Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Framework and Description of Target Literature
2.1. Research Framework
2.2. Description of Target Literature
3. Review Results
3.1. Geospatial Distribution of Bioenergy Studies
3.2. Multi-Aspects Analysis
3.2.1. Economic Aspect
3.2.2. Environmental and Ecological Aspect
3.2.3. Social Aspect
3.2.4. Land Related Issues
Availability of Land
Land Use Change
3.3. Types of Bioenergy Sources and Application Forms
3.3.1. Types of Bioenergy Resources
3.3.2. Application Forms
4. Conclusions
- The majority of authors to date have focused their research on Europe, or on regions within Europe. This is illustrated in Figure 4 and is almost certainly due to approval by the EU of a wide range of strong renewable energy policies. For future research, we thus suggest it would be useful to broaden the existing research areas to cover other regions of the world in greater depth. In particular, we suggest research should increase its focus on Africa and South America regions, because of the scope for connecting scattered bioenergy power-generation systems together so as to achieve technology enhancement; and because a large potential exists for bioenergy exploitation provided we can deal successfully with issues related to fragile ecosystems in these regions.
- In terms of findings on the four indicators of bioenergy sustainability focused on here, for economic aspects of bioenergy sustainability, we note that although differences exist among the findings of the studies in this area, the results generally conclude that bioenergy should be regarded positively. In particular, the economic feasibility of bioenergy is noted in most studies; though we recognize that this is very different from saying that bioenergy is cheaper than energy from fossil fuel sources, and from proving the overall sustainability of bioenergy. Note that the relatively high energy efficiency of bioenergy in use, relative to that of some of the alternative renewables, supports a positive view of bioenergy within such an economic sustainability assessment.
- When considering the environmental and ecological aspects of bioenergy sustainability, authors frequently use life cycle analysis (LCA) methods. Here it is clear that bioenergy can generally contribute significantly to carbon reduction when compared to coal and liquid fossil fuels, such that using bioenergy to replace those traditional fossil energies has the potential at least to help achieve a favorable global carbon balance.
- On the social aspect of bioenergy sustainability, to-date there has been less of focus within the current literature compared to aspects of bioenergy sustainability mentioned above. Thus, an expansion of research into social indicators could be important for future studies.
- In terms of the assessment of land related issues, the availability of land itself is less mentioned, and we cannot draw general conclusions due to limited studies on this aspect. On the second and crucial-land related issue of land use change (LUC), here the research is generally extensive, but findings to-date are unfortunately contradictory. This suggests that more research on land-related issues is required.
- In terms of types of bioenergy sources, and their application forms, the literature reviewed indicates that crop-based and forest bioenergy are the major types currently being researched; and that electricity generation is the main utilization of bioenergy.
- In terms of more specific conclusions on future research that might be warranted, we note that while the energy in aquatic weeds is generally less concentrated than in many other forms of biomass, they might achieve scale deployment in the future; that CHP has generally a greater economic value compared with electricity production or heat-only bioenergy power plants but seems in our view to be under-researched; and likewise, the important topic of water use in bioenergy production also seems to have received too little attention.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, J.; Feng, L.; Tang, X.; Bentley, Y.; Höök, M. The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis. Futures 2017, 86, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leemans, R.; Vellinga, P. The scientific motivation of the internationally agreed ‘well below 2 °C’ climate protection target: A historical perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chunark, P.; Limmeechokchai, B.; Fujimori, S.; Masui, T. Renewable energy achievements in CO2 mitigation in Thailand’s NDCs. Renew. Energy 2017, 114, 1294–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Energy Agency (IEA). Available online: https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/bioenergy/ (accessed on 5 June 2018).
- International Energy Agency (IEA). Renewables-2017: Analysis and Forecasts to 2022. 2017. Available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/ (accessed on 7 December 2017).
