Bioenergy potential of agricultural phytomass production in Slovakia

Abstract

Biomass is a highly versatile renewable energy source used on a global scale. The paper discusses the current state of biomass energy use in the EU and Slovakia. Residual biomass was found as a key feedstock for the European bioeconomy. Slovakia is one of the most forested and rural countries in the EU. Therefore, biomass energy has the highest technical potential from all renewables in Slovakia. The main objective of the paper was to evaluate the phytomass production of the selected crops and their energy potential in individual self-governing regions of Slovakia. It is focused on the production of usable post-harvest residues theoretically used for energy purposes from the following studied main crops: wheat, rye, oats, barley, maize, potatoes, oilseed rape and sugar beet. The results show the estimated production of usable post-harvest residues of the selected crops and their energy potential in individual self-governing regions in Slovakia in 2019. The total production of usable post-harvest residues from the studied crops was 4,854,017 t and their estimated energy potential was 68 PJ. This amount of energy would cover 10% of the total energy consumption in Slovakia. The top three productive crops were maize, wheat, and sugar beet. Maize had the highest energy potential of 28.1 PJ, followed by wheat at 19 PJ and sugar beet at 14.2 PJ. The highest yields of post-harvest residues, as well as energy potential, were found in the Nitra region.

Ligno-cellulose quality and calorific value of green phytomass of Silphium perfoliatum L. cultivated on marginal soils under conditions of moderate continental climate of Central Europe

“…Lesser-known plants with the prospect of being used not only for energy purposes include the cup plant Silphium perfoliatum L, a promising novel crop that is still not widely distributed (Marišová et al, 2016;Cumplido-Marin et al, 2020;Hauptvogel et al, 2022;Reinhardt et al, 2022). The indisputable advantage of the cup plant is the suitability of the phytomass for various uses, while most of recent research works are focused on potential in biogas production (Siwek et al, 2019;Guo et al, 2020;Kowalska et al, 2020;von Cossel et al, 2020;Witaszek et al, 2022) and there is little knowledge and information enabling reliable cultivation technology (Shittenhelm et al, 2021;Hryniewicz et al, 2021;Tsugkiev et al, 2021;MarieEnde at al., 2021).…”

Yield of Elymus elongatus and Secale cereanum on marginal soils in Central Europe

“…When cultivation of energy crops became a part of modern agriculture (Kopecký et al, 2021), many studies were focused on their phytomass energy potential while taking different approaches and goals into account (Hauptvogel et al, 2022;Makovníková et al, 2020;Marišová et al, 2016). Energy crops should not compete with food or fodder crops therefore it is recommended to cultivate energy crops on less fertile soils which are not suitable for food and fodder crops (Agostini et al, 2015;Nalepa and Bauer, 2012).…”

“…The knowledge about energy crops is still incomplete, these crops belong to several botanical species and have different production potentials (basically from medium to high). Suitability for cultivation in marginal soil conditions is their special value (Hauptvogel et al, 2022;Kron et al, 2017;Marišová et al, 2016;Porvaz et al, 2012). There are some species which are not been studied enough so far such as tall wheatgrass Elymus elongatus (Csete et al, 2011) and perennial rye Secale cereanum (Sipos and Halász, 2007).…”

A case study – The occurrence of pests in stands of newly introduced energy crops in large-scale pilot experiments in conditions of Central Europe

“…the pilot field experiments so far have been fo-cused almost exclusively on production quantitative and qualitative aspects (Marišová et al 2016;kron et al 2017;cumplido-Marin et al 2020;Makovníková et al 2000;Giertl et al 2022;hauptvogel et al 2022;Pauková et al 2022;Šoltysová et al 2022), or other agroecological issue (Šoltysová & Danilovič 2017;Hauptvogel et al 2022;Mamirova et al 2022), while original phytopathological studies are rare or still absent (Purger et al 2008;Prasifka et al 2011;Pszczółkowska et al 2012;seni 2018;stefanovska et al 2017;Iľková & Šütöová 2022).…”