DOCSLIB.ORG

Better Use of Biomass for Energy – Background Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Better Use of Biomass for Energy – Background Report BUBE: Better Use of Biomass for Energy Background Report to the Position Paper of IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy Report Delft/Darmstadt, July 2010 Authors: CE Delft: Bettina Kampman Geert Bergsma Benno Schepers Harry Croezen Öko-Institut Uwe R. Fritsche Klaus Henneberg Katja Huenecke AidEnvironment Jan Willem Molenaar Jan Joost Kessler CIEP Stephan Slingerland Coby van der Linde Commissioned by: IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy Publication Data Bibliographical data: Bettina Kampman, Uwe R. Fritsche et al. BUBE: Better Use of Biomass for Energy Background Report to the Position Paper of IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy Delft/Darmstadt : CE Delft/Öko-Institut, July 2010 Policy / Biomass / Use / Sustainable production / Resources / Standards / Technology / Analysis Publication code: 10.3844.56 CE publications are available from www.ce.nl Commissioned by: IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy. Further information on this study can be obtained from the contact person, Bettina Kampman. CE Delft Committed to the Environment CE Delft is an independent research and consultancy organisation specialised in developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. CE Delft’s solutions are characterised in being politically feasible, technologically sound, economically prudent and socially equitable. The project was guided by a steering and editorial committee consisting of Annette Schou and David de Jager from IEA RETD, Kyriakos Maniatis and Kees Kwant from IEA Bioenergy and Ralph Sims on behalf of the IEA Secretariat. For more information, see www.iea-retd.org and www.ieabioenergy.com. This publication was produced by the Implementing Agreements on ‘Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (RETD)’ and ‘Bioenergy’, which form part of a programme of international energy technology collaboration undertaken under the auspices of the International Energy Agency. 2 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy Contents Executive Summary 7 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Aim and scope of the report 12 1.3 Biomass today and tomorrow: facts and prognoses 13 1.4 Drivers for bioenergy 19 1.5 Environmental impact: positive effects can be significant, but not for all routes 21 1.6 Security of supply: important, but hard to quantify 24 1.7 Role of biomass in global and national climate policies 25 1.8 Structure of this report 27 2 Key issue: Better supply and production 29 2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 Domestic biomass supply and global trade 29 2.3 Environmental impact of biomass production 31 2.4 Competition with food and feed and other sectors 35 2.5 Socio-economic effects in non-OECD countries 36 2.6 The crucial issue of land use change 37 2.7 Opportunities for better production of bioenergy 38 3 Key issue: Better conversion and use 45 3.1 Introduction 45 3.2 Efficiency of conversion and use 45 3.3 Maximizing GHG emission savings 47 3.4 Contribution to energy security 48 3.5 Improving local air quality with bioenergy 48 3.6 Local conversion and use? 49 3.7 Cost and cost-effectiveness 50 3.8 Learning curves and the question of alternatives 52 4 Key issue: Better policy 55 4.1 Introduction 55 4.2 Biomass and global climate policies 55 4.3 Definition of ‘better’ may vary 56 4.4 Sustainability criteria for bioenergy 58 4.5 Removing barriers to better use of bioenergy 62 5 Conclusions: Roadmap for better use of biomass for energy 65 5.1 Introduction 65 5.2 Criteria for better use of biomass for energy 65 5.3 Milestones for better use of biomass 66 5.4 Better use of biomass for energy: better practices are crucial 68 References 69 3 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy Annex A Glossary of terms and acronyms 81 Annex B Greenhouse gas emission reduction and land use change effects 87 B.1 Introduction 87 B.2 The importance of land use change for GHG emission reduction 87 B.3 GHG emission savings of bioenergy, without indirect land use change 88 B.4 Land use change: Impact on GHG emissions and sequestration 93 Annex C Energy security 99 C.1 Introduction 99 C.2 The international security of sypply discussion 99 C.3 The position of biomass in the international security of supply discussion 100 C.4 Domestic production of biomass and security of supply 101 C.5 Measuring the contribution of biomass to security of supply 102 C.6 Conclusions 102 Annex D Competition with food and feed 103 D.1 Introduction 103 D.2 Impacts of biofuel demand on food and feed 103 Annex E Socio-economic effects in non-OECD countries 107 E.1 Introduction 107 E.2 Positive social and economic effects 107 E.3 Negative social and economic effects 110 E.4 Barriers 114 Annex F Cost and cost effectiveness 117 F.1 Introduction 117 F.2 Costs of bioenergy 117 F.3 Key issues 119 Annex G Opportunities 121 G.1 Introduction 121 G.2 Residues and waste as feedstock 121 G.3 Marginal and degraded land 124 G.4 Other types of