11-05-17 biocore multi-criteria evaluation of niche cropsbiocore-europe.org/file/biocore...

Multi-criteria evaluation of ligno-cellulosic niche crops for use in

biorefinery processes

May 2011

Stephan Piotrowski

Michael Carus

nova-Institut GmbH Chemiepark Knapsack

Industriestraße, 50354 Hürth, Germany Internet: www.nova-Institut.de/nr E-Mail: [email protected]

Table of Content

nova-Institut Niche crop evaluation

2

Table of Content 1 INTRODUCTION AND NICHE CROP FACTSHEETS...................................................... 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 FACTSHEETS ......................................................................................................................... 3

2 FEEDSTOCK MATRIX ........................................................................................................... 8 2.1 ECOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Landscape effect .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Fertiliser demand per ha ............................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Biodiversity.................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.4 Effects on soil .............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Invasiveness................................................................................................................. 12

2.2 ECONOMY........................................................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Yield/ha........................................................................................................................ 12 2.2.2 Susceptibility to pests, diseases and yield losses......................................................... 13 2.2.3 Planting technology..................................................................................................... 13 2.2.4 Biomass production and procurement costs (!/t DM) ............................................... 14 2.2.5 Harvestability/Technology .......................................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Storage costs (!/t DM)................................................................................................ 15 2.2.7 Transportation costs (!/t DM).................................................................................... 15 2.2.8 Competitiveness in comparison to thermal use ........................................................... 16 2.2.9 Competitiveness compared to other land uses ............................................................ 16 2.2.10 Annual/perennial ....................................................................................................... 16 2.2.11 Current cultivation area/practical experience .......................................................... 17 2.2.12 Availability of high yielding/adapted varieties ......................................................... 19

2.3 PROCESS SUITABILITY: ................................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Preparation costs (!/t DM) ........................................................................................ 20 2.3.2 Chemical composition ................................................................................................. 20 2.3.3 Problematic/harmful components ............................................................................... 22 2.3.4 Homogeneity................................................................................................................ 22

3 SUITABILITY OF SELECTED CROPS FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS OF EUROPE. 23 4 LITERATURE......................................................................................................................... 25

Introduction and nich crop factsheets

nova-Institut 3 Niche crop evaluation

1 Introduction and niche crop factsheets

1.1 Introduction

The appropriateness of ligno-cellulosic niche crops in biorefinery processes needs to be based on a multi-criteria evaluation, taking account of aspects of economy, ecology and process suitability. In recent years, many studies have been published that evaluate ligno-cellulosic niche crops according to different criteria but the multitude of different aspects that need to be considered is often not sufficiently taken account of. This report, which is an outcome of the work in the project BIOCORE (BIOcommodity REfinery), offers such a multi-criteria evaluation for the seven niche crops poplar and willow SRC, miscanthus, hemp, switchgrass, reed canary grass and eucalyptus SRC.

In section 1.2, these crops are shortly introduced in the form of concise factsheets. In sec-tion 2 a comprehensive matrix for the feedstock evaluation according to 21 parameters grouped into the three categories ecology, economy and process suitability is introduced and explained for each crop. Section 3 then evaluates the suitability of these crops for dif-ferent regions of Europe.

In conclusion, the approach used for a multi-criteria evaluation of potential biorefinery niche crops has been shown to be practical and transparent and led to sensible and helpful results. Although these results are sensitive to the choice of weights and scores, they show a general trend and provide a good basis for argumentation for or against the inclusion of potential feedstocks in further analyses.

1.2 Factsheets

Poplar (populus spp.)

Origin:

Tree belonging to Salicaceae family, widely used in arbori-culture and forestry

Growing period: Planting in February to May, harvest during winter time

Soil requirements: Tolerant to wide range of soil conditions

Temperature re-quirements:

Frost sensitive; best suited for Mediterranean climate

Water requirements: High water demand but less than willow; access to ground-water preferred

Other: o Rotation systems between 2-5 years

o Recultivation techniques (destroying of stumps down to ca. 45 cm depth) neces-sary

Introduction and niche crop factsheets


4

Willow (Salix spp.)

Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus)

Origin:

Tree belonging to Salicaceae family

Growing period: Harvest during winter time Soil requirements: o Suited to wide range of

soils o Most productive on well

aerated soils retaining mois-ture


More tolerant to colder cli-mates than poplar; suitable for cold-wet regions

Water requirements: Very high water demand Other: o Established through cut-

tings or rods in spring o Rotation systems between

2-5 years o Recultivation techniques

(destroying of stumps down to ca. 45 cm depth) neces-sary

Origin:

Perennial crop C4-rhizomatous grass originating from Asia

Growing period: o Planted in March/April o Growth up to 1-2 metres in

1st year by late August o Annual harvesting from 2nd

year on in February to April Soil requirements: Adapted to wide range of soils

but preferably moisture reten-tive soils that warm up quickly in spring and enable long growing season


High temperature demand as all C4 crops but also good yields in regions with average temperatures of ca. 7.5 °C.

Water requirements: Tolerant to short drought pe-riods but even water supply throughout vegetation period perferred

Other: o Useful life of 15-20 years o High planting costs due to

purchase of rhizomes



5

Hemp (Cannabis sativa)

Origin:

Annual dioecious or monoicous herb originating from Central Asia; wild forms spread to Scandinavia, which has led to varieties adapted to Northern climates, and Medi-terranean countries, which has led to varieties adapted to Southern climates

Growing period: For use as biomass: Sown in early spring, harvested as twilted, dry material in late winter or spring after growing season

Soil requirements: Loamy/sandy soils with good water drainage and nutrient holding capacity preferred


Growth optimum between 19 and 25 °C

Water requirements: Good soil moisture needed for seed germination, adequate rainfall in June needed for good growth!

Other: Harvesting difficult due strong plant fibres



6

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)

Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)

Origin:

Perennial C4 sod-forming grass Native to North America

Growing period: Harvest in February/March Soil requirements: Best on moderately deep to

deep, somewhat dry to poorly drained, sandy to clay loam soils; poorly on heavy soils


See below

Water requirements: See below Other: Two different eco-types: a low-

land type with higher yield potential, originating from the warmer regions of the USA and Mexico with high water and nutrient demand. Low cold hardiness prevents cultivation in N./W. Europe. Highland type is adapted to dryer and colder regions, characterized by a shorter vegetation period. These varieties can be culti-vated N./W. Europe

Origin:

Winterhardy, highly productive and durable perennial grass crop, widely distributed in Eu-rope, Asia, Northern Africa and N.-America

Growing period: In Finland: First crop harvested two years after sowing, then annually in spring after snow melt; at harvest time, up to 70% of biomass are stems with moisture content of 10-15%.

Soil requirements: Adapted to all soil types but best on moist mold and fine sand soils


Low temperature needs, suit-able for Scandinavia

Water requirements: Moist areas around rivers, ditches and lakes preferred

Other: -



7

Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp., grown as SRC)

Origin and diffusion: ! Tall growing tree belonging to the myrtaceae family

Growing period: Perennial Soil requirements: Well drained, sandy/clay loam

preferred Temperature re-quirements:

High temperature need; mainly in Southern Europe

Water requirements: Very high water demand Other: o Main raw material for pulp

industries in Spain and Portugal, little practical ex-perience as a coppice crop

o Serious concerns on im-pacts on soil, groundwater and biodiversity

Feedstock matrix


8

2 Feedstock matrix

The following matrix evaluates the seven niche crops according to 21 parameters grouped into the three categories ecology, economy and process suitability.

• Each criterion has been weighted according to its assumed importance for the suitability of a crop as a biorefinery feedstock, the weights summing up to 1.

• The total score of a crop results from multiplying and adding up the respective weights with the score values.

In the following text, each of the parameters is shortly explained.

Feedstock matrix


9

Figure 1: Weighted criteria matrix for the evaluation of selected crops

Source: nova

Feedstock matrix


10

2.1 ECOLOGY

2.1.1 Landscape effect

• What effect do crops have on the subjective value/beauty of the landscape? More points denote a more positive effect.

Tall growing plants limit the view of the landscape, which is therefore seen as a negative effect. The criticism about the extensive cultivation of maize for biogas shows that this is a relevant point.

