Energieonderzoek

BioPUSH: Integrated Strategies for Identifying Optimal Bio-Energy Production and Utilisation Systems

2002-2006

Coordinator: Dr. A.P.C. Faaij, tel (030) 2537643, a.faaij@uu.nl, Utrecht University

Participating institutions:
Utrecht University (UU)
Technical University Delft (TUD)
Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR)

Overall aim

Ambitious targets for the use of biomass have been set on national and EU levels. The Netherlands strive for a contribution of 85 and 150 PJ bio-energy in 2007 and 2020, respectively; in a long term strategy for 2040 a contribution of 600 – 1000 PJ energy supply from biomass is. Different policy papers of the EU (see the so called 'White Paper' of 1997, 'Green Paper' of 2000 and the Biofuel directive of 2003) project that in 2010 about 47 EJ primary energy in Europe should come from biomass and that in 2010 5.75% of the fuel consumed by the automotive fled in Europe will be produced from biomass. Because residues from forestry and agriculture cannot provide all biomass needed to fulfill these targets, it is expected that up to 17 million hectares of agricultural land in Europe will have to be dedicated to the production of energy crops, unless the biofuels are imported from non-EU countries (Biomass Action Plan, CEC 2005). Biomass from energy crops, however, still has two main disadvantages:

  1. the cost of conventional energy crops in the EU is higher than the costs of the competing fossil energy source,
  2. the intensive use of land can lead to competition between land use functions, especially for good quality crop lands.

Therefore, biomass production and utilization systems have to be developed, that allow for a cost effective and efficient supply of bio-energy and bio-materials. Efficiencies addressed here are the efficiency of land use, as well as the efficiency of the use of resources like energy, fertilizers and others. In the same time environmental benign production of energy crops and minimum standards for sustainable bio-energy supply are strived for (Biomass Action Plan, CEC 2005).
In this context the main objective of BioPUSh is the identification of biomass systems that can result in cheaper biomass energy and more efficient land use. Hereby BioPUSh focuses on several innovative concepts of biomass production and use, which are multiple land use, multi product crops and cascading.

  1. Multiple land use (MLU) is here defined as the fulfillment of more than one function as the desired result of land use. MLU concepts search for opportunities to combine the generation of different goods or services on the same area.
  2. Multi product crops are defined in this context as crops that produce more than one product. A crop that is split into two or more parts that are used for material and energy applications is a multi-product crop. A broad variety of multi-product crop systems are possible. Well-known examples of multi-product crop systems in the context of ‘traditional’ agriculture are the production of cereals and sugar cane and the combustion of straw and bagasse for heat or power production. Less traditional multi-product crop system are possible, too. An example is the production of maize, where starch is used for polymers production, by-products from starch production for fodder and the stalks and leaves for energy purposes.
  3. Cascade use of biomass means that harvested biomass is first used as a high-quality resource for the production of non-energy products and is later on in the life cycle used for lower quality products. Process waste and waste at the end of the life cycle can be used for energy conversion.

Figure 1 gives an overview on and examples for the different concepts. Biomass systems, which employ one or several of these concepts, are further on addressed as multi-functional biomass systems.

Figure 1: Elements of multi-functional biomass systems

Figure 1: Elements of multi-functional biomass systems

An important sub-task of the BioPUSh project is to identify and model multi-functional bio-energy systems and to compare them in terms of costs, GHG emissions, energy and land use efficiency.

If these multi-functional bio-energy systems would be feasible, both from a financial, energetic and societal point of view, they could be implemented at large scale in order to meet the renewable energy goals within the Netherlands and the EU. The availability of land for this purpose will be largely influenced by political choices and parallel developments in EU agriculture. However, large-scale introduction of multi-functional bio-energy systems will also influence their economic environment. High pressure on land resources may influence land process or the price of potentially replaced crops. These types of price elasticity's also play a role in all other stages in the multi-product bio-energy systems. The large-scale production of certain biomass raw materials may lower the price of competing resources and thus influence their feasibility and chances for widespread implementation and become a new barrier for increased biomass use. In this context another sub-questions within BioPUSh is:

What are the economic interactions between large-scale application of multifunctional biomass systems and prices of land and competing products within the context of the European agricultural policy?

Finally, for the implementation of multifunctional biomass systems it is important to get information on potential implementation barriers or drivers. Therefore, a couple of sub-questions in BioPUSh refer to this aspect:

What are potentially successful network and process strategies for innovation, diffusion and implementation in multi-functional bio-energy systems? What are the main barriers and carriers that can influence the widespread introduction of multi-functional bio-energy systems and how can the barriers be solved and the carriers be activated by means of technology development and technology policy?

Summary of overall results

The BioPUSh project was designed to answer the following questions:

  • What are promising multi-functional bioenergy systems that can result in cheaper energy and more efficient land use and how do these systems compare with regard to costs, GHG emissions, energy and land use efficiencies?
  • What are the economic interactions between large-scale application of multifunctional biomass systems and prices of land and competing products within the context of the European agricultural policy?
  • What are potentially successful network and process strategies for innovation, diffusion and implementation in multi-functional bio-energy systems? What are the main barriers and carriers that can influence the widespread introduction of multi-functional bio-energy systems and how can the barriers be solved and the carriers be activated by means of technology development and technology policy?

These questions cover as well technical, ecological, micro and macro-economic and societal aspects. Therefore the co-operation of different disciplines was needed to deal with the research objectives of BioPUSh.
There could not be produced an overall integrating product in BioPUSh, mainly because no joint planning of all projects was possible due to different dates for starting and delivering of results in the four sub-project. But it important results, that answer the research questions formulated in BioPUSh (see above), were elaborated and published in either or both PhD thesis, scientific and applied journals and on conferences and workshops. Below summaries of the most important results are given.

