Biomass for biorefineries or in support of a wider bioeconomy can be sourced from various sources. Currently forest or woody biomass makes up the largest contribution to bioenergy production, but future supply potentials include dedicated production of biomass for energy or biorefineries and an increased use of agricultural or forest residues. By 2050 a technical potential of agricultural residues between 10 and 66 EJ has been identified, constituting a significant resource. Also processing residues and food waste constitute a significant biomass resource each with a potential between 5 and 50 EJ per year by 2050. Residue biomass, be it from the field or from processing of agricultural produce, has a low cost compared to other biomass resources. However, due to its low energy density and geographically dispersed production, long-range transport is prohibitively costly, which could limit the biorefinery concept from being broadly implemented. Development towards densification and to ensure uniform material characteristics may reduce cost and risk in the supply chain.
A significant resource base at a reasonable cost and with a manageable risk is not enough to ensure mobilisation of the resource and the establishment of a viable supply chain. A number of institutional, technical, social and economic barriers must be overcome. A consistent policy framework that supports a bioeconomy, biorefineries or production based on biomass and waste is required. Awareness about credible knowledge on process costs and sustainability aspects must be developed among stakeholders along the supply chain.
KeywordsBiomass Biorefinery Feedstock Bioenergy High-value products Biomass costs Biomass mobilisation
- Bentsen NS, Nilsson D, Larsen S, Stupak I (2016) Agricultural residues for energy in Denmark and Sweden—differences and commonalities, IEA Bioenergy Task 43. TR2016:05Google Scholar
- Bentsen NS, Lamers P, Lalonde C, Wellisch M, Dale VH, Bonner I, Jacobson J, Stupak I, Gan J, Girouard P (2017) Mobilisation of agricultural residues for bioenergy and higher value bio-products: resources, barriers and sustainability, IEA Bioenergy Taks 43. TR2017:01Google Scholar
- BP (2018) BP statistical review of world energy. BP, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, Gabrielle B, Eng AG, Lucht W, Mapako M, Cerutti OM, McIntyre T, Minowa T, Pingoud K (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Lin CSK, Pfaltzgraff LA, Herrero-Davila L, Mubofu EB, Abderrahim S, Clark JH, Koutinas AA, Kopsahelis N, Stamatelatou K, Dickson F, Thankappan S, Mohamed Z, Brocklesby R, Luque R (2013) Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ Sci 6(2):426–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marchand L (2015) Cost assessment for cornstalk supply chain for bioprocessing purposes. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
- Nakada S, Saygin D, Gielen D (2014) Global bioenergy: supply and demand projections. IRENA, Abu DahbiGoogle Scholar
- Peake S (ed) (2018) Renewable energy—power for a sustainable future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- REN21 (2018) Renewables 2018 global status report. REN21 Secretariat, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Robledo-Abad C, Althaus H-J, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Corbera E, Creutzig F, Garcia-Ulloa J, Geddes A, Gregg JS, Haberl H, Hanger S, Harper RJ, Hunsberger C, Larsen RK, Lauk C, Leitner S, Lilliestam J, Lotze-Campen H, Muys B, Nordborg M, Ölund M, Orlowsky B, Popp A, Portugal-Pereira J, Reinhard J, Scheiffle L, Smith P (2017) Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited. GCB Bioenergy 9(3):541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smil V (2018) Energy and civilization: a history. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- WEC (2016) World energy resources—bioenergy. World Energy Council, LondonGoogle Scholar