ARTICLE IN PRESS

0961-9534/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.bi

�Tel.: +1 865

E-mail addr1Short Rota

objective statem

and Eucalyptus

such as reed ca

Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Worldwide commercial development of bioenergy with afocus 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 17.1EJ. 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 developingnew crops since the mid-1970s in order to increase thebiomass resource base for production of bioenergy. TheInternational Energy Agency (IEA) initiated a BioenergyAgreement in 1978 with the aim of improving cooperationand information exchange between countries that havenational programs on bioenergy research, development anddeployment. The current IEA Bioenergy Task (Task 30)dealing with energy crop development is called Short-rotation Crops for Bioenergy Systems1. Many different

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ombioe.2005.08.008

376 0037.

ess: wrightll@att.net.

tion Crops are defined in the IEA Bioenergy Task 30

ent as ‘‘woody crops such as willows, poplars, Robinia

with coppicing abilities, as well as lignocellulosic crops

nary grass and Miscanthus’’.

perennial and annual crops can be included under thisheading and this paper will refer to all ‘‘crop’’ sources oflignocellulose as ‘‘energy crops2. Since 1978, the technicalfeasibility of producing energy crops has progressedsignificantly and several energy crop based bioenergyprojects have been started. This paper reviews the statusof all biomass consumption and specifically the contribu-tion of energy crops to biomass consumption. Brief projectstatus reports explain some of the reasons why greatercommercial utilization of energy crop technology has notoccurred after 30 years of technology development.

2The 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 PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714 707

2. Approach

This evaluation of the deployment of energy crops as abiomass energy resource is restricted to selected states,countries, and regions of the world with a focus on Task 30member countries. Data collected from published sourcesinclude population statistics, total energy consumption,and biomass energy consumption. Most data is current toyear 2002, the latest data that could be consistentlyobtained for most countries. Exceptions are noted in thetext or tables. Reports and tables from the US EnergyInformation Administration’s (EIA) International webpages [1–7] were initially consulted for information onpopulation and total energy consumed but finally used forcountries other than the US only where 2002 informationfor individual countries could not be obtained (such asCanada and China). The author found that information ontotal energy consumed published by EIA was usuallysimilar to information in individual country reports. In thecase of Brazil, the information reported by Brazil’sMinistry of Mines and Energy [8,9] was substantiallydifferent from that reported by EIA.

EIA international data on amount of biomass energyconsumed at the country level is generally lumped togetherwith all renewable resources, thus bioenergy informationwas derived either from individual country sources(referenced later) or from the World Energy Council’s2001 survey of energy resources [10]. For most countries,the biomass numbers represent the gross energy valuesembodied in the wide range of primary, secondary andtertiary biomass materials used to produce heat, electricity,and liquid fuels in each country. However, New Zealandstatistics only report primary energy supply (includingimports) and ‘‘consumer energy’’ which excludes energyused or lost in transformation to final energy carriers andin bringing the energy to the final consumers. NewZealand’s consumer energy numbers were used in thisreport. Information on the area of planted energy crops,and notes on the contribution of energy crops to bioenergyproduction were derived from personal communication orrecent reports.

Personal communication and internet searching forrecent publications were used to obtain information onthe current status of specific energy crop based, bioenergyresearch and development projects that were initiated inthe late 1990s in the US and Europe and on new projectdevelopments including energy crops. Relevant marketconditions and project development considerations thatmay have affected the status of ongoing projects are brieflyaddressed.

3. Biomass energy status in selected regions, countries and

states

Countries that are currently members of Task 30 andthat have been pursuing R&D on energy crop developmentfor many years include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, New

Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom (UK), and the UnitedStates (US). Denmark, Croatia, Finland and The Nether-lands were also members of the previous related IEABioenergy task (Task 17). Evaluation of bioenergy statusincludes most of the previously listed countries plus China.The comparisons of biomass energy consumption are

summarized in two tables. Table 1 compares regions orpolitical areas of the world that have relatively large landareas but a wide range of population levels (20–1300million). Table 2 compares geo-political entities (countriesor states) that represent smaller land areas with populationlevels ranging between 4 and 60 million.China’s large population [4] will have an increasingly

large effect on world energy demands as their economycontinues to grow. China’s total energy consumption [3] isless than many individual European countries, but its 2002consumption of 7.5 EJ of biomass feedstocks for energy(16.5% of total energy) [13], is more than double that ofany other country. Based on comparison of biomass energyuse numbers reported in 2000 [14] and 2003 [13], Chinesebiomass use is increasing. China’s biomass consumptionincludes use of about 200 million tons of firewood, 330million tons of agricultural residues (straw), and use ofbiogas from about 10.2 million family biogas digesters [13].As much as 47% of the firewood is obtained from non-forest sources such as brush, trees planted for leaves orseeds and trees planted along roads and fields [10]. Thearea of energy crop plantations in China is uncertain.However in year 2000, China ranked first in the worldin the speed and scale of afforestation [18]. Manuallyplanted forests exist on 467,000 km2 in 2002 [19]though only a portion can be assumed to be woody cropsgrown for energy. The WEC 2001 survey [10] reported agoal of achieving 13.5 million ha of fuelwood forestsby 2010; the China Daily [19] reported a similar goal for‘‘fast growing plantations’’ for the date of 2015. Based onthe existence of 56,000 km2 of ‘‘fuelwood plantations’’reported to exist in 1996 by Ping [20], the current amountcould be between 70,000 to 100,000 km2 of woody crops asof 2002, with most being located in the southern portionsof China. Bioenergy from sugar sorghum is beinginvestigated as a potential bioenergy resource in NorthwestChina [21].Brazil, with its 30,000 km2 of Eucalyptus plantations and

about 50,000 km2 of sugar cane, [22] may have the largestarea of short-rotation crops being grown for specifically forenergy. Eucalyptus began to be established in Brazil asearly as the early 1900s but the major plantings occurredbetween 1966 and 1989 when government incentives wereavailable [23]. Eucalyptus wood is converted to charcoalfor the Pig iron and Steel industry but it also is a majorpulp resource and makes beautiful furniture. Brazil usessugar cane to make more ethanol for transportation fuelthan any other country in the world (11.5 hm3), andelectricity is generated from the sugarcane bagasse.Recently, Brazil has also begun producing biodiesel fuelsfrom vegetable oils. Elephant grass, bamboo, and other

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Population and energy consumption from selected large countries or regions

Country Population

(millions)aTotal (EJ)b Biomass (EJ) Biomass (%) Energy crop contribution to bioenergyk

China 1295 45.5c 7.5g 16.4 Yes—fuelwood from �70,000 to

100,000 km2 woody crop

EU-25 453 70.5d 2.75h 3.9 Yes—district heat �180 km2 willow

and grasses

U.S. 288 103.4c 2.92i 2.8 Minor—residues and black liquor from

�500 km2 woody crops

Brazil 177 7.3e 1.98e 27.2e Yes—charcoal from �30,000km2

woody crops, ethanol and electricity

from 50,000 km2 sugarcane

Canada 31 13.1c 1.77j 13.5 No—bioenergy from forest residue,

energy crops been tested

Australia 20 5.2f 0.20f 3.8 No—but �60 km2 of mallee expected to

have bioenergy market

aAll population numbers are 2002 data and are derived from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2, 4].bAll total primary energy consumption is for 2002 data but derived from various sources.cSource: EIA [3].dSource: Eurostat energy database [11].eSource: Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy 2003 report [8]. Biomass EJ are calculated based on data expressed as percentages [8].fSource: Donaldson, K., Australian Energy Statistics [12].gSource: Shuhua 2003 Conference paper [13]. A more easily retrievable Ref. [14] gives values of 44.2EJ for total energy use and 6.69EJ for biomass

consumption for year 2000.hSource: EUBIONET IIa 2003 report [15].iSource: 2005 EIA Renewable Energy Trends [1].jSource: World Energy Council 2001 survey [10] data are from 1999.kSource: 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.