A) Promising multi-functional bioenergy systems and their performance with regard to costs, GHG emissions, energy and land use efficiencies
The BioPUSh results show that multi-functional biomass systems, including multi-product crops, cascade use of biomass and multiple land use, increase the potential benefit of biomass use in terms of costs, GHG emission reduction and agricultural land use. The benefits of these multi-functional biomass systems are influenced by many factors. These factors depend on the on hand on type and structure of the biomass systems such kind of biomass crops and crop management systems being chosen and type of material or energy carrier produced or efficiency and costs of production. On the other hand they depend on external factors like market volumes and prices of materials or the CO2 intensity of reference systems.

Multi-product crops
In comparison to single bioenergy systems, the multi-product systems including the crops wheat, hemp and poplar being used partly for energy and partly for material purposes, decrease primary fuel costs by about 5 to more than 50 €/GJLHV in cases of very high material applications. (For comparison, primary biomass fuel costs of bioenergy systems are about 2-15 €/GJLHV, while coal process are about 2 €/GJLHV) . With regard to GHG emission reductions, these multi-product systems lower the reductions with about 3-10 Mg CO2eq per hectare and year of biomass production.
The analysis of bio-refinery systems for poly-lactic acid (PLA) production from biomass from either short rotation wood or starch from wheat shows, that additional benefits of about 4-12 Mg CO2eq per hectare per year and 0-200 €/Mg biomass input can be achieved.
A comparison of land requirements, energy savings and GHG emission reduction of bio-based polymers and bioenergy applications shows, that it leads to a different ranking of options if the comparison takes places based in a unit of agricultural land or on a unit of polymer produced. If land use is chosen as the basis of comparison, natural fibre composites and thermoplastic starch score better than bioenergy production from energy crops, whereas poly(lactides) score comparably well and poly(hydroxalkaontes score worse.
The use of agricultural residues for energy production increases the benefits of bio-based polymers production, i.e. GHG emission reductions increase by up to 15 MG CO2eq per hectare per year.
It was concluded that within the structure of biomass systems, the main material application has the largest influence on the overall performance of multi-functional biomass systems. Also, the utilisation of agricultural residues for energy production can significantly improve the performance of biomass systems. Of course, the evaluation of multi-functional biomass systems depends strongly on the alternative reference systems. The type of materials and energy carriers that are substituted and the waste management system have proven to be crucial for costs as well as for GHG emission reductions obtained for biomass systems.

Cascading systems
A methodological framework to compare biomass cascading chains, i.e. the subsequent use of biomass for materials, recycling and energy recovery, considering land use, CO2 emissions reduction and economic performance was developed here. The comparison of several cascading example chains of short rotation poplar wood with each other show a very broad range of results. Due to cascading, the GHG emissions avoided alter by about -300 to 2000 €/MG CO2 compared  to single energy use. For comparison, the use of short rotation wood for bio-electricity production results in avoided emissions of about 5 Mg CO2 per year at costs of about 100 €/MG CO2.
In the case of bio-materials that have a relatively long lifetime, time dimensions of carbon storage in these materials can play an important role. For example, if time is considered by using a present value approach, net GHG emission reductions of cascading systems decrease. Also, market prices of land, materials and energy carriers influence the economic performance of multi-functional biomass systems strongly.

Multiple land use systems
The combination of different land use functions with biomass production into so called multiple land use (MLU) systems can contribute significantly to reduce the costs of biomass production, if the land use functions are chosen that deliver goods or services for which somebody is willing to pay.  Important examples of land use functions with an economic value are the cleaning of waste waters or other wastes, the decontamination of soils polluted with heavy metals or carbon sequestration. All these land use functions can be combined with the production of perennial crops like short rotation trees or perennial rhizomatous grasses.
In total more than 30 land use functions could be identified, that are feasible for combination with multi-functional bioenergy production systems.
Several methods to assess the economic value of land use functions were identified and applied to the example of the phytoremediation function. The appropriate choice of method depends on the stakeholder group, i.e. the group of people to which the land use functions provide a value or who are willing to pay for it. By the example of phytoremediation (cadmium removal from soil) it was shown that this function can have a value of about 14.000 Euro per hectare (over 20 years) for farmers.
The economic value of land use functions can only be assessed when information about the bio-physical output are available. The bio-physical output is, for example, the amount carbon sequestered, the amount of waste water being cleaned etc. Here, an indicator based toll to quantify the bio-physical output of MLU systems was developed and applied to a MLU system combining biomass production from willow with phytoremediation of soil from cadmium and carbon sequestration.
MLU biomass systems can contribute to the reduction of biomass production costs, but also to more efficient land use. Additionally they can deliver many ecological services, like an increase of biodiversity, reduction of input of mineral fertilizer and pesticides and reduction of soil erosion. In this context it was shown here that perennial biomass crops have the highest potential in combining low biomass production costs, potential to be combined with important land use functions and positive ecological contribution to agricultural production.

B) Economic interactions between large-scale application of multifunctional biomass systems and prices of land and competing products within the context of the European agricultural policy

Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) have a biomass production potential that can, assuming modern and efficient agricultural production methods, go beyond the present primary energy consumption. Here it was shown that the bulk of this biomass potential (>80%) comes from energy crops. There will be no competition between the production of food and biomass and with land demand for nature conservation if land for biomass production is made available by intensifying the food and feed production in CEEC. However, a competition between ecological agriculture and large scale biomass production could result from the fact that yields in ecological agriculture are lower than under intensive production methods and therefore more land is needed for food and feed production. In a scenario of full implementation of CAP reforms in CEEC the development of a significant biomass production potential in CEEC, and production costs for bioenergy that can be below the costs for fossil fuels, can be expected.

