52% of stream flow. based on food sector scenarios for 2030, considering also nature protec-
tion requirements and infrastructure development (Fischer et al., 2010).
Studies by Hoogwijk et al. (2003), Wolf et al. (2003), Smeets et al. (2007) Estimated production cost supply curves shown in Figure 2.5(b) were sub-
and van Minnen et al., (2008) also illustrate the importance of biomass sequently produced including biomass plantations and forest/agriculture
plantations for reaching a higher global technical potential, and how dif- residues (de Wit and Faaij, 2010). The key factor determining the size of
ferent determining parameters greatly influence the technical potential. the market potential was the development of agricultural land productiv-
For instance, in a scenario with rapid population growth and slow tech- ity, including animal production.
nology progress, where agriculture productivity does not increase from
its present level and little biomass is traded, Smeets et al. (2007) found Figure 2.5(c) data for the USA are based on recent assessments of lig-
that no land would be available for bioenergy plantations. In a contrast- nocellulosic feedstock supply cost curves conducted at county-level
ing scenario where all critical parameters were instead set to be very resolution (Walsh, 2008; Perlack et al., 2005; US DOE, 2011). Figure
favourable, up to 3.5 billion hectares (35 million km2) of former agricul- 2.5(d) illustrates the delivered price of biomass to the conversion facility
tural land—mainly pastures and with large areas in Latin America and under the baseline conditions for various production levels of lignocel-
sub-Saharan Africa—were assessed as not required for food in 2050. lulosic feedstocks.6 Total market potential for crop-based ethanol and
A substantial part of this area was assessed as technically suitable for
bioenergy plantations. 6 For instance, at a biomass feedstock price of USD2005 3/GJ delivered to the conversion
facility, the three types of feedstocks shown in Figure 2.5(d) would provide 5.5 EJ. At
higher prices there is more feedstock up to a point, for example, 1.5 EJ for the forest
residues in the figure.

227
Bioenergy Chapter 2

(a) (b)
40 30
Biomass Potential [EJ/yr]

Crop Production Costs [USD2005 /GJ]

Europe 2030 Starch 1st Generation Europe 2030
35 Europe: Pasture Land
25 Feedstocks
EU15 +
EU12 Arable Land
30
Ukraine
20 Oil
25
Sugar 2nd Generation Feedstocks
20 15

15 Grass Grass1
10
1
Wood Wood
10
5
5
1 = High Case

0 0
Baseline High 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Supply [EJ/yr]
(c) (d)
70 6
Biomass Potential [EJ/yr]

Delivered Biomass Price [USD2005 /GJ]

Forest Residues
USA 2025
60 Americas Caribbean Basin
5
China Mexico Crop Residues Energy Crops
India
50 India
4
Colombia
40
China
3
Canada
30
Brazil
2
Argentina
20
USA-RFS2 Grain

USA-Lignocellulosic 1
10

0 0
2010-2012 2015-2017 2025-2027
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Supply [EJ/yr]

Figure 2.5 | Examples of preliminary market potentials based on feedstock cost supply curves shown in (b) for European countries and (d) for the USA. The feedstock cost supply
curves for these assessments are from recent studies conducted at levels of: (a) region; (c) country based on state/province except for the USA, which is performed at a county level.
In (c) the US data are for the baseline case and the other countries’ cases are for a high-growth scenario (a total of 45 EJ/yr, which would decrease to 25 EJ/yr in the base case and
to around 8 EJ/yr in the low case) by 2025. See text for further information. Sources: (a) Fischer et al. (2010); (b) de Wit and Faaij (2010); (c) Kline et al. (2007); Walsh (2008); EPA
(2010); (d) Walsh (2008), US DOE (2011).

biodiesel are from EPA (2010) projections. In addition, Figure 2.5(c) Similar zoning is available for oil palm.7 These steps are recommended
includes preliminary estimates of high-growth scenarios of market by several of the organizations developing sustainability criteria (van
potentials for the Americas, China and India based on historic produc- Dam et al., 2010, and see Section 2.4.5).
tion trends and average production costs at the state/province level
(Kline et al., 2007), considering multiple crops, residues and perennial 2.2.4 Factors influencing biomass resource potentials
biomass crops. Market potentials were estimated based on arable land
availability for bioenergy plants and some degree of environmental pro- As described briefly above, many studies that quantify the biomass
tection and infrastructure. High-growth market potentials are shown resource potential consider a range of factors that reduce it to lower
for years 2012, 2017 and 2027 (Kline et al., 2007). The largest supplier, levels than if they are not included. These factors are also connected
Brazil, is using AgroEcological Zoning (EMBRAPA, 2010) to limit expan- to impacts arising from the exploitation of biomass resources, which
sion to unrestricted areas with appropriate soil and climate, with no or are further discussed in Section 2.5. The most important factors are
low irrigation requirements, and low slopes for mechanized harvesting.
7 DECRETO Nº 7172, DE 07 DE MAIO DE 2010, Brazil.

228
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

discussed below in relation to how they influence the future biomass becomes higher and if ‘waste’ from processing of crop residues that is
resource potential. rich in refractory compounds such as lignin is returned to the field (J.
Johnson et al., 2004; Reijnders, 2008; Lal, 2008).

2.2.4.1 Residue supply in agriculture and forestry Principles, criteria and indicators are developed to ensure ecological
sustainability (e.g., van Dam et al., 2010; Lattimore et al., 2009; Section
Soil conservation and biodiversity requirements influence technical 2.4.3) but these cannot easily be used to derive sustainable residue
potentials for both agriculture and forestry residues. In forestry, the extraction rates. Large uncertainties are also linked to the possible
combination of residue harvest and nutrient (including wood ash) input future development of several factors determining residue generation
can avoid nutrient depletion and acidification and can in some areas rates. Population growth, economic development and dietary changes
improve environmental conditions due to reduced nutrient leaching influence the demand for products from agriculture and forestry, and
from forests (Börjesson, 2000; Eisenbies et al., 2009). Even so, organic materials management strategies (including recycling and cascading
matter at different stages of decay plays an important ecological role use of material) influence how this demand translates into demand for
in conserving soil quality as well as for biodiversity in soils and above basic food commodities and industrial roundwood.
ground (Grove and Hanula, 2006). Thresholds for desirable amounts of
dead wood in forest stands are difficult to set and the most demand- Furthermore, changes in food and forestry sectors influence the residue/
ing species require amounts of dead wood that are difficult to reach in waste generation per unit of product output up or down: crop breed-
managed forests (Ranius and Fahrig, 2006). Dymond et al. (2010) report ing leads to improved harvest index, reducing residue generation rates;
that estimates from studies taking into account the need for on-site implementation of no-till/conservation agriculture requires that har-
sustainability can be several times lower than those that do not. Large vest residues are left on the fields to maintain soil cover and increase
differences were also reported by Gronowska et al. (2009). Titus et al. organic matter in soils (Lal, 2004); shifts in livestock production to more
(2009) report wide ranges (0 to 100%) in allowed residue recovery rates confined and intensive systems can increase recoverability of dung but
for large-scale logging residue inventories and propose a 50% retention reduce overall dung production at a given level of livestock product out-
proportion as an appropriate level, noting that besides soil sustainabil- put; and increased occurrence of silvicultural treatments such as early
ity additional aspects (e.g., biodiversity and water quality) need to be thinning to improve stand growth will lead to increased availability of
considered. small roundwood suitable for energy uses.

Development of technologies for stump harvesting after felling Consequently, the longer-term technical potential connected to residue/
increases the availability of residues during logging (Näslund-Eriksson waste flows will continue to be uncertain even if more comprehensive
and Gustavsson, 2008). Stump harvesting can also reduce the cost of assessment approaches are used. It should be noted that it does not
site preparation for replanting (Saarinen, 2006). It can reduce damage necessarily follow that more comprehensive assessments of determin-
from insects and spreading of root rot fungus, but can also lead to nega- ing factors will lead to a lower technical potential of residues; earlier
tive effects including reduced forest soil carbon and nutrient stocks, studies may have used conservative residue recovery rates as a pre-
increased soil erosion and soil compaction (Zabowski et al., 2008; caution in the face of uncertainties (S. Kim and Dale, 2004). However,
Walmsley and Godbold, 2010). modelling studies indicate that the cost of soil productivity loss may
restrict residue removal intensity to much lower levels than the quantity
In agriculture, overexploitation of harvest residues is one important of biomass physically available in forestry (Gan and Smith, 2010).
cause of soil degradation in many places in the world (Wilhelm et al.,
2004; Ball et al., 2005; Blanco-Canqui et al., 2006; Lal, 2008). Fertilizer
inputs can compensate for nutrient removals connected to harvest and 2.2.4.2 Dedicated biomass production in agriculture and
residue extraction, but maintenance or improvement of soil fertility, forestry
structural stability and water-holding capacity requires recirculation of
organic matter to the soil (Lal and Pimentel, 2007; Wilhelm et al., 2007; Studies indicate significant potential for intensifying conventional
Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2009). Residue recirculation leading to nutrient long-rotation forestry to increase forest growth and total biomass
replenishment and carbon storage in soils and dead biomass not only output—for instance, by fertilizing selected stands and using shorter
contributes positively to climate change mitigation by withdrawing car- rotations (Nohrstedt, 2001; Saarsalmi and Mälkönen, 2001)—especially
bon from the atmosphere but also by reducing soil degradation and in regions of the world with large forest areas that currently prac-
improving soil productivity. This leads to higher yields and consequently tice extensive forest management. Yet, the prospects for intensifying
less need to convert land to croplands for meeting future food/fibre/ conventional long-rotation forestry to increase forest growth are not
bioenergy demand (i.e., fewer GHG emissions arising from vegetation thoroughly investigated in the assessed studies of biomass resource
removal and ploughing of soils). Residue removal can, all other things potentials. Instead, the major source of increased forest biomass output
being equal, be increased when total biomass production per hectare is assumed to be fast-growing tree plantations. Besides tree plantations,

229
Bioenergy Chapter 2

short-rotation coppicing plants such as willow and perennial grasses Conversely, some observations indicate that rates of gain obtained from
such as switchgrass and Miscanthus are considered candidate bioen- breeding have increased in recent years after previous stagnation and
ergy plants to become established on these lands. that yields might increase faster again as newer hybrids are adopted
more widely (Edgerton, 2009). Theoretical limits also appear to leave
It is commonly assumed that biomass plantations are established on scope for further increasing the genetic yield potential (Fischer et al.,
surplus agricultural land. Intensification in agriculture is therefore a key 2009). It should be noted that studies finding high technical potential for
aspect in essentially all of the assessed studies because it influences bioenergy plantations point primarily to tropical developing countries as
both land availability for biomass plantations (indirectly by determining major contributors. These countries still have substantial yield gaps to
the land requirements in the food sector) and the biomass yield levels exploit and large opportunities for productivity growth—not the least
obtained. High assessed technical potentials for energy plantations rely in livestock production (Fischer et al., 2002; Edgerton, 2009; Wirsenius et
on high-yielding agricultural systems and international bioenergy trade al., 2010). There is also a large yield growth potential for dedicated bio-
leading to the result that biomass plantations are established globally energy plants that have not been subject to the same breeding efforts
where the production conditions are most favourable. Increasing yields as the major food crops. Selection and development of suitable plant
from existing agricultural land is also proposed as a key component for species and genotypes for given locations to match specific soil types,
agricultural development (Ausubel, 2000; Fischer et al., 2002; Tilman et climate and conversion technologies are possible, but are at an early
al., 2002; Cassman et al., 2003; Evans, 2003; Balmford et al., 2005; Green stage of understanding for some energy plants (Bush and Leach, 2007;
et al., 2005; D. Lee et al., 2006; Bruinsma, 2009). Studies also point to Chapple et al., 2007; Lawrence and Walbot, 2007; Carpita and McCann,
the importance of diets and the food sector’s biomass use efficiency in 2008; Karp and Shield, 2008). Traditional plant breeding, selection and
determining land requirements (both cropland and grazing land) for food hybridization techniques are slow, particularly for woody plants but also
(Gerbens-Leenes and Nonhebel, 2002; Smil, 2002; Carlsson-Kanyama for grasses, but new biotechnological routes to produce both genetically
and Shanahan, 2003; de Boer et al., 2006; Elferink and Nonhebel, 2007; modified (GM) and non-GM plants are possible (Brunner et al., 2007).
Stehfest et al., 2009; Wirsenius et al., 2010). GM energy plant species may be more acceptable to the public than GM
food crops, but there are concerns about the potential environmental
Studies of agricultural development (e.g., Koning, 2008; Alexandratos, impacts of such plants, including gene flow from non-native to native
2009; IAASTD, 2009) show lower expected yield growth than studies of plant relatives (Chapotin and Wolt, 2007; Firbank, 2008; Warwick et al.,
the biomass resource potential that report very high technical potentials 2009; see Section 2.5.6.1).
for biomass plantations (Johnston et al., 2009). Some observations indi-
cate that it can be a challenge to maintain yield growth in several main There can be limitations on and negative aspects of further intensi-
producer countries and that much cropland and grazing land undergoes fication aiming at farm yield increases, for example, high crop yields
degradation and productivity loss as a consequence of improper land depending on large inputs of nutrients, fresh water and pesticides can
use (Cassman, 1999; Pingali and Heisey, 1999; Fischer et al., 2002). The contribute to negative ecosystem effects, such as changes in species
possible consequences of climate change for crop yields are not firmly composition in the surrounding ecosystems, groundwater contamina-
established but indicate net global negative impact, where damages tion and eutrophication with harmful algal blooms, oxygen depletion
will be concentrated in developing countries that will lose agriculture and anoxic ‘dead’ zones in oceans (Donner and Kucharik, 2008; Simpson
production potential while developed countries might gain (Fischer et et al., 2009; Sections 2.5.5.1 and 2.6.1.2). However, intensification is not
al., 2002; Cline, 2007; Easterling et al., 2007; Schneider et al., 2007; necessarily equivalent to an industrialization of agriculture, as agricul-
Lobell et al., 2008; Fischer et al., 2009). Water scarcity can limit both tural productivity can be increased in many regions and systems with
intensification possibilities and the prospects for expansion of bioen- conventional or organic farming methods (Badgley et al., 2007). The
ergy plantations (Berndes, 2008a,b; de Fraiture et al., 2008; de Fraiture potential to increase the currently low productivity of rain-fed agricul-
and Berndes, 2009; Rost et al., 2009; van Vuuren et al., 2009) but can ture exists in large parts of the world through improved soil and water
be partially alleviated through on-site water management (Rost et al., conservation (Lal, 2003; Rockström et al., 2007, 2010), fertilizer use and
2009). Biomass resource potential studies that use biophysical data sets crop selection (Cassman, 1999; Keys and McConnell, 2005). Available
and modelling are able to consider water limitations on land productiv- best practices8 are not at present applied in many world regions
ity. However, assumptions about productivity growth in land use may (Godfray et al., 2010), due to a lack of dissemination, capacity building,
implicitly presume irrigation development that could lead to problems in availability of resources and access to capital and markets, with distinct
regional water availability, use and distribution among users. Empirical regional differences (Neumann et al., 2010).
data are needed for use in hydrological process models to better under-
stand and predict the hydrological effects of various land use options at 8 For example, mulching, low tillage, contour ploughing, bounds, terraces, rainwater
harvesting and supplementary irrigation, drought adapted crops, crop rotation and
the landscape level (Malmer et al., 2010). Water and land use-related fallow time reduction.
aspects are further discussed in Section 2.5.

230
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Conservation agriculture and mixed production systems (double-crop- and that this could pave the way for funding via international financing
ping, crop with livestock and/or crop with forestry) hold potential to mechanisms and major donors (Knowler, 2004; Gisladottir and Stocking,
sustainably increase land productivity and water use efficiency as well 2005). In this context, the production of properly selected plant species
as carbon sequestration and to improve food security and efficiency for bioenergy can be an opportunity, where additional benefits involve
in the use of limited resources such as phosphorous (Kumar, 2006; carbon sequestration in soils and aboveground biomass and improved
Heggenstaller et al., 2008; Herrero et al., 2010). Integration can also soil quality over time.
be based on integrating feedstock production with conversion—typi-
cally producing animal feed that can replace cultivated feed such as soy
and corn (Dale et al., 2009, 2010) and also reduce grazing requirements 2.2.4.4 Biodiversity protection
(Sparovek et al., 2007).
Considerations regarding biodiversity can limit residue extraction as
Investment in agricultural research, development and deployment could well as intensification and expansion of agricultural land area. WBGU
produce a considerable increase in land and water productivity (Rost (2009) shows that the way biodiversity is considered can have a larger
et al., 2009; Herrero et al., 2010; Sulser et al., 2010) as well as improve impact on technical potential than either irrigation or climate change.
robustness of plant varieties (Reynolds and Borlaug, 2006; Ahrens et The common way of considering biodiversity requirements as a con-
al., 2010). Multi-functional systems (IAASTD, 2009) providing multiple straint is by including requirements for land reservation for biodiversity
ecosystem services (Berndes et al., 2004, 2008a,b; Folke et al., 2004, protection. Biomass resource potential assessments commonly exclude
2009) represent alternative options for the production of bioenergy on nature conservation areas from being available for biomass production,
agricultural lands that could contribute to development of farming sys- but the focus is as a rule on forest ecosystems and takes the present
tems and landscape structures that are beneficial for the conservation level of protection as a basis. Other natural ecosystems also require
of biodiversity (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2006). protection—not least grassland ecosystems—and the present status of
nature protection for biodiversity may not be sufficient for given targets.
While many highly productive lands have low natural biodiversity, the
2.2.4.3 Use of marginal lands opposite is true for some marginal lands and, consequently, the largest
impacts on biodiversity could occur with widespread use of marginal
Biomass resource potential studies also point to marginal/degraded lands.
lands—where productive capacity has declined temporarily or perma-
nently—as lands that can be used for biomass production. Advances Some studies indirectly consider biodiversity constraints on productivity
in plant breeding and genetic modification of plants not only raise the by assuming a certain expansion of alternative agriculture production
genetic yield potential but also may adapt plants to more challenging (to promote biodiversity) that yields less than conventional agriculture
environmental conditions (Fischer et al., 2009). Improved drought toler- and therefore requires more land for food production (EEA, 2007; Fischer
ance can improve average yields in drier areas and in rain-fed systems et al., 2009). However, for multi-cropping systems a general assump-
in general by reducing the effects of sporadic drought (Nelson et al., tion of lower yields from alternative cropping systems is not consistent.
2007; Castiglioni et al., 2008) and can also reduce water requirements Biodiversity loss may also occur indirectly, such as when productive land
in irrigated systems. Thus, besides reducing land requirements for meet- use displaced by energy crops is re-established by converting natural
ing food and materials demand by increasing yields, plant breeding and ecosystems into croplands or pastures elsewhere. Integrated energy sys-
genetic modification could make lands initially considered unsuitable tem and land use/vegetation cover modelling have better prospects for
available for rain-fed or irrigated production. analyzing these risks.

Some studies show a significant technical potential of marginal/ Bioenergy plantations can play a role in promoting biodiversity, par-
degraded land, but it is uncertain how much of this technical potential ticularly when multiple species are planted and mosaic landscapes are
can be realized. The main challenges in relation to the use of marginal/ established in uniform agricultural landscapes and in some currently
degraded land for bioenergy include (1) the large efforts and long time poor or degraded areas (Hartley, 2002). Agro-forestry systems combining
periods required for the reclamation and maintenance of more degraded biomass and food production can support biodiversity conservation in
land; (2) the low productivity levels of these soils; and (3) ensuring that human-dominated landscapes (Bhagwat et al., 2008). Biomass resource
the needs of local populations that use degraded lands for their sub- potential assessments, however, as a rule assume yield levels corre-
sistence are carefully addressed. Studies point to the benefits of local sponding to those achieved in monoculture plantations and therefore
stakeholder participation in appraising and selecting appropriate mea- provide little insight into how much biomass could be produced if a
sures (Schwilch et al., 2009) and suggest that land degradation control significant part of the biomass plantation were shaped to contribute to
could benefit from addressing aspects of biodiversity and climate change biodiversity preservation.

231
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.2.5 Possible impact of climate change on resource uncertain, but tropical regions are most likely to see the strongest nega-
potential tive impact.

Technical potentials are influenced by climate change. The magnitude

and spatial pattern of climate change remain uncertain9 despite high 2.2.6 Synthesis
scientific confidence that global warming and an intensification of the
hydrological cycle will be a consequence of increased GHG concen- As discussed, narrowing down the technical potential of the biomass
trations in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2007c). Furthermore, the effect of resource to precise numbers is not possible. A number of studies show
unhistorical new changes in temperature, irradiation and soil moisture that between less than 50 and several hundred EJ per year can be
on the growth of agricultural plants is frequently uncertain (Lobell and provided for energy in the future, the latter strongly conditional on
Burke, 2008), as is the adaptive response of farmers. As a consequence, favourable developments. From an assessment of the findings, it can be
the overall magnitude and pattern of climate change effects on agri- concluded that:
cultural production, including bioenergy plantations, remain uncertain.
While positive effects on plant growth may occur, detrimental impacts • The size of the future technical potential is dependent on a num-
on productivity cannot at present be precluded for many important ber of factors that are inherently uncertain and will continue to
regions. make long-term technical potentials unclear. Important factors are
population and economic/technology development and how these
Uncertainty also remains about the concurrent ecophysiological effect translate into fibre, fodder and food demand (especially share and
of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on plant productivity—the type of animal food products in diets) and development in agricul-
CO2 fertilization effect. Under elevated CO2 supply, the growth of plants ture and forestry.
with C3 photosynthesis is increased unless it is hampered by increased
water stress or nutrient depletion (Oliver et al., 2009). The long-term • Additional important factors include (1) climate change impacts
magnitude of the carbon fertilization effect is disputed, with increases in on future land use including its adaptation capability; (2) consider-
annual NPP of around 25% possible and observed in some field experi- ations set by biodiversity and nature conservation requirements; and
ments for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (the effect levels (3) consequences of land degradation and water scarcity.
off at higher CO2 concentrations), while some expect smaller gains due
to co-limitations and eventual adaptations (Ainsworth and Long, 2005; • Studies point to residue flows in agriculture and forestry and unused
Körner et al., 2007). The magnitude of the effect under agricultural (or extensively used) agricultural land as an important basis for
management and breeding conditions may be different and is not well expansion of biomass production for energy, both in the near term
known. and in the longer term. Consideration of biodiversity and the need
to ensure maintenance of healthy ecosystems and avoid soil degra-
Under climate warming, the increased requirement for transpiration dation set bounds on residue extraction in agriculture and forestry
water by vegetation is partially countered by increased water use (further discussed in Section 2.5.5).
efficiency (increased stomatal closure) under elevated atmospheric
CO2 concentrations, with variable regional patterns (Gerten et al., • Grasslands and marginal/degraded lands are considered to have
2005). Changes in precipitation patterns and magnitude can increase potential for supporting substantial bioenergy production, but biodi-
or decrease plant production depending on the direction of change. versity considerations and water shortages may limit this potential.
Generally, some semi-arid marginal lands are projected to be more The possibility that conversion of such lands to biomass plantations
productive due to increased water use efficiency under CO2 fertiliza- reduces downstream water availability needs to be considered.
tion (Lioubimtseva and Adams, 2004). As crop production is projected
to mostly decline with warming of more than 2°C (Easterling et al., • The cultivation of suitable plants can allow for higher technical
2007), particularly in the tropics, biomass for energy production could potentials by making it possible to produce bioenergy on lands less
be similarly affected. Overall, the effects of climate change on biomass suited for conventional food crops—also when considering that the
technical potential are found to be smaller than the effects of manage- cultivation of conventional crops on such lands can lead to soil car-
ment, breeding and area planted (WBGU, 2009), but in any particular bon emissions (further discussed in Section 2.5.2).
region they can be strong. Which regions will be most affected remains
• Landscape approaches integrating bioenergy production into agri-
9 Uncertainties arise because future GHG emission trajectories cannot be known culture and forestry systems to produce multi-functional land use
(and are therefore studied using a variety of scenarios), the computed sensitivities
of climate models to GHG forcing vary (i.e., the amount of warming that follows systems could contribute to the development of farming systems
from a given emission scenario), and the spatial pattern and seasonality of changes and landscape structures that are beneficial for the conservation of
in precipitation vary greatly between models, particularly for some tropical and biodiversity and help restore/maintain soil productivity and healthy
subtropical regions (Li et al., 2006).
ecosystems.

232
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

• Water constraints may limit production in regions experienc- 2.3.1 Feedstocks

ing water scarcity. But the use of suitable energy crops that are
drought tolerant can also help adaptation in water-scarce situations. 2.3.1.1 Feedstock production and harvest
Assessments of biomass resource potentials need to more carefully
consider constraints and opportunities in relation to water availabil- The performance characteristics of major biomass production systems,
ity and competing uses. dedicated plants or primary residues across the world regions are sum-
marized in Table 2.4. The management of energy plants includes the
Based on this expert review of the available scientific literature, deploy- provision of seeds or seedlings, stand establishment and harvest, soil
ment levels of biomass for energy could reach a range of 100 to 300 EJ/ tillage, irrigation, and fertilizer and pesticide inputs. The latter depend on
yr around 2050 (see Section 2.8.4.1 for more detail). This can be com- crop requirements, target yields and local pedo-climatic conditions, and
pared with the present biomass use for energy of about 50 EJ/yr. While may vary across world regions for similar species (Table 2.4). Strategies
recent assessments employing improved data and modelling capacity such as integrated pest management or organic farming may alleviate
have not succeeded in providing narrow, distinct estimates of the bio- the need for synthetic inputs for a given output of biomass (Pimentel et
mass resource potential, they have advanced the understanding of how al., 2005).
influential various factors are on the resource potential and that both
positive and negative effects may follow from increased biomass use for Wood for energy is obtained as fuelwood or as residue. While fuelwood
energy. One important conclusion is that the effects of LUC associated is derived from the logging of natural or planted forests or trees and
with bioenergy expansion can considerably influence the climate benefit shrubs grown in agriculture fields, residues are derived from wood waste
of bioenergy (Section 2.5.5). The insights from the resource assessments and by-products. While natural forests are not managed for production
can improve the prospects for bioenergy by pointing out the areas where per se, problems arise if fuelwood extraction exceeds the regeneration
development is most crucial and where research is needed. A summary capacity of the forests, which is the case in many parts of the world. The
is given in Section 2.8.4.3. management of planted forests involves silvicultural techniques similar to
those used in cropping systems and includes stand establishment and tree
felling (Nabuurs et al., 2007).
2.3 Technologies and applications
Biomass may be harvested several times per year (for forage-type feed-
This section reviews commercial technologies for biomass feedstock stocks such as hay or alfalfa), once per year (for annual species such as
production, pretreatment of solid biomass and logistics of supply chains wheat or perennial grasses), or every 2 to 50 years or more (for short-
bringing feedstocks to direct users. The users can be individuals (e.g., rotation coppice and conventional forestry, respectively). Sugarcane is
fuelwood for cooking or heating) or firms (e.g., industrial users or pro- harvested annually but planted every 4 to 7 years and grown in ratoons; it
cessors). Pretreated and converted energy carriers are more convenient is considered a perennial grass. Harvested biomass is typically transported
and can be used in more applications than the original biomass and to a collection point on the farm or at the edge of the road before being
are modern solid (e.g., pellets), liquid (e.g., ethanol) and gaseous (e.g., transported to the bioenergy unit or to an intermediate storage facility. It
methane) fuels from which electricity and/or heat or mobility services may be preconditioned and densified to facilitate storage, transport and
are produced (see Figure 2.2). The integration of modern biomass with handling (see Section 2.3.2).
existing and evolving electricity, natural gas, heating (residential and
district, commercial and public services), industrial, agriculture/forestry, The species listed in Table 2.4 have different possible energy end uses and
and fossil liquid fuels systems is discussed thoroughly in Chapter 8. require diverse conversion technologies (see Figure 2.6). Starch and oil
crops are grown and harvested annually as feedstocks for what are called
This section is organized along the supply chain of bioenergy and thus first-generation liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel, see Section 2.3.3).
discusses feedstock production and the synergies with related sectors Only a fraction of the total aboveground biomass is used for biofuels,
before turning to pretreatment, logistics and supply chains of solid bio- with the rest being processed for animal feed or lignocellulosic residues.
mass. The section then explains different state-of-the-art conversion Sugarcane plants are feedstocks for the production of sugar and ethanol
technologies for energy carriers from modern biomass before discussing and, increasingly, sugarcane bagasse and straw, which serve as sources of
the costs, directly available from relevant literature, of these broader process heat and extra power in many sugar- and ethanol-producing coun-
bioenergy systems and supply chains. Section 2.6 provides prospects for tries (Macedo et al., 2008; Dantas et al., 2009; Seabra et al., 2010) resulting
technology improvement, innovation and integration before Section 2.7 in favourable environmental footprints for these biorefinery products.
addresses relevant cost information in terms of levelized cost of produc- Lignocellulosic plants such as perennial grasses or short-rotation coppice
tion for many world regions. may be entirely converted to energy, and feature two to five times higher

233
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Table 2.4 | Typical characteristics of the production technologies for dedicated species and their primary residues. Yields are expressed as GJ of energy content in biomass prior to
conversion to energy, or of the ethanol end product for sugar and starch crops. Costs refer to private production costs or market price when costs were unavailable (data from 2005
to 2009). Key to management inputs: +: low; ++: moderate; +++: high requirements.

Feedstock type Region Yield Management Co-products Costs Refs.

Examples (2005-2009)
    GJ/ha/yr [TJ/km2/yr] Fertilizer use1 Water needs Pesticides    
USD/GJ

OIL CROPS As oil

Oilseed rape Europe 60–70 [6.7–7.0] +++ + +++ Rape cake, straw 7.2–16.0 1,2,3,22

North America 16–19 [1.6–1.9] ++ + +++ 11.7 3,12

Soybean Soy cake, straw
Brazil 18–21 [1.8–2.1] ++ + +++ N/A  

135–200
Asia ++ + +++ N/A  
Palm oil [13.5–20.0] Fruit bunches, press fibres
Brazil 169 [16.9] ++ + +++ 12.62 3

Seed cake (toxic), wood,

Jatropha World 17–88 [1.7–8.8] +/++ + + 3.2 3,4,5,10,11
shells

STARCH CROPS As ethanol

Wheat Europe 54–58 [5.4–5.8] +++ ++ +++ Straw, DDGS3 5.2 3

Maize North America 72–79 [7.2–7.9] +++ +++ +++ Corn stover, DDGS 10.9 3
Cassava World 43 [4.3] ++ + ++ DDGS 3.3–4 3
SUGAR CROPS As ethanol
116–149
Brazil + +++ 1.0–2.02 3,17
Sugarcane [11.6–14.9] ++ Bagasse, straw
India 95–112 [9.5–11.2]     N/A 3

116–158
Sugar beet Europe ++ ++ +++ Molasses, pulp 5.2–9.6 3,13,22
[11.6–15.8]

105–160
Sorghum (sweet) China +++ + ++ Bagasse 4.4 2,21
[10.5–16.0]

LIGNOCELLULOSIC CROPS As ethanol

190–280
Miscanthus Europe +/++ ++ + 4.8–16 6,8
[19.0–28.0]

120–225
Europe ++ + + 2.4–3.2 10,14
[12.0–22.5]
Switchgrass
103–150
North America ++ + + 4.4  
[10.3–15.0]
Southern
Short rotation (SR) 90–225 [9.0–22.5] + ++ + 2.9–4 10,14
Europe
150–415 Tree bark
Eucalyptus South America +/++ + + 2.7 16,19
[15.0–41.5]

SR Willow Europe 140 [14.0] 4.4 2,7

Fuelwood (chopped) Europe 110 [11.0]   3.4–13.6 15

Fuelwood (renewable, Forest residues

Central America 80–150 [8.0–15.0] 1.8–2.0 23
native forest)

PRIMARY RESIDUES            
Europe 60 [6.0]     1.9 2
Wheat straw +
USA 7–75 [0.7–7.5]     N/A 14, 20
Sugarcane straw Brazil 90–126 [9.0–12.6] +     N/A 17
North America 15–155 [1.5–15.5] +     Not Applicable N/A 9,14
Corn stover
India 22–30 [2.2–3.0] +     0.9 18
Sorghum stover World 85 [8.5] +     N/A 9
Forest residues Europe 2–15 [0.2–1.5]   1–7.7 15

Notes: 1. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; 2. Market price; 3. DDGS: Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles. These are illustrative cost figures or market prices from the literature.
See Annex II for ranges of costs for specific commercial feedstocks over a year period.
References: 1: EEA (2006); 2: Edwards et al. (2007); 3: Bessou et al. (2010); 4: Jongschaap et al. (2007); 5: Openshaw (2000); 6: Clifton-Brown et al. (2004); 7: Ericsson et al. (2009);
8: Fagernäs et al. (2006); 9: Lal (2005); 10: WWI, (2006); 11: Maes et al. (2009); 12: Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2009);13: Berndes (2008a,b); 14: Perlack et al. (2005); 15: Asikainen et
al. (2008); 16: Scolforo (2008); 17: Folha (2005); 18: Guille (2007); 19: Diaz-Balteiro and Rodriguez (2006); 20: Lal (2005); 21: Grassi et al. (2006); 22: Faaij (2006); 23: T. Johnson et
al. (2009). See Bessou et al. (2010) for specific biofuel volumes per hectare for various countries; see also IEA Renewable Energy Division (2010) for additional country information.

234
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Feedstock1 Conversion Routes2 Heat and/or Power

(Biomass Upgrading3) +
Oil Crops Combustion
(Rape, Sunflower, etc.), Liquid Fuels
Waste Oils, Animal Fats
Transesterification
Biodiesel
or Hydrogenation
Sugar and Starch Crops
(Hydrolysis) + Fermentation Ethanol

Lignocellulosic Biomass Renewable

(Wood, Straw, Energy Crop, Gasification
MSW, etc.) (+ Secondary Process) Diesel

Biodegradable MSW, Pyrolysis

Sewage Sludge, Manure, Wet Gaseous Fuels
Wastes (Farm and Food Wastes) Anaerobic Digestion4
(+ Biogas Upgrading) Biomethane

Figure 2.6 | Schematic view of commercial bioenergy routes (modified from IEA, Bioenergy, 2009).

Notes: 1. Parts of each feedstock, for example, crop residues, could also be used in other routes. 2. Each route also gives co-products. 3. Biomass upgrading includes any one of the
densification processes (pelletization, pyrolysis, etc.). 4. Anaerobic digestion processes release methane and CO2 and removal of CO2 provides essentially methane, the main component
of natural gas; the upgraded gas is called biomethane.

yields per hectare than most of the other feedstock types, while requiring et al., 2008). This favours local, non-centralized markets especially in
far fewer synthetic inputs when managed carefully (Hill, 2007). However, developing countries where forests are the dominant fuel source for
their impact on soil organic matter after the removal of stands is not well households (Bravo et al., 2010).
understood (Wilhelm et al., 2007; Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2009). Research
is underway to assess site-specific removal levels as a function of time and
strategies to mitigate weather impacts on residue removal (e.g., Karlen, 2.3.1.2 Synergies with the agriculture, food and forest sectors
2010; Zhang et al., 2010). With technologies that are currently commercial,
lignocellulosic feedstocks are only providing heat and power whereas the As emphasized in Section 2.2.1, bioenergy feedstock production com-
harvest products of oil, sugar and starch crops are being converted readily petes with other uses for resources, chiefly land, with possible negative
to liquid biofuels and in some cases together with heat and power. effects on biodiversity, water availability, soil quality and climate (see
Sections 2.2.4 and 2.5). However, synergistic effects may also emerge
Production and harvest costs for dedicated plants vary widely according through the design of integrated production systems, which also
to the prices of inputs, machinery, labour and land-related costs (Ericsson provide additional environmental services. Intercropping and mixed
et al., 2009; Table 2.4). If energy plantations are to compete with land cropping are options to maximize the output of biomass per unit
dedicated to food production, the opportunity cost of land (the price that area farmed (WWI, 2006). Mixed cropping systems result in increased
a farmer needs to receive in order to switch from the known annual crop yields compared to single crops, and may provide both food/fodder
cultivation to an energy crop) could be quite significant and may esca- and energy feedstocks from the same field (Jensen, 1996; Tilman et
late proportionally with the demand for energy feedstocks (Bureau et al., 2006b). Double-cropping systems have the potential to generate
al., 2010). Cost-supply curves scaling from farm to the regional level are additional feedstocks for bioenergy and livestock utilization and poten-
needed to account for possible large-scale deployment scenario effects tially higher yields of biofuel from two crops in the same area in a year
(see examples in Figures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d) for feedstock supplies in Europe (Heggenstaller et al., 2008).
(cost) and the USA (delivered price), respectively, as a function of feed-
stock production level, with the unit price per GJ growing several-fold as Agro-forestry systems make it possible to use land for food, fodder, tim-
the total demand for biomass increases). ber and energy purposes with mutual benefits for the associated species
(R. Bradley et al., 2008). The associated land equivalent ratios may reach
The cost of forest products depends heavily on harvesting and other up to 1.5, meaning a 50% saving in land area when combining trees
logistical practices. In particular labour costs, machinery and the distance with arable crops compared to monocultures (Dupraz and Liagre, 2008)
from the logging site to the conversion plant are important (Asikainen and therefore an equal reduction in indirect LUC effects (see Section

235
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.5.3). Another option is growing an understory food crop and coppic- 2. Local utilization of resources from forest management and agricul-
ing the lignocellulosic species to produce residual biomass for energy, ture. Such resources are more expensive to collect and transport, but
similarly to short-rotation coppice (Dupraz and Liagre, 2008). Perennial usually still economically attractive. Infrastructure development is
plants create positive externalities such as erosion control, improved needed.
fertilizer use efficiency and reduction in nitrate leaching relative to
annual plants (see Section 2.2.4.2). Lastly, the revenues generated from 3. Biomass market development at regional scale; larger-scale conver-
growing bioenergy feedstocks may provide access to technologies or sion units with increasing fuel flexibility are deployed; increasing
inputs enhancing the yields of food crops, drive additional investments average transport distances further improves economies of scale.
in the agricultural sector and contribute to productivity gains (De La Increasing costs of biomass supplies make more energy-efficient
Torre Ugarte and Hellwinckel, 2010), provided feedstock benefits are conversion facilities necessary as well as feasible. Policy support
distributed to local communities (Practical Action Consulting, 2009). measures such as feed-in tariffs (FITs) are usually needed to develop
into this stage.

2.3.2 Logistics and supply chains for energy carriers 4. Development of national markets with increasing numbers of sup-
from modern biomass pliers and buyers; creation of a marketplace; increasingly complex
logistics. Availability often increases due to improved supply sys-
Because biomass is mostly available in low-density form, it demands tems and access to markets. Price levels may therefore decrease
more storage space, transport and handling than fossil equivalents, (see, e.g., Junginger et al., 2005).
with consequent cost implications. Biomass often needs to be pro-
cessed (pretreated) to improve handling. For most bioenergy systems 5. Increasing scale of markets and transport distances, including cross-
and chains, handling and transport of biomass from the source location border transport of biofuels; international trade in biomass resources
to the conversion plant is an important contributor to the overall costs (and energy carriers derived from biomass). Biomass is increasingly
of energy production. Crop harvesting, storage, transport, pretreatment becoming a globally traded energy commodity (see, e.g., Junginger
and delivery can amount to 20 to 50% of the total costs of energy pro- et al., 2008). Bio-ethanol trade has come closest to that situation
duction (J. Allen et al., 1998). (see, e.g., Walter et al., 2008).

Use of a single agricultural biomass feedstock for year-round energy 6. Growing role for dedicated fuel supply systems (biomass production
generation requires relatively large storage because biomass is only largely or only for energy purposes). So far, most energy crops are
available for a short time following harvest in many places. In addition grown because of agricultural interests and support (subsidies for
to such seasonal variations in biomass availability, other characteristics farmers, use of set-aside subsidies), which concentrate on oil crops
complicate the biomass supply chain and should be taken into account. (such as rapeseed) and surplus food crops (cereals and sugar beets).
These include multiple feedstocks with their own complex supply
chains, and storage challenges such as space constraints, fire hazards, Countries that have gained substantial commercial experience with
moisture control and health risks from fungi and spores (Junginger et al., biomass supplies and biomass markets are generally able to obtain sub-
2001; Rentizelas et al., 2009). stantial cost reductions in biomass supply chains over time. In Finland
and Sweden, delivery costs decreased from USD2005 12 to 5/GJ from 1975
to 2003, due to factors such as scale increases, technological innova-
2.3.2.1 Solid biomass supplies and market development tions or increased competition (Junginger et al., 2005). Similar trends
for utilization are observed in the corn ethanol industry in the USA and the sugarcane
ethanol industry in Brazil (see Table 2.17).
Over time, several stages may be observed in biomass utilization and
market developments in biomass supplies. Different countries seem to Analyses of regional and international biomass supply chains show
follow these stages over time, but clearly differ in their respective stages that road transport of untreated and bulky biomass becomes uncom-
of development (Faaij, 2006; Sims et al., 2010). petitive and energy-inefficient when crossing distances of 50 to 150 km
(Dornburg and Faaij, 2001; McKeough et al., 2005). When long-distance
1. Waste treatment (e.g., MSW and use of process residues (paper transport is required, early pretreatment and densification in the supply
industry, food industry) onsite at production facilities) is generally chain (see Sections 2.3.2.3 and 2.6.2) pays off to minimize transport
the starting phase of a developing bioenergy system. Resources costs. Taking into account energy use and related GHG emissions, well-
are available and often have a disposal cost (could have a nega- organized logistic chains can require less than 10% of the initial energy
tive value) making utilization profitable and simultaneously solving content of the biomass (Hamelinck et al., 2005b; Damen and Faaij,
waste management problems. Large- and small-scale developments 2006), but this requires substantial scale in transport, efficient pretreat-
are evolving along with integrated resource management. ment and minimization of road transport of untreated biomass.

236
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Such organization is observed in the rapidly developing international and energy density is high. Wood pellets are used as fuel in many coun-
wood pellet markets (see Sections 2.3.2.3 and 2.4.4). Furthermore, (long tries for cooking and heating applications (Peksa-Blanchard et al., 2007).
distance) transport costs of liquid fuels such as ethanol and vegetable
oils contribute only a minor fraction of overall costs and energy use of Chips are mainly produced from plantations’ waste wood and wood
bioenergy chains (Hamelinck et al., 2005b). residues (branches and presently even spruce stumps) as a by-product of
conventional forestry. They require less processing and are cheaper than
pellets. Depending on end use, chips may be produced onsite, or the
2.3.2.2 Solid biomass and charcoal supplies in developing wood may be transported to the chipper. Chips are commonly used in
countries automated heating systems, and can be used directly in coal-fired power
stations or for CHP production (Fagernäs et al., 2006).
The majority of poorest households in the developing world depend on
solid biomass fuels such as charcoal for cooking, and millions of small Charcoal is obtained by heating woody biomass to high temperatures in
industries (such as brick and pottery kilns) generate process heat from the absence of oxygen, and has a twice higher calorific value than the
these fuels (FAO, 2010a; IEA, 2010b; see Section 1.4.1.2). Despite this original feedstock. It burns without smoke and has a low bulk density,
pivotal role of biomass, the sector remains largely unregulated, poorly which reduces transport costs. In rural areas in many African countries,
understood, and the supply chains are predominantly in the hands of the charcoal is produced in traditional kilns with efficiencies as low as 10%
informal sector (Sepp, 2008). (Adam, 2009), and typically sold to urban households while rural house-
holds use fuelwood. Hardwoods are the most suitable raw material for
When fuelwood is marketed, trees are usually felled and cut into large charcoal, because softwoods incur possibly high losses during handling/
pieces and transported to local storage facilities where they are col- transport. Charcoal from granular materials like coffee shells, sawdust
lected by merchants and delivered to wholesale and retail facilities, and straw is in powder form and needs to be briquetted with or without
mainly in rural areas. Some of the wood is converted to charcoal in kilns, a binder. Charcoal is also used in large-scale industries, particularly in
packed into large bags and transported by hand, animal-drawn carts Brazil from high-yielding eucalyptus plantations (Scolforo, 2008), and in
and small trucks to roadside sites where it is collected by trucks and many cases, in conjunction with sustainably produced wood, and also
sent to urban wholesale and retail sites. Thus charcoal making is an increasingly as a co-firing feedstock in oil-based electric power plants.
enterprise for rural populations to supply urban markets. Crop residues The projected costs for charcoal production from Brazilian eucalyptus
and dung are normally used by animal owners as a seasonal supplement plantations are USD2005 5.7 to 9.8/GJ (Fallot et al., 2009) using industrial
to fuelwood (FAO 2010a). carbonizing process.

Shredded biomass residues may be densified by briquetting or pellet- Charcoal in Africa is predominantly produced in inefficient traditional
izing, typically in screw or piston presses that compress and extrude kilns in the informal sector, often illegally. Current production, packag-
the biomass (FAO, 1985). Briquettes and pellets can be good substitutes ing and transport of charcoal are characterized by low efficiencies and
for coal, lignite and fuelwood because they are renewable and have poor handling, leading to losses. Introducing change to this industry
consistent quality and size, better thermal efficiency, and higher density requires that it be recognized and legalized, where it is found to be sus-
than loose biomass. tainable and not contradictory to environmental protection goals. Once
legalized, it would be possible to regulate it and introduce standards
There are briquetting plants in operation in India and Thailand, using a addressing fuel quality, packaging and production kiln standards and
range of secondary residues and with different capacities, but none as better enforcement of which tree species should be used to produce
yet in other Asian countries. There have been numerous, mostly devel- charcoal (Kituyi, 2004).
opment agency-funded, briquetting projects in Africa, and most have
failed technically and/or commercially. The reasons for failure include
deployment of new test units that were not proven technically, selection 2.3.2.3 Wood pellet logistics and supplies
of very expensive machines that did not make economic sense given the
location, low local capacity to fabricate components and provide main- Wood pellets are one of the most successful bioenergy-based com-
tenance, and lack of markets for the briquettes due to uncompetitive modities traded internationally. Wood pellets offer several advantages
cost and low acceptance (Erikson and Prior, 1990). over other solid biomass fuels: they generally have a low moisture con-
tent and a relatively high heating value (about 17 GJ/t), which allow
Wood pellets are made of wood waste such as sawdust and grinding long-distance transport by ship without affecting the energy balance
dust. Pelletization machines are based on fodder-making technology (Junginger et al., 2008). Local transport is carried out by trucks, which
and produce somewhat lighter and smaller pellets of biomass compared sets a feasible upper limit for transportation of 50 km for raw biomass
to briquetting. Wood pellets are easy to handle and burn because their (150 km for pellets) and together with the necessary storage usually
shape and characteristics are uniform, transportation efficiency is high represents more than 50% of the final cost. Bulk delivery of pellets is

237
Bioenergy Chapter 2

very similar to delivery of home heating oil and is carried out by the lorry 2.3.3.1 Development stages of conversion technologies
driver blowing pellets into the storage space, while a suction pump takes
away any dust. Storage solutions include underground tanks, container The development stages of selected thermochemical, biochemical and
units, silos or storage within the boiler room. Design of more efficient chemical routes from solid lignocellulosic biomass, wet waste streams,
pellet storage, charging and combustion systems for domestic users is sugars from sugarcane or starch crops, and vegetable oils are shown
ongoing (Peksa-Blanchard et al., 2007). International trade by ships to in Table 2.5 for the production of heat, power and fuels. For instance,
ports that are properly equipped for handling pellets is a major logistical while biomass combustion coupled with electricity generators such as
barrier.10 Freight costs are another barrier very sensitive to international turbines using steam cycles is a commercial system for electricity pro-
trade demand. For instance, in 2004, the average price of pellets at a mill duction (or CHP), coupling with the Stirling engine is still developing,
in Canada was USD2005 3.4/GJ; shipped to the Netherlands, USD2005 4.1/ and the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is just starting commercial pen-
GJ (Free on Board); and delivered to the Rotterdam harbour, USD2005 7.5/ etration (van Loo and Koppejan, 2002). Generally, solid wood or waste
GJ (Junginger et al., 2008; see also Sikkema et al., 2011). biomass is processed by thermochemical routes, and wet feedstocks and
sugar or starch crops are processed biochemically or chemically and, in
the case of the vegetable oils, after a mechanical pressing step (Bauen
2.3.3 Conversion technologies to electricity, heat, et al., 2009a). The development stages are roughly divided into R&D,
and liquid and gaseous fuels demonstration, early commercial and full commercial products and
processes. Precise allocation to these different stages is difficult and
Commercial bioenergy routes are shown in Figure 2.6 and start with somewhat arbitrary, because many developments are taking place in
feedstocks such as forest- or agriculture-based crops or industrial, com- industry and are not often documented in the peer-reviewed literature
mercial or municipal waste streams and by-products. These routes deliver (Regalbuto, 2009; Bacovsky et al., 2010a,b). Usually, those processes
electricity or heat from biomass directly or as CHP, biogas and liquid that are deployable throughout the world are fully commercial technolo-
biofuels, including ethanol from sugarcane or corn and biodiesel from gies because their technical risk is small and financing can be obtained
oilseed crops. Current biomass-based commercial processes produce a (Kirkels and Verbong, 2011).
limited range of liquid fuels compared to the variety of petroleum-based
fuels and products. Synergies between biomass industries and waste management are
already established and additional synergies are evolving with the
Figure 2.2 presented a complex set of developing technological options petroleum refining, chemicals, natural gas and coal industries (King
based on second- (lignocellulosic herbaceous or woody species) and et al., 2010; Kirkels and Verbong, 2011). Many bioenergy systems that
higher- (aquatic plants) generation feedstocks and a variety of sec- are moving towards commercialization still have a high technical risk.
ond- (or higher-) generation conversion processes.11 It also included the Section 2.6.3 will describe these additional advancing conversion pro-
commercial (Figure 2.6) first-generation (oil, sugar and starch crops) cesses in more detail.
and solid biomass feedstocks and conversion processes (fermentation,
transesterification, combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic
digestion). Second-generation feedstocks and conversion processes can 2.3.3.2 Thermochemical processes
produce higher-efficiency electricity and heat, as well as a wider range
of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, alcohols (including some with higher energy Biomass combustion is a process where carbon and hydrogen in the
density), ethers, chemical products and polymers (biobased materials) in fuel react with excess oxygen to form CO2 and water and release heat.
the developing biorefineries that are discussed in more detail in Section Direct burning of biomass is popular in rural areas for cooking. Wood
2.6.3.4. Initial R&D on producing hydrocarbon fuels is starting with sugar and charcoal are also used as a fuel in the industry. Combustion pro-
and starch crops and covers the range of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel with cesses are well understood and a wide range of existing commercial
an increasing focus on chemicals. Both improved first-generation crops technologies are tailored to the characteristics of the biomass and the
(e.g., perennial sugarcane-derived) and second-generation plants suited scale of their applications. Biomass can also be co-combusted with coal
to specific geographic regions have the potential to provide a variety of in coal-fired plants (van Loo and Koppejan, 2002; Faaij, 2006; Egsgaard
energy products, along with high-volume chemicals and materials tradi- et al., 2009).
tionally derived from the petrochemical industry, maximizing the outputs
of end products per unit of feedstock. Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of biomass occurring in the
absence of oxygen (anaerobic environment) that produces a solid (char-
10 In most countries with export potential, ports are not yet equipped with storage and coal), a liquid (pyrolysis oil or bio-oil) and a gas product. The relative
modern handling equipment or are poorly managed, which implies high shipping
amounts of the three co-products depend on the operating temperature
costs.
and the residence time used in the process. High heating rates of the
11 Biofuels produced via new processes are also called advanced or next-genereation biomass feedstocks at moderate temperatures (450°C to 550°C) result
biofuels, e.g. from lignocellulosic biomass. in oxygenated oils as the major products (70 to 80%), with the remain-
der split between a biochar and gases. Slow pyrolysis (also known

238
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.5 | Examples of stages of development of bioenergy: thermochemical (orange), biochemical (blue), and chemical routes (red) for heat, power, and liquid and gaseous fuels from solid lignocel-
lulosic and wet waste biomass streams, sugars from sugarcane or starch crops, and vegetable oils (IEA Bioenergy, 2009; Alper and Stephanopoulos, 2009; Regalbuto, 2009).

Stage of Development of Process for Product(s) or System(s)

Type of Type of
Plant Product Basic and Applied R&D Demonstration Early Commercial Commercial

Densified Hydrothermal Oil Pyrolysis Oil

Torrefaction (Hy Oil) (Py Oil) Pelletization
Biomass

Charcoal Pyrolysis (Biochar) Carbonization

Low Moisture Lignocellulosic

Small Scale Gasification Combustion Stoves

Heat
Combustion
Py/Hy Oil Home/District/Industrial

Combustion Coupled with

Stirling Engine ORC1 Steam Cycles

Co-Combution
or Co-Firing with Coal Indirect Parallel Direct
Power
or CHP
Gasification (G)
or Integrated IG-Fuel Cell IG-Gas Turbine
Gasification (IG)
IG-Combined Cycle G and Steam Cycle

Anaerobic Digestion to Biogas

2-Stage Landfills (1-Stage)

Wet Waste

Heat Reforming to Hydrogen (H2) Small Manure Digesters

or Power Microbial Fuel Cell
or Fuel Biogas Upgrading to Methane

Hydrothemal Processing to Oils or Gaseous Fuels

Sugar Fermentation
Starch Crops

Butanol Ethanol
Sugar or

Microbial Processing2

H2 Gasoline/ Diesel/ Jet Fuel Biobutanol/Butanols3

Extraction and Esterification

Vegetable or Waste

Fuels
Biodiesel

Extraction and Hydrogenation

Oils

Renewable Diesel

Extraction and Refining

Jet Fuel

Notes: 1. ORC: Organic Rankine Cycle; 2. genetically engineered yeasts or bacteria to make, for instance, isobutanol (or hydrocarbons) developed either with tools of synthetic biology
or through metabolic engineering. 3. Several four-carbon alcohols are possible and isobutanol is a key chemical building block for gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel and other
products.

as carbonization) is practiced throughout the world, for example, in producer gas or fuel gas) rich in CO and hydrogen (H2) that has an
traditional stoves in developing countries, in barbecues in Western energy content of 5 to 20 MJ/Nm3 (depending on the type of biomass
countries, and in the Brazilian steel industry (Bridgwater et al., 2003; and whether gasification is conducted with air, oxygen or through indi-
Laird et al., 2009). rect heating). This energy content is roughly 10 to 45% of the heating
value of natural gas. Fuel gas can then be upgraded to a higher-quality
Biomass Gasification occurs when a partial oxidation of biomass hap- gas mixture called biomass synthesis gas or syngas (Faaij, 2006). A gas
pens upon heating. This produces a combustible gas mixture (called turbine, a boiler or a steam turbine are options to employ unconverted

239
Bioenergy Chapter 2

gas fractions for electricity co-production. Coupled with electricity products, including ethanol, lactic acid and others. Saccharomyces cere-
generators, syngas can be used as a fuel in place of diesel in suitably visiae is the most common yeast used for industrial ethanol production
designed or adapted internal combustion engines. Most commonly from sugars. The major raw feedstocks for biochemical conversion today
available gasifiers use wood or woody biomass and specially designed are sugarcane, sweet sorghum, sugar beet and starch crops (such as
gasifiers can convert non-woody biomass materials (Yokoyama and corn, wheat or cassava) and the major commercial product from this
Matsumura, 2008). Biomass gasifier stoves are also being used in many process is ethanol, which is predominantly used as a gasoline substitute
rural industries for heating and drying, for instance, in India and China in light-duty transport.
(Yokoyama and Matsumura, 2008; Mukunda et al., 2010). Compared to
combustion, gasification is more efficient, providing better controlled Anaerobic digestion (AD) involves the breakdown of organic matter
heating, higher efficiencies in power production and the possibility for in agricultural feedstocks such as animal dung, human excreta, leafy
co-producing chemicals and fuels (Kirkels and Verbong, 2011). plant materials, urban solid and liquid wastes, or food processing waste
streams by a consortium of microorganisms in the absence of oxygen
to produce biogas, a mixture of methane (50 to 70%) and CO2. In this
2.3.3.3 Chemical processes process, the organic fraction of the waste is segregated and fed into
a closed container (biogas digester). In the digester, the segregated
Transesterification is the process through which alcohols (often meth- biomass undergoes biodegradation in the presence of methanogenic
anol) react in the presence of a catalyst (acid or base) with triglycerides bacteria under anaerobic conditions, producing methane-rich biogas
contained in vegetable oils or animal fats to form an alkyl ester of fatty and effluent. The biogas can be used either for cooking and heating or
acids and a glycerine by-product. Vegetable oil is extracted from the for generating motive power or power through dual-fuel or gas engines,
seeds, usually with mechanical crushing or chemical solvents prior to low-pressure gas turbines, or steam turbines. The biogas can also be
transesterification. The fatty acid alkyl esters are typically referred to upgraded through enrichment to a higher heat content biomethane (85
as ‘biodiesel’ and can be blended with petroleum-based diesel fuel. The to 90% methane) gas and injected in the natural gas grid (Bauen et
protein-rich residue, also known as cake, is typically sold as animal feed al., 2009a; Petersson and Wellinger, 2009). The residue from AD, after
or fertilizer, but may also be used to synthesize higher-value chemicals stabilization, can be used as an organic soil amendment or a fertilizer.
(WWI, 2006; Bauen et al., 2009a; Demirbas, 2009; Balat, 2011). The residue can be sold as manure depending upon the composition of
the input waste.
The hydrogenation of vegetable oil, animal fats or recycled oils in the
presence of a catalyst yields a renewable diesel fuel—hydrocarbons Many developing countries, for example India and China, are making use
that can be blended in any proportion with petroleum-based diesel of AD technology extensively in rural areas. Many German and Swedish
and propane as products. This process involves reacting vegetable oil or companies are market leaders in large biogas plant technologies (Faaij,
animal fats with H2 (typically sourced from an oil refinery) in the pres- 2006; Petersson and Wellinger, 2009). In Sweden, multiple wastes and
ence of a catalyst (Bauen et al., 2009a). Although at an earlier stage of manures (co-digestion) are also used and the biogas is upgraded to bio-
development and deployment than transesterification, hydrogenation of methane, a higher methane content gas, which can be distributed via
vegetable oils and animal fats can still be considered a first-generation natural gas pipelines and can also be used directly in vehicles.13
route as it is demonstrated at a commercial scale.12 Hydrogenated bio-
fuels have a high cetane number, low sulphur content and high viscosity
(Knothe, 2010). 2.3.4 Bioenergy systems and chains: Existing
state-of-the-art systems

2.3.3.4 Biochemical processes Literature examples of relevant commercial bioenergy systems operat-
ing in various countries today by type of energy product(s), feedstock,
Biochemical processes use a variety of microorganisms to perform major process, current and estimated future (2020 to 2030) efficiency,
reactions under milder conditions and typically with greater specificity and estimated current and future (2020) production costs are presented
compared to thermochemical processes. These reactions can be part of in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. Current markets and potential are reviewed in
the organisms’ metabolic functions or they can be modified for a spe- Section 2.4.
cific product through metabolic engineering (Alper and Stephanopoulos,
2009). For instance, fermentation is the process by which microorgan- Production costs presented in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 are taken directly from
isms such as yeasts metabolize sugars under low or no oxygen to produce the available literature with no attempt to harmonize the literature data
ethanol. Among bacteria, the most commonly employed is Escherichia because the underlying techno-economic parameters are not always
(E.) coli, often used to perform industrial synthesis of biochemical sufficiently transparent to assess the specific conditions under which

12 Many companies throughout the world have patents, demonstration plants, and 13 See, for instance, the Linköping example at www.iea-biogas.net/_download/
have tested this technology at a commercial scale for diesel, including Neste Oil’s linkoping_final.pdf (IEA Bioenergy Task 37 success story).
commercial facility in Singapore (Bauen et al., 2009a; Bacovsky et al., 2010b).

240
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

comparable production costs can be achieved, except in cases analyzing A significant number of electricity generation routes are available,
multiple products. Section 2.7 presents complementary information on including co-combustion (co-firing) with non-biomass fuels, which is a
the levelized costs of various bioenergy systems and discusses specific relatively efficient use of solid biomass compared to direct combustion.
cost determinants based on the methods specified in Annex II and the Due to economies of scale, small-scale plants usually provide heat and
assumptions summarized in Annex II (note that only a few of the under- electricity at a higher production cost than do larger systems, although
lying assumptions included in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 were used as inputs to that varies somewhat with location. Heat and power systems are avail-
the data presented in Annex III). able in a variety of sizes and with high efficiency. Biomass gasification
currently provides an annual supply of about 1.4 GWth in industrial
applications, CHP and co-firing (Kirkels and Verbong, 2011). Small-
2.3.4.1 Bioenergy chains for power, combined heat and power, scale systems ranging from cooking stoves and anaerobic digestion
and heat systems to small gasifiers have been improving in efficiency over time.
Several European countries are developing digestion systems using
Liquid biofuels from biomass have higher production costs than solid a mixture of solid biomass, municipal waste and manures, producing
biomass (at USD2005 ~2 to 5/GJ) used for heat and power. Unprocessed either electricity or high-quality methane. At the smallest scales, the
solid biomass is less costly than pre-processed types (via densification, primary use of biomass is for lighting, heating and cooking (see Table
e.g., delivered wood pellets at USD2005 10 to 20/GJ), but entails higher 2.6).
logistic costs and is a reason why both types of solid biomass markets
developed (Sections 2.3.2.2 and 2.3.2.3). Because of economies of scale, Many region-specific factors determine the production costs of bio-
some of the specific technologies that have proven successful at a large energy carriers, including land and labour costs, biomass distribution
scale (such as combustion for electricity generation) cannot be directly density, and seasonal variation. Also, other markets and applications
applied to small-scale applications in a cost-effective fashion, making it partly determine the value of biomass. For many bioenergy systems,
necessary to identify suitable alternative technologies, usually adapting biomass supply costs represent a considerable proportion of total
existing technologies used with carbonaceous fuels. This is the case for production costs. The scale of biofuel conversion technologies, local
ORC technologies, which are entering the commercial stage, and Stirling legislation and environmental standards can also differ considerably
engine technologies, which are still in developmental phase, or moving from country to country. Even the operation of conversion systems
from combustion to gasification, coupled to an engine (IEA, 2008a). (e.g., load factor) varies, depending on, for example, climatic conditions
(e.g., winter district heating) or crop harvesting cycles (e.g., sugarcane
An intermediate liquid fuel from pyrolysis is part of evolving heating harvest cycles and climate impact). The result is a wide range of pro-
and power in co-firing applications because it is a transportable fuel duction costs that varies not only by technology and resource type,
(see Table 2.6) and is under investigation for stationary power and for but also by numerous regional and local factors (see examples of such
upgrading to transport fuel (see Sections 2.3.3.2 and 2.6.3.1). Pyrolysis ranges in Section 2.7 and Annex III).
oils are a commercial source of low-volume specialty chemicals (see
Bridgwater et al., 2003, 2007).
2.3.4.2 Bioenergy chains for liquid transport fuels
Many bioenergy chains employ cogeneration in their systems where the
heat generated as a by-product of power generation is used as steam Bioenergy chains for liquid transportation fuels are similarly diverse
to meet process heating requirements, with an overall efficiency of 60% and are described below under three subsections: (1) integrated etha-
or even higher (over 90%) in some cases (IEA, 2008a; Williams et al., nol, power, and sugar from sugarcane; (2) ethanol and fodder products;
2009). Technologies available for high-temperature/high-pressure steam and (3) biodiesel. Also covered here are 2008 to 2009 biofuels produc-
generation using bagasse as a fuel, for example, make it possible for tion costs by feedstock and region. Though liquid biofuels are mainly
sugar mills to operate at higher levels of energy efficiency and generate used in the transport sector, in many developing and in some devel-
more electricity than what they require. Sugarcane bagasse and now oped countries they are also used to generate electricity or peak power.
increasingly sugarcane field residues from cane mechanical harvesting
are used for process heat and power (Maués, 2007; Macedo et al., 2008; Integrated ethanol, power and sugar from sugarcane
Dantas et al., 2009; Seabra et al., 2010) to such an extent that in 2009, Ethanol from sugarcane is primarily made from pressed juices and
5% of Brazil’s electricity was provided by bagasse cogeneration (EPE, molasses or from by-products of sugar mills. The fermentation takes
2010). Similarly, black liquor, an organic pulping product containing place in single-batch, fed-batch or continuous processes, the latter
pulping chemicals, is produced in the paper and pulp industry and is becoming widespread and being more efficient because yeasts can be
being burnt efficiently in boilers to produce energy that is then used as recycled. The ethanol content in the fermented liquor is 7 to 10% in
process heat (Faaij, 2006). Cogeneration-based district heating in Nordic Brazil (BNDES/CGEE, 2008), and is subsequently distilled to increase
and European countries is also very popular. purity to about 93%. To be blended with gasoline in most applications,

241
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Table 2.6 | Current and projected estimated production costs and efficiencies of bioenergy chains at various scales in world regions for power, heat, and biomethane from wastes
directly taken from available literature data.