Table 2

Population and energy consumption from selected small countries or states

Country Population

(Millions)aTotal (EJ)b Biomass (EJ)c Biomass (%)c Energy crop contributiond

UK 59.7 9.48 0.060 0.6 Yes—small part of 25 km2 willow

Sweden 8.9 2.2 0.34 15.9 Yes—district heat 160 km2 willow and

Reed Canary grass

Netherlands 16.1 3.6 0.083 2.3 Yes—trial stage 1.2 km2 willow and

grasses

Denmark 5.4 0.83 0.098 11.8 Yes—trial stage; small amount of

pellets & briquettes from willow,

miscanthus commercial for rhizome

export

New Zealand 3.8 0.49 0.031 6.3 Yes—residues from 18,000 km2 short-

rotation pines

California 35.0 8.3 0.16 1.9 Yes—residues from �40 km2

eucalyptus

New York 19.2 4.36 0.16 3.6 Yes tests only—from �1.6 km2 willow

Florida 16.7 4.36 0.16 3.6 Yes—thinnings from 200 km2 pine, and

�0.2 km2 woody crops

Minnesota 5.0 1.7 0.064 3.7 Yes—residues from �150km2 poplars

aSource: US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2,4]. All are 2002 data.bSources: 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.cSources: 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.dSources: 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.

L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714708

ARTICLE IN PRESS

3The 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.

L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714 709

short-rotation crops are being used or evaluated as abioenergy resource in Brazil [24]. Bioenergy comp-rised about 27% of the total energy consumed in Brazilin 2002 [8].

The US consumes the most energy of all countriessurveyed (103EJ) with the bioenergy contribution being2.8% [3,5]. About 60% of the biomass energy is producedand consumed by the forest products industry. The fiberindustry harvests about 250 million dry tons of wood fromprivate forests (natural forests and pine plantations) andabout 40% of that material is used for energy [25]. It isspeculated that by 2030, forest bioenergy could growby a factor of 2 over current levels (�1.7 EJ) withimprovements in forest productivity and biomass conver-sion technologies. At present there are about 500 km2 ofshort rotation woody crop plantations in the US plantedfor fiber. A small portion of the woody crops contribute tobioenergy production through industry use of the woodycrop residues (hogfuel) or black liquor. US biomassnumbers include grain converted to ethanol as well aslandfill gas, agricultural residues, municipal solid wastes,and tires.

The 25 countries now forming the European Unionconsumed 70.5 EJ of total primary energy in 2002, withbiomass contributing 3.9% [15,17]. Wood consumption forhouseholds slightly exceeds wood consumption by industrybut together they account for 76% of the biomassconsumed in the EU [15]. The 36% of the biomass usedfor energy by industry results primarily from forestindustry activities in Sweden and Finland. Gross use ofbiomass is highest in the largest countries, Germany andFrance, but Finland has the highest biomass use as apercent of total energy use (20%) [17]. Wood use forhouseholds occurs throughout the EU and includes directuse of ‘‘firewood’’ for heating as well as wood used in thegeneration of district heating. In the UK there are severalexisting power stations operating on agricultural residues,biomass wastes and small amounts of energy crops. Co-fired power stations are testing use of small amounts ofenergy crops in anticipation of UK’s Renewables Obliga-tion requirements to make energy crops equal 75% of theirbiomass supply beginning in April 2006 [26,27]. Several ofthe 25 EU Countries have small trial plantings of a widevariety of energy crop species. The number of plantedhectares of energy crops supplying biomass energy in theEU was estimated to be about 18,600 based on personalcommunication [26,28,29] and a recent report [30]. Swedenaccounts for most of the area (160 km2). Fiber plantationsof short-rotation trees (poplar, Eucalyptus, black locustand other) are also common in Southern Europe and it ishighly probable that they are contributing to biomassenergy with utilization of the black liquor and woodresidues.