All niche crops reach a height that satisfies this conditions but hemp and reed canary grass (RCG) are somewhat smaller so that these two receive the score 3 and all other niche crops score 2.

Table 1: Average plant heights of niche crops

2.1.2 Fertiliser demand per ha

According to Hayes 2004, the fertilisation of RCG increases yields, but only up to a level of approximately 100 kg N/ha. Kaltschmitt et al. 2009 (p. 99) recommend 70-140 kg N/(ha*a) for RCG. On mineral soils more nitrogen fertiliser is likely to be required than for miscanthus or switchgrass. Hayes 2004 also reports that switchgrass has been shown to exhibit no response to notrogen fertiliser or only to the first 50 kg. In fertile areas switch-grass may require little or no fertilisation, and, generally, will require less fertilisation than miscanthus. Christian and Riche (2000) found that, with the exception of one clone, no effects on yield were found relating to fertilisation. Also according to Kaltschmitt et al. 2009 (p. 97), a fertilisation of only up to 50 kg N/(ha*a), 100 kg K/(ha*a) and 30 kg P/(ha*a) are recommended.

In spite of these differences, RCG, switchgrass, miscanthus and SRC lie in the same range of fertiliser demand compared to hemp and eucalyptus. Hemp may require an addition of up to 110 kg/ ha of nitrogen, and 40 – 90 kg/ha of potash. Nitrogen fertilisation in excess 200 kg/ha has however been tested with good results. Hemp is therefore more fertiliser demanding, while eucalyptus requires little to no fertiliser.

For SRC crops, no fertilisation is recommended in the year of establishment because this mainly encourages the growth of weeds. For the following years, Xiong and Finell 2009 recommend 45 kg N/ha for willows in the second year and 100 – 150 kg/ha during the

Height (m)

Hemp 1.0-4.0

Miscanthus Up to 4.0

Eucalyptus Up to 5.0-10.0

Poplar/Willow Up to 3.0-8.0

Reed canary grass 1.5-2.0

Switchgrass Up to 3.0

Feedstock matrix


11

third and fourth years. For poplar, Corbella et al. 2009 recommend around 60-80 kg N/ha periodically after harvesting.

Hemp appears to be the crop most responsive to fertilisation and therefore receives the score 1 while switchgrass shows very little effect on fertilisation (score 3). The remaining crops respond to some degree to extra mineral fertilisers but are not highly demanding (score 2).

2.1.3 Biodiversity

The scores on biodiversity of the 7 crops are taken from a study by the European Envi-ronmental Agency (EEA) that also grouped these crops into three categories according to their impacts on farmland biodiversity (Table 2).

Table 2: Biodiversity effects of niche crops

Source: EEA 2007

2.1.4 Effects on soil

All crops have specific impacts on the soil. Especially for the perennial crops this also in-cludes recultivation costs (for removing the stumps of willow and poplar and removing the rhizomes of miscanthus and RCG).

The most important negative effect on the soil compared to all other crops has eucalyptus: it has been shown to have an antibiotic effect on soil microorganisms (Couto and Betters 1995). In a first appraisal eucalyptus therefore received only 1 point in the matrix.

Hemp B “Low input use so limited direct impacts on habitat quality. High water demand, but not a problem in temperate climate zones where it grows; attractive shelter crop. But highly competitive and therefore possible suppression of wild herbs.”

Miscanthus A “No or low pesticide and nitrogen applications so no direct negative impacts on habitat quality; can provide winter shel-ter; birds nesting inside plants”

Eucalyptus C “Very adverse effects on water abstraction. Presently already an important reason for increased water stress in many Mediterranean regions. Very competitive for other plants”

Poplar/Willow A “No or low pesticide and nitrogen applications so no direct negative impacts on habitat quality; nesting habitat and pro-vides winter shelter; birds nesting inside plants”

Reed canary grass A “No or low pesticide and nitrogen applications so no direct negative impacts on habitat quality; potential nesting habitat and provides winter shelter; birds nesting inside plants”

Switchgrass A “No or low pesticide and nitrogen applications so no direct negative impacts on habitat quality; can provide winter shel-ter; birds nesting inside plants”

Feedstock matrix


12

In general, perennial crops have the advantage of keeping the soil free of any cultivation measures for most of time. This has positive effects on habitats as well as the soil structure. Hemp, on the other hand, being an annual crop, also has important positive effects on the soil. Hemp has a deep rooting system, has a favourable influence on the soil structure and is a valuable preceding crop in rotations and curtails the presence of nematodes and fungi. A study by Bócsa and Karus 1998 reports 10–20 percent higher wheat yields after the cul-tiva- tion of hemp. All crops apart from eucalyptus therefore received the score 3 in the matrix for effects on soil.

