In June 2007, a project started in Flanders (Belgium) in which we will apply phytoremediation to clean soils that are diffusely polluted with heavy metals. Uptake ranges of heavy metals by rape seed, maize and wheat will be enhanced by increasing the bioavailability of these heavy metals by the addition of biodegradable physico‐chemical agents and by stimulating the heavy‐metal uptake capacity of the microbial community in and around the plant. In addition, the harvested biomass crops will be converted into bioenergy by using different energy‐recovery‐techniques. The energy and heavy metal mass balances will be compared for four different energy‐recovery techniques (anaerobic digestion, incineration, gasification and production of biodiesel). The overall information obtained will result in an economic evaluation of the use of phytoremediation combined with bioenergy production for the remediation of sites which are diffusely polluted with heavy metals. In the present review we will first explain the most important research steps investigated in our phytoremediation project. Secondly, an overview of literature discussing the phytoremediation capacity of rape seed to clean soils that are contaminated with heavy metals and the possibilities to produce biodiesel from this (heavy metal polluted) rape seed will be discussed in more detail.

Current biomass production and trade volumes for energy and new materials and bio‐chemicals are only a small fraction to achieve the bioenergy levels suggested by many global energy and climate change mitigation scenarios for 2050. However, comprehensive sustainability of large scale biomass production and trading has yet to be secured, and governance of developing biomass markets is a critical issue. Fundamental choices need to be made on how to develop sustainable biomass supply chains and govern sustainable international biomass markets. The aim of this paper is to provide a vision of how widespread trade and deployment of biomass for energy purposes can be integrated with the wider (bio)economy. It provides an overview of past and current trade flows of the main bioenergy products, and discusses the most important drivers and barriers for bioenergy in general, and more specifically the further development of bioenergy trade over the coming years. It discusses the role of bioenergy as part of the bioeconomy and other potential roles; and how it can help to achieve the sustainable development goals. The paper concludes that it is critical to demonstrate innovative and integrated value chains for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower that can respond with agility to market factors while providing economic, environmental, and societal benefits to international trade and market. Furthermore, flexible biogenic carbon supply nets based on broad feedstock portfolios and multiple energy and material utilization pathways will reduce risks for involved stakeholder and foster the market entry and uptake of various densified biogenic carbon carriers. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

No abstract

Cascading, or cascade use, is concept that has many different definitions, but a common theme is a sequential use of resources for different purposes. The cascading concept was first presented in the early 1990s but has become an intensively debated topic primarily in the most recent decade. In the available literature on cascading of wood, there are few studies that discuss policy implementation. As this is currently heavily debated, there is an important gap here that we aim to fill. In this paper, we (a) critically review the conceptual history of cascading and (b) highlight the complexities involved in its implementation in policy frameworks. Originally, cascading was discussed as a broad framework for how society better should manage natural resource flows. In more recent debates on woody biomass however, cascading is often presented as simply a hierarchy, wherein material use of wood should hold priority over energy use of wood. This is partly based on an idea that certain forms of wood utilization are inherently more valuable than others, an assumption that becomes problematic when implemented in policy. In reality, how and for what a certain wood resource is used varies with time and place and historical examples of implementation of hierarchical policy frameworks indicate a high risk of unwanted consequences, such as unstable policy structures and tendencies toward a negotiation economy. Cascading of woody biomass can have benefits from both an economical and environmental perspective. However, cascading systems should emerge bottom‐up, not be imposed top‐down through politically determined hierarchies. WIREs Energy Environ 2018, 7:e279. doi: 10.1002/wene.279 This article is categorized under: Energy and Climate > Economics and Policy Energy Policy and Planning > Economics and Policy

No abstract