Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomass Resources , Worldwide

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Renewable Energy Systems

  • 4803 Accesses

Definition of the Subject

The role of biomass as a sustainable source for energy and materials has been heavily debated in recent years. In 2008, when food prices peaked (just as oil and many other commodities), biofuels were blamed for starving the poor, disturbing markets, making unsustainable use of land and water and, especially due to indirect land-use change, resulting in poor or even negative greenhouse gas (GHG) balances . In the meantime, a large amount of literature has been produced providing pieces of insight in various fields, but integral analyses on the matter are scarce. This article provides an extensive assessment of what is known and what is not known about the possibilities to realize a sustainable resource base for bio-based energy carriers and materials. The work looked at energy potentials in conjunction with key factors affecting its sustainability (biodiversity, water, competition...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Biodiversity:

The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part, which includes diversity within species, among species, and of ecosystems.

Bio energy:

Energy derived from biomass.

Biofuel:

Any liquid, gaseous, or solid fuel produced from plant or animal organic matter (e.g., soybean oil, alcohol from fermented sugar, black liquor from the paper manufacturing process, wood as fuel, etc.). Second-generation biofuels are products such as ethanol and biodiesel derived from lignocellulosic biomass by chemical or biological processes.

Biomass:

The total mass of living organisms in a given area or of a given species usually expressed as dry weight. Organic matter consisting of, or recently derived from, living organisms (especially regarded as fuel) excluding peat. Biomass includes products, by-products, and waste derived from such material. Cellulosic biomass is biomass from cellulose, the primary structural component of plants and trees.

Deforestation:

The natural or anthropogenic process that converts forest land to non-forest.

Ecosystem:

A system of living organisms interacting with each other and their physical environment. The boundaries of what could be called an ecosystem are somewhat arbitrary, depending on the focus of interest or study. Thus, the extent of an ecosystem may range from very small spatial scales to the entire planet.

Forest:

Defined under the Kyoto Protocol as a minimum area of land of 0.05–1.0 ha with tree-crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10–30% with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2–5 m at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees of various story and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or of open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations that have yet to reach a crown density of 10–30% or tree height of 2–5 m are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area that are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

Governance:

The way government is understood has changed in response to social, economic, and technological changes over recent decades. There is a corresponding shift from government defined strictly by the nation-state to a more inclusive concept of governance, recognizing the contributions of various levels of government (global, international, regional, local) and the roles of the private sector, of nongovernmental actors, and of civil society.

Integrated assessment:

A method of analysis that combines results and models from the physical, biological, economic, and social sciences, and the interactions between these components in a consistent framework to evaluate the status and the consequences of environmental change and the policy responses to it.

Land use:

The total of arrangements, activities and inputs undertaken in a certain land-cover type (a set of human actions). The social and economic purposes for which land is managed (e.g., grazing, timber extraction, and conservation). Land-use change occurs when, for example, forest is converted to agricultural land or to urban areas.

Models:

Models are structured imitations of a system’s attributes and mechanisms to mimic appearance or functioning of systems, for example, the climate, the economy of a country, a crop. Mathematical models assemble (many) variables and relations in computer code to simulate system functioning and performance for variations in parameters and inputs. Bottom-up models aggregate technological, engineering, and cost details of specific activities and processes. Top-down models apply macroeconomic theory, econometric and optimization techniques to aggregate economic variables, like total consumption, prices, incomes, and factor costs. Hybrid models include bottom-up approaches or results in top-down models.

Potential:

Several levels of biomass supply potentials can be identified, although every level may span a broad range.

Market potential:

The amount of bioenergy output expected to occur under forecast market conditions, shaped by private economic agents and regulated by public authorities. Private economic agents realize private objectives within given, perceived, and expected conditions. Market potentials are based on expected private revenues and expenditures, calculated at private prices (incorporating subsidies, levies, and rents) and with private discount rates. The private context is partly shaped by public authority policies.

Economic potential:

The amount of bioenergy output projected when all social costs and benefits related to that output are included, there is full transparency of information, and assuming exchanges in the economy install a general equilibrium characterized by spatial and temporal efficiency. Negative externalities and co-benefits of all energy uses and of other economic activities are priced. Social discount rates balance the interests of consecutive human generations.

