You are here

Home

Biomass

Lee Lynd, at AGCI's 2016 Getting Near Zero workshop, discusses the past, present and future of biofuels.

Chris Field, at AGCI's 2016 Getting Near Zero workshop, explores the tradeoffs of scaling up biomass and biofuels.

Biomass supply and demand: Roz Naylor speaks to Near Zero

Bioenergy, as the largest contributor to global renewable energy supply, draws on a wide range of potential feedstock materials, including forestry and agricultural residues, energy crops, and various wastes. It can be used in many forms ranging from heat, electricity, and gaseous or liquid fuels for transportation. [REN21, 2018].

Total energy demand supplied from biomass in 2016 was approximately 62.5 exajoules (EJ), comprising about 10.5% of the total global primary energy supply [REN21, 2017]. Total primary bioenergy demand is projected to increase to 93 EJ in 2030, increasing total supply by approximately 70% in the next 15 years [IRENA, 2016].

More than 50% of bioenergy is used for traditional activities such as cooking or heating, mostly in open stoves. These activities tend to be inefficient and cause considerable smoke pollution [IEA, 2016].

  • Feedstocks include

    • Oil crops: rape, sunflower, soy, jatropha, and other seeds; waste oils; and animal fats
    • Sugar and starch crops
    • Biodegradable municipal solid waste: sewage sludge; manure; wet wastes from farms and food; and macroalgae
    • Lignocellulosic biomass: wood; straw; energy crops like corn, switchgrass, and sugarcane; and municipal solid waste
    • Photosynthetic microorganisms: microalgae and bacteria

  • Thermochemical, chemical, biochemical and biological conversion routes through which biomass feedstocks become heat and/or power include

    • Biomass upgrading (densification processes like pelletization, pyrolysis, torrefaction, etc.) and combustion
    • Transesterification or hydrogenation
    • Hydrolysis and fermentation or microbial processing
    • Gasification and secondary process (the process by which methane is upgraded to biomethane)
    • Pyrolysis and secondary process
    • Anaerobic digestion and biogas upgrading
    • Bio-photochemical routes
    • Other biological and chemical routes

  • The heat, power, combined heat and power (CHP), and liquid or gaseous fuels that are produced include

    • Liquid fuels: biodiesel; ethanol, butanols, and hydrocarbons; syndiesel and renewable diesel; methanol, ethanol, and alcohols; other fuels and fuel additives
    • Gaseous fuels: biomethane, DME and hydrogen

  • Commercial biomass products are biodiesel, ethanol, syndiesel, renewable diesel, and biomethane.

Biomass energy can be divided into three main categories based on feedstock provenance:

  • Wood and residues: Includes lignocellulosic biomass, such as wood and agricultural residues
  • Waste: Includes biodegradable municipal solid waste
  • Energy crops: Includes the oil crops, sugar and starch crops

Imminent Breakthroughs

  • The U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office's (BETO's) focused on early-stage applied R&D and promoted the technologies that produce price-competitive bioenergy for efficient usage. Up to $78 million funding would support the early stage applied R&D, including Bioenergy engineering for products synthesis, efficient carbon utilization in algal systems, process development for advanced biofuels and biopower, and affordable and sustainable energy crops [US DOE, 2018].
  • Bioenergy generated roughly 13.9 EJ of heat in 2016, of which about 9.1 EJ was used for industrial uses and 4.8 EJ in residential and commercial sectors. The heat capacity of biomass reached approximately 311 GW in 2016 [REN21, 2017].
  • Bioenergy contributed an estimated 12.8% (46.4 exajoules (EJ)) to total final energy consumption in 2016 when the traditional use of biomass is included [REN21, 2018]
  • Modern bioenergy applications in 2016 generated about 13.1 EJ of heat in terms of final energy consumption, of which 7.9 EJ was used in industrial applications [REN21, 2018].
  • Bio-power capacity increased by an estimated 6% to reach 112 GW, generating roughly 504 TWh electricity [REN21, 2017].
  • In 2017, the market for new biofuels was led by HVO/HEFA, followed by ethanol from cellulosic materials like crop residues, and by fuels from thermochemical processes such as gasification and pyrolysis [REN21, 2018].
  • The United States and Brazil produced 70% of the biofuels in the world in 2015 [RWN21, 2017]. In 2014 biofuels provided 4% of world road transport fuel, and are expected to rise slowly, reaching 4.3% in 2020 [REN21, 2016].
  • Aviation biofuels are being developed in many countries and are likely to soon be competitive [Popp et al., 2014].

