Worldwide Development Bioenergy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714 www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Worldwide commercial development of bioenergy with a focus on energy crop-based projects Lynn Wright WrightLink Consulting, 111 Crosswinds Cove Road, Ten Mile, TN 37880, USA Received 10 December 2004; received in revised form 25 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005 Available online 19 May 2006

Abstract Bioenergy consumption is greatest in countries with heavy subsidies or tax incentives, such as China, Brazil, and Sweden. Conversion of forest residues and agricultural residues to charcoal, district heat and home heating are the most common forms of bioenergy. Biomass electric generation feedstocks are predominantly forest residues (including black liquor), bagasse, and other agricultural residues. Biofuel feedstocks include sugar from sugarcane (in Brazil), starch from maize grain (in the US), and oil seeds (soy or rapeseed) for biodiesel (in the US, EU, and Brazil). Of the six large land areas of the world reviewed (China, EU, US, Brazil, Canada, Australia), total biomass energy consumptions amounts to 17.1 EJ. Short-rotation woody crops (SRWC) established in Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia over the past 25 years equal about 50,000 km2. SRWC plantings in China may be in the range of 70,000–100,000 km2. SRWC and other energy crops established in the US and EU amount to less than 1000 km2. With some exceptions (most notably in Sweden and Brazil), the SRWC have been established for purposes other than as dedicated bioenergy feedstocks, however, portions of the crops are (or are planned to be) used for bioenergy production. New renewable energy incentives, greenhouse gas emission targets, synergism with industrial waste management projects, and oil prices exceeding 60 $ Bbl 1 (in 2005) are major drivers for SRWC or energy crop based bioenergy projects. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Biomass energy; Biomass projects; Short-rotation crops; Energy crops; Bioenergy drivers

1. Introduction Many countries around the world have been developing new crops since the mid-1970s in order to increase the biomass resource base for production of bioenergy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) initiated a Bioenergy Agreement in 1978 with the aim of improving cooperation and information exchange between countries that have national programs on bioenergy research, development and deployment. The current IEA Bioenergy Task (Task 30) dealing with energy crop development is called Shortrotation Crops for Bioenergy Systems1. Many different

Tel.: +1 865 376 0037.

E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 Short Rotation Crops are defined in the IEA Bioenergy Task 30 objective statement as ‘‘woody crops such as willows, poplars, Robinia and Eucalyptus with coppicing abilities, as well as lignocellulosic crops such as reed canary grass and Miscanthus’’. 0961-9534/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.08.008

perennial and annual crops can be included under this heading and this paper will refer to all ‘‘crop’’ sources of lignocellulose as ‘‘energy crops2. Since 1978, the technical feasibility of producing energy crops has progressed significantly and several energy crop based bioenergy projects have been started. This paper reviews the status of all biomass consumption and specifically the contribution of energy crops to biomass consumption. Brief project status reports explain some of the reasons why greater commercial utilization of energy crop technology has not occurred after 30 years of technology development.

2 The lignocellulosic or energy crop technologies discussed in this paper encompass short-rotation coppice (SRC), short rotation woody crop (SRWC) technology which does not necessarily involve coppicing, the herbaceous energy crop (HEC) technology which is normally applied to perennial grasses, and annual crops such as maize and soybeans when they are used for food, energy and other bioproducts.

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

2. Approach This evaluation of the deployment of energy crops as a biomass energy resource is restricted to selected states, countries, and regions of the world with a focus on Task 30 member countries. Data collected from published sources include population statistics, total energy consumption, and biomass energy consumption. Most data is current to year 2002, the latest data that could be consistently obtained for most countries. Exceptions are noted in the text or tables. Reports and tables from the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International web pages [1–7] were initially consulted for information on population and total energy consumed but finally used for countries other than the US only where 2002 information for individual countries could not be obtained (such as Canada and China). The author found that information on total energy consumed published by EIA was usually similar to information in individual country reports. In the case of Brazil, the information reported by Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy [8,9] was substantially different from that reported by EIA. EIA international data on amount of biomass energy consumed at the country level is generally lumped together with all renewable resources, thus bioenergy information was derived either from individual country sources (referenced later) or from the World Energy Council’s 2001 survey of energy resources [10]. For most countries, the biomass numbers represent the gross energy values embodied in the wide range of primary, secondary and tertiary biomass materials used to produce heat, electricity, and liquid fuels in each country. However, New Zealand statistics only report primary energy supply (including imports) and ‘‘consumer energy’’ which excludes energy used or lost in transformation to final energy carriers and in bringing the energy to the final consumers. New Zealand’s consumer energy numbers were used in this report. Information on the area of planted energy crops, and notes on the contribution of energy crops to bioenergy production were derived from personal communication or recent reports. Personal communication and internet searching for recent publications were used to obtain information on the current status of specific energy crop based, bioenergy research and development projects that were initiated in the late 1990s in the US and Europe and on new project developments including energy crops. Relevant market conditions and project development considerations that may have affected the status of ongoing projects are briefly addressed. 3. Biomass energy status in selected regions, countries and states Countries that are currently members of Task 30 and that have been pursuing R&D on energy crop development for many years include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, New