A partial equilibrium framework was developed to deal with the impact of energy policies on biomass and traditional agricultural production with special attention to GHG emissions and land use. The model captures the most important mechanisms that govern the interactions between agriculture and biomass in the presence of a tax on conventional electricity and a tax on carbon. Two policies are tested: (1) an electricity tax, and (2) a carbon tax. Both policies are analyzed in three different settings: (a) without subsidies, (b) with a subsidy on bioelectricity and (c) with a subsidy on biomass production.

Results that were attained for the Polish case are that the electricity tax in combination with the bioelectricity subsidy can achieve the Polish goal to increase the share of bioelectricity to 7.5% in the year 2010.  Generally bioelectricity shares increase with subsidies given. The effect of policy measures on agricultural production is different. While an electricity tax stimulates both, biomass and food production, the carbon taxation of 25% leads to a decrease in agricultural production of about 2%. Prices of agricultural commodities increase by 0.2 – 2.2% with policy measures, the effect of carbon taxation is stronger than the effect of electricity tax.

If policy measures are implemented, 50 – 60 thousand ha will additionally be dedicated to energy crops in Poland. Subsidies on bioelectricity production lead to the largest reduction in CO2 emissions, whereas a subsidy on biomass production is the most effective for reducing N2O emissions. But it became clear from the results that subsidizing bioelectricity increases its share the quickest and that this policy measure is also least costly in welfare terms. The energy policies proposed here also influence the land allocation of Poland: the areas devoted to forestry and biomass plantations can increase substantially, provided that a subsidy scheme is included.

The utilization of agricultural residues as biomass source increases the share of bioelectricity by around 2%-points. The use of residues, however, is not sufficient to reach the energy goals set in Poland, that means biomass from dedicated energy crops are needed. The use of residues has low effects on food production and prices.

Biomass production from energy crops can benefit from using cheap contaminated and degraded land, even if there are some additional costs for making these land types suitable for production. The use of this land reduces the pressure on arable land since the production of biomass switches to currently non-productive areas. It also could have a positive influence on the potential of Poland to export biomass.

Analyzing the influence of biorefiniery and cascading showed, that cascade systems do stimulate the production of bioelectricity, but it influences more of a shift in inputs in the bioelectriciy sector (from biomass to the cascaded bio-nylon and 1,3PDO) than an increase in the production level of bioelectricity. Cascading systems impose a large pressure on productive land, at the expense of both traditional agriculture and biomass crops. The need for an increased grass production to meet the demands of the biorefineries, reduced the potentials for productive land for other types of land intensive production in the analyzed case studies. Dedicated biomass plantations remain the man determinant of the possibility to produce clean electricity. The more advanced cascade and bioerefinery systems, however, contribute to some extend in the transition towards a sustainable energy production, as they stimulate bio-based production processes that replace oil and can be used to produce bioelectricity.

Overseeing these multifunctional biomass systems, the general conclusion can be drawn that in order to attain the current energy policy targets, dedicated biomass plantations are required. More advanced systems, and refinements of these systems, as discussed above, may contribute to reduce the costs associated with the adoption of the energy policies, or may enhance the associated environmental benefits, but their contribution remains limited. While each dedicated biomass plantation may be small-scale, total production of biomass needs to increase substantially.

C) Network and process strategies for innovation, diffusion and implementation in multi-functional bio-energy systems and the barriers and carriers that can influence the widespread introduction of multi-functional bio-energy systems

Here, an approach was developed that results in Innovation System (IS) concepts that influence the development and diffusion of biomass technology and shall improve the policy making process for the implementation of biomass. This approach is based on the use of functions of innovation systems in order to understand processes of technological change and innovation. The set of functions of Innovation Systems that have been identified and are used here are:

  • Entrepreneurial Activities
  • Knowledge development (learning)
  • Knowledge diffusion through networks
  • Guidance of the search
  • Market formation
  • Resource mobilization
  • Counteracting Resistance to change

It is expected that the more System Functions are served, the better the performance of the innovation system will be, thereby resulting in higher chances of a successful development, diffusion, and implementation of new technologies. Both the individual fulfillment of each function and the interaction dynamics between the functions are of importance. Virtuous interaction patterns between System Functions could lead to a reinforcing dynamic within the IS, whereas vicious interactions could cause the IS to collapse.
The IS functions were applied to the case of biomass gasification in the Netherlands. Despite the promises of high-energy conversion efficiency and the wide variety of applications, biomass gasification has not been successfully developed and implemented in the Netherlands. The main blocking factor that kept the innovation system from functioning properly is the absence of the national government with respect to a clear and consistent policy towards biomass gasification. Over the years, the opinions of actors within the biomass gasification innovation system show that there is an absence of available public resources, guidance, and other forms of support for biomass gasification. The general conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that a structural misalignment occurred between the institutional framework within which the technology could have been developed, on the one hand, and the technical requirements on the other.

The dynamic analysis of the functioning of the biomass digestion innovation system in Germany showed problematic functional patterns. Not one of the system functions that were analyzed showed a continuous build up over the years. There were regularly short periods of entrepreneurial activities by enthusiastic pioneers, but this did not lead to positive feedbacks with other system functions. Thus, the system never gained enough critical mass to overcome the technological problems. Furthermore, the institutional environment in which this innovation system needs to function is instable and very often not stimulating for digestion initiatives. In turn the biomass digestion community is often unable to successfully lobby for improved institutional arrangements. Policy lessons for an improved development and diffusion of biomass digestion follow directly from the above. Government policy should have focused on strengthening three system functions: guidance of the search, market formation and resources mobilization. Specifically, this involves long-term, clear and supportive arrangements concerning the economics of biomass digestion plants, e.g., fixed feed in tariffs of electricity produced. This creates a market for digestion and due to the long-term characters it guides entrepreneurs in their choice for this technology. Furthermore, supportive regulations regarding co-digestion (especially allowing carbon rich feedstock) would have greatly affected the developments. This would greatly influence the economics of digestion plants and resolve many uncertainties.

