Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

Cintas, Olivia; Berndes, Göran; Englund, Oskar; Cutz, Luis; Johnsson, Filip

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12532

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(136 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar potential estimates appear to be identified in European studies depicting NRW as part of their geospatial analysis (e.g. Cintas, Berndes, Englund, Cutz, & Johnsson, ; Hamelin et al, ), although a detailed comparison is limited since these studies do not present their exact regional estimates. At the level of NRW, we estimate technical potentials of about 50 PJ/year, which is equivalent to about 3,000 kt DM residues/year.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Sustainable intensification of crop residue exploitation for bioenergy: Opportunities and challenges

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop residue exploitation for bioenergy can play an important role in climate change mitigation without jeopardizing food security, but it may be constrained by impacts on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks, and market, logistic and conversion challenges. We explore opportunities to increase bioenergy potentials from residues while reducing environmental impacts, in line with sustainable intensification. Using the case study of North Rhine‐Westphalia in Germany, we employ a spatiotemporally explicit approach combined with stakeholder interviews. First, the interviews identify agronomic and environmental impacts due to the potential reduction in SOC as the most critical challenge associated with enhanced crop residue exploitation. Market and technological challenges and competition with other residue uses are also identified as significant barriers. Second, with the use of agroecosystem modelling and estimations of bioenergy potentials and greenhouse gas emissions till mid‐century, we evaluate the ability of agricultural management to tackle the identified agronomic and environmental challenges. Integrated site‐specific management based on (a) humus balancing, (b) optimized fertilization and (c) winter soil cover performs better than our reference scenario with respect to all investigated variables. At the regional level, we estimate (a) a 5% increase in technical residue potentials and displaced emissions from substituting fossil fuels by bioethanol, (b) an 8% decrease in SOC losses and associated emissions, (c) an 18% decrease in nitrous oxide emissions, (d) a 37% decrease in mineral fertilizer requirements and emissions from their production and (e) a 16% decrease in nitrate leaching. Results are spatially variable and, despite improvements induced by management, limited amounts of crop residues are exploitable for bioenergy in areas prone to SOC decline. In order to sustainably intensify crop residue exploitation for bioenergy and reconcile climate change mitigation with other sustainability objectives, such as those on soil and water quality, residue management needs to be designed in an integrated and site‐specific manner.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Sustainable intensification of crop residue exploitation for bioenergy: Opportunities and challenges

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the Danish policies intend to transfer the cofired plants gradually to 100% biomass plants [3]. This strategy has the advantages of providing, on the one hand, a near-term implementable CO 2 mitigation strategy for the energy sector and a gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants and, on the other hand, the gradual development of the biomass supply infrastructure that is needed for the implementation of 100% biomass plants and other biomass technologies under development [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of co-firing as a cost-effective short-term sustainable CO2 mitigation strategy in Germany

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In order to achieve the German greenhouse gas reduction targets, in particular, CO 2 emissions of coalfired power plants must be reduced. The co-incineration of biomass-based substitutes, here referred to as co-firing, is regarded as a highly cost-effective and short-term method of reducing CO 2 emissions in the electricity sector. Another advantage of co-firing is its ability to meet base load demands and offer controllability. In this paper, we, therefore, evaluate the effectiveness of co-firing as a CO 2 mitigation strategy in the German electricity sector by 2020. Methods: We consider the co-firing of three different substitutes: wood chips, industry pellets and torrefied biomass. Likewise, a comparison with three alternative mitigation strategies is part of the evaluation. We use seven sustainability indicators covering social, ecological and economic aspects as the basis for the evaluation. These sustainability indicators are determined by means of a merit order model, which enables us to simulate the electricity market in 2020 on an hourly basis and adjust it based on the assumption of widespread implementation of co-firing or one of the alternative mitigation strategies. Results: Our results show that all mitigation strategies have a significant potential to reduce the CO 2 emissions of the electricity sector. Compared with the alternative mitigation strategies, co-firing is characterised on the one hand by rather low mitigation potentials and on the other hand by low CO 2 mitigation costs. The co-firing of industry pellets appears to have the most advantageous combination of mitigation potential and mitigation costs. Conclusions:The widespread implementation of co-firing with industry pellets until 2020 would have led to 21% reduction in CO 2 emissions on average. Nevertheless, it cannot be implemented immediately because time is needed for political decisions to be taken and, afterwards, for the technical retrofitting of power plants. Co-firing will, therefore, not be available to contribute to the achievement of the greenhouse gas reduction targets for the year 2020. However, our approach can be used to assess the contribution of the various CO 2 mitigation strategies to the ambitious mitigation targets for the year 2030.

show abstract

“…In Brazil, an estimated 16%-77% (about 16-76 Mha) and 1%-32% (about 7-24 Mha) of natural and non-natural grasslands, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. Obviously, other restrictions also come into play and the grassland areas where bioenergy feedstock production makes sense will be smaller than what is, in principle, available from a biodiversity protection point of view (e.g., Arodudu, Voinov, & Duren, 2013;Cintas, Berndes, Englund, Cutz, & Johnsson, 2018;van Duren, Voinov, Arodudu, & Firrisa, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands?

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable feedstock supply is a critical issue for the bioenergy sector. One concern is that feedstock production will impact biodiversity. We analyze how this concern is addressed in assessments of biomass supply potentials and in selected governance systems in the EU and Brazil, including the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Brazilian Forest Act. The analysis focuses on grasslands and includes estimates of the amount of grassland area (and corresponding biomass production volume) that would be excluded from cultivation in specific biodiversity protection scenarios. The reviewed assessments used a variety of approaches to identify and exclude biodiverse grasslands as unavailable for bioenergy. Because exclusion was integrated with other nature protection considerations, quantification of excluded grassland areas was often not possible. The RED complements and strengthens the CAP in terms of biodiversity protection. Following the RED, an estimated 39%–48% (about 9–11 Mha) and 15%–54% (about 10–38 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse in EU‐28. The estimated biomass production potential on these areas corresponds to some 1–3 and 1.5–10 EJ/year for natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively (depending on area availability and management intensity). However, the RED lacks clear definitions and guidance, creating uncertainty about its influence on grassland availability for bioenergy feedstock production. For Brazil, an estimated 16%–77% (about 16–76 Mha) and 1%–32% (about 7–24 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. In Brazil, ecological–economic zoning was found potentially important for grassland protection. Further clarification of grassland definitions and delineation in regulations will facilitate a better understanding of the prospects for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands, and the impacts of bioenergy deployment on biodiversity.

show abstract

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

Cited by 21 publications

References 62 publications

Sustainable intensification of crop residue exploitation for bioenergy: Opportunities and challenges

Sustainable intensification of crop residue exploitation for bioenergy: Opportunities and challenges

Evaluation of co-firing as a cost-effective short-term sustainable CO2 mitigation strategy in Germany

How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About