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 oftotal primary energy being generated from biomass

(13.5%3 and 15% respectively) [10,11]. Nearly all of thebioenergy is being generated by the forest productsindustry. Canada is expected to increase it’s percentage ofenergy production from biomass since it signed the KyotoAgreement and the government appears to be taking thecommitment seriously as shown by new biomass energyinitiatives [31]. Private sector developers in Canada havemoved quickly to develop wood pellets for home heatinguse and a Canadian biotechnology firm, Iogen Corpora-tion, has established a pilot scale facility in Ottawa,Canada for the production of ethanol from lignocellulosicfeedstocks (from wheat straw or other small grain straws).They are now searching for appropriate locations for acommercial 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) isderived from biomass [12]. Australian bioenergy resourcesin 2005 are primarily agricultural residues. Forestryresidues are not a major source of bioenergy becauseutilization of eucalypts for bioenergy is prohibited due toconcerns about over-harvesting of native forests [34].Energy crop research is focused on tree species that wouldbe managed as a coppice species such as Acacia’s or othershrub type woody crops. Giles and Harris [34] reportedthat mallees (a type of eucalyptus with small tree form), ofwhich about 22 million have been planted to remove excesswater from crop and pasture land [35], are being viewed asa potentially major bioenergy resource.The comparisons in Table 2 are between land areas of

relatively similar size including 4 states in the US and 5individual small countries. Of the small Task 30 membercountries included, Sweden consumes the largest amount ofbioenergy (0.34EJ) 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 ofenergy crops (160 km2). New Zealand has a very largeamount of short rotation hardwoods for multiple use(180,000 km2) [36] but only 6.3% of its energy is obtainedfrom biomass [16]. In the US, the states of New York,California and Florida have the same level of biomassconsumption (0.17–0.18 EJ) [6]. Minnesota consumesabout 1/3 the biomass of the other states [6], howeverMinnesota’s consumption of bioenergy as a percentage oftotal energy consumed is very similar to New York andFlorida.In summary, in all countries evaluated, bioenergy in

2005 is primarily derived from a combination of forest andagricultural residues, municipal residues, landfill gas, ormanures processed in anaerobic digesters. Thus, as of 2005,energy crop biomass is generally not a significant bioenergyresource except as previously discussed for the countries of

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714710

China, Brazil and Sweden where it is used as fuel for homeheating and cooking, for charcoal, or for district heating.The status of several energy crop based bioenergy projectsinitiated 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 theintegrated projects4 whose progress has been followed atIEA Bioenergy Task 17 and Task 30 meetings in the1998–2003 time period. All projects received some fundingfrom the country (federal) level and had local cost-sharingin most cases.

Sweden provides an excellent example of successful useof energy crops. Many district heating facilities in Swedenrely on a combination of forest residues and willow. Onespecific project that has received worldwide attention as amodel for a successful enterprise using short rotation cropsis the Enkoping Combined Heat and Power plant. Thefacility was built in 1994 to produce 45 MW heat and24MW of gross electricity and runs at 90% efficiency [37].Since 1997, the facility has relied totally on biomass. Theprimary supply consists of woodchips, bark sawdust andpellets from forest residues but willow is added to the mixin winter. By the end of 2003, 150 ha of willows had beenplanted within 30 km of the Enkoping plant with a multi-purpose goal of providing cleaning for municipal waste-water as well as biofuels [38]. The utility plans to rent200 ha from local farmers to provide additional energycrop fuel for the facility [28]. The Enkoping CHP managerreported in fall 2004 the production processes at the facilitywere going to be broadened to include pellet productionas well as ethanol in order to supply current marketdemand [39].

The UK funded renewables projects in the late 1990sunder a program called the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation(NFFO). A brief summary of NFFO projects on the UK’sDepartment of Trade and Industry website [40] shows thatas of April 2005 there were 32 biomass projects contractedwith up to 16 proposing to use some combination ofagricultural or forestry residues together with energy crops.Two of the early NFFO contracts were awarded toAmbient Energy, who proposed gasification of energycrops. The projects did not progress to constructionbecause of objections by local residents [41]. Two otherenergy crop based NFFO projects in the UK wereprogressing at the time of the IEA Bioenergy Task 17meetings in March 2000. Both (described below) had beenabandoned by early 2003 [41].

(1)

4P

part

The Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE)project, a high visibility project with funds from boththe UK and Europe, came closest to being completed.A gasifier facility was constructed and 15 km2 of willow

rojects with both feedstock supply and conversion technology

ners contractually involved in the projects.

were planted and grown successfully. However, delaysin commissioning and technical problems resulted inwithdrawal of the developers. Though completed, thegasifier has stood idle since August 2002 [41]. Thefarmers growing the willow were left without a market,though one farmer installed woodchip heating on hisfarm to utilize some of the wood.