Wood Residues

  • Wood pellets are increasingly common in bioenergy markets, with an increase of nearly 1 Mt/yr over the past ten years. They are mainly for industrial use and heating use, and the demand in the industrial sector reached 30 Mt in 2017 [REN21, 2018].
  • Europe was the largest market for wood pellets for heating in 2017, primarily in Italy, Germany, France, and North America [REN21, 2018].
  • Global production and trade in wood pellets continued to expand, with production reaching 30 million tons in 2017. About 14 million tons were used for residential and commercial heating while another 16 million tons were used in the industrial sector [REN21, 2018]
  • Wood residues are the most important source of forest-based biomass and are a common source of bioenergy in Canada [Holm-Nielsen & Ehimen, 2016].
  • Combined Heat & Power (CHP) is the main technology for using biomass residues for heating. The largest industrial consumer of bioenergy for heating is the pulp and paper sector, in which about 43% of its heat requirement is met by bioenergy [REN21, 2016].
  • The production of torrefied wood/pellets expanded in 2015, resulting in a product compatible with systems designed for coal [REN21, 2016].
  • Pyrolisis of biochar, torrefaction of densified biomass, integrated gas-fuel cell and turbine, and integrated gas-combined cycle are all products or systems in the R&D or demonstration phase that convert feedstock to bioenergy [IEA Bioenergy, 2009].

Energy Crops

  • Growing energy crops on non-agriculture areas, such as cutaway peatlands, could help solve the problems of land use competition with food production [Laasasenaho et al., 2016].
  • Energy crops that grown in degraded land, such as marginal land and highly erodible lands, can contribute to ecosystem services and the potential of biopower [Blanco-Canqui, 2016].
  • Global production of hydrogenated vegetable oils (HVO) grew by nearly 20% to 4.9 billion liters in 2015; Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and Finland are the major producers [REN21, 2016].
  • HVO/HEFA led the market of new biofuels in 2017. Another major contributor to the new biofuel market is the ethanol from cellulosic materials such as crop residues, and from thermochemical processes such as gasification and pyrolysis [REN21, 2018].
  • Mixed agricultural systems or conservation agriculture (crop with livestock, crop with forestry, and double cropping) could increase productivity and efficiency [Palm et al., 2014; Baudron et al., 2014].
  • Fermentation, liquefaction, pyrolysis, and gasification are four main technologies that convert biomass resources to energy for utilization [Thornley & Adams, 2017].

Waste

  • There are a wide range of bioenergy sources, including wood and crop residues, municipal solid waste, and industrial diesel waste [Sen et al., 2016; Wiselogel et al., 2018].
  • Food waste is a significant component of waste that contains large amounts of bioenergy. Various waste-to-energy strategies can generate electrical and thermal energy, help achieve GHG reduction targets, air quality standards, and divert waste from landfills [Breuing et al., 2017].
  • Thermal technologies and biochemical technologies are mainly used in converting waste to bioenergy. Biodegradable plastic from bio-based waste gases and a unique biopolymer that can be used to manufacture an innovative biodegradable plastic are advanced technologies newly seen by the year of 2017 [Thornley & Adams, 2017; US DOE, 2017].
  • Agricultural wastes and MSW are the two major contributors to bioelectricity generation in the world’s largest bioelectricity producer, China.