Estimated
Efficiency, Application and Production Potential Advances
Feedstock/ Production Costs
Major Process Costs; Eff. = bioenergy/biomass energy USD2005/GJ
Country/ Region USD2005/GJ
Component costs in USD2005/GJ US cents2005/kWh
US cents2005/kWh
Reduce fuel cost by improved
pretreatment, characterization and
5 to 100 MWe, Eff. ~30 to 40%.1,2 >50 power plants operated
measurement methods.4 Torrefied
or carried on experimental operation using wood logs/ 8.1 – 15
biomass is a solid uniform product with
Wood log, residues, chips/ Co-combustion with residues, of which 16 are operational and using coal. More 2.9 – 5.3
low moisture and high energy content
Ag. Wastes/ Worldwide coal than 20 pulverized coal plants in operation.3 Wood chips Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
and more suitable for co-firing in
(straw) used in at least 5 (10) operating power plants in 100 – 1,3001
pulverized coal plants.3 Cost reduction
co-firing with coal.3
and corrosion-resistant materials for coal
plant needed.5

10 to 100 MWe, Eff. ~20 to 40%.1,2 Well deployed in Scan- 20 – 25 U.S. 2020 cost projections:6
Wood log, residues, chips/ dinavia and North America; various advanced concepts give 7.2 – 9.2 6.3 – 7.8
Direct combustion
Ag. Wastes/ Worldwide high efficiency, low costs and high flexibility.2 Major variable Inv. Cost (USD/kW): Stoker fired boilers:
is biomass supply costs.2 1,600 – 2,5001 7.5 – 8.1

50 to 400 MWe, Eff. ~22%, due to low-temperature steam New CHP plant designs using MSW are
Direct combustion to avoid corrosion.7,8 Commercially deployed incineration 9.1 – 26 expected to reach 28 to 30% electrical
MSW/ Worldwide (gasification and co-
combustion with coal has higher capital costs and lower (average) efficiency.2 Four 3.3 – 9.47 efficiency, and above 85 to 90% overall
coal-based plants co-fire MSW.3 efficiency in CHP.8

29 – 38
10 – 14 Increased efficiency of the gasification
Wood/ Ag. Wastes/ Small scale/gas engine 5 to 10 MWe, Eff. ~15 to 30%.1,2 First-generation concepts
Inv. Cost (USD/kW): and performance of the integrated
Worldwide gasification prove capital intensive.2
2,500 – 5,6001 system. Decrease tars and emissions.1

12.5 to 300 MWe.9 Used in 2 operating power plants in

Direct coal co-firing or 14 – 36 See PELLETS@LAS Pellet Handbook and
Wood pellets/ EU co-firing with coal.3 Costs highly dependent on shipment size
co-gasification 5.0 – 139,10 www.pelletsatlas.info.
and distances.9

Develop direct conventional oil refinery

Coal co-combustion/ 12.5 to 1,200 MWe.9 Costs highly dependent on shipment size 19 – 42
Pyrolysis oil /EU integrated and/or upgrading processes
gasification and distances.9 7.0 – 159,10
allowing for direct use in diesel blends.1

0.005 to 0.05 MWth, Eff. ~10 to 20%.2 Traditional devices

are inefficient and generate indoor pollution. Improved New stoves with 35 to 50% efficiency
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
cook stoves are available that reduce fuel use (up to 60%) also reduce indoor air pollution more
1002
Fuelwood/ Mostly in and cut 70% of indoor pollution. Residential use (cooking) than 90%.2 See Section 2.5.7.2.
Combustion for heat application.2
developing countries
More widespread use of improved kilns
1 to 5 MWth, Eff. ~70 to 90% for modern furnaces.2 Existing Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
to cut consumption by 50 to 60% and
industries have highly polluting low-efficiency kilns.11 300 – 8002
reduce pollution.11

Organic Waste/MSW/ Landfill with methane Eff. ~10 to 15% (electricity).2 Widely applied for electricity Biogas: Continued efficiency increases are
Worldwide recovery and part of waste treatment policies of many countries.2 1.3 – 1.712 expected.

Fuel:
Improvements in biomass pretreatment,
Widely applied for homogeneous wet organic waste streams 2.4 – 6.613
the biogas cleansing processes, the
and waste water.2 To a lesser extent used for heterogeneous Elec.:
thermophilic process, and biological
Organic Waste/MSW/ Anaerobic co-digestion, wet wastes such as organic domestic wastes.2 48 – 591
digestion (already at R&D stage).1, 17
Manures/ Sweden/ EU in gas clean up, compres- 17 – 211
expansion sion, and distribution In commercial use in Sweden, other EU
Fuel: 15 – 16
14
countries. State of California study shows
Costs do not include credits for sale of fertilizer by-product. Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
potential for the augmentation of natural
13,00014
gas distribution.14
Large reductions in costs by using
Cooking, heating and electricity applications. By-product
Manures/ Worldwide Household digestion 1 to 2 years payback time geomembranes. Improved designs and
liquid fertilizer credit possible.
reduction in digestion times.15

Continued next Page

242
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Estimated
Efficiency, Application and Production Potential Advances
Feedstock/ Production Costs
Major Process Costs; Eff. = bioenergy/biomass energy USD2005/GJ
Country/ Region USD2005/GJ
Component costs in USD2005/GJ US cents2005/kWh
US cents2005/kWh
Elec.: 77 – 110
Manures/Finland Farms Biogas from farms 0.018 to 0.050 MWe.16 Inv. Cost (USD/kW): Improved designs and reduction in
14000 – 2300016 digestion times. Improvements in the
understanding of anaerobic digestion,
Elec.: 70 – 89 metagenomics of complex consortia of
Biogas from farm animal residues and food processing resi-
Manures/Food residues Farms/Food Industry Inv. Cost (USD/kW): microorganisms.12
dues at 0.15 to 0.29 MWe.16
12000 – 1500016

Abbreviations: Inv. = Investment; Elec. = Electricity. References: 1. Bauen et al. (2009a); 2. IEA Bioenergy (2007); 3. Cremers (2009) (see IEA co-firing database at www.ieabcc.nl/
database/cofiring.php); 4. Econ Poyry (2008); 5. Egsgaard et al. (2009); 6. NRC (2009b); 7. Koukouzas et al. (2008); 8. IEA (2008a); 9. Hamelinck (2004); 10. Uslu et al. (2008); 11. REN21
(2007); 12. Cirne et al. (2007); 13. Sustainable Transport Solutions (2006); 14. Krich et al. (2005); 15. Müller, (2007); 16. Kuuva and Ruska (2009); 17. Petersson and Wellinger, 2009.

ethanol should be anhydrous and the mixture has to be further dehy- Snapshot of 2008 to 2009 biofuels costs from multiple feedstocks
drated to reach a grade of 99.8 to 99.9% (WWI, 2006). and world regions
A snapshot of ranges of biofuels production costs for 2008 to 2009 (pri-
Ethanol and fodder products marily 2009) is shown in Figure 2.7 for various world regions based on
The dominant dry mill (or dry grind) process (88% of US production) for a variety of feedstocks including wastes and processing streams from
ethanol fuel manufactured from corn starts with hammer milling the the manufacture of sugar (molasses). The snapshot is based on various
whole grain into a coarse flour, which is cooked into a slurry, then hydro- literature sources such as the recent comparison of costs for Asian Pacific
lyzed with alpha amylase enzymes to form dextrins, next hydrolyzed by Economic Countries (Milbrandt and Overend, 2008, updated),14 and data
gluco-amylases to form glucose that is finally fermented by yeasts (the from Table 2.7.15 For production volumes of these countries see Figure
last two processes can be combined). The byproduct is distillers’ grains 2.9. For ethanol production, feedstock costs represent about 60 to 80%
with solubles, an animal feed (McAloon et al., 2000; Rendleman and of the total production cost while, for biodiesel from oil seeds, the pro-
Shapouri, 2007) that can be sold wet to feedlots near the biorefinery or portion is higher (80 to 90%) (data from 2008 to 2009). Latin and Central
be dried for stabilization and sold. The most common source of process American sugarcane ethanol is found to have had the lowest production
heat is natural gas. From the early 1980s to 2005, the energy intensity of costs over this period, followed by Asian, Pacific and North American
average dry mill plants in North America has been reduced by 14% for starch crops, then by European Union (EU) sugar beet and finally EU
every cumulative doubling of production (learning rate, see Table 2.17; grains. Molasses production costs are lower in India and Pacific countries
Hettinga et al., 2007, 2009). Since then, 10 cumulative doublings (see than in Other Asia countries. For biodiesel production, Latin America has
also Section 2.7.2) have occurred and the industry continues to improve the lowest costs, followed by Other Asia countries palm oil, Other Asia
its energy performance with, for instance, CHP ((S&T)2 Consultants, rapeseed and soybean, and then North American soybean and EU rape-
2009). The impacts of this and other process improvements have been seed. Biodiesel production costs are generally somewhat higher than
estimated to continue such that, by 2022, the projected production cost for ethanol, but can reach those of ethanol for countries with higher-
is USD2005 16/GJ, reduced from USD2005 17.5/GJ in 2009 (EPA, 2010). productivity plants or a lower cost base such as Indonesia/Malaysia and
Table 2.7 presents examples of process improvements from membrane Argentina.
separation for ethanol to enzymes operating at lower temperature, etc.
A similar process to corn dry milling is wheat-to-ethanol processing, There is significant room for feedstock improvement, mainly its productiv-
starting with a malting step, and either enzyme or acid hydrolysis lead- ity (see also Section 2.6.1), and also for its conversion to products based
ing to sugars for fermentation. on the projected increases in efficiency shown in Table 2.7. In an analysis
of US biofuel production, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Biodiesel projected costs based on the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization
Biodiesel is produced from oil seed crops like rapeseed or soybeans, Model (FASOM) and found significant room for improvement (see
or from trees such as oil seed palms. It is also produced from a vari-
ety of greases and wastes from cooking oils or animal fats. This wide 14 The study addressed biofuels production, feedstock availability, economics, refuelling
infrastructure, use of alternative fuel vehicles, trade, and policies.
range of feedstocks, from low-cost wastes to more expensive vegetable
oils, produces biodiesel fuels with more variable properties that follow 15 The ranges of production costs shown here include a variety of waste streams and
those of the starting oil seed plant. Fuel standards’ harmonization is feedstocks with a broader geographic distribution than those summarized in Section
2.7 and detailed in Annex III. Data in Annex III cover broad ranges of a few feedstocks
still under development as are a variety of non-edible oil seed plants varying their costs, investment capital, co-products, and financial assumptions. From
(Knothe, 2010; Balat, 2011). Examples of producing regions are shown these transparent techno-economic data, it is possible for the reader to change
in Figure 2.7. assumptions and recalculate approximate production costs in specific regions.

243
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Table 2.7 | Current and projected estimated production costs and efficiencies of commercial biofuels in various countries directly taken from available literature data. Also provided is
the range of direct reductions of GHG emissions from these routes compared to the fossil fuel replaced (see Section 2.5 for detailed GHG emissions discussion). Parts A and B address
ethanol and biodiesel fuels, respectively.

A: Ethanol

Efficiency, Application and Direct GHG Potential Advances

Estimated
Feedstock/ Country/ Production Costs; Reduction (%) in Cost Reductions
Production Costs
Process Region Eff. = bioenergy/ biomass energy from Fossil and Efficiency
USD2005/GJ
Component costs in USD2005/GJ Reference (FR) USD2005/GJ
9 – 10.1 Eff. ~50%.5
Mechanized harvest and
Sugarcane pressed, juice 79 to 86%
Eff. ~38%,1 ~41% (ethanol only);2 170 million l/yr, efficient use of sugarcane
fermented to ethanol, Brazil 14.8 w/o CR.2 (w/o and w/ CPC);
FC: 11.1; CC*: 3.7 w/o CR. 2 straw and leaves.6 Biorefineries
bagasse to process heat FR: gasoline.4
with multiple products.5
and power, and increasingly Improved yeasts.
sale of electricity.
Eff. ~38%, ~41% (ethanol only), FC: 24.8; CC*: 7
Australia 31.8 w/o CR.3
w/o CR.3
Eff. ~64%.11 Industry Eff. ~65
to 68%. Estimated production
35 to 56% for various CPC
20–21 w/ CR2,15,19 cost:16.5, 8 US projected low
Eff. ~62%;2,8 89% of production.5 30% co-product methods;
Corn grain dry milling 17.55 temperature starch enzyme hy-
feed DGS sold wet.5,8 250 million l/yr plant, FC: FR: gasoline 35% (system
process for ethanol, fodder 31 w/ CR.11 drolysis/fermentation, corn dry
14.12 – 29.411; CC*: 6 and CR: 3.8 – 4.4.2 expansion);
(DGS) for animal feed fractionation, biodiesel from
Process Heat: NG.12,13
oil in 90% of mills, membrane
ethanol separation, and CHP.5
France 170 million l/yr, FC: 29.3; CC*: 10.5 and CR: 5.11 34.8 w/ CR.11 60%9,14
40%, DGS to energy.17
Eff. ~53 to 59%.11,16 250 million l/yr plant, FC: 36.2; 2 to 80% w/ DGS to energy
EU (UK) 40.7 w/ CR.11 2020 Eff. ~64%.11
CC*: 10.5 and CR: 6.11 -8 to 70% w/ DGS to
Wheat similar to corn to feed.18
ethanol, fodder (DGS)
55% wheat starch NG,
Australia 30 million l/yr plant, FC: 14.4; CC*: 8.6 and CR:
22.8 w/ CR.3 27% wheat-coal, 59%
(from waste) 0.2.3
wheat w/ straw firing.3
Sugar beet crushing, fer-
Eff. ~12%.1,16,19 250 million l/yr plant, FC: 21.6; CC*: 28 to 66%, alternate co-
ment sugar to ethanol and EU (UK) 24.4 w/ CR.11 2020 Eff. ~15%.1
11 and CR: 8.2.11 product use.17,18
residue

Thailand’s process with 38 million l, and feed Thailand: 45%.24

Cassava mashing, cooking, Thailand/
productivity 20 to 21 t/ha.16,20,21 China ethanol plant Thailand: 2623 China: 20% with anaerobic
fermentation to ethanol China
operating at partial capacity.22 digestion energy.25

27 to 59% depending on
Molasses by-product of Thailand/ About 3% of molasses could be used for ethanol in Thailand: 2123 Australia:
co-product credit method
sugar production Australia Thailand. FC: 10.9 and 10; CC*: 10.1 and CR: 5.7.23 163
(Australia).26,27

Continued next Page

Table 2.7; EPA, 2010). The IEA has similarly estimated cost reductions starch crops (ethanol). Several bioenergy systems have been deployed
for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) competitively, most notably sugarcane ethanol and heat and power
countries’ rapeseed biodiesel by 2030 (IEA Bioenergy, 2007). Further generation from wastes and residues. Other biofuels have also under-
discussions of historical and future cost expectations are provided in gone cost and environmental impact reductions and reached significant
Section 2.7. scales but still require government subsidies.

Modern bioenergy systems involve a wide range of feedstock types,

2.3.5 Synthesis residues from agriculture and forestry, various streams of organic waste,
and dedicated crops or perennial systems. Existing bioenergy systems
The key currently commercial technologies are heat production (rang- rely mostly on wood, residues and waste for heat and power production,
ing from home cooking to district heating), power generation from and agricultural crops for liquid biofuels. The economics and yields of
biomass via combustion, CHP, co-firing of biomass and fossil fuels, and feedstocks vary widely across world regions and feedstock types. Energy
first-generation liquid biofuels from oil crops (biodiesel) and sugar and yields per unit area range from 16 to 200 GJ/ha (1.6 to 20 TJ/km2) for

244
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

B: Biodiesel
Efficiency, Application and Direct GHG Potential Advances in
Estimated
Feedstock/ Production Costs; Reduction (%) Cost Reductions and
Country Production Costs
Process Eff. = bioenergy/biomass energy from Fossil Efficiency
USD2005/GJ
Component costs in USD2005/GJ Reference (FR) USD2005/GJ
Eff. ~29%; for the total system it is assumed that sur- 25 – 37 for OECD.1
Germany 31 – 50.1
pluses of straw are used for power production.27
New methods using bio-catalysts;
31 to 70%, alternate co-
Rape seed 55 GJ/ha/yr (EU), 220 million l/yr plant, FC: 40.5; CC*: 2.7 Supercritical alcohol processing.
France 41.5 w/ CR.11 product use.9,17,28
and CR: 1.7.11 Heterogeneous catalysts or bio-
catalysts. New uses for glycerine.
UK 220 million l/yr plant, FC: 35.6; CC*: 4.2 and CR: 11.3.11 28.5 w/ CR.11
Improved feedstock productivity. 30
35 to 66%, alternate co-
Indonesia
163 GJ/ha/yr. 220 million l/yr plant, FC: 25.1; CC*: 2.7 and 11
product use.31 (tropical fal-
Oil palm Malaysia Asian 26.1 w/ CR.
CR: 1.7.11 low land, residue to power,
countries20
good management).28
US projected 2020 waste oil
Costs neglect some countries with high production costs.
Vegetable oils 109 countries 4.2 – 17.9.3,11,31 N/A ester cost 14.5 About 50 billion l
FC: 0.6 – 21; CC*: 2.3 – 3.7 and CR: 0 – 6.2.3,11,29
projected from 119 countries.29

Abbreviations: *Conversion costs (CC) include investment costs and operating expenses; CR = Co-product Revenue; CPC = coproduct credit; FC = feedstock cost; FR = fossil reference;
N/A = not available.
References: 1. IEA Bioenergy (2007a); 2. Tao and Aden (2009); 3. Beer and Grant 2007; 4. Macedo et al. (2008); 5. EPA (2010); 6. Seabra et al. (2010); 7. UK DfT (2003); 8. Rendleman
and Shapouri (2007); 9. Bessou et al. (2010); 10. Wang et al. (2011); 11. Bauen et al. (2009a); 12. Wang et al. (2010); 13. Plevin (2009); 14. Ecobilan (2002); 15. Bain (2007); 16.
Fulton et al. (2004); 17. Edwards et al. (2008); 18. Edwards et al. (2007); 19. Hamelinck (2004); 20. Koizumi and Ohga (2008); 21. Milbrandt and Overend (2008); 22. GAIN (2009a;
for China); 23. GAIN (2009c; for Thailand); 24. Nguyen and Gheewala et al. (2008); 25. Leng et al. (2008); 26. Beer et al. (2001); 27. Beer et al. (2000); 28. Reinhardt et al. (2006); 29.
Johnston and Holloway (2007); 30. Bhojvaid (2007); 31. Wicke et al. (2008).

EU (Sugar Beet) North America (Soybeans)

EU (Grains) EU (Rapeseed)

North America (Grains) Other Asia (Rapeseed, Soybeans)

Other Asia (Molasses) Pacific (Canola)

Pacific (Grains) Other Asia (Yellow Grease)

China (Grains) Other Asia (Palm Oil)

Other Asia (Cassava) Latin America (Soybeans)

Pacific (Molasses) Pacific (Tallow)

India (Molasses) Pacific (Yellow Grease)

Central America (Sugarcane) North America (Yellow Grease)

Latin America (Sugarcane)

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Cost [USD2005 /GJ] Cost [USD2005 /GJ]

Figure 2.7 | Snapshots of regional ranges of current (2008-2009) estimated production costs for ethanol and biodiesel from various biomass feedstocks and wastes based on Mil-
brandt and Overend (2008) and Table 2.7.
Notes: The upper value of the range of soybean diesel in North America is due to the single point estimate of Bauen et al. (2009a). Other estimates are in the USD2005 12 to 32/GJ range.

biofuel feedstocks, from 80 to 415 GJ/ha (8 to 41.5 TJ/km2) for ligno- agro-forestry or mixed cropping may provide synergies along with addi-
cellulosic feedstocks, and from 2 to 155 GJ/ha (0.2 to 15.5 TJ/km2) for tional environmental services.
residues, while costs range from USD2005 0.9 to 16/GJ/ha (USD2005 0.09
to 1.6/TJ/km2). Feedstock production competes with the forestry and Handling and transport of biomass from production sites to conver-
food sectors, but the design of integrated production systems such as sion plants may contribute 20 to 50% of the total costs of bioenergy

245
Bioenergy Chapter 2

production. Factors such as scale increases, technological innovation 2.4 Global and regional status of market and
and increased competition have contributed to decrease the economic industry development
and energy costs of supply chains by more than 50%. Densification via
pelletization or briquetting is required for transport distances over 50 2.4.1 Current bioenergy production and outlook16
km. International costs of delivering densified feedstocks are sensitive
to trade and are in the USD2005 10 to 20/GJ range for pellet fuels, and Biomass provides about 10% (50.3 EJ in 2008) of the annual global
competitive with other market fuels in several regions, thus explain- primary energy supply. As presented in Table 2.1, about 60% (IEA
ing why such markets are increasing. Charcoal made from biomass is a accounted) to 70% (including unaccounted informal sector) of this
major fuel in developing countries, and should benefit from the adop- biomass is used in rural areas and relates to charcoal, wood, agricul-
tion of higher-efficiency kilns and densification technologies. tural residues and manure used for cooking, lighting and space heating,
generally by the poorer part of the population in developing countries.
A significant number of electricity generation routes are available and Modern bioenergy use (for power generation and CHP, heat or transport
co-combustion (co-firing) is a relatively efficient way to use solid bio- fuels) accounted for a primary biomass supply of 11.3 EJ (IEA, 2010a,b;
mass compared to direct combustion. Small-scale plants usually provide see Table 2.1) in 2008, up from 9.6 EJ17 in 2004 (IPCC, 2007d), and a
heat and electricity at a higher production cost than larger systems, rough estimate of 8 EJ in 2000 (IEA Bioenergy, 2007).
although this varies somewhat with location. Heat and power systems
are available in a variety of sizes and efficiencies. Biomass gasification The use of solid biomass for energy increased at an average annual
currently provides about 1.4 GWth of industrial applications, CHP and co- growth rate of 1.5%, but secondary energy carriers from modern bio-
firing. Small-scale systems ranging from cooking stoves and anaerobic mass such as liquid and gaseous fuels increased at 12.1 and 15.4%
digestion systems to small gasifiers have been improving in efficiency average annual growth rates, respectively, from 1990 to 2008 (IEA,
over time. Several European countries are developing digestion systems 2010a). As a result, biofuels’ share of global road transport fuel use was
using a mixture of solid biomass, municipal waste and manures, pro- 2% in 2008. In 2009, the production of ethanol and biodiesel increased
ducing either electricity or high-quality methane from upgrading. Many by 10 and 9%, respectively, to 90 billion litres; biofuels provided nearly
applications, including transport systems, are developing and have the 3% of global road transport fuel use in 2009, as oil demand decreased
potential to further increase their effectiveness. Technologies at small for the first time since 1980 (IEA, 2010b). Government policies in various
scales, primarily stoves for heating, continue to improve but diffusion countries led to a five-fold increase in global biofuels production from
is slow. 2000 to 2008. Biomass and renewable waste power generation was
259 TWh (0.93 EJ) in 2007 and 267 TWh (0.96 EJ) in 2008, representing
Sugarcane-, sugar beet-, and cereal grain-derived ethanol production 1% of the world’s electricity, which doubled since 1990 (from 131 TWh
reached a high level of energy efficiency in major producing countries or 0.47 EJ). Industrial biomass heating accounts for 8 EJ while space
such as Brazil, the USA, and the EU. The ethanol industry in Center South and water heating for building applications account for 3.4 EJ (IEA,
Brazil significantly increased its cogeneration efficiency and supplied 2010b; see Table 2.1).
5% of the country’s electricity in 2009. Development of ethanol from
waste streams from sugar processing is occurring in India, Pacific and Most of the increase in the use of biofuels in 2007 and 2008 occurred
other Asian countries that produce relatively low-cost ethanol but with in the OECD, mainly in North America and Europe. Excess capacity
limited production volumes. Biodiesel production from waste fats and was installed in expectation of increased demand with mandates
greases has a lower feedstock cost than from rapeseed and soybean but and subsidies in many countries; however, feedstock and oil price
waste fat and grease volumes are limited. increases and the worsening overall economic conditions during and
after the credit crunch made many of these facilities unprofitable. As
Biofuel production economics is of key importance for future expansion a result, some are underutilized, more so in biodiesel than in ethanol
of the biofuels industry. The future development of sustainable biofuels production. Some plants are not in operation and some businesses
also depends on a balanced scorecard that includes economic, envi- failed. Asia Pacific and Latin American markets are growing, primarily
ronmental, and social metrics (see Section 2.5). Resolution of technical,
economic, social, environmental and regulatory issues remains critical 16 This sub-section is largely based on the WEO 2009 (IEA, 2009b) and 2010
(IEA, 2010b) and the Global Biofuels Center assessments, web-based biofuels
to further development of biofuels. The development of a global market news, reports, trade, and market information (Hart Energy Publishing, LP, www.
and industry is described in the next section. globalbiofuelscenter.com/).

17 The 9.6 EJ is an estimated equivalent primary biomass energy deducting the non-
biogenic MSW that was included in the AR4 study (IPCC, 2007d), or about 0.4 EJ of
plastics (estimated based on subsequent IEA 2005 data).

246
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

in developing countries due to economic development. Despite this and many of the technologies needed are at the demonstration to early
anticipated short-term downturn, world use of biofuels for road commercialization stages of development in 2011 (see Tables 2.5 and
transport is projected to recover in the next few years (IEA, 2010b). 2.15; IEA Renewable Energy Division, 2010).

The WEO (IEA, 2010b) projections for 2020 to 2035 are summarized Global biomass and renewable waste electricity generation is also pro-
in Table 2.8 (in terms of global TPES from biomass); Table 2.9 (in jected to increase in both scenarios, reaching 5.6% of global electricity
terms of global biofuel demand, i.e., secondary energy); and Table generation by 2035 in the 450-ppm scenario as shown in Table 2.10. The
2.10 (in terms of global electricity generation)—all of them com- climate change driver nearly doubles the anticipated penetration levels
paring a baseline case (Current Policies) and a mitigation scenario of biopower compared to the projected levels owing to continuation of
reaching an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm by 2100. current policies.

The overall TPES from biomass in the 450 ppm CO2 stabilization sce- In the WEO (IEA, 2010b), biomass industrial heating applications for
nario increases to 83 (95) EJ/yr in 2030 (2035) adding 14 (12) EJ to process steam and space and hot water heating for buildings would
the Reference (Current Policies) scenario (see Table 2.8). each double in absolute terms from 2008 levels by 2035, offsetting

Table 2.8 | IEA WEO scenarios: global TPES from biomass projections (EJ/yr) for 2020 to 2035 (IEA, 2010b).

Year 2007 2008 2020 2030 2035

Scenario Actual Actual Baseline 450 ppm Baseline 450 ppm Baseline 450 ppm
EJ/yr 48 50 60 63 66 83 70 95
Delta, EJ 2 3 17 25

Table 2.9 | IEA WEO scenarios: global biofuels demand projections (EJ/yr) for 2020 to 2035 reported in secondary energy terms of the delivered product according to IEA data (IEA,
2010b).

Year 2008 2009 2020 2030 2035

Scenario Actual Actual Baseline 450 ppm Baseline 450 ppm Baseline 450 ppm
EJ/yr 1.9 2.1 4.5 5.1 5.9 11.8  6.8 16.2

11 14
% Global road transport 2 3 4.4 7 4.4 5
(and air) (and air)

% Advanced biofuels Deployment 60 66

Table 2.10 | IEA WEO scenarios: primary biomass and renewable waste electricity generation projections for 2030 (IEA, 2009, 2010b) and 2035 (IEA, 2010b).

Year 2008 2030 2035

Scenario Actual Baseline, Reference case 450 ppm Scenario Current Policies 450 ppm Scenario
TWh/yr (EJ/yr) 267 (0.96) 825 (3.0) 1380 (5.0)  1052 (3.8) 1890 (6.8)
% Global electricity 0.96 2.4 4.5 2.7 5.6
TWh/yr (EJ/yr) 840 (3.0) 1450 (5.2)
% Global electricity 2.4 4.8

The use of liquid and gaseous energy carriers from modern biomass is some of the expected decrease in the major component of the heating
growing, in particular biofuels, with a 37% increase from 2006 to 2009 category, traditional biomass, as the total heating demand is projected
(IEA, 2010c). Regions that currently have strong policy support for bio- to decrease in 2035. Industrial and building heating is seen as an area
fuels are projected to take the largest share of the eight-fold increase for continued biomass growth. In fact, biomass is very efficiently used in
in the market for biofuels that occurs from 2008 to 2035. This is led by CHP plants, supplying a district heating network. Biomass combustion
the USA (where one-third of the increase occurs), followed by Brazil, the to produce electricity and heat in CHP plants is an efficient and mature
EU and China. To highlight the scale, 7 EJ of advanced biofuels (second technology and is already competitive with fossil fuels in certain loca-
generation) is greater than, for example, India’s 2007 oil consumption, tions (IEA, 2008a).

247
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2009 Major Pellet Trade Flows

Pellet Trade [PJ]

1
5

7.5

10

2008 Biomass Power [TWh] 2008 Biomass Heat [PJ]

60 140
50 120
40 100
80
30
60
20 40
10 20
0 0
USA
Germany
Brazil
Japan
UK
Sweden
Finland
Canada
Italy
Netherlands
Thailand
Austria
Francece
Poland
Denmark
Belgium
Spain
Chile
Australia
Mexico
China
India
Hungary
Portugal
Argentina
Czech Republic
Korea
New Zealand
Norway

Sweden
Germany
Finland
Denmark

USA
Russia
Austria
China
France
Korea
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Norway
Japan
Czech Republic
Hungary
Canada
Belgium
Figure 2.8 | Examples of biomass electricity generation and heating for select countries in 2008 and of the 2009 global trade in wood pellets. Sources: bar chart data from IEA (2010c);
trade flow data reproduced from Sikkema et al. (2011) with permission from the Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The use of solid biomass for electricity production is important, espe- 2.4.2 Traditional biomass, improved technologies and
cially from pulp and paper plants and sugar mills. Bioenergy’s share of practices, and barriers
total energy consumption is increasing in the G8 countries (e.g., co-
combustion for electricity generation, building heating with pellets), Biomass is an important traditional fuel in developing countries, where
especially in Germany, Italy and the UK (IEA, 2009b). The electricity on average it accounts for 22% of the energy mix;18 in the poorest coun-
generation and biomass heating are shown in Figure 2.8. Worldwide tries it accounts for more than 80% (see IEA, 2010c). Traditional sources
biomass heating statistics are uncertain (Sims, 2007) for developed of biomass include mostly wood fuels but also agriculture residues and
countries. In Europe, biomass heating applications in the building sec- dung, and they contribute essentially to domestic heating and cooking.
tor are cost competitive and are shown in Figure 2.8. For developing The number of people dependent on biomass for cooking is estimated at
countries, the statistics are less developed, as tools to collect data from
informal sectors are lacking (see Table 2.1). 18 Average contribution to the energy mix from renewable and waste combustibles was
48, 20, 24, 27, and 10% for Africa, Latin America, India, Non-OECD Asia, and China,
respectively, while only 4% for the OECD countries in 2008 (IEA, 2010c).

248
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

2.7 billion (for 2008) and is projected to increase to 2.8 billion by 2030 in Africa. The UN Foundation-led Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
(IEA, 2010b). Many thousand biomass-based small industries—such as started in 2010 to promote the dissemination and adoption of 100 mil-
brick making, food, charcoal, bakeries and others—provide employment lion advanced cook stoves by 2020.20
and income to people. Most of these technologies are resource inten-
sive, highly polluting and exhibit low efficiencies (see Tables 2.1 and 2.6; Two main lines of technology development have been followed. Mass-
FAO, 2010b). However, there is currently a significant and growing mar- scale approaches—some of which use state-of-the-art manufacturing
ket for improved technologies. Also, several programmes at the global, facilities—rely on centralized production of stoves or critical com-
national and local levels are in place to disseminate more efficient tech- ponents, with distribution channels that can even include different
nology options. countries. As a result, there are companies that produce more than
100,000 stoves per year (Bairiganjan et al., 2010). A second approach
relies more on strengthening regional capabilities, giving more empha-
2.4.2.1 Improved biomass cook stoves sis to local employment creation; sometimes the stoves are built onsite
rather than sold on markets, such as the Patsari Stove in Mexico and
Most developing countries have initiated some type of improved cook Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités (GERES)
stove (ICS) programme since the 1980s. The World Bank Energy Sector in Cambodia (Bairiganjan et al., 2010). Improved stove designs to appeal
Management Assistance Program (World Bank, 2010) reviewed in depth to consumers, market segmentation and microfinance mechanisms have
the international experience on improved stoves and summarized sig- also been developed (Hilman et al., 2007).
nificant lessons learned for developing countries and, in particular, for
Bangladesh, the objective of the study. For Eastern African countries, see Incentives and barriers
Karekezi and Turyareeba (1995). Many programmes are in operation, Cookstove programmes have been successful in countries where proper
sponsored by development agencies, governments, nongovernmen- assessment was made of the local needs in terms of technology, cook-
tal organizations (NGOs) and the private sector. By the end of 2009, ing devices, user needs and institutional setting. Financial incentives
173 million energy saving stoves were in use in China. Other countries have helped with the dissemination, while an enabling institutional
were not very successful in disseminating ICS. Over the past 10 years, a environment by governments—such as in China—has also helped
whole new generation of advanced biomass stoves and dissemination promote new technologies. Finally, accurate monitoring and evaluation
approaches have been developed, and the field is now bursting with has been critical for successful stove adoption and use (Bairiganjan et
innovations (World Bank, 2010). al., 2010; Venkataraman et al., 2010). Other drivers for increased adop-
tion of ICS have included: (1) cooking environments where users feel
A variety of technologies are used, including direct combustion, small- smoke is a health problem and annoyance; (2) a short consumer pay-
scale gasification, small-scale anaerobic digestion, direct use of a liquid back (few months); (3) donor or government support extended over at
fuel (ethanol) or combinations of technologies.19 As a result, combustion least five years; and (4) financial support to build local institutions and
efficiency has been greatly improved relative to the alternative open develop local expertise. Government assistance has been more effec-
fires. The cost ranges from less than USD 10 for the simpler models to tive in technical advice and quality control. Carbon offset projects are
more than USD 100 or more for more sophisticated models and USD increasingly providing new financing for these activities, either through
100 to 300 for institutional stoves (e.g., schools, hospitals, and barracks) the Voluntary Market (Gold Standard) or, increasingly, through the CDM.
according to 2007 to 2009 cost range data. Fuel savings are 30 to 60%, Successful programmes with low-cost but efficient ICS report that local
measured in field conditions, to more than 90%, measured in pilot test- poor residents purchased cookstoves without support of programmes
ing of the most advanced models (Berrueta et al., 2008; World Bank, because of fuel savings (World Bank, 2010).
2010). There are also significant reductions in GHG emissions and indoor
air pollutants (Section 2.5.4). Several barriers need to be overcome for a rapid diffusion of ICS. There
are needs for (1) substantial increases in R&D;21 (2) more field testing
By 2008 an estimated 820 million people (around 30% of the 2.7 bil- and stove customization for users’ needs; and (3) strict product specifi-
lion that rely on traditional biomass for cooking, see Section 1.4.1.2) cations and testing and certification programmes. Finally, it is important
in the world were using some type of improved cook stove for cooking to better understand the patterns of stove adoption given the multiple
(Legros et al., 2009), and more than 160 stove programmes are in place devices and fuels as well as mechanisms to foster their long-term use.
worldwide, with recently launched large-scale national programmes
in India, Mexico and Peru, as well as large donor-based programmes 20 See www.cleancookstoves.org.

21 Particularly for new insulating materials as well as robust designs that endure several
19 These ICS technologies include improvements in the combustion chamber (such as
years of rough use, and small-scale gasification.
the Rocket ‘elbow’), insulation materials, heat transfer ratios, stove geometry and
air flow (Still et al., 2003). The most reliable of these use small electric blowers to
stabilize the combustion, but there are also designs using natural air flow (World
Bank, 2010).

249
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.4.2.2 Biogas systems 2.4.3 Modern biomass: Large-scale systems, improved

technologies and practices, and barriers
Convenient cooking and lighting are also provided by biogas produc-
tion using household-scale biodigesters.22 Biodigesters have the distinct The deployment of large-scale bioenergy systems faces a wide range
co-benefits of enhancing the fertilizer value of the dung in addition to of barriers. Economic barriers appear most prominent for currently
reducing the pathogen risks of human waste. Early stage results have commercial technologies constrained by feedstock availability and by
been mixed because of quality control and management problems, meeting sustainability requirements (Fagernäs et al., 2006; Mayfield et
which have resulted in a large number of failures. Smaller-scale biogas al., 2007), while technical barriers predominate for developing technolo-
experience in Africa has been often disappointing at the household level gies such as second-generation biofuels (Cheng and Timilsina, 2010).
as the capital cost, maintenance and management support required Non-technical barriers are related to deployment policies (fiscal incen-
have been higher than expected. The experience gained, new technology tives, regulations and public finance), market creation, supply chain,
developments (such as the use of geo-membranes), better understand- infrastructure development, community engagement, collaboration
ing of the resources available to users, such as dung, and better market and education (Mayfield et al., 2007; Adams et al., 2011). No single
segmentation are improving the success of new programmes (Kishore barrier appears to be most critical, but the interactions among differ-
et al., 2004).23 ent individual barriers seem to impede rapid bioenergy expansion.
The relative importance of the barriers hinges on the particular value
Incentives and barriers chain and context considered. In particular, national regulations, such
Key factors for project success include a proper understanding of users’ as price-driven FITs for bioelectricity and quantity-driven blending level
needs and resources.24 For example, the role of NGOs, networks and mandates for biofuels, play a major role in the emergence of large-scale
associations in transfer, capacity building, extension and adoption of projects, alongside public finance through government loans or guaran-
biogas plants in rural India was found to be very important (Myles, tee programmes (Table 2.11; Section 11.5.3; Chum and Overend, 2003;
2001). Financial mechanisms, including microfinance schemes and Fagernäs et al., 2006). The priorities also depend on the stakeholder
carbon offset projects under the CDM, are also important in the imple- groups involved in the value chain and differ from feedstock producers
mentation of household biogas programmes. Barriers to increased to fuel producers and through to end users (Adams et al., 2011). Scale
biogas adoption include lack of proper technical standards; insufficient also matters, because barriers perceived by national governments differ
financial mechanisms to achieve desired profits relative to the digest- from those perceived by stakeholders and communities in the vicinity of
ers’ investment, installation and equipment costs; and relatively high bioenergy projects.25
costs of technologies and of labour (e.g., geological investigations into
proper site installations). Other related barriers include poor reliability Technical and non-technical barriers may be overcome by appropriate
and performance of the designs and construction, and limited applica- policy frameworks, economic instruments such as government support
tion of knowledge gained from the operation of existing plants to the tied to private investment support for first-of-a kind commercial plants
design of new plants. to decrease investment risk,26 sustained RD&D efforts, and catalysis of
coordinated multiple private sector activities27 (IATA, 2009; Regalbuto,
Many other small-scale bioenergy applications are emerging, including 2009; Sims et al., 2010). In 2009, global public RD&D efforts were USD
systems aimed at transport and productive uses of energy and electric- 0.6 billion and 0.2 billion for biofuels and biomass to energy, respectively,
ity. The market penetration is still limited, but many of these systems and biofuels public funding increased by 88% from 2008. Corporate
show important benefits in terms of livelihood, new income, revenues RD&D efforts were USD 0.2 billion each for the two areas (UNEP/SEFI/
and efficiency (Practical Action Consulting, 2009). Bloomberg, 2010). Venture capital and private equity investing was

22 By the end of 2009, there were 35 million household biodigesters in China and in 25 For instance, the impacts of bioenergy development on landscapes are a barrier to
India (Gerber, 2008; REN21, 2009, 2010). There is also significant experience with adoption of new bioenergy conversion plants by some farmers as local acceptance
commercial biogas use in Nepal. Müller (2007) reviewed existing biogas technologies decreases with increased local traffic to supply biomass (van der Horst and Evans,
and case studies with contributions from China, Thailand, India, South Africa, Kenya, 2010). Some governments are more sensitive to increased efficiencies in GHG
Rwanda, and Ghana. abatement and competitiveness of bioenergy with other energy sources, which
often means increased scale (Adams et al., 2011) unless technologies succeed in
23 For example, the high first cost (which can run up to USD 300 for some systems, increasing their throughput to accommodate smaller-scale applications without as
including the digestion chamber unit) of traditional systems is being reduced large of a cost penalty (see Section 2.6.2).
considerably by new designs that reduce the digestion time, increase the specific
methane yield and use alternate or multiple feedstocks (such as leafy material 26 See, for instance, the US Department of Energy’s integrated biorefinery projects,
and food wastes), substantially reducing the size and cost of the digestion unit including first-of-a-kind commercial plants, www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
(Lehtomäki et al., 2007). integrated_biorefineries.html; see also the IEA Bioenergy Task 39 interactive site
with pilot, demonstration and commercial biofuels plants: biofuels.abc-energy.at/
24 The Hedon Household Network provides references to the experience in the field at demoplants/projects/mapindex.
www.hedon.info. One example is www.hedon.info/docs/20060531_Report_(final)_
on_Biogas_Experts_Network_Meeting_Hanoi.pdf. 27 See, for instance, the European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative, a multi-industry part-
nership across the bioenergy value chains, www.biofuelstp.eu/eibi.html.

250
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.11 | Key policy instruments in selected countries where E = electricity, H = heat, T = transport, Eth = ethanol and BD = biodiesel (modified after GBEP, 2008; updated with
data from the REN21 global interactive map (see note 4 to Figure 2.9); reproduced with permission from GBEP).

Country Policy Instruments

Sustainability Criteria
Voluntary Targets1

Direct Incentives2

Compulsory grid
Binding Targets/

Feed-in Tariffs

connection
Mandates1

Grants

Tariffs
Brazil E, T   T         removed
China   E, T4 T E, T E, H E, H   n/a
India T, (E3)  T(BD) E E, H, T E     n/a
3
Mexico (E ) (T) (E)     (E)   Eth
South Africa  T, E E, (T) (E), T         n/a
Canada E, T, H E4, T4 T E, H, T       Eth
France   E3, H3, T E, H, T   E     as EU below
3
Germany E ,T   H H E E (E, H, T) as EU below
Italy E3 E3, T T E, H, T E E   as EU below
Japan   E, H, T       E   Eth, B-D
Russia   (E, H, T) (T)         n/a
UK E3, T3 E3, T E, H, T E, H, T E   T as EU below
USA T, T4, E4 E4 E, H, T E, T E     Eth
3 3 3
EU E ,T E , H ,T T E, H, T   E (T) Eth, B-D

Notes: 1. blending or market penetration; 2. fiscal incentives: tax reductions; public finance: loan support/guarantees; 3. target applies to all RE sources; 4. target is set at a sub-national
level.

estimated at USD 1.1 billion and 0.4 billion for biofuels and biomass the city of Kalundborg, Denmark, as a community of businesses located
to energy, respectively (UNEP/SEFI/Bloomberg, 2010). A significant frac- together on a common property voluntarily entered into several bilateral
tion of the venture capital investment was in the USA (Curtis, 2010). contracts to enhance environmental, economic and social performance
There was significant first-generation biofuels industry consolidation in in managing environmental and resource issues by sharing resources
the USA and in Brazil. Major global oil company investments occurred in close cooperation with government authorities (Grann, 1997).28 The
in both countries and in the EU (IATA, 2009; Curtis, 2010; IEA, 2010b; Kalundborg experience increased the viability of the businesses involved
UNEP/SEFI/Bloomberg, 2010). over the years and developed a community thinking systems approach
that could be applied to many other industrial settings (Jacobsen, 2006).
Addressing knowledge gaps in the sustainability of bioenergy systems,
as discussed in Section 2.5, is reported as crucial to enable public and
private decision making and increase public acceptance. Those gaps are 2.4.4 Global trade in biomass and bioenergy
mostly related to feedstock production and the associated impacts on
land use, biodiversity, water, and food prices (WWI, 2006; Adams et al., Global trade in biomass feedstocks (e.g., wood chips, raw vegetable
2011). Other suggested R&D avenues include more sustainable feed- oils, agricultural residues) and especially of energy carriers from modern
stocks and conversion technologies (WWI, 2006), increased conversion
efficiency (Cheng and Timilsina, 2010) and overall chain optimization 28 The latest addition is a wheat straw-to-ethanol demonstration plant to the complex
of a coal power plant, an oil refinery, biotechnology companies, district heating,
(Fagernäs et al., 2006). fish aquaculture, landfill plant with gas collection, fertilizer production, gypsum
(plaster), soil remediation and water treatment facilities, and others. Waste products
Integrating bioenergy production with other industries/sectors (such (e.g., heat, gas and sulphur, ash, hot water, yeasts, fertilizers, waste slurries, solid
wastes) from one company become a resource for use by one or more companies,
as forest, food/fodder, power, or chemical industries) should improve and a nearby town, in a well-functioning industrial ecosystem. (See, for instance,
competitiveness and utilize raw materials more efficiently (Fagernäs et www.kalundborg.dk/Erhvervsliv/The_Green_Industrial_Municipality/Cluster_
al., 2006). For instance, industrial symbiosis evolved over 50 years in Biofuels_Denmark_(CBD).aspx and www.inbicon.com/Biomass Refinery/Pages/
Inbicon_Biomass_Refinery_at_Kalundborg.aspx.)

251
Bioenergy Chapter 2

UK
Canada Germany
Belgium
Austria
France Korea
Italy
Spain
United States Turkey
China

India Thailand
Philippines
Colombia Malaysia
Indonesia
Peru Brazil

Australia
Argentina

43,139

28,542

Fuel Energy Traded (PJ)

4,000 1
Million Liters Per Year

Biodiesel 5
3,000
Ethanol
10
2,000
15

1,000
30+

0
US

Brazil

France

Germany

China

Canada

Argentina

India

Thailand

Spain

UK

Colombia

Belgium

Italy

Australia

Austria

Korea

Malaysia

Philippines

Indonesia

Peru

Turkey

Figure 2.9 | Global biofuels production and main international trade, 2009. Biofuel volume sources: GAIN (2009a,b,1 2010a-j2); EIA (2010a); EurObserv’ER (2010); RFA (2010);3
REN21 (2010).4 Trade flows: Lamers et al. (2010).5 The total intra-EU biodiesel and ethanol trade corresponds to 78 and 116 PJ, respectively (Lamers et al., 2011).

Notes: 1. Data for China and Indonesia. 2. Data for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, Malaysia, Peru, The Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. 3. www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/
statistics. 4. See www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/ for updated information on biofuels volumes and targets for the various countries and other policy information and interactive tools
(www.map.ren21.net). 5. For trade flows used in Figure 2.9 see www.chem.uu.nl/nws; for detailed data see Lamers et al. (2011).

bioenergy (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, wood pellets) is growing rapidly. 2.8). Larger quantities of these products are expected to be traded inter-
While practically no liquid biofuels or wood pellets were traded in 2000, nationally in the future, with Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa as
the world net trade of liquid biofuels amounted to 120 to 130 PJ in potential net exporters and North America, Europe and Asia expected
2009 (Figure 2.9), compared to about 75 PJ for wood pellets (Figure as net importers (Heinimö and Junginger, 2009). Trade can therefore

252
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

become an important component of the sustained growth of the bioen- EU. Canadian producers also started to export small quantities to Japan.
ergy sector. Figure 2.9 shows 2009 biofuels production in many countries Total imports of wood pellets by European countries in 2009 were esti-
along with the net global trade streams of bioethanol and biodiesel (see mated to be about 3.9 Mt (69 PJ), of which about half can be assumed
also Table 2.9). In 2008, around 9% of global biofuel production was to be intra-EU trade (Sikkema et al., 2010, 2011).
traded internationally (Junginger et al., 2010). Production and trade of
these three commodities are discussed in more detail below.
2.4.5 Overview of support policies for biomass
Global fuel ethanol production grew from around 0.375 EJ in 2000 to more and bioenergy30
than 1.6 EJ in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011). The USA and Brazil, the two leading
ethanol producers and consumers, accounted for about 85% of the world’s Typical examples of support policies are shown in Table 2.11. For
production. In the EU, total consumption of ethanol for transport in 2009 instance, liquid biofuels policies include the (former) Brazilian Proálcool
was 94 PJ (3.6 Mt), with the largest users being France, Germany, Sweden programme, regulations in the form of mandates in many EU countries
and Spain (Lamers et al., 2011; EurObserv’ER, 2010). Data related to fuel bio- and the USA fiscal incentives such as tax exemptions, production tax
ethanol trade are imprecise on account of the various potential end uses of credits and accelerated depreciation (WWI, 2007). The majority of suc-
ethanol (i.e., fuel, industrial and beverage use) and also because of the lack cessful policies for heat from biomass in recent decades have focused
of proper codes for biofuels in global trade statistics. As an estimate, a net on more centralized applications for heat or CHP in district heating and
amount of 40 to 51 PJ of fuel ethanol was traded in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011). industry (Bauen et al., 2009a). For these sectors, a combination of direct
support schemes with indirect incentives has been successful in several
World biodiesel production started below 20 PJ in 2000 and reached countries, such as Sweden (Junginger, 2007). Both quota systems and
about 565 PJ in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011). The EU produced 334 PJ FITs have been implemented in support of bioenergy electricity genera-
(roughly two-thirds of the global production), with Germany, France, tion, though FITs have gradually become the more popular incentive.
Spain and Italy being the top EU producers (EurObserv’ER, 2010). EU27 The effectiveness and efficiency of FITs and quota systems for promoting
biodiesel production rates levelled off towards 2008 (FAPRI, 2009).29 The RE generation (including for bioenergy) has been thoroughly debated. A full
intra-European biodiesel market has become more competitive, and the discussion of these instruments can be found in Section 11.5.3. Next to FITs or
2009 overcapacity has already led to the closure of (smaller, less verti- quotas, almost all countries that have successfully stimulated bioenergy devel-
cally integrated, less efficient, remote, etc.) biodiesel plants in Germany, opment have applied additional public finance relating to investment support
Austria and the UK. As shown in Figure 2.9, other main biodiesel pro- and soft loans along with fiscal measures (GBEP, 2008). Additionally, grid
ducers include the USA, Argentina and Brazil. Biodiesel consumption in access for renewable power is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
the EU amounted to about 403 PJ (8.5 Mt) (EurObserv’ER, 2010), with Priority grid access for renewable sources is applied in most countries where
Germany and France consuming almost half of this amount. Net inter- bioenergy technologies have been successfully deployed (Sawin, 2004).
national biodiesel trade was below 1 PJ before 2005 but grew very fast
from this small base to more than 80 PJ in 2009, as shown in Figure 2.9 Support policies (see Table 2.11) have strongly contributed in past
(Lamers et al., 2011). decades to the growth of bioenergy for electricity, heat and transport
fuels. However, several reports also point out the costs and risks asso-
Production, consumption and trade of wood pellets have grown strongly ciated with support policies for biofuels. According to the WEO (IEA,
within the last decade and are comparable to ethanol and biodiesel in 2010b), the annual global government support for biofuels in 2009,
terms of global trade volumes. As a rough estimate, in 2009, more than 2008 and 2007 was USD2009 20 billion, 17.5 billion and 14 billion, respec-
13 Mt (230 PJ) of wood pellets were produced primarily in 30 European tively, with corresponding EU spending of USD2009 7.9 billion, 8.0 billion
countries, the USA and Canada (Figure 2.8). Consumption was high in and 6.3 billion and corresponding US spending of USD2009 8.1 billion, 6.6
many EU countries and the USA. The largest EU consumers were Sweden billion and 4.9 billion. The US spending was driven by energy security
(1.8 Mt or 32 PJ), Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy and fossil fuel import reduction goals. Concerns about food prices, GHG
(roughly 1 Mt or 18 PJ each). Main wood pellet trade routes lead from emissions and environmental impacts have also led to many countries
Canada and the USA to Europe (especially Sweden, the Netherlands and rethinking biofuels blending targets. For example, Germany revised its
Belgium) and to the USA. In 2009, other minor trade flows were also blending target for 2009 downward from 6.25 to 5.25%.31 Addressing
reported, for example, from Australia, Argentina and South Africa to the these concerns led also to the incorporation of environmental and social

29 While most EU Member States (MS) increased their production volumes, the German 30 Non-technology-specific policy issues are covered in Chapter 11 of this report.
biodiesel market shrunk both in supply and demand due to a change in the policy
framework phasing out tax exemptions for neat biodiesel at the pump. At the same 31 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit decision published
time biodiesel export to other EU MS became less and less feasible for German (and on 22.10.2008 and available at www.bmu.de/pressearchiv/16_legislaturperiode/
other) producers due to increasing shares of competitively priced biodiesel imports, pm/42433.php.
mainly from the USA in the period from 2006 to 2008 and also from Argentina in the
years 2008 and 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011).

253
Bioenergy Chapter 2

sustainability criteria for biofuels in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. 2.4.5.2 Sustainability frameworks and standards
Although seemingly effective in supporting domestic farmers, the effec-
tiveness of biofuel policies in reaching the climate change and secure Governments are stressing the importance of ensuring sufficient cli-
energy supply objectives is coming under increasing scrutiny. It has mate change mitigation and avoiding unacceptable negative effects
been argued that these policies have been costly and have tended to of bioenergy as they implement regulating instruments. For example,
introduce new distortions to already severely distorted and protected the Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission, 2009) provides
agricultural markets—at both domestic and global levels. This has not mandatory sustainability requirements for liquid transport fuels.38 Also,
tended to favour an efficient international production pattern for biofu- in the USA, the Renewable Fuel Standard—included in the 2007 Energy
els and their feedstocks (FAO, 2008a; Bringezu et al., 2009). An overall Independence and Security Act (EISA, 2007)—mandates minimum
biomass strategy would have to consider all types of use of food and GHG reductions from renewable fuels, discourages use of food and fod-
non-food biomass (Bringezu et al., 2009). der crops as feedstocks, permits use of cultivated land and estimates
(indirect) LUC effects to set thresholds of GHG emission reductions for
The main drivers behind government support for the sector have been categories of fuels (EPA, 2010; see also Section 2.5). The California Low
concerns over climate change and energy security as well as the desire Carbon Fuel Standard set an absolute carbon intensity reduction stan-
to support the agricultural sector through increased demand for agricul- dard and periodic evaluation of new information, for instance, on indirect
tural products (FAO, 2008a). According to the REN21 global interactive land use impacts.39 Other examples are the UK Renewable Transport
map (see note 4 to Figure 2.9) a total of 69 countries had one or several Fuel Obligation, the German Biofuel Sustainability Ordinance, and the
biomass support policies in place in 2009 (REN21, 2010; Section 11.2). Cramer Report (The Netherlands). With the exception of Belgium, no
mandatory sustainability criteria for solid biomass (e.g., wood pellets)
have been implemented—the European Commission will review this at
2.4.5.1 Intergovernmental platforms for exchange on the end of 2011 (European Commission, 2010).
bioenergy policies and standardization
The development of impact assessment frameworks and sustainabil-
Several multi-stakeholder initiatives exist in which policymakers can find ity criteria involves significant challenges in relation to methodology,
advice, support and the possibility of exchanging experiences on poli- process development and harmonization. As of a 2010 review, nearly
cymaking for bioenergy. Examples of such international organizations 70 ongoing certification initiatives exist to safeguard the sustainability
and forums supporting the further development of sustainability criteria of agriculture and forestry products, including those used as feedstock
and methodological frameworks for assessing GHG mitigation benefits for the production of bioenergy (van Dam et al., 2010). Within the EU,
of bioenergy include the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP from the a number of initiatives started or have already set up certification
G8+5),32 the IEA Bioenergy Agreement,33 the International Bioenergy schemes in order to guarantee a more sustainable cultivation of energy
Platform at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),34 the OECD crops and production of energy carriers from modern biomass (e.g.,
Roundtable on Sustainable Development,35 and standardization organi- ISCC40; REDCert41 2010 in Germany; or the NTA8080/8081 (NEN42) in
zations such as the European Committee for Standardization36 and the the Netherlands). Many initiatives focus on the sustainability of liquid
International Organization for Standardization37 (ISO) that are actively biofuels including primarily environmental principles, although some
working toward the development of sustainability standards. of them, such as the Council for Sustainable Biomass Production and
the Better Sugarcane Initiative, the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels
32 The GBEP provides a forum to inform policy development frameworks, promote
(RSB) and the Roundtable for Responsible Soy, include explicit socioeco-
sustainable biomass and bioenergy development, facilitate investments in bioenergy,
promote project development and implementation, and foster R&D and commercial nomic impacts of bioenergy production. Principles such as those from
bioenergy activities. Membership includes individual countries, multilateral the RSB have already led to a Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard used by
organizations, and associations. the Inter-American Development Bank for the development of projects.
33 The IEA Bioenergy Agreement provides an umbrella organization and structure for
a collective effort in the field of bioenergy including non-OECD countries interested 38 These requirements are: specific GHG emission reductions must be achieved, and the
in the topics from RD&D to policies. It brings together policy and decision makers biofuels in question must not be produced from raw materials being derived from
and national experts from research, government and industry across the member land of high value in terms of biological diversity or high carbon stocks.
countries.
39 The California Air Resources Board requires 10% absolute emissions reductions from
34 See ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/A0469E/A0469E00.pdf. fossil energy sources by 2020 and considers direct lifecycle emissions of the biofuels
and also indirect LUC as required by legislation (CARB, 2009).
35 See www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/3/46063741.pdf.
40 International Sustainability and Carbon Certification, Koeln, Germany, www.iscc-
36 See www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/ system.org/index_eng.html
Pages/default.aspx TC335 for solid biofuels standards, TC19 for liquid biofuels, and TC
383 for sustainability criteria for biofuels. 41 REDcert Certification System, www.redcert.org

37 See www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/list_of_iso_ 42 NTA 8080 - Sustainabley Produced Biomass. Dutch Normalization Institute (NEN),
technical_committees.htm TC 248 for sustainability criteria for biofuels, TC 238 for Delft, The Netherlands, www.sustainable-biomass.org/publicaties/3950
solid biofuels, TC255 for biogas, and TC 28/SC 7 for liquid biofuels.

254
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

The proliferation of standards that has taken place over the past four pellet imports in the Netherlands and Belgium have been driven respec-
years, and continues, shows that certification has the potential to influ- tively through a feed-in premium system and a Green Certificate system.
ence local impacts related to the environmental and social effects of However, the success of policies has varied, due partly to the nature of
direct bioenergy production. Many of the bodies involved conclude that the design and implementation of the given policy but also to the fact
for an efficient certification system there is a need for further harmoniza- that the institutions related to the incentives are different. For a full
tion, availability of reliable data, and linking indicators at micro, meso discussion of influencing factors outside of policies (e.g., institutions,
and macro levels (see Figure 2.15). Considering the multiple spatial network access), see Section 11.6.
scales, certification should be combined with additional measurements
and tools at regional, national and international levels. Another driver is the utilization of established logistics for existing com-
modities. Taking again the example of wood pellet co-firing in large
The role of bioenergy production in iLUC is still uncertain; current initia- power plants, the existing infrastructure at ports and storage facilities
tives have rarely captured impacts from iLUC in their standards, and used to supply coal and other dry bulk goods can (partially, and after
the time scale becomes another important variable in assessing such adaptations) also be used for wood pellets, making cost-efficient trans-
changes (see Section 2.5.3). Addressing unwanted LUC requires over- port and handling possible. Another form of integrated supply chain is
all sustainable agricultural production and good governance first of all, bark, sawdust and other residues from imported roundwood, which
regardless of the end use of the product or of the feedstocks. is common in, for example, Northern Europe. Finally, the concept of
regional biomass processing centres has been proposed to deal with
supply side challenges and also to help address social sustainability con-
2.4.6 Main opportunities and barriers for the market cerns (Carolan et al., 2007).
penetration and international trade of bioenergy

2.4.6.1 Opportunities43 2.4.6.2 Barriers

The prospects for biofuels for road transport depend on developments in Major risks and barriers to deployment are found all along the bioenergy
competing low-carbon and oil-reducing technologies for road transport value chain and concern all final energy products (bioheat, biopower,
(e.g., electric vehicles). Biofuels may in the longer term be increasingly and biofuel for transport).46 On the supply side, there are challenges
used within the aviation industry, for which high energy density carbon related to securing quantity, quality and price of biomass feedstock, irre-
fuels are necessary (see Section 2.6.3), and also in marine shipping. spective of the origin of the feedstock (energy crops, wastes or residues).
There are also technology challenges related to the varied physical
The development of international markets for bioenergy has become properties and chemical composition of the biomass feedstock and chal-
an essential driver to develop available biomass resources and market lenges associated with the poor economics of current power and biofuel
potential, which are currently underutilized in many world regions. This technologies at small scales. On the demand side, the main challenges
is true for both (available) residues as well as possibilities for dedicated are the stability and supportiveness of policy frameworks and investors’
biomass production (through energy crops or multifunctional systems confidence in the sector and its technologies, in particular to overcome
such as agro-forestry). Export of biomass-derived commodities for the financing challenges associated with demonstrating the reliable opera-
world’s energy market can provide a stable and reliable income for rural tion of new technologies at commercial scale.47 In the power and heat
communities in many (developing) countries, thus creating an important sectors, competition with other RE sources may also be an issue. Public
incentive and market access.44 acceptance and public perception are also critical factors in gaining sup-
port for energy crop production and bioenergy facilities.
Also on the demand side, large biomass users that rely on a stable sup-
ply of biomass can benefit from international bioenergy trade, as this Specifically for the bioenergy trade, Junginger et al. (2010) identified a
enables (often very large) investments in infrastructure and conversion number of (potential) barriers:
capacity.45
Tariffs. As of January 2007, import tariffs apply in many countries,
Introduction of incentives based on political decisions is a driving force especially for ethanol and biodiesel. Tariffs (expressed in local currency
and has triggered an expansion of bioenergy trade. For example, wood and year) are applied on bioethanol imports by both the EU (€ 0.192
per litre) and the USA (USD 0.1427 per litre and an additional 2.5%
43 This sub-section is largely based on Junginger et al. (2008).
46 Most of the remainder of this paragraph is based on Bauen et al. (2009a).
44 Exports of ethanol from Brazil and wood pellets from Canada are examples where
export opportunities (at least partially) were drivers to further develop the supply 47 Some governments have jointly financed first-of-a-kind commercial technological
side. development with the private sector in the past five years, but the financial crisis is
making it difficult to complete the private financing needed to continue to obtain
45 Utilities in the Netherlands and Belgium import large amounts of wood pellets to co- government financing.
fire with coal, as domestic biomass resources are very limited and of varying quality.