Conclusions

The summary of all these results shows that in BioPUSh it was possible to

  • elaborate answers to the most important questions being asked at the start of the project,
  • develop new methodologies and tools to tackle with these research questions,
  • to combine new data, tools and methodologies being elaborated or developed by the different disciplines.

It was difficult to come up with a complete new methodology that bundles all disciplines in one approach or tool. Nevertheless, BiopUSh has shown that a toolbox of different methods used in conjunction can tackle the type of multidisciplinary questions that were asked here.

Dissemination of results

Scientific

The results, that were elaborated in the BioPUSh project, were used in the arena of very applied projects, of which some examples are given below:

  • VIEWLS (Clear Views on Clean Fuels) is an EU project, that served policy advice. With regard to the EU policy goals set for the use of biofuels in the EU (5.75% biofuels in 2010) the potentials of producing biofuels in especially Eastern and Central European countries were examined and parameter that determine the availability of biofuels and policy measures to influence them were analyzed. The VIEWLS project was finalized with a large stakeholder workshop in Brussels.
  • REFUEL (Renewable Fuels for a Sustainable Europe) is the follow up project of VIEWLS and also funded by the EU with the aim to receive recommendations for policy measures that can serve the implementation of the biofuels directive in the EU.
  • ENFA (European Non Food Agriculture) is an EU project which is designed with the aim to develop a model that can depict the European agricultural and forestry sectors and be used for the macro-economic and ecological impacts of large scale introduction of dedicated biomass production.

Furthermore, the BioPUSh results were used in the work done in the context of the IEA tasks 38 (greenhouse Gas Balances) and 40 (Sustainable Bio-energy Trade). These tasks involve international networks of researcher and market parties

The lessons learned from the work in BioPUSh were very relevant for the development of carbon accounting methods for biomass and bioenergy systems. This is also relevant in the international context, for example for CDM projects, emission trading and biomass trading.

The insights gained through BioPUSH are used in the societal debate on sustainability of biomass in general. BioPUSh project members were invited to join the working group on sustainable biomass import, being joined, amongst others, by Shell, WWF and the ministry of Economics. 

Important in 2006 were representation of Copernicus UU (through Andre Faaij) in the Working Group on Sustainable Production of Biomass (the Committee Cramer on sustainability criteria) and the Platform Green Resources (Platform Groene Grondstoffen) of the Energy Transition project of the national government. In both processes, results of BIOPUSH were used and forwarded.

Competition for land and impacts on food markets and food prices has become a crucial topic in discussing sustainability of biomass. BioPUSh contributed to provide scientific insights to understand that better

Implementation of biomass systems is increasingly a matter of organizing actors and market processes. Also it has proven difficult to speed up the diffusion of biomass energy, the BioPUSh project creates insight in how the diffusion may be accelerated.

Especially in Europe we can see a growing interest in multiple land use application. With the CAP reform, cross compliance, demanding the coupling of crop production and ecological services, were introduced. BioPUSh contributed significantly in providing methodological foundations and in elaborating examples to the development of multiple land use strategies.
Involvement in various relevant committees of the European Commission (e.g. the Technology Platform on Biofuels) have secured the utilisation of BIOPUSH results in that arena as well.

Finally, Copernicus-UU was selelected as prime scientific advisor for FAO’s International Bio-energy Programme, which aims to provide analyis frameworks, methods and case studies for biomass energy systems in particular in developing countries.

Societal

STS has close co-operations with the companies Shell and Essent in either projects (FairBiotrade) or in the working group on biomass trade, being built in the arena of accompanying the transition process. BioPUSh results were made available to these companies, but also to the politicians involved in the working group.

The work on GHG balances at large (in particular the thesis of Veronika Dornburg) played and plays in important role on defining standard methodologies for determing the mitigation effectiveness of biomass energy systems related to certification.

Important in 2006 were representation of Copernicus UU (through Andre Faaij) in the Working Group on Sustainable Production of Biomass (the Committee Cramer on sustainability criteria) and the Platform Green Resources (Platform Groene Grondstoffen) of the Energy Transition project of the national government. In both processes, results of BIOPUSH were used and forwarded.

Especially in Europe we can see a growing interest in multiple land use application. With the CAP reform, cross compliance, demanding the coupling of crop production and ecological services, were introduced. BioPUSh contributed significantly in providing methodological foundations and in elaborating examples to the development of multiple land use strategies.
Involvement in various relevant committees of the European Commission (e.g. the Technology Platform on Biofuels) have secured the utilisation of BIOPUSH results in that arena as well.

Finally, Copernicus-UU was selelected as prime scientific advisor for FAO’s International Bio-energy Programme, which aims to provide analyis frameworks, methods and case studies for biomass energy systems in particular in developing countries.

Project 1: Multifunctional land use and integration of technical, economic and institutional aspects

(full text ve rsion see: Lewandowski, I., A. Faaij: Biomass production in multiple land use systems; This manuscript is still in preparation and will be submitted to Agricultural Systems)

Summary of objectives
Project 1 provides information on the possibilities for producing biomass in multiple-land use systems. Land use functions, that can be combined with the biomass production functions were identified and are analysed. Methods for the assessment of the economic value and the environmental effects or bio-physical output of multiple land use systems were developed and applied to case studies. Potentials of biomass production in central and Eastern European countries are assessed and the competition between biomass and food production is analysed.