Sustainable development potential:

The amount of bioenergy output that would be obtained in an ideal setting of perfect economic markets, optimal social (institutional and governance) systems, and achievement of the sustainable flow of environmental goods and services. This potential is distinct from economic potential by explicitly addressing inter- and intragenerational equity (distribution) and governance issues.

Technical potential:

The amount of bioenergy output obtainable by full implementation of demonstrated and likely to develop technologies or practices. No explicit reference to costs, barriers, or policies is made. In literature, analysts often adopt practical constraints in that context they implicitly take into account for instance socio-geographical and sociopolitical considerations (also called resource potential).

Theoretical potential:

This potential is derived from natural and climatic (physical) parameters. The theoretical potential can be quantified with a reasonable accuracy, but the information is of limited practical relevance. It represents the upper limit of what can be produced from biomass from a theoretical point of view based on current scientific knowledge. It does not take into account energy losses during the conversion process necessary to make use of the resource nor any kind of barriers.

Price elasticity of demand:

The ratio of the percentage change in the quantity of demand for a good or service to 1% change in the price of that good or service. When the absolute value of the elasticity is between 0 and 1, demand is called inelastic; when it is greater than 1, demand is called elastic.

Reforestation:

Direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding, and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was previously forested but converted to non-forested land. For the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring on those lands that did not contain forest on December 31, 1989.

Scenario:

A plausible description of how the future may develop based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key relationships and driving forces (e.g., rate of technological change, prices) on social, economic, energy, etc. Note that scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts, but are useful to provide a view of the implications of developments and actions.

Bibliography

  1. IEA (2009) World energy outlook 2009. IEA/OECD, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  2. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Junginger M, Bolkesjø T, Bradley D, Dolzan P, Faaij A, Heinimö J, Hektor B, Leistad Ø, Ling E, Perry M, Piacente E, Rosillo-Calle F, Ryckmans Y, Schouwenberg P-P, Solberg B, Trømborg E, da Silva WA, de Wit M (2008) Developments in international bioenergy trade. Biomass Bioenergy 32(8):717–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2009) Exploration of regional and global cost–supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 33(1):26–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. WEA (2000) World energy assessment: “energy and the challenge of sustainability”. UNDP, UNDESA and WEC, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):56–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Junginger M, Faaij A, Koopmans A, van den Broek R, Hulscher W (2001) Setting up fuel supply strategies for large scale bio-energy projects – a methodology for developing countries. Biomass Bioenergy 21(4):259–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D, Turkenburg W (2003) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L (2001) Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass Bioenergy 20:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smeets E, Faaij A (2007) Bioenergy potentials from forestry to 2050, an assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Clim Change 81:353–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuizen H (2005) Biomass potentials of miscanthus, willow and poplar: results and policy implications for Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia. Biomass Bioenergy 28(2):119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Eickhout B, de Vries B, Turkenburg WC (2005) Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 29(4):225–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Obersteiner M, Alexandrov G, Benítez PC, McCallum I, Kraxner F, Riahi K, Rokityanskiy D, Yamagate Y (2006) Global supply of biomass for energy and carbon sequestration from afforestation/reforestation activities. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11(5–6):1003–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. ORLN/TM-2005/66

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rokityanski D, Benitez P, Kraxner F, McCallum I, Obersteiner M, Rametsteiner E, Yamagata Y (2007) Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use change, carbon sequestration and biomass supply. Technolo Forecast Soc 74(7):1057–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf J, Bindraban PS, Luijten JC, Vleeshouwers LM (2003) Exploratory study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global production of bioenergy. Agric Syst 76:841–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer G, Nachtergaele F, Prieler S, Teixeira E, van Velthuizen HT, Verelst L, Wiberg D (2008) Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (GAEZ). IIASA, Laxenburg, and FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  19. van Vuuren D, van Vliet J, Stehfest E (2009) Future bioenergy potentials under various natural constraints. Energ Policy 37:4220–4230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) The implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for agriculture, land use, land-use change emissions and bioenergy. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland

    Google Scholar 

  21. Melillo JM et al (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326:5958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lotze-Campen H, Popp A, Beringer T, Müller C, Bondeau A, Rost S, Lucht W (2009) Scenarios of global bioenergy production: the trade-offs between agricultural expansion, intensification and trade. Ecol Modell. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.10.002

    Google Scholar 

  23. IEA bioenergy: ExCo: 2009:05/bioenergy – a sustainable and reliable energy source. A review of status and prospects/Bioenergy%20a%20sustainable…pdf

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dornburg V, Faaij A, et al (2008) Biomass assessment: assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy – Main Report, Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate Change. Report no: WAB 500102012, January 2008, p 85 + Appendices

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dornburg V, van Vuuren D, van de Ven G, Langeveld H, Meeusen M, Banse M, van Oorschot M, Ros J, van den Born GJ, Aiking H, Londo M, Mozaffarian H, Verweij P, Lysen E, Faaij A (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ Sci 3:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2008) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol Evol 23:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hakala K, Kontturi M, Pahkala K (2009) Field biomass as global energy source. Agric Food Sci 18:347–365

    Google Scholar 

  28. Metzger JO, Huttermann A (2009) Sustainable global energy supply based on lignocellulosic biomass from afforestation of degraded areas. Naturwissenschaften 96:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wirsenius S, Azar A, Berndes G (2010) Preserving natural ecosystems and global biodiversity: how much land can be spared for nature by dietary changes and livestock productivity increases? Agricultural Systems, under review

    Google Scholar 

  30. CBD & MNP (2007) Cross-roads of life on earth. Exploring means to meet the 2010 biodiversity target. Solution-oriented scenarios for global biodiversity oulook 2. Report nr. CBD Technical Series no. 31/MNP report nr. 555050001, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (sCBD) and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Montreal & Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  31. CBD (2006) Global biodiversity outlook 2. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  32. Molden D, Frenken K, De Fraiture Ch, Barker R, Mati B, Svendsen M, Sadoff C, Finlayson CM (2007) Trends in water and agricultural development. In: Molden D (ed) Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan, London, pp 57–89

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bessembinder JJE, Leffelaar PA, Dhindwal AS, Ponsioen TC (2003) Which crop and which drop, and the scope for improvement of water productivity. Agric Water Manage 73:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Alcamo J, Döll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rösch T, Siebert S (2003) Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):317–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shiklomanov IA (2000) Appraisal and assessment of world water resources. Water Int 25:11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Berndes G (2002) Bioenergy and water – the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environ change 12:253–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smakthin VU, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Research Report of the CGIAR Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. No. 2, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  38. Evans LT (1998) Feeding the ten billion: plants and population growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-64081-4

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Smil V (2002) The earth’s biosphere: evolution, dynamics, and change. MIT Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-262-19472-4

    Google Scholar 

  41. Aiking H, De Boer J, Vereijken JM (eds) (2006) Sustainable protein production and consumption: pigs or peas? vol 45, Environment and Policy. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ISBN 1-4020-4062-8

    Google Scholar 

  42. Quist J (2000) Towards sustainable shopping, cooking and eating in the Netherlands. Background report, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. Available on CD ROM at www.sushouse.tudelft.nl

  43. von Braun J, Rosegrant M, Pandya-Lorch R, Cohen MJ, Cline SA, Brown MA, Bos MS (2005) New risks and opportunities for food security: scenario analyses for 2015 and 2050, 2020 Discussion paper 39. IFPRI, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dixon J, Gulliver A, Gibbon D (2001) Farming systems and poverty; improving farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world. FAO and World Bank, Rome/Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grigg D (1995) The pattern of world protein consumption. Geoforum 26(1):1–17

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Millstone E, Lang T (2003) The atlas of food: who eats what, where and why. Earthscan, London. ISBN 1-85383-965-5

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smil V (2002) Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme Microb Technol 30:305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pimentel D, Pimentel M (2003) Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr 78:660S–663S

    Google Scholar 

  49. Smil V (2000) Feeding the world: a challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-262-19432-5

    Google Scholar 

  50. Seidl A (2000) Economic issues and the diet and the distribution of environmental impact. Ecol Econ 34:5–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. White T (2000) Diet and the distribution of environmental impact. Ecol Econ 34:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. IEA-WEO (2006) World energy outlook 2006. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. IPCC (2011) Special report on renewable energy sources. (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  54. IEA-ETP (2008) Energy technology perspectives report, Paris-France