255
Bioenergy Chapter 2

ad valorem subsidy). In general, the most-favoured nation tariffs range Implementing binding requirements is also limited by World Trade
from roughly 6 to 50% on an ad valorem equivalent basis in the OECD, Organization rules.
and up to 186% in the case of India (Steenblik, 2007). Biodiesel used to
be subject to lower import tariffs than bioethanol, ranging from 0% in 2. With current developments by the European Commission, different
Switzerland to 6.5% in the EU and the USA (Steenblik, 2007). However, European governments, several private sector initiatives, and initia-
in July 2009, the European Commission confirmed a five-year temporary tives of round tables and NGOs, there is a risk that in the short
imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rights on American bio- term a multitude of different and partially incompatible systems will
diesel imports, with fees standing between € 213 and 409 per tonne arise, creating trade barriers (van Dam et al., 2010). If they are not
(local currency and year) (EurObserv’ER, 2010). These trade tariffs were developed globally or with clear rules for mutual recognition, such
a reaction to the so-called ‘splash-and-dash’ practice, in which biodiesel a multitude of systems could potentially become a major barrier
blended with a ‘splash’ of fossil diesel was eligible for a USD 1 per gal- for international bioenergy trade instead of promoting the use of
lon subsidy (equivalent to USD 300/t) in 2008-2009; see Lamers et al. sustainable biofuels production. A lack of transparency in the devel-
(2011) for detailed information on the various tariffs, trade regimes, and opment of some methodologies, for example, in the EU legislation,
policies worldwide. is an issue. Also, the eventual existence of different demands for
proving compliance with the criteria for locally produced biomass
Technical standards describe in detail the physical and chemical prop- sources and imported ones is a potential barrier. Finally, lack of
erties of fuels. Regulations pertaining to the technical characteristics international systems may cause market distortions.
of liquid transport fuels (including biofuels) exist in all countries. These
have been established in large part to ensure the safety of the fuels Production of ‘uncertified’ biofuel feedstocks will continue and enter
and to protect consumers from buying fuels that could damage their other markets in countries with lower standards or for non-biofuel
vehicles’ engines. Regulations include maximum percentages of biofuels applications that may not have the same standards. The existence of
that can be blended with petroleum fuels and regulations pertaining a ‘two-tier’ system would result in failure to achieve the safeguards
to the technical characteristics of the biofuels themselves. In the case envisaged (particularly for LUC and socioeconomic impacts).
of biodiesel, the latter may depend on the vegetable oils used for the
production, and thus regulations might be used to favour biodiesel from 3. Finally, note that to ensure that biomass commodities are being pro-
domestic feedstocks over biodiesel from imported feedstocks. Technical duced in a sustainable manner, some chain of custody (CoC) method
barriers for the bioethanol trade also exist. For example, the different must be used to track biomass and biofuels from production to end
demands for maximum water content have negative impacts on trade. use. Generally, the three types of CoC methods are segregation
However, in practice, most market actors have indicated that they see (also known as track-and-trace), book-and-claim and mass-balance.
technical standards as an opportunity enabling international trade While this is not necessarily a major barrier, it may cause additional
rather than as a barrier (Junginger et al., 2010). cost and administrative burdens.

Sustainability criteria and biomass and biofuels certification have Logistics are a pivotal part of the system and essential to set up bio-
been developed in increasing numbers in recent years as voluntary or mass fuel supply chains for large-scale biomass systems. Various studies
mandatory systems (see Section 2.4.5.2); such criteria, so far, do not have shown that long-distance international transport by ship is feasible
apply to conventional fossil fuels. Three major concerns in relation to the in terms of energy use and transportation costs (e.g., Sikkema et al.,
international bioenergy trade are: 2010, 2011), but availability of suitable vessels and meteorological con-
ditions (e.g., winter in Scandinavia and Russia) need to be considered.
1. Criteria, especially those related to environmental and social issues, One logistical barrier is a general lack of technically mature technolo-
could be too stringent or inappropriate to local environmental and gies to densify biomass at low cost to facilitate transport, although
technological conditions in producing developing countries (van technologies are being developed (Sections 2.3.2 and 2.6.2).
Dam et al., 2010). The fear of many developing countries is that
if the selected criteria are too strict or are based on the prevailing Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures may be faced by feed-
conditions in the countries setting up the certification schemes, only stocks for liquid biofuels or technical regulations applied at borders.
producers from those countries may be able to meet the criteria, SPS measures mainly affect feedstocks that, because of their biologi-
and thus these criteria may act as trade barriers. As the criteria are cal origin, can carry pests or pathogens. One of the most common SPS
extremely diverse, ranging from purely commercial aims to rainfor- measures is a limit on pesticide residues. Meeting pesticide residue lim-
est protection, there is a danger that a compromise could result in its is usually not difficult but on occasion has led to the rejection of
overly detailed rules that lead to compliance difficulties, or, on the imported shipments of crop products, especially from developing coun-
other hand, in standards so general that they become meaningless. tries (Steenblik, 2007).

256
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

2.4.7 Synthesis As policies surrounding bioenergy and biofuels become more holistic,
using sustainability demands as a starting point is becoming an overall
The review of developments in biomass use, markets and policy shows trend. This is true for the EU, the USA and China, but also for many
that bioenergy has seen rapid developments over the past years. The developing countries such as Mozambique and Tanzania. This is a posi-
use of modern biomass for liquid and gaseous energy carriers is grow- tive development but is by no means settled (see also Section 2.5). The
ing, in particular biofuels (with a 37% increase from 2006 to 2009). 70 initiatives registered worldwide by 2009 to develop and implement
Projections from the IEA, among others, but also many national targets, sustainability frameworks and certification systems for bioenergy and
count on biomass delivering a substantial increase in the share of RE. biofuels, as well as agriculture and forestry, can lead to a fragmenta-
International trade in biomass and biofuels has also become much more tion of efforts (van Dam et al., 2010). The needs for harmonization and
important over recent years, with roughly 6% (reaching levels of up to for international and multilateral collaboration and dialogue are widely
9% in 2008) of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel only), and one-third of all stressed at present.
pellet production for energy use, traded internationally in 2009. Pellets
have proven to be an important facilitating factor in both increasing uti-
lization of biomass in regions where supplies are constrained as well as 2.5 Environmental and social impacts48
mobilizing resources from areas where demand is lacking. Nevertheless,
many barriers remain to developing well-working commodity trading of Recent studies have highlighted both positive and negative environ-
biomass and biofuels that at the same time meets sustainability criteria. mental and socioeconomic effects of bioenergy and the associated
agriculture and forestry LUC (IPCC, 2000b; Millennium Ecosystem
The policy context for bioenergy, and in particular biofuels, in many coun- Assessment, 2005). Like conventional agriculture and forestry systems,
tries has changed rapidly and dramatically in recent years. The debate bioenergy can exacerbate soil and vegetation degradation associated
on food versus fuel competition and the growing concerns about other with overexploitation of forests, too intensive crop and forest residue
conflicts have resulted in a strong push for the development and imple- removal, and water overuse (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008; Robertson et al.,
mentation of sustainability criteria and frameworks as well as changes 2008). Diversion of crops or land into bioenergy production can influ-
in temporization of targets for bioenergy and biofuels. Furthermore, the ence food commodity prices and food security (Headey and Fan, 2008).
support for advanced biorefinery and second-generation biofuel options With proper operational management, the positive effects can include
is driving bioenergy in more sustainable directions. enhanced biodiversity (C. Baum et al., 2009; Schulz et al., 2009), soil
carbon increases and improved soil productivity (Tilman et al., 2006a;
Persistent policy and stable policy support has been a key factor in S. Baum et al., 2009), reduced shallow landslides and local flash floods,
building biomass production capacity and working markets, required reduced wind and water erosion and reduced sediment volume and
infrastructure and conversion capacity that gets more competitive over nutrients transported into river systems (Börjesson and Berndes, 2006).
time. These conditions have led to the success of the Brazilian pro- For forests, bioenergy can improve growth and productivity, improve site
gramme to the point that ethanol production costs are lower than those conditions for replanting and reduce wildfire risk (Dymond et al., 2010).
of gasoline. Brazil achieved an energy portfolio mix that is substantially However, forest residue harvesting can have negative impacts such as
renewable and that minimized foreign oil imports. Sweden, Finland, and the loss of coarse woody debris that provides essential habitat for forest
Denmark also have shown significant growth in renewable electricity species.
and in management of integrated resources, which steadily resulted in
innovations such as industrial symbiosis of collocated industries. The Biofuels derived from purpose-grown agricultural feedstocks are water
USA has been able to quickly ramp up production with the alignment intensive (see Section 9.3.4.4 for comparisons of renewable and non-
of national and sub-national policies for power in the 1980s and for renewable power sources; Berndes, 2002; King and Weber, 2008; Chiu et
biofuels in the 1990s to present, as petroleum prices and instability in al., 2009; Dominguez-Faus et al., 2009; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; Wu
key producing countries increased; however, as oil prices decreased, et al., 2009; Fingerman et al., 2010). Their influence on water resources
policy support and bioenergy production decreased for biopower and is and the wider hydrologic cycle depends on where, when and how the
increasing again with environmental policies and sub-national targets. biofuel feedstock is produced. Among different bioenergy supply chains,
across the spectrum of feedstocks, cultivation systems and conversion
Countries differ in their priorities, approaches, technology choices and technologies, water demand varies greatly (Wu et al., 2009; Fingerman
support schemes for further development of bioenergy. Although this et al., 2010, De La Torre Ugarte, et al., 2010). While biofuel made from
means increased complexity of the bioenergy market, this also reflects irrigated crops requires extraction of large volumes of water from lakes,
the many aspects that affect bioenergy deployment—agriculture and rivers and aquifers, use of agricultural or forestry residues as bioenergy
land use, energy policy and security, rural development and environ- feedstocks does not generally require much additional land or water.
mental policies. Priorities, stage of development and geographic access Rain-fed feedstock production does not require water extraction from
to the resources, and their availability and costs differ widely from coun-
try to country. 48 A comprehensive assessment of social and environmental impacts of all RE sources
covered in this report can be found in Chapter 9.

257
Bioenergy Chapter 2

water bodies, but it can still reduce downstream water availability by 2.5.1 Environmental effects
redirecting precipitation from runoff and groundwater recharge to crop
evapotranspiration. Using water for bioenergy has very different social Studies of environmental effects, including those focused on energy
and ecological consequences depending upon the state of the resource balances and GHG emission balances, usually employ methodologies in
base from which that water was drawn. line with the principles, framework, requirements and guidelines in the
Few universal conclusions about the socioeconomic and environmental ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 standards for Life Cycle Assessment
implications of bioenergy can currently be drawn, given the multitude of (LCA) discussed in Section 9.3.4.1. An earlier specific method for assess-
rapidly evolving bioenergy sources, the complexities of physical, chemi- ing GHG balances of biomass and bioenergy systems was developed by
cal and biological conversion processes, the multiple energy products, Schlamadinger et al. (1997).
and the variability in environmental conditions. Thus, the positive and
negative effects of bioenergy are a function of the socioeconomic and Key issues for bioenergy LCAs are system definition including spatial and
institutional context, the types of lands and feedstocks used, the scale dynamic boundaries, functional units, reference system, and the selec-
of bioenergy programmes and production practices, the conversion pro- tion of methods for considering energy and material flows across system
cesses, and the rate of implementation (e.g., Kartha et al., 2006; Firbank, boundaries (Soimakallio et al., 2009a; Cherubini and Strømman,
2008; E. Gallagher, 2008; OECD-FAO, 2008; Royal Society, 2008; UNEP, 2010). As part of cascading cycles, many processes create multiple
2008b; Howarth et al., 2009; Pacca and Moreira, 2009; Purdon et al., products; for example, biomass is used to produce biomaterials while
2009; Rowe et al., 2008). co-products and the biomaterial itself are used for energy after their
useful life (Dornburg and Faaij, 2005). Such cascading results in sig-
Bioenergy system impact assessments (IAs) must be compared to the nificant data and methodological challenges because environmental
IAs of replaced systems.49 The methodologies and underlying assump- effects can be distributed over several decades and in different geo-
tions for assessing environmental (Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.6) and graphical locations (Cherubini et al., 2009b).
socioeconomic (Section 2.5.7) effects (see Table 2.12 for examples of
these impacts) differ greatly and therefore the conclusions reached Most of the assumptions and data used in LCA studies of existing bio-
by these studies are inconsistent (H. Kim et al., 2009). One particular energy systems are related to first-generation biofuels and to conditions
challenge for socioeconomic IAs is that their boundaries are difficult and practices in Europe or the USA, although studies are becoming

Table 2.12 | Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy: example areas of concern with selected impact categories (synthesized from the literature review by van Dam
et al., 2010).

Example areas of concern Examples of impact categories

Global, regional, off-site environmental effects GHGs; albedo; acidification; eutrophication; water availability and quality; regional air quality
Local/onsite environmental effects Soil quality; local air quality; water availability and quality; biodiversity and habitat loss
Technology Hazards; emissions; congestion; safety; genetically modified organisms/plants

Freedom of association; access to social security; job creation and average wages; freedom from discrimination; no child labour and mini-
Human rights and working conditions
mum age of workers; freedom of labour (no forced labour); rights of indigenous people; acknowledgment of gender issues

Health and safety Impacts on workers and users; safety conditions at work
Food security Replacement of staple crops; safeguarding local food security
Land and property rights Acknowledgment of customary and legal rights of land owners; proof of ownership; compensation systems available; agreements by consent

Cultural and religious values; contribution to local economy and activities; compensation for use of traditional knowledge; support to local
Participation and well-being of local communities
education; local procurement of services and inputs; special measures to target vulnerable groups

to quantify and are a complex composite of numerous interrelated fac- available for Brazil, China and other countries (see examples in Tables
tors, many of which are poorly understood or unknown. Social processes 2.7, 2.13, and 2.15). Ongoing development of biomass production and
have feedbacks that are difficult to clearly define with an acceptable conversion technologies makes many of these studies of commercial
level of confidence. Environmental IAs include many quantifiable impact technologies outdated.50 LCA studies of prospective bioenergy options
categories but still lack data and are uncertain in many areas. The out- involve projections of technology performance and have relatively
come of an environmental IA depends on methodological choices, which greater uncertainties (see, e.g., Figure 9.9). The way that uncertainties
are not yet standardized or uniformly applied throughout the world.
50 For instance, using a 2006 reference that analyzed an industrial system in 2002
49 A ‘rebound effect’ could be included, usually fossil fuels, but also other primary will not represent the industry in 2010 because learning occurred in commercial
energy sources (Barker et al., 2009). technologies that exhibited a significant accumulation of production volume such
as in the USA and in Brazil; an example of wide-spread adoption of a different
technology in this industry is the USA where dry milling has become the major route
to ethanol production (see Sections 2.3.4 and 2.7.2).

258
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

and parameter sensitivities are handled across the supply chain to fuel of any measure to reduce a certain use can be affected by a rebound
production significantly impacts the results (Sections 2.5.2 through effect—in the case of bioenergy, if increased production of solid, liq-
2.5.6). Studies combining several LCA models and/or Monte Carlo anal- uid and gaseous biofuels leads to lower demand for fossil fuels, this
ysis provide bioenergy system uncertainties and levels of confidence for in turn could lead to lower fossil fuel prices and increased fossil fuel
some bioenergy options (e.g., Soimakallio et al., 2009b; Hsu et al., 2010; demand (Rajagopal et al., 2011; Stoft, 2010).51 Similarly, when consider-
Spatari and MacLean, 2010). ing co-products, LCAs should ideally model displacement of alternative
products as a dynamic result of market interactions. Consequential LCAs
Most bioenergy system LCAs are designated as attributional to the therefore require auxiliary tools such as economic equilibrium models.
defined process system boundaries. Consequential LCAs analyze bioen-
ergy systems beyond these boundaries, in the context of the economic
interactions, chains of cause and effect in bioenergy production and use, 2.5.2 Modern bioenergy: Climate change excluding
and effects of policies or other initiatives that increase bioenergy pro- land use change effects
duction and use. Consequential LCAs can investigate systemic responses
to bioenergy expansion (e.g., how the food system changes if increas- The ranges of GHG emissions for bioenergy systems and their fossil alter-
ing volumes of cereals are used as biofuel feedstock or how petroleum natives per unit energy output are shown in Figure 2.10 for several uses
markets respond if increased biofuels production results in reduced (transport, power, heat) calculated based on LCA methodologies (land
petroleum demand—see Section 2.5.3 and Figure 2.13). The outcome use-related net changes in carbon stocks and land management impacts

600
Lifecycle GHG Emissions [g CO2 eq / MJ]

Modern Bioenergy Transportation Electricity Heat

500 Fossil Fuel Energy
BCTL

400
Ethanol and Gasoline Diesel Substitutes from Biomass, Coal and Coal/Biomass Biogas &
Natural Gas

300
Biodiesel (BD), Renewable Biomass and Coal to Liquids
Diesel (RD) & Fischer Tropsch (B/CTL)
Diesel (FTD)
200
CO2 Savings

100

-100
Sugarcane

Sugar Beet

Corn and Wheat

Lignocellulose

Petroleum Gasoline

Plant Oil BD

Algae BD

Plant Oils RD

Lignocellulose FTD

BCTL (10% Biomass w/ or w/o Power)

BCTL (10% to 55% Biomass w/ CCS)

CTL (FT Diesel) (w/ or w/o Power)

CTL (FT Diesel w/ CCS)

Petroleum Diesel

Biogas

Natural Gas

Biomass

Biogas

Coal

Oil

Fossil Gas

Biomass

Coal

Oil

Natural Gas

Fossil Electric Heating

*CCS=Carbon Capture and Storage

Figure 2.10 | Ranges of GHG emissions per unit energy output (MJ) from major modern bioenergy chains compared to conventional and selected advanced fossil fuel energy systems
(land use-related net changes in carbon stocks and land management impacts are excluded). Commercial and developing (e.g., algae biofuels, Fischer-Tropsch) systems for biomass
and fossil technologies are illustrated.

Data sources: Wu et al. (2005); Fleming et al. (2006); Hill et al. (2006, 2009); Beer and Grant (2007); Wang et al. (2007, 2010); Edwards et al. (2008); Kreutz et al. (2008); Macedo
and Seabra (2008); Macedo et al. (2008); NETL (2008, 2009a,b); CARB (2009); Cherubini et al. (2009a); Huo et al. (2009); Kalnes et al. (2009); van Vliet et al. (2009); EPA (2010);
Hoefnagels et al. (2010); Kaliyan et al. (2010); Larson et al. (2010); 25th to 75th percentile of all values from Figure 2.11.

51 The same rebound effect applies to other RE technologies displacing incumbent

fossil technologies.

259
Bioenergy Chapter 2

are excluded). Meta-analyses to quantify the influence of bioenergy sys- et al., 2008; Börjesson, 2009; Cherubini et al., 2009a; Menichetti and
tems on climate are complicated because of the multitude of existing Otto, 2009; Soimakallio et al., 2009b; Hoefnagels et al., 2010; Wang et
and rapidly evolving bioenergy sources, the complexities of physical, al., 2010, 2011).
chemical and biological conversion processes, and feedstock diversity
and variability in site-specific environmental conditions—together with For electricity generated by various technologies, GHG emissions per
differences between studies in method interpretation, assumptions kWh generated are detailed in Figure 2.11, based on published esti-
and data. Due to this, review studies report varying estimates of GHG mates from lifecycle GHG emissions (land use-related net changes
emissions and a wide range of results have been reported for the same in carbon stocks and land management impacts are excluded) of an
bioenergy options, even when temporal and spatial considerations are extensive review of biopower LCAs.52 Figure 2.11 shows that the major-
constant (see, e.g., S. Kim and Dale, 2002; Fava, 2005; Farrell et al., 2006; ity of lifecycle GHG emission estimates cluster between about 16 and
Fleming et al., 2006; Larson, 2006; von Blottnitz and Curran, 2007; Rowe 74 g CO2eq/kWh (4.4 and 21 g CO2eq/MJ), with one estimate reaching

400

200

0
Lifecycle GHG Emissions [g CO2 eq / kWh]

-200

-400

-600

-800

Maximum Avoided Emissions,

no Removal of GHGs
-1000 th
75 Percentile from the Atmosphere

Median Use of CO2 Mitigation

Technology
-1200 25th Percentile

Minimum

-1400

All Values Co-Firing Co-Firing Direct Direct Gasification Gasification Pyrolysis

w/o Avoided w/ Avoided Combustion Combustion w/o Avoided w/ Avoided w/o Avoided
Emissions Emissions w/o Avoided w/ Avoided Emissions Emissions Emissions
Emissions Emissions

Estimates: 228 54 7 102 4 45 2 14

References: 53 19 4 26 3 20 1 3

Figure 2.11 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of biopower technologies per unit of electricity generation, including supply chain emissions (land use-related net changes in carbon stocks
and land management impacts are excluded). Co-firing is shown for the biomass portion only (without GHG emissions and electricity output associated with coal). Included in the
avoided GHG emissions category are only estimates in which the use of the feedstock itself (e.g. residues and wastes) leads to avoided emissions, for example, in the form of avoided
methane emissions from landfills (most common in the literature).1 Estimates that include avoided emissions from the production of co-products are not included in the avoided
GHG emissions category. Individual data points were used instead of box plots for estimates with avoided emissions because of high variability. Red diamonds indicate that a carbon
mitigation technology (CCS or carbonate formation by absorption) was considered. Along the bottom of the figure and aligned with each column are the number of estimates and the
number of references (CCS estimates in parentheses) producing the distributions.

Note: 1. ‘Negative estimates’ within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in this report refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS,
avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere. Due to the inclusion of a non-CCS carbon sequestration technology and non-landfilling related reference cases of
avoided emissions credits, estimates displayed here vary slightly from the aggregated values in Figure 9.8.

52 See Annex II for the complete list of references providing estimates for this figure and
description of the literature review method.

260
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

360 g CO2eq/kWh (100 g CO2eq/MJ).53 Again, variability is caused by and substituted for other nitrogen input. See Bessou et al. (2010) for an
differences in study methods, agricultural practice, technology perfor- overview of reactive nitrogen emissions impacts on LCAs.
mance and maturity of development (see Section 2.3.3). While the range
and central tendency of each evaluated technology are similar to each Process fuel choice is critical and the use of coal especially can drastically
other, the figure shows that depending on business-as-usual assump- reduce the climate benefit of bioenergy. Process integration and the use
tions, avoided GHG emissions (here, mostly methane from landfills) of biomass fuels or surplus heat from nearby energy/industrial plants
from non-harvest wastes and residues can more than outweigh the GHG can lower net GHG emissions from the biomass conversion process. For
emissions associated with the biomass supply chains. Technologies with example, Wang et al. (2007) showed that GHG emissions for US corn
high conversion efficiency reach lower GHG emissions per kWh gen- ethanol can vary significantly—from a 3% increase if coal is the process
erated than less efficient technologies do. Though not displayed here, fuel to a 52% reduction if wood chips are used or if improved dry mill-
CHP and other integrated systems with many products could also be ing processes are used (Wang et al., 2011). Similarly, the low fossil GHG
an effective way to minimize GHG emissions per unit of primary energy emissions reported for Swedish cereal ethanol plants are explained by
(e.g., in terms of primary energy), though the way co-products are con- their use of biomass-based process energy (Börjesson, 2009). Sugarcane
sidered in the quantification and allocation of GHG emissions can lead ethanol plants that use the fibrous by-product bagasse as process fuel
to different results. In the end, the economic value of outputs plays a can provide their own heat, steam and electricity and export surplus
decisive role, but climate policies that influence the cost of GHG emis- electricity to the grid (Macedo et al., 2008). Further improvements
sions may alter the balance of products. are possible as mechanical harvesting becomes established practice,
because harvest residues can also be used for energy (Seabra et al.,
LCA aspects found to be especially important for GHG results are: (1) 2010).
assumptions regarding GHG emissions from biomass production where
LUC emissions (see Section 2.5.3) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are However, the marginal benefit of using surplus heat or biomass for the
especially important; (2) methods used for considering co-products; (3) conversion process depends on local economic circumstances and on
assumptions about conversion process design, process integration and alternative uses for the surplus heat and biomass (e.g., it could dis-
the type of process fuel used in the conversion of biomass to solid or place coal-based heat or power generation elsewhere). GHG reductions
fluid fuels; (4) the performance of end-use technology, that is, vehicle per unit weight of total biomass could be small when biomass is used
technology or power/heat plant performance; and (5) the reference both as a feedstock and as a process fuel for conversion to biofuels.
system. This underscores the importance of using several indicators in bioenergy
option evaluations (see also Section 9.3.4).
N2O emissions can have an important impact on the overall GHG bal-
ance of biofuels (Smeets et al., 2009; Soimakallio et al., 2009b). N2O Practical uses of indicators to design and establish projects
emissions vary considerably with environmental and management As shown above, climate change effects can be evaluated based on indi-
conditions, including soil water content, temperature, texture, carbon cators such as g CO2eq per MJ (Figure 2.10) or per kWh (Figure 2.11),
availability, and, most importantly, nitrogen fertilizer input (Bouwman for which the reference system matters greatly (cf. bioenergy GHG emis-
et al., 2002; Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006). Emission factors are used sions with those from coal and natural gas). Other indicators include
to quantify N2O emissions as a function of nitrogen fertilizer input. mileage per hectare or per unit weight of biomass or per vehicle-km (see
Crutzen et al. (2007) proposed that N2O emissions from fresh anthropo- Section 8.3.1.3).54 Limiting resources may define the extent to which
genic nitrogen are considerably higher than results based on the IPCC’s land management and biomass-derived fuels can contribute to climate
recommended tier 1 method and that N2O emissions from biofuels change mitigation, making the following indicators relevant in different
consequently have been underestimated by a factor of two to three. contexts (Schlamadinger et al., 2005).
IPCC tier 1 and Crutzen et al. (2007) estimates use different accounting
approaches. About one-third of agricultural N2O emissions are due to The displacement factor indicator describes the reduction in GHG emis-
newly-fixed nitrogen fertilizer (A. Mosier et al., 1998) and two-thirds sions from the displaced energy system per unit of biomass used (e.g.,
occur as nitrogen is recycled internally in animal production or by using tonne of carbon equivalent per tonne of carbon contained in the bio-
plant residues as fertilizers. Recent modelling efforts by Davidson (2009) mass that generated the reduction). This indicator does not discourage
support the conclusion that emission factors based on Crutzen et al. fossil inputs in the bioenergy chain if these inputs increase the displace-
(2007) overestimate the emissions. Using N2O emissions factors from ment efficiency but it does not consider costs.
Crutzen et al. (2007) makes a specific bioenergy plantation responsible
for all N2O emissions taking place subsequently, even for the part of The indicator relative GHG savings describes the percentage emissions
the applied nitrogen that is recirculated into other agriculture systems reduction with respect to the fossil alternative for a specific biomass

53 Note that the distributions in Figure 2.11 do not represent an assessment of 54 For example, the higher land use efficiency of electric vehicles using bioelectricity
likelihood; the figure simply reports the distribution of currently published literature compared to ethanol cars reported by Campbell et al. (2009) is partly due to the
estimates that passed screens for quality and relevance. assumed availability of advanced future drive trains for the bioelectricity option but
not for the ethanol option.

261
Bioenergy Chapter 2

use.55 GHG savings favour biomass options with low GHG emissions. is displaced and is medium for natural gas displacement. The biodiesel
However, this indicator alone cannot distinguish between different bio- from annual crops option receives the lowest ranking (<1) for both indi-
mass uses, such as transport fuel, heat, electricity or CHP, to determine cators, while the Fischer-Tropsch diesel, with or without electricity from
which use reduces emissions more. It ignores the amount of biomass, wood residues, receives different rankings depending on indicator and
land or money required, and it can be distorted as each use can have plant configuration but is in all cases higher than crop-derived biodiesel.
different reference systems. The standalone plant is the best option from the perspective of rela-
tive GHG savings. But if the displacement factor is used the integrated
The indicator GHG savings per ha (or m2 or km2) of land favours biomass plant is preferable. From the plant owner’s perspective, local monetary
yield and conversion efficiency but ignores costs.56 Intensified land use indicators enable assessment of additional costs of the integrated plant,
that increases the associated GHG emissions (e.g., due to higher fertil- the relative prices for biomass versus electricity, relative prices for fos-
izer input) can still improve the indicator value if the amount of biomass sil diesel versus CO2 emissions, as well as existing policy support (and
produced increases sufficiently. its duration). The differences between the two indicators highlight the
need to consider the biomass system when planning bioenergy projects
The indicator GHG savings per monetary unit input tends to favour the at specific locations. For example, in cases where the displacement fac-
lowest cost, commercially available bioenergy options. Prioritization tor is less than 1, using biomass to displace fossil fuels would increase
based on monetary indicators can lock in current technologies and delay net emissions (with respect to the global carbon sink baseline) at least
(or preclude) future, more cost-effective or GHG reduction-efficient bio- within the next decades. The use of such biomass resources could be
energy options because their near-term costs are higher. sustainable; but is not climate or emissions neutral during that period.
Additional fossil carbon reductions may then be needed to achieve low
The usefulness of two indicators for considering local and regional bio- GHG concentration stabilization levels.
energy options is shown in Table 2.13. In the Finnish study, the use of
logging residues in modern CHP plants receives a high ranking in rela- For North American corn ethanol, technology improvements from 1995
tive GHG savings whether the displaced fossil source is coal or natural to 2005 are reflected in both indicators. Implementation of improve-
gas. However, the displacement factor indicator is only high when coal ments in plant efficiency with existing cogeneration systems brings

Table 2.13 | Two indicators of GHG performance facilitate ranking of new technologies using forest residues and comparison with current agricultural biofuel. Two indicators show
improvement of technology performance with time for commercial ethanol systems and project the impact of technology improvements. Ranking: High >70; Low <30.

Fossil energy reference Displacement factor1 Relative GHG savings2 (%)

Coal 78 86e
Finnish modern CHP plant (from logging residues)
Natural gas 30 86e

Finnish Fischer-Tropsch diesel3 as a stand- Standalone plant 39a 78f

b
alone plant or integrated with a pulp and Integrated plant, minimize biomass Fossil diesel 50 55g
paper mill plant; with/without electricity Integrated plant, minimize electricity 50c 78h
Finnish biodiesel (rapeseed oil ) Fossil diesel -9d
-15i

North American ethanol (corn) powered by natural gas (NG) dry mill
1995 18 26
2005 Fossil gasoline 24 39
2015 with CHP3 31 55
2015 with CHP and CCS3 51 72

Brazilian ethanol (sugarcane) Fossil gasoline/

2005–2006 (average 44 mills) 29 79
electricity
2020 CHP3 (mechanical harvest) 36 120
marginal NG
2020 CHP and CCS3 51 160

Notes: 1. Tonne of carbon equivalent displaced per tonne of biomass carbon in the feedstock. 2. With respect to the fossil alternative and excluding LUC. 3. Projected performance
Uncertainty ranges: For displacement factors a. 35–46; b. 21–61; c. 45–57; d. -107–7. For relative GHG savings e. 60–94; f. 67–90; g. 31–86; h. 69–89; i. -150–5
References: Finland, Soimakallio et al. (2009b); North America, (S&T)2 Consultants (2009); and Brazil, Möllersten et al. (2003) and Macedo et al. (2008).

55 Relative GHG savings are used, for instance, in the EU Directive on Renewable
Energy (European Commission, 2009).

56 See Bessou et al. (2010) for examples of LCA emissions as a function of area needed
for a variety of feedstocks and biofuels in specific countries.

262
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

both indicators to medium range but improves the GHG reduction more The quantification of the net GHG effects of dLUC occurring on the site
than the displacement factor indicator. Application of developing CCS used for bioenergy feedstock production requires definition of reference
is projected to improve both indicators significantly and bring the GHG land use and carbon stock data for relevant land types. Carbon stock
reduction indicator to high. In all Brazilian sugarcane ethanol cases, the data can be uncertain but still appear to allow quantification of dLUC
GHG reduction indicator is high while the displacement factor is low emissions with sufficient confidence for guiding policy (see, e.g., Gibbs
to medium, which is expected because marginal natural gas, not coal, et al., 2008).
is the displaced fossil fuel and this is a site characteristic (EPE, 2010).
The land use indicator differentiates the corn and sugarcane ethanol The quantification of the GHG effects of iLUC is more uncertain. Existing
systems as producing 3,500 and 7,500 litres/ha, respectively. By 2020, methods for studying iLUC effects employ either (1) a deterministic
biomass productivity increases and also CHP are projected to increase approach where global LUC is allocated to specific biofuels/feedstocks
the land use indicator for corn and sugarcane ethanol systems to 4,500 grown on specified land types (Fritsche et al., 2010); or (2) economic
and 12,000 litres/ha, respectively (Möllersten et al., 2003; Macedo et al., equilibrium models integrating biophysical information and/or biophysi-
2008; (S&T)2 Consultants, 2009). See also Wang et al. (2011) for more cal models (Edwards et al., 2010; EPA, 2010; Hertel et al., 2010a,b; Plevin
recent data confirming these trends. et al., 2010). In the second approach, the amount (and approximate
location) of additional land required to produce a specified amount of
bioenergy is typically projected. This land is then distributed over land
2.5.3 Modern bioenergy: Climate change including cover categories in line with historic LUC patterns, and iLUC emissions
land use change effects are calculated in the same way as dLUC emissions are. There are inher-
ent uncertainties in this approach because models are calibrated against
Bioenergy is different from the other RE technologies in that it is a part historic data and are best suited for studying existing production systems
of the terrestrial carbon cycle. The CO2 emitted due to bioenergy use was and land use regimes. Difficult aspects to model include innovation and
earlier sequestered from the atmosphere and will be sequestered again paradigm shifts in land use including the presently little-used biomass
if the bioenergy system is managed sustainably, although emissions and mixed production systems described in Sections 2.3 and 2.6. There
and sequestration are not necessarily in temporal balance with each are also studies that compare scenarios with and without increases in
other (e.g., due to long rotation periods of forest stands). In addition bioenergy to derive LUC associated with the bioenergy expansion (e.g.,
to changes in atmospheric carbon, bioenergy use may cause changes Fischer et al., 2009). Despite the uncertainties, important conclusions
in terrestrial carbon stocks. The significance of land use and LUC (e.g., can be drawn from these studies.
Leemans et al., 1996) and forest rotation (Marland and Schlamadinger,
1997) was demonstrated in the 1990s when dLUC effects were also con- Production and use of bioenergy influences climate change through:
sidered in LCA studies (e.g., Reinhardt, 1991; DeLuchi, 1993). DeLuchi
(1993) also called for consideration of indirect effects and iLUC. These • Emissions from the bioenergy chain including non-CO2 GHG and fos-
effects were first considered about 10 years later (Jungk and Reinhardt, sil CO2 emissions from auxiliary energy use in the biofuel chain.
2000), but most LCA studies have not considered iLUC. LUC can affect
GHG emissions in a number of ways, including when biomass is burned • GHG emissions related to changes in biospheric carbon stocks often
in the field during land clearing; when the land management practice caused by associated LUC.
changes so that the carbon stocks in soils and vegetation change and/
or non-CO2 emissions (N2O, ammonium (NH4+)) change; and when LUC • Other non-GHG related climatic forcers including particulate and
results in changes in rates of carbon sequestration, that is, CO2 assimila- black carbon emissions from small-scale bioenergy use (Ramanathan
tion by the land increases or decreases relative to the case in which LUC and Carmichael, 2008), aerosol emissions associated with forests
is absent. (Carslaw et al., 2010) and changes in surface albedo. Reduction in
albedo due to the introduction of perennial green vegetative cover
Schlamadinger et al. (2001) proposed that bioenergy can have direct/ can counteract the climate change mitigation benefit of bioenergy
indirect, positive/negative effects on biospheric carbon stocks and that in regions with seasonal snow cover or a seasonal dry period (e.g.,
crediting under the CDM could stimulate development of systems that savannas). Conversely, albedo increases associated with the con-
function as a positive carbon sink. Recently, negative effects have been version of forests to energy crops (e.g., annual crops and grasses)
re-emphasized, and studies have estimated LUC emissions associated may reduce the net climate change effect from the deforestation
with, primarily, biofuels for transport. Other bioenergy systems and (Schwaiger and Bird, 2010).
impact categories (e.g., biodiversity, eutrophication; see Section 2.2.4)
have received less attention (see Section 9.3.4). There has been little • Effects due to the bioenergy use, such as price effects on petroleum
connection with earlier research in the area of land use, LUC and forestry that impact consumption levels. The net effect is the difference
that partly addressed similar concerns, for example, direct environmen- between the influence of the bioenergy system and of the energy
tal and socioeconomic impacts and leakage (Watson, 2000b). system (often fossil-based) that is displaced. Current fossil energy

263
Bioenergy Chapter 2

chains and evolving non-conventional sources have land use (a)

impacts (Gorissen et al., 2010; Liska and Perrin, 2010; Yeh et al.,
2010), but LUC has a tighter link to bioenergy because of its close Maize
association with agriculture and forestry.
Cassava
• Other factors include the extent and timing of the reversion of
cultivated land when the use for bioenergy production ends and Sugarcane
how future climate change impacts relative to present impacts are
treated (DeLucchi, 2010). Oil Palm

Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will influence
Soybean
prospects for achieving lower stabilization levels (van Vuuren et al.,
2007; den Elzen et al., 2010). For instance, the dynamics of terrestrial
Castor
carbon stocks in LUC and long-rotation forestry lead to GHG mitigation
trade-offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alterna- 0 1 10 100 >1,000
tive to leave the biomass as a carbon store that could further sequester Number of Years for Ecosystem “Carbon Payback” Time [Log Scale]
more carbon over time (Marland and Schlamadinger, 1997; Marland et
al., 2007; Righelato and Spracklen, 2007). Observations indicate that old (b)
forests can be net carbon sinks (Luyssaert et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2009)
but fires, insect outbreaks and other natural disturbances can quickly Maize
convert a forest from a net sink to an emitter (Kurz et al., 2008a,b;
Lindner et al., 2010). Cassava

Short- and long-term indicators Sugarcane

Indicators such as carbon debt (Fargione et al., 2008) and ecosystem
carbon payback time (Gibbs et al., 2008) focus on upfront LUC emissions Oil Palm
arising from the conversion of land to bioenergy production. The balance
between short- and long-term emissions and the climate benefits of Soybean
bioenergy projects are reflected in indicators that describe the dynamic
effect of GHG emissions (see also Section 9.3.4), for example, cumula-
Castor
tive warming impacts or global warming potential (Kirschbaum, 2003,
2006; Dornburg and Marland, 2008; Fearnside, 2008). These indicators 0 1 10 100 >1,000
have been used, to a limited extent, to describe bioenergy dynamic cli- Number of Years for Ecosystem “Carbon Payback” Time [Log Scale]

mate effects (Kendall et al., 2009; Kirkinen et al., 2009; Levasseur et al.,
2010; O’Hare et al., 2009). Degraded or Cropland Degraded Forest
Grassland Forest
Woody Savanna Peatland
Figure 2.12 shows dLUC effects on GHG balances for liquid biofuels
using the ecosystem carbon payback time indicator. The left diagram
shows payback times with current yields and conversion efficiencies Figure 2.12 | The ecosystem carbon payback time for potential biofuel crop expansion
and the right diagram shows the effect of higher yields (set to equal pathways across the tropics comparing the year 2000 agricultural system shown in (a)
the top 10% of area-weighted yields). The payback times in Figure 2.12 with a future higher yield scenario (b) which was set to equal the top 10% of area-
weighted yields. The asterisk represents oil palm crops grown in peatlands with payback
neglect the GHG emissions associated with production and distribu-
times greater than 900 years in the year 2000 compared to 600 years for a 10% increase
tion of the transport fuels. Because these emissions currently tend to in crop productivity. Based on Gibbs et al. (2008) and reproduced with permission from
be higher for biofuels than for gasoline and diesel, the payback times IOP Publishing Ltd.
are underestimated. The payback times in Figure 2.12 are calculated
assuming constant GHG savings from the gasoline/diesel displace-
ment. Higher GHG savings, that is, reducing the payback times, would notably N2O. The payback times would increase if the feedstock produc-
be achieved if the biofuels conversion efficiency improved, if more car- tion resulted in land degradation over time, impacting yield levels or
bon intensive transport fuels were replaced, or if the produced biomass requiring increased input to maintain yield levels.
displaced carbon-intensive fossil options for heat/power (Figure 2.10).
Further biomass yield increases would reduce payback times but may As shown, all biofuel options have significant payback times when
require higher agronomic inputs that lead to increased GHG emissions, dense forests are converted into bioenergy plantations. The starred

264
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

points represent very long payback times for oil palm establishment on first-generation ethanol or biodiesel from a base year.57 All models
tropical peat swamp forests because drainage leads to peat oxidation showed significant LUC (dLUC and iLUC were not considered separable)
and causes CO2 emissions that occur over several decades and that can with variations between models in terms of the extent of LUC and its
be several times higher than the displaced emissions of fossil diesel distribution over regions and crops. A follow-on study by Hiederer et al.
(Hooijer et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2008, 2010). Under natural condi- (2010) compared the ranges of LUC emissions shown in Figure 2.13 for
tions, these tropical peat swamp forests have negligible CO2 emissions common biofuel crops as a function of the ‘biofuel shock’ (0.2 to 1.5 EJ)
and small methane emissions (Jauhiainen et al., 2008). Payback times for select studies. Figure 2.13 also shows the 2010 EPA model results
are practically zero when degraded land or cropland is used, and they with a relatively high resolution of land use distribution58 for Brazil
are relatively low for the most productive systems when grasslands and resulting in mid-range LUC emissions for sugarcane ethanol (5 to 10 g
woody savannas are used (not considering the iLUC that can arise if CO2eq/MJ), similar to the European study (Al-Riffai et al., 2010) estimate
these lands were originally used, for example, for grazing). of 12 g CO2eq/MJ. The Brazilian study with measured LUC dynamics for
common crops and native vegetation between 2005 and 2008 by Nassar
Targeting unused marginal and degraded lands for bioenergy produc- et al. (2010) obtained 8 g CO2eq/MJ for iLUC and dLUC, with the latter
tion can thus mitigate dLUC emissions. For some options (e.g., perennial being nearly zero. Fischer et al. (2010) obtained 28 g CO2eq/MJ using a
grasses, woody plants, mechanically harvested sugarcane), net gains deterministic methodology and assuming a high risk of deforestation.
of soil and aboveground carbon can be obtained (Tilman et al., 2006b; Model results from Figure 2.13 show all other crops as having higher
Liebig et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2008; Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2009; LUC values than sugarcane ethanol. In the US maize ethanol case, Plevin
Dondini et al., 2009; Hillier et al., 2009; Galdos et al., 2010). In this et al. (2010) report a plausible range of 25 to 150 g CO2eq/MJ based
context, land application of biochar produced via pyrolysis could be an on uncertainty analysis of various model parameters and assumptions.
option to sequester carbon in a more stable form and improve the struc-
ture and fertility of soils (Laird et al., 2009; Woolf et al., 2010). The utility of these models to study scenarios is illustrated with an
analysis of the relative contributions of changes in yield and land area
Bioenergy does not always result in LUC. Bioenergy feedstocks can be to increased crop output along with assumptions about trade-critical
produced in combination with food and fibre, avoiding land use dis- factors in model-based LUC estimates (D. Keeney and Hertel, 2009).
placement and improving the productive use of land (Section 2.2). These Subsequent model improvements incorporate crop yields, by-product
possibilities may be available for bioenergy options that can use lignocel- markets interactions, and trade and policy assumptions, and analyze
lulosic biomass but also for some other options that use waste oil and oil past and project future usage with existing (2010) EU and US policies,
seeds such as Jatropha (Section 2.3). The use of post-consumer organic finding LUC in other countries such as Latin America and Oceania to be
waste and by-products from the agricultural and forest industries does primarily at the expense of pastureland followed by commercial forests
not cause LUC if these biomass sources are wastes, that is, they were (Hertel et al., 2010a,b).
not utilized for alternative purposes. On the other hand, if not utilized
for bioenergy, some biomass sources (e.g., harvest residues left in the Lywood et al. (2009b) report that the extent to which output change
forest) would retain organic carbon for a longer time than if used for comes from increased crop yield or land area changes varies between
energy. Such delayed GHG emissions can be considered a benefit in crops and regions. They estimate that yield growth contributed 80 and
relation to near-term GHG mitigation, and this is an especially relevant 60% of the incremental output growth for EU cereals and US maize,
factor in longer-term accounting for regions where biomass degradation respectively, between 1961 and 2007. Conversely, area expansion
is slow (e.g., boreal forests). However, as noted above, natural distur-
bances can convert forests from net sinks to net sources of GHGs, and 57 Biofuel shock (Hertel et al., 2010a,b) is introduced in general equilibrium models by
changing some economic parameters (e.g., subsidies to ethanol production) to reach
dead wood left in forests can be lost in fires. In forest lands susceptible predetermined volume levels (i.e., sum of government mandates for a certain year).
to periodic fires, good silviculture practices can lead to less frequent, The comparison of new and previously determined equilibrium enables estimates of
lower intensity fires that accelerate forest growth rates and soil carbon land area changes impacted directly to meet mandates and those indirectly involved
to compensate for that agricultural production no longer available, its co-products
storage. Using biomass removed in such practices for bioenergy can pro- and its impact throughout the global economic chain. These studies have high
vide GHG and particulate emission reductions. uncertainties. Partial equilibrium models were also included in Edwards et al. (2010).

58 Based on the Nassar et al. (2009) Brazilian Land Use Model, which shows a lower
For different world regions, Edwards et al. (2010) describe the com-
share of LUC due to deforestation. More recently, Nassar et al. (2010) obtained
parison of six equilibrium models to quantify LUC associated with a elasticities for models from direct data (statistical and satellite-based) of land use
standard biofuel shock defined as a marginal increase in demand for substitution over time. The matrix elasticity results for major crops in various regions
provide a deterministic estimate for the d+iLUC of sugarcane ethanol of about 8 g
CO2eq/MJ. Higher substitution coefficients are found for soy into native vegetation.

265
Bioenergy Chapter 2

200
2012, 2017, 2022 2020 Projections 2010 and 2015 2010 Projections 2016
Projections Projections indirect only, Projection
180 EU - Al-Riffai et al. (2010),
modeled to deterministic
Hiederer et al. (2010) US - Tyner et al. (2010), US - Searchinger
compare impacts methodology
Hertel et al. (2010a) et al. (2008)
160 of US 2007 (vs.
EU - Fritsche et al.
2005) legislation
Maize (2010)
US EPA (2010)
GHG Emissions from Land Use Change [g CO2 eq/MJ]

140
Wheat

120 Sugarcane

Rapeseed
100
Soya

80 Fuel Average

60

40

20

0
0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

-20
Biofuel Shock [EJ] Biofuel Shock [EJ] Biofuel Shock [EJ] Biofuel Shock [EJ] Biofuel Shock [EJ]

Increased Spatial Resolution of Land Use Distribution and/or Use Options

Figure 2.13 | Select model-based estimates of LUC emissions for major biofuel crops given a certain level of demand, a biofuel shock, expressed in EJ (30-year accounting frame-
work). Mid-range values of multiple studies (g CO2eq/MJ): 14 to 82 for US maize ethanol with high-resolution models and 100 for earlier models; 5 to 28 for sugarcane ethanol; 18
to 45 for European wheat ethanol; 40 to 63 for soy biodiesel (uncertain); and 35 to 45 for rapeseed biodiesel. Points for Tyner et al. (2010) and Hertel et al. (2010a) represent model
improvements with the lowest value including feedstock yield and population increases (baseline 2006). Fritsche et al. (2010) value ranges derive from a deterministic methodology
representing risk values of 25 and 75% of the theoretical worst case of LUC scenarios, such as high deforestation, to calculate iLUC.

contributed to more than 60% of output growth for EU rapeseed, (Lywood et al., 2009a). Lywood et al. (2008) obtained large improve-
Brazilian sugarcane, South American soy, and Southeast Asia oil palm. ments in net GHG savings for European cereal ethanol and rapeseed
Studies report price-yield relationships; there is a weak basis for deriv- biodiesel based on co-products displacing imported soy as animal feed,
ing these relationships (D. Keeney and Hertel, 2008) although rising oil which reduces deforestation and other LUC for soy cultivation in Brazil.
prices and fuel tax exemptions show strong correlations for the USA Conversely, increased corn cultivation at the cost of soy cultivation, in
and EU, respectively. Edwards et al. (2010) state that the marginal area response to increasing ethanol demand in the USA, has been reported
requirement per additional unit output of a particular biofuel should to increase soy cultivation in other countries such as Brazil (Laurance,
increase due to decreasing productivity of additional land converted 2007). Trade assumptions are critical and differ in the various models.
to biofuel feedstock production (also reflected in, e.g., R. Keeney and In addition, marginal displacement effects of co-products may have a
Hertel, 2005; Tabeau et al., 2006). Lywood et al. (2009b), however, state saturation level (McCoy, 2006; Edwards et al., 2010), although new uses
that in the case of EU cereals and US corn, there is no evidence that may be developed, for example, to produce more biofuels (Yazdani and
average yields decline as more land is used. The assumed or modelled Gonzalez, 2007).
displacement effect of process co-products used as feed can also have a
strong influence on LUC values. Bioenergy options that use lignocellulosic feedstocks are projected to
have lower LUC values than those of first-generation biofuels (see, e.g.,
For European biofuels, if soy meal and cereals for feed are displaced, EPA, 2010; Hoefnagels et al., 2010; see Figure 9.9). As noted above,
the net land area required to produce biofuel from EU cereal, rape- some of these feedstock sources can be used without causing LUC.
seed and sugar beet is much lower than the gross land requirement Lower LUC values might be expected because of high biomass produc-
(e.g., only 6% for ethanol from feed wheat in northwestern Europe tivity, multiple products (e.g., animal feed) or avoided competition for

266
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

prime cropland by using more marginal lands (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). of unmanaged ecosystems and forests. Improved crop productivity was
The lower productivity of marginal lands, however, results in higher land proposed as a potentially important means for GHG emissions reduc-
requirements per given biomass output and presents particular chal- tion, with the caution that non-CO2 emissions (not modelled) need to
lenges as discussed in Section 2.2. Also, as many lignocellulosic plants be considered.
are grown under longer rotations, they should be less responsive to price
increases because the average yield over a plantation lifetime can only Biospheric carbon pricing as a sufficient mechanism to protect for-
be influenced through agronomic means (notably increased fertilizer ests was proposed by Wise et al. (2009) and supported by Venter et
input) and by variety selection at the time of replanting. Thus, output al. (2009) and others. Persson and Azar (2010) acknowledge that pric-
growth in response to increasing demand is more readily obtained by ing LUC carbon emissions could potentially make many of the current
area expansion. proximate causes of deforestation unprofitable (e.g., extensive cattle
ranching, small-scale slash-and-burn agriculture and fuelwood use) but
Depending on the atmospheric lifetime of specific GHGs, the trade-off they question whether it will suffice to make deforestation for bioenergy
between emitting more now and less in the future is not one-to-one in production unprofitable because these bioenergy systems are highly
general. But the relationship for CO2 is practically one-to-one, so that productive according to the Wise et al. (2009) assumptions of generic
one additional (less) tonne CO2 emitted today requires a future reduc- feedstock productivity and biofuel conversion efficiency. A higher car-
tion (allows a future increase) by one tonne. This relationship is due to bon price will increase not only the cost of forest clearing but also the
the close to irreversible climate effect of CO2 emissions (Matthews and revenues from certain bioenergy production systems. The upfront cost of
Caldeira, 2008; M. Allen et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2009; Solomon et land conversion may also be reduced if the bioenergy industry partners
al., 2009). with the timber and pulp industries that seek access to timber revenues
from clear felling forests as the first step in plantation development
Integrated energy-industry-land use/cover models can give insights (Fitzherbert et al., 2008).
into how an expanding bioenergy sector interacts with other sectors in
society, influencing longer-term energy sector development, land use, Three tentative conclusions are:
management of biospheric carbon stocks, and global cumulative GHG
emissions. In an example of early studies, Leemans et al. (1996) imple- 1. Additional, and stronger, protection measures may be needed to
mented in the IMAGE model (Integrated Model to Assess the Global meet the objective of tropical forest preservation. A strict focus
Environment) the LESS (low CO2-emitting energy supply system) sce- on the climate benefits of ecosystem preservation may put undue
nario, which was developed for the IPCC Second Assessment Report pressure on valuable ecosystems that have a relatively low carbon
(IPCC, 1996). This study showed that the required land use expansion to density. While this may have a small impact in terms of climate
provide biomass feedstock can cause significant food-bioenergy compe- change mitigation, it may negatively impact other parts of the eco-
tition and influence deforestation rates with significant consequences system, for example, biodiversity and water tables.
for environmental issues such as biodiversity, and that the outcome is
sensitive to regional emissions and feedback in the carbon cycle. More 2. From a strict climate and cost efficiency perspective, in some places
recently, using linked economic and terrestrial biogeochemistry models, a certain level of upfront LUC emissions may be acceptable in con-
Melillo et al. (2009) found a similar level of cumulative CO2 emissions verting forest to highly productive bioenergy plantations due to the
associated with LUC from an expanded global cellulosic biofuels pro- climate benefits of subsequent continued biofuel production and
gramme over the 21st century. The study concluded that iLUC was a fossil fuel displacement. The balance between bioenergy expansion
larger source of carbon loss than dLUC; fertilizer N2O emissions were benefits and LUC impacts on biodiversity, water and soil conser-
a substantial source of global warming; and forest protection and best vation is delicate. Climate change mitigation is just one of many
practices for nitrogen fertilizer use could dramatically reduce emissions rationales for ecosystem protection.
associated with biofuels production.
3. iLUC effects strongly (up to fully) depend on the rate of improve-
Wise et al. (2009) also stressed the importance of limiting terrestrial ment in agricultural and livestock management and the rate of
carbon emissions and showed how the design of mitigation regimes deployment of bioenergy production. Subsequently, implementation
can strongly influence the nature of bioenergy development and asso- of bioenergy production and energy cropping schemes that follow
ciated environmental consequences, including the net GHG savings effective sustainability frameworks and start from simultaneous
from bioenergy. Including both fossil and LUC emissions in a carbon improvements in agricultural management could mitigate conflicts
tax regime, instead of taxing only fossil emissions, was found to lower and allow realization of positive outcomes, for example, in rural
the cost of meeting environmental goals. However, this tax regime was development, land amelioration and climate change mitigation
also found to induce rising food crop and livestock prices and expansion including opportunities to combine adaptation measures.

267
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.5.4 Traditional biomass: Climate change effects 2.5.5 Environmental impacts other than greenhouse
gas emissions
Traditional open fires and simple low-efficiency stoves have low com-
bustion efficiency, producing large amounts of incomplete combustion 2.5.5.1 Impacts on air quality and water resources
products (CO, methane, particle matter, non-methane volatile organic
compounds, and others) that have negative consequences for climate Air pollutant emissions from bioenergy production depend on tech-
change and local air pollution (Smith et al., 2000; see also Box 9.4 in nology, fuel properties, process conditions and installed emission
Section 9.3.4.2). When biomass is harvested renewably—for example, reduction technologies. Compared to coal and oil stationary applica-
from standing trees or agricultural residues—CO2 already emitted to tions, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from
the atmosphere is sequestered as biomass re-grows. Because the bioenergy applications are mostly lower (see also Section 9.3.4.2).
products of incomplete combustion also include important short-lived When biofuel replaces gasoline and diesel in the transport sector, SO2
greenhouse pollutants and black carbon, even sustainable harvesting emissions are reduced, but changes in NOx emissions depend on the
does not make such fuel cycles GHG neutral. Worldwide, it is esti- substitution pattern and technology. The effects of replacing gasoline
mated that household fuel combustion causes approximately 30% with ethanol and biodiesel also depend on engine features. Biodiesel
of the warming due to black carbon and CO emissions from human can have higher NOx emissions than petroleum diesel in traditional
sources, about 15% of ozone-forming chemicals, and a few percent of direct-injected diesel engines that are not equipped with NOx control
methane and CO2 emissions (Wilkinson et al., 2009). catalysts (e.g., Verhaeven et al., 2005; Yanowitz and McCormick, 2009).

Improved cookstoves (ICS) and other advanced biomass systems Bioenergy production can have both positive and negative effects
for cooking are cost-effective for achieving large benefits in energy on water resources (see also Section 9.3.4.4). Bioenergy production
use reduction and climate change mitigation. Fuel savings of 30 to generally consumes more water than gasoline production (Wu et al.,
60% are reported (Berrueta et al., 2008; Jetter and Kariher, 2009). 2009; Fingerman et al., 2010). However, this relationship and the water
The savings in GHG emissions associated with these efficient stoves impacts of bioenergy production are highly dependent on location, the
are difficult to derive because of the wide range of fuel types, stove specific feedstock, production methods and the supply chain element.
designs, cooking practices and environmental conditions across the
world. However, advanced biomass systems, such as small-scale gas- Feedstock cultivation can lead to leaching and emission of nutrients that
ifier stoves and biogas stoves, have had design improvements that increase eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem
increase combustion efficiency and dramatically reduce the produc- Assessment, 2005; SCBD, 2006; Spranger et al., 2008). Pesticide emis-
tion of short-lived GHGs by up to 90% relative to traditional stoves. sions to water bodies may also negatively impact aquatic life. Given that
Some of these new stoves even reach performance levels similar to several types of energy crops are perennials grown in arable fields being
liquid propane gas (Jetter and Kariher, 2009). Patsari improved stoves used temporarily as a pasture for grazing animals or woody crops grown
in rural Mexico save between 3 and 9 t CO2eq/stove/yr relative to in multi-year rotations, the increasing bioenergy demand may drive land
open fires, with renewable or non-renewable harvesting of biomass, use towards systems with substantially higher water productivity. On
respectively (M. Johnson et al., 2009). the other hand, shifting demand to alternative—mainly lignocellu-
losic—bioenergy can decrease water competition. Perennial herbaceous
Venkataraman et al. (2010) estimate that the dissemination of 160 crops and short-rotation woody crops generally require fewer agro-
million advanced ICS in India may result in the mitigation of 80 Mt nomic inputs and have reduced impacts compared to annual crops,
CO2eq/yr, or more than 4% of India’s total estimated GHG emissions, although large-scale production can require high levels of nutrient input
plus a 30% reduction in India’s human-caused black carbon emis- (see Sections 2.2.4.2 and 2.3.1). Water impacts can also be mitigated
sions. Worldwide, with GHG mitigation per unit at 1 to 4 t CO2eq/ by integrating lignocellulosic feedstocks in agricultural landscapes as
stove/yr compared to traditional open fires, the global mitigation vegetation filters to capture nutrients in passing water (Börjesson and
potential of advanced ICS was estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.4 Berndes, 2006). A prolonged growing season may redirect unproductive
Gt CO2eq/yr. This estimate does not consider the additional potential soil evaporation and runoff to plant transpiration (Berndes, 2008a,b).
reduction in black carbon emissions. Actual figures depend on the Crops that provide a continuous cover over the year can also conserve
renewability of the biomass fuel production, stove and fuel charac- soil outside the growing season of annual crops by diminishing the
teristics, and the actual adoption and sustained used of improved erosion from precipitation and runoff (Berndes, 2008a,b). A number of
cookstoves. Reduction in fuelwood and charcoal use due to the bioenergy crops can be grown on a wide spectrum of land types that are
adoption of advanced ICS may help reduce pressure on forest and not suitable for conventional food or feed crops. These marginal lands,
agricultural areas and improve aboveground biomass stocks and pastures and grasslands could become available for feedstock produc-
soil and biodiversity conservation (Ravindranath et al., 2006; García- tion under sustainable management practices (if adverse downstream
Frapolli et al., 2010). water impacts can be mitigated).

268
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

The subsequent processing of the feedstock into biofuels and electricity to improve biodiversity (Lindenmayer and Nix, 1993; Semere and Slater,
can increase chemical and thermal pollution loads from effluents and 2007; Royal Society, 2008). Bioenergy plantations that are cultivated as
generate waste to aquatic systems (Martinelli and Filoso 2007, Simpson vegetation filters can improve biodiversity by reducing the nutrient load
et al., 2008). These environmental impacts can be reduced if suitable and eutrophication in water bodies (Foley et al., 2005; Börjesson and
equipment is installed (Wilkie et al., 2000; BNDES/CGEE, 2008). Berndes, 2006) and providing a varied landscape.