707

Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Denmark, Croatia, Finland and The Netherlands were also members of the previous related IEA Bioenergy task (Task 17). Evaluation of bioenergy status includes most of the previously listed countries plus China. The comparisons of biomass energy consumption are summarized in two tables. Table 1 compares regions or political areas of the world that have relatively large land areas but a wide range of population levels (20–1300 million). Table 2 compares geo-political entities (countries or states) that represent smaller land areas with population levels ranging between 4 and 60 million. China’s large population [4] will have an increasingly large effect on world energy demands as their economy continues to grow. China’s total energy consumption [3] is less than many individual European countries, but its 2002 consumption of 7.5 EJ of biomass feedstocks for energy (16.5% of total energy) [13], is more than double that of any other country. Based on comparison of biomass energy use numbers reported in 2000 [14] and 2003 [13], Chinese biomass use is increasing. China’s biomass consumption includes use of about 200 million tons of firewood, 330 million tons of agricultural residues (straw), and use of biogas from about 10.2 million family biogas digesters [13]. As much as 47% of the firewood is obtained from nonforest sources such as brush, trees planted for leaves or seeds and trees planted along roads and fields [10]. The area of energy crop plantations in China is uncertain. However in year 2000, China ranked first in the world in the speed and scale of afforestation [18]. Manually planted forests exist on 467,000 km2 in 2002 [19] though only a portion can be assumed to be woody crops grown for energy. The WEC 2001 survey [10] reported a goal of achieving 13.5 million ha of fuelwood forests by 2010; the China Daily [19] reported a similar goal for ‘‘fast growing plantations’’ for the date of 2015. Based on the existence of 56,000 km2 of ‘‘fuelwood plantations’’ reported to exist in 1996 by Ping [20], the current amount could be between 70,000 to 100,000 km2 of woody crops as of 2002, with most being located in the southern portions of China. Bioenergy from sugar sorghum is being investigated as a potential bioenergy resource in Northwest China [21]. Brazil, with its 30,000 km2 of Eucalyptus plantations and about 50,000 km2 of sugar cane, [22] may have the largest area of short-rotation crops being grown for specifically for energy. Eucalyptus began to be established in Brazil as early as the early 1900s but the major plantings occurred between 1966 and 1989 when government incentives were available [23]. Eucalyptus wood is converted to charcoal for the Pig iron and Steel industry but it also is a major pulp resource and makes beautiful furniture. Brazil uses sugar cane to make more ethanol for transportation fuel than any other country in the world (11.5 hm3), and electricity is generated from the sugarcane bagasse. Recently, Brazil has also begun producing biodiesel fuels from vegetable oils. Elephant grass, bamboo, and other

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

708

Table 1 Population and energy consumption from selected large countries or regions Biomass (EJ)

Biomass (%)

Energy crop contribution to bioenergyk

45.5c

7.5g

16.4

453

70.5d

2.75h

3.9

U.S.

288

103.4c

2.92i

2.8

Brazil

177

7.3e

1.98e

27.2e

Canada

31

13.1c

1.77j

13.5

Australia

20

5.2f

0.20f

3.8

Yes—fuelwood from 70,000 to 100,000 km2 woody crop Yes—district heat 180 km2 willow and grasses Minor—residues and black liquor from 500 km2 woody crops Yes—charcoal from 30,000 km2 woody crops, ethanol and electricity from 50,000 km2 sugarcane No—bioenergy from forest residue, energy crops been tested No—but 60 km2 of mallee expected to have bioenergy market

Country

Population (millions)a

China

1295

EU-25

Total (EJ)b

a

All population numbers are 2002 data and are derived from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2, 4]. All total primary energy consumption is for 2002 data but derived from various sources. c Source: EIA [3]. d Source: Eurostat energy database [11]. e Source: Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy 2003 report [8]. Biomass EJ are calculated based on data expressed as percentages [8]. f Source: Donaldson, K., Australian Energy Statistics [12]. g Source: Shuhua 2003 Conference paper [13]. A more easily retrievable Ref. [14] gives values of 44.2 EJ for total energy use and 6.69 EJ for biomass consumption for year 2000. h Source: EUBIONET IIa 2003 report [15]. i Source: 2005 EIA Renewable Energy Trends [1]. j Source: World Energy Council 2001 survey [10] data are from 1999. k Source: personal communication with many biomass researchers. Land area of corn grain used for US ethanol is not included and annual oilseed crops are not reported. b

Table 2 Population and energy consumption from selected small countries or states Country