- Cambero, C.; Sowlati, T.; Pavel, M. Economic and life cycle environmental optimization of forest-based biorefinery supply chains for bioenergy and biofuel production. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 107, 218–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igos, E.; Golkowska, K.; Koster, D.; Vervisch, B.; Benetto, E. Using rye as cover crop for bioenergy production: An environmental and economic assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 95, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glithero, N.J.; Ramsden, S.J.; Wilson, P. Farm systems assessment of bioenergy feedstock production: Integrating bio-economic models and life cycle analysis approaches. Agric. Syst. 2012, 109, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fantozzi, F.; Ferico, S.D.; Desideri, U. Study of a cogeneration plant for agro-food industry. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2000, 20, 993–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efroymson, R.A.; Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L.; Mcbride, A.C.; Bielicki, J.M.; Smith, R.L.; Parish, E.S.; Schweizer, P.E.; Shaw, D.M. Environmental Indicators of Biofuel Sustainability: What About Context? Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fantozzi, F.; Bartocci, P.; D’Alessandro, B.; Arampatzis, S.; Manos, B. Public–private partnerships value in bioenergy projects: Economic feasibility analysis based on two case studies. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, G.P.; Dale, V.H.; Doering, O.C.; Hamburg, S.P.; Melillo, J.M.; Wander, M.M.; Parton, W.J.; Adler, P.R.; Barney, J.N.; Cruse, R.M. Sustainable Biofuels Redux. Science 2008, 322, 49–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Solomon, B.D. Biofuels and sustainability. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1185, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C. Beneficial biofuels—The food, energy and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gelfand, I.; Sahajpal, R.; Zhang, X.S.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Gross, K.L.; Robertson, G.P. Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 2013, 493, 514–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Makkonen, M.; Huttunen, S.; Primmer, E.; Repo, A.; Hildén, M. Policy coherence in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy sources. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderberg, C.; Eckerberg, K.; Eckerberg, K.; Sandström, C. Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy and forestry. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R.A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.; Searchinger, T. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 2008, 319, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hill, J.; Nelson, E.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Tiffany, D. Environmental, economic and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11206–11210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mohr, A.; Raman, S. Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Meijl, H.; Tsiropoulos, I.; Bartelings, H.; Hoefnagels, R.; Smeets, E.; Tabeau, A.; Faaij, A. On the macro-economic impact of bioenergy and biochemicals—Introducing advanced bioeconomy sectors into an economic modelling framework with a case study for the Netherlands. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 108, 381–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amigun, B.; Musango, J.K.; Stafford, W. Biofuels and sustainability in Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1360–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, R.; Rutz, D.D. Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: Risks and opportunities. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 5717–5725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simangunsong, B.C.H.; Sitanggang, V.J.; Manurung, E.G.T.; Rahmadi, A.; Moore, G.A.; Aye, L.; Tambunan, A.H. Potential forest biomass resource as feedstock for bioenergy and its economic value in Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 81, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walmsley, J.D.; Godbold, D.L. Stump Harvesting for Bioenergy—A Review of the Environmental Impacts. Forestry 2010, 83, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- German, L.; Schoneveld, G. A review of social sustainability considerations among EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels, with implications for rural livelihoods. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyake, S.; Renouf, M.; Peterson, A.; McAlpine, C.; Smith, C. Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: A review. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 650–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purkus, A.; Gawel, E.; Thrän, D.; Purkus, A.; Gawel, E.; Thrän, D.; Purkus, A.; Gawel, E.; Thrän, D. Addressing uncertainty in decarbonisation policy mixes—Lessons learned from German and European bioenergy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 33, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig, C.; Gawor, M. Bioenergy production and use: Comparative analysis of the economic and environmental effects. Energy Convers. Manag. 