Obstacles to TW-Scale Integration

  • Obstacles that restrict wide deployment of bioenergy include high feedstock prices, policy barriers, technical factors, market creation, supply chains, transportation costs, infrastructure development, and community engagement, collaboration and education [Chum et al., 2011; Rosegrant et al., 2014].
  • The development of the large-scale biomass energy industry needs better cooperation and requires complex supply chains that link feedstock suppliers, processors and end-users [REN21, 2018].
  • The technical and equipment requirements for TW-scale integration include appliances for specialized harvesting, handling, and storage for high-efficient energy conversion [REN21, 2018].
  • For some countries, the development of bioenergy is restricted by the low price of electricity from other renewable energy. For example, in Brazil, growth was relatively slow because wind power dominated renewable energy auctions [REN21, 2016].
  • The progress of research can also be a restricting factor for large-scale and sustainable bioenergy production. One of the challenges faced in research is optimization and systematization of bioenergy supply chains, with emphasis on bioenergy end-use across multiple spatial and temporal scales, in a cost-effective, robust and sustainable manner [Yue et al., 2014].
  • Feedstock variability and uncertainty problems in forest bioenergy supply chains are caused by market instability, natural disasters, policy shifts, and climate change [Shabani et al., 2013].
  • Technologies related to bioenergy generation are influenced by many factors, such as technological robustness, economic vitality, impacts on the environment, and social admissibility [Bilgen et al., 2015].
  • More modern technologies that facilitate high efficiency energy conversion haven’t reach commercialization. A number of technical challenges prevent large-scale practical implementation of algal technologies for fuel production [Hallenbeck et al., 2016].

Wood Residues

  • Woody biomass is not cost competitive compared to fossil fuels, in terms of extraction and conversion of energy [Guldhe et al., 2017; Pokharel et al., 2017].
  • Due to the low-density of biomass, biomass harvesting requires a large labor force, and access to storage. Large-scale development of bioenergy from wood residues is also contingent on the transportation costs [Kemausuor et al., 2014].
  • Competing uses for wood and residues, such as fiberboard production and agricultural waste used as fodder and fertilizer, restricts the extent of biomass deployment [Chum et al., 2011].

Energy Crops

  • Energy crop production is largely influenced by economic feasibility, with carefully planned field operations able to be conducted sustainably [Nettles et al., 2015].
  • Energy crops are not developing uniformly throughout the year, causing unstable outputs, which is not appealing to farmers [Sansaniwal et al., 2017].
  • Increasing concern about elevated greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change have led to interest in replacing fossil fuels with energy from forests. It is expected that woody biomass could account for up to 18% of global energy consumption by 2050 [Nettles et al., 2015].
  • Markets for energy crops are usually constrained by bioenergy processors within a short distance, while the long‐term contracts usually require farmers to convert land to a perennial energy crop to meet the market demand and to share the risks of production and upfront costs [Khanna et al., 2017].

Waste

  • Waste availability as a feedstock is highly dependent on demand and consumption of goods, and therefore competing interests and processes create vast uncertainty in the potential for waste biomass expansion [Chum et al., 2011].
  • Waste collection and transportation are critical issues that restrict the efficiency of biomass utilization [Kaygusuz et al., 2015].
  • Challenges still exist to complete sustainability of the circular economy towards closing loops and in the concept of cascade and integrated biorefineries [Zabaniotou, 2017].

Enabling Technologies

Wood Residues

  • Wood residues and agricultural residues are primary bioenergy sources of bioethanol, with enabling technologies including pre-treatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation and distillation [Gupta & Verma, 2015].
  • Fast growing tree plantations and short-rotation coppicing plants like willow are ideal for long-rotation forestry and bioenergy [Chum et al., 2011].
  • Pelletization, carbonization, combustion stoves, steam cycles coupled with combustion, and direct co-firing with coal are all processes or systems that are commercially viable [IEA Bioenergy, 2009; Patel et al., 2016].
  • The technology of converting agriculture residues (such as bagasse napier grass, sorghum, miscanthus, and wood chips) to heat and power is being deployed to a larger extent in more countries, with several new plants being commissioned in 2017 [REN21, 2018].