Population (Millions)a

Total (EJ)b

Biomass (EJ)c

Biomass (%)c

Energy crop contributiond

UK Sweden

59.7 8.9

9.48 2.2

0.060 0.34

0.6 15.9

Netherlands

16.1

3.6

0.083

2.3

Denmark

5.4

0.83

0.098

11.8

New Zealand

3.8

0.49

0.031

6.3

California

35.0

8.3

0.16

1.9

New York Florida

19.2 16.7

4.36 4.36

0.16 0.16

3.6 3.6

Minnesota

5.0

1.7

0.064

3.7

Yes—small part of 25 km2 willow Yes—district heat 160 km2 willow and Reed Canary grass Yes—trial stage 1.2 km2 willow and grasses Yes—trial stage; small amount of pellets & briquettes from willow, miscanthus commercial for rhizome export Yes—residues from 18,000 km2 shortrotation pines Yes—residues from 40 km2 eucalyptus Yes tests only—from 1.6 km2 willow Yes—thinnings from 200 km2 pine, and 0.2 km2 woody crops Yes—residues from 150 km2 poplars

a

Source: US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2,4]. All are 2002 data. Sources: Eurostat energy database [11], New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development [16], EIA states data tables [6]. Total EJ primary energy is from year 2002 for European countries and New Zealand but from year 2001 for states in the US. c Sources: EUBIONET IIb report [17], New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development [34], EIA states data tables [6]. Biomass EJ for European countries was by calculation using reported biomass % data. Biomass EJ for US states was based on the ‘‘wood/wastes’’ column in the EIA states data tables. d Sources: Personal communication with many biomass researchers. Area of perennial crops (trees or grasses) and sugarcane dedicated for energy use is reported. Area of corn (maize) and oil seed crops used for multiple products is not included. b

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

short-rotation crops are being used or evaluated as a bioenergy resource in Brazil [24]. Bioenergy comprised about 27% of the total energy consumed in Brazil in 2002 [8]. The US consumes the most energy of all countries surveyed (103 EJ) with the bioenergy contribution being 2.8% [3,5]. About 60% of the biomass energy is produced and consumed by the forest products industry. The fiber industry harvests about 250 million dry tons of wood from private forests (natural forests and pine plantations) and about 40% of that material is used for energy [25]. It is speculated that by 2030, forest bioenergy could grow by a factor of 2 over current levels (1.7 EJ) with improvements in forest productivity and biomass conversion technologies. At present there are about 500 km2 of short rotation woody crop plantations in the US planted for fiber. A small portion of the woody crops contribute to bioenergy production through industry use of the woody crop residues (hogfuel) or black liquor. US biomass numbers include grain converted to ethanol as well as landfill gas, agricultural residues, municipal solid wastes, and tires. The 25 countries now forming the European Union consumed 70.5 EJ of total primary energy in 2002, with biomass contributing 3.9% [15,17]. Wood consumption for households slightly exceeds wood consumption by industry but together they account for 76% of the biomass consumed in the EU [15]. The 36% of the biomass used for energy by industry results primarily from forest industry activities in Sweden and Finland. Gross use of biomass is highest in the largest countries, Germany and France, but Finland has the highest biomass use as a percent of total energy use (20%) [17]. Wood use for households occurs throughout the EU and includes direct use of ‘‘firewood’’ for heating as well as wood used in the generation of district heating. In the UK there are several existing power stations operating on agricultural residues, biomass wastes and small amounts of energy crops. Cofired power stations are testing use of small amounts of energy crops in anticipation of UK’s Renewables Obligation requirements to make energy crops equal 75% of their biomass supply beginning in April 2006 [26,27]. Several of the 25 EU Countries have small trial plantings of a wide variety of energy crop species. The number of planted hectares of energy crops supplying biomass energy in the EU was estimated to be about 18,600 based on personal communication [26,28,29] and a recent report [30]. Sweden accounts for most of the area (160 km2). Fiber plantations of short-rotation trees (poplar, Eucalyptus, black locust and other) are also common in Southern Europe and it is highly probable that they are contributing to biomass energy with utilization of the black liquor and wood residues. Canada, a large land mass with a small population, consumes a correspondingly small amount of biomass [3]. However, Canada ranks near China in the percentage of total primary energy being generated from biomass