    Google Scholar 

  55. IEA-WEO (2007) World energy outlook 2007. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. OECD and FAO (2007) Agricultural outlook 2007–2016. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  57. OECD (2008) OECD environmental outlook to 2030. Report, OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  58. Dale V, Efroymson R, Kline K, Goss Eng A, Haq Z (2009) Land-use change and bioenergy: workshop, Vonore, May 2009. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/besd/cbes/workshops/LandUse_Report.pdf

  59. Fehrenbach H, Giegrich J, Reinhardt G, Rettenmaier N (2009) Synopsis of current models and methods applicable to indirect land use change (ILUC). Report Commissioned by Bundesverband der deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e.V. (BDBe) http://www.bdbe.de/studien.html

  60. Amaral W et al (2008) Environmental sustainability of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. In: Zuurbier P, van de Vooren J (eds) Sugarcane ethanol. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 113–138

    Google Scholar 

  61. EPA (2010) Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis, EPA-420-R-10-006, February 2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf

  62. Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Birur DK (2010) Global impacts of biofuels. Energy J 31:75–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. CARB (2010) January 10, 2010, Final regulation order, subchapter 10. Climate change, article 4. Regulations to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions, subarticle 7. Low carbon fuel standard, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/lcfs09/lcfs09.htm

  64. Nassar A, Harfuch L, Moreira MMR, Bachion LC, Antoniazzi LB, Sparovek G (2009) Impacts on land use and GHG emissions from a shock on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol exports to the United States using the Brazilian land use model (BLUM). The Brazilian Institute for International Negotiations, ICONE, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed changes to the renewable fuel standard program, http://www.iconebrasil.org.br/arquivos/noticia/1873.pdf. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1958

  65. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz T, Hayes D, Yu T (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Fritsche U et al (2008) The ILUC factor as a means to hedge risks of GHG emissions from ILUC associated with bioenergy feedstock provision, Oeko Institute

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tipper R et al (2009) A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from ILUC associated with biofuels, Arbeit für Ecometrica für Greenergy, Technical Paper – TP-080212-A; Jan 2009

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C, Priess JA (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(8):3388–3393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Al-Fiffai P, Dimaranan B, Laborde D (2010 March) Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate study prepared by IFPRI

    Google Scholar 

  70. Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuizen H, Berndes G, Faaij A, Londo M, de Wit M (2010) Biofuel production potentials in Europe: sustainable use of cultivated land and pastures, Part II: land use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 34(2):173–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. de Wit M, Faaij A (2010) European biomass resource potential and costs. Biomass Bioenerg 34(2):188–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bruinsma J (2002) World agriculture: towards 2015/2030, an FAO perspective. FAO, Rome. ISBN 9251048355

    Google Scholar 

  73. Vuuren DP van (2007) Energy systems and climate policy. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University

    Google Scholar 

  74. IUCN & UNEP/WCMC (2003) United Nations list of protected areas report, the world conservation union (IUCN) and world conservation monitoring centre (UNEP/WCMC). Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  75. IPCC 4th assessment report WG II report, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  76. WWF (2006) WildFinder: online database of species distribution, version 01.06. http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildfinder

  77. DOE (2010) Department of energy, golden field office, impact assessment of integrated biorefinery projects. http://www.biorefineryprojecteis-abengoa.com/Home_Page.html

  78. van Dam J, Faaij APC, Hilbert J, Petruzzi H, Turkenburg WC (2009) Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina. Part A: potential economic feasibility national international markets. Renew Sust Energy Rev 13:1710–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. van Dam J, Faaij APC, Hilbert J, Petruzzi H, Turkenburg WC (2009) Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina. Part B: environmental and socio-economic impacts on a regional level. Renew Sust Energy Rev 13(8):1679–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1107.html. Accessed 17 July 2007

  81. WWI (2006) Biofuels for transportation – global potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21st century. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  82. Schmidhuber J (2005) The nutrition and the energy transition of world agricultural markets. Plenary presentation at the German association of agricultural economists (GeWiSoLa), Göttingen, October 2005