Energy Crops

  • Sugar fermentation, extraction, esterification, and hydrogenation are all processes that convert energy crops and are commercially available [IEA Bioenergy, 2009].
  • Digestate and mineral fertilization are often used to increase biogas production [Gissén et al., 2014].
  • C4 crops tend to produce more biomass than C3 crops, since they possess the features of aridity resistance, high photosynthetic yields, and a high efficiency of CO2 capture [Koca & Civas, 2013].
  • Sweet sorghum biomass is an excellent raw material for fermentative hydrogen production due to its richness in readily fermentable sugars [Koca & Civas, 2013].
  • Short-rotation coppicing plants like perennial grasses (switchgrass and Miscanthus) are ideal for long-rotation energy production [Chum et al., 2011].
  • The harness of biofuels is mainly from vegetable oils and fats with hydrogen (hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) / hydrotreated esters and fatty acids (HEFA)), and biomethane [REN21, 2018].

Waste

  • Green biorefinery (GBR) is an alternative option for using agricultural waste residues and livestock wastes [Cong & Termansen, 2016].
  • Innovative technologies are being developed to use agricultural waste to produce biohydrogen [Chatellard et al., 2017]. To increase hydrogen potential, multiple approaches are introduced such as microbial consortium selection, substrate pretreatment, and process parameter optimization [Chatellard et al., 2017].
  • Synergies exist between biomass industries and waste management facilities [Chum et al., 2011].
  • Biorefinery clusters have been suggested in order to fully utilize the waste from industry production for biofuel production, power generation, and combustion [Chin et al., 2014].
  • Small manure digesters are a commercially viable way to process wet waste to make biogas [IEA, 2009].
  • Waste decays are used to produce biogas with the environmental benefits of reducing emissions of methane, which can mitigate GHG emissions and reduce potential hazard [REN21, 2018].

Political Considerations

  • Political considerations to support the development of biomass energy are mainly for the purposes of reducing dependence on oil imports, creating more job opportunities, and promoting low-carbon and sustainable economies [Su et al., 2015].
  • The trade of biofuels such as ethanol is an increasing important component of the international trade market that would shape the global trade pattern. For example, China became a major importer of ethanol in 2015, while introducing a tariff and increasing domestic production in 2017. Japanese biomass pellet companies took measures to ensure adequate fuel supply imports by taking financial stakes in global pellet-producing companies [REN21, 2018]
  • Many countries, such as the U.S., support R&D and industrialization of bioethanol and biodiesel, since they can boost economic development and reduce emissions [Su et al., 2015]
  • In some countries where bioenergy is restricted by the rapid growth and lower prices of other renewable energy technologies, political actions are being taken to support biomass energy. For example, some bio-power projects were selected in energy auctions, and power purchase agreements (PPAs) were awarded to new and existing bio-power plants [REN21, 2016].
  • Bioenergy markets are greatly influenced by the policy systems of some countries and regions. During 2017, policies were implemented to support bioenergy production and use. For instance, a program in India enhanced the level of domestic production and use of biofuels, and the RenovaBio initiative in Brazil led to a significant increase in bioenergy production and use [REN21, 2018].
  • Policy instruments used to promote biomass energy include binding targets and mandates, voluntary targets, direct incentives, grants, feed-in tariffs, compulsory grid connection, tariffs, and sustainability criteria [Chum et al., 2011].

Wood Residues

  • Improving the management of supply chain of wood residues would improve the collection efficiency and reduce costs of bioenergy [Holm-Nielsen & Ehimen, 2016].
  • Using wood residues as a source of bioenergy has local political commitment due to its positive environmental benefits and sustainability goals. Such benefits are significant for counties with higher forest coverage [Omer, 2016].
  • The biomass pellets from wood residues and other resources were usually compressed for international trade and large-scale power generation, by means of co-firing and CHP systems [REN21, 2018].