(2)

A second project initiated by Border Biofuels plannedto make high-quality oils from willow coppice, forestresidues and other organic wastes, using pyrolysistechnology. The location of the project resulted indifficulties with road access, and costs of roadimprovements were very high [41]. The project wasnot completed due to financial and technical problemsand Border Biofuels had gone into liquidation byJanuary 2003.

In the US, five energy crop based projects were initiatedin the 1990s with federal support [42]. As of summer 2005,four are stalled, and one is abandoned. Their status issummarized below.

(1)

In New York, a consortium involving utilities, uni-versity staff, farmers, and federal agency groupscollaborated to grow willows and co-fire them withwaste wood in a coal-burning facility. Willow wassuccessfully 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 incommercialization occurred because the New YorkDepartment of Environmental Conservation delayed ingiving a permit for full-time co-firing of waste woodand willow with coal. The new owners of the coalfacility have not yet (as of summer 2005) requested apermit, but they are doing an economic and engineeringanalysis of the co-firing opportunity.

(2)

In Iowa, farmers formed a cooperative and workedtogether to successfully demonstrate switchgrass pro-duction, and transport switchgrass supplies to a localutility for co-firing tests. While initial tests demon-strated the feasibility of the supply system, the utility,Alliant Energy, has delayed awaiting a longer co-firingtrial (and better market conditions) before making along-term commitment to commercially co-firing theswitchgrass. The switchgrass producers group signed acontract with Alliant Energy in 2004 to supply theswitchgrass needed for the more extensive tests [45].

(3)

In Alabama, a coal burning facility in the city ofGadston is being supplied with switchgrass by one localfarmer. A 120 ha planting was initially established tosupply fuel for co-firing test burns and the company hascontinued to purchase and co-fire that switchgrass [45].The switchgrass supply is a very small percentage of thefacilities fuel supply.

(4)

In Minnesota, a power purchase agreement (PPA) wassigned about 3 years ago between the small company,

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714 711

Energy Performance Systems, and the utility, ExcelEnergy, for power that was to be supplied from poplarplantations. The PPA has been sold twice, and theproposed type and location of the poplar burningfacility has changed. The inability of the projectdevelopers and local farmers to agree on a price forthe woody crops was partially responsible for thechanges in site location. The group currently owningthe PPA received the approval from the state toproceed with the project in summer 2005 [46].

(5)

Of the US projects ongoing in 2000, only one has beencompletely abandoned. The project plan was to use anadvanced gasification technology to burn alfalfa stems.The gasifier would have been owned by a group offarmers who were also interested in selling the alfalfaleaves as a protein by-product. Problems included: thegasifier developers pulling out of the project, objectionsto the project from alfalfa producers in nearby areas,and removal of funding support by the US Departmentof Energy.

In the Netherlands, a project was underway as of March2000 to supply 10% of the annual feedstock required for aCombined Heat and Power (CHP) plant in Lelystad (calledthe Flevo-project). It required 200 ha of energy crops toprovide the required supply. The first 50 ha had beenplanted by spring 2000. As of December 2004, only 75 ha ofenergy crops had been planted [29]. Land acquisition wasidentified as a complicated and crucial factor in spring2000, which apparently was not resolved. Dutch utilitieshave turned to importing fairly large amounts of biomassto meet renewable targets [29].

Most of the above projects were successful in demon-strating the technical feasibility of producing, harvesting,and supplying short-rotation crops for energy use. The lackof commercial success in using energy crops for bioenergyis often due to non-technical issues related to the buildingor locating of the conversion facilities—which occurs dueto lack of understanding of bioenergy energy technologiesby the public [41]. Technical issues related to the buildingand operation of unproven gasifier technology alsooccurred. In fairness to the project developers, it shouldbe noted that both the US Department of Energy’s projectdevelopment solicitation in the mid 1990s and the UKNFFO program encouraged projects linking commerciallyunproven energy crop supply systems with commerciallyunproven conversion technologies in the hopes of advan-cing the commercial viability of the technologies. Unfortu-nately these ‘‘high risk’’ projects were started withoutsufficient financial backing from the government fundingsources. Gary Elliott, an experienced biomass projectdeveloper, makes the point that projects will only besuccessful if the developers stay with commercially proventechnologies and get help with areas in which they don’thave sufficient knowledge. His philosophy is ‘‘if it is one ofa kind—it is not time’’ [47]. The energy crop basedbioenergy projects that still have a chance at attracting

sufficient private sector financing are linked to co-firing orproven combustion technology. A good summary oftechnical and non-technical barriers that has been experi-enced by many projects can be found in a recent Task 30report [48].