Summary of approach
Multiple Land Use (MLU) concepts search for opportunities to combine the generation of different goods or services on the same area. Biomass production in MLU systems is discussed as an approach for the reduction of biomass production costs and a more efficient use of space and natural resources. But, so far it little work has been performed on MLU systems. Because an overview on land use functions being combinable with multi-functional biomass systems is missing, this study starts with such an overview and the identification of such land use functions that appear as promising.
The quantification of the benefits of multiple land use systems requires the quantification of the land use functions in bio-physical and economic terms. That means in a first step the bio-physical performance (for example tons of soil prevented from erosion, numbers and kind of species being supported, etc.) and in a second step the economic value of this service have to be assessed. In this sub-project a methodology to quantify MLU systems in bio-physical terms was developed and applied to the examples of the MLU systems combining biomass production with phytoremediation and carbon sequestration.
Subsequently, the next step was to elaborate approaches for the quantification of the economic value of MLU systems. Here approaches to assess the economic value of MLU systems were screened and applied by the example of the phytoremediation function.
The performance of MLU systems depends as well on the kind of functions chosen and combined as on the kind of crop chosen for biomass production. Previous work on combining ability of biomass crops with different land use functions showed, that many functions are best combinable with perennial crops. Here, the results of a quantification of the land use, energy and nitrogen use efficiency of annual and perennial biomass crops are shown.
The potential to grow these perennial crops in Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) and the interaction between food production and biomass production are addressed in the last chapter.

Conclusions
There are more than 30 land use functions that could be combined in multi-functional biomass production systems. To assess whether and to which extend they combination of biomass production with other land use functions can improve land use efficiency and reduce biomass production costs, methods to quantify the economic value and the bio-physical output of land use functions are needed.
To quantify the bio-physical outputs of land use functions, costly measurements or data intensive modeling can be applied. An indicator based tool was developed here for this purpose because the use of indicators is an efficient approach. This indicator based method can also be used to quantify several functions simultaneously. The bio-physical performance or environmental effects of land use functions depend on the kind of biomass crop chosen, the management system, site conditions and the use history of a site.
There are different methods available for the assessment of the economic value of land use functions. The appropriate choice of method mainly depends on the stakeholder, i.e. the group of people to which the land use function provides a value or that are willing to pay for the service. As shown by the example of the phytoremediation function, land use functions that are combined with biomass production can significantly contribute to the economic value of MLU systems and to the reduction of biomass production costs.
Presently there are little practical examples of MLU systems found. Most of them combine the cleaning of wastes or waste water with the production of biomass from short rotation trees. From the combining abilities of perennial crops with different land use functions and the results on land, energy and nitrogen use efficiencies it can be concluded, that perennial short rotation trees and biomass grasses have the largest potential for MLU systems and environmental benign biomass production.
Given the high expectations for the use of biomass from energy crops, a competition between land use for food production, biomass production and nature conservation purposes can be expected. This competition can be reduced when available arable land is used efficiently by the application of modern varieties and production methods. Here again, the production of perennial biomass crops can contribute positively because they combine the options of producing at low input (energy, fertilizer, pesticides) needs per ton biomass produced and high biomass yields per hectare.

Project 2: Modelling of multi-product and cascading bio-energy systems, costs, energy yield and CO2 emissions

Dissertation 'Multi-functional biomass systems' by V. Dornburg (1 Dec 2004)
Summary in English / Nederlandse samenvatting lang / volledige proefschrift / Nederlands factsheet

Om energie op te wekken, gebruiken energiebedrijven steeds vaker plantaardig materiaal (biomassa) als bron. De productiekosten van energie uit energieteelt zijn echter nog hoog. Dit komt onder meer doordat er te weinig landbouwgrond beschikbaar is. Als gewassen voor verschillende doeleinden worden ingezet, kan energie uit biomassa goedkoper worden. Bovendien kunnen multifunctionele biomassasystemen een grotere rol spelen in de vermindering van broeikasgasemissies. Als bron voor energie kunnen verschillende gewassen dienst doen, zoals bijvoorbeeld tarwe, hennep of populieren. Behalve energie kunnen deze gewassen tegelijkertijd ook andere producten opleveren. Zo kan wat er overblijft van tarwe na het eruit halen van de graankorrels voor de voedselproductie energie geven door verbranding in een biomassacentrale. Hennep biedt naast energie ook vezels voor vezelversterkte kunststoffen en textiel. Populierenhout geeft de mogelijkheid tot recycling van restmaterialen en het gebruik van deze restmaterialen tot energie. In verschillende stappen (cascadering) kan een populier verwerkt worden tot bijvoorbeeld pallets en vezelplaten en vervolgens tot methanol(transportbrandstof) of elektriciteit.
Veronika Dornburg onderzocht dit soort multifunctionele biomassasystemen op financiële kosten en opbrengsten in termen van reductie van broeikasgas. De systemen die er als meest optimaal uitkwamen, verhogen in vergelijking met enkelvoudig gebruik van biomassa de emissiereductie per eenheid gebruikte landbouwgrond met een factor vijf, en verlagen de totale systeemkosten eveneens met een factor vijf.
Het proefschrift biedt een uitgebreide verzameling van methodes en case studies en kan van belang zijn in het besluitvormingsproces omtrent het energie- en klimaatbeleid en de aanstaande herstructurering van landgebruik in (Oost-)Europa. Uit de economische evaluatie van grootschalige toepassingen van multifunctionele biomassasystemen blijkt dat de interacties tussen land-, materiaal- en energiemarkten een grote rol spelen en op dit gebied meer onderzoek nodig is.

Project 3: Generating potentially successful network and process strategies for innovation and implementation in multi-product systems via interactive policy-analytical methods

Dissertation 'Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems – The case of biomass energy' by S. Negro (16 Feb 2007)
Summary in English / volledige proefschrift / Nederlands factsheet

Het energiebeleid van de Nederlandse overheid wordt gekenmerkt door wispelturigheid, gebrek aan een constante visie op de benodigde ontwikkelingsrichting en weinig enthousiasme om een betrouwbare markt te ontwikkelen voor duurzame energie. Hierdoor wordt er wel veel mooie technologie bedacht, maar is het voor ondernemers erg risicovol om aan een nieuw technologisch avontuur te beginnen. Een vergelijking met Duitsland heeft aangetoond dat ondernemers het daar veel makkelijker hebben door een beter functionerend innovatiesysteem.