2.1.5 Invasiveness

The introduction of crops that have not been previously grown in a specific region may entail the unwanted effect of aggressively replacing indigenous species, i.e. being invasive. However, from the seven analysed crops only RCG is known to be invasive (EEA 2007). Therefore only RCG received 1 point on this criterion while all other crops received 3 points.

2.2 ECONOMY

2.2.1 Yield/ha

• How high are expected yields in t/ha? Data on expected yields should come from actual commercial production. More points denote higher expected yields com-pared to the other feedstocks.

To give “real” average yields for niche crops is difficult for several reasons. First, there are in most cases no long-term statistical and representative yield records available so that all available yield data come from specific sites, years and cultivation conditions. Second, niche crops are in practice often cultivated on less fertile, even marginal land, so that there may be large differences between experimental plots and commercial cultivation.

The largest cultivation area of willow can be found in Sweden. Xiong and Finell 2009 re-port annual yields of 8-10 t dry matter (DM)/ha, but with significant variation between regions and years. The yield levels of poplar, mainly grown in Italy, lie in about the same yield range.

For miscanthus, most yield data is available from the UK since most of the commercial cultivation takes place there. Sieverdingbeck 2010 reports the expected yield level for mis-canthus to be around 8-12 t/ha while NNFCC 2010 states current yield to be around 12-15 t/ha. In general, a C4-crop such as miscanthus can be expected to have a higher yield po-tential than other herbaceous C3-crops. Even yields of 18-20 t DM/(ha*a) have been re-ported.

The average straw yield of hemp in Europe grown for fibre is around 6-8 t/ha (Carus et al. 2008). There is little experience with hemp grown for biomass but Xiong and Finell 2009 report a biomass yield of about 10 t/ha from a farm in Sweden cultivating about 100 ha hemp for energy. However, to be conservative, an average yield of 6-8 t/ha can be seen as realistic.

RCG is almost exclusively grown in Finland and according to Lötjönen 2009 realistic yield levels of RCG in Finland reach only about 4-7 tons DM/ha.

Feedstock matrix


13

There is currently no commercial cultivation of switchgrass in Europe so it is difficult to give a realistic yield expectation. However, as a C4-crop the yield level can be expected to quite high if grown in suitable areas. As an indication, EUBIA 2010 estimates yield levels of switchgrass to be 4-9 t DM/(ha*a) in the Netherlands, 5-12 t DM/(ha*a) in the UK, 5-22 t DM/(ha*a) in Italy and 15-24 t DM/(ha*a) in Greece. Switchgrass yield levels can there-fore be expected to lie in about the same range as miscanthus.

Eucalyptus is currently mainly grown in Portugal and Spain, where it has replaced many oak forests, for pulp and paper. There is very little data available on eucalyptus yield if grown as an SRC crop. According to Ericsson et al. 2009 yields lie around 12 t DM/(ha*a) if grown on average quality soil.

As a conclusion, the C4-crops miscanthus and switchgrass are characterized by the highest yield potential (score 3), the SRC cultures poplar, willow and eucalyptus lie somewhat below this potential (score 2) and hemp and RCG are both clearly at the lower end of ex-pected yields (score 1).

2.2.2 Susceptibility to pests, diseases and yield losses

• Are there any known problems with pests, diseases and risks of high yield losses for example due to adverse weather? More points denote higher chances for stable yields and less need for pest management.

There are reported problems with leaf beetles in willow (Sweden) and poplar (Germany). According to Weih 2010, willow leaf beetles can cause heavy defoliation and their larvae may reduce biomass production by 40 %. The likelihood for outbreak densities of leaf bee-tles in a plantation during one rotation period (25 years) is high. Both willow and poplar therefore need good pest management.