2012, 63, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strzalka, R.; Schneider, D.; Eicker, U. Current status of bioenergy technologies in Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 801–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheftelowitz, M.; Becker, R.; Thrän, D. Improved power provision from biomass: A retrospective on the impacts of German energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, D.; Van Dael, M.; Vanheusden, B.; Goovaerts, L.; Reumerman, P.; Márquez Luzardo, N.; Van Passel, S. Assessment of the sustainability guidelines of EU Renewable Energy Directive: The case of biorefineries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabaniotou, A.; Rovas, D.; Delivand, M.K.; Francavilla, M.; Libutti, A.; Cammerino, A.R.; Monteleone, M. Conceptual vision of bioenergy sector development in Mediterranean regions based on decentralized thermochemical systems. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 23, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manos, B.; Partalidou, M.; Fantozzi, F.; Arampatzis, S.; Papadopoulou, O. Agro-energy districts contributing to environmental and social sustainability in rural areas: Evaluation of a local public–private partnership scheme in Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namsaraev, Z.; Gotovtsev, P.M.; Komova, A.V.; Vasilov, R.G.; Namsaraev, Z.; Gotovtsev, P.M.; Komova, A.V.; Vasilov, R.G.; Namsaraev, Z.; Gotovtsev, P.M. Current status and potential of bioenergy in the Russian Federation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steubing, B.; Zah, R.; Waeger, P.; Ludwig, C. Bioenergy in Switzerland: Assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2256–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangoyana, R.B.; Smith, T.F. Decentralised bioenergy systems: A review of opportunities and threats. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1286–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, Z.; Zhuang, Q.; Cai, X.; He, Y.; Huang, Y.; Jiang, D.; Lin, E.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Wang, M.Q. Biomass and biofuels in China: Toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2387–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.Z.; Yin, X.L.; Yuan, Z.H.; Zhou, Z.Q.; Zhuang, X.S.; Jin, H.G.; Zhang, X.L. The development of bioenergy technology in China. Energy 2010, 35, 4445–4450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X. Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China. Appl. Energy 2016, 166, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srebotnjak, T.; Hardi, P. Prospects for sustainable bioenergy production in selected former communist countries. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1009–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozturk, M.; Saba, N.; Altay, V.; Iqbal, R.; Hakeem, K.R.; Jawaid, M.; Ibrahim, F.H. Biomass and Bioenergy: An Overview of the development potential in Turkey and Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1285–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khishtandar, S.; Zandieh, M.; Dorri, B. A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 77, 1130–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kataki, S.; Hazarika, S.; Baruah, D.C. Assessment of by-products of bioenergy systems (anaerobic digestion and gasification) as potential crop nutrient. Waste Manag. 2016, 59, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, E.; Sutherland, J.W. A Proposed Integrated Sustainability Model for a Bioenergy System ☆. Procedia Cirp 2016, 48, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tittmann, P.W.; Parker, N.C.; Hart, Q.J.; Jenkins, B.M. A spatially explicit techno-economic model of bioenergy and biofuels production in California. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merry, K.; Bettinger, P.; Grebner, D.; Siry, J.; Cieszewski, C.; Weaver, S.; Ucar, Z.; Merry, K.; Bettinger, P.; Grebner, D. Assessment of potential agricultural and short-rotation forest bioenergy crop establishment sites in Jackson County, Florida, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 105, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorning, M.A.; Smith, J.W.; Shoemaker, D.A.; Meentemeyer, R.K. Changing decisions in a changing landscape: How might forest owners in an urbanizing region respond to emerging bioenergy markets? Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbi, A.; Saber, M.; Aziza, M.; Yassaa, N. An overview of sustainable bioenergy potential in Algeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Salazar, M.A.; Venturini, M.; Poganietz, W.-R.; Finkenrath, M.; Leal, M.R. Combining an accelerated deployment of bioenergy and land use strategies: Review and insights for a post-conflict scenario in Colombia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finco, M.V.A.; Doppler, W. Bioenergy and sustainable development: The dilemma of food security and climate change in the Brazilian savannah. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2010, 14, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook 2017. Available online: www.iea.org (accessed on 3 May 2018).