Energy Crops

  • It is projected that larger quantities of ethanol and biodiesel will be traded in the future, and North America, Asia, and Europe will become net importers, while Latin America and Africa will become net exporters [Heinimo and Junginger, 2009].
  • Many countries are concerned about sustainable development of biofuels due to land use changes and environmental impacts [Su et al., 2015].
  • Some non-food energy plants, such as jatropha and oil wastes, are beginnnig to be studied as raw materials for biodiesel production [Su et al., 2015].

Waste

  • Utilization of food residues helps to meet the target of 50% reduction in postharvest losses at the retail- and consumer-levels by 2030 set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2015 [Breunig et al., 2017].
  • Different countries implemented economic instruments such as tax subsidies and other regulations to support the sustainable development of bioenergy from agricultural waste and municipal solid waste [Pandey, 2018].

Social Considerations

  • Development of bioenergy can be beneficial to local economies, where regional players focus on local markets and are flexible to tailor their products to specific customer and regulatory requirements [REN21, 2016].
  • EU Rural Development Program (RDP) promotes sustainable bioenergy production from agriculture. However, the implementation of this program faces the problems of bioenergy competitiveness, sustainability and climate effects, and rural economic development [Waldenström et al., 2016].
  • Large-scale bioenergy generation from biomass could have an effect on global food prices and water scarcity [Popp et al., 2014]. However, it can also cause issues such as food security, income generation, rural and poor development, and land tenure [Bonsch et al., 2016; Humpenöder et al., 2018].
  • Revenue generated from bioenergy feedstock production can offer access to technologies that enhance food crop yield, fuel agricultural investments, and contribute to productivity gains [De La Torre Ugarte and Hellwinckel, 2010].

Wood Residues

  • The social effects of establishing projects for utilization of wood residues include changes in people lifestyle, culture, community, political systems, environment, health, well-being, personal rights, property rights, and even fears and aspirations [Cambero & Sowlati, 2014].
  • The development of wood pellets contributes to global trade; Europe, North America and the Russian Federation are the main suppliers. The pattern of trade varies with changes in regulations and financial support [REN21, 2016].
  • The application of wood residues has the social benefits of collecting residues, providing avenues for forest companies, and creating job opportunities in forest-dependent communities [Holm-Nielsen & Ehimen, 2016].
  • Converting available forest and wood residues into energy can reduce costs and create revenues for forest companies, as well as create more opportunities for communities. These applications will help to achieve the goal set by the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SE4ALL) [Cambero et al., 2015].

Energy Crops

  • Plant biomass contained in energy crops can increase farmers′ incomes, and maintain and improve ecological and social sustainability [Koca & Civas, 2013].
  • Energy crop plantations developed by clearing existing plants and forests can trigger concern for aesthetic views and environmental impacts [Chin et al., 2014].
  • Workers exposed to harmful pesticides, microorganisms, and toxic substances is another potential hazard of energy crops [Chum et al., 2011].
  • Issues of ownership for energy crop plantations still exist in many regions [Chin et al., 2014].

Waste

  • A circular economy requires the recycle and reuse of waste that contains biomass energy. However, the high cost of treatment and labor force in livestock waste management may raise social considerations. The most common complaints associated with manure management are the odors produced in the livestock sector [Longo et al., 2016].
  • The hazardous emissions from MSW incineration and harmful contaminations entailed by biochemical treatment would be considerable concerns to both workers and people living in the neighborhood [Matsakas et al., 2017].   