feedstock: aquatic biomass and jatropha 126 Annex H Barriers to the better use of bioenergy 129 H.1 Introduction 129 H.2 Technology barriers 129 H.3 Trade barriers 131 H.4 Political barriers 135 H.5 Practical barriers to the effective implementation of policies 136 Annex I Overview of Key Sustainability Certification Schemes 139 4 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy Annex J Relevant policies 147 J.1 Introduction 147 J.2 The UNFCCC climate conventions (COP process) 147 J.3 A global methodology for sustainability certifications 148 J.4 Global Trade regulations (WTO) 148 J.5 National/regional policies 149 J.6 Promotion of R&D 151 5 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy 6 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy Executive Summary This report aims to provide a document that gives guidance on the issue of biomass energy policies in OECD countries. The main conclusions and messages from this project were published in a joint IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy Position Paper and presented at the COP15 in December 2009. The following provides a brief summary of this report; for a more in-depth summary of the results of the study we refer the reader to the position paper (www.iea-retd.org). Better use of biomass for energy: background As the main contributor to renewable energy around the world (about 10% of total energy consumption), the term ‘biomass for energy’ covers a broad range of products, including traditional use of wood for cooking and heating, industrial process heat, co-firing of biomass in coal-based power plants, biogas and biofuels. In many OECD countries, bioenergy is deployed to reduce fossil fuel use and improve security of supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or create new employment. Modern biomass can be more expensive than its fossil competitors, however, and there is evidence that biomass, unless produced sustainably, could have significant negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. This report elaborates on how to improve the use of biomass for energy. It assesses and provides guidelines on how to make better use of sustainable biomass potential and how to increase the positive and reduce the negative impacts. This study was jointly commissioned by IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy and carried out by a consortium consisting of CE Delft, Öko-Institut, Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP) and Aidenvironment. Better supply and production The first step in the biomass-to-energy chain is supply and production of the biomass. These processes can be improved by various means, the most important being: Improving domestic supply and trade: There is significant potential for increasing the supply of sustainable domestic biomass by improving the utilisation of forestry and agricultural residues. Increasing biomass cultivation sustainably typically requires a longer time period, but can provide additional feedstocks. Reducing the environmental impact of biomass production: If waste or residues are used, the environmental impact of biomass supply is typically low or even positive. There is also scope for sustainably growing biomass for energy on land which is underused or not used for other purposes. In addition, there is scope for increasing biomass supply accompanied by low environmental impact by shifting to perennial (‘multi-year’) plants, multiple cropping systems and agroforestry. The use of land for bioenergy crop cultivation and any associated direct and indirect land use changes are key to the environmental performance of bioenergy, its socio-economic impacts and competition with food and feed. 7 July 2010 3.844.1 – Better Use for Biomass for Energy Better conversion and use There is a broad choice of technologies for converting biomass into usable energy and a variety of applications for the bioenergy. The key issues for improving these steps in the biomass-to-bioenergy chain are the following: Improving the efficiency of conversion and use will lead to greater replacement of fossil fuels and, in many cases, more greenhouse gas (GHG) savings and lower costs. GHG savings can also be improved by using low-carbon auxiliary energy sources in the processes concerned, through judicious use of co-products and by displacing fossil fuels with high carbon content. Some conversion processes provide good opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS), which could help reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations in the future. The biomass can also be deployed in such a way that it contributes best to energy security or to air quality improvements. It may be worthwhile, moreover, to optimise biomass use to achieve the best cost-effectiveness, i.e. reduce the cost-benefit ratio to a minimum.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector
    applied sciences Review What is still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector Monica Padella *, Adrian O’Connell and Matteo Prussi European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate C-Energy, Transport and Climate, Energy Efficiency and Renewables Unit C.2-Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy; [email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (M.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 16 September 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 24 October 2019 Abstract: Ethanol production from cellulosic material is considered one of the most promising options for future biofuel production contributing to both the energy diversification and decarbonization of the transport sector, especially where electricity is not a viable option (e.g., aviation). Compared to conventional (or first generation) ethanol production from food and feed crops (mainly sugar and starch based crops), cellulosic (or second generation) ethanol provides better performance in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings and low risk of direct and indirect land-use change. However, despite the policy support (in terms of targets) and significant R&D funding in the last decade (both in EU and outside the EU), cellulosic ethanol production appears to be still limited. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the status of cellulosic ethanol production in EU and outside EU, reviewing available literature and highlighting technical and non-technical barriers that still limit its production at commercial scale. The review shows that the cellulosic ethanol sector appears to be still stagnating, characterized by technical difficulties as well as high production costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper 20Th World Energy Congress Rome 2007
    BTL: a solution to increase energy efficiency in the Brazilian alcohol business 1 Dr. Eduardo Falabella Souza-Aguiar Coordinator - GTL Cell CENPES - PETROBRAS Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 2 Sirlei Sebastião Alves de Sousa Senior Consultant - GTL Cell FUJB - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 3 Fernando Barbosa de Oliveira Process Engineer - GTL Cell CENPES - PETROBRAS Avenida Jequitibá, 950, Quadra 7, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 1. Introduction Due to 1973 oil crisis, the Brazilian government, then run by a military junta, initiated in 1975 the ProÁlcool program. The ProÁlcool or Programa Nacional do Álcool (National Alcohol Program) was nationwide program financed by the government to phase out all automobile fuels derived from fossil fuels (such as gasoline) in favor of ethanol. It began with the anhydrous alcohol to blend with the gasoline. This mixture has been used since then and is now done with 24% of alcohol and 76% gasoline [1]. The decision to produce ethanol from fermented sugarcane was based on the low cost of sugar at the time. Other sources of fermentable carbohydrates were tested such as the manioc [1]. Sugarcane is in itself an enormously efficient production unit: every ton has an energy potential that is equivalent to 1.2 barrels of petroleum. Brazil is the largest sugarcane world producer, having the lowest production costs, followed by India and Australia. On average, 55% of Brazilian sugarcane is turned into alcohol [2]. Sugarcane is grown in Brazil’s Central-South and North-Northeast regions, with two harvest periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Download
    The Revolution Transforming Agriculture & Environment Biochar: Ancient Origins, Modern Solution A Biochar Timeline Author Paul Taylor PhD This complete book is available at www.TheBiocharRevolution.com Biochar: Ancient Origins, Modern Solution A Biochar Timeline Author Paul Taylor PhD This complete book is available at www.TheBiocharRevolution.com FIRST EDITION 2010 Copyright 2010 NuLife Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. National Library of Australia Cataloguing–in–Publishing entry: Taylor, Paul, 1945– The Biochar Revolution: Transforming Agriculture & Environment. 1st ed. ISBN: 978 1 921630 41 5 (pbk.) 1. Ashes as fertilizer. 2. Carbon sequestration. 3. Charcoal. 4. Soil amendments 631.4 Published by NuLife Publishing PO Box 9284 GCMC Qld 9726 Australia Email: [email protected] For further information about orders: Email: [email protected] Website: www.thebiocharrevolution.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the interest, support, patience, and effort expressed consistently— yet in unique ways—by each and every author, as we went though many revisions together. They are listed in the front of the book, with their bios in the back, under contributing authors. I owe special thanks to Hugh McLaughlin and Paul Anderson for their belief, interest, advice and support in the book as a whole. Both read, and offered valuable editing suggestions on, diverse chapters. Hugh reviewed most of the final manuscript. Gary Levi played a crucial role as chief editor and editorial advisor. He edited every chapter numerous times, and stayed with the project as it extended from 5 weeks to 5 months, working generously and meticulously to shape and organize the book.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings IUFRO: Evaluation and Planning of Forestry Research