709

(13.5%3 and 15% respectively) [10,11]. Nearly all of the bioenergy is being generated by the forest products industry. Canada is expected to increase it’s percentage of energy production from biomass since it signed the Kyoto Agreement and the government appears to be taking the commitment seriously as shown by new biomass energy initiatives [31]. Private sector developers in Canada have moved quickly to develop wood pellets for home heating use and a Canadian biotechnology firm, Iogen Corporation, has established a pilot scale facility in Ottawa, Canada for the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks (from wheat straw or other small grain straws). They are now searching for appropriate locations for a commercial facility [32]. Australia’s population and total energy consumption are the smallest of the countries with large land area. However, 3.7% of the country’s total energy consumption (5.2 EJ) is derived from biomass [12]. Australian bioenergy resources in 2005 are primarily agricultural residues. Forestry residues are not a major source of bioenergy because utilization of eucalypts for bioenergy is prohibited due to concerns about over-harvesting of native forests [34]. Energy crop research is focused on tree species that would be managed as a coppice species such as Acacia’s or other shrub type woody crops. Giles and Harris [34] reported that mallees (a type of eucalyptus with small tree form), of which about 22 million have been planted to remove excess water from crop and pasture land [35], are being viewed as a potentially major bioenergy resource. The comparisons in Table 2 are between land areas of relatively similar size including 4 states in the US and 5 individual small countries. Of the small Task 30 member countries included, Sweden consumes the largest amount of bioenergy (0.34 EJ) and has the highest percentage (15.9%) of total energy consumed) with Denmark not far behind (11.8% of total) [17]. Sweden also has the largest area of energy crops (160 km2). New Zealand has a very large amount of short rotation hardwoods for multiple use (180,000 km2) [36] but only 6.3% of its energy is obtained from biomass [16]. In the US, the states of New York, California and Florida have the same level of biomass consumption (0.17–0.18 EJ) [6]. Minnesota consumes about 1/3 the biomass of the other states [6], however Minnesota’s consumption of bioenergy as a percentage of total energy consumed is very similar to New York and Florida. In summary, in all countries evaluated, bioenergy in 2005 is primarily derived from a combination of forest and agricultural residues, municipal residues, landfill gas, or manures processed in anaerobic digesters. Thus, as of 2005, energy crop biomass is generally not a significant bioenergy resource except as previously discussed for the countries of 3 The percent of biomass consumed in Canada in 2002 is likely to be higher than indicated in Table 1 since data was from approximately 1999. Canada recently signed the Kyoto agreement resulting in a push to increase renewable energy.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 710

L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

China, Brazil and Sweden where it is used as fuel for home heating and cooking, for charcoal, or for district heating. The status of several energy crop based bioenergy projects initiated in the mid to late 1990s are discussed below. 4. Status of 1990s bioenergy projects based on energy crops The projects discussed in this section include most of the integrated projects4 whose progress has been followed at IEA Bioenergy Task 17 and Task 30 meetings in the 1998–2003 time period. All projects received some funding from the country (federal) level and had local cost-sharing in most cases. Sweden provides an excellent example of successful use of energy crops. Many district heating facilities in Sweden rely on a combination of forest residues and willow. One specific project that has received worldwide attention as a model for a successful enterprise using short rotation crops is the Enko¨ping Combined Heat and Power plant. The facility was built in 1994 to produce 45 MW heat and 24MW of gross electricity and runs at 90% efficiency [37]. Since 1997, the facility has relied totally on biomass. The primary supply consists of woodchips, bark sawdust and pellets from forest residues but willow is added to the mix in winter. By the end of 2003, 150 ha of willows had been planted within 30 km of the Enko¨ping plant with a multipurpose goal of providing cleaning for municipal wastewater as well as biofuels [38]. The utility plans to rent 200 ha from local farmers to provide additional energy crop fuel for the facility [28]. The Enko¨ping CHP manager reported in fall 2004 the production processes at the facility were going to be broadened to include pellet production as well as ethanol in order to supply current market demand [39]. The UK funded renewables projects in the late 1990s under a program called the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). A brief summary of NFFO projects on the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry website [40] shows that as of April 2005 there were 32 biomass projects contracted with up to 16 proposing to use some combination of agricultural or forestry residues together with energy crops. Two of the early NFFO contracts were awarded to Ambient Energy, who proposed gasification of energy crops. The projects did not progress to construction because of objections by local residents [41]. Two other energy crop based NFFO projects in the UK were progressing at the time of the IEA Bioenergy Task 17 meetings in March 2000. Both (described below) had been abandoned by early 2003 [41]. (1) The Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) project, a high visibility project with funds from both the UK and Europe, came closest to being completed. A gasifier facility was constructed and 15 km2 of willow 4 Projects with both feedstock supply and conversion technology partners contractually involved in the projects.