Miscanthus and also the other herbaceous crops are regarded as resistant to most pests and diseases. There are some pests and diseases known, but usually no control is necessary. Hemp also needs in most cases no pesticides due to its vigorous growth, shading capacity and disease resistance. In practice, no pesticides are applied in UK, Germany and the Netherlands. Only in France, approx. every eight years an application against the hemp flea beetle (Psylliodes attenuatus) is necessary.

2.2.3 Planting technology

• What kind of planting technology is used? Is the technology well established? Are there any known problems with the technology?

Hemp, switchgrass and reed canary grass are propagated by seeds, which makes planting generally easy (score 3). Eucalyptus can be propagated by either seedlings or cuttings while propagation by cuttings is generally more difficult. Miscanthus does not produce germinable seeds so that propagation takes place through rhizomes. Both willows and pop-lars are propagated by cuttings. Planting through rhizomes or cuttings require more devel-oped technology which results in score 2 for poplar, willow and miscanthus.

Feedstock matrix


14

2.2.4 Biomass production and procurement costs (!/t DM)

• How high are expected biomass costs/t DM (up to the field border)? More points denote lower production costs compared to the other feedstocks.

Indicative ranges for production costs are shown in Figure 2, taken from the study by Er-icsson et al. 2009. This study calculated production cost for all seven niche crops for dif-ferent European regions. As a result of this study, the SRC cultures appear to have some-what lower production costs (ca. 50-70 !/t DM) so that SRCs receive score 3 on this criterion. However, these results only serve as an illustration of the ranges of feedstock costs and actual costs have to be calculated specifically for concrete case study regions.

The feedstock costs in this study of Ericsson et al. 2009 are broken down into production costs, the cost of risk which is defined in the study as “the economic compensation that the farmer requires in order to shift from a cereal crop to an energy crop” and the cost of land which is defined as the “opportunity cost, i.e. the profitability of alternative land uses”. Similarly, the calculation of the BIOCORE feedstock procurement costs for niche crops will be based on the product price that a farmer will demand in order to earn the same re-turn as for the best alternative land use.

Figure 2: Indicative procurement costs for different energy crops in different European

regions Sources: Based on Ericsson et al. 2009 and Rosenqvist & Nilsson 2006

Feedstock matrix


15

2.2.5 Harvestability/Technology

• Is the harvesting technology well established or are there any known difficulties or lack of standardisation of the harvesting technology? More points denote a better established harvesting technology.

Harvesting technology for solid woody material (poplar, willow and eucalyptus) can gen-erally be regarded as more established and easier than for herbaceous material (RCG, switchgrass, miscanthus and, in particular, hemp due to the strong plant fibres), so that also on this criterion SRC score 3 compared to the herbaceous crops with score 2.

2.2.6 Storage costs (!/t DM)

• How high are expected biomass storage costs/t DM (related esp. to biomass den-sity? Data on expected costs should come from actual commercial production. More points denote lower expected storage costs compared to the other feedstocks.

In general, the water content at harvest of the grasses is much lower than of SRC crops (AEBIOM and EUBIA 2006). Higher water content results in higher storage costs due to the necessity to reduce the moisture content (Hayes 2004). The SRC crops (poplar, willow, eucalyptus) therefore received score 1 and all other crops score 3.

2.2.7 Transportation costs (!/t DM)

• How high are expected transportation costs in !/t DM?

This criterion also relates to biomass density and the possibilities of pelletisation or other forms of compaction of biomass for transportation. Table 3 shows the approximate bulk densities of the chopped crop at harvest. Evidently, the SRC crops have a higher density than the herbaceous material.

Table 3: Bulk densities of harvested crops Sources: Wallenberger and Weston 2004, Brazil Biomass and Renewable Energy, Lötjönen 2009

Bulk density of har-vested (chopped) crop in kg/m3

Hemp ca. 80-100

Miscanthus 70-100

Eucalyptus 200-450

Poplar/Willow 150

Reed canary grass ca. 70

Switchgrass 108

Feedstock matrix


2.2.8 Competitiveness in comparison to thermal use

• How competitive is the use of the niche crop as a biorefinery input compared to other potential uses? Higher competitiveness means that a biorefinery is likely to be able to pay more attractive prices to farmers. More points denote higher competi-tiveness.

