Modeling and Optimization of Biomass Supply Chains: Top-Down and Bottom-up Assessment for Agricultural, Forest and Waste Feedstock

book.

Chapter 1

Biomass Supply Assessments in Europe

Research Context and Methodologies

Calliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen, Berien Elbersen, Matthias G. Dees, Dejan Stojadinovic, Branko Glavonjic, Tetiana Zheliezna, Ludger Wenzelides and Hans Langeveld

Abstract

Since early 2000, several biomass assessment studies were delivered at European and global level mostly driven by the increasing demand for the development of bioenergy and biofuels, and the need to secure sustainable, continuous supply for the emerging plants. Ongoing research and development and industrial development plus increased drivers to use renewable raw materials in industrial sectors beyond energy have seen the focus of the biomass markets widen to include value chains for bio-based chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other materials. Consequently, research is now exploring increasingly varied configurations of value chains with the aims of understanding which types and quantifying how much biomass can be extracted sustainably, generate financial returns, and help the industry achieving high-quality products for consumers.

This chapter sets the scene for research on biomass supply assessments in Europe and reviews 40 studies delivered during the last 14 years. It analyzes context, key components in terms of terminology, framework conditions and assumptions, models used, and evidence provided so far for policy, research, and industry. It further discusses the main challenges, identifies gaps, and provides recommendations.

Keywords

Biomass supply; assessments; modeling tools

1.1 Research Context

Since early 2000, several biomass assessment studies were delivered. Most of them were driven by the increasing demand of both policy and industrial actors in the bioenergy and biofuels sectors. As such, the key assumptions used to estimate the available biomass quantities and the respective units in which they have been expressed are strongly related to energy. Their approaches have also been very different; thus, their results are difficult to compare and interpret.

Studies that provide a full-fledged comparison of applied methodologies have been rare till 2010, as they required assessments that integrate multiple sound, well-described, broadly accepted, disciplinary approaches. In USA, the most recent and comprehensive one is the ‘Billion ton biomass’ study, a national exercise evaluating the potentials and impacts of bioenergy production in the United States. Supported by the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture, the first study was published in 2005, to be followed by an update in 2011. The second report was authored by 50 scientists from 13 organisations including seven universities. This 235 page report was followed by a new, two-volume, report in 2016 covering over 1000 pages plus numerous background materials including 13 factsheets.

Responding to the same challenges, the European Framework Programme for Research funded the BEE project (http://www.eu-bee.com/) in 2008. The work performed in it provided a state-of-the-art overview for biomass resource assessments in Europe and developed numerous generic approaches, definitions, and a classification of biomass feedstock types to improve the accuracy and comparability of future biomass resource assessments (Rettenmaier et al., 2008; Vis et al., 2010).

From 2010 onward, research in EU, following similar patterns to the USA, broadened to also analyze biomass uses in value chains for bio-based chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other materials, and evaluate potential synergies and competition. To accomplish this, both units and respective assumptions have been modified to evaluate the biophysical values of biomass supply potentials at each region, addressing land use, displacement effects, and climate change.

Geographic disaggregation is also a research issue that has been significantly improved during the last 10 years in the analysis of biomass supply potentials. Until 2012, the assessments were made at national level (NUTS0 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_of_Territorial_Units_for_Statistics)). The Biomass Futures project (www.biomassfutures.eu) used the methodology from the BEE project and provided a detailed Biomass Atlas (http://www.biomassfutures.eu/public_docs/final_deliverables/WP3/D3.3%20%20Atlas%20of%20technical%20and%20economic%20biomass%20potential.pdf) for all European Union (EU) countries at NUTS2 state level (comprises 273 geographic subdivisions of countries in the EU). The Atlas provided spatially detailed and quantified overview of EU biomass potential considering the main criteria determining biomass availability from agricultural and forest feedstocks.

During the period 2013–16, research work build on the respective databases and was further developed by two initiatives:

Biomass Policies (www.biomasspolicies.eu): the work built on the datasets from Biomass Futures in terms of detailed cost supply information and considered competition from known conventional uses (animal feed and food). The following formula has been used for all the feedstocks:

where:

Availability=Biomass availability given what can be produced, harvested, and collected with current or near future practices and known given state-the-art technologies and taking account of basic environmental sustainability requirements regarding soil and biodiversity conservation.

Presence=Presence of biomass now (and in future given land use change expectations)

T1=amount of biomass that should be left behind for soil conservation/biodiversity/erosion control

T2=conventional known competitive uses (feed and food)

This work was also performed for all biomass feedstock types (oil, starch, lignocellulosic) with geographic disaggregation at NUTS2 state level.