were planted and grown successfully. However, delays in commissioning and technical problems resulted in withdrawal of the developers. Though completed, the gasifier has stood idle since August 2002 [41]. The farmers growing the willow were left without a market, though one farmer installed woodchip heating on his farm to utilize some of the wood. (2) A second project initiated by Border Biofuels planned to make high-quality oils from willow coppice, forest residues and other organic wastes, using pyrolysis technology. The location of the project resulted in difficulties with road access, and costs of road improvements were very high [41]. The project was not completed due to financial and technical problems and Border Biofuels had gone into liquidation by January 2003. In the US, five energy crop based projects were initiated in the 1990s with federal support [42]. As of summer 2005, four are stalled, and one is abandoned. Their status is summarized below. (1) In New York, a consortium involving utilities, university staff, farmers, and federal agency groups collaborated to grow willows and co-fire them with waste wood in a coal-burning facility. Willow was successfully planted on 200 ha involving 16 farmers [43,44]. Tests were conducted on the harvesting, delivery and co-firing of the waste wood and willow, all providing positive results. The initial delay in commercialization occurred because the New York Department of Environmental Conservation delayed in giving a permit for full-time co-firing of waste wood and willow with coal. The new owners of the coal facility have not yet (as of summer 2005) requested a permit, but they are doing an economic and engineering analysis of the co-firing opportunity. (2) In Iowa, farmers formed a cooperative and worked together to successfully demonstrate switchgrass production, and transport switchgrass supplies to a local utility for co-firing tests. While initial tests demonstrated the feasibility of the supply system, the utility, Alliant Energy, has delayed awaiting a longer co-firing trial (and better market conditions) before making a long-term commitment to commercially co-firing the switchgrass. The switchgrass producers group signed a contract with Alliant Energy in 2004 to supply the switchgrass needed for the more extensive tests [45]. (3) In Alabama, a coal burning facility in the city of Gadston is being supplied with switchgrass by one local farmer. A 120 ha planting was initially established to supply fuel for co-firing test burns and the company has continued to purchase and co-fire that switchgrass [45]. The switchgrass supply is a very small percentage of the facilities fuel supply. (4) In Minnesota, a power purchase agreement (PPA) was signed about 3 years ago between the small company,

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

Energy Performance Systems, and the utility, Excel Energy, for power that was to be supplied from poplar plantations. The PPA has been sold twice, and the proposed type and location of the poplar burning facility has changed. The inability of the project developers and local farmers to agree on a price for the woody crops was partially responsible for the changes in site location. The group currently owning the PPA received the approval from the state to proceed with the project in summer 2005 [46]. (5) Of the US projects ongoing in 2000, only one has been completely abandoned. The project plan was to use an advanced gasification technology to burn alfalfa stems. The gasifier would have been owned by a group of farmers who were also interested in selling the alfalfa leaves as a protein by-product. Problems included: the gasifier developers pulling out of the project, objections to the project from alfalfa producers in nearby areas, and removal of funding support by the US Department of Energy. In the Netherlands, a project was underway as of March 2000 to supply 10% of the annual feedstock required for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant in Lelystad (called the Flevo-project). It required 200 ha of energy crops to provide the required supply. The first 50 ha had been planted by spring 2000. As of December 2004, only 75 ha of energy crops had been planted [29]. Land acquisition was identified as a complicated and crucial factor in spring 2000, which apparently was not resolved. Dutch utilities have turned to importing fairly large amounts of biomass to meet renewable targets [29]. Most of the above projects were successful in demonstrating the technical feasibility of producing, harvesting, and supplying short-rotation crops for energy use. The lack of commercial success in using energy crops for bioenergy is often due to non-technical issues related to the building or locating of the conversion facilities—which occurs due to lack of understanding of bioenergy energy technologies by the public [41]. Technical issues related to the building and operation of unproven gasifier technology also occurred. In fairness to the project developers, it should be noted that both the US Department of Energy’s project development solicitation in the mid 1990s and the UK NFFO program encouraged projects linking commercially unproven energy crop supply systems with commercially unproven conversion technologies in the hopes of advancing the commercial viability of the technologies. Unfortunately these ‘‘high risk’’ projects were started without sufficient financial backing from the government funding sources. Gary Elliott, an experienced biomass project developer, makes the point that projects will only be successful if the developers stay with commercially proven technologies and get help with areas in which they don’t have sufficient knowledge. His philosophy is ‘‘if it is one of a kind—it is not time’’ [47]. The energy crop based bioenergy projects that still have a chance at attracting