The selected biomasses differ somewhat in their lower heating value, which is an important factor for use as an energy source (Table 4). RCG and switchgrass have a quite low LHV accompanied by high contents of minerals and other components which can cause prob-lems in thermal use (see Figure 8). Both are therefore not very suitable for thermal uses. Poplar and willow, on the other hand, are widely used for energy and therefore are least competitive as a biorefinery input compared to direct thermal use.

Table 4: Heating values and water content Sources: Picco 2010

2.2.9 Competitiveness compared to other land uses

• How competitive is the cultivation of the niche crop compared to competing lead-ing crops in the specific region? Higher competitiveness means that a farmer is likely to earn relatively higher returns compared to the best alternative crop(s). More points denote higher competitiveness.

If grown on fertile soils, all of the niche crops have disadvantages in terms of profitability compared to major commercial crops such as wheat and maize. This is also reflected by the fact that almost anywhere, niche crops currently grown for bioenergy are only viable with significant subsidisation. In a first appraisal, all niche crops therefore receive the lowest score for this parameter.

2.2.10 Annual/perennial

An annual plant is more attractive for a farmer as well as for a biorefinery due to the shorter-term commitment and the steady delivery of feedstock. Of the niche crops con-sidered, hemp is the only annual crop, but the perennial grasses also provide an annual harvest. Hemp therefore receives 2 points, the perennial grasses each 1 point and SRCs 0 points.

Lower heating value (MJ/kg DM)

Hemp 16.8

Miscanthus 17.5

Eucalyptus 18.4

Poplar 18.7

Willow 18.5

Reed canary grass 16.3

Switchgrass 17.4

Feedstock matrix


17

2.2.11 Current cultivation area/practical experience

• Is there any, and if yes, how much, actual experience in commercial cultivation?

The following figures show the development of cultivation areas in Europe. Of switchgrass there is currently only trial cultivation and therefore no data available (Elbersen 2010). The area of hemp includes cultivation for fibre, which is by far the largest part of hemp cultiva-tion in Europe. The cultivation area of eucalyptus in Southern Europe is not shown in the figures because it falls out of the range for niche crops with about 1 mln. ha. The area for poplar and wil-low only includes short-rotation coppices.

Figure 3: Cultivation area of niche crops in the EU (2006 and 2008) Sources: AEBIOM 2006 and 2009, European Commission 2009, nova 2010

Figure 4: Cultivation area of niche crops in the EU 2008 Sources: AEBIOM 2006 and 2009, European Commission 2009, nova 2010

Feedstock matrix


Figure 5: Cultivation area of niche crops in the EU 2006 Sources: AEBIOM 2006 and 2009, European Commission 2009, nova 2010

For some the niche crops, there is also longer-term data on the development of cultivation areas available. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the development of cultivation areas of willow, RCG and hemp (for energy) in Sweden and RCG in Finland, respectively.

Figure 6: Cultivation areas of willow, RCG and hemp for energy in Sweden 2003 to 2008. Source: Jyväskylä Innovation 2009

Feedstock matrix


19

Figure 7: Development of RCG cultivation area in Finland 2004-2009. Source: Paappanen 2010

Using the average estimated yields and acreages, Table 5 shows the ranges of current total production in Europe.

Given the much larger cultivation area of willow compared to poplar, the total production of willow in Europe is estimated to be about 5 times higher than poplar. Second largest is the production of miscanthus, resulting from the large commercial production of miscan-thus in the UK.

Crop Cultivation area (ha) Yields in t DM/(ha*a) Total production (t DM/a)

Poplar 5,000 8-10 40,000-50,000

Willow 25,500 8-10 200,000-260,000

Miscanthus 15,100 8-12 121,000-180,000

RCG 12,000 4-7 50,000-85,000

Switchgrass n. a. n.a. n. a.

Hemp 15,000 6-8 90,000-120,000

Eucalyptus n. a. n.a. n. a.

Table 5: Estimated total production of niche crops in Europe

2.2.12 Availability of high yielding/adapted varieties

Due to the very limited experience with hemp for biomass production, the availability of high yielding varieties can also be regarded as more limited than for the other crops. Due to the large cultivation area of eucalyptus in Southern Europe, the availability of adapted varieties is likely to be better than for most other niche crops. According to CAPAX, the availability of adapted varieties is better for poplar than for willow.

Feedstock matrix


20

2.3 PROCESS SUITABILITY:

2.3.1 Preparation costs (!/t DM)

• How high are the feedstock preparation costs at the biorefinery (esp. cutting, crush-ing, grinding)? More points denote lower preparation costs.

Compared to the other niche crops, hemp is likely to cause problems in the preparation at the biorefinery due to the strong fibres (score 1). For all other crops, no significant differ-entces in preparation costs are expected (score 3).

2.3.2 Chemical composition

• How should the feedstock be evaluated in terms of the composition and shares of the three valuable components cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin? More points de-note a higher value.

The following Figure 8 shows the typical shares of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extract-ives and ashes in the dry matter of the selected crops and also the cereal straws and corn stover.

They are ordered according to the total share of the valuable components cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin.

Feedstock matrix


Figure 8: Average shares of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extractives and ashes in the dry matter of selected crops Sources: AFDC 2010, Schaeffer & Schachtschabel 2008, IENICA 2007, Kamm et al. 2006, ECN 2010 *Without bark and needles.

Feedstock matrix


22

The woody feedstocks, including all SRCs and hardwood such as beech and spruce are characterised by the highest percentage of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in their dry matter but eucalyptus has markedly higher percentage of organic extractives. The herba-ceous crops, including cereal straws, are all characterised by significantly higher shares of organic extractives and ashes, and, from the group of niche crops, especially switchgrass and miscanthus.

2.3.3 Problematic/harmful components

• Are there any substances in the feedstock in quantities that could cause problems in the CIMV process?

Discussion with partners in the BIOCORE projects revealed that none of the substances in the niche crop biomasses are expected to cause serious problems for the CIMV process. There all received the score 3 on this criterion. For other types of processes, however, this result might be different.

2.3.4 Homogeneity

• How homogeneous can the composition of the feedstock expected to be (consider-ing that homogeneous biomass is an advantage for the planning of the CIMV pro-cess). More points denote higher expected homogeneity of the biomass.

Solid woody material (poplar, willow, and eucalyptus) will generally be more homogenous than herbaceous material, especially in the case of the fibre crop hemp. Therefore the SRCs received score 3, the herbaceous crops, expect hemp, the score 2 and hemp as the most heterogenous biomass the score 1.

Suitability of selected crops for different regions of Europe


3 Suitability of selected crops for different regions of Europe

The bottom lines in the feedstock matrix (Figure 1) already showed the preferred cultivation re-gions for the single crops.

Eucalyptus is clearly adapted to conditions in Southern Europe. Miscanthus is unsuitable for the boreal oceanic and boreal sub-continental climate of Scandinavia. The agro-climatic requirements of miscanthus can be well compared to maize, so that regions where maize is grown can also be regarded as regions suitable for miscanthus (Pude 2010). Switchgrass is very similar in its agro-climatic requirements, but, according to Elbersen 2010, there are more adapted switchgrass vari-eties available than miscanthus varieties so that switchgrass can also be grown with reasonable yields in Northern Europe. According to Elbersen 2010, trials have been conducted in Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, UK and Italy. Switchgrass has a lower yield potential than miscanthus, but also lower costs, especially lower establishment costs.

RCG is, on the other hand, only cultivable in colder regions, moist conditions and is particularly suited for such areas due to its toleration of cold climates (Landström, 1999) and its ability to be grown on cut-away peat land (Hayes 2004). There is in fact much research in Scandinavia on the use of RCG for energy and fibre purposes. According to Lötjönen 2010, milder regions with rela-tively wet winters are less suitable also because this causes problems because harvest usually takes place in spring and wet winters can cause plants to start molding. The harvest of RCG in spring is also advantageous because during the winter certain elements unfavorable for the energetic utilisa-tion, such as chlorine, potassium and phosphorous, are washed out of the plants.