Water demand for bioenergy can be reduced substantially through pro- Bioenergy plantations can be located in the agricultural landscape to
cess changes and recycling (D. Keeney and Muller, 2006; BNDES/CGEE, provide ecological corridors through which plants and animals can
2008). Currently, most water is lost to the atmosphere through evapo- move between spatially separated natural and semi-natural ecosystems.
transpiration during the production of cultivated feedstock (Berndes, Thus, bioenergy plantations can reduce the barrier effect of agricultural
2002). Feedstock processing into fuels and electricity requires much less lands (Firbank, 2008). However, bioenergy plantations can contribute to
water (Aden et al., 2002; Berndes, 2002; D. Keeney and Muller, 2006; habitat fragmentation, as has occurred with some oil palm plantations
Phillips et al., 2007; NRC, 2008; Wang et al., 2010), but water needs to (Danielsen et al. 2009; Fitzherbert, 2008).
be extracted from lakes, rivers and other water bodies.
Properly located biomass plantations can also protect biodiversity by
reducing the pressure on nearby natural forests. A study from Orissa,
2.5.5.2 Biodiversity and habitat loss India, showed that introducing village biomass plantations increased
biomass consumption (as a consequence of increased availability) while
Habitat loss is one of the major drivers of biodiversity decline globally decreasing pressure on the surrounding natural forests (Köhlin and
and is projected to be the major driver of biodiversity loss and decline Ostwald, 2001; Francis et al., 2005).
over the next 50 years (Sala et al., 2000; UNEP, 2008b; see Sections
9.3.4.5 and 9.3.4.6). Increased biomass output for bioenergy can directly When crops are grown on degraded or abandoned land, such as previ-
impact wild biodiversity through conversion of natural ecosystems into ously deforested areas or degraded crop- and grasslands, the production
bioenergy plantations or through changed forest management. Habitat of feedstocks for biofuels could have positive impacts on biodiversity by
and biodiversity loss may also occur indirectly, such as when produc- restoring or conserving soils, habitats and ecosystem functions (Firbank,
tive land use displaced by energy crops is re-established by converting 2008). For instance, several experiments with selected trees and inten-
natural ecosystems into croplands or pastures elsewhere. Because bio- sive management on severely degraded Indian wastelands (such as
mass feedstocks can generally be produced most efficiently in tropical alkaline, sodic or salt-affected lands) showed increases in soil carbon,
regions, there are strong economic incentives to replace tropical natural nitrogen and available phosphorous within eight years (Garg, 1998).
ecosystems—many of which host high biodiversity values (Doornbosch
and Steenblik, 2008). However, forest clearing is mostly influenced by
local social, economic, technological, biophysical, political and demo- 2.5.5.3 Impacts on soil resources
graphic forces (Kline and Dale, 2008).
The considerable soil impacts of increased biofuel production include soil
Increasing demand for oilseed has put pressure on areas designated carbon oxidation, changed rates of soil erosion, and nutrient leaching.
for conservation in some OECD member countries (Steenblik, 2007). However, these effects are heavily dependent on agronomic techniques
Similarly, the rising demand for palm oil has contributed to extensive and the feedstock under consideration (UNEP, 2008a). Land prepara-
deforestation in parts of Southeast Asia (UNEP, 2008a). The palm oil tion required for feedstock production, as well as nutrient demand,
plantations support significantly fewer species than the forest they varies widely across feedstocks. For instance, wheat, rapeseed and corn
replaced (Fitzherbert et al., 2008). require significant tillage compared to oil palm, sugarcane and switch-
grass (FAO, 2008a; UNEP, 2008a). In sugarcane production, soil quality
To the extent that bioenergy systems are based on conventional food benefits greatly from recycled nutrients from sugar mill and distillery
and feed crops, biodiversity impacts from pesticide and nutrient load- wastes (IEA, 2006).
ing can be expected from bioenergy expansion. Bioenergy production
can also impact agricultural biodiversity when large-scale monocultures, Using agricultural residues without proper management can lead to
based on a narrow pool of genetic material, reduce the use of traditional detrimental impacts on soil organic matter through increased erosion.
varieties. However, this impact depends heavily on management, yield, soil type
and location. In some areas, the impact of residue removal may be
Depending on a variety of factors, bioenergy expansion can also lead minimal.
to positive outcomes for biodiversity. Using bioenergy to replace fos-
sil fuels can reduce climate change, which is expected to be a major Certain cultivation practices, including conservation tillage and crop
driver of habitat loss. Establishment of perennial herbaceous plants or rotations, can mitigate adverse impacts and in some cases improve
short-rotation woody crops in agricultural landscapes has been found environmental benefits of biofuel production. For example, Jatropha can

269
Bioenergy Chapter 2

stabilize soils and store moisture while it grows (Dufey, 2006). Other curcas is considered weedy in several countries, including India and
potential benefits of planting feedstocks on degraded or marginal many South American states (Low and Booth, 2007). Warnings have
lands include reduced nutrient leaching, increased soil productivity been raised about Miscanthus and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum).
and increased carbon content (Berndes, 2002). If lignocellulosic energy Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass), Arundo donax (giant reed) and
crop plantations, which require low-intensity management and few fos- Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass) are known to be invasive in
sil energy inputs relative to current biofuel systems, are established on the USA. A number of protocols have evolved that allow for a systematic
abandoned agricultural or degraded land, soil carbon and soil quality assessment and evaluation of the inherent risk associated with species
could increase over time. This beneficial effect would be especially sig- introduction (McWhorter, 1971; Randall, 1996; Molofsky et al., 1999;
nificant with perennial species. Dudley, 2000; Forman, 2003; Raghu et al., 2006). DiTomaso et al. (2010)
address policies to keep these agro-ecosystems in check while devel-
oping desirable biofuels crops, such as preventive actions prior to and
2.5.6 Environmental health and safety implications during cultivation of biofuel plants.

2.5.6.1 Feedstock issues

2.5.6.2 Biofuels production issues
Currently, many crops used in fuel ethanol manufacturing are also tra-
ditional feed sources (e.g., maize, soy, canola and wheat). However, Globally, most biofuels are produced with conventional production
considerable efforts are focused on new crops that either enhance fuel technologies (see Section 2.3) that have been used in many industries
ethanol production (e.g., high-starch corn) or that are not traditional for many years (Gunderson, 2008; Abbasi and Abbasi, 2010). Hazards
food or feed crops (e.g., switchgrass). If the resultant distillers’ grains associated with most of these technologies are well characterized, and
from these new crops are used as livestock feed or could inadvertently it is possible to limit risks to very low levels by applying existing knowl-
end up in livestock feeds, pre-market assessment of their acceptability edge and standards (see, e.g., Astbury, 2008; Hollebone and Yang, 2009;
in feed prior to their use in fuel ethanol production will be necessary Marlair et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2009) and their typology is under
(Hemakanthi and Heller, 2010). development (Rivière and Marlair, 2009, 2010).

Concerns about cross-pollination, hybridization, pest resistance and dis- The literature highlights environmental health and safety areas for
ruption of ecosystem functions (FAO, 2004; FAO, 2008; IAASTD, 2009) further evaluation as new technologies (see Section 2.6) are devel-
have limited the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops in some oped (e.g., Madsen et al., 2004; Madsen, 2006; Vinnerås et al., 2006;
regions. Transgene movement leading to weediness or invasiveness Narayanan et al., 2007; Gunderson, 2008; McLeod et al., 2008; Hill et al.,
of the crop itself or of its wild or weedy relatives is a major reason 2009; Martens and Böhm, 2009; Moral et al., 2009; Perry, 2009; Sumner
(Warwick et al., 2009). Clarity, predictability and established risk assess- and Layde, 2009). Key areas include:
ment processes are literature recommendations to decrease GE crop use
concerns (Warwick et al., 2009).59 The first assessment (NRC, 2010) of • Health risk to workers using engineered microorganisms or their
the impact of GE crops in use in the USA since 1996 found that benefits metabolites.
to the farmer included increased worker safety from pesticide handling;
indicated that water quality improves with GE crops; and acknowledged • Potential ecosystem effects from the release of engineered
that more work needs to be done, particularly to install infrastructure microorganisms.
to measure water quality impacts, develop weed management prac-
tices, and address the needs of farmers whose markets depend on the • Impact to workers, biofuel consumers or the environment from pes-
absence of GE traits. ticides and mycotoxins that accumulate in processing intermediates,
residues or products (e.g., spent grains, spent oil seeds).
Several grasses and woody species that are candidates for biofuel pro-
duction have traits commonly found in invasive species (Howard and • Risks to workers from infectious agents that can contaminate feed-
Ziller, 2008). These traits include rapid growth, high water-use efficiency stocks in production facilities.
and long canopy duration (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000). There are fears
that if these crops are introduced, they could become invasive, displace • Exposure to toxic substances, particularly for workers at biomass
indigenous species and decrease biodiversity. For example, Jatropha thermochemical processing facilities that use routes not currently
practised by the fossil fuels industry.
59 Other concerns include: reduction in crop diversity, increases in herbicide use,
herbicide resistance (increased weediness), loss of farmer’s sovereignty over seed,
ethical concerns over transgenes origin, lack of access to intellectual property rights • Fugitive air emissions and site runoff impacts on public health, air
held by the private sector, and loss of markets owing to moratoriums on genetically quality, water quality and ecosystems.
modifed organisms (GMOs) (IAASTD, 2009).

270
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

• Exposure to toxic substances, particularly if production facilities et al., 2009b; WBGU, 2009; van Dam et al., 2010; see also Section 2.4).
become as commonplace as landfill sites or natural gas-fired elec- Specifically, criteria and indicators related to the development of liquid
tricity generating stations. biofuels have been proposed for these issues: human rights, including
gender issues; working and wage conditions, including health and safety
• Cumulative environmental impacts from the siting of multiple issues; local food security; rural and social development, with special
biofuel/bioenergy production facilities in the same air- and/or regard to poverty reduction; and land rights (Table 2.12). So far, while
watershed. rural and local development are included, specific economic criteria for
the cost-effectiveness of the projects, level of subsidies and other finan-
cial aspects have not been included in the sustainability frameworks.
2.5.7 Socioeconomic aspects Most of the frameworks are still under development. The progress of
certification systems was reviewed by van Dam et al. (2008, 2010). The
The large-scale and global development of bioenergy will be associ- FAO’s Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators project has
ated with a complex set of socioeconomic issues and trade-offs, ranging compiled bioenergy sustainability initiatives (see also Sections 2.4.5.1
from local issues (e.g., income and employment generation, improved and 2.4.5.2).
health conditions, agrarian structure, land tenure, land use competition
and strengthening of regional economies) to national issues (e.g., food
security, a secure energy supply and balance of trade). Participation of 2.5.7.2 Socioeconomic impacts of small-scale systems
local stakeholders, in particular small farmers and poor households, is
essential to ensure socioeconomic benefits from bioenergy projects. The inefficient use of biomass in traditional devices such as open fires
has significant socioeconomic impacts including drudgery for getting
the fuel, the cost of satisfying cooking needs, and significant health
2.5.7.1 Socioeconomic impact studies and sustainability crite- impacts from the very high levels of indoor air pollution, especially for
ria for bioenergy systems women and children (Masera and Navia, 1997; Pimentel et al., 2001;
Biran et al., 2004; Bruce et al., 2006; Romieu et al., 2009). Indoor air pol-
The complex nature of bioenergy, with many conversion routes and the lutants include respirable particles, CO, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur,
multifaceted potential socioeconomic impacts, makes the overall impact benzene, formaldehyde, 1, 3-butadiene, and polyaromatic compounds
analysis difficult to conduct. Also, many impacts are not easily quan- such as benzo(a)pyrene (Smith et al., 2000). Wood smoke exposure
tifiable in monetary or numerical terms. To overcome these problems, can increase respiratory symptoms and problems (Thorn et al., 2001;
semi-quantitative methods based on stakeholder involvement have Mishra et al., 2004; Schei et al., 2004; Boman et al., 2006). Exposures of
been used to assess social criteria such as societal product benefit and household members have been measured to be many times higher than
social dialogue60 (von Geibler et al., 2006). World Health Organization guidelines and national standards (Smith et
al., 2000; Bruce et al., 2006) (see also Sections 9.3.4.3 and 9.4.4). More
Regarding economic impacts, the most commonly reported variables are than 200 studies over the past two decades have assessed levels of
private production costs over the value chain, assuming a fixed set of indoor air pollutants in households using solid fuels. The burden from
prices for basic commodities (e.g., for fossil fuels and fertilizers). The related diseases was estimated at 1.6 million excess deaths per year,
bioenergy costs are usually compared to alternatives already on the including 900,000 children under five, and a loss of 38.6 million DALY
market (fossil-based) to judge the potential competitiveness. Bioenergy (Disability Adjusted Life Year) per year (Smith and Haigler, 2008). This
systems are mostly analyzed at a micro-economic level, although inter- burden is similar in magnitude to the burden of disease from malaria
actions with other sectors cannot be ignored because of the competition and tuberculosis (Ezzati et al., 2002).
for land and other resources. Opportunity costs may be calculated from
food commodity prices and gross margins to account for food-bioenergy Properly designed and implemented ICS projects, based on the new
interactions. Social impact indicators include consequences for local generation of biomass stoves, have led to significant health improve-
employment, although this impact is difficult to assess because of possible ments (von Schirnding et al., 2001; Ezzati et al., 2004). ICS health
offsets between fossil and bioenergy chains. Impacts at a macro-economic benefits include a 70 to 90% reduction in indoor air pollution, a 50%
level include the social costs incurred because of fiscal measures (e.g., tax reduction in human exposure, and reductions in respiratory and other
exemptions) to support bioenergy chains (DeLucchi, 2005). Fossil energy’s illnesses (Armendáriz et al., 2008; Romieu et al., 2009). Substantial
negative externalities also need to be assessed (Bickel and Friedrich, 2005). health benefits can accrue even with modest reductions in exposure
to indoor air pollutants. For example, in Guatemala, a 50% reduction in
Several sustainability frameworks and certification systems have exposure has been shown to produce a 40% improvement in childhood
been proposed to better document and integrate the socioeconomic pneumonia cases. In India, the health benefits from the dissemination
impacts of bioenergy systems, particularly at the project level (Bauen of advanced ICS have been estimated to be potentially equivalent to
eliminating nearly half the entire cancer burden in 2020. These health
60 Multi Criteria Analysis methods have been applied in the bioenergy field during the benefits include 240,000 averted premature deaths from acute lower
past 15 years (Buchholz et al., 2009).

271
Bioenergy Chapter 2

respiratory infections in children younger than five years and more than brick and charcoal kilns) are available that increase work productivity,
1.8 million averted premature adult deaths from ischemic heart disease quality of products and overall working conditions (FAO, 2006, 2010b).
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Bruce et al., 2006; Wilkinson
et al., 2009).
2.5.7.3 Socioeconomic aspects of large-scale bioenergy
Figure 2.14 shows the cost effectiveness of treatment options for the systems
eight major risk factors that account for 40% of the global disease
burden (Glass, 2006). ICS are among the most cost-effective options in Large-scale bioenergy systems have sparked heated controversies
terms of the cost per avoided DALY. Overall, ICS and other small-scale around food security, income generation, rural development and land
biomass systems represent a very cost-effective intervention with ben- tenure. The controversy makes clear that there may be both advantages
efits to cost ratios of 5.6:1, 20:1 and 13:1 found in Malawi, Uganda and and disadvantages to the further development of large-scale bioenergy
Mexico, respectively (Frapolli et al., 2010). systems, depending on their characteristics, local conditions and the
mode of implementation.
100,000
USD2005 per DALY Saved

Global Burden of Disease (GBD) [%]

Impacts on job and income generation
10,000
Cost Effectiveness Percentage of GBD
12
Increased demand for agricultural and forestry waste materials (i.e., resi-
dues) can supplement farmers’ and foresters’ incomes, particularly if the
1,000
wastes were previously burned or landfilled. Bioenergy can also gener-
ate jobs; in general, bioenergy generates more jobs per unit of energy
100 6
delivered than other energy sources, largely due to feedstock produc-
tion, especially in developing countries and rural areas (FAO, 2010b).
10
Wage income is a key contribution to the livelihoods of many poor
1 0 rural dwellers (Ivanic and Martin, 2008). The benefits from bioen-
Malaria

Improved Stoves

Undernourishment

Tobacco Addiction

Tuberculosis

Coronary Artery Disease

Unsafe H2O/ Diarrheal Disease

Ischemic Heart Disease

ergy jobs depend on the relative labour intensity of the feedstock

crop compared to the crop that was previously grown on the same
land. For example, cultivation of perennial energy crops requires
less labour than cereal crop cultivation, and this displacement effect
should be taken into account (Thornley et al., 2009). While increased
employment is an important potential benefit, highly labour-intensive
operations might also reduce competitiveness (depending on the rela-
tive prices of labour and capital) (see Section 9.3.1.3).
Figure 2.14 | Cost effectiveness of interventions expressed in dollars per disability
adjusted life year (DALY) saved (Glass, 2006) on the left scale (logarithmic scale), and The number of jobs created is very location-specific and varies
contributions to the global burden of disease (GBD) from eight major risk factors and considerably with plant size, the degree of feedstock production
diseases (in %, right scale). The figure shows that the dissemination of improved bio- mechanization (Berndes and Hansson, 2007) and the contribution
mass stoves—depicted here as an intervention to reduce the health effects of indoor air
pollution due to fuelwood use—compares well with the cost of interventions aimed at of imports to meeting demand (Nusser et al., 2007; Wydra, 2009).
combating major health problems and diseases such as undernourishment, tuberculosis, Estimates of the employment creation potential of bioenergy options
heart diseases and others (Bailis et al., 2009 with permission from Elsevier B.V.). differ substantially, but liquid biofuels based on traditional agricul-
tural crops seem to provide the most employment, especially when
the biofuel conversion plants are small (Berndes and Hansson,
Increased use of ICS frees up time for women to engage in income- 2007). Even within liquid biofuel options, the use of different crops
generating activities. Reduced fuel collection times and savings in introduces wide differences. For ethanol, the number of direct and
cooking time can also translate into increased time for education of indirect jobs generated ranges from 45 (corn) to 2,200 (sugarcane)
rural children, especially girls (Karekezi and Majoro, 2002). ICS use fos- jobs/PJ of ethanol. For biodiesel, the number of direct and indirect
ters improvements in local living conditions, kitchens and homes, and jobs generated ranges from 100 (soybean) to 2,000 (oil palm) jobs/
quality of life (Masera et al., 2000). The manufacture and dissemination PJ of biodiesel (Dias de Moraes, 2007; Clayton et al., 2010). For elec-
of ICS also represents an important source of income and employment tricity production, mid-scale power plants in developing countries
for thousands of local small businesses around the world (Masera et al., using a low-mechanized system (25 MW) are estimated to generate
2005). Similar impacts were found for small-scale biogas plants, which approximately 400 jobs/plant or 250 jobs/PJ, of which 94% are in the
have the added benefits of providing lighting for individual households production and harvesting of feedstocks. For instance, in a detailed
and villages and increasing the quality of life. More efficient technolo- UK study, 1.27 jobs/GWh were calculated for power generation from
gies than currently employed in small-scale industries (such as improved a 25 MWe plant using dedicated crops (woody or Miscanthus). During

272
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

the complete lifecycle, 4,000 to 6,000 person-year jobs are created, a drastic biofuel expansion scenario where biofuel demand is double
representing on a yearly basis 200 jobs/PJ (15, 73, and 12% at the that under the first scenario (these scenarios are relative to a baseline of
electricity plant, feedstock production and delivery, and induced, modest biofuel development where biofuel production remains constant
respectively) (Thornley et al., 2008). at 2010 levels in most countries). IFPRI (2008) estimated that 30% of
the weighted average increase in world cereal prices was attributable
In Europe, if the EU25 scenario is followed, Berndes and Hansson to biofuels between 2000 and 2007. Elobeid and Hart (2007) compared
(2007) estimate that biomass production for energy can create two modelled scenarios, with and without biofuel utilization barriers,
employment at a magnitude that is significant relative to total agri- and found that removing utilization barriers doubled the projected
cultural employment (up to 15% in selected countries) but small increases in corn and food basket prices. These studies generally agree
compared to the total industrial employment in a country. The lat- that increased biofuels production played some role in increased food
est analysis also shows some trade-offs—for instance, agricultural prices, but there is no consensus about the size of this contribution (FAO,
options for liquid biofuels create more employment, but forest-based 2008a; Mitchell, 2008; DEFRA, 2009; Baffes and Haniotis, 2010). Other
options for electricity and heat production produce more climate ben- factors include the weak US dollar, increased energy costs, increased
efits. In Brazil, the biofuel sector accounted for about one million jobs agricultural production costs, speculation on commodities, and adverse
in rural areas in 2001, mostly for unskilled labour related to manual weather conditions (Headey and Fan, 2008; Mitchell, 2008; DEFRA,
harvesting after field burning of sugarcane (Moreira, 2006). Indeed, 2009; Baffes and Haniotis, 2010). The eventual impact of biofuels on
mechanization, already ongoing in about 50% of the Center South prices will depend, among other factors, on the specific technology
production (responsible for 90% of the country’s harvest), reduces used, the strength of government mandates for biofuel use, the design
demand for unskilled labour for manual harvest but produces an envi- of trade policies that favour inefficient methods of biofuel production,
ronmental benefit. Meanwhile, worker productivity continues to grow and oil prices.
and part of the workforce is retrained for the skilled higher-paying
jobs required for mechanized operations (Oliveira, 2009). The impact of higher prices on the welfare of the poor depends on
whether the poor are net sellers of food (benefit from higher prices) or
net buyers of food (harmed by higher prices). On balance, the evidence
2.5.7.4 Risks to food security indicates that higher prices will adversely affect poverty and food secu-
rity in developing countries, even after taking into account the benefits
Unless the feedstocks are grown on abandoned land or use residues of higher prices for farmers (Ivanic and Martin, 2008; Zezza et al., 2008).
that previously had no economic value, liquid biofuel production creates A major FAO study on the socioeconomic impacts of the expansion of
additional demand for food and agricultural commodities that places liquid biofuels (FAO, 2008a) indicates that poor urban consumers and
additional pressure on natural resources such as land and water and poor net food buyers in rural areas are particularly at risk. Rosegrant et
thus raises food commodity prices (Chakravorty et al., 2009; B. Wright, al. (2008) estimated that the number of malnourished children would
2009). Lignocellulosic biofuels, because they can be grown more easily double under the two scenarios mentioned above.
on land that is not suitable for food production, can reduce but not elim-
inate competition (Chakravorty et al., 2009). To the extent that domestic A significant increase in the cultivation of crops for bioenergy indicates a
food markets are linked to international food markets, even countries close coupling of the markets for energy and food (Schmidhuber, 2008),
that do not produce bioenergy may be affected by the higher prices. and an analysis by the World Bank (2009) confirmed a strong associa-
tion between food and energy prices when oil prices are above USD2005
Commodity prices are determined by a complex set of factors, of 45 per barrel. Thus, if energy prices increase, there may be spillovers into
which biofuels is only one, and projections of future prices are highly food markets that increase food insecurity.
uncertain. Nevertheless, several studies have examined the contribu-
tion of increased biofuels production to the surge in food prices that Meeting the food demands of the world’s growing population will
occurred in the mid-2000s. These studies use different analytical meth- require a 70% increase in global food production by 2050 (Bruinsma,
ods and report their results in different ways (for a comprehensive 2009). At the same time, FAO (2008b) estimates that the increase in
review of these studies, see DEFRA, 2009). For example, the OECD-FAO arable land between 2005 and 2050 will be just 5% (Alexandratos et
Agricultural Outlook (OECD-FAO, 2008) model found that if biofuel pro- al., 2009). This limited increase indicates that economically exploitable
duction were frozen at 2007 levels, coarse grains prices would be 12% arable land is scarce. Because biomass production is land-intensive, there
lower and vegetable oil prices 15% lower in 2017 compared with a could be significant competition between food and fuel for the use of
situation where biofuels production continues to increase as expected. agricultural land (Chakravorty et al., 2009). Increased biofuels production
Rosegrant et al. (2008) estimated that world maize prices would be 26% could also reduce water availability for food production, as more water
higher under a scenario of continued biofuel expansion according to the is diverted to production of biofuel feedstocks (Chakravorty et al., 2009;
existing national development plans and more than 70% higher under Hoekstra et al., 2010).

273
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.5.7.5 Impacts on rural and social development reduce the incidence of poverty by about 6% over a 12-year period
between 2003 and 2015 (Arndt et al., 2010).
Growing demand for biofuels and the resulting rise in agricultural com-
modity prices can present an opportunity for promoting agricultural
growth and rural development in developing countries (Schmidhuber, 2.5.7.6 Trade-offs between social and environmental aspects
2008). The development potential critically depends on whether the bioen-
ergy market is economically sustainable without government subsidies. If Some important trade-offs between environmental and social criteria
long-term subsidies are required, fewer government funds will be available exist and need to be considered in future bioenergy developments.
for the wide range of other public goods that are essential for economic In the case of sugarcane, the environmental sustainability criteria
and social development, such as agricultural research, rural roads, and promoted by certification frameworks (such as the Roundtable for
education. Even short-term subsidies need to be considered very care- Sustainable Biofuels) favour mechanical harvesting due to the avoided
fully, as once subsidies are implemented they can be difficult to remove. emissions from sugarcane field burning required in manual systems.
Latin American experience shows that governments that use agricultural Several other organizations are concerned about the large number of
budgets for investment in public goods experience faster growth and alle- workers that will be displaced by these new systems. Also, the mecha-
viate poverty and environmental degradation more rapidly than those that nized model tends to favour further concentration of land ownership,
apply them for subsidies (López and Galinato, 2007). potentially excluding small- and medium-scale farmers and reducing
employment opportunities for rural workers (Huertas et al., 2010).
Bioenergy may reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and increase
energy supply security. In many cases these benefits are not likely to be Strategies for addressing such concerns can include providing support
large, although the contribution could be substantial for countries with for small- and medium-size stakeholders that lack the capacity to meet
large amounts of arable land per person (FAO, 2008a). Recent analyses the certification system requirements and/or developing alternative
of the use of indigenous resources implies that much of the expenditure income possibilities for the seasonal workers that presently earn a sub-
on energy is retained locally and recirculated within the local or regional stantial part of their annual income by cutting sugarcane (Huertas et al.,
economy, but there are trade-offs to consider. For example, the increased 2010). Retraining workers from manual to skilled labour, such as truck
use of biomass for electricity production and the corresponding increase in driving, is already taking place in Center South Brazil (Oliveira, 2009).
demand for some types of biomass (e.g., pellets) could cause a temporary
lack of biomass supply during periods of high demand. Households are
particularly vulnerable to this market distortion. 2.5.8 Synthesis

The biofuels production technologies and institutions will also be an As a component of the much larger agriculture and forestry systems
important determinant of rural development outcomes. In some instances, of the world, traditional and modern biomass affects social and envi-
private investors will look to establish biofuel plantations to ensure secu- ronmental issues ranging from health and poverty to biodiversity and
rity of supply. If plantations are established on non-productive land without water quality. Land and water resources need to be properly managed
harming the environment, there should be benefits to the economy. It is in concert with each specific region’s economic development situa-
essential not to overlook the uses of land that are important to the poor. tion and suitable types of bioenergy. Bioenergy has the opportunity
Governments may need to establish clear criteria for determining whether to contribute positively to climate change mitigation, secure energy
land is marginal or productive, and these criteria must protect vulnerable supply and diversity goals, and economic development in developed
communities and female farmers who may have less secure land rights and developing countries alike. However, the effects of bioenergy on
(FAO, 2008a). Research in Mozambique shows that, compared with a more environmental sustainability may also be negative depending upon
capital-intensive plantation approach, an out-grower approach to produc- local conditions, how criteria are defined, and how actual projects are
ing biofuels helps to reduce poverty due to the greater use of unskilled designed and implemented, among many other factors.
labour and accrual of land rents to smallholders (Arndt et al., 2010).
• Climate change and biomass production can be influenced by
Increased investment in rural areas will be crucial for making bio- interactions and feedbacks among land and water use, energy
fuels a positive development force. If governments rely exclusively and climate at scales that range from micro through macro (see
on short-term farm-level supply side economic response, the negative Figure 2.15). Social and environmental trade-offs may be present
effects of higher food prices will predominate. If higher prices moti- but can be minimized to a large extent with appropriate project
vate greater public and private investment in agriculture (e.g., rural design and implementation.
roads and education, R&D), there is tremendous potential for sparking
medium- and long-term rural development (De La Torre Ugarte and • Although crops grown as biofuels feedstocks currently use less
Hellwinckel, 2010). As one example, proposed biofuel investments in than 1% of the world’s agricultural land, the expansion of large-
Mozambique could increase annual economic growth by 0.6% and scale bioenergy systems raises several important socioeconomic

274
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

issues including food security, income generation, rural develop- as ecological corridors, to reduce pressure on natural forests and to
ment, land tenure and water scarcity in specific regions. restore degraded or abandoned land. Genetically engineered and
potentially invasive bioenergy crops have raised concerns. More
• Estimates of LUC effects require value judgments about the tem- research and protocols are needed to monitor and evaluate the
poral scale of analysis, the land use under the assumed ‘no action’ introduction of new or modified species.
scenario, the expected uses in the longer term, and the allocation
of impacts among different uses over time. Regardless, a system • Advanced ICS for traditional biomass use can provide large and cost-
that ensures consistent and accurate inventory of and reporting on effective mitigation of GHG emissions (GHG mitigation potential of
carbon stocks is considered an important first step towards LUC 0.6 to 2.4 Gt CO2eq/yr) with substantial co-benefits in health and
carbon accounting. living conditions, particularly for the poorest 2.7 billion people in
the world. Efficient technologies for cooking are cost-effective and
• Emissions of pollutants, like SO2 and NOx, are generally lower for comparable to major health interventions such as those for tobacco
bioenergy than for coal, gasoline and diesel, though the NOx results addiction, undernourishment or tuberculosis.
for biodiesel are more variable. Thus, bioenergy can reduce nega-
tive impacts on air quality. Bioenergy impacts on water resources • Biofuel production has contributed to increases in food prices, but
can be positive or negative, depending on the particular feedstock, additional factors affect food prices, including weather conditions,
supply chain element and processing methodologies. Bioenergy changes in food demand and increasing energy costs. Even con-
systems similar to conventional food and feed crop systems can sidering the benefit of increased prices to poor farmers, increased
contribute to loss of habitat and biodiversity, but bioenergy planta- food prices have adversely affected poverty, food security and
tions can be designed to provide filters for nutrient loss, to function malnourishment of children. On the other hand, biofuels can also

Climate Energy
Change Dynamic
Interactions
in Space &
Time

Biomass &
Water

Risks Enablers

1. Business as Usual Land Use 1. Good Governance

• Supportive Policies
2. Un-Reconciled Growth
and Environment 2. Sustainable
• Food vs. Fuel Use of Resources
Food, Fodder, Fibre, Fuel
• Ecosystems Services

Micro Scale: Meso Scale:

Agrobiodiversity Ecological Services,
Agroecological Areas

Macro Scale:
Biodiversity

Figure 2.15 | Bioenergy’s complex, dynamic interactions among society, energy and the environment include climate change feedbacks, biomass production and land use with direct
and indirect impacts at various spatial and temporal scales on all resource uses for food, fodder, fibre and energy (Dale et al., 2011). Biomass resources need to be produced in sustain-
able ways as their impacts can be felt from micro to macro scales (van Dam et al., 2010). Risks are maintenance of business-as-usual approaches with uncoordinated production of
food and fuel. Opportunities are many and include good governance and sustainability frameworks that generate effective policies that also lead to sustainable ecosystem services.

275
Bioenergy Chapter 2

provide opportunities for developing countries to make progress the increase in agricultural productivity over the past 50 years came
in rural development and agricultural growth, especially when this about through plant breeding and improved agricultural management
growth is economically sustainable. Proper design, implementation, practices including irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide use. The adoption
monitoring and adherence to sustainability frameworks may help of these techniques in the developing world is most advanced in Asia,
minimize negative socioeconomic impacts and maximize benefits, where productivity grew strongly during the past 50 years, and also in
particularly for local people. Brazil, with sugarcane. Considerable potential exists for extending the
same kind of gains to other regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa,
• These social and environmental impacts should be compared with Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where adoption of these
those of the energy systems they replace. Many lifecycle assess- techniques has been slower (Evenson and Gollin, 2003; FAO, 2008a). A
ments that characterize the amount of RE provided relative to fossil recent long-term forecast by the FAO expects global agricultural produc-
energy used in biofuel production and compare that with the refer- tion to rise by 1.5% per year for the next three decades, still significantly
ence system show GHG emission savings for biofuels. These studies faster than projected population growth (World Bank, 2009). For the
can be expanded to use multiple indicators and more comprehen- major food staple crops, maximum attainable yields may increase by
sively analyze the whole chain from feedstock to final energy use. more than 30% by switching from rain-fed to irrigated and optimal
rainwater use production (Rost et al., 2009), while moving from interme-
diate- to high-input technology may result in 50% increases in tropical
2.6 Prospects for technology improvement regions and 40% increases in subtropical and temperate regions. The
and innovation61 yield increase when moving from low- to intermediate-input levels can
reach 100% for wheat, 50% for rice and 60% for maize (Table 2.14), due
This section provides a literature overview of the sets of developing to better pest control and adequate nutrient supply. However, important
technologies, their performance characteristics and projections of cost environmental trade-offs may be involved with agricultural intensifi-
performance for biomass feedstocks, logistics and supply chains, and cation, and avenues for more sustainable management practices may
conversion routes to a variety of biofuels alone or in combination with need exploration and adoption (IAASTD, 2009).
heat and power or with other bio-based products. Advanced power
routes are also discussed. As illustrated in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.5, Biotechnologies or conventional plant breeding could improve biomass
many such advanced biomass energy chains are commercial or in devel- production by focusing on traits relevant to energy production such as
opment at various stages ranging from small-scale R&D through near biomass per hectare, increased oil or fermentable sugar yields, or other
commercialization for each component of the chain, including some characteristics that facilitate their conversion to energy end-products
examples of integrated systems. Linkages are made with the various (e.g., Sannigrahi et al., 2010). Also, considerable genetic improvement is
applications, with the suppliers of feedstocks, which can be residues still possible for drought-tolerant plants (Nelson et al., 2007; Castiglioni
from urban or rural areas, and with the existing and developing biomass et al., 2008; FAO, 2008b).
conversion industry to products. The integration of biomass energy and
related products into the electricity, natural gas, heating (residential and The projected increases in productivity reflect present knowledge and
district, commercial and public services), industrial and fossil liquid fuels technology (Duvick and Cassman, 1999; Fischer and Schrattenholzer,
systems for transport is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 8. The 2001) and vary across the regions of the world (FAO, 2008a). In
structure of this section parallels that of Section 2.3, following the bio- developed countries where cropping systems are already highly input-
energy supply chain from feedstocks (Section 2.6.1) to logistics (Section intensive, productivity increases will be more limited. Also, projections
2.6.2) to end products (e.g., various advanced secondary energy carriers do not always account for the strong environmental limitations in many
in gaseous or liquid states) made by various conversion technologies regions, such as water or temperature (Nelson et al., 2007; Castiglioni et
(Section 2.6.3). al., 2008; FAO, 2008b).

Doubling the current yields of perennial grasses appears achiev-

2.6.1 Improvements in feedstocks able through genetic manipulation such as marker-assisted breeding
(Turhollow, 1994; Eaton et al., 2008; Tobias et al., 2008; Okada et al.,
2.6.1.1 Yield gains 2010). Shifts to sustainable farming practices and large improvements in
crop and residue yield could increase the outputs of residues from arable
Increasing land productivity, whether for food or energy purposes, is crops (Paustian et al., 2006).
a crucial prerequisite for realizing large-scale future deployment of
biomass for energy because it would make more land available for Future feedstock production cost projections are scant because of their
growing biomass and reduce the associated demand for land. Much of connections with food markets (which are, as all commodities, volatile
and uncertain) and because many candidate feedstock types are still in
61 Section 10.5 offers a complementary perspective on drivers and trends of
the R&D phase. Cost figures for growing these feedstock species in com-
technological progress across RE technologies.
mercial farms are not well understood yet but will likely reduce over time

276
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.14 | Prospects for yield improvements by 2030 relative to 2007 to 2009 data from Table 2.4.

Potential yield increase by

Feedstock type Regions Yield trend (%/yr) Improvement routes Ref.
2030 (%)
DEDICATED CROPS
Temperate 0.7 20-50 New energy-oriented varieties
Wheat
Subtropics 30-100 Higher input rates, irrigation
N America 0.7 20-35 New varieties, GMOs, higher plantation density, reduced 1,10
Maize Subtropics 20-60 tillage
Tropics 50 Higher input rates, irrigation

USA 0.7 15-35 2,3,10

Soybean Breeding
Brazil 1.0 20-60
Oil palm World 1.0 30 Breeding, mechanization 3
Sugarcane Brazil 1.5 20-40 Breeding, GMOs, irrigation inputs 2,3,8,10
SR Willow Temperate — 50
Breeding, GMOs
SR Poplar Temperate — 45
3
Miscanthus World — 100 Breeding for minimal input, improved management
Switchgrass Temperate — 100 Genetic manipulation
Europe 20 Species choice, breeding, fertilization, shorter rotations, 4,9
Planted forest 1.3
Canada 20 increased rooting depth 11

PRIMARY RESIDUES
Cereal straw World — 15 Improved collection equipment, breeding for higher
5,6
Soybean straw N America — 50 residue-to-grain ratios (soybean)

Ash recycling, cutting increases, increased roundwood,

Forest residues Europe 1.0 25 4,7
productivity

Abbreviations: SR = short rotation; GMO = genetically modified organism.

References: 1. Fischer and Schrattenholzer (2001); 2. Bauen et al. (2009a); 3. WWI (2006); 4. Nabuurs et al. (2002); 5. Paustian et al. (2006); 6. Perlack et al. (2005); 7. EEA (2007); 8.
Matsuoka et al. (2009); 9. Loustau et al. (2005); 10. Jaggard et al. (2010). 11. APEC (2003).

as farmers descend the learning curves, as past experience has shown in to increased stand ages and increased respiration rates in response to
Brazil (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009). warmer temperatures (Nabuurs et al., 2002). However, yield trends vary
across climatic zones at a finer scale. Water limitations in Mediterranean/
Under temperate conditions, the expenses for the farm- or forest-gate semi-arid environments lead to zero or even negative variations in
supply of lignocellulosic biomass from perennial grasses or short-rotation biomass yield increments by 2030 (Loustau et al., 2005). This may be
coppice are expected to fall to less than USD2005 2.5/GJ by 2020 (WWI, counteracted by adaptive measures such as choosing species more tol-
2006) from a USD2005 3 to 16/GJ range today (Table 2.6, without land erant to water stress or using appropriate thinning regimes (Loustau et
rental cost). However, these are marginal costs, which do not account al., 2005). Where water is non-limiting, productivity may be maximized
for the competition for land with other sectors and markets that would by more intensive silvicultural practices, including shorter rotations, opti-
increase unit costs as the demand for biomass increases. This is reflected mum row spacing, fertilization and improved breeding stock (Loustau et
in supply curves (see Section 2.2 and Figure 2.5(b)). Recent studies in al., 2005; Feng et al., 2006). Increased roundwood extraction would also
Northern Europe that include such land-related costs thus report some- generate extra logging residues and carbon sequestration in forest soils
what higher projections, in a USD2005 2 to 7.5/GJ range for herbaceous as a co-benefit, outweighing several-fold the GHG emissions generated
grasses and USD2005 1.5 to 6/GJ range for woody biomass (Ericsson et by management practices (Markewitz, 2006).
al., 2009; de Wit and Faaij, 2010). For perennial species, the transaction
costs required to secure a supply of energy feedstock from farmers may
increase the production costs by 15% (Ericsson et al., 2009). Delivered 2.6.1.2 Aquatic biomass
prices for herbaceous crops are shown in Figure 2.5(d) for the USA and
about 8 EJ could be delivered at USD2005 5/GJ to the conversion facility. Aquatic phototrophic organisms dominate the world’s oceans, produc-
ing 350 to 500 billion tonnes of biomass annually and include ‘algae’,
In recent decades, forest productivity has increased more than 1% per both microalgae (such as Chlorella and Spirulina) and macroalgae
year in temperate and boreal regions due to higher CO2 concentrations (i.e., seaweeds) and cyanobacteria (also called ‘blue-green algae’)
and nitrogen deposition or fertilization rates (Table 2.14). This trend is (Garrison, 2008). Oleaginous microalgae such as Schizochytrium and
projected to continue until 2030 when productivity might plateau due Nannochloropsis can accumulate neutral lipids, analogous to seed oil

277
Bioenergy Chapter 2

triacylglycerides, at greater than 50% of their dry cell weight (Chisti, emission reductions relative to crop biodiesel could be achieved with
2007). Weyer et al. (2009) reported yields of 40 x 103 to 50 x 103 successful RD&D and commercialization (EPA, 2010).
litres/ha/yr (0.04 to 0.05 litres/m2/yr) in unrefined algal oil from bio-
mass grown in the Equator region and containing 50% oil. Assuming Some key conclusions from current efforts (US DOE, 2009; IEA
a neutral lipid yield ranging from 30 to 50%, algae productivity can Bioenergy, 2010; Darzins et al., 2010) are the following: (1) Microalgae
be several-fold higher than palm oil productivity at 4.7 x 103 litres/ha/ can offer productivity levels above those possible with terrestrial
yr (0.0047 litres/m2/yr). Photosynthetic cyanobacteria used to produce plants. (2) There are currently several significant barriers to wide-
nutraceuticals at commercial scales (J. Lee, 1997; Colla et al., 2007) spread deployment and many information gaps and opportunities for
could also directly produce fuels such as H2 (Hu et al., 2008; Sections improvement and breakthroughs. (3) Various systems suited to differ-
3.3.5 and 3.7.5). ent types of algal organisms, climatic conditions, and products are still
being considered. (4) Basic information related to genomics, industrial
Macroalgae do not accumulate lipids like microalgae do. Instead, they design and performance is still needed. (5) Cost estimates for algal
synthesize polysaccharides from which various fuels could be made (see biofuels production vary widely, but the best estimates are promising
Figure 2.6). Uncultivated macroalgae can have polysaccharide yields at this early stage of technology development. (6) The cost of process-
higher than those of terrestrial plants (per unit area) (Zemke-White and ing algae solely for fuel production is still too high. Producing a range
Ohno, 1999; Ross et al., 2009) and can live in marine environments. of products for the food, fodder and fuel markets offers opportunities
Halophiles, another group of phototrophic organisms, live in environ- for economical operation of algal biorefineries. (7) Lifecycle assess-
ments with high salt concentration. ments are needed to guide future developments of sustainable fuel
production systems.
Microalgae can photoproduce chemicals, fuels or materials in non-agri-
cultural land such as brackish waters and highly saline soils. Hundreds
of microalgae species, out of hundreds of thousands of species, have 2.6.2 Improvements in biomass logistics and
been tested or used for industrial purposes. Understanding the genetic supply chains
potential, lipid productivity, growth rates and control, and use of genetic
engineering allows broader use of land and decreases the LUC impacts Optimization of supply chains includes achieving economies of scale
of biofuels production (Hu et al., 2008). Microalgae can be cultivated in in transport, in pretreatment and in conversion technologies. Relevant
open ponds and closed photobioreactors (PBRs) (Sheehan et al., 1998a; factors include spatial distribution and seasonal supply patterns of the
van Iersel et al., 2009) but scale-up can involve logistical challenges, biomass resources, transportation, storage, handling and pretreatment
can require high cost to produce the biomass, and requires water con- costs, and economies of scale benefiting from large centralized plants
sumption minimization (Borowitzka et al., 1999; Molina Grima et al., (Dornburg and Faaij, 2001; Nagatomi et al., 2008). Smart utilization
2003). Production costs using low- to high-productivity scenarios cur- of a combination of biomass resources over time can help conversion
rently range approximately from USD2005 30 to 80/GJ for open ponds plants gain economies of scale through year-round supplies of biomass
and from USD2005 50 to 140/GJ for PBR (EPA, 2010). and thus efficiently utilize the investment cost (Junginger et al., 2001;
McKeough et al., 2005; Nishi et al., 2005; Ileleji et al., 2010; Kang et al.,
Macroalgae are typically grown in offshore cultivation systems (Ross et 2010) and technology transfer (Asikainen et al., 2010).
al., 2009; van Iersel et al., 2009) that require shallow waters for light
penetration (Towle and Pearse, 1973). The impact of biofuel production Over time the lower-cost biomass residue resources are increasingly
on competing uses (fisheries, leisure) and on marine ecosystems needs depleted and more expensive (e.g., cultivated) biomass needs to cover
assessment. Using aquatic biomass harvested from algal blooms may the growing demand for bioenergy. Part of this growing demand may
provide multiple benefits (Wilkie and Evans, 2010). be met by learning and optimization, but, for example, future heat
generation from pellets in the UK may be more costly (2020) than it is
The bioenergy potential from aquatic plants is usually excluded from today due to a shift from local to imported feedstocks (E4tech, 2010).
resource potential determinations because of insufficient data available Similar effects are found in scenarios for large-scale deployment of
for such an assessment. However, the potential may be substantial com- biofuels in Europe (Londo et al., 2010).
pared to conventional energy crops, considering the high yield potential
of cultivated microalgae production (up to 150 dry t/ha/yr, 0.015 t/m2/ Learning and optimization in the past one to two decades in Europe
yr) (Kheshgi et al., 2000; Smeets et al., 2007). With the large number of (Scandinavia and the Baltic in particular), North America, Brazil and
diverse algal species in the world, upper range productivity potentials also in various developing countries have shown steady progress in
of up to several hundred EJ for microalgae and up to several thousand market development and cost reduction of biomass supplies (Section
EJ for macroalgae (Sheehan et al., 1998a; van Iersel et al., 2009) have 2.7.2; Junginger et al., 2006). Well-working international biomass
been reported. Figure 2.10 shows very approximate ranges for GHG markets and substantial investments in logistics capacity are key pre-
reductions relative to the fossil fuel replaced. Comparable or increased requisites to achieve this (see also Section 2.4).

278
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Secondary Energy
Feedstocks Processing Intermediates Upgrading
Carriers

Hydrogen
Water Gas Shift (H2)
+ Separation

Methanol
(CH3OH)
Gasification Syngas

DME
Catalyzed (CH3OCH3)
Synthesis

FT Diesel
(CXHY)

Lignocellulosic Anaerobic SNG (CH4)

Biogas Purification Biomethane (CH4)
Biomass Digestion

Hydro Treating Jet Fuel or Gasoline

Flash Pyrolysis Bio Oil (CxHy)
and Refining

Hydrothermal Fermentation Jet Fuel/Diesel

Liquefaction Microbial Processing Butanols

Pretreatment Hydrolysis Sugar Ethanol

Fermentation
(CH3CH2OH)

Sugar/Starch Milling and

Crops Hydrolysis Biodiesel
Fermentation
(Alkyl Esters)

Pressing or Straight
Oil Plants Plant Oil
Extraction Vegetable Oil

Hydrogenation
Renewable Diesel
or Refining
or Jet Fuel

Figure 2.16 | Overview of lignocellulosic biomass, sugar/starch crops and oil plants (feedstocks) and the processing routes to key intermediates, which can be upgraded through
various routes to secondary energy carriers, such as liquid and gaseous biofuels. Fuel product examples are (1) oxygenated biofuels to blend with current gasoline and diesel fuels
or to use in pure form, such as ethanol, butanols, methanol, liquid ethers, biodiesel, and gaseous DME (dimethyl ether); (2) hydrocarbon biofuels such as Fischer Tropsch (FT) liquids,
renewable diesel and some microbial fuels (which are compatible with the current infrastructure of liquid fuels because their chemical composition is similar to that of gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuels (see Table 2.15.C)), or the simplest hydrocarbon methane for natural gas replacement (SNG) from gasification or biomethane from anaerobic digestion; and (3) H2 for
future transportation (adapted from Hamelinck and Faaij, 2006 and reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).

Notes: Microbial fuels include hydrocarbons derived from isoprene, the component of natural rubber; a variety of non-fermentative alcohols with three to six carbon atoms including
butanols (four carbons); and fatty acids which can be processed as plant oils to hydrocarbons (Rude and Schirmer, 2009).1 For sugar and starch crops the sugar box indicates six-carbon
sugars, while for lignocellulosic biomass this box is more complex and has mixtures of six- and five-carbon sugars, with proportions dependent on the feedstock type. Hardwoods and
agricultural residues contain xylan and other polymers of five-carbon sugars in addition to cellulose that yield glucose, a six-carbon sugar.

1. Not shown are the aquatic plants (see Section 2.6.1.2) that can utilize the same types of processing shown for their vegetable oil and carbohydrate fractions.

Pretreatment technologies Torrefaction can produce uniform quality feedstock, which eliminates inef-
Torrefied wood is manufactured by heating wood in a process similar to ficient and expensive methods designed to handle feedstock variations and
charcoal production. At temperatures up to 160ºC, wood loses water, but it thus makes conversion more efficient (Badger, 2000) and more predictable.
keeps its physical and mechanical properties and typically maintains 70%
of its initial weight and 90% of the original energy content (D. Bradley et Pyrolysis processes convert solid biomass to liquid bio-oil, a complex
al., 2009). Torrefied wood only absorbs 1 to 6% moisture (Uslu et al., 2008). mixture of oxidized hydrocarbons. Although this liquid product is toxic

279
Bioenergy Chapter 2

and needs stabilization for longer-term storage, bio-oil is relatively easy to assumptions are provided at the end of the table; some groups of refer-
transport. Pyrolysis oil production is more expensive and less efficient per ences use the same assumptions but not all. First-of-a-kind plants are
unit of energy delivered compared to torrefaction of wood pellets. Section more expensive as there are technical uncertainties in the chemical, bio-
2.3.4 discusses the cost data for multiple countries based on Bain (2007); chemical, thermochemical or mechanical component steps in a route,
McKeough et al. (2005) arrive at similar figures of USD2005 6.2 to 7.0/GJ. as shown by Kazi et al. (2010) and Swanson et al. (2010) compared to
The process allows for separation of a solid fraction (biochar) that contains Bauen et al. (2009a) or Foust et al. (2009). Such combination of steps
the bulk of the nutrients of the biomass. With proper handling, such is often significantly more complex than a similar petroleum industry
biochars could be used to improve soil quality and productivity, recycle process because of the characteristics of solid biomass. Scaling up is con-
nutrients and possibly store carbon in the soil for long periods of time ducted after initial bench-scale experimentation and encouraging initial
(Laird, 2008; Laird et al., 2009; Woolf et al., 2010). techno-economic evaluation. As experience in operating the process and
correcting design or operating parameters is gained, cost evaluations
are conducted and the plant is operated until costs decrease at a slower
2.6.3 Improvements in conversion technologies for pace. At this point, the technical and economic risks of the plant have
secondary energy carriers from modern biomass decreased and the production costs have reached so-called nth plant
status. The uncertainties in these studies are variable and higher for the
Different conversion technologies (or combinations) including mechanical, least-developed concepts (Bauen et al., 2009a).
thermochemical, biochemical and chemical steps, as shown in Figure 2.2,
are needed to transform the variety of potential feedstocks into a broader An overview of advanced pilot, demonstration and commercial-scale
range of secondary energy carriers. In addition to electricity and heat as bioenergy projects in 33 countries is provided by Bacovsky et al.
products, a variety of liquid and gaseous fuels or products can be made (2010a,b), including the site at Kalundborg, Denmark, where a wheat
from biomass as illustrated in Figure 2.16, where key chemical intermedi- straw ethanol is made in the pilot plant and sold to a gasoline dis-
ates that could make identical, similar or new products as energy carriers, tributor in 2010.62 The number of actual projects moving to pilot and
chemicals and materials are highlighted (see Section 2.6.3.4 for further demonstration scale is probably larger. The reference contains descrip-
detail): tions of most of the development projects listed in Table 2.15. See also
the IEA (Renewable Energy Division, 2010) report on global sustain-
• Sugars, mixtures of five- and six-carbon sugars from lignocellulosic able second-generation technologies and future perspectives in the
materials, are converted primarily through biochemical or chemi- context of the transport sector and the recently published technology
cal processes into liquid or gaseous fuels and a variety of chemical roadmap for biofuels (IEA, 2011).
products. This section focuses on bioenergy products to avoid repetition of
technology descriptions provided in Section 2.3—for instance, a ther-
• Syngas from thermochemical gasification processes, which can be mochemical technology such as gasification can produce multiple fuels
converted in integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems and electricity. Similarly, a variety of end products can be made from
to electricity, through a variety of thermal/catalytic processes to sugars.
gaseous or liquid fuels, or through biological processes at low tem-
perature to H2 or polymers. An initial meta-analysis of advanced conversion routes (Hamelinck and
Faaij, 2006) for methanol, H2, Fischer-Tropsch liquids and biochemical
• Oils from pyrolysis or hydrothermal treatment, which can be ethanol produced from lignocellulosic biomass under comparable finan-
upgraded into a variety of fuels and chemicals. cial assumptions suggests that these systems compare favourably with
starch-based biofuels and offer more competitive fuel prices and oppor-
• Lipids from plant oils, seeds or microalgae, which can be converted tunities in the longer term because of their inherently lower feedstock
into a wide variety of fuels, such as diesel or jet fuels, and chemicals. costs and because of the variety of sources of lignocellulosic biomass,
including agricultural residues from cereal crop production, and forest
• Biogas is a mixture of methane and CO2 released from anaerobic residues. The feedstock cost range used in this meta-analysis is in line
degradation of organic materials with a lower heat content than its with costs highlighted in Section 2.6.1.1 and the low range of the supply
upgraded form, mostly methane, called biomethane. If upgraded, it curves shown in Figure 2.5. In the EU study, Northern Europe projected
can be added to natural gas grids or used for transport. production costs are in the USD2005 2 to 7.5/GJ range for herbaceous
grasses and USD2005 1.5 to 6/GJ for woody biomass (land-related costs
Table 2.15 contains process efficiency and projected improvements included). For perennial species, transaction costs may need to increase
along with cost information expressed in USD2005/GJ for several bioen- by 15% to secure a supply of energy feedstock from farmers. This addi-
ergy systems and chains, in various stages of development, from various tional cost (e.g., transport to the conversion plant and payment to
studies from multiple sources. Part A details processes for alcohols; secure the feedstock) is already built into the prices of the US supply
Part B summarizes microalgal fuels; Part C details hydrocarbon fuels;
62 An interactive website with this information is maintained by the IEA Bioenergy Task
and Part D includes gaseous fuels and electricity from IGCC. Financial
39: biofuels.abc-energy.at/demoplants.

280
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.15 | Summary of developing technologies costs projected for 2030 biofuel production and their 2010 industrial development level. Using today’s performance for a pioneer
plant built in the near term increases costs, and the majority of the references assumes that technology learning will occur upon development, referred to as nth plant costs. Costs
expressed in USD2005.

A: Fuels – Alcohols by Biochemical and Gasification Processes

Efficiency and process % GHG Production Industrial
economics. Eff. = Energy reduction Potential technical advances cost by development (see
Process Feedstock
product/biomass energy from fossil and challenges 2030 Bacovsky et al.,
Component costs in USD2005/GJ reference (USD2005/GJ) 2010a,b)
Consolidated Eff. ~49% for wood and 42% for straw Lignin engineering cellulose access.7
15.519 future
bioprocessing (CBP) (ethanol) + 5% power.19 Develop CBP organisms.44
Scenarios
Lignocellulosic Efficient 5-carbon sugar
Separate hydrolysis/ analyzed30 251–2719
1
Eff. ~39% (ethanol) + 10% power. conversion.2,3 R&D investment.5
co-fermentation 28–3548
Advanced enzyme.6
Simultaneous
Steam explosion, enzyme hydrolysis, System integration, high solids, 309 (Finland)
saccharification/ Barley straw N/A
ethanol fermentation.9 High solids 15%. decrease toxicity for fermentation. from pilot data
co- fermentation

Dilute acid hydrolysis, 260 million L/yr; Pretreatment, process integration, 15.5 (US) nth
Corn stover Demonstration and pilots.
FC: 6.6, CC*: 10.1, CR: 1.1 for ethanol.24 enzyme costs.24 plant, future24
Reduce enzyme and
Generic; 90 million L/yr; FC:14; CC*:14. pretreatment costs.
28 (2015)45 Several pilots in many
At 360 million L/yr; FC:14; CC*:10; Meta-analysis conditions.45
23.5 (2022)45 countries. First commercial
CR:0.5.45 83–88 Depending
on co-product plants.
Lignocellulosic Process integration—capital costs
credit method25 18–2210 (2020) Lignin residues co-firing. 32
Simultaneous Various Eff. per installed litre of product USD
saccharification and 35% ethanol + Eff. kg/L ethanol (poplar, Miscanthus, breakeven USD
0.9 to 1.3 for plants of 150 to 380
fermentation 4% power.1 switchgrass, corn stover, wheat: 3.7, 3.2, 100/barrel; +
million litres/yr (2020 estimates).
2.6, 2.6, 2.4). Plant sizes 1,500 to 1,000 CCS USD 95/
Project a 25% operating cost
t/day. FC 50% of total.10 barrel; USD
reduction by 2025 and a 40%
50/t CO2
operating cost reduction by 2035.10
86
Standalone plant35 370 L/t dry (ethanol) Advanced CHP: Mechanical harvest improvements 635–1535
Bagasse
+ 0.56 kWh/L ethanol (elec.). 120% (replace NG sugarcane residues (occurring).35,36 w/o and w FC
peak power).36
Gasification/catalytic 170 million L per year plant (varies in Improvements in catalyst 1249–1518
Lignocellulosic 9038 RD&D, pilot.
synthesis ethanol size).18 By-product propanol/butanols. development and syngas cleaning. 14.524
For high selectivity to biobutanol:
Development of an integrated
(1) mutated strain of Clostridium 29.6 for
Fermentation; product biobutanol production and removal Large and small venture
beijernekei BA101, or protein ABE;18 25.2
compatible with systems using the solvent-producing 5–31 Depending companies in different
engineering in E. coli to increase for mutated
gasoline infrastructure Sugar/starch bacteria Clostridia improved by genetic on co-product routes, including yeast
selectivity/lower cost to Clostridia17 or
to butanols, in engineering.29 Initial acetone, butanol, credit method.29 host. Hydrocarbon
biobutanol.15,16 (2) dual fermentation 21.6 for dual
particular biobutanol and ethanol (ABE) fermentation is precursor.
to butyric acid and reduction to process17
costly.
butanols.
Gasification to Catalytic process for synthesis of Estimated production costs include
Lignocellulosic N/A 1317 N/A
butanols predominantly butanols. return on capital.17
Methanol (and dimethyl ether)
Gasification/synthesis 12–18 (fuel)19
Eff. 55% fuel only19 production possible in various Pilots, demos, and first
to methanol for fuel Lignocellulosic 9027 7.1–9.5 (fuel
Eff. 48% fuel and 12% power.19 configurations that co-produce commercial.
and/or power and power)19
power.

Continued next Page

curves based on county-level data; the projected price of delivery to the 2.6.3.1 Liquid fuels
conversion facility for forest and related residues is USD2005 1 to 3/GJ
up to about 1.5 EJ, and for woody and herbaceous plants and sorghum Alcohols. Estimated production costs for various fuel processes are
delivered to the conversion facility the projected price is USD2005 2 to 4/ assembled in Part A of Table 2.15, and they range from USD2005 13 to
GJ up to about 5 EJ (or more at higher price). 30/GJ.

281
Bioenergy Chapter 2

B: Fuels – Algae
Efficiency and process
% GHG
economics Eff. = Energy Potential technical Production
reduction Industrial
Process Feedstock product/biomass energy advances and cost by 2030
from fossil development
Component costs in USD2005/ challenges (USD2005/GJ)
reference
GJ
Assuming34 biomass contains
Active R&D
Lipid production, extrac- 30% oil by weight, cost of
tion, and conversion of biomass for providing a litre Preliminary Results 95 by companies
Assuming biomass production capacity of 28–76 small and large
microalgae neutral lipids Microalgae of oil would be USD 1 to 3 or more23 30–8034 for
10,000 t/yr, cost of production per kg is USD Scenarios for
to biodiesel or renewable lipids; see Sec- and USD 1.5 to 5 for algae of open ponds 50–14034 including pilots
0.47 and 0.60 for photobioreactors (PBR) and open pond and
diesel. Remainder of tion 2.6.1.2  low productivity = 2.5 g/m2/ for PBR going from low pursuing jet
raceways, respectively.23 bioreactor34
algal mass digested or day or high productivity = 10 to high productivity and diesel fuel
used in other process g/m2/day in open ponds or
substitutes.
photobiological reactors.

C: Fuels – Hydrocarbons by Gasification, Pyrolysis, Hydrogenation and Isomerization of Vegetable Oils and Wastes
Efficiency and process
% GHG
economics Eff. = Energy Potential technical Production
reduction Industrial
Process Feedstock product/biomass energy advances and cost by 2030
from fossil development
Component costs in USD2005/ challenges (USD2005/GJ)
reference
GJ
14–20 (fuel only) 8–11
Eff. = 0.42 fuel only; 0.45 fuel + power.19 CCS for CO2 from processing. (fuel/power)19 15.2-
9127 (EU) 18.643

Gasification to syndiesel 80 million L/yr; FC:12, CC*17 (2015); 280

Meta-analysis conditions.45 20–29.545
followed by FT (Fischer- million L/yr; FC:12, CC*8 (2022).45
Tropsch) process. Known Gas clean-up costs and One first commer-
as biomass to liquids. 2510 (w/o CCS US) cial plant (wood)
Eff. = 0.52 w/o CCS and 0.5 w/ CCS + 35 and scale/volume. Breakeven
With and without CCS. 3010 (w/ CCS US) see38 under way. Many
24 MWe. 4000 t/day switchgrass. Plant cost ~ 9026 (US) with barrel of crude oil of
Process makes hydro- Lignocellulosic for cost breakdown worldwide dem-
USD 650 Mi.10 USD 122 (USD 113 with CCS
carbons fuels (number (2020) onstration and
and USD 50/t CO2).10
of carbon atoms) for pilot processes
gasoline (5–10); kerosene Breakeven with barrel of under way.
(jet fuel) (10–15); diesel Eff. = 0.52 + 22 MWe. Capital USD 500 mil- Detailed Well-to-
crude oil of USD 75. Mixture
(15–20); fuel oil (20–30) lion; wide range of densified feeds imported Wheel EU39 US14 16–22.539
of 50% biomass and coal is
into EU for processing.39 scenarios
climate neutral.

Switchgrass and mixed

Coal and biomass co-gasification. See Fig. 2.10 2938
prairie grasses.

One large and

few small com-
Plant oils, Feedstock costs drive this 34
Hydrogenation to Technology well known. Cost of feedstock is 17–18 mercial (see, e.g.,
animal fat, process. Process is standard
renewable diesel the barrier. footnote 68 in the
waste in petrochemical operations.
main text); many
63–13026 De- demos.
pending on the
co-product treat- Demos and fuel
Biomass pyrolysis4 and ment method product tests
Biomass/ Developing pyrolysis8,13 process (also from 47
catalytic upgrading to Catalyst development, 14–24 for pyrolysis in USA, Brazil,
wastes, plant hydrothermal processing)46 to a blendstock
diesel/jet fuel; vegetable process yield improvements oils to refinery blend- EU. Test flights
oils, animal fat, for a refinery,33 for direct coupled firing in a
oils processed directly with biomass. stocks using biojet fuels
waste oils boiler (e.g., with coal)32 or a final product.
into a refinery 33 from plant oils
conducted.33

Continued next Page

While some methanol, butanols and other alcohol production processes biochemical, mechanical/chemical/biochemical, and biological/chemical/
from biomass exist in various stages of technical development, the most biochemical processing steps. Most of these chains involve a pretreatment
predominant alcohol production pathways have ethanol as their finished step to overcome the recalcitrance of the plant cell wall, with separate
product. Lignocellulosic ethanol technologies have many possible pro- and partial hydrolysis of the cellulose and hemicelluloses fibres to release
cess chains (e.g., Sánchez and Cardona, 2008; Sims et al., 2010). Those the complex streams of five- and six-carbon sugars for fermentation.
with the highest sugar yields and with low environmental impact were Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF), simultaneous sac-
considered more promising (Wooley et al., 1999) and involve chemical/ charification and co-fermentation (SSCF) and consolidated bioprocessing

282
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

D: Gaseous Fuels, Power and Heat from Gasification

Efficiency and process economics % GHG
Potential technical
Eff. = product energy/biomass reduction Production cost by Industrial
Process Feedstock advances and
energy from fossil 2030 (USD2005/GJ) development
challenges
Component costs in USD2005/GJ reference
Eff. 60% (fuel only). Needs 0.19 GJ of elect. Co-production H2 and power
Gasification/syngas 4–519 (longer)
per GJ H2 for liquid estimated at USD 11–14/ 30
(55% fuel efficiency, 5%
processing of H2 to fuel Lignocellulosic 88 620–1212  R&D stage.
GJ (long term), wood USD 2.4/GJ, USD 568/ power) in the longer term.19
and power 5.5–7.741
kWth capital.19 USD 426/kWth capital.19
RD&D on gas clean up and
Gasification/methanation Eff. ~60% (or higher for dry feed).42 Com- methanation catalysts. For 10.6–11.542 wood USD
27
to methane for fuel, heat Lignocellulosic 98 RD&D stage.
and/or power bined fuel and power production possible. wet feedstocks wet gasifica- 2.8/GJ
tion developing.46

Anaerobic digestion, Improve technology robust-

Organic wastes, Eff. ~20 to 30%; includes mixtures of animal
upgrading of gas, ness with new metagenomic 15–1621
liquefaction sludges and agriculture residues.
tools, reduce costs.
Gas cleaning, increased effi- 8–1111
ciency cycles, cost reductions. Demos at 5
District heating; power-to-heat ratio 0.8 to IGCC at 30 to 300 MW45 with to 10 MW
Integrated gasification 1.2; power production efficiency 40 to 45%; a capital cost of USD 1,150 to projected cost at
Lignocellulosic 9631 13–1945 or US cents
combined cycle for CHP total efficiency 85 to 90%. Investment USD 2,300/kWe, at 10% discount USD 29–38/GJ or
1,200/kWth. Wood residues in Finland.22 4.5–6.9/kWh US cents 10–13.5/
rate, 20 year plant life, and
USD 3/GJ. Meta-analysis kWh.45
conditions.