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hamelinck C, Faaij A (2006) Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energ Pol 34(17):3268–3283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rosegrant MW, Cai X, Cline SA, Nakagawa N (2002) The role of rainfed agriculture in the future of global food production, EPTD discussion papers 90, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

    Google Scholar 

  85. IFPRI (2008) High food prices: the what, who, and how of proposed policy actions. Policy brief. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/foodpricespolicyaction.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2008

  86. Ivanic M, Martin W (2008) Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries. Agric Econ 39:405–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Zezza A, Davis B, Azzarri C, Covarrubias K, Tasciotti L, Anriquez G (2008) The impact of rising food prices on the poor. FAO ESA Working Paper 08-07

    Google Scholar 

  88. FAO (2008) State of food and agriculture. Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities

    Google Scholar 

  89. Schmidhuber J (2007) Impact of an increased biomass use on agricultural markets, prices and food security: a longer-term perspective

    Google Scholar 

  90. Bruinsma J (2009) The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? Expert Meeting on how to feed the world in 2050, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Economic and Social Development Department, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tefft J (2010) Mali’s White Revolution: Smallholder Cotton. In: Haggblade S, Hazell P (eds) Successes in African agriculture: lessons for the future., International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 1960–2006

    Google Scholar 

  92. Binswanger HP, von Braun J (1991) Technological change and commercialization in agriculture: the effect on the poor. World Bank Res Obser 6(1):57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. von Braun J (1994) Production, employment, and income effects of commercialization of agriculture. In: von Braun J, Kennedy E (eds) Agricultural commercialization, economic development, and nutrition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  94. López R, Galinato GI (2007) Should governments stop subsidies to private goods? Evidence from rural latin America. J Public Econ 91(5–6):1071–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wiskerke W, Dornburg V, Faaij A, Malimbwi RE, Rubanza CDA (2010) Towards a sustainable biomass energy supply for rural households in semi-arid conditions in Tanzania – a cost/benefit analysis. Renew Sust Energy Rev 14(1):148–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Arndt C et al (2010) Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Environ Dev Econ 15(1):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wicke B, Smeets E, Faaij A, Tabeau A, Hilbert J (2009) Macroeconomic impacts of bioenergy production on surplus agricultural land – a case study of Argentina. Renew Sust Energy Rev 13(9):2463–2473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. de Wit M, Junginger M, Lensink S, Londo M, Faaij A (2010) Competition between biofuels: modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time. Biomass Bioenergy 34(2):203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Banse M, Tabeau A, Woltjer G, van Meijl H (2007) Impact of EU Biofuel policies on world agricultural and food markets. Paper presented on the 10th Annual GTAP Conference, 07–09 June 2007, Purdue University, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  100. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2003) Towards sustainable energy systems. Earthscan, London. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2003_engl.html

  101. Larson ED (2007) A review of LCA studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy Sust Dev X(2):109–126

    Google Scholar 

  102. Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A (2010) Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sust Energy Rev 14(7):1661–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Oldeman LR, Hakkeling TRA, Sombroek WG (1991) GLASOD, world map of human-induced soil degradation. ISRIC/UNEP, ISRIC, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  104. Patel MK, Crank M, Dornburg V, Hermann BG, Roes L, Hüsing B, Overbeek L van, Terragni F, Recchia E (2006) Medium and longterm opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources. E.C.G.P.D. research. Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  105. van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij A (2010) From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning (submitted to Renew Sust Energy Rev 2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copernicus Institute, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    André Faaij

Authors
  1. André Faaij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Faaij .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Biomass Research Centre, Leipzig, Germany

    Martin Kaltschmitt

  2. Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Martin Kaltschmitt

  3. Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Nickolas J. Themelis

  4. Ormat Technologies, Inc., Reno, NV, USA

    Lucien Y. Bronicki

  5. Royal Institute of Technology, Electric Power Systems, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lennart Söder

  6. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Luis A. Vega

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Faaij, A. (2013). Biomass Resources , Worldwide. In: Kaltschmitt, M., Themelis, N.J., Bronicki, L.Y., Söder, L., Vega, L.A. (eds) Renewable Energy Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5820-3_259

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation