Search

Abstract: Published estimates of the potential of bioenergy vary widely, mainly due to the heterogeneity of methodologies, assumptions and datasets employed. These discrepancies are confusing for policy and it is thus important to have scientific clarity on the basis of the assessment outcomes. Such clear insights can enable harmonisation of the different assessments. This review explores current state of the art approaches and methodologies used in bioenergy assessments, and identifies key elements that are critical determinants of bioenergy potentials. We apply the lessons learnt from the review exercise to compare and harmonise a selected set of country based bioenergy potential studies, and provide recommendations for conducting more comprehensive assessments. Depending on scenario assumptions, the harmonised technical biomass potential estimates up to 2030 in the selected countries range from 5.2 to 27.3EJ in China, 1.1 to 18.8EJ in India, 2.0 to 10.9EJ in Indonesia, 1.6 to 7.0EJ in Mozambique and 9.3 to 23.5EJ in the US. From the review, we observed that generally, current studies do not cover all the basic (sustainability) elements expected in an ideal bioenergy assessment and there are marked differences in the level of parametric detail and methodological transparency between studies. Land availability and suitability lack spatial detail and especially degraded and marginal lands are poorly evaluated. Competition for water resources is hardly taken into account and biomass yields are based mostly on crude ecological zoning criteria. A few studies take into account improvements in management of agricultural and forestry production systems, but the underlying assumptions are hardly discussed. Competition for biomass resources among the various applications is crudely analysed in most studies and key assumptions such as demographic dynamics, biodiversity protection criteria, etc. are not explicitly discussed. To facilitate more comprehensive bioenergy assessments, we recommend an integrated analytical framework that includes all the key factors, employs high resolution geo-referenced datasets and accounts for potential feedback effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Meeting the Paris Agreement will most likely require the combination of CO 2 capture and biomass in the industrial sector, resulting in net negative emissions. CO 2 capture within the industry has been extensively investigated. However, biomass options have been poorly explored, with literature alluding to technical and economic barriers. In addition, a lack of consistency among studies makes comparing the performance of CO 2 capture and/or biomass use between studies and sectors difficult. These inconsistencies include differences in methodology, system boundaries, level of integration, costs, greenhouse gas intensity of feedstock and energy carriers, and capital cost estimations. Therefore, an integrated evaluation of the techno-economic performance regarding CO 2 capture and biomass use was performed for five energy-intensive industrial sub-sectors. Harmonization results indicate that CO 2 mitigation potentials vary for each sub-sector, resulting in reductions of 1.4–2.7 t CO 2 /t steel (77%–149%), 0.7 t CO 2 /t cement (92%), 0.2 t CO 2 /t crude oil (68%), 1.9 t CO 2 /t pulp (1663%–2548%), and 34.9 t CO 2 /t H 2 (313%). Negative emissions can be reached in the steel, paper and H 2 sectors. Novel bio-based production routes might enable net negative emissions in the cement and (petro)chemical sectors as well. All the above-mentioned potentials can be reached for 100 €/t CO 2 or less. Implementing mitigation options could reduce industrial CO 2 emissions by 10 Gt CO 2 /y by 2050, easily meeting the targets of the 2 °C scenario by the International Energy Agency (1.8 Gt CO 2 /y reduction) for the industrial sector and even the Beyond 2 °C scenario (4.2 Gt CO 2 /y reduction). • Literature review on CO 2 mitigation in steel, cement, chemical, H 2 and paper sectors. • Introduction harmonized methodology to allow comparison between industrial sectors. • All investigated sectors have large reduction potentials for <100 €/t CO 2 avoided. • Negative emissions possible in iron/steel, H 2 and paper sectors. • Potential CO 2 emission reduction of 10 Gt/yr in 2050, easily meeting climate target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing production of modern bioenergy carriers and biomaterials intensifies the competition for different applications of biomass. To be able to optimize and develop biomass utilization in a sustainable way, this paper first reviews the status and prospects of biomass value chains for heat, power, fuels and materials, next assesses their current and long-term levelized production costs and avoided emissions, and then compares their greenhouse gas abatement costs. At present, the economically and environmentally preferred options are wood chip and pellet combustion in district heating systems and large-scale cofiring power plants (75–81 US$ 2005 /tCO 2 -eq avoided ), and large-scale fermentation of low-cost Brazilian sugarcane to ethanol (−65 to −53 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided ) or biomaterials (−60 to −50 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided for ethylene and −320 to −228 $/tCO 2 -eq avoided for PLA; negative costs represent cost-effective options). In the longer term, the cultivation and use of lignocellulosic energy crops can play an important role in reducing the costs and improving the emission balance of biomass value chains. Key conversion technologies for lignocellulosic biomass are large-scale gasification (bioenergy and biomaterials) and fermentation (biofuels and biomaterials). However, both routes require improvement of their technological and economic performance. Further improvements can be attained by biorefineries that integrate different conversion technologies to maximize the use of all biomass components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper investigates the economics of integrated gasification polygeneration (IG-PG) facilities and assesses under which market conditions flexible facilities outperform static facilities. In this study, the facilities use Eucalyptus wood pellets (EP), torrefied wood pellets (TOPS) and Illinois #6 coal as feedstock to produce electricity, FT-liquids, methanol and urea. All facilities incorporate CCS. The findings show production costs from static IG-PG facilities ranging between 12 and 21€/GJ using coal, 19–33€/GJ using TOPS and 22–38€/GJ using EP, which is above the average market prices. IG-PG facilities can become competitive if capital costs drop by 10%–27% for coal based facilities. Biomass based facilities will need lower biomass pellet prices or higher CO2 credit prices. Biomass becomes competitive with coal at a CO2 credit price of 50–55€/t CO2. Variations in feedstock, CO2 credit and electricity prices can be offset by operating a feedstock flexible IG-PG facility, which can switch between coal and TOPS, thereby altering its electricity production. The additional investment is around 0.5% of the capital costs of a dedicated coal based IG-PG facility. At 30€/t CO2, TOPS will be the preferred feedstock for 95% of the time at a feedstock price of 5.7€/GJ. At these conditions, FT-liquids (gasoline/diesel) can be produced for 15.8€/GJ (116 $/bbl). Historic records show price variations between 5.7 and 7.3€/GJ for biomass pellet, 1.0–5.6€/GJ for coal and 0–32€/t CO2. Within these price ranges, coal is generally the preferred feedstock, but occasionally biomass is preferred. Lower biomass prices will increase the frequency of switching feedstock preference from coal to biomass, raising the desire for flexibility. Of the three investigated chemicals, an IG-PG facility producing FT-liquids benefits the most from flexibility. Our study suggests that if the uncertainty in commodity prices is high, a small additional investment can make flexible IG-PG facilities attractive. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]