Dit stelt onderzoekster Simona Negro naar aanleiding van haar historische analyse van vier duurzame energietechnologieën: biomassavergisting, biomassavergassing, biomassaverbranding en biomassa bijstoken in kolencentrales. Haar onderzoek laat zien dat het succes van deze technologieën niet alleen afhankelijk is van technologische prestaties maar vooral van de omgeving waarin deze technologieën worden ontwikkeld en toegepast. Deze omgeving heet het innovatiesysteem.

Als het innovatiesysteem goed werkt, blijkt de kans op technologische successen veel groter te zijn dan wanneer het innovatiesysteem slecht functioneert. Het goed of slecht functioneren van een innovatiesysteem wordt bepaald aan de hand van zeven factoren: (1) ondernemerschap, (2) kennisontwikkeling, (3) kennisverspreiding, (4) sturen van de ontwikkelingsrichting, (5) marktvorming, (6) beschikbaar stellen van middelen en (7) doorbreken van de gevestigde orde doormiddel van lobby-activiteiten.
Nederland blijkt vooral erg goed te zijn in twee van deze factoren, namelijk kennisontwikkeling en kennisverspreiding. Stimulerende condities voor ondernemerschap ontbreken veelal door een gebrekkige invulling van de overige factoren.

Project 4: Economic analysis of multi-product bio-energy systems for land use in North Western and Eastern Europe, competition with conventional agricultural production, land use changes

Dissertation 'Economics of Multi-functional Biomass Systems' by A. Ignaciuk (22 Sep 2006)
Engels factsheet

Een stijgende vraag naar biomassa ten behoeve van duurzame energie kan leiden tot extra druk op schaarse landbouwgrond. Wagenings milieu-econome Adriana Ignaciuk toont voor de Poolse situatie aan hoe die druk kan worden verminderd en hoe landbouw, milieu en economie kunnen profiteren van biomassateelt: gebruik gewassen die geschikt zijn voor meerdere toepassingen en verbouw op vervuilde grond.
Wie energie uit biomassa wil halen, kan gewassen 'multifunctioneel' gebruiken. Een plant kan bijvoorbeeld worden opgesplitst: een deel wordt voor energie gebruikt en een deel voor voeding, de zogenoemde 'multi-product-gewassen'. Ook kan het land waarop biomassa wordt verbouwd op meer dan één manier nuttig zijn. Zo kan grond die te vervuild is voor voedselteelt, wel geschikt zijn voor biomassateelt en door die teelt zelfs schoner worden. Afhankelijk van de beleidsdoelstellingen die een overheid nastreeft, kunnen verschillende multifunctionele biomassasystemen uitkomst bieden, berekende de promovenda. Voor vervanging van fossiele brandstoffen zijn de multi-product-gewassen een goede optie. Als het gaat om het vergroten van het potentiële biomassa-areaal en mogelijk zelfs om export, is het benutten van vervuilde grond handig. Het blijkt echter moeilijk om al deze doelstellingen te verenigen in één systeem. Voedselproductie en vervuilde grond gaan immers niet samen. Om de Poolse energiedoelstellingen te halen, zijn volgens Ignaciuk specifieke biomassaplantages nodig met wilgen. Meer geavanceerde systemen kunnen weliswaar de implementatiekosten verlagen en de milieuvoordelen vergroten, maar de totale bijdrage blijft beperkt. De totale productie van biomassa moet substantieel toenemen. Ignaciuk onderzocht de gevolgen van een grootschalige inzet van verschillende typen multifunctionele biomassasystemen op de productie van biomassa en bio-elektriciteit, landgebruik en landbouw en de rest van de economie. Ze nam de Poolse situatie als uitgangspunt en analyseerde die met verschillende modellen. In één model was bijvoorbeeld sprake van een heffing op conventionele elektriciteit en op de uitstoot van broeikasgassen. In een ander model ging ze uit van verhandelbare emissierechten in plaats van heffingen.

Output

Proefschriften

  • Dornburg, V., 2004, Multi-functional biomass systems. Copernicus Institute, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University. Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Ignaciuk, A.M., 2006, Economics of Multifunctional Biomass Systems, Wageningen University
  • Negro, S.O., 2007, Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems : The case of biomass energy, Utrecht University

