Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil use reduction (original) (raw)
Related papers
Options for Increased Use and Refining of Biomass - the Case of Energy-intensive Industry in Sweden
Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress – Sweden, 8–13 May, 2011, Linköping, Sweden, 2011
Events in recent decades have placed climate change at the top of the political agenda. In Sweden, energy-intensive industries are responsible for a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to switch to renewable energy sources could contribute to the transition to a decarbonised economy. This interdisciplinary study has its starting point in three energy-intensive industries' opportunities to take part in the development towards increased refining and use of biomass. The study includes the pulp and paper industry, the iron and steel industry and the oil refining industry, each exemplified by a case company. It can be concluded that there are several technological options in each industry. On the other hand, implementing one option for increased use of biomass in each case company could demand up to 34% of the estimated increase in Swedish biomass supply, in 2020. Additionally, in a longer time perspective none of the case companies believes that the amount of biomass in the Swedish industrial energy system have the possibility to increase significantly in the future.
Forest Policy and Economics, 2010
Wood fuels Economic analysis Greenhouse gas emissions Policy means Forest sector modelling In many European countries, the use of policy measures to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy consumption, including heating, is high on the political agenda. Also, increasing the absolute consumption of bioenergy seems to partly be an objective in itself. But neither the costs of replacing fossil fuels with bioenergy in heating, nor the effects on the GHG emission account are clear. This study analyses first the avoided GHG emissions from substituting one energy unit of fossil fuel with forest based bioenergy (wood fuel) in several heating technologies. Secondly, the effects on bioenergy production of two policy measures in Norway -higher tax on domestic heating oil and paraffin and investment grants to district heating installations based on wood fuels -are investigated. Thereafter, the results are combined to display how the emissions from heating are affected. Finally, the achievements are compared to the costs. The analysis is done by using a partial, spatial equilibrium model of the Norwegian forest sector, wood fuels included. Based on model runs we conclude that a tax of 60€/CO 2 eq on competing fossil fuels could increase the bioenergy use in district heating installations with almost 4000 GWh/year. The same amount of bioenergy could be used in pellet stoves and central heating systems, but a higher tax is then necessary. 50% investment grant to district heating installations may also have a large effect on the bioenergy use, but the effect of the subsidies decreases rapidly if applied together with a tax. Around 70% of the emissions from heating in Norway may potentially be avoided, but such achievements depend on very high taxes on fossil fuels. Both taxes and subsidies may greatly influence the energy market, but should be used with caution in order to obtain the preferred goals. Few similar studies are carried out in this field, and the results might be of interest for the bioenergy industry and the energy policy authorities.
Diversity of biomass usage pathways to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system
Research Square (Research Square), 2023
Biomass is a versatile renewable energy source that can be used in all parts of the energy system, but it is a limited resource and usage needs prioritisation. Here we use a sector-coupled European energy system model to explore the range of cost-effective near-optimal solutions for achieving stringent emissions targets. We show that provision of biogenic carbon rather than energy is the main value of biomass, with the energy system cost increasing by 20% if biomass is excluded. It is not crucial in which sector biomass is used if it is combined with carbon capture to enable negative emissions and e-fuel production. A shortage of renewable electricity or hydrogen primarily increases the value of biomass for fuel production, which appears as the marginal abatement option and is most sensitive to uncertainties. Biomass usage is significantly affected if the biomass is associated with upstream emissions.
Cost-effective use of biomass-A comparison between two model based studies
2006
In two different energy economy models of the global energy system, the cost-effective use of biomass under a stringent carbon constraint has been analyzed. Gielen et al. conclude that it is cost-effective to use biofuels for transportation, whereas Azar et al. find that it is more costeffective to use most of the biomass to generate heat and process heat, despite the fact that assumptions about the cost of biofuels production is rather similar in the models. In this study, we compare the two models with the purpose to find an explanation for these different results. It is found that both models suggest that biomass is most cost-effectively used for heat production for low carbon taxes (below 50-100 USD/tC, depending on the year in question). But for higher carbon taxes the cost effective choice reverses in the BEAP model, but not in the GET model. The reason for that is that GET includes hydrogen from carbon free energy sources as a technology option, whereas that option is not allowed in the BEAP model. In all other sectors, both models include carbon free options above biomass. Thus with higher carbon taxes, biomass will eventually become the cost-effective choice in the transportation sector in BEAP, regardless of its technology cost parameters.
Total costs and benefits of biomass in selected regions of the European Union
Energy, 2000
The paper describes results of the BioCosts project in which a comprehensive analysis of the economic and environmental performance of the energy use of biomass was carried out for selected existing facilities throughout the European Union. It is demonstrated that the appropriately organized use of biofuels has significant environmental advantages compared to the use of fossil fuels. Mitigation of global warming is the largest single incentive to use biofuels. However, only a few technologies are economically competitive under prevailing conditions, while others lead to up to 100% higher energy production costs than fossil fuels. Employment effects of using biofuels are small but positive.
Three essays on Swedish energy and climate policy options
2011
This thesis contains three papers. Paper I: Demand for waste as fuel in the Swedish district heating sector: a production function approach. This paper evaluates inter-fuel substitution in the Swedish district heating industry by analyzing the district heating plants in Sweden in the period 1989 to 2003, specifically those plants incinerating waste. A multi-output plant-specific production function is estimated using panel data methods. A procedure for weighting the elasticities of factor demand to produce a single matrix for the whole industry is introduced. The price of waste is assumed to increase in response to the energy and CO$_2$ tax on waste-to-energy incineration that was introduced in Sweden on 1 July 2006. Analysis of the plants involved in waste incineration indicates that an increase in the net price of waste by 10% is likely to reduce the demand for waste by 4.2%, and increase the demand for bio-fuels, fossil fuels, other fuels and electricity by 5.5%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 6...
Environmental Science & Technology, 2012
The optimal use of forest energy wood, industrial wood residues, waste wood, agricultural residues, animal manure, biowaste, and sewage sludge in 2010 and 2030 was assessed for Europe. An energy system model was developed comprising 13 principal fossil technologies for the production of heat, electricity, and transport and 173 bioenergy conversion routes. The net environmental benefits of substituting fossil energy with bioenergy were calculated for all approximately 1500 combinations based on life cycle assessment (LCA) results. An optimization model determines the best use of biomass for different environmental indicators within the quantified EU-27 context of biomass availability and fossil energy utilization. Key factors determining the optimal use of biomass are the conversion efficiencies of bioenergy technologies and the kind and quantity of fossil energy technologies that can be substituted. Provided that heat can be used efficiently, optimizations for different environmental indicators almost always indicate that woody biomass is best used for combined heat and power generation, if coal, oil, or fuel oil based technologies can be substituted. The benefits of its conversion to SNG or ethanol are significantly lower. For non-woody biomass electricity generation, transportation, and heating yield almost comparable benefits as long as high conversion efficiencies and optimal substitutions are assured. The shares of fossil heat, electricity, and transportation that could be replaced with bioenergy are also provided.