- Awasthi, A.; Singh, K.; Singh, R.P. A concept of diverse perennial cropping systems for integrated bioenergy production and ecological restoration of marginal lands in India. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayashi, T.; Ierland, E.C.V.; Zhu, X. A holistic sustainability assessment tool for bioenergy using the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) sustainability indicators. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasco-Correa, J.; Khanal, S.; Manandhar, A.; Shah, A. Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy production: Global status, environmental and techno-economic implications and government policies. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alsaleh, M.; Abdul-Rahim, A.S.; Mohd-Shahwahid, H.O. An empirical and forecasting analysis of the bioenergy market in the EU28 region: Evidence from a panel data simultaneous equation model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchholz, T.S.; Volk, T.A.; Luzadis, V.A. A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 6084–6094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalt, G.; Kranzl, L. Assessing the economic efficiency of bioenergy technologies in climate mitigation and fossil fuel replacement in Austria using a techno-economic approach. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 3665–3684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pour, N.; Webley, P.A.; Cook, P.J. A Sustainability Framework for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) Technologies. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 6044–6056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, E.; Moriyama, R.; Kurosawa, A. A Sustainable Pathway of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Deployment. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 6115–6123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitawo, M.L.; Chimphango, A.F.A. A synergetic integration of bioenergy and rice production in rice farms. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.R.; Liu, J.A.; Steinberger, Y.; Xie, G.H. Energy use efficiency and economic feasibility of Jerusalem artichoke production on arid and coastal saline lands. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 117, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arodudu, O.T.; Helming, K.; Voinov, A.; Wiggering, H. Integrating agronomic factors into energy efficiency assessment of agro-bioenergy production—A case study of ethanol and biogas production from maize feedstock. Appl. Energy 2017, 198, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, M.A.; Leckert, F.S. A systematic review of the conceptual differences of environmental assessment and ecosystem service studies of biofuel and bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 114, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Huffman, T.; Kulshreshtha, S.; McConkey, B.; Du, Y.; Green, M.; Liu, J.; Shang, J.; Geng, X. Bioenergy production on marginal land in Canada: Potential, economic feasibility and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fridahl, M.; Lehtveer, M. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences and deployment barriers. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 42, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoli, L.D.; Mancini, F.; Nastasi, B.; Piergrossi, V. Building integrated bioenergy production (BIBP): Economic sustainability analysis of Bari airport CHP (combined heat and power) upgrade fueled with bioenergy from short chain. Renew. Energy 2015, 81, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.; Selosse, S.; Maïzi, N. Contribution of global GHG reduction pledges to bioenergy expansion. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuess, L.T.; Klein, B.C.; Chagas, M.F.; Garcia, M.L.; Bonomi, A.; Zaiat, M. Diversifying the technological strategies for recovering bioenergy from the two-phase anaerobic digestion of sugarcane vinasse: An integrated techno-economic and environmental approach. Renew. Energy 2018, 122, 674–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durusut, E.; Tahir, F.; Foster, S.; Dineen, D.; Clancy, M. BioHEAT: A policy decision support tool in Ireland’s bioenergy and heat sectors. Appl. Energy 2018, 213, 306–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.; Liang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, H.; Chen, H. Life cycle water use of a biomass-based pyrolysis polygeneration system in China. Appl. Energy 2018, 224, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buratti, C.; Barbanera, M.; Fantozzi, F. A comparison of the European renewable energy directive default emission values with actual values from operating biodiesel facilities for sunflower, rape and soya oil seeds in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 47, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartocci, P.; Bidini, G.; Saputo, P.; Fantozzi, F. Biochar Pellet Carbon Footprint. Chem. Eng. 2016, 50, 217–222. [Google Scholar]