5. New bioenergy projects using short-rotation crops

With the lessons that have been learned from bothsuccessful projects (the Enkoping CHP plant in Sweden)and stalled projects, new efforts involving utilization ofenergy crops are being initiated. Government incentivessuch as renewable targets or requirements are key tostimulating these developments.The UK established in 2003 a target of obtaining 10% of

all electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Governmentsubsidized producer groups are working closely withbioenergy project developers to find bioenergy marketsfor energy crops [49]. One such producer group (TVBioenergy Coppice) is working on developing contracts forsupplying willow biofuels to existing coal-fired utilities andto CHP plants. A federal energy crop grants scheme isstimulating establishment of new energy crop plantings[26,30]. A 6MW biomass CHP/tri-generation plant in thecity of Bracknell is expected to be the first plant to have ademand for willow coppice. All new projects are beingdeveloped in close consultation with local communities andsimple, reliable conversion technologies are being used [41].In the US, State renewable portfolio standards, exten-

sion and redefinition of the federal bioenergy tax credit,and changes in US Department of Agriculture regulationson the use of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) landare combining to stimulate increased interest in energycrops (and other biomass resources). The coal burningfacility in Gadston, Alabama maintains its small contractfor switchgrass supplies for this reason. The TampaElectric Polk Power Station located in Mulberry, Floridahas recently conducted co-firing tests using both wood andgrasses. Tampa Electric is particularly interested in usingBahiagrass, a grass naturally growing in the area andsuitable for growing on some of the 18 km2 of reclaimedphosphate mining land owned by the station as well asCRP land [50]. The state of New York established arenewable portfolio goal in 2004 to acquire 25% of itsenergy from renewables by 2013. Hydroelectric alreadysupplies 19% of the states energy, but the 6% incrementneeded could provide a substantial market for biomass.About 60 km2 of land has been identified as suitable forwillow coppice, creating an excellent opportunity forenergy crop based bioenergy projects in New York [44].Australia recently established a mandatory requirement

for electricity retailers to increase their annual renewableenergy production by 9.5 TWh nationwide [33]. All types ofrenewables may satisfy the requirement, but the mandatehas created a small but relatively high value market fordelivered biomass at 10–12 $ t(wet)�1. While helpful,energy crop production is still not likely to be profitable

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714712

unless multiple uses of the biomass can increase the valueof delivered biomass. As of December 2003, the WesternAustralian mallee industry was anticipating deliveringmallee wood to an integrated tree processing facility (underconstruction) that would produce carbon, eucalyptus oil,and bioenergy from the resource [34]. A summer 2005update on the status of the project revealed that delays hadoccurred due to intermittent funding, but new funds areexpected to result in commissioning of the facility beforethe end of 2005. However, no mechanized harvester has yetbeen developed for harvesting the mallee coppice [35].

The development of ‘‘Forest Products Biorefinery’’concepts now being advanced by the forest productsindustry in the US has the potential of stimulatingestablishment of large areas of short rotation woody crops[51]. This concept involves three focus areas.

�

Fig

Wo

Application of biotechnology to sustainable forestry toallow management of US forest land at a high intensityon fewer acres. This translates to an increased use ofshort-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 bytheir utilization as a feedstock for biomaterials.

� New value streams from residuals and spent pulping

liquors. A key focus here is the conversion of biomassresidues and spent pulping liquors into syngas usinggasification technology. The syngas could be convertedinto biofuels, power, chemicals and other high valuematerials.

With the experience of the forest products industry ingrowing trees, and their commitment to increased energyefficiency as well as new value streams, they are likely to beleaders in using woody crops for energy as well as othernew and traditional products.