711

sufficient private sector financing are linked to co-firing or proven combustion technology. A good summary of technical and non-technical barriers that has been experienced by many projects can be found in a recent Task 30 report [48]. 5. New bioenergy projects using short-rotation crops With the lessons that have been learned from both successful projects (the Enko¨ping CHP plant in Sweden) and stalled projects, new efforts involving utilization of energy crops are being initiated. Government incentives such as renewable targets or requirements are key to stimulating these developments. The UK established in 2003 a target of obtaining 10% of all electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Government subsidized producer groups are working closely with bioenergy project developers to find bioenergy markets for energy crops [49]. One such producer group (TV Bioenergy Coppice) is working on developing contracts for supplying willow biofuels to existing coal-fired utilities and to CHP plants. A federal energy crop grants scheme is stimulating establishment of new energy crop plantings [26,30]. A 6MW biomass CHP/tri-generation plant in the city of Bracknell is expected to be the first plant to have a demand for willow coppice. All new projects are being developed in close consultation with local communities and simple, reliable conversion technologies are being used [41]. In the US, State renewable portfolio standards, extension and redefinition of the federal bioenergy tax credit, and changes in US Department of Agriculture regulations on the use of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land are combining to stimulate increased interest in energy crops (and other biomass resources). The coal burning facility in Gadston, Alabama maintains its small contract for switchgrass supplies for this reason. The Tampa Electric Polk Power Station located in Mulberry, Florida has recently conducted co-firing tests using both wood and grasses. Tampa Electric is particularly interested in using Bahiagrass, a grass naturally growing in the area and suitable for growing on some of the 18 km2 of reclaimed phosphate mining land owned by the station as well as CRP land [50]. The state of New York established a renewable portfolio goal in 2004 to acquire 25% of its energy from renewables by 2013. Hydroelectric already supplies 19% of the states energy, but the 6% increment needed could provide a substantial market for biomass. About 60 km2 of land has been identified as suitable for willow coppice, creating an excellent opportunity for energy crop based bioenergy projects in New York [44]. Australia recently established a mandatory requirement for electricity retailers to increase their annual renewable energy production by 9.5 TWh nationwide [33]. All types of renewables may satisfy the requirement, but the mandate has created a small but relatively high value market for delivered biomass at 10–12 $ t(wet) 1. While helpful, energy crop production is still not likely to be profitable

ARTICLE IN PRESS 712

L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

unless multiple uses of the biomass can increase the value of delivered biomass. As of December 2003, the Western Australian mallee industry was anticipating delivering mallee wood to an integrated tree processing facility (under construction) that would produce carbon, eucalyptus oil, and bioenergy from the resource [34]. A summer 2005 update on the status of the project revealed that delays had occurred due to intermittent funding, but new funds are expected to result in commissioning of the facility before the end of 2005. However, no mechanized harvester has yet been developed for harvesting the mallee coppice [35]. The development of ‘‘Forest Products Biorefinery’’ concepts now being advanced by the forest products industry in the US has the potential of stimulating establishment of large areas of short rotation woody crops [51]. This concept involves three focus areas.



 

Application of biotechnology to sustainable forestry to allow management of US forest land at a high intensity on fewer acres. This translates to an increased use of short-rotation woody crops in the future for fiber, bioenergy, and bioproducts. Extraction of value prior to pulping. Of interest is hemicellulose extraction from wood chips followed by their utilization as a feedstock for biomaterials. New value streams from residuals and spent pulping liquors. A key focus here is the conversion of biomass residues and spent pulping liquors into syngas using gasification technology. The syngas could be converted into biofuels, power, chemicals and other high value materials.

With the experience of the forest products industry in growing trees, and their commitment to increased energy efficiency as well as new value streams, they are likely to be leaders in using woody crops for energy as well as other new and traditional products.

6. Summary Production and consumption of all types of biomass varies widely among countries involved in the IEA Bioenergy Agreement. The reasons for country to country variation are due to a combination of differences in natural resources and in government policies toward energy, environment, agriculture and forestry. Energy crops have been most successful in penetrating the bioenergy market, where there has been heavy subsidies or tax incentives provided by governments (e.g. Brazil, China and Sweden). Energy crop based bioenergy projects initiated in the late 1990s with government program solicitations and federal funding have not yet resulted in new bioenergy production. Many of these projects were high risk projects linking multiple unproven technologies, but the federal funding was insufficient to overcome the technical and nontechnical hurdles. However, much useful knowledge and experience has been gained, providing a basis for new projects to move forward. A very positive result of energy crop research has been the adoption of this technology by the forestry sector. While fiber for pulp is the primary product to date, the development of Forest Products Biorefinery concepts in the US is a direct outcome of both energy crop research and federally subsidized industry research on gasification technologies. Growth in biomass markets worldwide are being predicted by energy analysts. Bruce Knight, a contributor to The Douglas-Westwood Limited 2004 World Biomass Report reported that annual installed capacity of large thermal plants is anticipated to double between 2004 and 2013 [52] (Fig. 1). The greatest growth of biomass thermal plants on a percentage basis is expected to occur in Asia and Latin America. Worldwide landfill gas installations are projected to increase for a few years then remain relatively stable while anaerobic gas installations are expected to show strong but not dramatic growth. Biofuels (both ethanol and biodiesel) are rapidly increasing in production

Fig. 1. Biomass large-scale thermal annual installed capacity projections over the next 10 years. Source: Douglas-Westwood Ltd. 2004 presentation on the World Biomass Market. www.dw-1.com.