Notes: Abbreviations: *Conversion costs (CC) include investment costs and operating expenses; CR = Co-product Revenue; FC = feedstock cost; CC = conversion cost. All CC, CR, FC
costs are given in USD2005/GJ.
System Boundaries: Many references use a 10% discount rate, 20-yr plant life referred to as meta-analysis conditions. 17. Production costs include return on capital; 24.10% IRR
(Internal Rate of Return), 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, Double-declining-balance depreciation method, 100% equity, nth plant, for the biochemical pathway costs are FC: 6, CC*:
10.6, CR: 1.1 and for thermochemical pathway costs are FC: 6.7, CC*: 10, CR: 2.5; 3012% IRR, 39% tax rate, 25-yr plant life, Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System depreciation
method (MACRS dep.), 65/35 equity/debt, 7% debt interest, nth plant, FC: 8.2, CC*: 16.9, CR: 2.6; 37. Pioneer (first-of-a-kind) plant example: 10% IRR, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant
life, MACRS dep., 100% equity, FC: 12.2–20.7, CC*: 27.3–38, CR: 0–6; 38. 7% discount rate, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, MACRS dep., 45/55 equity/debt, 4.4% debt interest, nth
plant, FC w/ CCS: 16, FC w/o CCS: 8.8, CC* w/ CCS: 14.7, CC* w/o CSS: 15.7, CR w/ CCS: 2, CR w/o CCS: 2.1; 39.10% discount rate, 10-yr plant life; 40. Pioneer plant example: 10%
IRR, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, MACRS dep, 100% equity, FC: 9.5, CC*: 24.5, CR: 1.1; 41.10% IRR, 15-yr plant life.
References: 1. Hamelinck et al. (2005a); 2. Jeffries (2006); 3. Jeffries et al. (2007); 4. Balat et al. (2009) and see IEA Bioenergy Pyrolosis Task (www.pyne.co.uk); 5. Sims et al. (2008);
6. Himmel et al. (2010); 7. Sannigrahi et al. (2010); 8. Bain (2007); 9. von Weyman (2007); 10. NRC (2009a); 11. IEA Bioenergy (2007); 12. Kinchin and Bain (2009); 13. McKeough et
al 2005; 14. Wu et al. (2005); 15. Ezeji et al. (2007a); 16. Ezeji et al. (2007b); 17. Cascone (2008); 18. Tao and Aden (2009); 19. Hamelinck and Faaij (2006); 20. Hoogwijk (2004); 21.
Sustainable Transport Solutions (2006); 22. Helynen et al. (2002); 23. Chisti (2007); 24. Foust et al. (2009); 25. Wang et al. (2010); 26. Kalnes et al. (2009); 27. Edwards et al. (2008);
28. Huo et al. (2009); 29. Wu et al. (2008); 30. Laser et al. (2009); 31. Daugherty (2001); 32. Cremers (2009) (see IEA co-firing database at www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.php); 33.
IATA (2009); 34. EPA (2010); 35. Seabra et al. (2010); 36. Macedo et al. (2008); 37. Kazi et al. (2010); 38. Larson et al. (2009); 39. van Vliet et al. (2009); 40. Swanson et al. (2010);
41. Hamelinck and Faaij (2002); 42. Mozaffarian et al. (2004); 43. Hamelinck et al. (2004); 44. van Zyl et al. (2007); 45. Bauen et al. (2009a); 46. Elliott (2008); 47. Holmgren et al.
(2008); 48. Dutta et al. (2010); 49. Phillips et al. (2007).

(CBP), which combines all of the hydrolysis, fermentation and enzyme pro- accessible to hydrolysis (e.g., by enzymes) and in some cases liberates
duction steps into one, were defined as short-, medium- and longer-term a portion of the sugars for fermentation to ethanol (or butanols) and
approaches, respectively. For CBP, efficiencies and yields are expected to the lignin for process heat or electricity. Alternatively, multiple steps
increase and costs to decrease by 35 and 66% relative to SSF and SSCF, (including pretreatment) can be combined with other downstream con-
respectively (Hamelinck et al., 2005a, and see Table 2.15). version steps and material can be bioprocessed with multiple organisms
simultaneously. To evaluate pretreatment options,63 the use of common
Pretreatment is one of the key technical barriers causing high costs,
63 The areas of biomass pretreatment and low-cost ethanol emerged as essential
and a multitude of possible options exist. So far, no ‘best’ technology
in 2009 with fourteen core papers establishing a biology/biochemistry/biomass
has been identified (da Costa Sousa et al., 2009; Sims et al., 2010). chemical analysis concentration area (sciencewatch.com/dr/tt/2009/09-octtt-BIO/).
Pretreatment overcomes the recalcitrance of the cell wall of woody, Included were coordinated pretreatment research in multiple US and Canadian
herbaceous or agricultural residues and makes carbohydrate polymers institutions, investigating common samples and analytical methodology and
conducting periodic joint evaluation of technical and economic performance of these
processes.

283
Bioenergy Chapter 2

feedstocks and common analytical methodology (Wyman et al., 2005) Microbial fuels. Industrial microorganisms66 with imported genes to
is needed to differentiate between the performance of the many chains accelerate bioprocessing functions (Rude and Schirmer, 2009) can make
and combinations. For corn stover, among the evaluated options of hydrocarbon fuels, higher alcohols, lipids and chemicals from sugars.
ammonia fibre expansion (AFEX), dilute acid and hot water pretreat- Researchers in synthetic biology have imported pathways, and more
ments, dilute acid pretreatment had the lowest cost and the hot water recently used artificial biology to design alternative biological paths
process cost was the highest by 25%. This ranking, however, does not into microorganisms, which may lead to increased efficiency of fuels
hold for other feedstocks (Elander et al., 2009). On-site enzyme prepara- and chemicals production (Keasling and Chou, 2008; S. Lee et al., 2008).
tion increased the cost of the dilute acid pretreatment by 4.5% (Kazi Another route is to alter microorganisms’ existing functions with meta-
et al., 2010). Apart from pretreatment, enzymes are another key vari- bolic engineering tools. Detailed production costs are not available in
able cost and are the focus of major global efforts in RD&D and cost the literature but Regalbuto (2009) and E4tech (2009) summarize some
reduction (e.g., Himmel et al., 2010; Sims et al., 2010). Finally, all of the data.67 Additionally, some microalgae can metabolize sugars in the
key individual conversion steps (e.g., pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis absence of light (heterotrophically) to make lipids (similar to plant oils)
and fermentation) are highly interdependent. Therefore, process integra- that are easily converted downstream to biodiesel and/or renewable
tion is another very important focus area, as many steps are either not diesel or jet fuel. With additional genetic engineering, the microor-
yet optimized or have not been optimized in a fully integrated process. ganisms can excrete lipids, leading to a decrease in production costs.
Microbial biofuels and chemicals are under active development (Alper
The US National Academies analyzed liquid transport fuels from bio- and Stephanopoulos, 2009; Rude and Schirmer, 2009).
mass (NRC, 2009a), and their cost analysis found the breakeven point
for cellulosic ethanol with crude oil to be USD2005 100/barrel (USD2005 Gasification-derived products (see Table 2.15.A and B)
0.64/litre) in 2020, which translates to USD2005 18 to 22/GJ. This projec- Gasification of biomass to syngas (CO and H2) followed by catalytic
tion is similar64 to the USD2005 23.5/GJ projected by Bauen et al. (2009a) upgrading to either ethanol or butanols has estimated production costs
for 2022. The National Research Council (NRC, 2009a) projects that by (USD2005 12 to 20/GJ) comparable to the biochemical chains discussed
2035, process improvements could reduce the plant-related costs by up above. The lowest-cost liquid fuel is methanol (produced in combina-
to 40%, or to within USD2005 12 to 15/GJ, in line with estimates for nth tion with power) at USD2005 7 to 10/GJ (USD2005 12 to 18/GJ for fuel
plant costs of USD2005 15.5/GJ (Foust et al., 2009). Further cost reductions only). Further reduction in production costs of fuels derived from gas-
in some of the processing pathways may come from converting bagasse ification will depend on significant development of IGCC (currently at
to ethanol, as the feedstock is already at the conversion facility, and the the 5 to 10 MWe demonstration phase) to obtain practical experience
bagasse has the potential to produce an additional 30 to 40% yield of and reduce technical risks. Costs are projected to be USD2005 13 to 19/
ethanol per unit land area in Brazil (Seabra et al., 2010). A similar strat- GJ (US cents2005 4.6 to 6.9/kWh) for 30 to 300 MWe plants (see Table
egy is currently being employed in the USA, where the coupling of crop 2.15; Bauen et al., 2009a). Although process reliability is still an issue
residue collection and collocation of the second-generation (residue) for some designs, niche markets have begun to develop (Kirkels and
and first-generation (corn) ethanol facilities are being pursued by two Verbong, 2011).
of the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant developments by the U.S.
Department of Energy.65 Even though the cost bases are not entirely comparable, the recent
estimates for Fischer-Tropsch (FT) syndiesel from Bauen et al. (2009a),
Several strains of microorganisms have been selected or genetically van Vliet et al. (2009), the NRC (2009a) and Larson et al. (2009) are (in
modified to increase the enzyme production efficiency (FAO, 2008b) for USD2005/GJ), respectively: 20 to 29.5, 16 to 22, 25 to 30, and 28 (coal and
SSF (Himmel et al., 2010), for SSCF (e.g., Dutta et al., 2010) and for biomass). The breakeven point would occur around USD2005 80 to 120/
CPB (van Zyl et al., 2007; Himmel et al., 2010). Many of the current barrel (USD2005 0.51 to 0.74/litre). High efficiency gains are expected,
commercially available enzymes are produced in closed fermenters from especially in the case of polygeneration with FT fuels (Hamelinck and
genetically modified (GM) microorganisms. The final enzyme product Faaij, 2006; Laser et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2009).
does not contain GM microorganisms (Royal Society, 2008), which facili-
tates acceptance of the routes (FAO, 2008b). Process intensification is the combination of multiple unit operations
conducted in a chemical plant into one thus reducing its footprint and
64 See Table 2.15 for financial assumptions that are not identical; Bauen et al. (2009a)
and Foust et al. (2009) are close. 66 E.g., Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have well-established genetic
tools and industrial use.
65 Impact Assessment of first-of-a-kind commercial ethanol from corn stover and cobs
collocated with grain ethanol facilities is provided by the Integrated Bioenergy 67 Rude and Schimer (2009) report stoichiometric data, for example, per tonne of
Projects. U.S. DOE Golden Field Office web site: www.eere.energy.gov/golden/ glucose the number of litres is 297 of farnesene (for diesel), and 384 of microbial
Reading_Room.aspx; www.eere.energy.gov/golden/PDFs/ReadingRoom/NEPA/Final_ biocrude oil (for jet fuel) compared with 648 of ethanol (for gasoline). Metabolic
Range_Fuels_EA_10122007.pdf; www.eere.energy.gov/golden/PDFs/ReadingRoom/ mass yields are 25 and 30% for farnesene and biocrude, respectively, compared
NEPA/POET_Project_LIBERTY_Final_EA.pdf; and www.biorefineryprojecteis-abengoa. to 51% for ethanol. The routes grow the intermediate cell mass that then starts
com/Home_Page.html. producing biofuels or intermediates—these steps are usually aerobic and require air
and agitation that reduce the overall energy efficiency.

284
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

capital costs and enabling plants to operate more cost effectively at ranging from USD2005 30 to 140/GJ (EPA, 2010). Exploring the biodi-
smaller scale. Therefore chemical/thermal processing that previously versity of microbial organisms for their chemical composition and their
could only be conducted at very large scale could now be downsized innate microbial pathways can lead to use of highly saline lands, brack-
to match the supply of biomass cost effectively. Efficient heat and mass ish waters or industrial waste waters, avoiding competition with land for
transfer in micro-channel reactors has been explored to compact reac- food crops but the potential of microalgae is highly uncertain.
tors by 1-2 orders of magnitude in water-gas-shift, steam reforming and
FT processes for conventional natural gas or coal gasification streams Prospects. In the near to medium term, the biofuel industry, encompass-
(Nehlsen et al., 2007) and significantly reduce capital costs (Schouten ing first- and second-generation technologies that meet agreed-upon
et al., 2002; Sharma, 2002; Tonkovich et al., 2004). Such intensification environmental and economic sustainability and policy goals, will grow
could lead to distributed biomass to liquids (BTL) production, as capital at a steady rate. It is expected that the transition to an integrated first-
requirements would be significantly reduced (as they would be for coal and second-generation biofuel landscape will likely require another
to liquids (CTL) or gas to liquids (GTL) (Shah, 2007). Methanol/DME syn- decade or two (Sims et al., 2008, 2010; NRC, 2009a; Darzins et al., 2010).
thesis could be intensified as well. Additionally, combined biomass/coal
gasification options could capture some of the economies of scale while
taking advantage of biomass’ favourable CO2 mitigation potential. 2.6.3.2 Gaseous fuels

Other intermediates: vegetable or pyrolysis/ hydrothermal process- Part D of Table 2.15 compares estimated production costs for the pro-
ing oils duction of gaseous fuels from lignocellulosic biomass and various waste
For diesel substitution, hydrogenation technologies are already streams:
commercially producing direct hydrocarbon diesel substitutes from
hydrogenation of vegetable oils to renewable diesel in 2011.68 Costs Anaerobic digestion. Production of methane from a variety of waste
depend on the vegetable oil prices and subsidies (see Table 2.15.C and streams, alone or combined with agricultural residues, is being used
Section 2.3.4). Lignocellulosic residues from vegetable oil production throughout the world at various levels of performance. The estimated
could provide the energy for standalone hydrogenation. The downstream production costs depend strongly on the application: USD2005 1 to 2/GJ
processing of the lipids/plant oils to finished fuels is often conducted in for landfill gas, USD2005 15 to 20/GJ for natural gas or transport appli-
conjunction with a petroleum refinery, in which case jet fuel and other cations, USD2005 50 to 60/GJ for on-farm digesters/small engines and
products can be made. USD2005 100 to 120/GJ for distributed electricity generation (see Tables
2.6 and 2.15). The reliability, predictability and cost of individual tech-
Fast pyrolysis processes or hydrothermal liquefaction processing nologies and assembled systems could be decreased using advanced
of biomass make low-cost intermediate oil products (Bain, 2007; Barth metagenomics tools69 and microbial morphology and population struc-
and Kleinert, 2008; Section 2.7.1). Holmgren et al. (2008) estimated ture (Cirne et al., 2007). Also, control and automation technologies and
production costs for lignocellulose pyrolysis upgrading to a blendstock improved gas clean-up and upgrading and quality standards are needed
(component that can be blended with gasoline at a refinery) as USD2005 to permit injection into natural gas lines, which could result in more
14 to 24/GJ, from bench scale data. widespread application. Avoided methane emissions provide a signifi-
cant climate benefit with simultaneous generation of energy and other
Under mild conditions of aqueous phase reforming and in the pres- products.
ence of multifunctional supported metal catalysts, biomass-derived
sugars and other oxygenated organics can be combined and chemi- Synthesis gas-derived methane (a substitute for natural gas),
cally rearranged (with retention of carbon and hydrogenation) to make methanol-dimethyl ether (DME), and H2 are gaseous products from
hydrocarbon fuels. These processes can also make hydrogen at moder- biomass gasification that are projected to be produced in the USD2005 5
ate temperature and pressure (Cortright et al., 2002; Huber et al., 2004, to 18/GJ range. After suitable gas cleaning and tar removal, the syngas is
2005, 2006; Davda et al., 2005; Gurbuz et al., 2010). These developments converted in a catalytic synthesis reactor into other products by design-
have reached the pilot and demonstration phase (Regalbuto, 2009). ing catalysts and types of reactors used (e.g., nickel/magnesium catalysts
will lead to SNG, while copper/zinc oxide will preferentially make
From carbon dioxide, water and light energy with photosynthetic methanol and DME). Processes developed for use with multiple feed-
algae (Table 2.15.B) stocks in various proportions can decrease investment risks by ensuring
Microalgal lipids (microalgal oil) are at an early stage of R&D and continuous feedstock availability throughout the year and decreasing
currently have significant feedstock production and processing costs, vulnerability to weather and climate. Methanol synthesis from natural
gas (and coal) is practised commercially, and synthesis from biomass is
68 Renewable Diesel is currently produced by Neste Oil in Singapore from Malaysian
being developed at demonstration and first commercial plants. H2 pro-
palm oil and then shipped to Germany (see biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/03/11/
neste-oil-opens-giant-renewable-diesel-plant-in-singapore/). The development duction has the lowest potential costs, but more developed infrastructure
of the process took about 10 years from proof of principle as described in www.
climatechange.ca.gov/events/2006-06-27+28_symposium/presentations/ 69 See, for instance, www.jgi.doe.gov/sequencing/why/99203.html.
CalHodge_handout_NESTE_OIL.PDF (nesteoil.com/).

285
Bioenergy Chapter 2

is needed for transportation applications (Kirkels and Verbong, 2011). DME manner (see Figure 2.10). Perhaps additional removal could be achieved
is another product from gasification and upgrading (jointly produced with by using crops that increase soil carbon content (e.g., on degraded
methanol). It can be made from wood residues and black liquor and is lands) as indicated by Larson et al. (2009).
being pursued as a transportation fuel. Sweden considered scenarios for
multiple bioenergy products, including a substantial replacement of diesel
fuel and gasoline with DME and methanol (Gustavsson et al., 2007). 2.6.3.4 Biorefineries

Microbial fuel cells using organic matter as a source of energy are The concept of biorefining is analogous to petroleum refining in that a
being developed for direct generation of electricity. Electricity is gener- wide array of products including liquid fuels, chemicals and other prod-
ated through what may be called a microbiologically mediated oxidation ucts (Kamm et al., 2006) can be produced. Even today’s first generation
reaction, which implies that overall conversion efficiencies are poten- biorefineries are making a variety of products (see Table 2.7), many of
tially higher for microbial fuel cells compared to other biofuel processes which are associated with food and fodder production. For example,
(Rabaey and Verstraete, 2005). Microbial fuel cells could be applied for sugarcane ethanol biorefineries produce multiple energy products
the treatment of liquid waste streams and initial pilot winery wastewa- (EPE, 2008, 2010). Sustainable lignocellulosic biorefineries can also
ter treatment is described by Cusick et al. (2011). enhance the integration of energy and material flows (e.g., Cherubini
and Strohman 2010). These biorefineries optimize the use of biomass
and resources in general (including water and nutrients) while mitigat-
2.6.3.3 Biomass with carbon capture and storage: long-term ing GHG emissions (Ragauskas et al., 2006). The World Economic Forum
removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (King et al., 2010) projects that biorefinery revenue potentials with exist-
ing policies along the entire value chain could be significant and could
Bioenergy technologies coupled with CCS (Obersteiner et al., 2001; reach about USD2005 295 billion by 2020.71
Möllersten et al., 2003; Yamashita and Barreto, 2004; IPCC, 2005; Rhodes
and Keith, 2008; Pacca and Moreira, 2009) could substantially increase
the role of biomass-based GHG mitigation if the geological technologies 2.6.3.5 Bio-based products
of CCS can be developed, demonstrated and verified to maintain the
stored CO2 over time. These technologies may become a cost-effective Bio-based products are defined as non-food products derived from bio-
indirect mitigation, for instance, through offsets of emission sources mass. The term is typically used for new non-food products and materials
that are expensive to mitigate directly (IPCC, 2005; Rhodes and Keith, such as bio-based plastics, lubricants, surfactants, solvents and chemical
2008; Azar et al., 2010; Edenhofer et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2010). building blocks. Plastics represent 73% of the total petrochemical prod-
uct mix, followed by synthetic fibres, solvents, detergents and synthetic
Corn ethanol manufacturers in the USA supply CO2 for carbonated bever- rubber (2007 data; Gielen et al., 2008). Bio-based products can therefore
ages, flash freezing meat and to enhance oil recovery in depleted fields, be expected to play a pivotal role in these product categories, in particu-
but due to the low commercial value of CO2 markets and requirements for lar plastics and fibres.
regional proximity, the majority of the ethanol plants vent it into the air. CO2
capture from sugar fermentation to ethanol is thus possible (Möllersten et al., The four principal ways of producing polymers and other organic
2003) and may now be used for carbon sequestration. Demonstrations of chemicals from biomass are: (1) direct use of several naturally occur-
these technologies are proceeding.70 The impact of this technology was pro- ring polymers, usually modified with some thermal treatment, chemical
jected to reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of a natural gas-fired ethanol transformation or blending; (2) thermochemical conversion (e.g., pyrol-
plant from 39 to 70% relative to the fossil fuel ethanol replaced, while the ysis or gasification) followed by synthesis and further processing; (3)
energy balance is degraded by only 3.5% (see Table 2.13 for performance in fermentation (for most bulk products) or enzymatic conversion (mainly
different functional units) ((S&T)2 Consultants, 2009). for specialty and fine chemicals) of biomass-derived sugars or other
intermediates; and (4) bioproduction of polymers or precursors in genet-
Similarly, van Vliet et al. (2009) estimated that a net neutral climate ically modified field crops such as potatoes or Miscanthus.
change impact could be achieved by combining 50% BTL and 50% coal
FTL fuels with CCS, if biomass gasification and CCS can be made to work Worldwide production of recently emerging bio-based plastics is
at an industrial scale and the feedstock is obtained in a climate-neutral expected to grow from less than 0.4 Mt in 2007 to 3.45 Mt in 2020
(Shen et al., 2009). Cost-effective bio-based products with properties
70 See sequestration.org/report.htm and www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/ superior to those in conventional materials, not just renewability, are
database/index.html. In the USA, through the Midwest Geological Sequestration
Consortium, a coal-fired wet-milled ethanol plant is planning over three years to
71 Approximate values (USD2005 billion by 2020) of business potential for the various
inject 1 Mt of CO2 into the Mount Simon sandstone saline formation in central Illinois
parts of the value chain were estimated as: agricultural inputs (15), biomass
at a depth of about 2 km in a verification phase test project including monitoring,
production (89), biomass trading (30), biorefining inputs (10), biorefining fuels (80),
verification and accounting, which is in the characterization phase (June 2010).
biorefining chemicals and products (6), and biomass power and heat (65).

286
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

projected to penetrate the markets (King et al., 2010). For synthetic Many microbes could become microscopic factories to produce specific
organic materials production, scenario studies indicate that at a produc- products, fuels or materials that decrease society’s dependence on fos-
tivity of 0.15 ha/t, an area of 75 million hectares globally could supply sil energy sources.
the equivalent of 15 to 30 EJ of value-added products (Patel et al., 2006).
Although significant technical progress has been made, the more com-
Given the early stage of development, the GHG abatement costs differ plex processing required by lignocellulosic biomass and the integration
substantially. The current abatement costs for polylactic acid are esti- of a number of new steps take time and support to bring development
mated at USD2005 100 to 200/t of abated CO2. Today’s abatement costs through the ‘Valley of Death’ in demonstration plants, first-of-a kind
for bio-based polyethylene, if produced from sugarcane-based ethanol, plants and early commercialization. Projected costs from a wide range
may be of the order of USD2005 100/t CO2 or lower. For all processes, of sources and process variables are very sensitive to feedstock cost
technological progress in chemical and biochemical conversion and the and range from USD2005 10 to 30/GJ. The US National Academies project
combined production of bioenergy is likely to reduce abatement costs by a 40% reduction in operating costs for biochemical routes by 2035.
USD2005 50 to 100/t CO2 in the medium term (Patel et al., 2006).
Cost projections for pilot integrated gasification combined cycle plants
in many countries are USD2005 13 to 19/GJ (US cents2005 4.6 to 6.9/kWh
2.6.4 Synthesis at USD2005 3/GJ feedstock cost). In addition to providing power, syngas
can be used to produce a wide range of fuels or can be used in a com-
Lignocellulosic feedstocks offer significant promise because they (1) do bined power and fuels approach. Estimated projected costs are in the
not compete directly with food production; (2) can be bred specifically range of USD2005 12 to 25/GJ for methanol, ethanol, butanols and syn-
for energy purposes (or energy-specific products), enabling higher pro- diesel. Biomass to liquids technology uses a commercial process already
duction per unit land area, and have a very large market for the products; developed for fossil fuel feedstocks. Gaseous products (H2, methane,
(3) can be harvested as residues from crop production and other systems SNG) have lower estimated production costs (USD2005 6 to 12/GJ) and
that increase land use efficiency; and (4) allow the integration of waste are in an early commercialization phase.
management operations with a variety of other industries offering pros-
pects for industrial symbiosis at the local level. The production of biogas from a variety of waste streams and its
upgrading to biomethane is already penetrating small markets for mul-
Drivers and challenges for converting biomass to fuels, power, heat tiple applications, including transport in Sweden and heat and power
and multiple products are economic growth and development, environ- in Nordic and European countries. A key factor is the combination of
mental awareness, social needs, and energy and climate security. The waste streams with agriculture residues. Improved upgrading and fur-
estimated revenue potential along the entire value chain could be of ther cost reductions are still needed.
the order of USD2005 295 billion in 2020 with current policies (King et
al., 2010). Pyrolysis oil/hydrothermal oils are low-cost transportable oils (see
Sections 2.3.4 and 2.7.2) that could become a feedstock for upgrading
Residues from crop harvests and from planted forests are projected to either in standalone facilities or coupled to a petrochemical refinery.
increase on average by about 20% by 2030 to 2050 in comparison to Pyrolysis oils have low estimated production costs of about USD2005 7/
2007 to 2009. Production costs of bioenergy from perennial grasses or GJ and provide options for electricity, heat and chemicals production.
short rotation coppice are expected to fall to under USD2005 2.5/GJ by Pyrolysis-oil stabilization and subsequent upgrading still require cost
2020 (WWI, 2006), from a range of USD2005 3 to 16/GJ today. Supply reductions and are active areas of research.
curves projecting the costs and quantities available at specific sites are
needed, and they should also consider competing uses as shown in Many bioenergy/biofuels routes enable CCS with significant opportuni-
examples in Figure 2.5. For example, EU and US lignocellulosic supply ties for removal of GHGs from the atmosphere. As CCS technologies
curves show more than 20 EJ at reasonable delivered costs by 2025 to are further developed and verified, coupling concentrated CO2 streams
2030. from fermentation or IGCC for electricity or biomass and coal to liq-
uids through Fischer-Tropsch processes with CCS offer opportunities
A new generation of aquatic feedstocks that use sunlight to produce to achieve carbon-neutral fuels, and in some cases carbon-negative
algal lipids for diesel, jet fuels or higher-value products from CO2 and fuels, within the next 35 years. Achieving this goal will be facilitated
water can provide strategies for lowering land use impacts because by well-designed systems that span biomass selection, feedstock sup-
they enable use of lands with brackish waters or industrial waste water. ply systems, conversion technologies to secondary energy carriers, and
Today’s estimated production costs are very uncertain and range from integration of these carriers into the existing energy systems of today
USD2005 30 to 140/GJ in open ponds and engineered reactors. and tomorrow.

287
Bioenergy Chapter 2

2.7 Cost trends72 (OECD-FAO, 2008; Schmidhuber, 2008; Tyner and Taheripour, 2008) and
by agricultural commodity and forest product markets. In an ideal situa-
2.7.1 Determining factors tion, demand and supply will balance and price levels will provide a good
measure of actual production and supply costs (see also Section 2.5.3 for
Determining the production costs of energy (or materials) from biomass discussions on LUC). At present, market dynamics determine the costs
is complex because of the regional variability in the costs of feedstock of the most important biofuel feedstocks, such as corn, rapeseed, palm
production and supply and the wide variety of deployed and possible oil and sugarcane. For wood pellets, another important internationally
biomass conversion technology combinations. Key factors that affect the traded feedstock for modern bioenergy production, prices have been
costs of bioenergy production are: strongly influenced by oil prices, because wood pellets partly replace
heating oil, and by supportive measures to stimulate green electricity
• For crop production: the cost of land and labour, crop yields, prices of production, such as FITs for co-firing (Section 2.4; Junginger et al., 2008).
various inputs (such as fertilizer), water supply and the management In addition, prices of solid and liquid biofuels are determined by national
system (e.g., mechanized versus manual harvesting) (Sections 2.3.1 settings, and specific policies and the market value of biomass residues
and 2.6.1; see Wiskerke et al., 2010 for a local specific example). for which there may be alternative applications is often determined by
price mechanisms of other markets influenced by national policies (see
• For delivering biomass to a conversion facility: spatial distribution Junginger et al., 2001 for a specific example for Thailand).
of biomass resources, transport distance, mode of transport and
the deployment (and timing) of pretreatment technologies in the
chain. Supply chains range from onsite use (e.g., fuelwood or use 2.7.1.1 Recent levelized costs of electricity, heat and fuels for
of bagasse in the sugar industry, or biomass residues in other con- selected commercial systems
version facilities) all the way to international supply chains with
shipped pellets or liquid fuels such as ethanol (Sections 2.3.2 and The factors discussed above make it clear that it is difficult to gener-
2.6.2); see Dornburg and Faaij (2001) on regional transport for ate generic cost information for bioenergy that is valid worldwide.
power; Hamelinck et al. (2005b) on international supply chains. Nonetheless, this section provides estimates for the recent levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE), heat (LCOH) and fuels (LCOF) typical of selected
• For final conversion to energy carriers (or biomaterials): the scale commercial bioenergy systems, some of which are described in more
of conversion, financing mechanisms, load factors, production and technological detail in Section 2.3.4.73 The methodology for calculating
value of co-products and ultimate conversion costs (in the pro- levelized cost is described in Annex II. Data and assumptions used to
duction facility). These key factors vary between technologies and produce these figures are provided in Annex III, with those assumptions
locations. The type of energy carrier used in the conversion process derived in part from the literature summarized earlier.
influences the climate mitigation potential (Wang et al., 2011).
The results of the LCOE, LCOH and LCOF calculations for a selected set
The analyses of Hoogwijk et al. (2009) provide a global and long-term of commercially available bioenergy options, and based on recent costs,
outlook for potential biomass production costs (focused on perennial are summarized in Figure 2.18 and discussed below.
cropping systems) of different IPCC SRES scenarios (IPCC, 2000) dis-
cussed in Sections 2.8.4 and 2.8.5 (see Table 2.16 and Figure 2.17). Land To calculate the LCOE for electricity generation, a standardized range
rental/lease costs, although a smaller cost factor in most world regions, of feedstock cost of USD2005 1.25 to 5/GJ was assumed (based on High
are dependent on intensity of land use in the underlying scenarios. Heating Value, HHV). To calculate the LCOE of CHP plants where both
Capital costs vary due to different levels of mechanization. Based on electricity and heat are produced, the heat was counted as a co-product
these analyses, a sizeable part (100 to 300 EJ) of the long-range techni- with revenue that depended on the assumed quality and application
cal potentials based on perennial cropping systems could cost around of the heat. For large-scale CHP plants, where steam is generated for
USD2005 2.3/GJ. The cost range depends on the assumed scenario condi- process heat, the co-product revenue was set at USD2005 5/GJ. For small-
tions, and is shown in Figure 10.23 (Hoogwijk et al., 2009; see also cost scale CHP plants, on the other hand, the revenue was effectively set
supply curves and potentials shown in Figure 2.5 for near-term produc- according to the cost of hot water, or USD2005 13/GJ (applicable, e.g., in
tion). More details on costs of both annual and perennial energy crop Nordic countries and Europe).
production are described in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.6.1.
The LCOH for heating systems illustrated in the light blue bars of Figure
Biomass supplies are, as with any commodity, subject to complex pricing 2.18 is less certain due to a more limited set of available literature. For
mechanisms. Biomass supplies are strongly affected by fossil fuel prices
73 The levelized cost of energy represents the cost of an energy generating system over its lifetime; it
72 Discussion of costs in this section is largely limited to the perspective of private is calculated as the per-unit price at which energy must be generated from a specific source over its
investors producing secondary energy carriers. Chapters 1 and 8 to 11 offer lifetime to break even. It usually includes all private costs that accrue upstream in the value chain,
complementary perspectives on cost issues covering e.g. costs of integration, but does not include the downstream cost of delivery to the final customer the cost of integration
external costs and benefits, economy-wide costs and costs of policies. or external environmental or other costs. Subsidies and tax credits are also not included.

288
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.16 | Estimated regional technical potential of energy crops for 2050 (in EJ) on abandoned agricultural land and rest of land at various cut-off costs (in USD2005/GJ biomass
harvested, including local transport) for the two extreme SRES land use scenarios A1 and A2 (Hoogwijk et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).

A1: high crop growth intensity and maximum international trade A2: low crop growth intensity and minimum trade and low
Region
in 2050 technology development in 2050
cut-off cost <1.15 USD/GJ <2.3 USD/GJ <4.6 USD/GJ <1.15 USD/GJ <2.3 USD/GJ <4.6 USD/GJ
Canada 0 11.4 14.3 0.0 7.9 9.4
USA 0 17.8 34.0 0.0 6.9 18.7
C America 0 7.0 13.0 0.0 2.0 2.9
S America 0 11.7 73.5 0.0 5.3 14.8
N Africa 0 0.9 2.0 0.0 0.7 1.3
W Africa 6.6 26.4 28.5 7.9 14.6 15.5
E Africa 8.1 23.8 24.4 3.6 6.2 6.4
S Africa 0 12.5 16.6 0.1 0.3 0.7
W Europe 0 3.0 11.5 0.0 5.6 12.5
E Europe 0 6.8 8.9 0.0 6.2 6.3
Former USSR 0 78.6 84.9 0.8 41.9 46.6
Middle East 0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.3
South Asia 0.1 12.1 15.3 0.6 8.2 9.8
East Asia 0 16.3 63.6 0.0 0.0 5.8
SE Asia 0 8.8 9.7 0.0 6.9 7.0
Oceania 0.7 33.4 35.2 1.6 16.6 18.0
Japan 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Global 15.5 271 438 14.6 129 177
Energy Crop Production Costs [USD2000 /GJ]

3.5 Labour

Capital
3.0
Land Rental Cost

Transport
2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
Canada

USA

Central America

South America

Northern Africa

Western Africa

Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

OECD Europe

Former USSR

Middle East

South Asia

East Asia

South East Asia

Oceania

Japan
Eastern Europe

Figure 2.17 | Cost breakdown for energy crop production costs in the grid cells with the lowest production costs within each region for the SRES A1 scenario (IPCC, 2000) in 2050
(in USD2000 instead of USD2005)(Hoogwijk et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).

289
Bioenergy Chapter 2

[UScents2005 /kWh]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Power (Direct Fired, BFB & Stoker), 25 - 100 MW

Power (Co-Firing), 25 - 100 MW

CHP (Stoker), 25 - 100 MW

CHP (ORC), 0.65 - 1.6 MW

CHP (Steam Turbine), 2.5 - 10 MW

CHP (Gasification ICE), 2.2 - 13 MW

CHP (MSW), 1 - 10 MW

CHP (Steam Turbine), 12 - 14 MW

CHP (Anaerobic Digestion), 0.5 - 5 MW

Heat (Domestic Pellet Heating), 5 - 100 kW

Intermediate Fuel (Pyrolysis Fuel Oil)

Levelized Cost of Electricity1

Transport Fuel from Sugarcane (Ethanol, Sugar, Electricity)
Levelized Cost of Heat2

Transport Fuel from Corn (Ethanol, Feed - Dry Mill) Levelized Cost of Intermediate Fuel

Levelized Cost of Transport Fuel

Transport Fuel from Wheat (Ethanol, Feed) 1
The LCOE of CHP options account for the
heat output as by-product revenue;
2
The LCOH of CHP options do only account
Transport Fuel from Soy Oil (Biodiesel)
for the heat-related cost shares.

Transport Fuel from Palm Oil (Biodiesel)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
[USD2005 /GJ]

Figure 2.18 | Typical recent levelized cost of energy service from commercially available bioenergy systems at 7% discount rate. Feedstock cost ranges differ between technologies.
For levelized cost at other discount rates (3 and 10%) see Annex III and Section 10.5. For biofuels, the range of LCOF represents production in a wide range of countries whereas LCOE
and LCOH are given only for major user markets of the technologies for which data were available. The underlying cost and performance assumptions used in the calculations are
summarized in Annex III. Calculations are based on HHV.

Abbreviations: BFB: Bubbling fluidized bed; ORC: Organic Rankine cycle; ICE: Internal combustion engine.

heating applications, investment cost assumptions came principally LCOF estimates were derived from a techno-economic evaluation of the
from literature from European and Nordic countries, which are major production of biofuels in multiple countries (Bain, 2007).74 Underlying
users of these applications (see Figure 2.8). Feedstock cost ranges came feedstock cost assumptions represent the maximum and minimum
from the same literature and therefore may not be representative of recent feedstock cost in the respective regions, and are provided in
other world regions: feedstock costs were assumed to be USD2005 0 to Annex III. All routes for biofuel production take into account sometimes
3.0/GJ for MSW and low-cost residues, USD2005 2.5 to 3.7/GJ for anaero- multiple co-product revenues, which were subtracted from expenditures
bic digestion, USD2005 3.7 to 6.2/GJ for steam turbine and USD2005 10 to to calculate the LCOF. In the case of ethanol from sugarcane, for example,
20/GJ for pellets. The LCOH figures presented here are therefore most
representative of European systems. 74 The study was done in conjunction with a preliminary economic characterization
of feedstock supply curves for the Americas, China and India (Kline et al., 2007)
described in Section 2.2.3. The biomass market potential associated with these
calculations (Alfstad, 2008) is shown in Figure 2.5(c) (45 EJ, 25 EJ and 8 EJ
respectively for the high-growth, baseline and low-growth cases for these countries).

290
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

the revenue from sugar was set at USD2005 4.3/GJfeed, though this value for stationary power and transport applications (see Sections 2.3.3.2,
varies with sugar market prices and can go up to about USD2005 5.6/ 2.6.2 and 2.6.3.1).
GJfeed. For the LCOF calculations, however, average by-product revenues
were assumed. Along with ethanol and sugar (and potentially other bio- Figure 2.18 presents a broad range of values, driven by variations not only
materials in the future), the third co-product is electricity, revenues for in feedstock costs but also investment costs, efficiencies, plant lifetimes
which were also assumed to be deducted in calculating the LCOF. A simi- and other factors. Feedstock costs, however, not only vary substantially
lar approach was used for other biofuel pathways (see Annex III). This by region but also represent a sizable fraction of the total levelized cost
single example, however, illustrates the complexity of biofuel production of many bioenergy applications. The effect of different feedstock cost
cost assessments. levels on the LCOE of the electricity generation technologies considered
here is shown more clearly in Figure 2.19, where variations are also
Finally, the levelized cost of pyrolysis oil as an intermediate fuel, a densi- shown for investment costs and capacity factors.75 Similar effects are
fied energy carrier, was also assessed, because pyrolysis oils are already shown for the levelized cost of biofuels (LCOF) in Figure 2.20. (Though
used for heating and CHP applications and are also being investigated a figure is not shown for heating systems, a similar relationship would

Feedstock Cost [USD2005 /t]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 2,600 USD2005 /kW, CF 80%
35 Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 3,400 USD2005 /kW, CF 75%
Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 4,200 USD2005 /kW, CF 70%
Biopower (Co-firing, 20 - 100 MW), 430 USD2005 /kW, CF 80%
Levelized Cost of Energy [UScent2005 /kWh]

Biopower (Co-firing, 20 - 100 MW), 665 USD2005 /kW, CF 75%

30 Biopower (Co-firing, 20 - 100 MW), 900 USD2005 /kW, CF 70%
Biopower (CHP, ORC, <1 - 1.6 MW), 6,500 USD2005 /kW, CF 68%
Biopower (CHP, ORC, <1 - 1.6 MW), 8,150 USD2005 /kW, CF 62%
Biopower (CHP, ORC, <1 - 1.6 MW), 9,800 USD2005 /kW, CF 55%
25 Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 4,100 USD2005 /kW, CF 68%
Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 5,150 USD2005 /kW, CF 62%
Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 6,200 USD2005 /kW, CF 55%
Biopower (CHP, Gasification - ICE, 2 - 14 MW), 1,800 USD2005 /kW, CF 68%
20 Biopower (CHP, Gasification - ICE, 2 - 14 MW), 1,950 USD2005 /kW, CF 62%
Biopower (CHP, Gasification - ICE, 2 - 14 MW), 2,100 USD2005 /kW, CF 55%

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Feedstock Cost [USD2005 /GJfeed ]

Figure 2.19 | Sensitivity of LCOE with respect to feedstock cost for a variety of investment costs and plant capacity factors (CF). LCOE is based on a 7% discount rate, the mid-value
of the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost range, and the mid-value of the lifetime range (see Annex III). Calculations are based on HHV.

References: DeMeo and Galdo (1997); Bain et al. (2003); EIA (2009); Obernberger and Thek (2004); Sims (2007); McGowin (2008); Obernberger et al. (2008); EIA (2010b); Rauch
(2010); Skjoldborg (2010); Bain (2011); OANDA (2011).

75 Note that large-scale power only and CHP technologies have been aggregated in
Figure 2.18, while they are shown separately in Figure 2.19.

291
Bioenergy Chapter 2

50
Levelized Cost of Biofuel [USD2005/GJ]

45

40

35

30 Sugarcane Ethanol, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR

Sugarcane Ethanol, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Sugarcane Ethanol, High Investment Cost, 10% DR
Corn Ethanol, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
25
Corn Ethanol, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Corn Ethanol, High Investment Cost, 10% DR
Wheat Ethanol, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
20 Wheat Ethanol, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Wheat Ethanol, High Investment Cost, 10% DR
Soy Biodiesel, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
15 Soy Biodiesel, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Soy Biodiesel, High Investment Cost, 10% DR
Palm Oil Biodiesel, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
10 Palm Oil Biodiesel, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Palm Oil Biodiesel, High Investment Cost, 10% DR
Pyrolytic Fuel Oil, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
5 Pyrolytic Fuel Oil, Medium Investment Cost, 7% DR
Pyrolytic Fuel Oil, High Investment Cost, 10% DR

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Feedstock Cost [USD2005/GJ]

Figure 2.20 | Sensitivity of LCOF with respect to feedstock cost for different discount rates and the mid-values of other cost components from multiple countries (see Annex III).
Calculations are based on HHV.

References: Delta-T Corporation (1997); Sheehan et al. (1998b); McAloon et al. (2000); Rosillo-Calle et al. (2000); McDonald and Schrattenholzer (2001); Ibsen et al. (2005); Jechura
(2005); Bohlmann (2006); CBOT (2006); Haas et al. (2006); Oliverio (2006); Oliverio and Ribeiro (2006); Ringer et al. (2006); Shapouri and Salassi (2006); USDA (2006); Bain (2007);
Kline et al. (2007); USDA (2007); Alfstad (2008); RFA (2011); University of Illinois (2011).

exist.) References used to generate the cost data are assembled in notes cumulative production, unit costs decreased by 20% of the original
to the figures. costs. The definition of the ‘unit’ depends on the study variable.

Learning curve studies have accuracy limitations (Junginger et al., 2008;

2.7.2 Technological learning in bioenergy systems see also Section 10.5.3). Yet, there are a number of general factors that
drive cost reductions that can be identified: For biomass feedstocks for
Cost trends and technological learning in bioenergy systems are not as ethanol production such as sugar crops (sugarcane) and starch crops
well described as those for solar or wind energy technologies. Recent lit- (corn), increasing crop yields have been the driving force behind cost
erature, however, gives more detailed insights into the learning curves reductions.
of various bioenergy systems. Table 2.17 and Figure 2.21 summarize a
number of analyses that have quantified learning, expressed by learn- • For sugarcane, cost reductions have come from R&D efforts to
ing rates (LR) and learning (or experience) curves, for three commercial develop varieties with increased sucrose content and thus ethanol
biomass systems: yield, increasing the number of harvests from the crop ratoon (from
shoots) before replanting the field, increasingly efficient manual har-
1. Sugarcane-based ethanol production (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009), vesting and the use of larger trucks for transportation. More recently,
2. Corn-based ethanol production (Hettinga et al., 2009), mechanical harvesting of sugarcane is replacing manual harvest,
3. Wood fuel chips and CHP in Scandinavia (Junginger et al., 2005 and a increasing the amount of residues for electricity production (van den
number of other sources). Wall Bake et al., 2009; Seabra et al., 2010).

The LR is the rate of a unit cost decline associated with each doubling • For the production of corn, the highest cost decline occurred in costs
of cumulative production (see Section 10.2.5 for a more detailed dis- for capital, land and fertilizer until 2005. Additional drivers behind
cussion). For example, a LR of 20% implies that after one doubling of cost reductions were increased plant sizes through cooperatives that

292
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Table 2.17 | Experience curves for major components of bioenergy systems and final energy carriers expressed as reduction (%) in cost (or price) per doubling of cumulative production.

Learning system LR (%) Time frame Region N R2

Feedstock production
Sugarcane (tonnes sugarcane)1 32±1 1975–2005 Brazil 2.9 0.81
2
Corn (tonnes corn) 45±1.5 1975–2005 USA 1.6 0.87
Logistic chains
Forest wood chips (Sweden)3 12–15 1975–2003 Sweden/Finland 9 0.87–0.93
Investment and O&M costs
CHP plants3 19–25 1983–2002 Sweden 2.3 0.17–0.18
Biogas plants4 12 1984–1998 6 0.69
Ethanol production from sugarcane1 19±0.5 1975–2003 Brazil 4.6 0.80
Ethanol production from corn (only O&M costs)2 13±0.15 1983–2005 USA 6.4 0.88
Final energy carriers

7 1970–1985
Ethanol from sugarcane5 Brazil
29 1985–2002 ~6.1 n.a.

Ethanol from sugarcane1 20±0.5 1975–2003 Brazil 4.6 0.84

Ethanol from corn2 18±0.2 1983–2005 USA 7.2 0.96
4
Electricity from biomass CHP 8–9 1990–2002 Sweden ~9 0.85–0.88
Electricity from biomass6 15 Unknown OECD n.a. n.a.
Biogas4 0–15 1984–2001 Denmark ~10 0.97

Notes: Abbreviations: LR: Learning Rate, N: Number of doublings of cumulative production, R²: Correlation coefficient of the statistical data.
References: 1. van den Wall Bake et al. (2009); 2. Hettinga et al. (2009); 3. Junginger et al. (2005); 4. Junginger et al. (2006); 5. Goldemberg et al. (2004); 6. IEA (2000).

enabled higher production volumes, efficient feedstock collection, 130/m3 in 2005. Costs for energy, labour and enzymes contributed
decreased investment risk through government loans and the intro- in particular to the overall decline in costs. Additional drivers behind
duction of improved efficiency natural gas-fired ethanol plants, which these reductions are higher ethanol yields, the introduction of auto-
are responsible for nearly 90% of ethanol production in the USA mation and control technologies that require less energy and labour
(Hettinga et al., 2009). Higher yields were achieved from corn hybrids and the up-scaling of average dry grind plants (Hettinga et al.,
genetically modified to have higher pest resistance and increased 2009).
adoption of no-till practices that improved water quality (NRC, 2010).
While it is difficult to quantify the effects of these factors, it seems
clear that R&D efforts (realizing better plant varieties), technology 2.7.3 Future scenarios of cost reduction potentials
improvements and learning by doing (e.g., more efficient harvesting)
played important roles. 2.7.3.1 Future cost trends of commercial bioenergy systems

For ethanol production, industrial costs from both sugarcane and corn For the production of ethanol from sugarcane and corn, future produc-
mainly decreased because of increasing scales of the ethanol plants. tion cost scenarios based on direct experience curve analysis were found
in the literature:
• Cost breakdowns of the sugarcane production process showed
reductions of around 60% within all sub processes from 1975 to For Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009), total
2005. Ethanol production costs (excluding feedstock costs) declined production costs in 2005 were approximately USD2005 340/m3 (USD2005
by a factor of three between 1975 and 2005 (in real terms, i.e., cor- 16/GJ). Based on the experience curves for the cost components shown
rected for inflation). Investment and operation and maintenance in Figure 2.21 (feedstock and ethanol without feedstock costs), total eth-
costs declined mainly due to economies of scale. Other fixed costs, anol production costs in 2020 are estimated between USD2005 200 and
such as administrative costs and taxes, did not fall dramatically, but 260/m3 (USD2005 9.2 to 12.2/GJ). These costs compare well with those in
cost reductions can be ascribed to automated administration sys- Table 2.7 for Brazil with a current production cost estimate of USD2005
tems. Decreased costs can be primarily ascribed to increased scales 14.8/GJ and projected 2020 cost of USD2005 9 to 10/GJ. Ethanol produc-
and load factors (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009). tion costs without feedstocks are in a range of USD2005 139 to 183/m3
(USD2005 6.5 to 8.6/GJ) in 2005 and could reach about USD2005113/m3
• For ethanol from corn, the conversion costs (without costs for corn) (USD2005 6.6/GJ) by 2020, assuming a constant 82 m3 hydrous ethanol
declined by 45% from USD2005 240/ m3 in the early 1980s to USD2005 per t of sugarcane.

293
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Cumulative Ethanol Production in Brazil [106 m3]

Average Production Cost of Ethanol [USD2005 /m3] and Sugarcane [USD2005 /t] 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280

800
PR = 0.81+ 0.02

400

200

2020

40

20
PR = 0.68 + 0.03

10

Sugarcane 2020
Ethanol Prod. Cost (excl. Feedstock)
Expected Range of Cane Prod. Costs in 2020
Expected Range of Ethanol Prod. Costs in 2020

1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 16,000 32,000

6
Cumulative Sugarcane Production in Brazil [10 t of Sugarcane]

Figure 2.21 | Brazilian sugarcane and ethanol production cost learning curves for between 1975 and 2005 and extrapolated to 2020 (in USD2005). Progress ratio (PR=1-LR) is obtained
by best fit to data (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).

For US ethanol from corn (Hettinga et al., 2009), costs of corn pro- carbon content of the biomass feedstock (displacement factor), emis-
duction and ethanol processing are estimated respectively as USD2005 sions reductions relative to the reference fossil fuel in the production
75/t and USD2005 60 to 77/m3 by 2020. Overall ethanol production region (GHG savings), and a land use efficiency (volume of produc-
costs could decline from a current level of USD2005 310/m3 to USD2005 tion per unit area) indicator. The commercial North American system’s
248/m3 (USD2005 14.7 to 11.7/GJ) by 2020. This estimate excludes performance improved with time; for instance, using the relative GHG
the investment costs and the effect of future corn prices. The EPA savings, which were 26% in 1995 and 39% in 2005, and the projected
(2010) Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 efficiency improvements through application of commercial CHP sys-
modelled the current corn ethanol industry in detail and projected a tems alone or in combination with CCS, would lead to 55 and 72%
decrease in total production cost from USD2005 17.5 to 16/GJ by 2022 emissions savings by 2015, respectively. Similarly, the Brazilian sugar-
by taking into account both feedstock and process improvements cane ethanol/electricity/sugar mill would go from 79 to 120 and 160%
listed in Table 2.7 and the anticipated co-product revenue. in relative GHG savings for the 2005-2006 baseline and the CHP and
CCS scenarios, respectively.
Confirming the trend and supporting the projections to 2020, Table
2.13 illustrates key indicators for environmental performance of a In the Renewable Fuels for Europe project that focused on deployment
North American corn dry-grind natural gas-fired mill and the Brazilian of biofuels in Europe (de Wit et al., 2010; Londo et al., 2010), specific
sugarcane benchmark of 44 mills in terms of GHG emissions per attention was paid to the effects of learning for lignocellulosic biofuels

294
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

technologies on projections of future costs. The analyses showed two 1.30

USD2005 /Litre Gasoline Equivalent

key points: 1.20
BtL Diesel Pessimistic
1.10
LC Ethanol Pessimistic
• Lignocellulosic biofuels have considerable potential for improvement 1.00
BtL Diesel Optimistic
in the areas of crop production, supply systems and the conversion 0.90
LC Ethanol Optimistic
technology. For conversion in particular, economies of scale are a 0.80
very important element of the future cost reduction potential as spe- 0.70
cific capital costs can be reduced (partly due to improved conversion 0.60
efficiency). Biomass resources may become somewhat more expen-
0.50
sive due to a reduced share of (less costly) residues over time. It was
0.40
estimated that lignocellulosic biofuel production cost could compete 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
with gasoline and diesel from oil at USD2005 60 to 70/barrel by 2030 Note: BtL = Biomass-to-Liquids; LC = Lignocellulose
(USD2005 0.38 to 0.44/litre) (Hamelinck and Faaij, 2006).
Figure 2.22 | Cost projections for lignocellulosic ethanol and BTL diesel (Energy
Technology Perspectives 2008, © OECD/IEA, Figure 9.11, p. 335 in IEA (2008a); for
• The penetration of lignocellulosic biofuel options depends consid- additional future cost considerations see also Sims et al. (2008), IEA Renewable Energy
erably on the rate of learning. This rate is in turn dependent on Division (2010) and IEA (2011)).
increased market penetration (which allows for producing with
larger production facilities), which makes the LR partly depen-
dent on market support or mandates in earlier phases of market Table 2.18 presents projected ranges of production costs for developing
penetration. technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle for the pro-
duction of higher efficiency electricity and gasification-(syngas) derived
The IEA Energy Technology Perspectives report (IEA, 2008a) and the fuels, including diesel, jet fuel, and H2, methane, dimethyl ether and other
WEO (IEA, 2009b) project a rapid increase in production of lignocel- oxygenated fuels through catalytic upgrading of the syngas. The sugar
lulosic biofuels, especially between 2020 and 2030, accounting for all intermediates, lignocellulosic for instance, can be converted through bio-
incremental biomass increases after 2020. The biofuels analysis proj- chemical routes to a variety of fuels with the properties of petroleum-based
ects an almost complete phase-out of cereal- and corn-based ethanol fuels. Similarly, pyrolysis oil-based hydrocarbon fuels are under develop-
production and edible oilseed-based biodiesel after 2030. The potential ment. Oilseed crop and tree seed oil development could also expand the
cost reductions from current demonstration projects to future commer- range of fuel products with properties of petroleum fuels because they
cial-scale facilities for production of specific lignocellulosic biofuels are are readily upgraded to hydrocarbons. Finally, algae for biomass produc-
shown in Figure 2.22. Such potential cost reductions are also quantified tion are photosynthetic, using CO2, water, and sunlight to biologically
in Hamelinck and Faaij (2006) and van Vliet et al. (2009). produce a variety of carbohydrates, lipids, plastics, chemicals or fuels like
H2, along with oxygen. In addition, heterotrophic microbes, such as certain
algae are engineered to metabolize sugars and excrete lipids in the dark.
2.7.3.2 Future cost trends for pre-commercial Microorganisms or their consortia can consolidate various processing steps;
bioenergy systems genetically engineered yeasts or bacteria can make specific fuel products,
including hydrocarbons and lipids, developed either with tools from syn-
A number of bioenergy systems are evolving, as shown in Figure 2.2 and thetic biology or through metabolic engineering (see also IEA, 2011).
discussed in Section 2.6. The key intermediates that enable generation
of bioenergy from modern biomass include syngas, sugars, vegetable
oils/lipids, thermochemical oils derived from biomass (pyrolysis or other 2.7.4 Synthesis
thermal treatments), and biogas. These intermediates can produce higher
efficiency electricity and heat, a wider range of liquid hydrocarbon Despite the complexities of determining the economic performance and
fuels, alcohols (including some with higher energy density), ethers, and regional specificities of bioenergy systems, several key conclusions can
chemical products and polymers (bio-based materials) in the developing be drawn from available experiences and literature:
biorefineries that are discussed in Section 2.6. Initial R&D on producing
hydrocarbon fuels is starting with sugar and starch crops and covering • Several important bioenergy systems today can be deployed com-
the range of gasoline, diesel and higher-energy content transport fuels petitively, most notably sugarcane-based ethanol and heat and
such as jet fuels and chemicals. Both improved first-generation crops, power generation from residues and waste.
perennial sugarcane-derived, in particular, and second-generation plants
have the potential to provide a variety of energy products suited to • Although not all bioenergy options discussed in this chapter have
specific geographic regions, and high-volume chemicals and materials been investigated in detail with respect to technological learning,
traditionally derived from the petrochemical industry, maximizing the several important bioenergy systems have reduced their cost and
outputs of end products per unit of feedstock. improved environmental performance over time. These systems still

295
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Table 2.18 | Projected production cost ranges estimated for developing technologies (see Section 2.6.3).

Energy Sector 2020-2030 Projected Production Costs

Selected Bioenergy Technologies
(Electricity, Thermal, Transport)* (USD2005/GJ)
IGCC 1 Electricity and/or transport 12.8–19.1 (4.6–6.9 cents/kWh)
Oil plant-based renewable diesel and jet fuel Transport and electricity 15–30
2
Lignocellulose sugar-based biofuels 6–30
Lignocellulose syngas-based biofuels3 Transport 12–25
Lignocellulose pyrolysis-based biofuels4 14–24 (fuel blend components)
5
Gaseous biofuels Thermal and transport 6–12
Aquatic plant-derived fuels, chemicals Transport 30–140

Notes: 1. Feed cost USD2005 3.1/GJ, IGCC (future) 30 to 300 MW, 20-yr life, 10% discount rate; 2. ethanol, butanols, microbial hydrocarbons from sugar or starch crops or
lignocellulose sugars; 3. syndiesel, methanol and gasoline, etc.; syngas fermentation routes to ethanol; 4. biomass pyrolysis (or other thermal treatment) and catalytic upgrading to
gasoline and diesel fuel blend components or to jet fuels; 5. synfuel to SNG, methane, dimethyl ether, or H2 from biomass thermochemical and anaerobic digestion (larger scale).
*Several applications could be coupled with CCS when these technologies, including CCS, are mature and thus could remove GHGs from the atmosphere.

require government subsidies that are put in place for economic • Data about the production of biomaterials and cost estimates for
development, poverty reduction, a secure and diverse energy sup- chemicals from biomass are rare in peer-reviewed literature. Future
ply, and other reasons. projections and LRs are even rarer, because successful bio-based
products are just now entering the market place. Two examples
• There is clear evidence that further improvements in power gen- are as partial components of otherwise fossil-derived products
eration technologies, production of perennial cropping systems and (e.g., poly(1,3)-propylene terephthalates based on 1,2-propanediol
development of supply systems can bring the costs of power (and derived from sugar fermentation) or as fully new synthetic polymers
heat) generation from biomass down to attractive cost levels in such as polylactides based on lactic acid derived from sugar fermen-
many regions. With the deployment of carbon taxes of up to USD2005 tation. This is also the case for biomass conversion coupled with CCS
50/t, biomass can, in many cases, also be competitive with coal- (see Section 2.6.3.3) concepts, which are not developed at present
based power generation. Nevertheless, the competitive production and for which cost trends are not available in literature. CO2 from
of bio-electricity depends also on the performance of alternatives ethanol fermentation is commercially sold to carbonate beverages,
such as wind and solar energy, CCS coupled with coal, and nuclear flash freeze meats or enhance oil recovery, and demonstrations of
energy (see Section 10.2.2.4 and Chapter 8). CCS are ongoing (see Section 2.6.3.3). Nevertheless, recent scenario
analyses indicate that advanced biomaterials (and cascaded use of
• Bioenergy systems for ethanol and biopower production show tech- biomass) as well as other biomass conversion coupled to CCS may
nological learning and related cost reductions with LRs comparable become attractive medium-term mitigation options. It is therefore
to those of other RE technologies. This applies to cropping systems important to gain experience so that more detailed analyses on
(following progress in agricultural management of annual crops), those options can be conducted in the future.
supply systems and logistics (as clearly observed in Scandinavia, as
well as international logistics) and in conversion (ethanol produc-
tion, power generation and biogas). 2.8 Potential Deployment76

• With respect to lignocellulosic biofuels, recent analyses have indi- 2.8.1 Current deployment of bioenergy
cated that the improvement potential is large enough to make them
competitive with oil prices of USD2005 60 to 70/barrel (USD 0.38 Modern biomass use (for electricity and CHP for the power sector; mod-
to 0.44/litre). Currently available scenario analyses indicate that ern residential, commercial, and public buildings heating; or transport
if shorter-term R&D and market support are strong, technological fuels) already provides a significant contribution of about 11.3 EJ (see
progress could allow for commercialization around 2020 (depend- Table 2.1; IEA, 2010a,b) out of the 2008 TPES from biomass of 50.3
ing on oil price developments and level of carbon pricing). Some EJ. Between 60 and 70% of the total biomass supply is used in rural
scenarios also indicate that this would mean a major shift in the areas and relates to charcoal, wood, agricultural residues and manure
deployment of biomass for energy, because competitive production used for cooking, lighting and space heating, generally by the poorer
would decouple deployment from policy targets (mandates) and part of the population in developing countries. From 1990 to 2008, the
demand for biomass would move away from food crops to biomass
76 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
residues, forest biomass and perennial cropping systems. The impli-
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
cations of such a (rapid) shift have not been studied. in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.