Publicaties in internationale tijdschriften

  • J. van Dam, A. Faaij, I. Lewandowski, G. Fischer, Biomass production potentials in Central and Eastern Europe under different scenario’s. (In Press: Biomass & Bioenergy)
  • Dellink, R. B., and A. M. Ignaciuk, 2005, Economic Potential of Biomass in Poland, Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists 7, 23-27.
  • Dornburg, V.; Lewandowski, I.; Patel, M., 2003: Comparing the Land Requirements, Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction of Biobased Polymers and Bioenergy - An analysis and system extension of LCA studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7 (3/4): 93-116
  • Dornburg, V.; Termeer, G.; Faaij, A.P.C.,2005: Economic and greenhouse gas emission analysis of bioenergy production using multi crops-case studies for the Netherlands and Poland. Biomass & Bioenergy 28(5): 454-474.
  • Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A.P.C., 2005: Cost and CO2 -Emission Reduction of Biomass Cascading: Methodological aspects and case study of SRF Poplar. Climatic Change 71(3): 373-408.
  • Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Patel, M.K.; Turkenburg, W.C., 2006: Economics and GHG emission reduction of a PLA bio-refinery system-combining bottom-up analysis with price elasticity effects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46(4): 377-409.
  • Dornburg, V, I. Lewandowski, M. Patel (2004): Comparing the Land requirements, Energy Savings, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction of Biobased Polymers and Bioenergy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7(3-4): 93-116.
  • V. Dornburg, J. van Dam, A. Faaij, Estimating GHG emission mitigation supply curves of large scale biomass use on a country level. Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 46-65 
  • V. Dornburg, A. Faaij, B. Meuleman, Optimising waste treatment systems; Part A: methodology and technological data for optimising energy production and economic performance. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Volume 49, Issue 1, November 2006, Pages 68-88.
  • V. Dornburg, A. Faaij, Optimising waste treatment systems; Part B: analyses and scenario’s for the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 48, Issue 3, September 2006, Pages 227-248
  • Hekkert, M. P., R. A. A. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann and R. E. H. M. Smits, 2006. Functions of Innovation Systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 
  • Ignaciuk, A.M. and I. Lewandowski, 2006, Economic Analysis of the Impact of Energy Policies and the Use of Contaminated and Degraded Land, submitted to European Review of Agricultural Economics. 
  • Ignaciuk, A.M. and J. Sanders, 2006, Economic impacts of biomass based material substitution and resource cascading systems, submitted to Environmental and Resource Economics. 
  • Ignaciuk, A. M., A. Ruijs, and E. C. van Ierland, 2005, Impacts of energy policies on biomass and agriculture - an AGE analysis for Poland, submitted to Ecological Economics. 
  • Ignaciuk, A. M., and R. B. Dellink, 2006, Multi-Product Crops for Agricultural and Energy Production - an AGE Analysis, Energy Economics 28, 308-325. 
  • Ignaciuk, A. M., F. Vohringer, A. Ruijs, and E. C. van Ierland, 2006, Competition between biomass and food production in the presence of energy policies: a partial equilibrium analysis, Energy Policy 34(10), 1127-1138. 
  • Kauter, D., I. Lewandowski, W. Claupein (2003): Quantity and quality of harvestable biomass from Populus short rotation coppice for solid fuel use, a review of the physiological basis and management influences. Biomass and Bioenergy 24: 411-427.
  • Lewandowski, I., A. Heinz (2003): Delayed harvest of miscanthus- influence on biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy production. European Journal of Agronomy 19: 45 - 63.
  • Lewandowski, I., J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Lindvall , M.Christou (2003): The Development and Current Status of Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses as Energy Crops in Europe and the U.S. Biomass and Bioenergy 25(4): 335 - 361.
  • Lewandowski, I., D. Kauter (2003): The influence of nitrogen fertilizer on the yield and combustion quality of whole grain crops for solid fuel use. Industrial Crops and Products 17(2): 103 - 117.
  • Lewandowski, I., J. Weger, A. van Hooijdonk, K. Havlickova, J. van Dam, A. Faaij (2006): The Potential Biomass for Energy Production in the Czech Republic.Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 405 - 421.
  • Lewandowski, I., U.Schmidt, M. Londo, A. Faaij (2006): The economic value of the phytoremediation function. Agricultural Systems 89(1): 68-89.
  • Lewandowski, I., A.P.C. Faaij (2006): Steps towards the development of a certification system for sustainable Bio-energy trade. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 83 - 104.
  • Lewandowski, I., U.Schmidt (2006): Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiency of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach. Agriculture, Eosystems and Environment 112: 335-346.
  • Negro, S. O., M. P. Hekkert and R. E. Smits: Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion-A functional analysis. Energy Policy. In Press, Corrected Proof.
  • Negro, S. O., R. A. A. Suurs and M.P. Hekkert. The bumpy road of Biomass Gasification in the Netherlands; Explaining the rise and fall of an emerging innovation system. Submitted to Technological Forecasting and Social Change
  • Negro, S. O., Hekkert, M. P., Smits, R.E.H.M. "The evolution of biomass digestion technology in the Netherlands" pp 51-69. ASEM GriPP-Net Workshop "Current Development of Green IPPs: Experiences, Challenges, and Strategies" to be held in Karlsruhe September 15th, 2005.

Submitted/under review

  • J. van Dam, A. Faaij, I. Lewandowski, B. Zeebroeck, Options of biofuel trade from Central and Eastern to Western European countries. (Biomass & Bioenergy)
  • Ayla Uslu Ergullu, André Faaij, Patrick Bergman, Impact of advanced pre-treatment technologies on costs and GHG balance of long distance biomass supply chains (Energy, the International Journal)
  • Jobien Laurijssen, André Faaij, Should we trade biomass, bio-electricity, green certificates or CO2 credits? Methodological frameworks and analysis of GHG impacts of bio-energy trade (climatic change).
  • Lewandowski, André Faaij, Designing Multiple Land-use systems for energy crop production. (Agricultural Systems) .