Environmental Considerations

  • Compared to conventional fossil fuels, bioenergy generates lower emissions of SO2, NOx and soot. It also has the potential to achieve zero emission of CO2 [Bilgen et al., 2015].
  • Linking financial support to life-cycle CO2-emission reductions based on life cycle analysis would be beneficial to support CO2 savings and sustainable bioenergy [Popp et al., 2014].
  • Land use change and GHG emissions for biomass production can impacts ecosystems, and global climate change [Chum et al., 2011; Popp et al., 2014]. Land use is a rather complex issue which would be affected by public policy, prices of agricultural commodities, prices of petroleum, and land values [Popp et al., 2014].
  • Emissions from the supply chain - including non-CO2 GHG emissions and fossil CO2 from auxiliary energy - influence climate change [Chum et al., 2011]. Non-GHG forcing includes particulate and black carbon emission from small-scale bioenergy use [Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008].
  • Biomass burning can generate large amount of particulate matters without proper treatment, leading to the degradation of air quality [Huang et al., 2014].
    • Although biomass typically uses a lot of water, the impacts on water availability are highly dependent on feedstock, production methods, and the supply chain [Chum et al., 2011].
    • The development of biomass for bioenergy can help promote or denigrate local biodiversity, depending on the extent of habitat destruction and the concerted use of optimal land [Francis et al., 2005; Chum et al., 2011].
    • Bioenergy exploration can have negative effects on soil, including soil erosion, nutrient leaching, and changes in soil nutrient balance [Sastre et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2016].

Wood Residues

  • Energy from wood residues has environmental benefits of reducing emissions associated with fossil fuels, reducing fossil fuel dependency, decreasing waste, and saving landfill space [Holm-Nielsen & Ehimen, 2016].
  • The total mitigation potential for biomass energy from agriculture, including agricultural residues and energy crops, ranges from 70-1,260 MT CO2 eq/year at a cost of USD2005 19.5/tons CO2 eq and 560-2,320 Mt CO2 eq/year at a cost of up to USD2005 48.5/ton of CO2 eq [Chum et al., 2011].
  • Although low-yielding biomass schemes are generally more expensive, they provide alternative benefits, such as soil regeneration, water retention, erosion protection, and a lack of competition with food resources [Chum et al., 2011].

Energy Crops

  • Most energy crops are grown on biomass plantations, and the effects of land use change associated with these farms can impact the climate benefit of bioenergy as well as denigrate biodiversity [Chum et al., 2011; Sastre et al., 2016].
  • Gross GHG emissions of the systems for energy crops are 28.9 g CO2-eq MJ−1 and 140 g CO2-eq kg−1feedstock, respectively [Ertem et al., 2017].
  • Water use is a major consideration for energy crop production [Chum et al., 2011; Destouni et al., 2013].
  • Compared to the existing electric mix, electricity production from biogas generated from energy crops implied lower impacts on climate change [Lijó et al., 2018].

Waste

  • Direct combustion of MSW, including gasification and co-combustion with coal, increases efficiency in CHP [Chum et al. 2011].
  • Anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste by co-generating electricity and heat can lead to reductions in many emissions compared to fossil fuels. However, the acidification and eutrophication potentials were 25 and 12 times higher, respectively [Lijó et al., 2017].

 

References:

Baudron, F., Jaleta, M., Okitoi, O., & Tegegn, A. (2014). Conservation agriculture in African mixed crop-livestock systems: Expanding the niche. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 171-182.

Bilgen, S., Keleş, S., Sarıkaya, İ., & Kaygusuz, K. (2015). A perspective for potential and technology of bioenergy in Turkey: Present case and future view. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 228-239.

Blanco-Canqui, H. 2016. Growing Dedicated Energy Crops on Marginal Lands and Ecosystem Services. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80:845-858. doi:10.2136/sssaj2016.03.0080

Bonsch, M., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B., Dietrich, J. P., Rolinski, S., ... & Stevanovic, M. (2016). Trade‐offs between land and water requirements for large‐scale bioenergy production. Gcb Bioenergy, 8(1), 11-24.

Breunig, H. M., Jin, L., Robinson, A., & Scown, C. D. (2017). Bioenergy Potential from Food Waste in California. Environmental Science & Technology.

Breunig, H. M., Jin, L., Robinson, A., & Scown, C. D. (2017). Bioenergy Potential from Food Waste in California. Environmental Science & Technology.

Cambero, C., & Sowlati, T. (2014). Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives–A review of literature. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 62-73.

Cambero, C., Alexandre, M. H., & Sowlati, T. (2015). Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: a case study in British Columbia, Canada. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 59-72.