296
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

average annual growth rate of solid biomass use for bioenergy was 1.5%, The near-term forecasts reflect that the policies already in place, as
while the average annual growth rate of modern liquid and gaseous shown in Table 2.11, are driving current forecasts. For instance, the
biofuels use was 12.1 and 15.4%, respectively, during the same period WEO (IEA, 2010b) projects that the bioenergy industry will continue the
(IEA, 2010c). As a result, biofuels’ share of global road transport fuels growth observed in the past five years and reach about 60 EJ by 2020
was about 2% in 2008; and nearly 3% of global road transport fuels in in the Current Policies scenario (which replaces the former Reference
2009, as oil demand decreased for the first time since 1980 (IEA, 2010b). scenario), with slightly higher levels of up to 63 EJ in the more ambitious
Government policies in various countries fostered the five-fold increase New Policies and 450-ppm CO2 scenarios (Section 2.4.1). Considering
in global biofuels production from 2000 to 2008. Biomass and renew- the 2008 starting point at 50 EJ/yr, this represents a 10 to 13 EJ increase
able waste power generation was 259 TWh (0.93 EJ) in 2007 and 267 in bioenergy consumption over 10 years. Much of the increase happens
TWh (0.96 EJ) in 2008, representing 1% of the world’s electricity and in the transport sector, with biofuel consumption starting from 2.1 EJ in
a doubling since 1990 (from 131 TWh, 0.47 EJ) (Section 2.4.1). Modern 2009 and increasing to 4.5 to 5.1 EJ in 2020 in the three presented sce-
bioenergy heating applications, including space and hot water heating narios. Most of this growth is therefore already expected due to existing
systems such as for district heating, account for 3.4 EJ (see Table 2.1 and policies, and additional growth relying on new policies is expected to
Section 2.4.1). only foster an additional 10% increase. The global primary biomass
supply (efficiency of about 65% for first-generation biofuels) needed
International trade in biomass and biofuels has also become much more to deliver this amount of biofuels ranges between 7.4 and 8.4 EJ. The
important over the recent years, with roughly 6% (reaching levels of up to increase at the global level goes along with further regional diversi-
9% in 2008) of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel only) traded internation- fication of biofuels adoption. While the currently dominant biofuels
ally and one-third of pellet production dedicated to energy use in 2009 markets in Brazil, the USA and the EU are projected to roughly double
(Figures 2.8 and 2.9; Junginger et al., 2010; Lamers et al., 2010; Sikkema consumption by 2020, many other regions with very little or no biofuels
et al., 2011). The latter has proven to be an important facilitating factor in consumption currently are expected to adopt biofuel policies, result-
both increased utilization of biomass in regions where supplies are con- ing in significant growth, most notably in Asia. Electricity generation
strained and mobilizing resources from areas where demand is lacking. increases by 85% from 265 TWh/yr (0.96 EJ/yr) in 2008 to 493 TWh/yr
(1.8 EJ/yr) in the Current Policies scenario, again with relatively modest
The policy context for bioenergy and particularly biofuels has changed additional growth (20%) in the more ambitious policy scenarios (up to
rapidly and dramatically since the mid-2000s in many countries. The food 594 TWh/yr or 2.1 EJ/yr) (Table 2.10).
versus fuel debate and growing concerns about other conflicts created a
strong push for the development and implementation of sustainability
criteria and frameworks and changes in temporization of targets for bio- 2.8.3 Long-term deployment in the context of
energy and biofuels. Furthermore, the support for advanced biorefinery carbon mitigation
and second-generation biofuel options drives bioenergy in more sustain-
able directions. The AR4 (IPCC, 2007d) demand projections for primary biomass for pro-
duction of transportation fuel were largely based on WEO (IEA, 2006)
Nations like Brazil, Sweden, Finland and the USA have shown that per- global projections, with a relatively wide range of about 14 to 40 EJ
sistent and stable policy support is a key factor in building biomass of primary biomass, or 8 to 25 EJ of biofuels in 2030. However, higher
production capacity and working markets, required competitive infra- estimates were also included, in the range of 45 to 85 EJ of demand
structure and conversion capacity (see also Section 2.4) and results in for primary biomass for electricity generation in 2030 (equivalent to
considerable economic activity. roughly 30 to 50 EJ of biofuel). Demand for biomass for heat and power
was stated to be strongly influenced by (availability and introduction of)
competing technologies such as CCS, nuclear power and non-biomass
2.8.2 Near-term forecasts RE. The demand in 2030 for biomass was estimated in the AR4 to be
around 28 to 43 EJ. These estimates focus on electricity generation.
Countries differ in their priorities, approaches, technology choices and Heat was not explicitly modelled or estimated in the WEO (on which
support schemes for bioenergy development. Although on the one hand the AR4 was based); therefore it underestimates total demand for bio-
complex for the market, this is also a reflection of the many aspects mass. Also, potential future demand for biomass in industry (especially
that affect bioenergy deployment: agriculture and land use; forestry and new uses such as biochemicals, but also expansion of charcoal use for
industry development; energy policy and security; rural development; and iron and steel production) and the built environment (heating as well
environmental policies. Priorities, the stage of technology development, as increased use of biomass as building material) was highlighted as
and access to, availability of and cost of resources differ widely from important, but no quantitative projections were included in potential
country to country and in different settings. demand for biomass at the medium or longer term.

297
Bioenergy Chapter 2

A summary of the literature on the possible future contribution of RE in most scenarios, which means that modern use of biomass as liquid
supplies in meeting global energy needs under a range of GHG stabi- biofuels, biogas, and electricity and H2 produced from biomass tends
lization scenarios is provided in Chapter 10. Focussing specifically on to increase even more strongly than suggested by the above primary
bioenergy, Figure 2.23 presents modelling results for global primary energy numbers. This trend is also illustrated by the example of liquid
energy supply from biomass (a) and global biofuels production in biofuels production shown in the right panel of Figure 2.23(b). With
secondary energy terms (b). Between about 100 and 140 different long- increasingly ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels, bioen-
term scenarios underlie Figure 2.23 (Section 10.2). These scenario results ergy supply increases, indicating that bioenergy could play a significant
derive from a diversity of modelling teams and cover a wide range of long-term role in reducing global GHG emissions. The median levels of
assumptions about—among other variables—energy demand growth, biomass deployment for energy in the most stringent mitigation cat-
the cost and availability of competing low-carbon technologies and the egories I and II (<440 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2100)
cost and availability of RE technologies (including bioenergy). A descrip- increase significantly compared to the baseline levels to 63, 85 and 155
tion of the literature from which the scenarios have been taken (Section EJ/yr by 2020, 2030 and 2050, respectively.
10.2.2) and how changes in some of these variables impact RE deploy-
ment outcomes are displayed in Figure 10.9. Despite these robust trends, there is by no means an agreement about

(a) (b)
Global Biomass Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

Global Liquid Biofuel Production [EJ/yr]

350 100
CO2 Concentration Levels N=137 CO2 Concentration Levels N=98

300
Baselines Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm) 80 Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
Cat. I + II (< 440 ppm) Cat. I + II (< 440 ppm)
250

60
200

150 40

100

20
2008 50

2008 0
0

2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050

Figure 2.23 | (a) The global primary energy supply from biomass in long-term scenarios; (b) global biofuels production in long-term scenarios reported in secondary energy terms of
the delivered product (median, 25th to 75th percentile range and full range of scenario results; colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration levels in 2100;
the number of scenarios underlying the figure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted from Krey and Clarke, 2011). For comparison, the historic levels in 2008 are indicated
by the small black arrows on the left axis.

the precise future role of bioenergy across the scenarios, leading to fairly
In Figure 2.23, the results for biomass deployment for energy under wide deployment ranges in the different GHG stabilization categories.
these scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 are presented for three GHG For 2030, primary biomass supply estimates for energy vary (rounded)
stabilization ranges based on the AR4: Categories I and II (<440 ppm between 30 and 200 EJ for the full range of results obtained. The 25th
CO2), Categories III and IV (440-600 ppm CO2) and Baselines (>600 ppm to 75th percentiles cover a range of 45 to 120 EJ, with a comparatively
CO2) all by 2100. Results are presented for the median scenario, the narrower range of 44 to 67 EJ/yr in the baselines and much wider ranges
25th to 75th percentile range among the scenarios, and the minimum of 47 to 98 EJ/yr in the 440 to 600 ppm stabilization category and 73 to
and maximum scenario results. Figure 2.23(a) shows a clear increase in 120 EJ/yr in the <440 ppm category. By 2050, the contribution of bio-
global primary energy supply from biomass over time in the baseline mass to primary energy supply in the two GHG stabilization categories
scenarios, that is, absent climate policies, reaching about 55, 62 and ranges from 70 to 120 EJ/yr at the 25th percentile to about 150 to 190
77 EJ/yr in the median cases by 2020, 2030 and 2050, respectively. At EJ/yr at the 75th percentile, and to about 265-300 EJ/yr in the high-
the same time, traditional use of solid biomass is projected to decline est ranges. It should be noted that the net GHG mitigation impact of

298
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

(a)
140
Fuel Consumption in the Transport Sector [EJ]

Gas
120
Electricity

100 Biofuels
Oil
80

60

40

20

0
2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

(b)
Mitigation Options in the Transport Sector [Gt CO2]

Abatement
10.0
2020 2030 2035

9.5 Current Policies Road 83% 80% 80%

Scenario
Increased Efficiency 67% 51% 43%
9.0 Switch to Gas 3% 1% 1%
Switch to Electricity 2% 11% 19%
8.5 Switch to Biofuels 11% 17% 17%

8.0 Aviation 14% 15% 15%

Increase Efficiency 14% 12% 11%
7.5 Switch to Biofuels 0% 3% 4%

7.0 Navigation 2% 3% 3%
450 Scenario Other Transport 2% 2% 1%
6.5
2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total [Gt CO2] 0.4 1.7 2.6

Figure 2.24 | (a) Evolution of fuel consumption in the transport sector including biofuels (World Energy Outlook 2010, © OECD/IEA, figure 14.12, page 429 in IEA (2010b)) and (b)
shares of carbon mitigation by various technologies including biofuels for road and aviation transport from current policies baseline (upper red line) to the 450 ppm bottom curve of
the mitigation scenario. (World Energy Outlook 2010, © OECD/IEA, figure 14.14, page 432 in IEA (2010b))

bioenergy deployment is not straightforward because different options use, in qualitative agreement with the results from Chapter 10. By
result in different GHG savings, and savings depend on how land use is 2030, for the 450-ppm mitigation scenario, the model projects that 11%
managed, which is a central reason for the wide ranges in the stabiliza- of global transport fuels will be provided by biofuels with second-gener-
tion scenarios. ation biofuels contributing 60% of the projected 12 EJ, and half of this
production is projected to be supplied owing to continuation of current
The sector-level penetration of bioenergy is best explained using a policies (see Table 2.9). Biomass and renewable wastes would supply 5%
model with detailed transport sector representation such as the WEO of the world’s electricity generation, or 1,380 TWh/yr (5 EJ/yr) of which
(IEA, 2010b) that is also modelling both traditional and modern bio- 555 TWh/yr (2 EJ/yr) result from the 450 ppm strategy by 2030 (see Table
mass applications, and includes second-generation biofuels evolution. 2.10). Biomass industrial heating applications for process steam and
Additionally, the WEO model takes into account anticipated industrial space and hot water heating for buildings would each double in absolute
and government investments and goals. It projects very significant terms from 2008 levels. However, the total heating demand is projected
increases in modern bioenergy and a decrease in traditional biomass to decrease because of assumed traditional biomass decline. Heating is
seen as a key area for continued modern bioenergy growth.

299
Bioenergy Chapter 2

The evolution of biofuels in the transport sector is shown in Figure 2.24a. for food, fodder, fibre and forest products, when expressed in equivalent
Biofuels penetration is projected to be significant in both in global road heat content, equals 219 EJ/yr (2000 data, Krausmann et al., 2008), the
transport and in air transport. Second-generation technologies are entire current global biomass harvest would be required to achieve a 200
projected to provide 66% of the biofuels by 2035 and 14% of world EJ/yr deployment level of bioenergy by 2050 (Section 2.2.1).
transport energy demand in the 450-ppm scenario (see Figure 2.24a and
Table 2.9). Figure 2.24b shows the projected GHG emissions mitigation From a detailed assessment, the upper-bound technical potential of bio-
of biofuels relative to projected road and air transport applications from mass was about 500 EJ with a minimum of about 50 EJ in the case that
the current policies to the 450 ppm scenario. For instance, by 2030, 17% even residues had significant competition with other uses. The assess-
of road transport emissions and 3% of air transport emissions could be ment of each contributing category performed by Dornburg et al. (2008,
mitigated by biofuels in the 450-ppm stabilization scenario. A biofuels 2010) was based on literature up to 2007 (stacked bar of Figure 2.25)
technology roadmap was recently developed (IEA, 2011). and is roughly in line with the conditions sketched in the IPCC SRES A1 and
B1 storylines (IPCC, 2000), assuming sustainability and policy frameworks
The potential demand of biomass for materials is not explicitly addressed to secure good governance of land use and major improvements in agri-
by many of the scenarios, but it could become significant and add up to cultural management (summarized in Figure 2.26). The resources used are:
several dozens of EJ (Section 2.6.3.5; Hoogwijk et al., 2003).
• Residues originating from forestry, agriculture and organic wastes
The expected deployment of biomass for energy in the 2020 to 2050 (including the organic fraction of MSW, dung, process residues etc.)
time frame differs considerably between studies, also due to varying were estimated at around 100 EJ/yr. This part of the technical potential
detail in bioenergy system representation in the relevant models. A of biomass supply is relatively certain, but competing applications may
key message from the review of available insights is that large-scale push net availability for energy applications to the lower end of the
biomass deployment strongly depends on sustainable development of range.
the resource base, governance of land use, development of infrastruc-
ture and cost reduction of key technologies, for example, efficient and • Surplus forestry other than from forestry residues had an additional
complete use of primary biomass for energy from the most promis- technical potential of about 60 to 100 EJ/yr.
ing first-generation feedstocks and second-generation lignocellulosic
biomass. The results discussed above are consistent with the Energy • Biomass produced via cropping systems had a lower range estimate
Technology Perspectives report (IEA, 2008a), which projects a rapid for energy crop production on possible surplus good quality agricul-
penetration of second-generation biofuels after 2010 and an almost tural and pasture lands of 120 EJ/yr. The potential contribution of
complete phase-out of cereal- and corn-based ethanol production and water-scarce, marginal and degraded lands could amount to an addi-
oilseed-based biodiesel after 2030.77 tional 70 EJ/yr, corresponding to a large area where water scarcity
provides limitations and soil degradation is more severe. Assuming
strong learning in agricultural technology leading to improvements
2.8.4 Conditions and policies: Synthesis of resource in agricultural and livestock management would add 140 EJ/yr.
potentials, technology and economics, and
environmental and social impacts of bioenergy Adding these categories together leads to a technical potential of up
to about 500 EJ in 2050, with temporal data on the development of
2.8.4.1 Resource potentials biomass potential ramping from 290 to 320 EJ/yr in 2020 to 330 to 400
EJ/yr in 2030 (Hoogwijk et al., 2005, 2009; Dornburg et al., 2008, 2010).
The inherent complexity of biomass resources makes the assessment of
their combined technical potential controversial and difficult to charac- From the expert review of available scientific literature in this chapter,
terize. Literature studies range from zero (no biomass potential available potential deployment levels of biomass for energy by 2050 could be in
as energy) to around 1,500 EJ, the theoretical potential for terrestrial bio- the range of 100 to 300 EJ (Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.5).
mass based on modelling studies exploring the widest potential ranges
of favourable conditions (Smeets et al., 2007). Values in this range are described in van Vuuren et al. (2009), which
focused on an intermediate development scenario within the SRES sce-
Figure 2.25 presents a summary of technical potential found in major nario family. The lower estimates of Smeets et al. (2007) and Hoogwijk
studies, including potential deployment data from the scenario analysis et al. (2005, 2009) are in line with those figures, and further confirma-
of Chapter 10 compared to global TPES (projections). To put technical tion for such a range is given by Beringer et al. (2011), who report a
potential in perspective, because global biomass used for energy cur- 26 to 116 EJ range for energy crops alone in 2050 without irrigation
rently amounts to approximately 50 EJ/yr, and all harvested biomass used (and 52 to 174 EJ with irrigation), and Haberl et al. (2010), who report
160 to 270 EJ/yr in 2050 across all biomass categories. Krewitt et
77 Contrast these projections with the 2007 and 2008 WEO studies (IEA, 2007b, al. (2009), following Seidenberger et al. (2008), also estimated the
2008b), where second-generation biofuels were excluded from the scenario analysis
and thus biofuels at large played a marginal role in the 2030 projections. technical potential to be 184 EJ/yr in 2050 using strong sustainability

300
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

1000
Global Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]

Literature Technical
2050 Global
Potentials Range:
TPES
0 to 1500 EJ
AR4, 2007
(Theoretical)
750

Technical Potential
Based on 2008
Model and Literature Deployment Levels
2008 Global TPES Assessment Chapter 10
500
Scenario Assessment
Plant
Productivity
Improvement 440-600 <440 ppm
Potential Deployment ppm
2000 Total Biomass Land Use 5 Marginal/ Levels
Harvested for Food/ Technical Million km2 Degraded Land 300 300 Maximum

250 Fodder/Fibre Caloric Value Potential 265

Land Use 3 Surplus
Million km2 Good Land Chapter 2
2050 Global 190 75th
Review
Biomass 150 Median
Surplus Forestry
2008 Global TPES for Energy
100 118 25th
from Biomass AR4, 2007 80
Forestry and Agriculture
50 Residues; Organic Wastes 20 25 Minimum

2050 Projections

Figure 2.25 | On the left-hand side, the lines represent the 2008 global primary energy supply from biomass, the primary energy supply, and the equivalent energy of
the world’s total harvest for food, fodder and fibre in 2000. A summary of major global 2050 projections of primary energy supply from biomass is shown from left to right:
(1) The global AR4 (IPCC, 2007d) estimates for primary energy supply and technical potential for primary biomass for energy; (2) the theoretical primary biomass potential for energy
and the upper bound of biomass technical potential based on integrated global assessment studies using five resource categories indicated on the stacked bar chart and limitations
and criteria with respect to biodiversity protection, water limitations, and soil degradation, assuming policy frameworks that secure good governance of land use (Dornburg et al.,
2010, reproduced with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry); (3) from the expert review of available scientific literature, potential deployment levels of terrestrial biomass
for energy by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ; and (4) deployment levels of biomass for energy from long-term scenarios assessed in Chapter 10 in two cases of climate
mitigation levels (CO2 concentrations by 2100 of 440 to 600 ppm (orange) or <440 ppm (blue) bars or lines, see Figure 2.23(a)). Biomass deployment levels for energy from model
studies described in (4) are consistent with the expert review of potential biomass deployment levels for energy depicted in (3).The most likely range is 80 to 190 EJ/yr with upper
levels in the range of 265 to 300 EJ/yr.

criteria and including 88 EJ/yr from residues. They project a ramping- • Residue flows in agriculture and forestry and unused (or exten-
up to this potential from around 100 EJ/yr in 2020 and 130 EJ/yr in 2030. sively used thus becoming marginal/degraded) agricultural land
are important sources for expansion of biomass production for
The expert review conclusions based on available scientific literature energy, both in the near and longer term. Biodiversity-induced
(Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.5) are: limitations and the need to ensure maintenance of healthy ecosys-
tems and avoid soil degradation set limits on residue extraction in
• Important uncertainties include: agriculture and forestry (Lal, 2008; Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2009;
WBGU, 2009).
• Population and economic/technology development; food, fod-
der and fibre demand (including diets); and development in • The cultivation of suitable (especially perennial) crops and
agriculture and forestry; woody species can lead to higher technical potential. These crops
can produce bioenergy on lands less suited for the cultivation
• Climate change impacts on future land use including its adapta- of conventional food crops that would also lead to larger soil
tion capability (IPCC, 2007a; Lobell et al., 2008; Fischer et al., carbon emissions than perennial crops and woody species. Multi-
2009); and functional land use systems with bioenergy production integrated
into agriculture and forestry systems could contribute to biodiver-
• Extent of land degradation, water scarcity, and biodiversity and sity conservation and help restore/maintain soil productivity and
nature conservation requirements (Molden, 2007; Bai et al., healthy ecosystems (Hoogwijk et al., 2005; Berndes et al., 2008;
2008; Berndes, 2008a,b; WBGU, 2009; Dornburg et al., 2010; Folke et al., 2009; IAASTD, 2009; Malézieux et al., 2009; Dornburg
Beringer et al., 2011). et al., 2010).

301
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Material/Economic
IPCC SRES Scenarios
(A1) (A2)
Future world of very rapid Food Trade: Maximal High Low Very heterogeneous future
economic growth, global Meat Consumption: High High world characterized by self
population peaks in Technology Development: High Low reliance and preservation
mid-century and declines Food Crop Fertilization: Very High High of local identities.
thereafter, and introduces Crop Intensity Growth: High Low Fragmented and slower
rapidly new and more 2050 Population (Billion): 8.7 11.3 technological change.
efficient technologies. 2100 Population (Billion): 7.1 15.1
Relative 2100 GDP: 100% 46%

Globally Oriented Regionally Oriented

(B1) (B2)
Future world convergent in Food Trade: High Very Low World emphasis is on local
global population, with Meat Consumption: Low Low solutions to economic,
rapid change in economic Technology Development: High Low social and environmental
structures toward a service Food Crop Fertilization: Low Low sustainability. Less rapid
and information economy, Crop Intensity Growth: High Low and more diverse
low material intensity, and 2050 Population (Billion): 8.7 9.4 technological change.
clean and resource efficient 2100 Population (Billion): 7.1 10.4
technologies. Relative 2100 GDP: 61% 44%

Environment/Social

Figure 2.26 | Storylines for the key scenario variables of the IPCC SRES (IPCC, 2000) used to model biomass and bioenergy by Hoogwijk et al. (2005, reproduced with permission
from Elsevier B.V.), the basis for the 2050 sketches adapted for this report and used to derive the stacked bar showing the upper bound of the biomass technical potential for energy
in Figure 2.25.

• Regions experiencing water scarcity may have limited production. 2.8.4.2 Bioenergy technologies, supply chains and economics
The possibility that conversion of lands to biomass plantations
reduces downstream water availability needs to be considered. A wide array of technologies and bioenergy systems exist to produce
The use of suitable energy crops that are drought tolerant can help heat, electricity and fuels for transport, at commercial or development
adaptation in water-scarce situations. Assessments of biomass stages. Furthermore, biomass conversion to energy can be integrated
resource potentials need to more carefully consider constraints and with the production of biomaterials and biochemicals in cascading
opportunities in relation to water availability and competing uses schemes that maximize the outputs of end products per unit input feed-
(Jackson et al., 2005; Zomer et al., 2006; Berndes et al., 2008; de stock and land used.
Fraiture and Berndes, 2009).
The key currently commercial technologies are heat production at scales
To reach the upper range of the deployment level of 300 EJ/yr shown ranging from home cooking to district heating; power generation from
in Figure 2.25 would require major policy efforts, especially targeting biomass via combustion, CHP, or co-firing of biomass and fossil fuels;
improvements and efficiency increases in the agricultural sector and and first-generation liquid biofuels from oil crops (biodiesel) and sugar
good governance, such as zoning, of land use. and starch crops (ethanol).

Review scenario studies (as included in Dornburg et al., 2008) that cal- Modern biomass systems involve a wide range of feedstock types,
culate the amount of biomass used if energy demands are supplied including dedicated crops or trees, residues from agriculture and for-
cost-efficiently for different carbon tax regimes estimate that in 2050, estry, and various organic waste streams. Existing bioenergy systems
between about 50 and 250 EJ/yr of biomass are used (cf. Figure 2.25). rely mostly on wood, residues and waste for heat and power production
This is roughly in line with the scenarios reviewed in Chapter 10 (see and agricultural crops for liquid biofuels. The economics and yields of
Figure 2.23, which shows that the maximum demand is 300 EJ and the feedstocks vary widely across world regions and feedstock types. Energy
median value is about 155 EJ; note that the high end is only reached yields per unit area range from 16 to 200 GJ/ha (1.6 to 20.0 TJ/km2)
under the stringent mitigation scenarios of Categories I+II (<440 ppm for crops and oil seeds (biofuel feedstocks), from 80 to 415 GJ/ha (8.0
CO2) only). to 41.5 TJ/km2) for lignocellulosic biomass, and from 2 to 155 GJ/ha

302
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

(0.2 to 15.5 TJ/km2) for residues, while costs range from USD2005 0.9 to There is clear evidence that further improvements in power genera-
16/GJ (data from 2005 to 2007). Feedstock production competes with tion technologies (e.g., via biomass IGCC technology), supply systems
the forestry and food sectors, but integrated production systems such for biomass, and production of perennial cropping systems can bring
as agro-forestry or mixed cropping may provide synergies along with the costs of power (and heat or fuels) generation from biomass down
additional environmental services. to attractive cost levels in many regions. Nevertheless, the competitive
production of bio-electricity (through methane or biofuels) depends on
Handling and transport of biomass from production sites to conversion the integration with the end-use systems (Sections 8.2 and 8.3), perfor-
plants may contribute 20 to up to 50% of the total costs of biomass mance of alternatives such as wind and solar energy, developing CCS
production. Factors such as scale increase, technological innovations technologies coupled with coal conversion, and nuclear energy (Sections
and increased competition contributed to decrease the economic and 10.2.2.4, 10.2.2.6, 9.3, and 9.4). The implications of successful deploy-
energy costs of supply chains by more than 50%. Densification via pel- ment of CCS in combination with biomass conversion could result in
letization or briquetting is required for transportation distances over removal of GHG from the atmosphere and attractive mitigation cost lev-
50 km. Charcoal made from biomass is a major fuel in developing els but have so far received limited attention (Section 2.6.3.3).
countries, and it should benefit from the adoption of higher-efficiency
kilns. With respect to lignocellulosic biofuels, recent analyses have indicated
that the improvement potential is large enough for competition with
Different end-use applications require that biomass be processed oil at oil prices of USD2005 60 to 80/barrel (USD2005 0.38 to 0.44/litre).
through a variety of conversion steps depending on the physical nature Currently available scenario analyses indicate that if shorter-term R&D
and the chemical composition of feedstocks. Costs vary by world and market support is strong, technological progress could allow for
regions, feedstock types, feedstock supply costs for conversion pro- their commercialization around 2020 (depending on oil and carbon
cesses, the scale of bioenergy production, and production time during prices). Some scenarios also indicate that this would mean a major shift
the year. Examples of estimated commercial bioenergy levelized cost in the deployment of biomass for energy, because competitive produc-
ranges are roughly USD 2 to 48/GJ for liquid and gaseous biofuels; tion would decouple deployment from policy targets (mandates), and
roughly US cents2005 3.5 to 25/kWh (USD2005 10 to 50/GJ) for electric- demand for biomass would move away from food crops to biomass resi-
ity or CHP systems larger than about 2 MW (with feedstock costs of dues, forest biomass and perennial cropping systems. The implications of
USD2005 3/GJ based on high heating value and a heat value of USD2005 such a (rapid) shift are so far poorly studied.
5/GJ (steam) or USD2005 12/GJ (hot water)); and roughly USD2005 2 to
77/GJ for domestic or district heating systems with feedstock costs in Integrated biomass gasification is a major avenue for the development
the range of USD2005 0 to 20/GJ (solid waste to wood pellets). These of a variety of biofuels, with equivalent properties to gasoline, diesel
calculations refer to 2005 to 2008 data and are expressed in USD2005 at and jet fuel (see Table 2.15.C for composition of hydrocarbon fuels). An
a 7% discount rate. Several bioenergy systems have deployed competi- option highlighted as promising in the literature is fuel product gen-
tively, most notably sugarcane ethanol and heat and power generation eration passing syngas through the catalytic reactor only once with
from wastes and residues. Other biofuels have also undergone cost the unreacted gas going to the power generation system instead of
and environmental impact reductions but still require government being recycled through the catalytic reactor. Other hybrid biochemical
subsidies. and thermochemical concepts have also been contemplated (Laser et
al., 2009). Biomass pyrolysis routes and hydrothermal concepts are also
In the medium term, the performance of existing bioenergy technolo- developing in conjunction with the oil industry and have demonstrated
gies can still be improved considerably, while new technologies offer that upgrading of oils to blendstocks of gasoline or diesel or even jet
the prospect of more efficient and competitive deployment of biomass fuel quality products is technically possible (IATA, 2009).
for energy (as well as materials). Bioenergy systems, namely for etha-
nol and biopower production, show rates of technological learning and Lignocellulosic ethanol development and demonstration continues in
related cost reductions with learning comparable to those of other RE several countries. A key development step is pretreatment to overcome
technologies. This applies to cropping systems (following progress in the recalcitrance of the cell wall of woody, herbaceous or agricultural
agricultural management when annual crops are concerned), to sup- residues to release the simple sugar components of biomass polymers
ply systems and logistics (as clearly observed in Scandinavia, as well and lignin. A review of the progress in this area suggests that a 40%
as international logistics) and in conversion (e.g., ethanol production, reduction in cost could be expected by 2025 from process improvements,
power generation and biogas). Although not all bioenergy options dis- which would bring down the estimated cost of pilot plant production
cussed in this chapter have been investigated in detail with respect from USD2005 18 to 22/GJ to USD2005 12 to 15/GJ (Hamelinck et al., 2005a;
to technological learning, several important bioenergy systems have Foust et al., 2009; NRC, 2009a) and into a competitive range.
reduced their cost and improved environmental performance (Sections
2.3.4.2 and 2.7.2; Table 2.13). However, they usually still require Photosynthetic organisms, such as algae, use CO2, water, and sunlight
government subsidies provided for economic development, poverty to biologically produce a variety of carbohydrates and lipids, chemicals,
reduction and a secure energy supply or other country-specific reasons. fuels like H2, other molecules and oxygen with high photosynthetic

303
Bioenergy Chapter 2

efficiency and possibly high potentials (Sections 2.6.1, 3.3.5 and 3.7.6). frameworks and certification systems for bioenergy production (see also
Estimates of potential bioenergy supply from aquatic plants are very Section 2.4.5), setting standards for GHG performance (including LUC
uncertain because of the lack of sufficient data for their assessment effects), addressing environmental issues and taking into consideration
(Kheshgi et al., 2000; Smeets et al., 2009). Nevertheless these species a number of social aspects.
need to be explored further because their development can utilize
brackish waters and heavily saline soils and thus represent a strategy Most bioenergy systems can contribute to climate change mitigation if
for low LUC impacts (Chisti, 2007; Weyer et al., 2009). The prospects of they replace fossil-based energy that was causing high GHG emissions
algae-based fuels and chemicals are at this stage uncertain, with wide and if the bioenergy production emissions—including those arising due
ranges for potential production costs reported in the literature. to LUC or temporal imbalance of terrestrial carbon stocks—are kept low
(examples given in Sections 2.3 and 2.6). High N2O emissions from feed-
Data availability is limited with respect to production of biomaterials; stock production and the use of high carbon intensity fossil fuels in the
cost estimates for chemicals from biomass are rare in the peer-reviewed biomass conversion process can strongly impact the GHG savings. Best
literature, and future projections and LRs are even rarer. This condition fertilizer management practices, process integration minimizing losses,
is linked, in part, to the fact that successful bio-based products are surplus heat utilization, and biomass use as a process fuel can reduce
entering the market place either as partial components of otherwise GHG emissions. But in cold climates the displacement efficiency (see
fossil-derived products or as fully new synthetic polymers, such as poly- Section 2.5.3) can become low when biomass is used both as feedstock
lactides based on lactic acid derived from sugar fermentation. Analyses and as fuel in the conversion process.
indicate that, in addition to producing biomaterials to replace fossil
fuels, cascaded use of biomaterials and subsequent use of waste mate- Given the lack of studies on how biomass resources may be distributed
rial for energy can offer more effective and larger mitigation impacts over various demand sectors, no detailed allocation of the different bio-
per hectare or tonne of biomass used (e.g., Dornburg and Faaij, 2005). mass supplies for various applications is suggested here. Furthermore,
the net avoidance costs per tonne of CO2 for biomass usage depend on
The benefits of biomass gasification and CCS alone or with coal are various factors, including the biomass resource and supply (logistics)
significant (see Figures 2.10 and 2.11). Similarly, capturing CO2 from costs, conversion costs (which in turn depend on availability of improved
fermentation processes offers a significant option in many regions of the or advanced technologies) and fossil fuel prices, most notably of oil.
world, and coupling with CCS may become an attractive medium-term
mitigation option. However, such concepts are not deployed at present A GHG performance evaluation of key biofuel production systems
and cost trends are not available in the literature, making investments in deployed today and possible second-generation biofuels using differ-
biomass (or coal) gasification technologies risky. Also, geologic seques- ent calculation methods is available (Sections 2.5.2, 2.5.3 and 9.3.4;
tration reliability and the uncertainty of the regulatory environment Hoefnagels et al., 2010). Recent insights converge by concluding that
pose further barriers. More detailed analysis is desired in this field. well-managed bioenergy production and utilization chains can deliver
high GHG mitigation percentages (80 to 90%) compared to their fos-
sil counterparts, especially for lignocellulosic biomass used for power
2.8.4.3 Social and environmental impacts generation and heat and, when the technology would be commercially
available, for lignocellulosic biofuels. The use of most residues and
The effects of bioenergy on social and environmental issues—ranging organic wastes, principally animal residues, for energy result in such
from health and poverty to biodiversity and water quality—may be pos- good performance. Also, most current biofuel production systems have
itive or negative depending upon local conditions, the specific feedstock positive GHG balances, and for some of them this situation persists even
production system and technology paths chosen, how criteria and the when significant iLUC effects are incorporated (see below).
alternative scenarios are defined, and how actual projects are designed
and implemented, among other variables (Sections 9.2 through 9.5). LUC can strongly affect those scores, and when conversion of land with
Perhaps most important is the overall management and governance of large carbon stocks takes place for the purpose of biofuel production,
land use when biomass is produced for energy on top of meeting food emission benefits can shift to negative levels in the near term. This is
and other demands from agricultural production (as well as livestock). most extreme for palm oil-based biodiesel production, where extreme
In cases where increases in land use due to biomass production are bal- carbon emissions are obtained if peatlands are drained and converted
anced out by improvements in agricultural management, undesirable to oil palm (Wicke et al., 2008). The GHG mitigation effect of biomass
iLUC effects can be avoided, while if unmanaged, conflicts may emerge. use for energy (and materials) therefore strongly depends on location
The overall performance of bioenergy production systems is therefore (in particular avoidance of converting carbon-rich lands to carbon-poor
interlinked with management of land use and water resources. Trade- cropping systems), feedstock choice and avoiding iLUC (see below). In
offs between those dimensions exist and need to be resolved through contrast, using perennial cropping systems can store large amounts of
appropriate strategies and decision making. Such strategies are currently carbon and enhance sequestration on marginal and degraded soils, and
emerging due to many efforts targeting the deployment of sustainability biofuel production can replace fossil fuel use. Governance of land use,

304
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

proper zoning and choice of biomass production systems are therefore Air pollution effects of bioenergy depend on both the bioenergy technol-
key factors to achieve good performance. ogy (including pollution control technologies) and the displaced energy
technology (e.g., inefficient coal versus modern natural gas combustion)
The assessment of available iLUC literature (Figures 2.13, 9.10, and (Figure 9.12). Improved biomass cookstoves for traditional biomass
9.11) indicated that initial models were lacking in geographic resolu- use can provide large and cost-effective mitigation of GHG emissions
tion, leading to higher proportions than necessary of land use assigned with substantial co-benefits in terms of health and living conditions,
to deforestation, as the models did not have other kinds of lands (e.g., particularly for the 2.7 billion people in the world that rely on tradi-
pastures in Brazil) for use. While the early paper of Searchinger et al. tional biomass for cooking and heating (Sections 2.5.4, 9.3.4, 9.3.4.2
(2008) claimed an iLUC factor of 0.8 (losing 0.8 ha of forest land for and 9.3.4.3). Efficient technologies for cooking are even cost-effective
each hectare of land used for bioenergy), later (2010) studies that compared to other major interventions in health, such as those address-
coupled macro-economic to biophysical models tuned that down to ing tobacco, undernourishment or tuberculosis (Figures 2.14 and 9.13).
0.15 to 0.3 (see, e.g., Al-Riffai et al., 2010). Models used to estimate
iLUC effects vary in their estimates of land displacement. Partial and Other key environmental impacts cover water use, biodiversity and
general equilibrium models have different assumptions and reflect dif- other emissions (Sections 2.5.5 and 9.3.4). Just as for GHG impacts,
ferent time frames, and thus they incorporate more or less adjustment. proper management determines emission levels to water, air and soil.
More detailed evaluations (e.g., Al-Riffai et al., 2010; Lapola et al., 2010; Development of standards or criteria (and continuous improvement pro-
see Section 2.5.3) do estimate significant iLUC impacts but also sug- cesses) will push bioenergy production to lower emissions and higher
gest that any iLUC effect strongly (up to fully) depends on the rate of efficiency than today’s systems.
improvement in agricultural and livestock management and the rate
of deployment of bioenergy production. This balance in development Water is a critical issue that needs to be better analyzed at a regional
is also the basis for the recent European biomass resource potential level to understand the full impact of changes in vegetation and land use
analysis, for which expected gradual productivity increments in agricul- management. Recent studies (Berndes, 2002; Dornburg et al., 2008; Rost
ture are the basis for possible land availability (as reported in Fischer et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2009) indicate that considerable improvements
et al. (2010) and de Wit and Faaij (2010); see Figure 2.5(a)) minimizing can be made in water use efficiency in conventional agriculture, bioen-
competition with food (or nature) as a starting point. Increased model ergy crops and, depending on location and climate, perennial cropping
sophistication to adapt to the complex type of analysis required and systems, by improving water retention and lowering direct evaporation
improved data on the actual dynamics of land distribution in the major from soils (Figure 9.14). Nevertheless, without proper management,
biofuel-producing countries are now producing results that show lower increased biomass production could come with increased competition
overall LUC impacts (Figure 9.11) and acknowledge that land use man- for water in critical areas, which is highly undesirable (Fingerman et al.,
agement at large is key (Berndes et al., 2010). 2010).

Bioenergy projects can result in gains or losses in associated biospheric Similar remarks can be made with respect to biodiversity, although more
stocks and in both direct and indirect LUC, the latter being inherently scientific uncertainty exists due to ongoing debates about methods of
difficult to quantify. Even so, it can be concluded that LUC can affect biodiversity impacts assessment. Clearly, development of large-scale
GHG balances in several ways, with beneficial or detrimental outcomes monocultures at the expense of natural areas is detrimental for biodi-
for bioenergy’s contribution to climate change mitigation, depending on versity (for example, highlighted in UNEP. 2008b). However, as discussed
conditions and context. When land high in carbon (notably forests and in Section 2.5, bioenergy can also lead to positive effects by integrating
especially peat soil forests) is converted to bioenergy, upfront emissions different perennial grasses and woody crops into agricultural land-
may cause a time lag of decades to centuries before net emission sav- scapes, which could also increase soil carbon and productivity, reduce
ings are achieved. But the establishment of bioenergy plantations can shallow landslides and local ‘flash floods’, reduce wind and water ero-
also lead to assimilation of CO2 into soils and aboveground biomass in sion, and reduce sediment and nutrients transported into river systems.
the short term. Increased utilization of forest biomass can reduce for- Forest residue harvesting improves forest site conditions for replanting,
est carbon stocks. The longer-term net effect on forest carbon stocks and thinning generally improves productivity and growth of the remain-
can be positive or negative depending on natural conditions (including ing stand. Removal of biomass from overly-dense stands can reduce
disturbances such as insect outbreaks and fires) and forest management wildfire risk.
practices. The use of post-consumer organic waste and by-products
from the agricultural and forest industries does not cause LUC if these The impact assessments for all these areas deserve considerably more
biomass sources were not utilized for alternative purposes. Bioenergy research, data collection and proper monitoring, as exemplified by
feedstocks can be produced in combination with food and fibre, avoid- ongoing activities of governments (see footnote 64) and roundtables78
ing land use displacement and improving the productive use of land. for pilot studies.
Lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy can decrease the pressure on
prime cropping land. Stimulation of increased productivity in all forms 78 See Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels pilot studies at www2.epfl.ch/energycenter-
of land use reduces the LUC pressure. jahia4/page65660.html.

305
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Social impacts from a large expansion of bioenergy are very complex However, large uncertainty exists about important factors such as mar-
and difficult to quantify. Crops grown as biofuel feedstock currently use ket and policy conditions that affect this potential.
less than 1% of the world’s agricultural land, but demand for biofuels
has represented one driver of demand growth and therefore contrib- • The expert assessment in this chapter suggests potential deployment
uted to global food price increases. Increased demand for food and feed, levels by 2050 in the range of 100 to 300 EJ/yr. Realizing this potential
increases in oil prices, speculation on international food markets, and represents a major challenge but would make a substantial contribu-
incidental poor harvests due to extreme weather events are examples tion to the world’s primary energy demand in 2050—roughly equal to
of events that have likely also had an impact on global food prices. Even the equivalent heat content of today’s worldwide biomass extraction
considering the benefit of increased prices to poor farmers, increased in agriculture and forestry.
food prices adversely affect the level of poverty, food security, and
malnourishment of children. On the other hand, biofuels can also pro- • Bioenergy has significant potential to mitigate GHGs if resources are
vide opportunities for developing countries to make progress in rural sustainably developed and efficient technologies are applied. Certain
development and agricultural growth, especially when this growth is current systems and key future options including perennial crops, forest
economically sustainable. products and biomass residues and wastes, and advanced conversion
technologies, can deliver significant GHG mitigation performance—an
In general, bioenergy options have a much larger positive impact on 80 to 90% reduction compared to the fossil energy baseline. However,
job creation in rural areas than other energy sources, for example, 50 land conversion and forest management that lead to a large loss of
to 2,200 jobs/PJ (Section 2.5.7.3). Also when the intensification of con- carbon stocks and iLUC effects can lessen, and in some cases more
ventional agriculture frees up land that could be used for bioenergy, the than neutralize, the net positive GHG mitigation impacts.
total job impact and added value generated in rural regions increases
when bioenergy production increases. Effective pasture/agriculture land • In order to achieve the high potential deployment levels of biomass
use management could increase the rain-fed production potential signif- for energy, increases in competing food and fibre demand must be
icantly (see Table 2.3; Wicke et al., 2009). For many developing countries, moderate, land must be properly managed and agricultural and for-
the potential of bioenergy to generate employment, economic activ- estry yields must increase substantially. Expansion of bioenergy in the
ity in rural areas, and fuel supply security are key drivers. In addition, absence of monitoring and good governance of land use carries the risk
expenditures on fossil fuel (imports) can be (strongly) reduced. However, of significant conflicts with respect to food supplies, water resources
whether such benefits end up with rural farmers depends largely on the and biodiversity, as well as a risk of low GHG benefits. Conversely,
way production chains are organized and how land use is governed. implementation that follows effective sustainability frameworks could
mitigate such conflicts and allow realization of positive outcomes, for
The bioenergy options that are developed, the way they are developed, example, in rural development, land amelioration and climate change
and under what conditions will have a profound influence on whether mitigation, including opportunities to combine adaptation measures.
impacts will largely be positive or negative (Argentina scenarios; van
Dam et al., 2009a,b). The development of standards or criteria (and • The impacts and performance of biomass production and use are
continuous improvement processes) can push bioenergy production to region- and site-specific. Therefore, as part of good governance of
lower or positive impacts and higher efficiency than today’s systems. land use and rural development, bioenergy policies need to consider
Bioenergy has the opportunity to contribute to climate change mitiga- regional conditions and priorities along with the agricultural (crops
tion, a secure and diverse energy supply, and economic development in and livestock) and forestry sectors. Biomass resource potentials are
developed and developing countries alike, but the effects of bioenergy influenced by and interact with climate change impacts but the spe-
on environmental sustainability may be positive or negative depending cific impacts are still poorly understood; there will be strong regional
upon local conditions, how criteria are defined, and how actual projects differences in this respect. Bioenergy and new (perennial) cropping
are designed and implemented, among many other factors. systems also offer opportunities to combine adaptation measures
(e.g., soil protection, water retention and modernization of agriculture)
with production of biomass resources.
2.8.5 Conclusions regarding deployment: Key
messages about bioenergy • Several important bioenergy options (i.e., sugarcane ethanol pro-
duction in Brazil, select waste-to-energy systems, efficient biomass
Bioenergy is currently the largest RE source and is likely to remain one of cookstoves, biomass-based CHP) are competitive today and can pro-
the largest RE sources for the first half of this century. There is consider- vide important synergies with longer-term options. Lignocellulosic
able growth potential, but it requires active development. biofuels replacing gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, advanced bio-
electricity options and biorefinery concepts can offer competitive
• Assessments in the recent literature show that the technical poten- deployment of bioenergy for the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. Combining
tial of biomass for energy may be as large as 500 EJ/yr by 2050. biomass conversion with CCS raises the possibility of achieving GHG

306
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

removal from the atmosphere in the long term—a necessity for production capacity is developed and what the resulting impacts may
substantial GHG emission reductions. Advanced biomaterials are be, Figure 2.27 presents four different sketches for biomass deploy-
promising as well for the economics of bioenergy production and ment for energy on a global scale by 2050. The 100 to 300 EJ range
mitigation, though the potential is less well understood as is the that follows from the resource potential review delineates the lower
potential role of aquatic biomass (algae), which is highly uncertain. and upper limit for deployment. The assumed storylines roughly follow
the IPCC SRES definitions, applied to bioenergy and summarized in
• Rapidly changing policy contexts, recent market-based activi- Figure 2.26 (Hoogwijk et al., 2005), that were also used to derive the
ties, the increasing support for advanced biorefineries and technical potential shown on the stacked bar of Figure 2.25 (Dornburg
lignocellulosic biofuel options, and in particular the development et al., 2008, 2010).
of sustainability criteria and frameworks, all have the potential to
drive bioenergy systems and their deployment in sustainable direc- Biomass and its multiple energy products can be developed along-
tions. Achieving this goal will require sustained investments that side food, fodder, fibre and forest products in both sustainable and
reduce costs of key technologies, improved biomass production unsustainable ways. As viewed through the IPCC scenario storylines
and supply infrastructure, and implementation strategies that can and sketches, high and low penetration levels can be reached with
gain public and political acceptance. and without taking into account sustainable development and cli-
mate change mitigation pathways. Insights into bioenergy technology
In conclusion and for illustrating the interrelations between scenario developments and integrated systems can be gleaned from these
variables (see Figure 2.26), key preconditions under which bioenergy sketches.

307
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Material/Economic

(A1) ˜ 300 EJ/Poor Governance (A2) ˜ 100 EJ/Poor Governance

Key Preconditions Key Preconditions
• High energy demand results in high energy prices and drive strong • High fossil fuel prices expected due to high demand and limited innovation,
biomass demand. which pushes demand for biofuels use from an energy security perspective.
• Limited oversight on biomass production and use, largely driven by • Increased biomass demand directly affects food markets.
market demand.
• Fully liberalized markets for bioenergy as well as in agriculture as a whole. Key Impacts
• Strong technology development leading to increased demand for biochemicals
• Increased biomass demand partly covered by residues and wastes, partly by
and advanced transport fuels from biomass.
annual crops.
• Additional crop demand leads to significant iLUC effects and
Key Impacts
biodiversity impacts.
• Production emphasis is on higher quality land, converted pastures, etc. • Overall increased food prices linked to high oil prices.
• Biomass produced and used in large scale operations, limiting small • Limited net GHG benefits.
farmers’ benefits. • Sub-optimal socio-economic benefits.
• Large scale global trade and conversion capacity developed in major seaports.
• Competition with conventional agriculture for the better quality land, driving
up food prices and increasing pressure on forest resources.
• GHG benefits overall but sub-optimal due to significant iLUC effects.

2050 Bioenergy
Globally Oriented Regionally Oriented
Storylines

(B1) ˜ 300 EJ/Good Governance (B2) ˜ 100 EJ/Good Governance

Key Preconditions Key Preconditions
• Well working sustainability frameworks and strong policies are implemented. • Focus on smaller scale technologies, utilization of residues, waste streams and
• Well developed bioenergy markets. smaller scale cropping schemes (e.g. Jathropha) and a large array of specific
• Progressive technology development, e.g. biorefineries, new generation biofuels cropping schemes.
and multiple products, successful use of degraded lands. • International trade is constrained and trade barriers remain.
• Developing countries succeed in transitioning to higher efficiency technologies • Effective national policy frameworks control bioenergy deployment, put priority
and implement biorefineries at scales compatible with available resources. on food and optimize biomass production and use for specific
• Satellite processing emerges. regional conditions.

Key Impacts Key Impacts

• 35% biomass from residues and wastes, 25% from marginal/degraded lands • Biomass comes from residues, organic wastes and cultivation on more
and 40% from arable and pasture lands (˜3 and ˜1 million km2, respectively). marginal lands.
• Moderate energy price (notably oil) due to strong increase of biomass and • Smaller scale bioenergy applications developed specially and used locally.
biofuels supply. • Substantial benefits provided for rural economies in terms of employment and
• Food and fuel conflicts largely avoided due to strong land-use planning and diversified energy sources providing services.
alignment of bioenergy production capacity with efficiency increases in • Food, land-use and nature conservation conflicts are largely avoided.
agriculture and livestock management. • Significant GHG mitigation benefits are constrained by limited
• Soil quality and soil carbon improve and negative biodiversity impacts are bioenergy deployment.
minimised using diverse and mixed cropping systems. • Transport sector still uses a high share of petroleum to cover energy needs.

Environment/Social

Figure 2.27 | Possible futures for 2050 biomass deployment for energy: Four illustrative contrasting sketches describing key preconditions and impacts following world conditions
typical of the IPCC SRES storylines (IPCC, 2000) summarized in Figure 2.26.

308
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

References Armendáriz, C.A., R.D. Edwards, M. Johnson, M. Zuk, L. Rojas, R.D. Jiménez, H.
Riojas-Rodriguez, and O. Masera (2008). Reduction in personal exposures to
particulate matter and carbon monoxide as a result of the installation of a Patsari
Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi (2010). Biomass energy and the environmental impacts improved cook stove in Michoacan Mexico. Indoor Air, 18(2), pp. 93-105.
associated with its production and utilization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Arndt, C., R. Benfica, F. Tarp, and R. Uaiene (2010). Biofuels, poverty, and growth:
Reviews, 14(3), pp. 919-937. A computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Environment and
Adam, J.C. (2009). Improved and more environmentally friendly charcoal production Development Economics, 15(1), pp. 81-105.
system using a low-cost retort-kiln (Eco-charcoal). Renewable Energy, 34(8), pp. Asikainen, A., H. Liiri, S. Peltola, T. Karjalainen, and J. Laitila (2008). Forest
1923-1925. Energy Potential in Europe (EU 27). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research
Adams, P.W., G.P. Hammond, M.C. McManus, and W.G. Mezzullo (2011). Barriers Institute, No. 69, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 33 pp.
to and drivers for UK bioenergy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Asikainen, A., P. Anttila, J. Heinimö, T. Smith, I. Stupak, and W. Ferreira Quirino
Reviews, 15(2), pp. 1217-1227. (2010). Forest and bioenergy production. In: Forest and Society – Responding to
Aden, A., M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, B. Wallace, L. Global Drivers of Change. G. Mery, P. Katila, G. Galloway, R.I. Alfaro, M. Kanninen,
Montague, A. Slayton, and J. Lukas (2002). Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol M. Lobovikov, and J. Varjo (eds.). International Union of Forest Research
Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Organizations, Vienna, Austria, pp. 183-200.
Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. NREL/TP-510-32438, National Renewable Astbury, G. (2008). A review of the properties and hazards of some alternative fuels.
Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, 154 pp. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 86(6), pp. 397-414.
Ahrens, T.D., D.B. Lobell, J.I. Ortiz-Monasterio, Y. Li, and P.A. Matson (2010). Ausubel, J.H. (2000). The great reversal: nature’s chance to restore land and sea.
Narrowing the agronomic yield gap with improved nitrogen use efficiency: a Technology in Society, 22, pp. 289-301.
modeling approach. Ecological Applications, 20(1), pp. 91-100. Azar, C., K. Lindgren, M. Obersteiner, K. Riahi, D. van Vuuren, K. den Elzen, K.
Ainsworth, E.A., and S.P. Long (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of Möllersten, and E. Larson (2010). The feasibility of low CO2 concentration
free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Climatic Change, 100(1), pp. 195-202.
Phytologist, 165(2), pp. 351-372. Bacovsky, D., M. Dallos, and M. Worgetter (2010a). Status of 2nd Generation
Al-Riffai, P., B. Dimaranan, and L. Laborde (2010). Global Trade and Environmental Biofuels Demonstration Facilities in June 2010. T39-P1b, IEA Bioenergy Task 39,
Impact Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate. Project Report - Specific Contract No 126 pp. Available at: www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/IEATask39-0610.pdf.
SI2.537.787 implementing Framework Contract No TRADE/07/A2, International Bacovsky, D., W. Mabee, and M. Wörgetter (2010b). How close are second-gener-
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 123 pp. ation biofuels? Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(3), pp. 249-252.
Alexandratos, N. (2009). World food and agriculture to 2030/50: highlights and Badger, P. (2000). New process for torrefied wood manufacturing. Bioenergy Update,
views from mid-2009. In: Proceedings of the Expert Meeting on How to Feed the 2(4), pp. 1-4. Available at: www.bioenergyupdate.com/magazine/security/
World in 2050, Rome, Italy, 24-26 June 2009. Economic and Social Development NL0400/gbinl0400.pdf.
Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K. Avilés-
Italy, pp. 78. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/012/ak542e/ak542e00.htm. Vázquez, A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto (2007). Organic agriculture and the
Alfstad, T. (2008). World Biofuels Study: Scenario Analysis of Global Biofuels Markets. global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(02), pp. 86-86.
BNL-80238-2008, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, NY, USA, 67 pp. Baffes, J., and T. Haniotis (2010). Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom
Allen, J., M. Browne, A. Hunter, J. Boyd, and H. Palmer (1998). Logistics man- into Perspective. Policy Research Working Paper 5371, The World Bank Group,
agement and costs of biomass fuel supply. International Journal of Physical Washington, DC, USA, 42 pp.
Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(6), pp. 463-477. Bai, Z.G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman (2008). Proxy global assess-
Allen, M.R., D.J. Frame, C. Huntingford, C.D. Jones, J.A. Lowe, M. Meinshausen, ment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management, 24(3), pp. 223-234.
and N. Meinshausen (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions Bailis, R., A. Cowan, V. Berrueta, and O. Masera (2009). Arresting the killer in
towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), pp. 1163-1166. the kitchen: The promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves.
Alper, H., and G. Stephanopoulos (2009). Engineering for biofuels: exploiting World Development, 37(10), pp. 1694-1705.
innate microbial capacity or importing biosynthetic potential? Nature Reviews Bain, R.L. (2007). World Biofuels Assessment, Worldwide Biomass Potential:
Microbiology, 7(10), pp. 715-723. Technology Characterizations. NREL/MP-510-42467, National Renewable Energy
Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., S.C. Davis, M.D. Masters, and E.H. Delucia (2009). Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 140 pp.
Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Global Change Biology Bain, R.L. (2011). Biopower Technologies in Renewable Electricity Alternative
Bioenergy, 1(1), pp. 75-96. Futures. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, in press.
APEC (2003). The New Brunswick Forest Industry: The Potential Economic Impact Bain, R.L., W.P. Amos, M. Downing, and R.L. Perlack (2003). Biopower Technical
of Proposals to Increase the Wood Supply. Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, Assessment: State of the Industry and the Technology. TP-510-33123, National
Halifax, Canada. Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 277 pp.

309
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Bairiganjan, S., R. Cheung, E.A. Delio, D. Fuente, S. Lall, and S. Singh (2010). Berndes, G. (2008a). Future biomass energy supply: The consumptive water use
Power to the People: Investing in Clean Energy for the Base of the Pyramid in perspective. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(2), pp.
India. Centre for Development Finance, c/o Institute for Financial Management 235-245.
and Research, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 74 pp. Berndes, G. (2008b). Water Demand for Global Bioenergy Production: Trends,
Balat, M. (2011). Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production - Risks and Opportunities. Report commissioned by the German Advisory Council
A review of current work. Energy Conversion and Management, 52(2), pp. on Global Change. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
1479-1492. Umweltveränderungen, Berlin, Germany, 46 pp.
Ball, B.C., I. Bingham, R.M. Rees, C.A. Watson, and A. Litterick (2005). The Berndes, G., and J. Hansson (2007). Bioenergy expansion in the EU: Cost-effective
role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions. climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 85, pp. 557-577. imported fuels. Energy Policy, 35(12), pp. 5965-5979.
Balmford, A., R.E. Green, and J.P.W. Scharlemann (2005). Sparing land for nature: Berndes, G., M. Hoogwijk, and R. van den Broek (2003). The contribution of
exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass and
for crop production. Global Change Biology, 11(10), pp. 1594-1605. Bioenergy, 25(1), pp. 1-28.
Barker, W.T., C.L. Lura, and J.L. Richardson (2009). Soil organic matter and native Berndes, G., F. Fredrikson, and P. Börjesson (2004). Cadmium accumulation and
plant production on the Missouri Coteau. North Dakota Farm Research, 44(2), Salix-based phytoextraction on arable land in Sweden. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
pp. 14-21. Environment, 103(1), pp. 207-223.
Barth, T., and M. Kleinert (2008). Motor fuels from biomass pyrolysis. Chemical Berndes, G., P. Börjesson, M. Ostwald, and M. Palm (2008). Multifunctional
Engineering & Technology, 31(5), pp. 773-781. biomass production systems – an overview with presentation of specific applica-
Bauen, A., G. Berndes, M. Junginger, M. Londo, F. Vuille, R. Ball, T. Bole, C. tions in India and Sweden. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2(1), pp. 16-25.
Chudziak, A. Faaij, and H. Mozaffarian (2009a). Bioenergy: A Sustainable Berndes, G., N. Bird, and A. Cowie (2010). Bioenergy, Land Use Change and
and Reliable Energy Source: A Review of Status and Prospects. IEA Bioenergy: Climate Change Mitigation. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo:2010:03, International Energy
ExCo:2009:06, 108 pp. Agency, Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, New Zealand, 20 pp. Available at: www.iea-
Bauen, A., F. Vuille, P. Watson, and K. Vad (2009b). The RSB GHG accounting bioenergy.com/LibItem.aspx?id=6770.
scheme. Feasibility of a meta-methodology and way forward. E4tech version 4.1, Berrueta, V.M., R.D. Edwards, and O.R. Masera (2008). Energy performance of
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels., Lausanne, Switzerland, 91 pp. Available wood-burning cookstoves in Michoacan, Mexico. Renewable Energy, 33(5), pp.
at: rsb.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/rsb2/files/Biofuels/Documents%20and%20 859-870.
Resources/09-10-08_E4Tech%20Report%20GHG%20Accounting_V4%20 Bessou, C., F. Ferchaud, B. Gabrielle, and B. Mary (2010). Biofuels, greenhouse
1_08October09.pdf. gases and climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,
Baum, C., P. Leinweber, M. Weih, N. Lamersdorf, and I. Dimitriou (2009). doi:10.1051/agro/2009039,132 pp.
Effects of short rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology. Bhagwat, S.A., K.J. Willis, H.J.B. Birks, and R.J. Whittaker (2008). Agroforestry:
Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 59(3), pp. 183-186. a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(5), pp.
Baum, S., M. Weih, G. Busch, F. Kroiher, and A. Bolte (2009). The impact of 261-267.
Short Rotation Coppice plantations on phytodiversity. Landbauforschung vTI Bhojvaid, P.P. (2007). Recent trends in biodiesel production. In: Biofuels: Towards a
Agriculture and Forestry Research, 59(3), pp. 163-170. Greener and Secure Energy Future. P.P. Bhojvaid (ed.), The Energy and Resources
Beer, T., and T. Grant (2007). Life-cycle analysis of emissions from fuel ethanol and Institute (TERI) Press, New Delhi, India, pp. 119-136.
blends in Australian heavy and light vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production, Bickel, P., and R. Friedrich (eds.) (2005). ExternE - Externalities of Energy:
15(8-9), pp. 833-837. Methodology 2005 Update. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 270 pp.
Beer, T., T. Grant, R. Brown, J. Edwards, P. Nelson, H. Watson, and D. Williams Biran, A., J. Abbot, and R. Mace (2004). Families and firewood: A comparative
(2000). Life Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles. analysis of the costs and benefits of children in firewood collection and use in
Atmospheric Research Report C/0411/1.1/F2, Australian Commonwealth two rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa. Human Ecology, 32(1), pp. 1-25.
Scientific and Research Organization, Aspendale, Australia, 148 pp. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal (2009). Corn stover removal for expanded uses
Beer, T., T. Grant, G. Morgan, J. Lapszewicz, P. Anyon, J. Edwards, P. Nelson, reduces soil fertility and structural stability. Soil Science Society of America
H. Watson, and D. Williams (2001). Comparison of Transport Fuels. EV45A/2/ Journal, 73(2), pp. 418-426.
F3C, Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, Aspendale, Blanco-Canqui, H., R. Lal, W.M. Post, R.C. Izaurralde, and L.B. Owens (2006).
Australia, 485 pp. Rapid changes in soil carbon and structural properties due to stover removal
Beringer, T.I.M., W. Lucht, and S. Schaphoff (2011). Bioenergy production potential from no-till corn plots. Soil Science, 171(6), pp. 468-482.
of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. BNDES/CGEE (2008). Sugarcane-Based Bioethanol: Energy for Sustainable
Global Change Biology Bioenergy, doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01088.x. Development. Brazilian Development Bank and Center for Strategic Studies and
Berndes, G. (2002). Bioenergy and water--the implications of large-scale bioenergy Management Science, Technology and Innovation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 304 pp.
production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change, 12(4), pp. Bohlmann, G.M., and M.A. Cesar (2006). The Brazilian opportunity for biorefiner-
253-271. ies. Industrial Biotechnology, 2(2), pp. 127-132.