ARTICLE IN PRESS L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

levels in the US, EU and Brazil. Knight and Westwood [53] proposed in 2004 that key drivers for worldwide biomass expansion are the following: (1) Meeting increasing energy demands where indigenous fossil fuel sources are non-existent or in decline. (2) Meeting greenhouse gas emission targets. (3) Supporting domestic and industrial waste management projects. (4) Utilizing forest, crop and livestock residues. The rise in fossil fuel prices in 2005 (with oil exceeding 60 $ Bbl 1 as of this writing) is refocusing interest in biomass energy. The upward trend in oil prices is being driven by a combination of increased demand by countries such as China, India and the US, reduced supplies controlled by the mid-east oil cartel, and financial speculation [54]. Global oil demand in 2004 grew at the fastest rate in 25 years. With the economics of China and India predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 5.1% [1], the high demand for oil and coal may continue for sometime. If so, this could significantly change the competitive status of biomass energy worldwide, but not all experts agree that oil prices will remain high [54]. Acknowledgements I wish to thank the task 30 leader, Theo Verwijst for encouraging the development of this paper, Mark Coleman for his very helpful guidance in narrowing the scope of the paper, Jonathon Scurlock for his assistance with biomass developments in the UK, Ralph Overend for assisting with SI units, and all of the Task 30 representatives who contributed information on the status of energy crops in their respective countries. References [1] Energy Information Administration (EIA). International energy outlook 2004: highlights, 2005. [2] EIA. Country Analysis Briefs, 2005. [3] EIA. Table 11.3, World primary energy consumption by region, 1993–2002, 2005. [4] EIA. Table B.1 World population, 1980-present, 2005. [5] EIA. Renewable energy trends, 2005. [6] EIA. State data. Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/ _states.html Verified August 22, 2005. [7] FedStats. US states population data. Retrieved from www.census. gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html Verified August 22, 2005. [8] Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy. Brazilian Energy Balance 2003. Retrieved from www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_menu_ item.do?channelId=1432&pageId=1501 Verified August 16, 2005. [9] Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy. Brazilian Energy Data Profile 2004 retrieved from www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_ menu_item.do?channelId=1432&pageId=1501 Verified August 18, 2005. [10] World Energy Council. WEC Survey of Energy Resources 2001— Biomass (other than wood). Retrieved from www.worldenergy. org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/biomass/biomass.asp Verified August 10, 2005.

713

[11] Eurostat. Environment and energy statistics selected from the Eurostat home page. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/ portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,1090_33076576&_dad=portal&_ schema=PORTAL Verified August 22, 2005. [12] Donaldson K. Australian energy statistics—Australian energy consumption by industry and fuel type-energy units 1973–74 to 2003–04. Retrieved from http://abareonlineshop.com/product.asp? prodid=13180 Verified August 22, 2005. [13] Shuhua G. Development and Utilization of Biomass Energy and Related Supporting Policies in China. In: Proceedings 6th LAMNET workshop—international conference on bioenergy utilization and environment protection, 24–26 September 2003, Dalian, P.R. China. Retrieved from www.bioenergy-lamnet.org/publications/ LamnetPublications.html, Verified August 22, 2005. [14] Jingjing L, Xing Z, DeLaquil P, Larson ED. Biomass energy in China and its potential. Energy for Sustainable Development, December 2001, V (4). [15] EUBIONET IIa. Use of biomass and other renewable energy in Europe 2002. Statistics available from www.eubionet.net/ (select facts/statistics/report title). Verified August 22, 2005. [16] New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Energy data file January 2004: Energy overview. Retrieved from www.med.govt.nz/ ers/en_stats/edfonlin/edfjan2004/overview/index.html#P14_1192 Verified August 22, 2005. [17] EUBIONET IIb. Bioenergy and renewable energy in europe: country basis information for EU-25. Statistics available from www.eubionet. net/ (select facts/statistics/report title). Verified August 22, 2005. [18] Kangmei L. Afforestation: a strenuous ecological project. Article from China Internet Information Center. Date unknown but webpage is copyrighted as of 2004. Retrieved from www.chinagateway. com.cn/english/1845.htm Verified August 22, 2005. [19] Anon. The forest or the trees? China Daily news article published 2003-11-27. Retrieved from www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/ 27/content_285194.htm Verified August 19, 2005. [20] Zhou Jia Ping. China’s new and renewable energy situation. Conference presentation in 2001. Retrieved December 2004 from www.eva.ac.at/publ/pdf/china_res.pdf article not available at website on August 22, 2005, but downloaded copy available from author (L. Wright). [21] Zhaomu W, Shoushan L. Bioenergy from sugar sorghum in China. In: Proceedings of the 6th LAMNET workshop, 24–26 September 2003, Dalian, P.R. China. Retrieved from www.bioenergy-lamnet. org/publications/LamnetPublications.html, Verified August 22, 2005. [22] Rosillo-Calle F. A brief account of Brazil’s biomass energy potential. Biomassa & Energia 2004;1(3):225–36 (in English). [23] Couto L, Muller MC, Barcellos DC, Couto MMF. Eucalypt based Agroforestry systems as an alternative to produce biomass for energy in Brazil (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of conference on biomass and bioenergy production for economic and environmental benefits. Charleston, S.C. November 2004. Available at: www. woodycrops.org/publications.html (select ‘‘abstracts from the 5th conference’’) Verified August 22, 2005. [24] Mazzarella V, Feitosa V, de Siqueira Silva PC, Urquiaga S, Quesada DM, Camata D, Pacheco BM, de Alencar JA. Elephant grass pilot project: charcoal source for industrial uses (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of conference on biomass and bioenergy production for economic and environmental benefits. Charleston, S.C. November 2004. Available at: www.woodycrops.org/publications.html (select ‘‘abstracts from the 5th conference’’) Verified August 22, 2005. [25] Raymond D, Thorp B. The technology platforms of agenda 2020. Solutions July 2004:45–7. [26] Scurlock JMO. Renewables and recyclables manager north east community forests, UK . Personal communication November 2005. [27] Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Energy White Paper: our energy future-creating a low carbon economy. February 2003. Crown copyright 2003. retrieved from www.dti.gov.uk Verified January 31, 2005.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 714