Chatellard, L., Marone, A., Carrère, H., & Trably, E. (2017). Trends and Challenges in Biohydrogen Production from Agricultural Waste. In Biohydrogen Production: Sustainability of Current Technology and Future Perspective (pp. 69-95). Springer India.

Chin, H. C., Choong, W. W., Alwi, S. R. W., & Mohammed, A. H. (2014). Issues of social acceptance on biofuel development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 71, 30-39.

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.

Cong, R. G., & Termansen, M. (2016). A bio-economic analysis of a sustainable agricultural transition using green biorefinery. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 153-163.

Destouni, G., Jaramillo, F., & Prieto, C. (2013). Hydroclimatic shifts driven by human water use for food and energy production. Nature Climate Change, 3(3), 213.

English, B., De la Torre Ugarte, D., Hellwinckel, C., Jensen, K., Menard, R. J., West, T. O., & Clark, C. (2010). Implications of energy and carbon policies for the agriculture and forestry sectors. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Institute of Agriculture, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Ertem, F. C., Neubauer, P., & Junne, S. (2017). Environmental life cycle assessment of biogas production from marine macroalgal feedstock for the substitution of energy crops. Journal of cleaner production, 140, 977-985.

Gissén, C., Prade, T., Kreuger, E., Nges, I. A., Rosenqvist, H., Svensson, S. E., ... & Björnsson, L. (2014). Comparing energy crops for biogas production–yields, energy input and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation. biomass and bioenergy, 64, 199-210.

Guldhe, A., Singh, B., Renuka, N., Singh, P., Misra, R., & Bux, F. (2017). Bioenergy: A Sustainable Approach for Cleaner Environment. In Phytoremediation Potential of Bioenergy Plants (pp. 47-62). Springer, Singapore.

Gupta, A., & Verma, J. P. (2015). Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 550-567.

Hallenbeck, P. C., Grogger, M., Mraz, M., & Veverka, D. (2016). Solar biofuels production with microalgae. Applied energy, 179, 136-145.

Heinimö, J., & Junginger, M. (2009). Production and trading of biomass for energy–an overview of the global status. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(9), 1310-1320.

Holm-Nielsen, J., & Ehimen, E. A. (Eds.). (2016). Biomass Supply Chains for Bioenergy and Biorefining. Woodhead Publishing.

Huang, R. J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K. F., Cao, J. J., Han, Y., ... & Zotter, P. (2014). High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze events in China. Nature, 514(7521), 218.

Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Weindl, I., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., ... & Rolinski, S. (2018). Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs?. Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), 024011.

International Energy Agency, 2016. https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/bioenergy/

IRENA. (2016), REmap: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future, 2016 Edition. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, www.irena.org/remap

Kaygusuz, K., Avci, A. C., & Toklu, E. (2015). Energy from biomass-based wastes for sustainable energy development. Journal of Engineering Research and Applied Science, 4(2), 307-316.

Kemausuor, F., Kamp, A., Thomsen, S. T., Bensah, E. C., & Østergård, H. (2014). Assessment of biomass residue availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 86, 28-37.

Khanna, M., Louviere, J., & Yang, X. (2017). Motivations to grow energy crops: the role of crop and contract attributes. Agricultural Economics, 48(3), 263-277.

Koçar, G., & Civaş, N. (2013). An overview of biofuels from energy crops: Current status and future prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 900-916.

Laasasenaho, K., Lensu, A., & Rintala, J. (2016). Planning land use for biogas energy crop production: The potential of cutaway peat production lands. Biomass and Bioenergy, 85, 355-362.

Lijó, L., González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., & Moreira, M. T. (2017). The environmental effect of substituting energy crops for food waste as feedstock for biogas production. Energy.

Lijó, L., González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., & Moreira, M. T. (2017). The environmental effect of substituting energy crops for food waste as feedstock for biogas production. Energy, 137, 1130-1143.

Longo, S., Malamis, S., Katsou, E., Costa, C. N., Theologides, C. P., & Fatone, F. (2016). Social aspects of livestock waste management in Cyprus. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 7(4), 765-777. 