310
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Boman, C., B. Forsberg, and T. Sandström (2006). Shedding new light on wood Bush, D.R., and J.E. Leach (2007). Translational genomics for bioenergy production:
smoke: a risk factor for respiratory health. European Respiratory Journal, 27(3), There’s room for more than one model. The Plant Cell, 19(10), pp. 2971-2973.
pp. 446-447. Calder, I., J. Amezaga, J. Bosch, B. Aylward, and L. Fuller (2004). Forest and water
Bon, E.P.S., and M.A. Ferrara (2007). Bioethanol production via enzymatic hydro- policies: the need to reconcile public and science conceptions. Geologica acta,
lysis of cellulosic biomass. In: FAO Symposium on the Role of Agricultural 2(2), pp. 157-166.
Biotechnologies for Production of Bioenergy in Developing Countries, 12 October Campbell, J.E., D.B. Lobell, and C.B. Field (2009). Greater transportation energy and
2007, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 11 pp. Available at: http:// GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science, 324(5930), pp. 1055-1057.
www.fao.org/biotech/docs/bon.pdf. CARB (2009). Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Börjesson, P. (2000). Economic valuation of the environmental impact of logging California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary
residue recovery and nutrient compensation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(3), pp. Source Division, Sacramento, California, 374 pp.
137-152. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., and H. Shanahan (2003). Food and life cycle energy inputs:
Börjesson, P. (2009). Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective – consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecological Economics,
What determines this? Applied Energy, 86(5), pp. 589-594. 44(2-3), pp. 293-307.
Börjesson, P., and G. Berndes (2006). The prospects for willow plantations for Carolan, J., S. Joshi, and B.E. Dale (2007). Technical and financial feasibility analy-
wastewater treatment in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(5), pp. 428-438. sis of distributed bioprocessing using regional biomass pre-processing centers.
Borowitzka, M.A., R. Osinga, J. Tramper, J.G. Burgess, and R.H. Wijffels (1999). Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 5(2) Article 10, 29 pp.
Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, and fermenters. Progress in Available at: www.bepress.com/jafio/vol5/iss2/art10.
Industrial Microbiology, 35, pp. 313-321. Carpita, N.C., and M.C. McCann (2008). Maize and sorghum: genetic resources for
Bouwman, A.F., L.J.M. Boumans, and N.H. Batjes (2002). Emissions of N2O and bioenergy grasses. Trends in Plant Science, 13(8), pp. 415-420.
NO from fertilized fields: Summary of available measurement data. Global Carslaw, K.S., O. Boucher, D.V. Spracklen, G.W. Mann, J.G.L. Rae, S. Woodward,
Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), 13 pp. and M. Kulmala (2010). A review of natural aerosol interactions and feed-
Bradley, D., F. Diesenreiter, M. Wild, and E. Tromborg (2009). World Biofuel backs within the Earth system. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10(4), pp.
Maritime Shipping Study. IEA Bioenergy Task 40, IEA, Paris, France, 38 pp. 1701-1737.
Bradley, R.L., A. Olivier, N. Thevathasan, and J. Whalen (2008). Environmental Cascone, R. (2008). Biobutanol: a replacement for bioethanol? In: Chemical
and economic benefits of tree-based intercropping systems. Policy Options, Engineering Progress Special Edition Biofuels, 104, pp. S4–S9.
February, pp. 46-49. Available at: www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb08/bradley.pdf. Cassman, K.G. (1999). Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: Yield
Bravo, R., O. Masera, T. Chalico, D. Pandey, E. Riegelhaupt, and A. Uhlig (2010). potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proceedings of the National
Case-studies from Brazil, India and Mexico. Food and Agriculture Organization, Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(11), pp. 5952-5959.
Rome, Italy, 80 pp. Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters, and H. Yang (2003). Meeting cereal
Bridgwater, A., S. Czernik, J. Diebold, D. Meier, A. Oasmaa, C. Peacocke, J. demand while protecting natural resources and improving environmental quality.
Piskorz, and D. Radlein (2003). Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass: A Handbook. CPL Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), pp. 315-358.
Press, Berks, UK, 180 pp. Castiglioni, P., D. Warner, R.J. Bensen, D.C. Anstrom, J. Harrison, M. Stoecker, M.
Bridgwater, A. Ed. (2007). Success & Visions for Bioenergy: Thermal processing Abad, G. Kumar, S. Salvador, R. D’Ordine, S. Navarro, S. Back, M. Fernandes,
of biomass for bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts. CPL Scientific Publishing J. Targolli, S. Dasgupta, C. Bonin, M.H. Luethy, and J.E. Heard (2008).
Services Ltd., CD-ROM, ISBN 9781872691282. Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved
Bringezu, S., H. Schuetz, M. O Brien, L. Kauppi, R. Howarth, and J. McNeely grain yield in maize under water-limited conditions. Plant Physiology, 147(2),
(2009). Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing pp. 446-455.
Biofuels. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France, 102 pp. CBOT (2006). CBOT® Soybean Crush Reference Guide. Board of Trade of the City of
Bruce, N., E. Rehfuess, S. Mehta, G. Hutton, and K.R. Smith (2006). Indoor air Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
pollution. In: Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd ed. World Chakravorty, U., M. Hubert, and L. Nostbakken (2009). Fuel versus food. Annual
Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 793-815. Review of Resource Economics, 1(1), pp. 645-663.
Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and Chapotin, S.M., and J. Wolt (2007). Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy:
crop yields need to increase by 2050? In: Expert Meeting on How to Feed the meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Research, 16(6), pp.
World in 2050, 24-26 June 2009, Economic and Social Development Department, 675-688.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 33 pp. Chapple, C., M. Ladisch, and R. Meilan (2007). Loosening lignin’s grip on biofuel
Brunner, A.M., S.P. DiFazio, and A.T. Groover (2007). Forest genomics grows up production. Nature Biotechnology, 25(7), pp. 746-748.
and branches out. New Phytologist, 174(4), pp. 710-713. Cheng, J.J., and G.R. Timilsina (2010). Advanced Biofuel Technologies: Status and
Buchholz, T., E. Rametsteiner, T. Volk, and V. Luzadis (2009). Multi Criteria Barriers. Policy Research Working Paper 5411, The World Bank, Washington, DC,
Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy, 37(2), pp. 484-495. USA, 47 pp.
Bureau, J.-C., H. Guyomard, F. Jacquet, and D. Tréguer (2010). European biofuel Cherubini, F., and A.H. Strømman (2010). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy sys-
policy: How far will public support go? In: Handbook of Bioenergy Economics tems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), pp.
and Policy. M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman (eds.), Springer, Heidelberg, 437-451.
Germany, pp. 401-423.

311
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Cherubini, F., N.D. Bird, A. Cowie, G. Jungmeier, B. Schlamadinger, and S. Dale, B.E., M.S. Allen, M. Laser, and L.R. Lynd (2009). Protein feeds coproduc-
Woess-Gallasch (2009a). Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel tion in biomass conversion to fuels and chemicals. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Biorefining, 3(2), pp. 219-230.
Conservation and Recycling, 53(8), pp. 434-447. Dale, B.E., B.D. Bals, S. Kim, and P. Eranki (2010). Biofuels done right: Land efficient
Cherubini, F., G. Jungmeier, M. Mandl, M. Wellisch, C. Philips, and H. Joergensen animal feeds enable large environmental and energy benefits. Environmental
(2009b). Biorefineries: Adding Value to the Sustainable Utilisation of Biomass. Science & Technology, 44(22), pp. 8385-8389.
IEA Bioenergy Publication T42:2009:01, IEA Bioenergy Task 42 on Biorefineries, Dale, V.H., R.A. Efroymson, and K.L. Kline (2011). The land use-climate change-
16 pp. energy nexus. Landscape Ecology, in press.
Chisti, Y. (2007). Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances, 25(3), pp. Damen, K., and A. Faaij (2006). A greenhouse gas balance of two existing inter-
294-306. national biomass import chains. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Chiu, Y.-W., B. Walseth, and S. Suh (2009). Water embodied in bioethanol in the Change, 11(5), pp. 1023-1050.
United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(8), pp. 2688-2692. Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N.D. Burgess, F. Parish, C.A. Brühl, P.F. Donald, D.
Chum, H.L., and R.P. Overend (2003). Biomass and bioenergy in the United States. Murdiyarso, B.E.N. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig, and E.B. Fitzherbert
In: Advances in Solar Energy: An Annual Review of Research and Development. (2009). Biofuel plantations on forested lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity
Vol. 15. D.Y. Goswami (ed.), American Solar Energy Society (ASES), Boulder, CO, and climate (Plantaciones de biocombustible en terrenos boscosos: Doble peligro
USA, pp. 83-148. para la biodiversidad y el clima). Conservation Biology, 23(2), pp. 348-358.
Cirne, D.G., A. Lehtomäki, L. Björnsson, and L.L. Blackall (2007). Hydrolysis and Dantas, D.N., F.F. Mauad, and A.R. Ometto (2009). Potential for generation of
microbial community analyses in two-stage anaerobic digestion of energy crops. thermal and electrical energy from biomass of sugarcane: A exergetic analysis.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 103(3), pp. 516-527. In: 11th International Conference on Advanced Materials, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Clayton, R., G. McDougall, M. Perry, D. Doyle, J. Doyle, and D. O’Connor 20-25 September 2009, p. 131.
(2010). A Study of Employment Opportunities from Biofuel Production in Darzins, A., P. Pienkos, and L. Edye (2010). Current Status and Potential for Algal
APEC Economies. APEC#210-RE-01.9, APEC Energy Working Group, Asia-Pacific Biofuels Production. Report T39-02, IEA Bioenergy Task 39, 128 pp.
Economic Cooperation (APEC), Singapore, Singapore, 82 pp. Daugherty, E. (2001). Biomass Energy Systems Efficiency Analyzed through a LCA
Clifton-Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski (2000). Water use efficiency and biomass Study. Masters Thesis, Lund University, Gothenburg, Sweden, 45 pp.
partitioning of three different Miscanthus genotypes with limited and unlimited Davda, R.R., J.W. Shabaker, G.W. Huber, R.D. Cortright, and J.A. Dumesic (2005).
water supply. Annals of Botany, 86(1), pp. 191-200. A review of catalytic issues and process conditions for renewable hydrogen and
Clifton-Brown, J., P.F. Stampfl, and M.B. Jones (2004). Miscanthus biomass pro- alkanes by aqueous-phase reforming of oxygenated hydrocarbons over sup-
duction for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil ported metal catalysts. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 56(1-2), pp. 171-186.
fuel carbon emissions. Global Change Biology, 10(4), pp. 509-518. Davidson, E.A. (2009). The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmo-
Cline, W.R. (2007). Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country. spheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nature Geoscience, 2(9), pp. 659-662.
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, USA, 201 pp. de Boer, J., M. Helms, and H. Aiking (2006). Protein consumption and sustainabil-
Colla, L.M., C. Oliveira Reinehr, C. Reichert, and J.A.V. Costa (2007). Production ity: Diet diversity in EU-15. Ecological Economics, 59(3), pp. 267-274.
of biomass and nutraceutical compounds by Spirulina platensis under differ- de Fraiture, C., and G. Berndes (2009). Biofuels and water. In: Biofuels:
ent temperature and nitrogen regimes. Bioresource Technology, 98(7), pp. Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. R.W.
1489-1493. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds.), Proceedings of the SCOPE - Scientific Committee
Cortright, R.D., R.R. Davda, and J.A. Dumesic (2002). Hydrogen from catalytic on Problems of the Environment International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment,
reforming of biomass-derived hydrocarbons in liquid water. Nature, 418(6901), Gummersbach, Germany, 22-25 September 2009, pp. 139-152.
pp. 964-967. de Fraiture, C., M. Giordano, and Y. Liao (2008). Biofuels and implications for
Cremers, M.F.G. (2009). Deliverable 4, Technical Status of Biomass Co-firing. agricultural water uses: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy, 10(S1), pp.
50831165-Consulting 09-1654, IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 67-81.
43 pp. De La Torre Ugarte, D.G., and C.C. Hellwinckel (2010). The problem is the solu-
Crutzen, P., A. Moiser, K. Smith, and W. Winiwarter (2007). N2O release from tion: The role of biofuels in the transition to a regenerative agriculture. In:
agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil Plant Biotechnology for Sustainable Production of Energy and Co-products.
fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7, pp. 11191-11205. P.N. Mascia, J. Scheffran, and J.M. Widholm (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin and
Curtis, B. (2010). 2008-2009 Review U.S. Biofuels Industry: Mind the Gap. Concentric Heidelberg, Germany, 475 pp.
Energies & Resource Group, Inc., Los Gatos, CA, USA, 52 pp. De La Torre Ugarte, D.G., L. He, K.L. Jensen, and B.C. English (2010). Expanded
Cusick, R.D., B. Bryan, D.S. Parker, M.D. Merrill, M. Mehanna, P.D. Kiely, G. Liu, ethanol production: Implications for agriculture, water demand, and water qual-
and B.E. Logan (2011). Performance of a pilot-scale continuous flow microbial ity. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(11), pp. 1586-1596.
electrolysis cell fed winery wastewater. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, de Wit, M., and A. Faaij (2010). European biomass resource potential and costs.
89, pp. 2053-2063. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(2), pp. 188-202.
da Costa Sousa, L., S.P.S. Chundawat, V. Balan, and B.E. Dale (2009). ‘Cradle-to- de Wit, M., M. Junginger, S. Lensink, M. Londo, and A. Faaij (2010). Competition
grave’ assessment of existing lignocellulose pretreatment technologies. Current between biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over
Opinion in Biotechnology, 20(3), pp. 339-347. time. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(2), pp. 203-217.

312
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

DEFRA (2009). The 2007/08 Agricultural Price Spikes: Causes and Policy Implications. Dornburg, V., J. Vandam, and A. Faaij (2007). Estimating GHG emission mitiga-
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), HM Government, tion supply curves of large-scale biomass use on a country level. Biomass and
London, UK, 123 pp. Bioenergy, 31(1), pp. 46-65.
Delta-T Corporation (1997). Proprietary information. Williamsburg, VA, USA. Dornburg, V., A. Faaij, P. Verweij, H. Langeveld, G. van de Ven, F. Wester, H.
DeLucchi, M.A. (2005). A Multi-Country Analysis of Lifecycle Emissions from van Keulen, K. van Diepen, M. Meeusen, M. Banse, J. Ros, D. van Vuuren,
Transportation Fuels and Motor Vehicles. UCD-ITS-RR-05-10, Institute of G.J. van den Born, M. van Oorschot, F. Smout, J. van Vliet, H. Aiking, M.
Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 205 pp. Londo, H. Mozaffarian, K. Smekens, E. Lysen, and S. van Egmond (2008).
DeLucchi, M.A. (2010). A Conceptual Framework for Estimating Bioenergy-Related Assessment of Global Biomass Potentials and their Links to Food, Water,
Land-Use Change and Its Impacts over Time. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1-24, Biodiversity, Energy Demand and Economy. WAB 500102 012, The Netherlands
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.028 (2010). Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 108 pp.
DeLuchi, M.A. (1993). Greenhouse-gas emissions from the use of new fuels for trans- Dornburg, V., D. van Vuuren, G. van de Ven, H. Langeveld, M. Meeusen, M.
portation and electricity. Transportation Research Part A, 27A(3), pp. 187-191. Banse, M. van Oorschot, J. Ros, G.J. van den Born, H. Aiking, M. Londo, H.
DeMeo, E.A., and J.F. Galdo (1997). Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. Mozaffarian, P. Verweij, E. Lysen, and A. Faaij (2010). Bioenergy revisited:
TR-109496, U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute, Key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science,
Washington, DC, USA, 283 pp. 3, pp. 258-267.
Demirbas, A. (2009). Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels. Energy Conversion Drigo, R., G. Chirici, B. Lasserre, and M. Marchetti (2007). Analisi su base
and Management, 50, pp. 14-34. geografica della domanda e dell’offerta di combustibili legnosi in Italia.
den Elzen, M., D. van Vuuren, and J. van Vliet (2010). Postponing emission reduc- (Geographical analysis of demand and supply of woody fuel in Italy). L’italia
tions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs. Climatic Forestale e Montana, LXII(5/6), pp. 303-324.
Change, 99(1), pp. 313-320. Drigo, R., A. Anschau, N. Flores Marcos, and S. Carballo (2009). Análisis del bal-
Dias de Moraes, M.A.F. (2007). Indicadores do mercado de trabalho do sistema ance de energia derivada de biomasa en Argentina – WISDOM Argentina. Project
agroindustrial da cana-de-açúcar do Brasil no período 1992-2005. Estudos Econ. TCP/ARG/3103 of FAO Dendroenergy, FAO Forestry Department, Rome, Italy, 102
(São Paulo), 37(4), pp. 875-902. pp.
Diaz-Balteiro, L., and L.C.E. Rodriguez (2006). Optimal rotations on Eucalyptus Dudley, T.L. (2000). Arundo donax. In: Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. C.
plantations including carbon sequestration – A comparison of results in Brazil Bossard and J. Randall (eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA,
and Spain. Forest Ecology and Management, 229(1-3), pp. 247-258. pp. 53-58.
DiTomaso, J.M., J.K. Reaser, C.P. Dionigi, O.C. Doering, E. Chilton, J.D. Schardt, Dufey, A. (2006). Biofuels Production, Trade and Sustainable Development: Emerging
and J.N. Barney (2010). Biofuel vs. bioinvasion: seeding policy priorities. Issues. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, 62
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(18), pp. 6906-6910. pp.
Dominguez-Faus, R., S.E. Powers, J.G. Burken, and P.J. Alvarez (2009). The water Dupraz, C., and F. Liagre (2008). Agroforestry: Trees and Crops. La France Agricole,
footprint of biofuels: A drink or drive issue? Environmental Science & Technology, Paris, France.
43(9), pp. 3005-3010. Dutta, A., N. Dowe, K.N. Ibsen, D.J. Schell, and A. Aden (2010). An economic com-
Dondini, M., A. Hastings, G. Saiz, M.B. Jones, and P. Smith (2009). The potential parison of different fermentation configurations to convert corn stover to ethanol
of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: comparing field measurements in using Z. mobilis and Saccharomyces. Biotechnology Progress, 26(1), pp. 64-72.
Carlow, Ireland to model predictions. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 1(6), Duvick, D.N., and K.G. Cassman (1999). Post-green revolution trends in yield
pp. 413-425. potential of temperate maize in the north-central United States. Crop Science,
Donner, S.D., and C.J. Kucharik (2008). Corn-based ethanol production compro- 39(6), pp. 1622-1630.
mises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proceedings of Dymond, C.C., B.D. Titus, G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz (2010). Future quantities and
the National Academy of Sciences, 105(11), pp. 4513-4518. spatial distribution of harvesting residue and dead wood from natural distur-
Doornbosch, V., and R. Steenblik (2008). Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the bances in Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(2), pp. 181-192.
disease? In: Round Table on Sustainable Development, 11-12 September 2007, E4tech (2009). Review of the Potential for Biofuels in Aviation. Committee on
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Climate Change (CCC) of the U.K. Government, London, UK, 117 pp.
Dornburg, V., and A.P.C. Faaij (2001). Efficiency and economy of wood-fired bio- E4tech (2010). Biomass Prices in the Heat and Electricity Sectors in the UK. Report
mass energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation prepared for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. URN 10D/546,
using combustion and gasification technologies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21(2), E4tech, London, UK, 33 pp.
pp. 91-108. Easterling, W.E., J. Morton, J.F. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber, F.N. Tubiello, P.K.
Dornburg, V., and A.P.C. Faaij (2005). Cost and CO2-emission reduction of bio- Aggarwal, P. Batima, K.M. Brander, L. Erda, S.M. Howden, and A. Kirilenko
mass cascading: methodological aspects and case study of SRF poplar. Climatic (2007). Food, fibre and forest products. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Change, 71(3), pp. 373-408. Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Dornburg, V., and G. Marland (2008). Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L.
does have value for climate change mitigation: a response to the paper by Miko Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.),
Kirschbaum. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(3), pp. Cambridge University Press, pp. 273-313.
211-217.

313
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Eaton, J., N. McGoff, K. Byrne, P. Leahy, and G. Kiely (2008). Land cover change Elobeid, A., and C. Hart (2007). Ethanol expansion in the food versus fuel debate:
and soil organic carbon stocks in the Republic of Ireland 1851–2000. Climatic How will developing countries fare? Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial
Change, 91(3), pp. 317-334. Organization, 5(2), pp. 1-21.
Ecobilan (2002). Energy and Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biofuels’ Production EMBRAPA (2010). Brazilian Sugarcane Agroecological Zoning (in English),
Chains in France. Ecobilan, Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France, 9 pp. Zoneamento Agroecológico da Cana de Açúcar (in Portuguese). Empresa
Econ Poyry (2008). Current Bioenergy Application and Conversion Technologies in Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation,
the Nordic Countries. 2008-052, Nordic Energy Research, Copenhagen, Denmark, EMBRAPA), Brasilia, Brazil, 58 pp.
37 pp. EPA (2010). Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Edenhofer, O., B. Knopf, M. Leimbach, and N. Bauer (2010). The economics of low EPA-420-R-10-006, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA,
stabilization. The Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue 1), pp. 57-90. 1120 pp.
Edgerton, M.D. (2009). Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for feed, EPE (2008). Plano Decenal De Expansao De Energia 2008 – 2017. Ministry of Mines
food, and fuel. Plant Physiology, 149(1), pp. 7-13. and Energy Secretariat of Planning and Energy Development, Brasilia, Brazil, 354
Edwards, R., D. Mulligan, and L. Marelli (2010). Indirect Land Use Change from pp.
Increased Biofuel Demand. Comparison of Models and Results for Marginal EPE (2010). 2010 Balanco Energetico Nacional - Ano Base 2009. CDU
Biofuels Production from Different Feedstocks. EUR 24485 EN-2010, European 620.9:553.04(81), Ministry of Mines and Energy and Energy Planning Enterprise
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Ispra, Italy, 150 pp. (EPE), Brasilia, Brazil, 271 pp.
Edwards, R., J.F. Larivé, V. Mahieu, and P. Rouveirolles (2007). Well-To-Wheels EPRI (2008). Technical Performance Indicators for Biomass Energy. Electric Power
Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Power Trains in the European Context. Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 86 pp.
Version 2c, Joint Research Center, Brussels, Belgium, 88 pp. Ericsson, K., and L.J. Nilsson (2006). Assessment of the potential biomass supply
Edwards, R., J.F. Larivé, V. Mahieu, and P. Rouveirolles (2008). Well-To-Wheels in Europe using a resource-focused approach. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(1),
analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the European context. pp. 1-15.
Version 3, Joint Research Center, Brussels, Belgium, 43 pp. Ericsson, K., H. Rosenqvist, and L.J. Nilsson (2009). Energy crop production costs
EEA (2006). How Much Bioenergy can Europe Produce without Harming the in the EU. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(11), pp. 1577-1586.
Environment? European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark, 72 Erikson, S., and M. Prior (1990). The Briquetting of Agricultural Wastes for Fuel. FAO
pp. paper No. 11, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
EEA (2007). Estimating the Environmentally Compatible Bio-energy Potential from EurObserv’ER (2010). Biofuels barometer/Baromètre Biocarburant Observ’ER.
Agriculture. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark. Systèmes Solaires le journal des énergies renouvelables, Paris, France, pp. 72-96.
Egsgaard, H.U., P. Hansen, J. Arendt, P. Glarborg, and C. Nielsen (2009). European Commission (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament
Combustion and gasification technologies. In: Risø Energy Report 2. Risø, and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from
Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 35-39. renewable sources. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
EIA (2009). 2006 Energy Consumption by Manufacturers – Data Table 7.2. U.S. Energy European Commission (2010). Report from the commission to the council and the
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA. European parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gas-
EIA (2010a). Annual Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0384(2009) updated August 2011, eous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling. SEC(2010) 65, European
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 20 pp.
USA. Evans, L.T. (2003). Agricultural intensification and sustainability. Outlook on
EIA (2010b). Updated Capital Costs for Electricity Generation Plants. U.S. Energy Agriculture, 32(2), pp. 83-89.
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA. Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution,
EISA, 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act, United States Congress, Public 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), pp. 758-762.
Law 110-140. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA. Ezeji, T., N. Quereshi, and H.P. Blaschek (2007a). Butanol production from agri-
Eisenbies, M., E. Vance, W. Aust, and J. Seiler (2009). Intensive utilization of har- cultural residues: impact of degradation products on Clostridium beijerinckii
vest residues in southern pine plantations: Quantities available and implications growth and butanol fermentation. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 97(6), pp.
for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. BioEnergy Research, 2(3), 1460-1467.
pp. 90-98. Ezeji, T.C., N. Qureshi, and H.P. Blaschek (2007b). Bioproduction of butanol from
Elander, R., B. Dale, M. Holtzapple, M. Ladisch, Y. Lee, C. Mitchinson, J. Saddler, biomass: from genes to bioreactors. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 18(3),
and C. Wyman (2009). Summary of findings from the Biomass Refining pp. 220-227.
Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI): corn stover pre- Ezzati, M., A. Lopez, S. Vander Hoorn, A. Rodgers, and C.L.J. Murray (2002).
treatment. Cellulose, 16(4), pp. 649-659. Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborative Group. Selected major risk factors
Elferink, E.V., and S. Nonhebel (2007). Variations in land requirements for meat and global regional burden of disease. The Lancet, 360(9343), pp. 1347-1360.
production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 1778-1786. Ezzati, M., R. Bailis, D.M. Kammen, T. Holloway, L. Price, L.A. Cifuentes, B.
Elliott, D.C. (2008). Catalytic hydrothermal gasification of biomass. Biofuels, Barnes, A. Chaurey, and K.N. Dhanapala (2004). Energy management and
Bioproducts, Biorefining, 2, pp. 254-265. global health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29(1), pp. 383-419.

314
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Faaij, A. (2006). Modern biomass conversion technologies. Mitigation and Adaptation Firbank, L. (2008). Assessing the ecological impacts of bioenergy projects. BioEnergy
Strategies for Global Change, 11(2), pp. 335-367. Research, 1(1), pp. 12-19.
Fagernäs, L., A. Johansson, C. Wilén, K. Sipilä, T. Mäkinen, S. Helynen, E. Fischer, G., and L. Schrattenholzer (2001). Global bioenergy potentials through
Daugherty, H. den Uil, J. Vehlow, T. Kåberger, and M. Rogulska (2006). 2050. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20(3), pp. 151-159.
Bioenergy in Europe: Opportunities and Barriers. VTT Res. Notes 2532, VTT, Espoo, Fischer, G., H. van Velthuizen, M. Shah, and F. Nachtergaele (2002). Global
Finland, 122 pp. Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology
Fallot, A., L. Saint-Andre, G. Le Maire, J.-P. Laclau, Y. Nouvellon, C. Marsden, J.-P. and Results. RR-02-02, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Bouillet, T. Silva, M.-G. Piketty, and O. Hamel (2009). Biomass sustainability, Laxenburg, Austria, 156 pp.
availability and productivity. Revue de Métallurgie Paris, 106(10), pp. 410-418. Fischer, G., F. Nachtergaele, S. Prieler, F. Teixeira, H. van Velthuizen, L. Verelst,
FAO (1985). Industrial charcoal making technologies. In: Industrial Charcoal and D. Wiberg (2008). Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment for Agriculture
Making. FAO Forestry Paper 63, FAO Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture (GAEZ 2008). Version 2, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and
Organization, Rome, Italy. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/X5555E/x5555e02. Food and Agriculture Organization, Laxenburg, Austria and Rome, Italy, 43 pp.
htm#1.1%20what%20are%20industrial%20charcoal%20making%20methods. Fischer, G., E. Hizsnyik, S. Prieler, M. Shah, and H. van Velthuizen (2009).
FAO (2004). The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004 – Agricultural Biofuels and Food Security. The OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID)
Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? 0081-4539, Food and Agriculture and International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, Austria,
Organization, Rome, Italy, 196 pp. 228 pp.
FAO (2005). World Forest Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Fischer, G., S. Prieler, H. van Velthuizen, G. Berndes, A. Faaij, M. Londo, and
Italy, 166 pp. M. de Wit (2010). Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of
FAO (2006). Energy and Gender in Rural Sustainable Development. Food and cultivated land and pastures, Part II: Land use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy,
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 46 pp. 34(2), pp. 173-187.
FAO (2008a). The State of Food and Agriculture 2008 – Biofuels: Prospects, Risks, and Fitzherbert, E.B., M.J. Struebig, A. Morel, F. Danielsen, C.A. Brühl, P.F. Donald,
Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 138 pp. and B. Phalan (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends
FAO (2008b). The role of agricultural biotechnologies for production of bioenergy in Ecology & Evolution, 23(10), pp. 538-545.
in developing countries. In: Background Document to Conference 15 of the FAO Fleming, J.S., S. Habibi, and H.L. MacLean (2006). Investigating the sustainability
Biotechnology Forum, 10 November to 14 December 2008, Food and Agriculture of lignocellulose-derived fuels for light-duty vehicles. Transportation Research
Organization, Rome, Italy. Part D: Transport and Environment, 11(2), pp. 146-159.
FAO (2010a). What Woodfuels can do to Mitigate Climate Change. 0258-6150, Food Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, B. Carol, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin,
and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 98 pp. M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard,
FAO (2010b). Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Biofuels. FAO Forestry Paper 160, C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 102 pp. P.K. Snyder (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), pp.
FAOSTAT (2011). FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available 570-574.
at: faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Folha (2005). Bagaço da cana será usado para fabricação de papel. Folha da Região
FAPRI (2009). FAPRI 2009: U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Food and Agricultural - Araçatuba. São Paulo, Brazil.
Policy Research Institute, Ames, Iowa, 411 pp. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne (2008). Land clearing C.S. Holling (2004). Regime shifts, resilence, and biodiversity in ecosystem
and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), pp. 1235-1238. management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), pp.
Farley, K.A., E.G. Jobbagy, and R.B. Jackson (2005). Effects of afforestation 557-581.
on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Folke, C., F.S. Chapin, and P. Olsson (2009). Transformations in ecosystem steward-
Biology, 11(10), pp. 1565-1576. ship. In: Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource
Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, and D.M. Kammen Management in a Changing World. F.S. Chapin III, G.P. Kofinas, and C. Folke (eds.),
(2006). Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science, Springer Verlag, New York, NY, USA, pp. 103-128.
311(5760), pp. 506-508. Forman, J. (2003). The introduction of American plant species into Europe: issues and
Fearnside, P.M. (2008). The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of consequences. In: Plant Invasions: Ecological Threats and Management Solutions.
Brazilian Amazonia. Ecology and Society, 13(23), pp. 23-55. L. Child, J. H. Brock, G. Brundu, K. Prach, P. Pysek, P. M. Wade, and M. Williamson
Feng, Z., K.J. Stadt, and V.J. Lieffers (2006). Linking juvenile white spruce density, (eds.), Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 17-39.
dispersion, stocking, and mortality to future yield. Canadian Journal of Forest Foust, T.D., A. Aden, A. Dutta, and S. Phillips (2009). Economic and environmental
Research, 36, pp. 3173-3182. comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol con-
Field, C.B., J.E. Campbell, and D.B. Lobell (2008). Biomass energy: the scale of the version process. Cellulose, 16, pp. 547-565.
potential resource. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(2), pp. 65-72. Francis, G., R. Edinger, and K. Becker (2005). A concept for simultaneous waste-
Fingerman, K.R., M.H. Torn, M.S. O’Hare, and D.M. Kammen (2010). Accounting land reclamation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded
for the water impacts of ethanol production. Environmental Research Letters, areas in India: Need, potential and perspectives of Jatropha plantations. Natural
5(1), 014020 (7pp.). Resources Forum, 29(1), pp. 12-24.

315
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Fritsche, U., K. Hennenberg, and K. Hünecke (2010). The “iLUC factor” as a Gan, J. (2007). Supply of biomass, bioenergy, and carbon mitigation: Method and
Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change. Öko application. Energy Policy, 35(12), pp. 6003-6009.
Institute, Darmstadt, Germany, 64 pp. Gan, J., and C. Smith (2010). Integrating biomass and carbon values with soil pro-
Fulton, L., T. Howes, and J. Hardy (2004). Biofuels for Transport - An International ductivity loss in determining forest residue removals. Biofuels, 1(4), pp. 539-546.
Perspective. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and García-Frapolli, E., A. Schilmann, V.M. Berrueta, H. Riojas-Rodríguez, R.D.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 210 pp. Edwards, M. Johnson, A. Guevara-Sanginés, C. Armendariz, and O. Masera
GAIN (2009a). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (China). CH9059, Global Agriculture (2010). Beyond fuelwood savings: Valuing the economic benefits of introduc-
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, ing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico. Ecological
USA, 14 pp. Economics, 69(12), pp. 2598-2605.
GAIN (2009b). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Indonesia). ID9017, Global Agriculture Garg, V.K. (1998). Interaction of tree crops with a sodic soil environment: potential
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, for rehabilitation of degraded environments. Land Degradation & Development,
7 pp. 9(1), pp. 81-93.
GAIN (2009c). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Thailand). TH9047, Global Agriculture Garrison, T. (2008). Essentials of Oceanography. 5th ed., Brooks/Cole Cengage
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Learning, Belmont, CA, USA, 464 pp.
USA, 11 pp. GBEP (2008). A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8+5
GAIN (2010a). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Argentina). Global Agriculture Countries. Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), Food and Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 278 pp.
USA, 15 pp. Gerasimov, Y., and T. Karjalainen (2009). Estimation of supply and delivery cost
GAIN (2010b). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Brazil). BR10006, Global Agriculture of energy wood from Northwest Russia. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Research Institute Number 123, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa,
USA, 52 pp. Finland, 21 pp.
GAIN (2010c). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Canada). CA0023, Global Agriculture Gerbens-Leenes, P., and S. Nonhebel (2002). Consumption patterns and their
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, effects on land required for food. Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), pp. 185-199.
USA, 34 pp. Gerbens-Leenes, W., A.Y. Hoekstra, and T.H. van der Meer (2009). The water
GAIN (2010d). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (India). IN1058, Global Agriculture footprint of bioenergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 106(25), pp. 10219-10223.
USA, 11 pp. Gerber, N. (2008). Bioenergy and Rural Development in Developing Countries: A
GAIN (2010e). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Korea). KS1001, Global Agriculture Review of Existing Studies. Discussion Papers On Development Policy No. 122,
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, Germany, 58 pp.
USA, 6 pp. Gerten, D., W. Lucht, S. Schaphoff, W. Cramer, T. Hickler, and W. Wagner (2005).
GAIN (2010f). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Malaysia). MY0008, Global Agriculture Hydrologic resilience of the terrestrial biosphere. Geophysical Research Letters,
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 32(21), L21408.
USA, 9 pp. Gibbs, H.K., M. Johnston, J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Monfreda, N. Ramankutty,
GAIN (2010g). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Peru). Global Agriculture Information and D. Zaks (2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in
Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 7 pp. the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environmental Research
GAIN (2010h). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Philippines). Global Agriculture Letters, 3(3), 034001 (10 pp.).
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Gielen, D., J. Newman, and M.K. Patel (2008). Reducing industrial energy use
USA, 21 pp. and CO2 emissions: The role of materials science. In: MRS Bulletin Harnessing
GAIN (2010i). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Thailand). TH0098, Global Agriculture Materials for Energy, 33, pp. 471-477.
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Gisladottir, G., and M. Stocking (2005). Land degradation control and its global
USA, 15 pp. environmental benefits. Land Degradation & Development, 16(2), pp. 99-112.
GAIN (2010j). Biofuel’s Impact on Food Crops (Turkey). Global Agriculture Information Glass, R. (2006). Disease control priorities in developing countries. The New England
Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 6 pp. Journal of Medicine, 355(10), pp. 1074-1075.
Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, R. Lal, M. Bernoux, B. Feigl, and C.E.P. Cerri (2010). Net Godfray, H.C.J., C. Toulmin, J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence,
greenhouse gas fluxes in Brazilian ethanol production systems. Global Change J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, and S.M. Thomas (2010). Food security: The
Biology Bioenergy, 2(1), pp. 37-44. challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), pp. 812-818.
Gallagher, E. (2008). The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Goldemberg, J., S.T. Coelho, P.M. Nastari, and L. O (2004). Ethanol learning curve
Production. Renewable Fuels Agency, London, UK, 92 pp. - the Brazilian experience. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26, pp. 301-304.
Gallagher, P., M. Dikeman, J. Fritz, E. Wailes, W. Gauther, and H. Shapouri Gorissen, L., V. Buytaert, D. Cuypers, T. Dauwe, and L. Pelkmans (2010). Why the
(2003). Biomass from Crop Residues: Cost and Supply Estimates. Agricultural debate about land use change should not only focus on biofuels. Environmental
Economic Report No. 819, Economic Research Service, United States Department Science & Technology, 44(11), pp. 4046-4049.
of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 30 pp.

316
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Grann, H. (1997). The industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark. In: The Industrial Headey, D., and S. Fan (2008). Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of
Green Game. Implications for Environmental Design and Management. D.J. surging food prices. Agricultural Economics, 39, pp. 375-391.
Richards (ed.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 117-123. Heggenstaller, A.H., R.P. Anex, M. Liebman, D.N. Sundberg, and L.R. Gibson
Grassi, G., A. Nardi, and S. Vivarelli (2006). Low cost production of bioethanol from (2008). Productivity and nutrient dynamics in bioenergy double-cropping sys-
sweet sorghum. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Biomass Conference, Paris, tems. Agronomy Journal, 100(6), pp. 1740-1748.
France, 17-21 October 2005, pp. 91-95. Heinimö, J., and M. Junginger (2009). Production and trading of biomass for
Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P.W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford (2005). Farming energy – An overview of the global status. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(9), pp.
and the fate of wild nature. Science, 307(5709), pp. 550-555. 1310-1320.
Gronowska, M., S. Joshi, and H.L. MacLean (2009). A review of U.S. and Canadian Helynen, S., M. Flyktman, T. Mäkinen, K. Sipilä, and P. Vesterinen (2002). The
biomass supply studies. BioResources, 4(1), pp. 341-369. possibilities of bioenergy in reducing greenhouse gases. VTT Tiedotteita 2145,
Grove, S. and J. Hanula (eds) (2006). Insect Biodiversity and Dead Wood: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 110 pp.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Entomology. Report SRS–93, Hemakanthi, D.A., and D.N. Heller (2010). Multiclass, multiresidue method for the
United States Department of Agriculture, Asheville, NC, USA, 109 pp. detection of antibiotic residues in distillers grains by liquid chromatography and
Guille, T. (2007). Evaluation of the Potential Uses of Agricultural Residues for Energy ion trap tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1217(18),
Purposes. Master’s Thesis, Montpellier SupAgro, Paris, France. pp. 3076-3084.
Gunderson, P. (2008). Biofuels and North American agriculture - Implications for the Herrero, M., J. van de Steeg, J. Lynam, P.P. Rao, S. Macmillan, B. Gerard, J.
health and safety of North American producers. Journal of Agromedicine, 13(4), McDermott, C. Sere, M. Rosegrant, P.K. Thornton, A.M. Notenbaert, S.
pp. 219-224. Wood, S. Msangi, H.A. Freeman, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, and M. Peters (2010).
Gurbuz, E.I., E.L. Kunkes, and J.A. Dumesic (2010). Dual-bed catalyst system for Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-live-
C–C coupling of biomass-derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to fuel-grade com- stock systems. Science, 327(5967), pp. 822-825.
pounds. Green Chemistry, 12(2), pp. 223-227. Hertel, T.W., A.A. Golub, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, R.J. Plevin, and D.M. Kammen
Gustavsson, L., J. Holmberg, V. Dornburg, R. Sathre, T. Eggers, K. Mahapatra, (2010a). Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas
and G. Marland (2007). Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil emissions: Estimating market mediated responses. BioScience, 60(3), pp.
use reduction. Energy Policy, 35(11), pp. 5671-5691. 223-231.
Haas, M.J., A.J. McAloon, W.C. Yee, and T.A. Foglia (2006). A process model to Hertel, T.W., W.E. Tyner, and D.K. Birur (2010b). Global impacts of biofuels. Energy
estimate biodiesel production costs. Bioresource Technology, 97(4), pp. 671-678. Journal, 31(1), pp. 35-100.
Haberl, H., K.H. Erb, F. Krausmann, V. Gaube, A. Bondeau, C. Plutzar, S. Gingrich, Hettinga, W.G., H.M. Junginger, M. Hoogwijk, A. McAloon, and T. Hickler
W. Lucht, and M. Fischer-Kowalski (2007). Quantifying and mapping the (2007). Technological learning in U.S. ethanol production. In: 15th European
human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Berlin, Germany, 7-11 May 2007.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(31), pp. 12942-12947. Hettinga, W.G., H.M. Junginger, S.C. Dekker, M. Hoogwijk, A.J. McAloon, and
Haberl, H., T. Beringer, S.C. Bhattacharya, K.-H. Erb, and M. Hoogwijk (2010). K.B. Hicks (2009). Understanding the reductions in US corn ethanol production
The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability costs: An experience curve approach. Energy Policy, 37(1), pp. 190-203.
constraints. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(5-6), pp. 394-403. Hiederer, R., F. Ramos, C. Capitani, R. Koeble, V. Blujdea, O. Gomez, D. Mulligan,
Hakala, K., M. Kontturi, and K. Pahkala (2009). Field biomass as global energy and L. Marelli (2010). Biofuels: A New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions
source. Agricultural and Food Science, 18, pp. 347-365. from Global Land Use Change, A methodology involving spatial allocation of
Hamelinck, C.N. (2004). Outlook for Advanced Biofuels. Master’s Thesis, University agricultural land demand and estimation of CO2 and N2O emissions. EUR 24483
of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 232 pp. EN - 2010, Joint Research Center, European Commission, Ispa, Italy, 168 pp.
Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij (2002). Future prospects for production of metha- Hill, J. (2007). Environmental costs and benefits of transportation biofuel produc-
nol and hydrogen from biomass. Journal of Power Sources, 111(1), pp. 1-22. tion from food- and lignocellulose-based energy crops. A review. Agronomy for
Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij (2006). Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Sustainable Development, 27(1), pp. 1-12.
Policy, 34(17), pp. 3268-3283. Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany (2006). Environmental,
Hamelinck, C.N., A.P.C. Faaij, H. den Uil, and H. Boerrigter (2004). Production economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.
of FT transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(30), pp. 11206-11210.
optimisation, and development potential. Energy, 29(11), pp. 1743-1771. Hill, J., S. Polasky, E. Nelson, D. Tilman, H. Huo, L. Ludwig, J. Neumann, H. Zheng,
Hamelinck, C.N., G.v. Hooijdonk, and A.P.C. Faaij (2005a). Ethanol from lignocel- and D. Bonta (2009). Climate change and health costs of air emissions from
lulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term. biofuels and gasoline. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6),
Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(4), pp. 384-410. pp. 2077-2082.
Hamelinck, C.N., R.A.A. Suurs, and A.P.C. Faaij (2005b). International bioenergy Hillier, J., C. Whittaker, G. Dailey, M. Aylott, E. Casella, G.M. Richter, A. Riche,
transport costs and energy balance. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(2), pp. 114-134. R. Murphy, G. Taylor, and P. Smith (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions from
Hartley, M.J. (2002). Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in planta- four bioenergy crops in England and Wales: Integrating spatial estimates of yield
tion forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 155(1-3), pp. 81-95. and soil carbon balance in life cycle analyses. Global Change Biology Bioenergy,
1(4), pp. 267-281.

317
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Hilman, H.J., E. Gidwani, P. Morris, S. Sagar, and S. Chowdhary (2007). Using Huber, G.W., R.D. Cortright, and J.A. Dumesic (2004). Renewable alkanes by
Microfinance to Expand Access to Energy Services: The Emerging Experiences in aqueous-phase reforming of biomass-derived oxygenates. Angewandte Chemie,
Asia of Self-Employed Women’s Association Bank (SEWA), Sarvodaya Economic 116(12), pp. 1575-1577.
Enterprise Development Services (SEEDS), Nirdhan Utthan Bank Limited (NUBL), Huber, G.W., J.N. Chheda, C.J. Barrett, and J.A. Dumesic (2005). Production of
and AMRET. The SEEP Network, Washington, DC, USA, 124 pp. liquid alkanes by aqueous-phase processing of biomass-derived carbohydrates.
Himmel, M.E., Q. Xu, Y. Luo, S.-Y. Ding, R. Lamed, and E.A. Bayer (2010). Microbial Science, 308(5727), pp. 1446-1450.
enzyme systems for biomass conversion: emerging paradigms. Biofuels, 1(2), pp. Huber, G.W., S. Iborra, and A. Corma (2006). Synthesis of transportation fuels from
323-341. biomass: chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chemical Reviews, 106(9), pp.
Hoefnagels, R., E. Smeets, and A. Faaij (2010). Greenhouse gas footprints of dif- 4044-4098.
ferent biofuel production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Huertas, D.A., G. Berndes, M. Holmen, and G. Sparovek (2010). Sustainability cer-
14(7), pp. 1661-1694. tification of bioethanol. How is it perceived by Brazilian stakeholders? Biomass
Hoekstra, A.Y., P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, and T.H. Van der Meer (2010). The water and Bioenergy, 4(4), pp. 369-384.
footprint of bio-energy. In: Climate Change and Water: International Perspectives Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, and V. Putsche (2009). Life-cycle assessment of energy
on Mitigation and Adaptation. C. Howe, J.B. Smith, and J. Henderson (eds.), use and greenhouse gas emissions of soybean-derived biodiesel and renewable
American Water Works Association, IWA Publishing, London, UK, pp. 81-95. fuels. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(3), pp. 750-756.
Hollebone, B.P., and Z. Yang (2009). Biofuels in the environment: A review of IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural
behaviours, fates, effects and possible remediation techniques. In: Proceedings Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Washington, DC, USA, 606
of the 32nd Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar on pp.
Environmental Contamination and Response, Emergencies Science Division, IATA (2009). Report on Alternative Fuels. International Air Transport Association,
Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 127-139. Montreal, Canada, 92 pp.
Holmgren, J., R. Marinangeli, P. Nair, D. Elliott, and R. Bain (2008). Consider Ibsen, K., R. Wallace, S. Jones, and T. Werpy (2005). Evaluating Progressive
upgrading pyrolysis oils into renewable fuels. Hydrocarbon Processing, 87(9), pp. Technology Scenarios in the Development of the Advanced Dry Mill Biorefinery.
95-113. FY05-630, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 35 pp.
Hoogwijk, M. (2004). On the Global and Regional Potential of Renewable Energy IEA (2000). Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy. International Energy
Sources. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 257 pp. Agency, Paris, France, 133 pp.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, R. van den Broek, G. Berndes, D. Gielen, and W. IEA (2006). World Energy Outlook 2006. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
Turkenburg (2003). Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass 601 pp.
for energy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(2), pp. 119-133. IEA (2007a). World Energy Outlook 2007. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, B. Eickhout, B. de Vries, and W. Turkenburg (2005). 600 pp.
Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. IEA (2007b). Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. Energy Technology Essentials
Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(4), pp. 225-257. ETE03, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 4pp.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, B. de Vries, and W. Turkenburg (2009). Exploration of IEA (2008a). Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.
regional and global cost-supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 646 pp.
crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use sce- IEA (2008b). World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
narios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(1), pp. 26-43. 578 pp.
Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. Wösten, and S. Page (2006). PEAT- CO2, Assessment of IEA (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
CO2 Emissions from Drained Peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943, 696 pp.
WL Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands, 41 pp. IEA (2010a). World Energy Statistics 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
Howard, D., and S. Ziller (2008). Alien alert – plants for biofuel may be invasive. France.1
Bioenergy Business, July/August, pp. 14-16. IEA (2010b). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
Howarth, R.W., S. Bringezu, L.A. Martinelli, R. Santoro, D. Messem, and O.E. 736 pp.
Sala (2009). Introduction: biofuels and the environment in the 21st century. IEA (2010c). Renewables Information 2010 with 2009 Data. International Energy
In: Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Agency, Paris, France, 428 pp (ISBN 978-92-64-08416-2).
Use. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds.), Proceedings of the SCOPE - Scientific IEA (2011). Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for Transport. International Energy
Committee on Problems of the Environment International Biofuels Project Rapid Agency, Renewable Energy Division, Paris, France, 52 pp.
Assessment, Gummersbach, Germany, 22-25 September 2009, pp. 15-36. IEA Bioenergy (2007). Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to the World’s Future
Hsu, D.D., D. Inman, G.A. Heath, E.J. Wolfrum, M.K. Mann, and A. Aden (2010). Energy Demand. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo: 2007:02, 12 pp.
Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. ethanol production and use
pathways in 2022. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, pp. 5289-5297. 1 Combination of four IEA publications: IEA energy balances and statistics databases
for most of the OECD countries for the years 1960 to 2008, with supply estimates
Hu, Q., M. Sommerfeld, E. Jarvis, M. Ghirardi, M. Posewitz, M. Seibert, and A. for 2009, and energy statistics and balances for more than 100 non-OECD countries
Darzins (2008). Microalgal triacylglycerols as feedstocks for biofuel production: for the years 1971 to 2008.
perspectives and advances. The Plant Journal, 54, pp. 621-639.

318
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

IEA Bioenergy (2009). Bioenergy: A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source. Main Jacobsen, N.B. (2006). Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark: A quantita-
Report. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo:2009:06, 108 pp. tive assessment of economic and environmental aspects. Journal of Industrial
IEA Bioenergy (2010). Algae – The Future for Bioenergy? Summary and conclusions Ecology, 10(1-2), pp. 239-255.
from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo64 Workshop. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo: 2010:02, 16 pp. Jaggard, K.W., A. Qi, and E.S. Ober (2010). Possible changes to arable crop yields
IEA Renewable Energy Division (2010). Sustainable Production of Second- by 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
Generation Biofuels: Potential and Perspectives in Major Economies and 365(1554), pp. 2835-2851.
Developing Countries. International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 217 pp. Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen, and H. Vasander (2008). Carbon dioxide
IFPRI (2008). High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions. and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological resto-
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 12 pp. ration. Ecology, 89(12), pp. 3503-3514.
Ileleji, K.E., S. Sokhansanj, and J.S. Cundiff (2010). Farm-gate to plant-gate deliv- Jechura, J. (2005). Dry Mill Cost-By-Area: ASPEN Case Summary. National Renewable
ery of lignocellulosic feedstocks from plant biomass for biofuel production. In: Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 2 pp.
Biofuels from Agricultural Wastes and Byproducts. H.P. Blaschek, T. Ezeji, and J. Jeffries, T.W. (2006). Engineering yeasts for xylose metabolism. Current Opinion in
Scheffran (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 117-159. Biotechnology, 17(3), pp. 320-326.
Imhoff, M.L., L. Bounoua, T. Ricketts, C. Loucks, R. Harriss, and W.T. Lawrence Jeffries, T.W., I.V. Grigoriev, J. Grimwood, J.M. Laplaza, A. Aerts, A. Salamov, J.
(2004). Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Schmutz, E. Lindquist, P. Dehal, H. Shapiro, Y.-S. Jin, V. Passoth, and P.M.
Nature, 429(6994), pp. 870-873. Richardson (2007). Genome sequence of the lignocellulose-bioconverting and
IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation: Scientific- xylose-fermenting yeast Pichia stipitis. Nature Biotechnology, 25(3), pp. 319-326.
Technical Analyses. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.), Cambridge Jensen, E.S. (1996). Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition
University Press, 878 pp. for inorganic N in pea-barley intercrops. Plant and Soil, 182(1), pp. 25-38.
IPCC (2000a). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart Jetter, J.J., and P. Kariher (2009). Solid-fuel household cook stoves: Characterization
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp. of performance and emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(2), pp. 294-305.
IPCC (2000b). Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. R.T. Watson, I.R. Noble, Johansson, D., and C. Azar (2007). A scenario based analysis of land competition
B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo and D.J. Dokken (eds.), Cambridge between food and bioenergy production in the US. Climatic Change, 82(3), pp.
University Press, 375 pp. 267-291.
IPCC (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. B. Metz, O. Johnson, J.M.F., D. Reicosky, B. Sharratt, M. Lindstrom, W. Voorhees, and L.
Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Carpenter-Boggs (2004). Characterization of soil amended with the by-product
Press, 431 pp. of corn stover fermentation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(1), pp.
IPCC (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 139-147.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Johnson, M., R. Edwards, A. Ghilardi, V. Berrueta, D. Gillen, C.A. Frenk, and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. O. Masera (2009). Quantification of carbon savings from improved biomass
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.),Cambridge University Press, cookstove projects. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(7), pp. 2456-2462.
979 pp. Johnson, T.M., C. Alatorre, Z. Romo, and F. Liu (2009). Low-Carbon Development
IPCC (2007b). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Working for Mexico. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The
Groups I, II and II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger Johnston, M., and T. Holloway (2007). A global comparison of national bio-
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 104 pp. diesel production potentials. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(23), pp.
IPCC (2007c). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 7967-7973.
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel Johnston, M., J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Kucharik, and C. Monfreda (2009).
on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Resetting global expectations from agricultural biofuels. Environmental Research
Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 996 pp. Letters, 4(1), 014004.
IPCC (2007d). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corré, P.S. Bindraban, and W.A. Brandenburg (2007).
of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Claims and Facts on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas Evaluation,
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Breeding And Propagation Programme. Report 158, Plant Research International
Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 851 pp. BV, Wageningen, The Netherlands and Stichting Het Groene Woudt, Laren, The
IUCN (2009). Guidelines on Biofuels and Invasive Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, Netherlands, 66 pp.
20 pp. (ISBN: 978-2-8317-1222-2). Junginger, M. (2007). Lessons from (European) Bioenergy Policies; Results of
Ivanic, M., and W. Martin (2008). Implications of higher global food prices for pov- a Literature Review for IEA Bioenergy Task 40. Utrecht University, Utrecht,
erty in low-income countries. Agricultural Economics, 39, pp. 405-416. Netherlands, 14 pp. Available at: www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/jungin-
Jackson, R.B., B.C. Murray, E.G. Jobbagy, R. Avissar, S.B. Roy, D.J. Barrett, C.W. gerlessonsfromeuropeanbioenergypolicies.pdf.
Cook, K.A. Farley, D.C. le Maitre, and B.A. McCarl (2005). Trading water for Junginger, M., A. Faaij, R. van den Broek, A. Koopmans, and W. Hulscher (2001).
carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science, 310(5756), pp. 1944-1947. Fuel supply strategies for large-scale bio-energy projects in developing coun-
tries. Electricity generation from agricultural and forest residues in Northeastern
Thailand. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21(4), pp. 259-275.

319
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Junginger, M., A. Faaij, R. Björheden, and W.C. Turkenburg (2005). Technological Keeney, D., and T.W. Hertel (2008). Yield Response to Prices: Implications for Policy
learning and cost reductions in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden. Biomass and Modeling. Working paper 08/13, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue
Bioenergy, 29(6), pp. 399-418. University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 37 pp.
Junginger, M., E. de Visser, K. Hjort-Gregersen, J. Koornneef, R. Raven, A. Faaij, Keeney, D., and T.W. Hertel (2009). The indirect land use impacts of United States
and W. Turkenburg (2006). Technological learning in bioenergy systems. Energy biofuel policies: The importance of acreage, yield, and bilateral trade responses.
Policy, 34(18), pp. 4024-4041. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, pp. 895-909.
Junginger, M., T. Bolkesjø, D. Bradley, P. Dolzan, A. Faaij, J. Heinimö, B. Hektor, Keeney, D., and M. Muller (2006). Water Use by Ethanol Plants: Potential Challenges.
Ø. Leistad, E. Ling, M. Perry, E. Piacente, F. Rosillo-Calle, Y. Ryckmans, P.-P. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 7 pp.
Schouwenberg, B. Solberg, E. Trømborg, A.d.S. Walter, and M.d. Wit (2008). Keeney, R., and T. Hertel (2005). GTAP-AGR : A Framework for Assessing the
Developments in international bioenergy trade. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(8), Implications of Multilateral Changes in Agricultural Policies. GTAP Technical Paper
pp. 717-729. No.24, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, J. van Dam, S. Zarrilli, A. Mohammed, and D. Marchal Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 61 pp.
(2010). Opportunities and Barriers for International Bioenergy Trade and Kendall, A., B. Chang, and B. Sharpe (2009). Accounting for time-dependent
Strategies to Overcome Them. IEA Bioenergy Task 40, 17 pp. Available at: www. effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environmental
bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40opportunitiesandbarriersforbioenergytradefi. Science & Technology, 43(18), pp. 7142-7147.
pdf. Keys, E., and W. McConnell (2005). Global change and the intensification of agri-
Jungk, N., and G. Reinhardt (2000). Landwirtschaftliche Referenzsysteme in culture in the tropics. Global Environmental Change, 15(4), pp. 320-337.
Ökologischen Bilanzierungen: eine Basis Analyse. Institute für Energie- und Kheshgi, H.S., R.C. Prince, and G. Marland (2000). The potential of biomass fuels
Umweltforschung, Heidelberg, Germany. in the context of global climate change: Focus on transportation fuels. Annual
Kaliyan, N., R.V. Morey, and D.G. Tiffany (2010). Reducing life cycle greenhouse Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), pp. 199-244.
gas emissions of corn ethanol by integrating biomass to produce heat and power Kim, H., S. Kim, and B.E. Dale (2009). Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse
at ethanol plants. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(3), pp. 1103-1113. gas emissions: Some unexplored variables. Environmental Science & Technology,
Kalnes, T.N., K.P. Koers, T. Marker, and D.R. Shonnard (2009). A technoeconomic 43(3), pp. 961-967.
and environmental life cycle comparison of green diesel to biodiesel and syndie- Kim, S., and B. Dale (2002). Allocation procedure in ethanol production system
sel. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28(1), pp. 111-120. from corn grain i. system expansion. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Kamm, B., P.R. Gruber, and M. Kamm (eds.) (2006). Biorefineries - Industrial Assessment, 7(4), pp. 237-243.
Processes and Products: Status Quo and Future Directions. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Kim, S., and B.E. Dale (2004). Global potential bioethanol production from wasted
UK, 949 pp. crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(4), pp. 361-375.
Kang, S., M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, D. Zilberman, H. Önal, Y. Ouyang, and Ü.D. Kinchin, C. and R.L. Bain (2009). Hydrogen Production from Biomass via Indirect
Tursun (2010). Optimizing the biofuels infrastructure: Transportation networks Gasification: The Impact of NREL Process Development Unit Gasifier Correlations.
and biorefinery locations in Illinois. In: Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and NREL Report No. TP-510-44868. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
Policy. M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman (eds.), Springer New York, New CO, USA, 27 pp.
York, NY, USA, pp. 151-173. King, C.W., and M.E. Webber (2008). Water intensity of transportation.
Karekezi , S., and L. Majoro (2002). Improving modern energy services for Africa’s Environmental Science & Technology, 42(21), pp. 7866-7872.
urban poor. Energy Policy, 30(11-12), pp. 1015-1028. King, D., O.R. Inderwildi, and A. Williams (2010). The Future of Industrial
Karekezi, S., and P. Turyareeba (1995). Woodstove dissemination in Eastern Africa Biorefineries. 210610, World Economic Forum White Paper, Cologn/Geneva,
- a review. Energy for Sustainable Development, 1(6), pp. 12-19. Switzerland, 40 pp.
Karlen, D.L. (2010). Corn stover feedstock trials to support predictive modeling. Kirkels, A., and G. Verbong (2011). Biomass gasification: Still promising? A 30-year
Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2(5), pp. 235-247. global overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), pp. 471-481.
Karp, A., and I. Shield (2008). Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield chal- Kirkinen, J., A. Sahay, and I. Savolainen (2009). Greenhouse impact of fossil, for-
lenge. New Phytologist, 179(1), pp. 15-32. est residues and Jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment. Progress in
Kartha, S., P. Hazel, and R.K. Pachauri (2006). Environmental effects of bioenergy. Industrial Ecology, An International Journal, 6, pp. 185-206.
In: Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges. P.B.R. Hazell and R.K. Kirschbaum, M.U.F. (2003). To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contribu-
Pachauri (eds.), International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., tions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing
USA, 2 pp. biofuels. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(4-5), pp. 297-310.
Kazi, F.K., J.A. Fortman, R.P. Anex, D.D. Hsu, A. Aden, A. Dutta, and G. Kirschbaum, M.U.F. (2006). Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent cli-
Kothandaraman (2010). Techno-economic comparison of process technologies mate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(5),
for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover. Fuel, 89(Supplement 1), pp. 1151-1164.
pp. S20-S28. Kishore, V.V.N., P.M. Bhandari, and P. Gupta (2004). Biomass energy technologies
Keasling, J.D., and H. Chou (2008). Metabolic engineering delivers next-generation for rural infrastructure and village power – opportunities and challenges in the
biofuels. Nature Biotechnology, 26(3), pp. 298-299. context of global climate change concerns. Energy Policy, 32(6), pp. 801-810.

320
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Kituyi, E. (2004). Towards sustainable production and use of charcoal in Kenya: Kumar, L.N.V., and S. Maithel (2007). Alternative feedstock for Bio-ethanol pro-
exploring the potential in life cycle management approach. Journal of Cleaner duction in India. In: Biofuels: Towards a Greener and Secure Energy Future. P.P.
Production, 12(8-10), pp. 1047-1057. Bhojvaid (ed.), The Energy Resources Institute Press (TERI Press), New Delhi,
Kline, K.L., and V.H. Dale (2008). Biofuels: Effects on land and fire. Science, India, pp. 89-104.
321(5886), pp. 199-201. Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, and G. Rampley (2008a). Could increased boreal for-
Kline, K.L., G. Oladosu, A. Wolfe, R.D. Perlack, and M. McMahon (2007). Biofuel est ecosystem productivity offset carbon losses from increased disturbances?
Feedstock Assessment for Selected Countries. ORNL/TM-2007/224, Oak Ridge Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1501),
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 243 pp. pp. 2259-2268.
Knothe, G. (2010). Biodiesel and renewable diesel: a comparison. Progress in Energy Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll,
and Combustion Science, 36(3), pp. 364-373. T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik (2008b). Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon
Knowler, D.J. (2004). The economics of soil productivity: local, national and global feedback to climate change. Nature, 452(7190), pp. 987-990.
perspectives. Land Degradation & Development, 15(6), pp. 543-561. Kuuva, K., and L. Ruska (2009). Final Report of Feed-in Tariff Task Force. 59/2009,
Koh, L.P., and J. Ghazoul (2008). Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding Ministry of Employment and the Economy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland, 101 pp.
the conflicts and finding opportunities. Biological Conservation, 141(10), pp. Laird, D.A. (2008). The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously
2450-2460. producing bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and
Köhlin, G., and M. Ostwald (2001). Impact of plantations on forest use and forest water quality. Agronomy Journal, 100(1), pp. 178-181.
status in Orissa, India. AMBIO, 30(1), pp. 37-42. Laird, D.A., R.C. Brown, J.E. Amonette, and J. Lehmann (2009). Review of the
Koizumi, T., and K. Ohga (2008). Biofuels policies in Asian countries: Impact of pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
the expanded biofuels programs on world agricultural markets. Journal of Biorefining, 3(5), pp. 547-562.
Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 5(2), Article 8, 22 pp. Lal, R. (2003). Offsetting global CO2 emissions by restoration of degraded soils
Koning, N. (2008). Long-term global availability of food: continued abundance or and intensification of world agriculture and forestry. Land Degradation &
new scarcity? NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(3), pp. 229-292. Development, 14(3), pp. 309-322.
Körner, C., J.A. Morgan, and R.J. Norby (2007). CO2 fertilization: When, where Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food
and how much? In: Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. Springer, Berlin, security. Science, 304(5677), pp. 1623-1627.
Germany, pp. 9-22. Lal, R. (2005). World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel.
Koukouzas, N., A. Katsiadakis, E. Karlopoulos, and E. Kakaras (2008). Environment International, 31(4), pp. 575-584.
Co-gasification of solid waste and lignite - A case study for Western Macedonia. Lal, R. (2008). Crop residues as soil amendments and feedstock for bioethanol pro-
Waste Management, 28(7), pp. 1263-1275. duction. Waste Management, 28(4), pp. 747-758.
Krausmann, F., K.-H. Erb, S. Gingrich, C. Lauk, and H. Haberl (2008). Global Lal, R., and D. Pimentel (2007). Bio-fuels from crop residues. Soil & Tillage Research,
patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive 93(2), pp. 237-238.
assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecological Economics, 65(3), Lamers , P., C. Hamelinck, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2011). International
pp. 471-487. Bioenergy, Trade - A Review of Past Developments in the Liquid Biofuels Market.
Kreutz, T.G., E.D. Larson, G. Liu, and R.H. Williams (2008). Fischer-Tropsch fuels Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), pp. 2655-2676.
from coal and biomass. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Pittsburgh Coal Lapola, D.M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J. Koch, C. Koelking, and
Conference. Princeton Environmental Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 29 September – 2 J.A. Priess (2010). Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from
October 2008. biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(8), pp.
Krewitt, W., K. Nienhaus, C. Kleßmann, C. Capone, E. Stricker, W. Graus, M. 3388-3393.
Hoogwijk, N. Supersberger, U. von Winterfeld, and S. Samadi (2009). Role Larson, E. (2006). A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems
and Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency for Global Energy for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development, 10(2), pp. 109-126.
Supply. ISSN 1862-4359, Federal Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, Larson, E.D., G. Fiorese, G. Liu, R.H. Williams, T.G. Kreutz, and S. Consonni
336 pp. (2009). Co-production of synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with zero
Krey, V., and L. Clarke (2011). Role of renewable energy in climate change mitiga- net carbon emissions: An Illinois case study. Energy Procedia, 1(1), pp. 4371-4378.
tion: A synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in press. Larson, E.D., G. Fiorese, G. Liu, R.H. Williams, T.G. Kreutz, and S. Consonni (2010).
Krich, K., D. Augenstein, J.P. Batmale, J. Benemann, B. Rutledge, and D. Salour Co-production of decarbonized synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with
(2005). Biomethane from Dairy: A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of CO2 capture and storage: an Illinois case study. Energy & Environmental Science,
Renewable Natural Gas in California. Report prepared for Western United 3(1), pp. 28-42.
Dairymen with funding from USDA Rural Development, Washington, DC, USA, Laser, M., E. Larson, B. Dale, M. Wang, N. Greene, and L.R. Lynd (2009).
282 pp. Available at: www.suscon.org/cowpower/biomethaneSourcebook/Full_ Comparative analysis of efficiency, environmental impact, and process econom-
Report.pdf. ics for mature biomass refining scenarios. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining,
Kumar, B.M. (2006). Agroforestry: the new old paradigm for Asian food security. 3(2), pp. 247-270.
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 44(1-2), pp. 1-14.