L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

[28] Nordh N-E. Task 30 representative from Sweden, Personal communication November 9, 2004. [29] Kuiper L. Biomass researcher in Netherlands. Personal communication December 2004. [30] Biomass Task Force. Biomass task force report to Government, October 2005. Crown copyright 2005. Retrieved from www.defra. gov.uk Verified January 31, 2006 [31] Gordon A. Task 30 representative from Canada. Personal communication November 9, 2004. [32] Port O. Not your father’s ethanol. Businessweek, 21 February 2005 . Retrieved from http://iogen.ca/5000html. Verified August 11 2005. [33] Brenden G. Task 30 representative from Australia. Personal communication November 9, 2004. [34] Giles RC, Harris HD. Developing a biomass supply chain for new Australian crops. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy. Proceedings of the IEA task 30 Conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New Zealand. Available on-line at www.shortrotationcrops. com/taskreports.htm. Verified August 11, 2005. [35] Schuck S. Editor of bioenergy Australia newsletter. Personal communication August 22, 2005. [36] Nichols I. Task 30 representative from New Zealand. Personal communication November 9, 2004. [37] Johansson E. The Swedish Enko¨ping CHP plant. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy. Proceedings of the IEA bioenergy task 30 conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New Zealand. Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/taskreports.htm. Verified August 21, 2005. [38] Johansson E. Markets for short rotation crops—European experience. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy, Proceedings of the IEA task 30 conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New Zealand. Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/taskreports.htm. Verified August 21, 2005. [39] Johansson E. Enko¨ping Plant manager. Personal communication October 20,2004. [40] UK Department of Trade and Industry, Renewable Energy Website. NOFFO Fact Sheet 11, NOFFO/SRO/NI-NFFO Status Updates; revised April 2005. Retrieved from www.dti.gov.uk/renewables. Verified August 22, 2005. [41] Bruton C, Richards K. Delivering on the energy coppice promise — a UK experience. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy. Proceedings

[42]

[43]

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

[49] [50] [51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

of the IEA task 30 conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New Zealand. Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/ taskreports.htm. Verified August 11, 2005. Wright L, Downing M, Turhollow A. Progress and problems with implementation of short-rotation crops in the United States. In: Proceedings of IEA bioenergy task 17 meeting held in Albany, Western Australia 7–9 March, 2000. State University of New York, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry (SUNY- ESF). Willow Biomass Newsletter vol. 5, (1) February 2002. Retrieved from www.esf.edu/willow/PUBLICATIONS/ newsletters/newsletters.htm Verified August 22, 2005. Volk, T. Biomass willow researcher from Northeastern US. Personal communications November 9, 2004 and August 22, 2005. Downing M. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bioenergy Program staff. Personal communication December 2004. Ostlie, D. President of energy performance systems. Personal communication August 2005. Elliot G. Developer of biomass combustion systems. Personal communication November 7, 2004. Bruton AGC, Richards K. Full-scale implementation of SRCsystems: Assessment of Technical and Non-Technical Barriers. Published on the IEA Bioenergy Task 30 website in April 2005. Retrieved from www.shortrotationcrops.com/ Verified August 22, 2005. Richards K. UK bioenergy expert. Personal communication November 9, 2004. Bransby, D. Biomass researcher from southeastern US. Personal communication, November 7, 2004. Raymond, D. and Closset, G. 2004. Forest products biorefinery: technology for a new future. Solutions September 2004: 49–53. Knight B. 2004. The world biomass market. Presented at the world biomass conference in Rome, 10–14th May 2004. Retrieved from www.dw-1.com (select downloads/papers and presentations/name of specific document) Verified August 23, 2005. Knight B, Westwood A. 2004. Global biomass resources for heat and electricity generation and capital expenditure forecasts. Retrieved from www.dw-1.com (select downloads/papers and presentations/ name of specific document) Verified August 23, 2005. Anon. Oil in troubled waters. The Economist April 30th 2005.