Matsakas, L., Gao, Q., Jansson, S., Rova, U., & Christakopoulos, P. (2017). Green conversion of municipal solid wastes into fuels and chemicals. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 26, 69-83.

Nettles, J., Birks, P., Sucre, E., & Bilby, R. (2015). Sustainable Production of Bioenergy Feedstock from the Industrial Forest: Potential and Challenges of Operational Scale Implementation. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 2(4), 121-127.

Omer, A. M. (2016). An overview of biomass and biogas for energy generation: recent development and perspectives. Agric Adv, 5(2), 251-268.

Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L., & Grace, P. (2014). Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 87-105.

Pandey, R. 2018. Bioenergy market and policies 2018. Retrieved from: https://wiki.uef.fi/download/attachments/44928093/Portfolio-Ramji%20pandey.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1518168845000&api=v2

Patel, M., Zhang, X., & Kumar, A. (2016). Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1486-1499.

Pokharel, R., Grala, R. K., & Grebner, D. L. (2017). Woody residue utilization for bioenergy by primary forest products manufacturers: An exploratory analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 161-171..

Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 559-578.

Ramanathan, V., & Carmichael, G. (2008). Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature geoscience, 1(4), 221.

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). (2016). Renewables 2016 global status report. https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/REN21_GSR2016_FullReport_en_11.pdf

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). (2017). Renewables 2017 global status report. https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2017_Full-Report_English.pdf

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). (2018). Renewables 2018 global status report. Retrieved from: https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2018_Full-Report_English.pdf

Rosegrant, M. W., Msangi, S., Sulser, T. B., & Valmonte-Santos, R. A. (2014). Bioenergy and agriculture: Promises and challenges: Biofuels and the global food balance.

Sansaniwal, S. K., Rosen, M. A., & Tyagi, S. K. (2017). Global challenges in the sustainable development of biomass gasification: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 23-43

Sastre, C. M., Carrasco, J., Barro, R., González-Arechavala, Y., Maletta, E., Santos, A. M., & Ciria, P. (2016). Improving bioenergy sustainability evaluations by using soil nitrogen balance coupled with life cycle assessment: A case study for electricity generated from rye biomass. Applied Energy, 179, 847-863.

Sen, B., Aravind, J., Kanmani, P., & Lay, C. H. (2016). State of the art and future concept of food waste fermentation to bioenergy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 547-557.

Shabani, N., Akhtari, S., & Sowlati, T. (2013). Value chain optimization of forest biomass for bioenergy production: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 299-311.

Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., ... & Paustian, K. (2016). Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Global change biology, 22(3), 1008-1028.

Su, Y., Zhang, P., & Su, Y. (2015). An overview of biofuels policies and industrialization in the major biofuel producing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 991-1003.

Thornley, P., & Adams, P. (Eds.). (2017). Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems. Academic Press.

US Department of Energy (DOE). 2017. Emerging Bioenergy Technologies Fueled by the National Labs. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/4-emerging-bioenergy-technologies-fueled-national-labs-4

US Department of Energy (DOE). 2018. Secretary Perry Announces Up to $78 Million for Bioenergy Research Funding Opportunities. May 2018, retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-perry-announces-78-million-bioenergy-research-funding-opportunities

Waldenström, C., Ferguson, R., Sundberg, C., Tidåker, P., Westholm, E., & Åkerskog, A. (2016). Bioenergy From Agriculture: Challenges for the Rural Development Program in Sweden. Society & Natural Resources, 29(12), 1467-1482.

Wiselogel, A., Tyson, S., & Johnson, D. (2018). Biomass feedstock resources and composition. In Handbook on Bioethanol (pp. 105-118). Routledge.

Yue, D., You, F., & Snyder, S. W. (2014). Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain optimization: overview, key issues and challenges. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 66, 36-56.

Zabaniotou, A. (2017). Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to Circular waste-based Bioeconomy-A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Cleaner Production.

User login