. 1. Biomass large-scale thermal annual installed capacity projections over t

rld Biomass Market. www.dw-1.com.

6. Summary

Production and consumption of all types of biomassvaries widely among countries involved in the IEABioenergy Agreement. The reasons for country to countryvariation are due to a combination of differences in naturalresources and in government policies toward energy,environment, agriculture and forestry. Energy crops havebeen most successful in penetrating the bioenergy market,where there has been heavy subsidies or tax incentivesprovided by governments (e.g. Brazil, China and Sweden).Energy crop based bioenergy projects initiated in the late1990s with government program solicitations and federalfunding have not yet resulted in new bioenergy production.Many of these projects were high risk projects linkingmultiple unproven technologies, but the federal fundingwas insufficient to overcome the technical and non-technical hurdles. However, much useful knowledge andexperience has been gained, providing a basis for newprojects to move forward. A very positive result of energycrop research has been the adoption of this technology bythe forestry sector. While fiber for pulp is the primaryproduct to date, the development of Forest ProductsBiorefinery concepts in the US is a direct outcome of bothenergy crop research and federally subsidized industryresearch on gasification technologies.Growth in biomass markets worldwide are being

predicted by energy analysts. Bruce Knight, a contributorto The Douglas-Westwood Limited 2004 World BiomassReport reported that annual installed capacity of largethermal plants is anticipated to double between 2004 and2013 [52] (Fig. 1). The greatest growth of biomass thermalplants on a percentage basis is expected to occur in Asiaand Latin America. Worldwide landfill gas installations areprojected to increase for a few years then remain relativelystable while anaerobic gas installations are expected toshow strong but not dramatic growth. Biofuels (bothethanol and biodiesel) are rapidly increasing in production

he next 10 years. Source: Douglas-Westwood Ltd. 2004 presentation on the

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714 713

levels in the US, EU and Brazil. Knight and Westwood [53]proposed in 2004 that key drivers for worldwide biomassexpansion are the following:

(1)

Meeting increasing energy demands where indigenousfossil 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 exceeding60 $Bbl�1 as of this writing) is refocusing interest inbiomass energy. The upward trend in oil prices is beingdriven by a combination of increased demand by countriessuch as China, India and the US, reduced suppliescontrolled by the mid-east oil cartel, and financialspeculation [54]. Global oil demand in 2004 grew at thefastest rate in 25 years. With the economics of China andIndia predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 5.1%[1], the high demand for oil and coal may continue forsometime. If so, this could significantly change thecompetitive status of biomass energy worldwide, but notall experts agree that oil prices will remain high [54].

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the task 30 leader, Theo Verwijst forencouraging the development of this paper, Mark Colemanfor his very helpful guidance in narrowing the scope of thepaper, Jonathon Scurlock for his assistance with biomassdevelopments in the UK, Ralph Overend for assisting withSI units, and all of the Task 30 representatives whocontributed information on the status of energy crops intheir 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.

[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 con-

sumption 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 PRESSL. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714714

[28] Nordh N-E. Task 30 representative from Sweden, Personal commu-

nication November 9, 2004.

[29] Kuiper L. Biomass researcher in Netherlands. Personal communica-

tion 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 commu-

nication 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 Enkoping 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 experi-

ence. 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. Enkoping 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

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.

[42] 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.

[43] 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.

[44] Volk, T. Biomass willow researcher from Northeastern US. Personal

communications November 9, 2004 and August 22, 2005.

[45] Downing M. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bioenergy Program

staff. Personal communication December 2004.

[46] Ostlie, D. President of energy performance systems. Personal

communication August 2005.

[47] Elliot G. Developer of biomass combustion systems. Personal

communication November 7, 2004.

[48] Bruton AGC, Richards K. Full-scale implementation of SRC-

systems: 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.

[49] Richards K. UK bioenergy expert. Personal communication Novem-

ber 9, 2004.

[50] Bransby, D. Biomass researcher from southeastern US. Personal

communication, November 7, 2004.

[51] Raymond, D. and Closset, G. 2004. Forest products biore-

finery: technology for a new future. Solutions September 2004:

49–53.

[52] 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.

[53] 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.

[54] Anon. Oil in troubled waters. The Economist April 30th 2005.