    united States oepartment of Agriculture Proceedings Forest Service Northeastern IUFRO Station NE-GTR-111 Evaluation and Planning 1986 of Forestry Research S6.06 - S6.06.01 Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 July 25-26, 1985 IUFRO PROCEEDINGS EVALUATION AND PLANNING OF FORESTRY RESEARCH S6.06 - S6.06.01 Compiled by Denver P. Burns Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA July 25-26, 1985 Sponsored by INTERNATIONAL UNION OF FORESTRY RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS and NORTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION, USDA FOREST SERVICE Papers are published in this proceedings in camera-ready form as submitted by the authors. The authors are responsible for the content of their papers. PROGRAM July 25, 1985 Introduction: Denver P. Burns, Director, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Broanall, PA SESSION I - RESB.Alial FRONTIERS Moderator: Dr. Eldon Ross Resear·ch Frontiers. W. Franklin Harr·is, Deputy Division Director, Biotic Systems and Resources, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. SESSION II - RESBARQI FROIITIBRS FOR FORESTRY Applying Frontier Biotechnologies to Tree Improvement: Opportunities and Limitations. F. Thomas Ledig, Project Leader, Institute of Forest Genetics, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA For·est Service, Berkeley, CA Biotechnologies - The Potential Role of Somaclonal Variation in Forestry. Darroll D. Skilling and Michael E. Ostry, Principal Plant Pathologists, Nor·th Central Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN Frontiers in Wood Utilization Research in the United States. John R. Erickson, Director·, Forest Products Laboratory, USDA For·est Service, �.adison, WI Fr·ontiers in Handling Wood. C. R. Silversides, Forestry Consultant, Prescott, Ontar·io SESSION III - IDBIITIFIING RBSBARal NEEDS Moderator: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Crops in Europe Under the EU Energy Reference Scenario 2013
    An assessment of dedicated energy crops in Europe under the EU Energy Reference Scenario 2013 Application of the LUISA modelling platform - Updated Configuration 2014 Carolina Perpiña Castillo, Claudia Baranzelli, Joachim Maes, Grazia Zulian, Ana Lopes Barbosa, Ine Vandecasteele, Ines Mari Rivero, Sara Vallecillo Rodriguez, Filipe Batista E Silva, Chris Jacobs-Crisioni, Carlo Lavalle 2015 EUR 27644 EN An assessment of dedicated energy crops in Europe under the EU Energy Reference Scenario 2013. Application of the LUISA modelling platform - Updated Configuration 2014 This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. JRC Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC99227 EUR 27644 EN ISBN 978-92-79-54171-1 (PDF) ISSN 1831-9424 (online) doi:10.2788/64726 (online) © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. All images © European Union 2016 How to cite: Perpiña Castillo C, Baranzelli C, Maes J, Zulian G, Lopes Barbosa A, Vandecasteele I, Mari Rivero I, Vallecillo Rodriguez S, Batista E Silva F, Jacobs C, Lavalle C. An assessment of dedicated energy crops in Europe under the EU Energy Reference Scenario 2013 Application of the LUISA modelling platform – Updated Configuration 2014. EUR 27644; doi:10.2788/64726 1 Table of contents Executive summary ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS)
    Biomass with CO2 Capture and Storage (Bio-CCS) The way forward for Europe This document has been prepared on behalf of the Advisory Council of the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP) and the Steering Committee of the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP). The information and views contained in this document are the collective view of the ZEP Advisory Council and EBTP Steering Committee and not of individual members, or of the European Commission. Neither the ZEP Advisory Council, the EBTP Steering Committee, the European Commission, nor any person acting on their behalf, is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained in this publication. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants Contents KEY CONCLUSIONS........................................................... ....................................................................... 4 1 WHY EUROPE NEEDS TO GO CARBON-NEGATIVE ....................................................................... 5 1.1 More powerful technologies are now needed to keep global warming below 2°C........................5! 1.2 Bio-CCS: the only large-scale technology that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.... ........... 5! 1.3 The EBTP/ZEP Joint Taskforce Bio-CCS: uniting high-level European stakeholders ................. 6! 2! CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE.......................................................................................................... 7! 2.1! CCS could provide almost 20% of global
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Biomass to Liquid Fuels