321
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Lattimore, B., C.T. Smith, B.D. Titus, I. Stupak, and G. Egnell (2009). Environmental Lioubimtseva, E., and J.M. Adams (2004). Possible implications of increased car-
factors in woodfuel production: Opportunities, risks, and criteria and indicators bon dioxide levels and climate change for desert ecosystems. Environmental
for sustainable practices. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(10), pp. 1321-1342. Management, 33(Supplement 1), pp. S388-S404.
Laurance, W.F. (2007). Switch to corn promotes Amazon deforestation. Science, Liska, A.J., and R.K. Perrin (2010). Securing foreign oil: A case for including military
318(5857), pp. 1721-1724. operations in the climate change impact of fuels. Environment: Science and Policy
Lawrence, C.J., and V. Walbot (2007). Translational genomics for bioenergy produc- for Sustainable Development, 52(4), pp. 9-12.
tion from fuelstock grasses: Maize as the model species. Plant Cell, 19(7), pp. Lobell, D.B., and M.B. Burke (2008). Why are agricultural impacts of climate
2091-2094. change so uncertain? The importance of temperature relative to precipitation.
Lee, D.R., C.B. Barrett, and J.G. McPeak (2006). Policy, technology, and manage- Environmental Research Letters, 3(3), 034007.
ment strategies for achieving sustainable agricultural intensification. Agricultural Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M.D. Mastrandrea, W.P. Falcon, and R.L.
Economics, 34(2), pp. 123-127. Naylor (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in
Lee, J. (1997). Biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol. Journal of 2030. Science, 319(5863), pp. 607-610.
Biotechnology, 56(1), pp. 1-24. Londo, M., A. Faaij, M. Junginger, G. Berndes, S. Lensink, A. Wakker, G. Fischer,
Lee, S.K., H. Chou, T.S. Ham, T.S. Lee, and J.D. Keasling (2008). Metabolic engi- S. Prieler, H. van Velthuizen, and M. de Wit (2010). The REFUEL EU road map
neering of microorganisms for biofuels production: from bugs to synthetic for biofuels in transport: Application of the project’s tools to some short-term
biology to fuels. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 19(6), pp. 556-563. policy issues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(2), pp. 244-250.
Leemans, R., A. van Amstel, C. Battjes, E. Kreileman, and S. Toet, (1996). The López, R., and G.I. Galinato (2007). Should governments stop subsidies to private
land cover and carbon cycle consequences of large-scale utilizations of biomass goods? Evidence from rural Latin America. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6),
as an energy source. Global Environmental Change, 6(4), pp. 335-357. pp. 1071-1094.
Legros, G., I. Havet, N. Bruce, and S. Bonjour (2009). The Energy Access Situation Lotze-Campen, H., A. Popp, T. Beringer, C. Müller, A. Bondeau, S. Rost, and W.
in Developing Countries: A Review Focusing on the Least Developed Countries Lucht (2009). Scenarios of global bioenergy production: The trade-offs between
and Sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations Development Programme and the World agricultural expansion, intensification and trade. Ecological Modelling, 221(18),
Health Organization, New York, NY, USA, 142 pp. pp. 2188-2196.
Lehtomäki, A., S. Huttunen, and J.A. Rintala (2007). Laboratory investigations Loustau, D., A. Bosc, A. Colin, J. Ogee, H. Davi, C. Francois, E. Dufrene, M. Deque,
on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for meth- E. Cloppet, D. Arrouays, C. Le Bas, N. Saby, G. Pignard, N. Hamza, A. Granier,
ane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Resources, Conservation and N. Breda, P. Ciais, N. Viovy, and F. Delage (2005). Modeling climate change
Recycling, 51(3), pp. 591-609. effects on the potential production of French plains forests at the sub-regional
Leng, R., C. Wang, C. Zhang, D. Dai, and G. Pu (2008). Life cycle inventory and level. Tree Physiology, 25(7), pp. 813-823.
energy analysis of cassava-based fuel ethanol in China. Journal of Cleaner Low, T., and C. Booth (2007). The Weedy Truth about Biofuels. Invasive Species
Production, 16(3), pp. 374-384. Council, Melbourne, Fairfield, Australia, 46 pp.
Levasseur, A., P. Lesage, M. Margni, L. Deschênes, and R. Samson (2010). Luyssaert, S., E.D. Schulze, A. Börner, A. Knohl, D. Hessenmöller, B.E. Law, P.
Considering time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and its application to global warming Ciais, and J. Grace (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature,
impact assessments. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(8), pp. 3169-3174. 455(7210), pp. 213-215.
Lewis, S.L., G. Lopez-Gonzalez, B. Sonke, K. Affum-Baffoe, T.R. Baker, L.O. Lywood, W. (2008). Indirect Effects of Biofuels. Renewable Fuels Agency, East
Ojo, O.L. Phillips, J.M. Reitsma, L. White, J.A. Comiskey, M.-N.D. K, C.E.N. Sussex, UK.
Ewango, T.R. Feldpausch, A.C. Hamilton, M. Gloor, T. Hart, A. Hladik, J. Lywood, W., J. Pinkney, and S.A.M. Cockerill (2009a). Impact of protein con-
Lloyd, J.C. Lovett, J.-R. Makana, Y. Malhi, F.M. Mbago, H.J. Ndangalasi, J. centrate coproducts on net land requirement for European biofuel production.
Peacock, K.S.H. Peh, D. Sheil, T. Sunderland, M.D. Swaine, J. Taplin, D. Taylor, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 1(5), pp. 346-359.
S.C. Thomas, R. Votere, and H. Woll (2009). Increasing carbon storage in intact Lywood, W., J. Pinkney, and S.A.M. Cockerill (2009b). The relative contributions of
African tropical forests. Nature, 457(7232), pp. 1003-1006. changes in yield and land area to increasing crop output. Global Change Biology
Li, W., R. Fu, and R.E. Dickinson (2006). Rainfall and its seasonality over the Bioenergy, 1(5), pp. 360-369.
Amazon in the 21st century as assessed by the coupled models for the IPCC AR4. Macedo, I.C., and J.E.A. Seabra (2008). Mitigation of GHG emissions using sug-
Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(D2), D02111. arcane bioethanol. In: Sugarcane Ethanol: Contributions to Climate Change
Liebig, M., M. Schmer, K. Vogel, and R. Mitchell (2008). Soil carbon storage by Mitigation and the Environment. P. Zuubier and J. van de Vooren (eds.),
switchgrass grown for bioenergy. BioEnergy Research, 1(3), pp. 215-222. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 95-112.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and H.A. Nix (1993). Ecological principles for the design of Macedo, I.C., J.E.A. Seabra, and J.E.A.R. Silva (2008). Green house gases emissions
wildlife corridors. Conservation Biology, 7(3), pp. 627-631. in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006
Lindner, M., M. Maroschek, S. Netherer, A. Kremer, A. Barbati, J. Garcia- averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(7), pp. 582-595.
Gonzalo, R. Seidl, S. Delzon, P. Corona, M. Kolström, M.J. Lexer, and M. Madsen, A.M. (2006). Exposure to airborne microbial components in autumn and
Marchetti (2010). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability spring during work at Danish biofuel plants. Annals of Occupational Hygiene,
of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), pp. 50(8), pp. 821-831.
698-709.

322
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Madsen, A.M., L. Martensson, T. Schneider, and L. Larsson (2004). Microbial Mayfield, C.A., C.D. Foster, C.T. Smith, J. Gan, and S. Fox (2007). Opportunities,
dustiness and particle release of different biofuels. Annals of Occupational barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development
Hygiene, 48(4), pp. 327-338. in the Southern United States. Biomass & Bioenergy, 31, pp. 631-637.
Maes, W., W. Achten, and B. Muys (2009). Use of inadequate data and methodolog- McAloon, A., F. Taylor, W. Lee, K. Ibsen, and R. Wooley (2000). Determining the
ical errors lead to a dramatic overestimation of the water footprint of Jatropha Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks.
curcas. Nature Precedings, hdl:10101/npre.2009.3410.1, 3 pp. NREL/TP-580-28893, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
Malézieux, E., Y. Crozat, C. Dupraz, M. Laurans, D. Makowski, H. Ozier- 43 pp.
Lafontaine, B. Rapidel, S. de Tourdonnet, and M. Valantin-Morison (2009). McCoy, M. (2006). Glycerin surplus. Chemical & Engineering News, 83(4), pp. 21-22.
Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. McDonald, A., and L. Schrattenholzer (2001). Learning rates for energy technolo-
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(1), pp. 43-62. gies. Energy Policy, 29(4), pp. 255-261.
Malmer, A., D. Murdiyarso, L.A.S. Bruijnzeel, and U. Lstedt (2010). Carbon McGowin, C. (2008). Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide. TAG-RE:2007,
sequestration in tropical forests and water: a critical look at the basis for com- Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
monly used generalizations. Global Change Biology, 16(2), pp. 599-604. McKeough, P., and E. Kurkela (2008). Process Evaluations and Design Studies in
Markewitz, D. (2006). Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: Impacts on net the UCG Project 2004-2007. VTT Research Notes 2434, VTT Technical Research
carbon sequestration in forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 236(2-3), pp. Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 49 pp.
153-161. McKeough, P., Y. Solantausta, H. Kyllönen, A. Faaij, C. Hamelinck, M. Wagener,
Marlair, G., P. Rotureau, S. Breulet, and S. Brohez (2009). Booming development D. Beckman and B. Kjellström (2005). Technoeconomic Analysis of Biotrade
of biofuels for transport: Is fire safety of concern? Fire and Materials, 33(1), pp. Chains: Upgraded Biofuels from Russia and Canada to the Netherlands. VTT
1-19. Research Notes 2312, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland,
Marland, G., and B. Schlamadinger (1997). Forests for carbon sequestration or 65 pp.
fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 13(6), pp. McLeod, J.E., J.E. Nunez, and S.S. Rivera (2008). A discussion about how to model
389-397. biofuel plants for the risk optimization. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on
Marland, G., M. Obersteiner, and B. Schlamadinger (2007). The carbon benefits Engineering 2008, Vol. II, London, UK, 2-4 July 2008, pp. 1214-1219.
of fuels and forests. Science, 318(5853), pp. 1066. McWhorter, C. (1971). Introduction and spread of johnsongrass in the United States.
Martens, W., and R. Böhm (2009). Overview of the ability of different treatment Weed Science, 19(5), pp. 496-500.
methods for liquid and solid manure to inactivate pathogens. Bioresource Melillo, J.M., J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Paltsev,
Technology, 100(22), pp. 5374-5378. B.S. Felzer, X. Wang, A.P. Sokolov, and C.A. Schlosser (2009). Indirect emis-
Martinelli, L.A., and S. Filoso (2007). Polluting effects of Brazil’s sugar-ethanol sions from biofuels: How important? Science, 326(5958), pp. 1397-1399.
industry. Nature, 445(7126), pp. 364-364. Menichetti, E., and M. Otto (2009). Energy balance and greenhouse gas emis-
Masera, O.R., and J. Navia (1997). Fuel switching or multiple cooking fuels: sions of biofuels from a product life-cycle perspective. In: Biofuels: Environmental
Understanding interfuel substitution patterns in rural Mexican households. Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. R.W. Howarth and S.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(5), pp. 347-361. Bringezu (eds.), Proceedings of the SCOPE - Scientific Committee on Problems of
Masera, O.R., B.D. Saatkamp, and D.M. Kammen (2000). From linear fuel switch- the Environment International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, Gummersbach,
ing to multiple cooking strategies: A critique and alternative to the energy ladder Germany, 22-25 September 2009, pp. 81-109.
model. World Development, 28(12), pp. 2083-2103. Metzger, J.O., and A. Hüttermann (2009). Sustainable global energy sup-
Masera, O.R., R. Diaz, and V. Berrueta (2005). From cookstoves to cooking sys- ply based on lignocellulosic biomass from afforestation of degraded areas.
tems: the integrated program on sustainable household energy use in Mexico. Naturwissenschaften, 96(2), pp. 279-288.
Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(1), pp. 25-36. Milbrandt, A., and R.P. Overend (2008). Future of Liquid Biofuels for APEC
Masera, O., A. Ghilardi, R. Drigo, and M. Angel Trossero (2006). WISDOM: A GIS- Economies. NREL/TP-6A2-43709, report prepared for Asia-Pacific Economic
based supply demand mapping tool for woodfuel management. Biomass and Cooperation by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
Bioenergy, 30(7), pp. 618-637. 103 pp. Available at: www.biofuels.apec.org/pdfs/ewg_2008_liquid_biofuels.
Matsuoka, S., J. Ferro, and P. Arruda (2009). The Brazilian experience of sugarcane pdf.
ethanol industry. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 45(3), pp. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being.
372-381. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 36 pp.
Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira (2008). Stabilizing climate requires near-zero Mishra, V., X. Dai, K. Smith, and L. Mike (2004). Maternal exposure to biomass
emissions. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(4), L04705. smoke and reduced birth weight in Zimbabwe. Annals of Epidemiology, 14(10),
Matthews, H.D., N.P. Gillett, P.A. Stott, and K. Zickfeld (2009). The proportional- pp. 740-747.
ity of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459(7248), pp. Mitchell, D. (2008). A Note on Rising Food Prices. Policy Research Working Paper
829-832. 4682, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 22 pp.
Maués, J.A. (2007). Maximizacao da geracao eletrica a partir do bagaco e palha em Molden, D. (ed.) (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment
usinas de acucar e alcool. Revista Engenharia, 583, pp. 88-98. of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK.

323
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Molina Grima, E., E.H. Belarbi, F.G. Acien Fernandez, A. Robles Medina, and Y. Nagatomi, Y., Y. Hiromi, Y. Kenji, I. Hiroshi, and Y. Koichi (2008). A system anal-
Chisti (2003). Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options ysis of energy utilization and competing technology using oil palm residue in
and economics. Biotechnology Advances, 20(7-8), pp. 491-515. Malaysia. Journal of Japan Society of Energy and Resources, 29(5), pp. 1-7.
Möllersten, K., J. Yan, and J. R. Moreira (2003). Potential market niches for bio- Narayanan, D., Y. Zhang, and M.S. Mannan (2007). Engineering for Sustainable
mass energy with CO2 capture and storage – Opportunities for energy supply Development (ESD) in bio-diesel production. Process Safety and Environmental
with negative CO2 emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(3), pp. 273-285. Protection, 85(5), pp. 349-359.
Molofsky, J., S.L. Morrison, and C.J. Goodnight (1999). Genetic and environmen- Näslund-Eriksson, L., and L. Gustavsson (2008). Biofuels from stumps and small
tal controls on the establishment of the invasive grass, Phalaris arundinacea. roundwood – Costs and CO2 benefits. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(10), pp.
Biological Invasions, 1(2), pp. 181-188. 897-902.
Moral, R., C. Paredes, M.A. Bustamante, F. Marhuenda-Egea, and M.P. Bernal Nassar, A., L. Harfurch, M.M.R. Moreira, L.C. Bachion, L.B. Antoniazzi, and G.
(2009). Utilisation of manure composts by high-value crops: Safety and environ- Sparovek (2009). Impacts on Land Use and GHG Emissions from a Shock on
mental challenges. Bioresource Technology, 100(22), pp. 5454-5460. Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Exports to the United States using the Brazilian
Moreira, J.R. (2006). Bioenergy and Agriculture, Promises and Challenges: Brazil’s Land Use Model (BLUM). EPA HQ OAR 2005 0161, Institute for International
Experience with Bioenergy. International Food Policy Research Institute, Negotiations, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
Washington, DC, USA, 2 pp. Nassar, A., L.B. Antoniazzi, M.R. Moreira, L. Chiodi, and L. Harfurch (2010). An
Mosier, A., C. Kroeze, C. Nevison, O. Oenema, S. Seitzinger, and O. van Cleemput Allocation Methodology to Assess GHG Emissions Associated with Land Use
(1998). Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the Change. Institute for International Negotiations, Geneva, Switzerland, 31 pp.
agricultural nitrogen cycle. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52(2-3), pp. NRC (2008). Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. National
1385-1314. Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 88 pp.
Mosier, N., C. Wyman, B. Dale, R. Elander, Y.Y. Lee, M. Holtzapple, and M. NRC (2009a). Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass Technological
Ladisch (2005). Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of ligno- Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts. National Research Council, National
cellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 96(6), pp. 673-686. Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 50 pp.
Mozaffarian, H., R.W.R. Zwart, H. Boerrigeter, and E.P. Deurwaarder (2004). NRC (2009b). America’s Energy Future: Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status,
Biomass and waste-related SNG production technologies; technical, economic Prospects, and Impediments. National Research Council, The National Academies
and ecological feasibility. In: 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition Press, Washington, DC, 367 pp.
on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Rome, Italy, 10-14 May NRC (2010). Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the
2004. Available at: www.biosng.com/fileadmin/biosng/user/documents/reports/ United States, 2010. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level
rx04024.pdf. Economics and Sustainability; National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA,
Mukunda, H.S., S. Dasappa, P.J. Paul, N.K.S. Rajan, M. Yagnaraman, D.R. Kumar, 35 pp.
and M. Deogaonkar (2010). Gasifier stoves - science, technology and field Nehlsen, J., M. Mukherjee, and R.V. Porcelli (2007). Apply an integrated approach
outreach. Current Science (Bangalore), 98(5), pp. 627-638. to catalytic process design. Chemical Engineering Progress, 103(2), pp. 31-41.
Müller, C. (2007). Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Solid Waste in Low- and Nelson, D.E., P.P. Repetti, T.R. Adams, R.A. Creelman, J. Wu, D.C. Warner, D.C.
Middle-Income Countries - Overview Over Existing Technologies and Relevant Anstrom, R.J. Bensen, P.P. Castiglioni, M.G. Donnarummo, B.S. Hinchey,
Case Studies. Eawag Aquatic Research, Dübendorf, Switzerland, 63 pp. R.W. Kumimoto, D.R. Maszle, R.D. Canales, K.A. Krolikowski, S.B. Dotson,
Myles, R. (2001). Implementation of Household Biogas Plant by NGOs in India- N. Gutterson, O.J. Ratcliffe, and J.E. Heard (2007). Plant nuclear factor Y
Practical Experience in Implementation Household Biogas Technology, Lessons (NF-Y) B subunits confer drought tolerance and lead to improved corn yields on
Learned, Key Issues and Future Approach for Sustainable Village Development. water-limited acres. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42),
In: VODO International Conference on Globalisation and Sustainable pp. 16450-16455.
Development, Antwerp, Brussels, 19-21 Nov 2001, 19 pp. Available at: www. NETL (2008). Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse
inseda.org/Additional%20material/Lessons%20learnt%20NGOs%20Biogas%20 Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels. DOE/NETL-2009/1362, National Energy
programme.pdf. Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Nabuurs, G.-J., A. Pussinen, T. Karjalainen, M. Erhard, and K. Kramer (2002). NETL (2009a). An Evaluation of the Extraction, Transport and Refining of Imported
Stemwood volume increment changes in European forests due to climate Crude Oils and the Impact on Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DOE/NETL-
change—a simulation study with the EFISCEN model. Global Change Biology, 2009/1362, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
8(4), pp. 304-316. NETL (2009b). Affordable, Low Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and Biomass.
Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, DOE/NETL-2009/1349, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA,
E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, USA.
W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.Z. Sanz Neumann, K., P.H. Verburg, E. Stehfest, and C. Müller (2010). The yield gap of
Sanchez, and X. Zhang (2007). Forestry. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation global grain production: A spatial analysis. Agricultural Systems, 103(5), pp.
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment 316-326.
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Nguyen, T.L.T., and S.H. Gheewala (2008). Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol
Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, from Cassava in Thailand. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2),
pp. 541-584. pp. 147-154.

324
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Nishi, T., M. Konishi, and S. Hasebe (2005). An autonomous decentralized supply Paustian, K., J.M. Antle, J. Sheehan, and A.P. Eldor (2006). Agriculture’s Role in
chain planning system for multi-stage production processes. Journal of Intelligent Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington,
Manufacturing, 16(3), pp. 259-275. VA, USA.
Nohrstedt, H.O. (2001). Response of coniferous forest ecosystems on mineral soils Peksa-Blanchard, M., P. Dolzan, A. Grassi, J. Heinimö, M. Junginger, T. Ranta,
to nutrient additions: A review of Swedish experiences. Scandinavian Journal of and A. Walter (2007). Global Wood Pellets Markets and Industry: Policy Drivers,
Forest Research, 16(6), pp. 555-573. Market Status and Raw Material Potential. IEA Bioenergy Task 40 Publication,
Nusser, M., B. Hüsing, and S. Wydra (2007). Potenzialanalyse der Industriellen, 120 pp. Available at: www.canbio.ca/documents/publications/ieatask40pelletan-
Weißen Biotechnologie, Karlsruhe. Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und drawmaterialstudynov2007final.pdf.
Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe, Germany, 426 pp. Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D.C.
O’Hare, M., R.J. Plevin, J.I. Martin, A.D. Jones, A. Kendall, and E. Hopson (2009). Erbach (2005). Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. ORNL/TM-2005/66, Oak
versus petroleum. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), 024001 (7 pp.). Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 78 pp.
OANDA (2011). Historical Exchange Rates. Oanda Corporation, New York, NY, USA. Perry, J.A. (2009). Catastrophic incident prevention and proactive risk management
Available at: www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/. in the new biofuels industry. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy,
Obernberger, I., and G. Thek (2004). Techno-economic evaluation of selected 28(1), pp. 72-82.
decentralised CHP applications based on biomass combustion in IEA partner Persson, U.M., and C. Azar (2010). Preserving the world’s tropical forests – A price
countries. BIOS Bioenergiesysteme GmbH, Graz, Austria, 87 pp. on carbon may not do. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(1), pp. 210-215.
Obernberger, I., G. Thek, and D. Reiter (2008). Economic evaluation of decentral- Petersson, A. and A. Wellinger (2009). Biogas Upgrading Technologies –
ised CHP applications based on biomass combustion and biomass gasification. Developments and Innovations. IEA Bioenergy Task 37 publication, Malmo,
BIOS Bioenergiesysteme GmbH, Graz, Austria, 19 pp. Sweden, 20 pp. Available at: www.biogasmax.com/media/iea_2biogas_upgrad-
Obersteiner, M., K. Mollersten, J. Moreira, S. Nilsson, P. Read, K. Riahi, B. ing_tech__025919000_1434_30032010.pdf.
Schlamadinger, Y. Yamagata, J. Yan, J.P. Ypserle, C. Azar, and P. Kauppi Phillips, S., A. Aden, J. Jechura, D. Dayton, and T. Eggeman (2007). Thermochemical
(2001). Managing climate risk. Science, 294(5543), pp. 786-787. Ethanol via Indirect Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic
OECD-FAO (2008). Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017. Organisation for Economic Biomass. NREL/TP-510-41168, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
Cooperation and Development and Food and Agriculture Organization, Paris, CO, USA, 132 pp.
France, 73 pp. Pimentel, D., S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. O’Connell, E.
Okada, M., C. Lanzatella, M.C. Saha, J. Bouton, R. Wu, and C.M. Tobias (2010). Wong, L. Russel, J. Zern, T. Aquino, and T. Tsomondo (2001). Economic and
Complete switchgrass genetic maps reveal subgenome collinearity, preferential environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture,
pairing and multilocus interactions. Genetics, 185(3), pp. 745-760. Ecosystems & Environment, 84(1), pp. 1-20.
Oliveira, F.C.R. (2009). Ocupação, emprego e remuneração na cana-de-açúcar e Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, D. Douds, and R. Seidel (2005).
em outras atividades agropecuárias no Brasil, de 1992 a 2007. Master’s Thesis, Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conven-
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 168 pp. tional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), pp. 573-582.
Oliver, R.J., J.W. Finch, and G. Taylor (2009). Second generation bioenergy crops Pingali, P.L., and P.W. Heisey (1999). Cereal Crop Productivity in Developing
and climate change: a review of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and Counties: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Working Paper 99-03, International
drought on water use and the implications for yield. Global Change Biology Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Texcoco, Mexico, 34 pp.
Bioenergy, 1(2), pp. 97-114. Plevin, R.J. (2009). Modeling corn ethanol and climate. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Oliverio, J.L. (2006). Technological evolution of the Brazilian sugar and alcohol sec- 13(4), pp. 495-507.
tor: Dedini’s contribution. International Sugar Journal, 108(1287), pp. 120-129. Plevin, R.J., O.H. Michael, A.D. Jones, M.S. Torn, and H.K. Gibbs (2010).
Oliverio, J.L., and J.E. Ribeiro (2006). Cogeneration in Brazilian sugar and bioetha- Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels indirect land use change are uncertain
nol mills: Past, present and challenges. International Sugar Journal, 108(191), but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science &
pp. 391-401. Technology, 44(21), pp. 8015-8021.
Openshaw, K. (2000). A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfulfilled prom- Practical Action Consulting (2009). Small Scale Bioenergy can Benefit Poor: Brief
ise. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(1), pp. 1-15. Description and Preliminary Lessons on Livelihood Impacts from Case Studies
Pacca, S., and J.R. Moreira (2009). Historical carbon budget of the Brazilian ethanol in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization and Policy
program. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp. 4863-4873. Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security, Rome, Italy, 142 pp.
Patel, M.K., M. Crank, V. Dornburg, B. Hermann, L. Roes, B. Hüsing, L. van Purdon, M., S. Bailey-Stamler, and R. Samson (2009). Better bioenergy: Rather
Overbeek, F. Terragni, and E. Recchia (2006). Medium and Long-Term than picking bioenergy “winners,” effective policy should let a lifecycle analysis
Opportunities and Risks of the Biotechnological Production of Bulk Chemicals decide. Alternatives Journal, 35(2), pp. 23-29.
from Renewable Resources. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development Rabaey, K., and W. Verstraete (2005). Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for
and Innovation, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 420 pp. energy generation. Trends in Biotechnology, 23(6), pp. 291-298.

325
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Ragauskas, A.J., C.K. Williams, B.H. Davison, G. Britovsek, J. Cairney, C.A. Rhodes, J.S., and D.W. Keith (2008). Biomass with capture: negative emissions
Eckert, W.J. Frederick, Jr., J.P. Hallett, D.J. Leak, C.L. Liotta, J.R. Mielenz, R. within social and environmental constraints: an editorial comment. Climatic
Murphy, R. Templer, and T. Tschaplinski (2006). The path forward for biofuels Change, 87(3-4), pp. 321-328.
and biomaterials. Science, 311(5760), pp. 484-489. Righelato, R., and D.V. Spracklen (2007). Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by sav-
Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Daehler, A.S. Davis, R.N. Wiedenmann, D. ing and restoring forests? Science, 317(5840), pp. 902.
Simberloff, and R.N. Mack (2006). Adding biofuels to the invasive species Ringer, M., V. Putsche, and J. Scahill (2006). Large-Scale Pyrolysis Oil Production:
fire? Science, 313(5794), pp. 1742. A Technology Assessment and Economic Analysis. TP-510-37779, National
Rajagopal, D., G. Hochman, and D. Zilberman (2011). Indirect fuel use change Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 93 pp.
(IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy, Riviére, C., and G. Marlair (2009). BIOSAFUEL®, a pre-diagnosis tool of risks per-
39(1), pp. 228-233. taining to biofuels chains. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
Ramanathan, V., and G. Carmichael (2008). Global and regional climate changes 22(2), pp. 228-236.
due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1(4), pp. 221-227. Riviére, C., and G. Marlair (2010). The use of multiple correspondence analysis and
Randall, J.M. (1996). Plant Invaders: How Non-native Species Invade & Degrade hierarchical clustering to identify incident typologies pertaining to the biofuel
Natural Areas Invasive Plants. In: Weeds of the Global Garden. J. Marinelli and industry. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(1), pp. 53-65.
J.M. Randall (eds.), Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn, NY, pp. 7-12. Robertson, G.P., V.H. Dale, O.C. Doering, S.P. Hamburg, J.M. Melillo, M.M.
Ranius, T., and L. Fahrig (2006). Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiver- Wander, W.J. Parton, P.R. Adler, J.N. Barney, R.M. Cruse, C.S. Duke, P.M.
sity conservation based on extinction thresholds. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Fearnside, R.F. Follett, H.K. Gibbs, J. Goldemberg, D.J. Mladenoff, D. Ojima,
Research, 21(3), pp. 201-208. M.W. Palmer, A. Sharpley, L. Wallace, K.C. Weathers, J.A. Wiens, and W.W.
Rauch, R. (2010). Indirect Gasification. In: IEA Bioenergy Joint Tasks 32 &33 Wilhelm (2008). Sustainable biofuels redux. Science, 322(5898), pp. 49-50.
Workshop, State-of-the-Art Technologies for Small Biomass Co-generation, Rockström, J., M. Lannerstad, and M. Falkenmark (2007). Assessing the water
International Energy Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7 Oct 2010. Available at: challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. Proceedings of the
www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/09%20TU%20Vienna.pdf. National Academy of Sciences, 104(15), pp. 6253-6260.
Ravindranath, N.H., P. Balachandra, S. Dasappa, and K. Usha Rao (2006). Rockström, J., L. Karlberg, S.P. Wani, J. Barron, N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, A. Bruggeman,
Bioenergy technologies for carbon abatement. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(10), J. Farahani, and Z. Qiang (2010). Managing water in rainfed agriculture – The
pp. 826-837. need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), pp. 543-550.
Regalbuto, J.R. (2009). Cellulosic biofuels – got gasoline? Science, 325(5942), pp. Romieu, I., H. Riojas-Rodriguez, A.T. Marron-Mares, A. Schilmann, R. Perez-
822-824. Padilla, and O. Masera (2009). Improved biomass stove intervention in
Reijnders, L. (2008). Ethanol production from crop residues and soil organic carbon. rural Mexico: Impact on the respiratory health of women. American Journal of
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), pp. 653-658. Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 180(7), pp. 649-656.
Reinhardt, G. (1991). Biofuels: Energy and GHG balances: Methodology and Case Rosegrant, M.W., T. Zhu, S. Msangi, and T. Sulser (2008). Biofuels: Long-run impli-
Study Rape Seed Biodiesel. Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg, cations for food security and the environment. Review of Agricultural Economics,
Heidelberg, Germany. 30(3), pp. 495-505.
Reinhardt, G., S. Gartner, A. Patyk, and N. Rettenmaier (2006). Ökobilanzen Rosillo-Calle, F., S.V. Bajay, and H. Rothman (eds.) (2000). Industrial Uses of
zu BTL: Eine ökologische Einschätzung. 2207104, ifeu Institut für Energie- und Biomass Energy: The Example of Brazil. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH, Heidelberg, Germany, 108 pp. Ross, A.B., K. Anastasakis, M. Kubacki, and J.M. Jones (2009). Investigation of the
REN21 (2007). Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st pyrolysis behaviour of brown algae before and after pre-treatment using PY-GC/
Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 54 pp. MS and TGA. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 85(1-2), pp. 3-10.
REN21 (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Renewable Energy Rost, S., D. Gerten, H. Hoff, W. Lucht, M. Falkenmark, and J. Rockstrom (2009).
Policy Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 42 pp. Global potential to increase crop production through water management in rain-
Rendleman, C.M., and H. Shapouri (2007). New Technologies in Ethanol fed agriculture. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 044002 (9 pp.).
Production. Report Number 842, United States Department of Agriculture, Rowe, R., J. Whitaker, J. Chapman, D. Howard, and G. Talor (2008). Life-Cycle
Washington, DC, USA. Assessment in Bioenergy Sector: Developing a Systematic Review Working Paper.
RFA (2010). U.S. Cellulosic. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC, USA. UKERC/WP/FSE/2008/002, UK Energy Research Centre, London, UK, 20 pp.
Available at: www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/cellulosic-ethanol Royal Society (2008). Sustainable Biofuels: Prospects and Challenges. Policy docu-
RFA (2011). Biorefinery Plant Locations. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, ment 01/08,The Royal Society, London, UK, 90 pp.
DC, USA. Available at: www.ethanolrfa.org/bio-refinery-locations/. Rude, M.A., and A. Schirmer (2009). New microbial fuels: a biotech perspective.
Rentizelas, A.A., A.J. Tolis, and I.P. Tatsiopoulos (2009). Logistics issues of bio- Current Opinion in Microbiology, 12(3), pp. 274-281.
mass: The storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain. Renewable and (S&T)2 Consultants (2009). An Examination of the Potential for Improving Carbon/
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(4), pp. 887-894. Energy Balance of Bioethanol. T39-TR1, (S&T)2 Consultants Inc., Delta, Canada,
Reynolds, M.P., and N.E. Borlaug (2006). Applying innovations and new tech- 72 pp.
nologies for international collaborative wheat improvement. The Journal of
Agricultural Science, 144(02), pp. 95-95.

326
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Saarinen, V.-M. (2006). The effects of slash and stump removal on productivity Schwilch, G., F. Bachmann, and H. Liniger (2009). Appraising and selecting
and quality of forest regeneration operations – preliminary results. Biomass and conservation measures to mitigate desertification and land degradation based
Bioenergy, 30(4), pp. 349-356. on stakeholder participation and global best practices. Land Degradation &
Saarsalmi, A., and E. Mälkönen (2001). Forest fertilization research in Finland: A Development, 20(3), pp. 308-326.
literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 16(6), pp. 514-535. Scolforo, J.R. (2008). Mundo Eucalipto – Os Fatos E Mitos De Sua Cultura. Editora
Sala, O.E., A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Mar de Ideias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 72 pp.
Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, D.H. Wall, F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, Seabra, J.E.A., L. Tao, H.L. Chum, and I.C. Macedo (2010). A techno-economic
E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, and evaluation of the effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-products refin-
R.B. Jackson (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, ery options with sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(8), pp.
287(5459), pp. 1770-1774. 1065-1078.
Sánchez, Ó.J., and C.A. Cardona (2008). Trends in biotechnological production Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa,
of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresource Technology, 99(13), pp. S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels
5270-5295. increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science,
Sannigrahi, P., A.J. Ragauskas, and G.A. Tuskan (2010). Poplar as a feedstock 319, pp. 1238-1240.
for biofuels: A review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Seidenberger, T., D. Thran, R. Offermann, U. Seyfert, M. Buchhorn, and J.
Biorefining, 4(2), pp. 209-226. Zeddies (2008). Global Biomass Potentials. Report prepared for Greenpeace
Sawin, J.L. (2004). National Policy Instruments: Policy Lessons for the Advancement International by the German Biomass Research Center, Leipzig, Germany, 137 pp.
and Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies around the World. World Watch Semere, T., and F. Slater (2007). Ground flora, small mammal and bird species
Institute, Washington, DC, USA. diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris
SCBD (2006). Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Secretariat of the Convention on arundinacea) fields. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31(1), pp. 20-29.
Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, 92 pp. (ISBN-92-9225-040-X). Sepp, S. (2008). Analysis of Charcoal Value Chains – General Considerations. GTZ
Schei, M.A., J.O. Hessen, K.R. Smith, N. Bruce, J. McCracken, and V. Lopez (2004). Household Energy Programme, Eschborn, Germany, 11 pp.
Childhood asthma and indoor woodsmoke from cooking in Guatemala. Journal Shah, S. (2007). Modular mini-plants: A new paradigm. Chemical Engineering
of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 14, pp. S110-S117. Progress, 103(3), pp. 36-41.
Schlamadinger, B., F. Bohlin, L. Gustavsson, G. Jungmeier, G. Marlandii, K. Shapouri, H., and M. Salassi (2006). The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production
Pingoudt, and I. Savolaine (1997). Towards a standard methodology for in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy USA, 69 pp.
systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 13(6), pp. 359-375. Sharma, M.M. (2002). Strategies of conducting reactions on a small scale. Selectivity
Schlamadinger, B., M. Grubb, C. Azar, A. Bauen, and G. Berndes (2001). Carbon engineering and process intensification. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 74(12), pp.
sinks and the CDM: could a bioenergy linkage offer a constructive compromise? 2265-2269.
Climate Policy, 1, pp. 411-417. Sheehan, J., T. Dunahay, J. Benemann, G. Roessler, and C. Weissman (1998a). A
Schlamadinger, B., B. Bosquet, C. Streck, I. Noble, M. Dutschke, and N. Bird Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel
(2005). Can the EU emission trading scheme support CDM forestry. Climate from Algae. NREL/TP-580-24190, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Policy, 5, pp. 199-208. Golden, CO, USA, 295 pp.
Schmidhuber, J. (2008). Impact of an increased biomass use on agricultural markets, Sheehan, J., V. Camobreco, J. Duffield, M. Graboski, and H. Shapouri (1998b).
prices and food security: A longer-term perspective. In: Energy Security in Europe: Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus.
Proceedings from the Conference ‘Energy Security in Europe’, Lund, Sweden, NREL/SR-580-24089, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
24-25 September 2007, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, pp. 133-170. Available 314 pp.
at: www.cfe.lu.se/upload/LUPDF/CentrumforEuropaforskning/Confpap2.pdf. Sheehan, J., A. Aden, K. Paustian, K. Killian, J. Brenner, M. Walsh, and R. Nelson
Schneider, U.E., B. A. McCarl, and E. Schmid (2007). Agricultural sector analysis on (2003). Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol.
greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Agricultural Systems, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(3-4), pp. 117-146.
94 (2), pp. 128-140 Shen, L., J. Haufe, and M.K. Patel (2009). Product Overview and Market
Schouten, J.C., E.V. Rebrov, and M.H.J.M. de Croon (2002). Miniaturization of Projection of Emerging Bio-based Plastics: PRO-BIP 2009. Copernicus Institute
heterogeneous catalytic reactors: prospects for new developments in catalysis for Sustainable Development and Innovation for the European Polysaccharide
and process engineering. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry, 56(11), Network of Excellence (EPNOE) and European Bioplastics, Utrecht University,
pp. 627-635. Utrecht, The Netherlands, 78 pp.
Schulz, U., O. Brauner, and H. Gruss (2009). Animal diversity on short-rotation Sikkema, R., M. Junginger, W. Pichler, S. Hayes, and A.P.C. Faaij (2010). The inter-
coppices – a review. Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research 3, national logistics of wood pellets for heating and power production in Europe:
59(3), pp. 171-182. Costs, energy-input and greenhouse gas balances of pellet consumption in Italy,
Schwaiger, H.P., and D.N. Bird (2010). Integration of albedo effects caused by land Sweden and the Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(2), pp.
use change into the climate balance: Should we still account in greenhouse gas 132-153.
units? Forest Ecology and Management, 260(3), pp. 278-286.

327
Bioenergy Chapter 2

Sikkema, R., M. Steiner, M. Junginger, W. Hiegl, M.T. Hansen, and A. Faaij Solomon, S., G.K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein (2009). Irreversible
(2011). The European wood pellet markets: current status and prospects for climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National
2020. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, doi:10.1002/bbb.277. Academy of Sciences, 106(6), pp. 1704-1709.
Simpson, T.W., A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, H.W. Paerl, and K.R. Mankin Sparovek, G., G. Berndes, A. Egeskog, F.L.M. de Freitas, S. Gustafsson, and J.
(2008). The new gold rush: Fueling ethanol production while protecting water Hansson (2007). Sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: an expansion model
quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(2), pp. 318-324. sensitive to socioeconomic and environmental concerns. Biofuels, Bioproducts
Simpson, T.W., L.A. Martinelli, A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, and S. Bringezu and Biorefining, 1(4), pp. 270-282.
(2009). Impact of ethanol production on nutrient cycles and water quality: the Spatari, S., and H.L. MacLean (2010). Characterizing model uncertainties in the life
United States and Brazil as case studies. In: Biofuels: Environmental Consequences cycle of lignocellulose-based ethanol fuels. Environmental Science & Technology,
and Interactions with Changing Land Use. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds.), 44(22), pp. 8773-8780.
Proceedings of the SCOPE - Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment Spranger, T., J.P. Hettelingh, J. Slootweg, and M. Posch (2008). Modelling and
International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, Gummersbach, Germany, 22-25 mapping long-term risks due to reactive nitrogen effects: An overview of LRTAP
September 2009,, pp. 153-167. convention activities. Environmental Pollution, 154(3), pp. 482-487.
Sims, R. (ed.) (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling. An Untapped Potential. Steenblik, R. (2007). Subsidies: The Distorted Economics of Biofuels. Discussion
Joint report for the Renewable Energy Technology Deployment Implementing Paper No. 2007-3, International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic
Agreement and the Renewable Energy Working Party published by the Co-operation and Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 66 pp.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 210 pp. Stehfest, E., and L. Bouwman (2006). N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields
Sims, R., M. Taylor, J. Saddler, W. Mabee, and J. Riese (2008). From 1st-to 2nd and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data
Generation Biofuel Technologies. An overview of current industry and R&D activi- and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,
ties. IEA Bioenergy, Paris, France, 124 pp. 74(3), pp. 207-228.
Sims, R.E.H., W. Mabee, J.N. Saddler, and M. Taylor (2010). An overview of second Stehfest, E., L. Bouwman, D.P. Vuuren, M.G.J. Elzen, B. Eickhout, and P. Kabat
generation biofuel technologies. Bioresource Technology, 101(6), pp. 1570-1580. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1-2), pp. 83-102.
Skjoldborg, B. (2010). Optimization of I/S Skive District Heating Plant. In: IEA Still, D., M. Pinnell, D. Ogle, and B. van Appel (2003). Insulative ceramics for
Joint Task 32 & 33 Workshop, State-of-the-Art Technologies for Small Biomass improved cooking stoves. Boiling Point, 49, pp. 7-10.
Co-generation, International Energy Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7 Oct 2010. Stoft, S. (2010). Renewable Fuel and the Global Rebound Effect. Research Paper No.
Available at: www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/11%20Skive.pdf. 10-06, Global Energy policy Center, Berkeley, CA, USA, 19 pp.
Smeets, E.M.W., and A.P.C. Faaij (2007). Bioenergy potentials from forestry in Strengers, B., R. Leemans, B. Eickhout, B. Vries, and L. Bouwman (2004). The
2050. Climatic Change, 81(3-4), pp. 353-390. land-use projections and resulting emissions in the IPCC SRES scenarios as simu-
Smeets, E.M.W., A. Faaij, I. Lewandowski, and W. Turkenburg (2007). A bottom- lated by the IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJournal, 61(4), pp. 381-393.
up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Sulser, T.B., C. Ringler, T. Zhu, S. Msangi, E. Bryan, and M.W. Rosegrant (2010).
Energy and Combustion Science, 33(1), pp. 56-106. Green and blue water accounting in the Ganges and Nile basins: Implications for
Smeets, E.M.W., L.F. Bouwman, E. Stehfest, D.P. van Vuuren, and A. Posthuma food and agricultural policy. Journal of Hydrology, 384(3-4), pp. 276-291.
(2009). Contribution of N2O to the greenhouse gas balance of first-generation Sumner, S.A., and P.M. Layde (2009). Expansion of renewable energy industries
biofuels. Global Change Biology, 15(1), pp. 1-23. and implications for occupational health. Journal of the American Medical
Smil, V. (2002). Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and Association, 302(7), pp. 787-789.
opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 30(3), Sustainable Transport Solutions (2006). Biogas as a Road Transport Fuel: An
pp. 305-311. Assessment of the Potential Role of Biogas as a Renewable Transport Fuel.
Smith, K.R., and E. Haigler (2008). Co-benefits of climate mitigation and health National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, London, UK, 66 pp.
protection in energy systems: Scoping methods. Annual Review of Public Health, Swanson, R.M., A. Platon, J.A. Satrio, and R.C. Brown (2010). Techno-
29(1), pp. 11-25. economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification. Fuel,
Smith, K.R., R. Uma, V.V.N. Kishore, J. Zhang, V. Joshi, and M.A.K. Khalil (2000). 89(Supplement 1), pp. S11-S19.
Greenhouse implications of household stoves: An analysis for India. Annual Tabeau, A., B. Eickhout, and H. van Meijl (2006). Endogenous agricultural land
Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), pp. 741-763. supply: estimation and implementation in the GTAP model. In: Ninth Annual
Soimakallio, S., R. Antikainen, and R. Thun (2009a). Assessing the Sustainability Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 15-17 June
of Liquid Biofuels from Evolving Technologies. VTT Research Notes 2482, VTT 2006. Available at: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.
Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 268 pp. asp?RecordID=2007.
Soimakallio, S., T. Mäkinen, T. Ekholm, K. Pahkala, H. Mikkola, and T. Paappanen Tao, L., and A. Aden (2009). The economics of current and future biofuels. In Vitro
(2009b). Greenhouse gas balances of transportation biofuels, electricity and Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 45(3), pp. 199-217.
heat generation in Finland – Dealing with the uncertainties. Energy Policy, 37(1), Thorn, J., J. Brisman, and K. Toren (2001). Adult-onset asthma is associated with
pp. 80-90. self-reported mold or environmental tobacco smoke exposures in the home.
Allergy, 56(4), pp. 287-292.

328
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Thornley, P., J. Rogers, and Y. Huang (2008). Quantification of employment from US DOE (2009). National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap. U.S. Department of
biomass power plants. Renewable Energy, 33(8), pp. 1922-1927. Energy Biomass Program, Washington, DC, USA, 214 pp.
Thornley, P., P. Upham, Y. Huang, S. Rezvani, J. Brammer, and J. Rogers (2009). US DOE (2011). Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: An
Integrated assessment of bioelectricity technology options. Energy Policy, 37(3), Update to the Billion-Ton Annual Supply. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads),
pp. 890-903. ORNL/TM-2010/xx. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky (2002). Oak Ridge, TN, USA, in press.
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), USDA (2006). Oil Crops Yearbook/OCS-2006/Mar21. Economic Research Service, US
pp. 671-677. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC, USA.
Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman (2006a). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input USDA (2007). Wheat Data: Yearbook Tables. Economic Research Service, US
high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), pp. 1598-1600. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC, USA.
Tilman, D., P.B. Reich, and J.M.H. Knops (2006b). Biodiversity and ecosystem sta- Uslu, A., A.P.C. Faaij, and P.C.A. Bergman (2008). Pre-treatment technologies, and
bility in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature, 441(7093), pp. 629-632. their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic
Titus, B.D., D.G. Maynard, C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz (2009). Wood evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy, 33(8), pp.
energy: Protect local ecosystems. Science, 324(5933), pp. 1389-1390. 1206-1223.
Tobias, C.M., G. Sarath, P. Twigg, E. Lindquist, J. Pangilinan, B.W. Penning, van Dam, J., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, I. Jürgens, G. Best, and U. Fritsche (2008).
K. Barry, M.C. McCann, N.C. Carpita, and G.R. Lazo (2008). Comparative Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass
genomics in switchgrass using 61,585 high-quality expressed sequence tags. The and Bioenergy, 32(8), pp. 749-780.
Plant Genome, 1(2), pp. 111-124. van Dam, J., A.P.C. Faaij, J. Hilbert, H. Petruzzi, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009a).
Tonkovich, A.Y., S. Perry, Y. Wang, D. Qiu, T. LaPlante, and W.A. Rogers (2004). Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina:
Microchannel process technology for compact methane steam reforming. Part A: Potential and economic feasibility for national and international markets.
Chemical Engineering Science, 59(22-23), pp. 4819-4824. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), pp. 1710-1733.
Towle, D.W., and J.S. Pearse (1973). Production of the giant kelp, Macrocystis, esti- van Dam, J., A.P.C. Faaij, J. Hilbert, H. Petruzzi, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009b).
mated by in situ incorporation of 14C in polyethylene bags. American Society of Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina:
Limnology and Oceanography, 18(1), pp. 155-159. Part B. Environmental and socio-economic impacts on a regional level. Renewable
Turhollow, A. (1994). The economics of energy crop production. Biomass and and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), pp. 1679-1709.
Bioenergy, 6(3), pp. 229-241. van Dam, J., A.P.C. Faaij, I. Lewandowski, and B. Van Zeebroeck (2009c). Options
Tyner, W.E., and F. Taheripour (2008). Policy options for integrated energy and agri- of biofuel trade from Central and Eastern to Western European countries. Biomass
cultural markets. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 30(3), pp. 387-396. and Bioenergy, 33(4), pp. 728-744.
Tyner, W., F. Taheripour, Q. Zhuang, D. Birur, and U. Baldos (2010). Land Use van Dam, J., M. Junginger, and A.P.C. Faaij (2010). From the global efforts on certi-
Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions due to U.S. Corn Ethanol Production: fication of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land
A Comprehensive Analysis. GTAP Resource 3288, Department of Agricultural use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), pp. 2445-2472.
Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 90 pp. van den Wall Bake, J.D. (2006). Cane as Key in Brazilian Ethanol Industry. Master’s
UN-Water (2007). Coping with Water Scarcity: Challenge of the Twenty-First Century. Thesis, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 83 pp.
Prepared for World Water Day 2007, United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 29 pp. van den Wall Bake, J.D., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, T. Poot, and A. Walter (2009).
UNECE/FAO TIMBER Database (2011). Market Presentations at http: timber.unece. Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugar-
org/. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and Food and Agricultural cane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(4), pp. 644-658.
Organization. van der Horst, D., and J. Evans (2010). Carbon claims and energy landscapes:
UNEP (2008a). UNEP Year Book 2008: an Overview of Our Changing Environment. Exploring the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Research, 35(2), pp.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 173-193.
UNEP (2008b). The Potential Impacts of Biofuels on Biodiversity, Notes by the van Iersel, S., L. Gamba, A. Rossi, S. Alberici, B. Dehue, J. van de Staaij, and
Executive Secretary. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/26, United Nations Environment A. Flammini (2009). Algae-Based Biofuels: A Review of Challenges and
Programme, Bonn, Germany, 16 pp. Opportunities for Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization,
UNEP/SEFI/Bloomberg (2010). Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2010. Rome, Italy, 59 pp.
DTI/1186/PA, Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, United Nations Environment van Loo, S., and J. Koppejan (eds.) (2002). Handbook of Biomass Combustion
Programme and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Geneva, Switzerland, 61 pp. and Cofiring. 1st ed. Twente University Press, Enschede, The Netherlands, 442 pp.
UK DfT (2003). International Resource Costs of Biodiesel and Bioethanol. AEAT/ENV/ van Minnen, J.G., B.J. Strengers, B. Eickhout, R.J. Swart, and R. Leemans (2008).
ED50273/R1, United Kingdom Department for Transport, Oxfordshire, UK, 51 pp. Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plan-
University of Illinois (2011). farmdoc: Historical Corn Prices. University of Illinois, tations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model. Carbon
Urbana, Illinois, USA. Available at: www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/pricehis- Balance and Management, 3(3), 20 pp.
tory/price_history.htm.

329
Bioenergy Chapter 2

van Vliet, O.P.R., A.P.C. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009). Fischer-Tropsch diesel Walter, A., F. Rosillo-Calle, P. Dolzan, E. Piacente, and K. Borges da Cunha
production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analy- (2008). Perspectives on fuel ethanol consumption and trade. Biomass and
sis. Energy Conversion and Management, 50(4), pp. 855-876. Bioenergy, 32(8), pp. 730-748.
van Vuuren, D., M. den Elzen, P. Lucas, B. Eickhout, B. Strengers, B. van Ruijven, Wang, M., C. Saricks, and D. Santini (1999). Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-
S. Wonink, and R. van Houdt (2007). Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentra- cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions. ANL/ESD-38, Argonne Energy
tions at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA, 39 pp.
Change, 81(2), pp. 119-159. Wang, M., M. Wu, and H. Huo (2007). Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emis-
van Vuuren, D.P., J. van Vliet, and E. Stehfest (2009). Future bio-energy potential sion impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environmental Research
under various natural constraints. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp. 4220-4230. Letters, 2(2), 024001.
van Vuuren, D.P., E. Bellevrat, A. Kitous, and M. Isaac (2010). Bio-energy use and Wang, M., H. Huo, and S. Arora (2010). Methods of dealing with co-products of
low stabilization scenarios. The Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), pp. 192-222. biofuels in life-cycle 3 analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context.
van Zyl, W., L. Lynd, R. den Haan, and J. McBride (2007). Consolidated biopro- Energy Policy, in press, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.052.
cessing for bioethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Advanced Wang, M.Q., J. Han, Z. Haq, W.E. Tyner, M. Wu, and A. Elgowainy (2011). Energy
Biochemical Engineering Biotechnology, 108, pp. 205-235. and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with tech-
Vandermeer, J., and I. Perfecto (2006). Response to comments on “A Keystone nology improvements and land use changes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), pp.
Mutualism Drives Pattern in a Power Function”. Science, 313(5794), pp. 1739. 1885-1896.
Venkataraman, C., A.D. Sagar, G. Habib, N. Lam, and K.R. Smith (2010). The Warwick, S.I., H.J. Beckie, and L.M. Hall (2009). Gene flow, invasiveness, and eco-
Indian National Initiative for Advanced Biomass Cookstoves: The benefits of logical impact of genetically modified crops. Annals of the New York Academy of
clean combustion. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14(2), pp. 63-72. Sciences, 1168(1), pp. 72-99.
Venter, O., E. Meijaard, H. Possingham, R. Dennis, D. Sheil, S. Wich, L. Hovani, WBGU (2009). World in Transition – Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use.
and K. Wilson (2009). Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Berlin, Germany, 393 pp.
mammals. Conservation Letters, 2(3), pp. 123-129. (ISBN 978-1-84407-841-7).
Verhaeven, E., L. Pelkmans, L. Govaerts, R. Lamers, and F. Theunissen (2005). Weyer, K., D. Bush, A. Darzins, and B. Willson (2009). Theoretical maximum algal
Results of demonstration and evaluation projects of biodiesel from rapeseed and oil production. BioEnergy Research, 3(2), pp. 204-213.
used frying oil on light and heavy duty vehicles. In: 2005 SAE Brasil Fuels & Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2008). Different palm oil
Lubricants Meeting. SAE International, Rio De Janeiro, Brasil, May 2005, 7 pp., production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications.
doi:10.4271/2005-01-2201. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(12), pp. 1322-1337.
Vinnerås, B., C. Schönning, and A. Nordin (2006). Identification of the microbio- Wicke, B., E. Smeets, A. Tabeau, J. Hilbert, and A. Faaij (2009). Macroeconomic
logical community in biogas systems and evaluation of microbial risks from gas impacts of bioenergy production on surplus agricultural land – A case study of
usage. Science of the Total Environment, 367(2-3), pp. 606-615. Argentina. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), pp. 2463-2473.
von Blottnitz, H., and M.A. Curran (2007). A review of assessments conducted Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.F. Johnson, J.L. Hatfield, W.B. Voorhees, and D.R. Linden
on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and (2004). Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: A literature
environmental life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(7), pp. review. Agronomy Journal, 96(1), pp. 1-17.
607-619. Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.E. Johnson, D.L. Karlen, and D.T. Lightle (2007). Corn sto-
von Geibler, J., C. Liedtke, H. Wallbaum, and S. Schaller (2006). Accounting for ver to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agronomy
the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology indus- Journal, 99, pp. 1665-1667.
try. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), pp. 334-346. Wilkie, A.C., and J.M. Evans (2010). Aquatic plants: an opportunity feedstock in the
von Schirnding, Y., N. Bruce, K. Smith, G. Ballard-Treemer, M. Ezzati, and K. age of bioenergy. Biofuels, 1(2), pp. 311-321.
Lvovsky (2001). Addressing the Impact of Household Energy and Indoor Wilkie, A.C., K.J. Riedesel, and J.M. Owens (2000). Stillage characterization and
Air Pollution on the Health of the Poor - Implications for Policy Action and anaerobic treatment of ethanol stillage from conventional and cellulosic feed-
Intervention Measures. WHO/HDE/HID/02.9, Commission on Macroeconomics stocks. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(2), pp. 63-102.
and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 52 pp. Wilkinson, P., K.R. Smith, M. Davies, H. Adair, B.G. Armstrong, M. Barrett,
von Weyman, N. (2007). Bioetanolia maatalouden selluloosavirroista (Bioethanol N. Bruce, A. Haines, I. Hamilton, T. Oreszczyn, I. Ridley, C. Tonne, and Z.
from agricultural lignocellulosic residues). VTT Tiedotteita 2412, VTT Technical Chalabi (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas
Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 48 pp. emissions: household energy. The Lancet, 374(9705), pp. 1917-1929.
Walmsley, J.D., and D.L. Godbold (2010). Stump harvesting for bioenergy - A Williams, R.H., E.D. Larson, G. Liu, and T.G. Kreutz (2009). Fischer-Tropsch fuels
review of the environmental impacts. Forestry, 83(1), pp. 17-38. from coal and biomass: Strategic advantages of once-through (“polygenera-
Walsh, M.E. (2008). U.S. Cellulosic Biomass Feedstock Supplies and Distribution. tion”) configurations. Energy Procedia, 1(1), pp. 4379-4386.
Ag Econ Search - Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics, University Wirsenius, S. (2003). Efficiencies and biomass appropriation of food commodities on
of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 47 pp. Available at: ageconsearch.umn.edu/ global and regional levels. Agricultural Systems, 77(3), pp. 219-255.
bitstream/7625/2/U.S.%20Biomass%20Supplies.pdf.

330
 Chapter 2 Bioenergy

Wirsenius, S., C. Azar, and G. Berndes (2010). How much land is needed for global WWI (2006). Biofuels for Transportation – Global Potential and Implications for
food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century. World Watch Institute,
increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems, 103(9), pp. 621-638. Washington, DC, USA, 417 pp.
Wise, M., K. Calvin, A. Thomson, L. Clarke, B. Bond-Lamberty, R. Sands, S.J. Wydra, S. (2009). Production and Employment Impacts of New Technologies –
Smith, A. Janetos, and J. Edmonds (2009). Implications of limiting CO2 con- Analysis for Biotechnology. Discussion Paper 08-2009, Forschungszentrum
centrations for land use and energy. Science, 324(5931), pp. 1183-1186. Innovation und Dienstleistung, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany, 31
Wiskerke, W.T., V. Dornburg, C.D.K. Rubanza, R.E. Malimbwi, and A.P.C. Faaij pp.
(2010). Cost/benefit analysis of biomass energy supply options for rural small- Wyman, C.E., B.E. Dale, R.T. Elander, M. Holtzapple, M.R. Ladisch, and Y.Y. Lee
holders in the semi-arid eastern part of Shinyanga Region in Tanzania. Renewable (2005). Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technolo-
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), pp. 148-165. gies. Bioresource Technology, 96(18), pp. 1959-1966.
Wolf, J., P.S. Bindraban, J.C. Luijten, and L.M. Vleeshouwers (2003). Exploratory Yamashita, K., and L. Barreto (2004). Biomass Gasification for the Co-production
study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global of Fischer-Tropsch Liquids and Electricity. Interim Report IR-04-047, International
production of bioenergy. Agricultural Systems, 76, pp. 841-861. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, 50 pp.
Wooley, R., M. Ruth, D. Glassner, and J. Sheehan (1999). Process design and cost- Yanowitz, J., and R.L. McCormick (2009). Effect of biodiesel blends on North
ing of bioethanol technology: A tool for determining the status and direction of American heavy-duty diesel engine emissions. European Journal of Lipid Science
research and development. Biotechnology Progress, 15(5), pp. 794-803. and Technology, 111(8), pp. 763-772.
Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph (2010). Yazdani, S.S., and R. Gonzalez (2007). Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a path
Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, to economic viability for the biofuels industry. Current Opinion in Biotechnology,
1(56), pp. 1-9. 18(3), pp. 213-219.
World Bank (2009). The World Bank - Global Economic Prospects - Commodities at Yeh, S., S.M. Jordaan, A.R. Brandt, M.R. Turetsky, S. Spatari, and D.W. Keith
the Crossroad. The World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and (2010). Land use greenhouse gas emissions from conventional oil production
Development, Washington, DC, USA, 196 pp. (see page 73). and oil sands. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(22), pp. 8766-8772.
World Bank (2010). Improved Cookstoves and Better Health in Bangladesh: Yokoyama, S., and Y. Matsumura (eds.) (2008). The Asian Biomass Handbook:
Lessons from Household Energy and Sanitation Programs. The World Bank, The A Guide for Biomass Production and Utilization. The Japan Institute of Energy,
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC, USA, Tokyo, Japan, 326 pp.
136 pp. Zabowski, D., D. Chambreau, N. Rotramel, and W.G. Thies (2008). Long-term
Wright, B. (2009). International Gain Reserves and Other Instruments to Address effects of stump removal to control root rot on forest soil bulk density, soil carbon
Volatility in Grain Market. Policy Research Working Paper 5028, World Bank and nitrogen content. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(3-4), pp. 720-727.
Group, Washington, DC, USA, 61 pp. Zemke-White, L., and M. Ohno (1999). World seaweed utilisation: An end-of-cen-
Wright, D.H. (1990). Human impacts on energy flow through natural ecosystems, tury summary. Journal of Applied Phycology, 11(4), pp. 369-376.
and implications for species endangerment. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Zezza, A., B. Davis, C. Azzarri, K. Covarrubias, L. Tasciotti, and G. Anriquez
Environment, 19(4), pp. 189-194. (2008). The Impact of Rising Food Prices on the Poor. ESA Working Paper No.
Wu, M., Y. Wu, and M. Wang (2005). Mobility Chains Analysis of Technologies for 08-07, Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture
Passenger Cars and Light Duty Vehicles Fueled with Biofuels: Application of the Organization, Rome, Italy, 37 pp.
Greet Model to Project the Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future (RBAEF) Zhang, X., R.C. Izaurralde, D. Manowitz, T.O. West, W.M. Post, A.M. Thomson,
project. ANL/ESD/07-11, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA, 84 pp. V.P. Bandaru, J. Nichols, and J.R. Williams (2010). An integrative modeling
Wu, M., M. Wang, J. Liu, and H. Huo (2008). Assessment of potential life-cycle framework to evaluate the productivity and sustainability of biofuel crop produc-
energy and greenhouse gas emission effects from using corn-based butanol as a tion systems. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2(5), pp. 258-277.
transportation fuel. Biotechnology Progress, 24(6), pp. 1204-1214. Zomer, R.J., A. Trabucco, O. van Straaten, and D.A. Bossio (2006). Carbon, Land
Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora (2009). Water consumption in the pro- and Water: A Global Analysis of the Hydrologic Dimensions of Climate Change
duction of ethanol and petroleum gasoline. Environmental Management, 44(5), Mitigation through Afforestation/Reforestation. IWMI Research Report 101,
pp. 981-997. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 48 pp.

331
332