IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v16y2012i6p4277-4290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EUBIONET III—Solutions to biomass trade and market barriers

Author

Listed:
  • Alakangas, E.
  • Junginger, M.
  • van Dam, J.
  • Hinge, J.
  • Keränen, J.
  • Olsson, O.
  • Porsö, C.
  • Martikainen, A.
  • Rathbauer, J.
  • Sulzbacher, L.
  • Vesterinen, P.
  • Vinterbäck, J.

Abstract

The EUBIONET III project has boosted (i) sustainable, transparent international biomass fuel trade, (ii) investments in best practice technologies and (iii) new services on biomass heat sector. Furthermore, it identified cost-efficient and value-adding use of biomass for energy and industry. The aims of this article are to provide a synthesis of the key results of this project. Estimated annual solid biomass potential in the EU-27 is almost 6600PJ (157Mtoe), of which 48% is currently utilised. The greatest potential for increased use lies in forest residues and herbaceous biomass. Trade barriers have been evaluated and some solutions suggested such as CN codes for wood pellets and price indexes for industrial wood pellets and wood chips. The analysis of wood pellet and wood chip prices revealed large difference amongst EU countries, but also that on the short term prices of woody and fossil fuels are barely correlated. Sustainable production and use of solid biomass are also deemed important by most European stakeholders, and many support the introduction of harmonised sustainability criteria, albeit under a number of preconditions. The study identified also that a number of woody and agro-industrial residue streams remain un- or underutilised. The estimated European total potential of agro-industrial sources is more than 250PJ (7.2Mtoe), the amount of unutilised woody biomass (the annual increment of growing stock) even amounts to 3150PJ (75Mtoe). Finally 35 case studies of biomass heating substituting fossil fuels were carried out, showing that the potential to reduce GHG emissions ranges between 90 and 98%, while costs are very similar to fossil fuel heating systems. Overall, we conclude that solid biomass is growing strongly, and is likely to heavily contribute to the EU renewable energy targets in the coming decade.

Suggested Citation

  • Alakangas, E. & Junginger, M. & van Dam, J. & Hinge, J. & Keränen, J. & Olsson, O. & Porsö, C. & Martikainen, A. & Rathbauer, J. & Sulzbacher, L. & Vesterinen, P. & Vinterbäck, J., 2012. "EUBIONET III—Solutions to biomass trade and market barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4277-4290.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:16:y:2012:i:6:p:4277-4290
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032112002341
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Dam, J. & Junginger, M., 2011. "Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4051-4066, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Inge Stupak & Jamie Joudrey & C. Tattersall Smith & Luc Pelkmans & Helena Chum & Annette Cowie & Oskar Englund & Chun Sheng Goh & Martin Junginger, 2016. "A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-118, January.
    2. Díaz González, Carlos A. & Pacheco Sandoval, Leonardo, 2020. "Sustainability aspects of biomass gasification systems for small power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. How, Bing Shen & Ngan, Sue Lin & Hong, Boon Hooi & Lam, Hon Loong & Ng, Wendy Pei Qin & Yusup, Suzana & Ghani, Wan Azlina Wan Abd Karim & Kansha, Yasuki & Chan, Yi Herng & Cheah, Kin Wai & Shahbaz, Mu, 2019. "An outlook of Malaysian biomass industry commercialisation: Perspectives and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Nunes, L.J.R. & Matias, J.C.O. & Catalão, J.P.S., 2016. "Wood pellets as a sustainable energy alternative in Portugal," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1011-1016.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    2. Gamborg, Christian & Anker, Helle Tegner & Sandøe, Peter, 2014. "Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: Coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 326-333.
    3. Hoefnagels, Ric & Resch, Gustav & Junginger, Martin & Faaij, André, 2014. "International and domestic uses of solid biofuels under different renewable energy support scenarios in the European Union," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 139-157.
    4. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Jiang, Dong & Zhuang, Dafang & Fu, Jinying & Huang, Yaohuan & Wen, Kege, 2012. "Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: Availability and distribution," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 1377-1382.
    6. Pacini, Henrique & Assunção, Lucas & van Dam, Jinke & Toneto, Rudinei, 2013. "The price for biofuels sustainability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 898-903.
    7. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    8. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2013. "Strategic sourcing in the UK bioenergy industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 478-490.
    9. Gillian Eggleston & Isabel Lima, 2015. "Sustainability Issues and Opportunities in the Sugar and Sugar-Bioproduct Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-27, September.
    10. Fridahl, Mathias, 2017. "Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 89-99.
    11. Tanvir Ahmed & Bashir Ahmad, 2014. "Burning of Crop Residue and its Potential for Electricity Generation," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 53(3), pages 275-292.
    12. Tapio Ranta & Antti Karhunen & Mika Laihanen, 2020. "Sustainability of Forest-Based Bioenergy—A Case Study of Students Surveyed at a University in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-13, July.
    13. Brinkman, Marnix L.J. & Wicke, Birka & Faaij, André P.C. & van der Hilst, Floor, 2019. "Projecting socio-economic impacts of bioenergy: Current status and limitations of ex-ante quantification methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Alsaleh, Mohd & Abdul-Rahim, A.S. & Mohd-Shahwahid, H.O., 2017. "Determinants of technical efficiency in the bioenergy industry in the EU28 region," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1331-1349.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:16:y:2012:i:6:p:4277-4290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.