    Small-Scale Coal-Biomass to Liquids Production Using Highly Selective Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis n Background Co-conversion of coal with some biomass to liquid fuels can help to reduce CO2 emissions because of the neutrality of biomass with respect to CO2 emissions. An NETL study [Affordable, low cost diesel fuel from domestic coal and biomass, DOE/NETL2009/1349, January 2009], in fact, has indicated that addition of even moderate amounts of biomass to coal for the production of liquids can potentially reduce Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) CO2 emissions relative to petroleum diesel baseline; for example, 20% less CO2 is produced with 8% biomass addition, with Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization (CCUS). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) is a leading technology for converting syngas from gasification to hydrocarbons in coal to liquids (CTL) and coal-biomass to liquids (CBTL) processes. However, conventional FT catalysts produce undesirable waxes (C21+) that need to be upgraded to liquids (C5-C20) by hydrotreating. This adds significantly to the cost of FTS. Development and commercialization of a cost-effective gasification/FTS-based CBTL process to produce renewable gasoline and diesel can reduce the nation’s dependency on oil imported from foreign countries, help to stabilize the prices at the pump, and lower the emission of greenhouse gases. PLEASE CONTACT PARTICIPANTS PROJECT COST Santosh Gangwal Doe Technical Project Officer Chevron Energy DURATION Total Project Principal Investigator Arun Bose Technology Start Date Value Southern Research
    [Show full text]
  • Maize As Energy Crop for Combustion – Agricultural Optimisation of Fuel Supply
    Technologie- undFörderzentrum imKompetenzzentrumfürNachwachsendeRohstoffe 9 Berichteausdem TFZ MaizeasEnergyCrop forCombustion AgriculturalOptimisation ofFuelSupply TFZ Maize as Energy Crop for Combustion – Agricultural Optimisation of Fuel Supply Technologie- und Förderzentrum im Kompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe Maize as Energy Crop for Combustion Agricultural Optimisation of Fuel Supply Dipl.-Geogr. Caroline Schneider Dr. Hans Hartmann Berichte aus dem TFZ 9 Straubing, Januar 2006 Title: Maize as Energy Crop for Combustion – Agricultural Optimisation of Fuel Supply Authors: Caroline Schneider Dr. Hans Hartmann In Cooperation with: Research conducted within the European project „New small scale innova- tive energy biomass combustor“ (NESSIE) NNE5/2001/517 Financial Support: Project funded by the EU The report’s responsibility is taken by the authors. © 2006 Technologie- und Förderzentrum (TFZ) im Kompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Straubing Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Werkes darf ohne schriftliche Einwilligung des Herausgebers in irgendeiner Form reproduziert oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt, verbreitet oder archiviert werden. ISSN: 1614-1008 Hrsg.: Technologie- und Förderzentrum (TFZ) im Kompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe Schulgasse 18, 94315 Straubing E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.tfz.bayern.de Redaktion: Caroline Schneider, Dr. Hans Hartmann Verlag: Selbstverlag, Straubing Erscheinungsort: Straubing Erscheinungsjahr: 2006 Gestaltung:
    [Show full text]
  • Crops of the Biofrontier: in Search of Opportunities for Sustainable Energy Cropping
    WHITE PAPER APRIL 2016 CROPS OF THE BIOFRONTIER: IN SEARCH OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CROPPING Stephanie Searle, Chelsea Petrenko, Ella Baz, Chris Malins www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to Pete Harrison, Federico Grati, Piero Cavigliasso, Maria Grissanta Diana, Pier Paolo Roggero, Pasquale Arca, Ana Maria Bravo, James Cogan, Zoltan Szabo, Vadim Zubarev Nikola Trendov, Wendelin Wichtmann, John Van De North, Rebecca Arundale, Jake Becker, Ben Allen, Laura Buffet, Sini Eräjää, and Ariel Brunner. SUGGESTED REFERENCE Searle, S., Petrenko, C., Baz, E. and Malins, C. (2016). Crops of the Biofrontier: In search of opportunities for sustainable energy cropping. Washington D.C.: The International Council on Clean Transportation. ABOUT THIS REPORT We are grateful for the generous support of the European Climate Foundation, which allowed this report to be produced. The International Council on Clean Transportation is an independent nonprofit organization founded to provide first-rate, unbiased research and technical and scientific analysis to environmental regulators. Our mission is to improve the environmental performance and energy efficiency of road, marine, and air transportation, in order to benefit public health and mitigate climate change. Send inquiries about this report to: The International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I St NW Washington District of Columbia 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2016 International Council on Clean Transportation PREFACE BY THE EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATION In December 2015, world leaders agreed a new deal for tackling the risks of climate change. Countries will now need to develop strategies for meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement, largely via efforts to limit deforestation and to reduce the carbon intensity of their economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Forestry Exemplar Trials Establishment