S2Biom (www.s2biom.eu): the research work built on the BEE, Biomass Futures, and Biomass Policies projects and focused on 50 lignocellulosic biomass types. It covered all Europe, expanded geographic coverage of the biomass supply assessments to non-EU countries in Western Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, and Turkey, and improved the level of disaggregation to the NUTS3 level in the EU countries, FYR of Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, which represent 1450 districts across Europe.

1.2 Methodology and Overview of Studies

The methodology used for the comparison of biomass resource assessment studies in this chapter is based on the results of BEE (www.eu-bee.info) and Biomass Futures projects (www.biomassfutures.eu).

• Using the BEE reference list of the main biomass resource assessment studies

• Applying the harmonized definition of biomass assessment methods, biomass types, and biomass potentials.

From the long list of about 250 studies in the BEE/Biomass Futures literature databases, about 40 studies were selected for further analysis that corresponded to the criteria presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

Criteria for Selection of Studies for Detailed Analysis

To create a consistent overview, the main characteristics of these studies in terms of biomass feedstock types assessed applied methodology and key assumptions are analyzed in terms of terminology, framework conditions, and key assumptions.

1.2.1 Terminology

This section provides an overview of the terminology used by the studies in terms of types of potentials (theoretical, technical, economic, and sustainable) and biomass feedstock categories (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Definitions of biomass potential types. Adapted from BEE project, www.eu-bee.com.

1.2.1.1 Types of Potentials

• Theoretical potential: The theoretical potential is the overall maximum amount of terrestrial biomass which can be considered theoretically available for further exploitation within fundamental biophysical limits.

• Technical potential: The technical potential is the fraction of the theoretical potential which is available under given technological options (such as harvesting techniques, infrastructure and accessibility, processing techniques). It also considers spatial restrictions due to other land uses (food, feed, and fiber production) as well as ecological (e.g., nature reserves) and possibly other nontechnical constraints.

• Economic potential: The economic potential is the part of the technical potential which meets criteria of economic rationale within the given framework conditions.

• Implementation potential: The implementation potential is the part of the economic potential that can be implemented within a certain time frame and under concrete socioeconomic and regulatory framework conditions, including economic, institutional and social constraints, and policy incentives.

The classification in types of biomass potentials helps to understand what information is presented. For instance, some biomass types show high technical potentials while their economic potential is rather limited due to the high costs of extraction and transport. Therefore, it is recommended that the type of potential is explicitly mentioned in every biomass resource assessment.

1.2.1.2 Biomass Feedstock Categories

• Agricultural biomass includes grains from oilseed and starch crops (wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize, sunflower, rapeseed, soy), sugar beet, straw, stubbles, woody pruning and orchards residues, grassland cuttings not used for feed purposes, biomass from roadside verges, by-products, and residues from food and fruit processing industry.

• Forest biomass includes (1) primary forestry production from thinnings and final fellings, stem and crown biomass from early thinnings, (2) logging residues and stumps from final fellings, (3) secondary residues from wood industries (sawmill and other wood processing).

• Biowastes include biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, catering, and retail premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants (Waste Framework Directive, 2008/98/EC).

1.2.2 Framework Conditions and Key Assumptions

This section describes the background of the reviewed studies, regarding time frames, regional coverage, methods, and scenario assumptions used in the estimation. This facilitates better understanding of the type of information provided by these studies.

1.2.2.1 Time Frame

Most of the studies have as baseline years from 2000 to 2005 and include projections for 2010, 2020, and 2030 in response to current policy and support frameworks for renewable, bioenergy, and biofuels.

Only Hoogwijk et al. (2003) assessed the global potential for 17 world regions in 2050–100. Common reference years for the projections in most of the studies are 2010, 2020, and 2020.

1.2.2.2 Geographic Coverage

Most of the reviewed studies provided estimations for EU25 and EU27 while some included Switzerland, Norway, and Ukraine. Two of the studies provided information at global level and the most recent ones cover all Europe, including Western Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, and Turkey.

1.2.2.3 Approaches

In principle, two approaches have been used to estimate the potentials: (1) bottom-up, or resource based and (2) top-down or demand driven.

• Bottom-up assessments focus mainly on the total biomass resource base and the competition between different uses of the resources (supply side).

• Top-down assessments analyze the competitiveness of biomass-based energy, or estimate the amount of biomass required meeting demand from industry and policy set targets.

Only a few of the most recent studies accounted for costs, environmental impacts, and competitive uses of land from other markets (e.g., food and feed) when estimating the biomass potential of different feedstocks.

1.2.2.4 Data Sources

Most studies use FAO and Eurostat statistics. The spatial analysis is mostly done at NUTS2 and NUTS3 level with CORINE Land Cover being the most commonly used. As the data sources differ (from international and European statistics to national inventories and questionnaire responses), high variability is observed in the results of the studies and thus the possibilities to compare are restricted (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

Framework Conditions for the Reviewed Studies