Environmental issues surrounding conventional annual biogas crops have led to growing interest in alternative crops, such as miscanthus. In addition to the better environmental performance, miscanthus can be grown on marginal land where no competition with feed and food crops is anticipated. On marginal land however, biomass yields are significantly lower than on good agricultural land. This raises the question of the economic and environmental sustainability of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production. This study assessed the environmental and economic performance of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production by conducting a Life‐Cycle Assessment and complementary Life‐Cycle Cost analysis. The functional unit chosen was 1 GJ of electricity (GJel.). The substitution of a fossil reference was included using a system expansion approach. Electricity generated by the combustion of miscanthus‐based biogas in a combined heat and power has considerably lower impacts on the environment than the fossil reference in most of the categories assessed. In the impact category “climate change”, the substitution of the marginal German electricity mix leads to a carbon mitigation potential of 256 kg CO2e/GJel.. At 45.12 €/GJel., the costs of miscanthus‐based biogas generation and utilization are considerably lower than those of maize (61.30 €/GJel.). The results of this study clearly show that it can make economic and environmental sense to cultivate miscanthus on marginal land as a substrate for biogas production. The economic sustainability is however limited by the biomass yield. By contrast, there are no clear thresholds limiting the environmental performance. The decision needs to be made on a case‐by‐case basis depending on site‐specific conditions such as local biodiversity.

No abstract

Diminishing fossil carbon resources, global warming, and increasing material and energy needs urge for the rapid development of a bioeconomy. Biomass feedstock from agro‐industrial value chains provides opportunities for energy and material production, potentially leading to competition with traditional food and feed production. Simulation and optimization models can support the evaluation of biomass value chains and identify bioeconomy development paths, potentials, opportunities, and risks. This study presents the linkage of a farm model (EFEM) and a techno‐economic location optimization model (BIOLOCATE) for evaluating the straw‐to‐energy and the innovative straw‐to‐chemical value chains in the German federal state of Baden‐Wuerttemberg taking into account the spatially distributed and price‐sensitive nature of straw supply. The general results reveal the basic trade‐off between economies of scale of the energy production plants and the biorefineries on the one hand and the feedstock supply costs on the other hand. The results of the farm model highlight the competition for land between traditional agricultural biomass utilization such as food and feed and innovative biomass‐to‐energy and biomass‐to‐chemical value chains. Additionally, farm‐modeling scenarios illustrate the effect of farm specialization and regional differences on straw supply for biomass value chains as well as the effect of high straw prices on crop choices. The technological modeling results show that straw combustion could cover approximately 2% of Baden‐Wuerttemberg's gross electricity consumption and approximately 35% of the district heating consumption. The lignocellulose biorefinery location and size are affected by the price sensitivity of the straw supply and are only profitable for high output prices of organosolv lignin. The location optimization results illustrate that economic and political framework conditions affect the regional distribution of biomass straw conversion plants, thus favoring decentralized value chain structures in contrast to technological economies of scale.

The expansion of the bioeconomy sector will increase the competition for agricultural land regarding biomass production. Furthermore, the particular path of the expansion of the bioeconomy is associated with great uncertainty due to the early stage of technology development and its dependency on political framework conditions. Economic models are suitable tools to identify trade‐offs in agricultural production and address the high uncertainty of the bioeconomy expansion. We present results from the farm model Economic Farm Emission Model of four bioeconomy scenarios in order to evaluate impacts and trade‐offs of different potential bioeconomy developments and the corresponding uncertainty at regional and farm level in Baden‐Wuerttemberg, Germany. The demand‐side effects of the bioeconomy scenarios are based on downscaling European Union level results of a separate model linkage between an agricultural sector and an energy sector model. The general model results show that the expanded use of agricultural land for the bioeconomy sector, especially for the cultivation of perennial biomass crops (PBC), reduces biomass production for established value chains, especially for food and feed. The results also show differences between regions and farm types in Baden‐Wuerttemberg. Fertile arable regions and arable farms profit more from the expanded use of biomass in the bioeconomy than farms that focus on cattle farming. Latter farms use the arable land to produce feed for the cattle, whereas arable farms can expand feedstock production for new value chains. Additionally, less intensive production systems like extensive grassland suffer from economic losses, whereas the competition in fertile regions further increases. Hence, if the extensive production systems are to be preserved, appropriate subsidies must be provided. This emphasizes the relevance of downscaling aggregated model results to higher spatial resolution, even as far as to the decision maker (farm), to identify possible contradicting effects of the bioeconomy as well as policy implications.

Two major global challenges related to agriculture are climate change and the unbalanced nitrogen cycle. For both, national and international reduction targets have been defined to catalyse policy support for more sustainable farming systems. Miscanthus cultivation in water protection areas has been proposed as a contribution to achieving these targets. However, a thorough understanding of the underlying system dynamics at various spatial levels is required before recommendations for policy development can be provided. In this study, a model framework was established to provide economic and environmental indicator results at regional and sub‐regional levels. It presents a consequential Life Cycle Assessment coupled with an agro‐economic supply model (Economic Farm Emission Model) that simulates crop and livestock production, and an agricultural hydrology model (DAISY) that assesses effects on the nitrogen cycle. The framework is applied to Baden‐Württemberg, a federal state in southwest Germany with eight agro‐ecological regions. Scenarios investigating the differences between mandatory and voluntary miscanthus cultivation were also explored. While the results show the high potential of miscanthus cultivation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (−16% to −724%), the potential to reduce nitrate leaching (−4% to −44%) is compromised in some sub‐regions and scenarios (+4% to +13%) by substantial effects on the crop rotation. Furthermore, the cultivation of miscanthus reduces gross margins in most sub‐regions (−0.1% to −9.6%) and decreases domestic food production (−1% to −50%). However, in regions with low livestock density and high yields, miscanthus cultivation can maintain or increase farmers' income (0.1%–5.8%) and improve environmental protection. The study shows that the heterogeneity of arable land requires a flexible promotion programme for miscanthus. Voluntary cultivation schemes were identified as most suitable to capture sub‐regional differences. Policies should address the demand for miscanthus, for example, support the development of regional value chains, including farmers, water suppliers and the biobased industry.