    Energy Forestry Exemplar Trials Establishment Guidelines Energy Forestry Exemplar Trials Energy Forestry Exemplar Trials Contents Page INTRODUCTION… ....................................................................................2 2. AIMS..................................................................................................2 3. THE TRIAL SITES .................................................................................2 4. GENERAL SITE MANAGEMENT................................................................3 5. SRC and SRF.......................................................................................4 6. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING.........................................4 6.1. Environmental Research..............................................................5 6.2. Silviculture - Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) ...................................7 6.3. Silviculture - Short Rotation Coppice (SRC).................................. 10 6.4. Carbon balance........................................................................ 11 6.5. Regeneration or reinstatement................................................... 11 7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES: Appendix 1: Experiment plans and protocols ............................... 15 - 52 a. Soil sampling and analysis ........................................................... 15
    [Show full text]
  • Heat and Mass Transfer During Lignocellulosic Biomass Torrefaction: Contributions from the Major Components—Cellulose, Hemicellulose, and Lignin
    processes Article Heat and Mass Transfer during Lignocellulosic Biomass Torrefaction: Contributions from the Major Components—Cellulose, Hemicellulose, and Lignin Ken-ichiro Tanoue 1,*, Kentaro Hikasa 1, Yuuki Hamaoka 1, Akihiro Yoshinaga 1, Tatsuo Nishimura 1, Yoshimitsu Uemura 2,3 and Akihiro Hideno 4 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Sciences and Engineering for Innovation, Yamaguchi University, Tokiwadai 2-16-1, Ube, Yamaguchi 755-8611, Japan; [email protected] (K.H.); [email protected] (Y.H.); [email protected] (A.Y.); [email protected] (T.N.) 2 NPO Kuramae Bioenergy, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0023, Japan; [email protected] 3 Center for Biofuel and Biochemical Research, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia 4 Paper industry innovation center of Ehime University, 127 Mendori-cho, Shkokuchuo 799-0113, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-836-85-9122 Received: 27 June 2020; Accepted: 6 August 2020; Published: 9 August 2020 Abstract: The torrefaction of three representative types of biomass—bamboo, and Douglas fir and its bark—was carried out in a cylindrical-shaped packed bed reactor under nitrogen flow at 573 K of the reactor wall temperature. As the thermal energy for the torrefaction was supplied from the top and the side of the bed, the propagation of the temperature profile of the bed is a crucial factor for discussing and improving the torrefaction reactor performance. Therefore, the temperature and gas flow rate (vector) profiles throughout the bed were calculated by model simulation so as to scrutinize this point.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF (Inglês)
    Brazilian Journal of Chemical ISSN 0104-6632 Printed in Brazil Engineering www.abeq.org.br/bjche Vol. 32, No. 01, pp. 23 - 33, January - March, 2015 dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-6632.20150321s00003146 EVALUATION OF COMPOSITION, CHARACTERIZATION AND ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS OF PRETREATED SUGAR CANE BAGASSE A. A. Guilherme1*, P. V. F. Dantas1, E. S. Santos1, F. A. N. Fernandes2 and G. R. Macedo1 1Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, UFRN, Av. Senador Salgado Filho 3.000, Campus Universitário, Lagoa Nova, Bloco 16, Unidade II, 59.078-970, Natal - RN, Brazil. Phone: + (55) 84 3215 3769, Fax: + (55) 84 3215 3770 E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Ceará, UFC, Campus do Pici, Bloco 709, 60455-760, Fortaleza - CE, Brazil. (Submitted: December 2, 2013 ; Revised: March 28, 2014 ; Accepted: March 31, 2014) Abstract - Glucose production from sugarcane bagasse was investigated. Sugarcane bagasse was pretreated by four different methods: combined acid and alkaline, combined hydrothermal and alkaline, alkaline, and peroxide pretreatment. The raw material and the solid fraction of the pretreated bagasse were characterized according to the composition, SEM, X-ray and FTIR analysis. Glucose production after enzymatic hydrolysis of the pretreated bagasse was also evaluated. All these results were used to develop relationships between these parameters to understand better and improve this process. The results showed that the alkaline pretreatment, using sodium hydroxide, was able to reduce the amount of lignin in the sugarcane bagasse, leading to a better performance in glucose production after the pretreatment process and enzymatic hydrolysis.
    [Show full text]