- Spatari, S.; Bagley, D.M.; Maclean, H.L. Life cycle evaluation of emerging lignocellulosic ethanol conversion technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 654–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roos, A.; Ahlgren, S. Consequential life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems—A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 358–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lora, E.E.S.; Palacio, J.C.E.; Rocha, M.H.; Renó, M.L.G.; Venturini, O.J.; Almazán, D.O.; Duic, N.; Guzovic, Z. Issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments. Energy 2011, 36, 2097–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherubini, F.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaur, M.; Kumar, M.; Sachdeva, S.; Puri, S.K. Aquatic weeds as the next generation feedstock for sustainable bioenergy production. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 251, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Searchinger, T.D.; Beringer, T.; Strong, A. Does the world have low-carbon bioenergy potential from the dedicated use of land? Energy Policy 2017, 110, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efroymson, R.A.; Kline, K.L.; Angelsen, A.; Verburg, P.H.; Dale, V.H.; Langeveld, J.W.A.; McBride, A. A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, C.A.; Riegelhaupt, E.; Ghilardi, A.; Skutsch, M.; Islas, J.; Manzini, F.; Masera, O. Sustainable bioenergy options for Mexico: GHG mitigation and costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wise, M.; Hodson, E.L.; Mignone, B.K.; Clarke, L.; Waldhoff, S.; Luckow, P. An approach to computing marginal land use change carbon intensities for bioenergy in policy applications. Energy Econ. 2015, 50, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miyake, S.; Smith, C.; Peterson, A.; McAlpine, C.; Renouf, M.; Waters, D. Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production. Agric. Syst. 2015, 139, 180–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Z.; Anar, M.J.; Zheng, H. Hydrologic and water-quality impacts of agricultural land use changes incurred from bioenergy policies. J. Hydrol. 2015, 525, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Marvuglia, A.; Rege, S.; Benetto, E. Applying consequential LCA to support energy policy: Land use change effects of bioenergy production. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 472, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F. o.; Banja, M. Possible impact of 2020 bioenergy targets on European Union land use. A scenario-based assessment from national renewable energy action plans proposals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, A.; Krause, M.; Dietrich, J.P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Leimbach, M.; Beringer, T.; Bauer, N. Additional CO2 emissions from land use change—Forest conservation as a precondition for sustainable production of second generation bioenergy. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1630–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Stappen, F.; Brose, I.; Schenkel, Y. Direct and indirect land use changes issues in European sustainability initiatives: State-of-the-art, open issues and future developments. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4824–4834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dam, J.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A.P.C. From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2445–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shane, A.; Gheewala, S.H.; Fungtammasan, B.; Silalertruksa, T.; Bonnet, S.; Phiri, S. Bioenergy resource assessment for Zambia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, B.; Snapp, S. What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Bellido, L.; Wery, J.; López-Bellido, R.J. Energy crops: Prospects in the context of sustainable agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manevski, K.; Lærke, P.E.; Jiao, X.; Santhome, S.; Jørgensen, U. Biomass productivity and radiation utilisation of innovative cropping systems for biorefinery. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 233, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Rao, Y.; Fu, M.; Prishchepov, A.V. Alternative spatial allocation of suitable land for biofuel production in China. Energy Policy 2017, 110, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junginger, M.; van Dam, J.; Zarrilli, S.; Ali Mohamed, F.; Marchal, D.; Faaij, A. Opportunities and barriers for international bioenergy trade. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2028–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Qian, W.; He, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Song, P.; Wang, R.-M. Reutilization of discarded biomass for preparing functional polymer materials. Waste Manag. 2017, 65, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matteo, U.D.; Nastasi, B.; Albo, A.; Garcia, D.A. Energy Contribution of OFMSW (Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste) to Energy-Environmental Sustainability in Urban Areas at Small Scale. Energies 2017, 10, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraxner, F.; Aoki, K.; Kindermann, G.; Leduc, S.; Albrecht, F.; Liu, J.; Yamagata, Y. Bioenergy and the city—What can urban forests contribute? Appl. Energy 2016, 165, 990–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, A.K. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2007, 33, 233–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Blottnitz, H.; Curran, M.A. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas and environmental life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fantozzi, F.; Colantoni, S.; Bartocci, P.; Desideri, U. Rotary kiln slow pyrolysis for syngas and char production from biomass and waste—Part I: Working envelope of the reactor. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2007, 129, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manos, B.; Bartocci, P.; Partalidou, M.; Fantozzi, F.; Arampatzis, S. Review of public–private partnerships in agro-energy districts in Southern Europe: The cases of Greece and Italy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 667–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reference | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | Methods |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Awasthi et al., 2017 [54] | √ | √ | List of economic and ecological impacts through diverse perennial cropping systems(DPCSs) | ||
Purkus et al., 2017 [29] | √ | ① Technology-push and demand-pull; cost-effective | |||
Hayashi et al., 2014 [55] | √ | √ | √ | ① Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), net energy balance; ② LCA of GHG emissions; ③ Change in income, bioenergy used to expand access to modern energy services, etc. | |
Khishtandar et al., 2017 [44] | √ | √ | √ | Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets; Multi actor multi criteria outranking method based on HFLTS | |
Vasco-Correa et al., 2018 [56] | √ | √ | ① Techno-economic analysis; ② Life cycle assessment | ||
Alsaleh et al., 2017 [57] | √ | √ | ① Theoretical review of market analysis; supply and demand model | ||
Buchholz et al., 2007 [58] | √ | √ | √ | Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) | |
Jin and Sutherland 2016 [46] | √ | √ | √ | Causal loop diagram (CLD); IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) | |
Tittmann et al., 2010 [47] | √ | ① Techno-economic model | |||
Kalt and Kranzl 2011 [59] | √ | ① Techno-economic approach | |||
Merry et al., 2017 [48] | √ | ④ Scenario analysis | |||
Pour et al., 2017 [60] | √ | √ | √ | ① Cost of electricity (COE) production; ② LCA; ③ social acceptability, job creation, social benefits | |
Kato et al., 2017 [61] | √ | √ | ② Integrated assessment (IA) model; ④ GRAPE (Global Relationship Assessment to Protect the Environment) | ||
Chitawo and Chimphango, 2017 [62] | √ | √ | ① Cost-benefit analysis; ② Net water requirement, net savings on carbon emissions | ||
Fang et al., 2018 [63] | √ | ① Cost-benefit analysis | |||
Arodudu et al., 2017 [64] | √ | √ | ① Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI); ② LCA | ||
Meyer and Leckert, 2017 [65] | √ | ② Systematic review | |||
Hennig and Gawor, 2012 [30] | √ | √ | ① Cost and profitability analysis; ② LCA | ||
Liu et al., 2017 [66] | √ | √ | ① Cost-benefit analysis; ② GHG emission model | ||
Fridahl and Lehtveer, 2018 [67] | √ | √ | ① Non-parametric statistical analysis; ② Social constraints on deployment | ||
Santoli et al., 2015 [68] | √ | ① Discounted Cash Flow | |||
Kang et al., 2018 [69] | √ | ② The bottom-up energy system, optimization model | |||
Mangoyana and Smith, 2011 [38] | √ | √ | √ | Review and case study | |
Fuess et al., 2018 [70] | √ | √ | ① Techno-economic model; ② LCA | ||
Durusut et al., 2018 [71] | √ | ① Techno-economic model | |||
Yang et al., 2018 [72] | √ | ② LCA | |||
Buratti et al., 2012 [73] | √ | ③ Input-output analysis | |||
Bartocci et al., 2016 [74] | √ | ② LCA | |||
Spatari et al., 2010 [75] | √ | ② LCA | |||
Roos and Ahlgren, 2018 [76] | √ | ② LCA |
Year | LUC | Policy Recommendations | Environmental Effects |
---|---|---|---|
2018 | Kaur et al.; Roos and Ahlgre; Kang et al. [69,76,79] | Roos and Ahlgre [76] | Roos and Ahlgre; Kang et al. [69,76] |
2017 | Purkus et al.; Khishtandar et al.; Meyer and Leckert; Gonzalez- Salazar et al.; Zabaniotou et al.; Searchinger et al. [29,34,44,51,65,80] | Purkus et al.; Meyer and Leckert; Searchinger et al. [29,65,80] | Khishtandar et al.; Zabaniotou et al. [34,44] |
2016 | Efroymson et al. [81] | Efroymson et al. [81] | Efroymson et al. [81] |
2015 | García et al.; Wise et al.; Miyake et al.; Lin et al. [82,83,84,85] | Wise et al.; Miyake et al.; Lin et al. [83,84,85] | García et al.; Wise et al.; Miyake et al. [82,83,84] |
2014 | Hayashi et al.; Vázquez-Rowe et al. [55,86] | Vázquez-Rowe et al. [86] | Hayashi et al.; Vázquez-Rowe et al. [55,86] |
2013 | Scarlat et al. [87] | Scarlat et al. [87] | - |
2012 | Miyake et al.; Popp et al. [28,88] | Miyake et al. [28] | Miyake et al.; Popp et al. [28,88] |
2011 | Cherubini and Strømman; Scarlat and Dallemand; Van Stappen et al. [78,89,90] | Cherubini and Strømman; Scarlat and Dallemand [78,89] | Cherubini and Strømman; Van Stappen et al. [78,90] |
2010 | van Dam et al. [91] | van Dam et al. [91] | - |
Total | 23 | 14/23 | 14/23 |
Types of Bioenergy Sources | Crops | Biodiesel/Bioethanol | Forest/Woody Biomass | Wasted Biomass | Aquatic Weeds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of studies | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Bentley, Y.; Geng, X.; Liu, X. Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082739
Wang J, Yang Y, Bentley Y, Geng X, Liu X. Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082739
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jianliang, Yuru Yang, Yongmei Bentley, Xu Geng, and Xiaojie Liu. 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082739