Bijdragen aan internationale boeken

  • Clifton-Brown, J.C., I. Lewandowski, P. F. Stampfl , M. B. Jones (2002): Modelled biomass production potential of Miscanthus and actual harvestable yield as influenced by harvest time. Proceedings of 12st European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry  and Climate Protection, 17-21 June 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Vol 1: 115- 118.
  • Clifton-Brown, J.C., I. Lewandowski , M.B. Jones (2002): MiscanMod: a model for estimating biomass Cl. In: R. Pude (Ed.): Anbau und Verwertung von Miscanthus in Europa. Beiträge zu den Agrarwissenschaften, Verlag M. Wehle, Wittenschlick/Bonn. Band 36: 86 – 88.
  • Van Dam, J., A. Faaij, I. Lewandowski, B. van Zeebroeck (2005): Biomass production potentials and biofuel trade options of Central and Eastern Europe under different scenarios. Proceedings of 14st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition: Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Paris, France: 100 - 103.
  • Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A., 2002: Energetic and economic optimisation of (biomass) waste treatment and recycling - scenario-analysis of waste management in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Publisher: ETA-Florence, WIP-Munich::  1327-1330.
  • Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A., 2002: Cascading of short rotation poplar wood, costs and CO2 emission reduction with regard to land demand - preliminary results. Proceedings of the  12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Publisher: ETA-Florence, WIP-Munich:: 1213-1216.
  • Dornburg, V.; Patel, M., 2002: LCA of bio-based polymers: pellets and packaging materials. Proceedings of the International Conference on Life Cycle Analysis, Cost-benefit & Efficiency, Conference Location: Madrid, Spain. 15 pp.
  • Dornburg, V., Termeer, G. and A.P.C. Faaij, 2002: Economic and energetic analysis of bio-energy production by cultivation and utilisation of multi-product crops – preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the First International Ukrainian Conference on Biomass for Energy, Kiev, Ukraine.
  • Dornburg, V., Termeer, G., and A.P.C. Faaij, 2002: Economic and energetic analysis of bio-energy production by cultivation and utilisation of multi-product crops – preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 1213 – 1216
  • Dornburg, V., and A.P.C. Faaij, 2002: Energetic and economic optimisaton of (biomass) waste treatment and recycling – scenario-analysis of waste management in the Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 1327 – 1330
  • Dornburg, V. and A.P.C. Faaij, 2002: Cascading of short rotation poplar wood, costs and CO2 emission reduction with regard to land demand – preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 1231 – 1234.
  • Dornburg, V., I. Lewandowski, M. Patel (2004): Comparing the Land Requirements, Energy Savings, and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions of Biobased Polymers and Bioenergy - An analysis and System Extension of LCA Studies. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy, 10-14 May 2004; 1999-2002.
  • Dornburg, V.; Patel, M.K.; Lewandowski, I.M., 2004: Comparing the land requirements, energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reduction of biobased polymers and bioenergy - An analysis and system extension of LCA studies. Editor: Swaaij, W.P.M. van; Fjällström, T.; Helm, P.; Grassi, A. Proceedings of the Second  World conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy. Publisher: ETA-Florence, WIP-Munich: 1999-2002.
  • Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Patel, M.K., 2004: Case study of GHG reduction efficiency of multi-functional bio-energy systems in the bulk chemical sector. Editor: Swaaij, W.P.M. van; Fjällström, T.; Helm, P.; Grassi, A. Proceedings of the Second World Conference and Technological Exhibiton on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy. Publisher: ETA-Florence, WIP-Munich:
  • Dornburg, V., Dam, J. van and A.P.C. Faaij, 2005: Estimating GHG Emission Mitigation Supply Curves of Large-Scale Biomass Use on a Country Level, In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Paris, France: 1992 – 1995.
  • Faaij, A.P.C.; Lewandowski, I.; Hamelinck, C.; Dornburg, V., 2002: Large Scale International Bio-energy Trade. Procedings of the First International Ukrainian Conference on Biomass for Energy; Kiev, Russia; 4 pp.
  • Ignaciuk, A.M., 2006, Positive spillovers of energy policies on natural areas in Poland: an AGE analysis, in ed. W. Heijman, Regional Externalities, Springer, forthcoming
  • Kauter D., I. Lewandowski , W. Claupein (2002): Quality Management during production of triticale for solid fuel use. Proceedings of 12st European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, 17-21 June 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Vol 1:  242- 245.
  • Lewandowski, I.,  J.M.O. Scurlock , M. Christou (2002): The development and current status quo of production of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in Europe and in the United States. Proceedings of 12st European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry  and Climate Protection, 17-21 June 2002, Amsterdam. The Netherlands: 111- 114.
  • Lewandowski I., M. Londo, U. Schmidt, A.P.C. Faaij (2004): Biomass production in multiple land use systems: Categorization of feasible land use functions and their Quantification by the example of phytoremediation; Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy, 10-14 May 2004, 54-57.
  • Lewandowski, I., A.Faaij (2005): quantification of the potentials of multifunctional biomass Production systems by an indicator based tool. Proceedings of 14st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition: Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Paris, France: 480 - 483.
  • Patel, M.; Dornburg, V.; Lewandowski, I., 2003: A comparative review of LCA studies for biobased polymers. Proceedings of the 1st IUPAC International Conference on Biobased polymers (ICBP 2003); Saitama , Japan. Publisher: RIKEN institute: L46.
  • Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C. and I.M. Lewandowski (2003) The World Food System and the Bioenergy Production Potential to 2050 - an analysis of the regional availability of biomass resources for export in relation to the underlying factors. International Workshop Transition in agriculture and future land use patterns, 1-3 December 2003, Wageningen, the Netherlands (proceeding)
  • Smeets, E.M.W., A.P.C. Faaij, I. Lewandowski (2004): Bioenergy Potentials from Forestry to 2050; preliminary results; Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy, 10-14 May 2004, 608-611.
  • Smeets, E.M.W., A.P.C. Faaij, I. Lewandowski (2004): Global Land Use Patterns and the Production of Bioenergy to 2050; Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection; Rome, Italy, 10-14 May 2004, 475-478.
  • Smeets, E.M.W., Van Dam, J., Faaij, A.P.C. and I.M. Lewandowski (2005) Bottom-up Methodologies for Assessing Technical and Economic Bioenergy Production Potential. In: Brouwer, F., B.A. McCarl (ed): Agriculture and Climate Beyond 2015. Environment & Policy, Volume 46, Springer Dordrecht: 147 - 170
  • Smeets E, A. Faaij, I. Lewandowski (2005): Sustainable Biomass Production – A case study on the impact of sustainability criteria on biomass production in Ukraine and Brazil. Proceedings of 14st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition: Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Paris, France: 260 - 263.