The following figures show the agro-ecological suitability of miscanthus, willow and poplar, ranked into the four categories not suitable, poor, average and good (Ganko et al. 2007). These results are based a number of assumptions on the agro-ecological requirements of the different crops (Pisarek et al. 2004).

Suitability of selected crops for different regions of Europe


24

Figure 9: Suitability maps for poplar, willow and miscanthus

Source: Ganko et al. 2007

While the details of these maps may not be accurate or at would need to studied in more detail, they clearly show that miscanthus and poplar, having higher temperature requirements, are not suited for Scandinavian conditions, while willow is more or less suited for almost all regions of Europe with slightly worse performance in Southern Europe and far Northern Europe.

Hemp can also be grown in a wide range of European regions but less so in Southern Europe due to its high water demand. In general, yields tend to increase the farther north it is cultivated. East-ern Europe, esp. Hungary and Romania, are also well suited for hemp.

Literature


25

4 Literature

AEBIOM 2008: New dedicated energy crops for solid biofuels, http://www.aebiom.org/ wp/wpcontent/uploads/file/Publications/Dedicated_energy_crops_for_solid_biofuels_2008_January.pdf.

AEBIOM and EUBIA 2006: Restmac 5.1 - Technology identification and classification, http://www.eubia.org/fileadmin/template/main/res/pdf/Projects/RESTMAC_-_Technology_identification_and_classification.pdf.

Bócsa, I. et al. 2000: Der Hanfanbau – Botanik, Sorten, Anbau und Ernte, Märkte und Pro-duktlinien; second, revised and completed edition, Bócsa, I., Karus, M. und Lohmeyer, D., Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Oktober 2000.

Brazil Biomass and Renewable Energy 2009: Biomass Brazil wood pellets, wood chips and briquetting. http://146.164.33.61/termo/seminarios09/Biomassa/biomass% 20wood%20chips%20brasil.PDF

Couto, L. and Betters, D.R. 1995: Short-Rotation Eucalypt Plantations in Brazil: Social and Environmental Issues. Oakridge National Laboratory, TN, USA.

EEA (European Environment Agency) 2007: Estimating the environmentally compatible bioenergy potential from agriculture, Technical report No. 12/2007

Elbersen, H. W., D. G. Christian, N. El Bassen, W. Bacher, G. Sauerbeck, E. Aleopoulou, N. Sharma, I. Piscioneri, P. De Visser, and D. Van Den Berg. 2001. Switchgrass variety choice in Europe. Aspects of Applied Biology 65: 21-28.

Ericsson, K. and Lars J. Nilsson: 2006: Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Eu-rope using a resource-focused approach. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2006, Vol. 30, pp. 1-15.

Ericsson, K., Rosenquist, H., Nilsson, L. J. 2009: Energy crop production costs in the EU. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (2009), p. 1577-1586.

Ganko, E., G. Kunikowski, A. Wrobel 2007: Energy crops potentials inventory results, RENEW- Renewable fuels for advanced power-trains, D 5.01.07.

Hayes, D. J. 2004: An Examination of Irish Feedstocks For Biorefineries. PhD Thesis, University of Limerick.

Huisman, W. 2003: Optimising Harvesting and Storage Systems for Energy Crops in The Netherlands, http://realneo.us/system/files/ Optimisingharvestingandstoragesys-tems2003.pdf.

Landström, S. 1999: Sustainability of reed canarygrass in cold climate. In. T. Mela, J. Christiansen, M. Kontturi, K. Pahkala, A. Partala, M. Sahramaa, H. Sankari, Topi-Hulmi M and K. Pithan (eds), Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture. Euro-pean Commission: 194–7.

Lötjönen T. 2009: Reed canary grass in Finland. In: Jyväskylä Innovation Oy & MTT Agrifood Research 2009: Energy from field energy crops – a handbook for energy producers.

Picco, D. 2010: Agricultural biomass fuel cycle (ABF-Cycle) – Methodology Report, TENBIORE (TEchnologies for ENhanced use of BIOmass REsidues) Project re-port.

Literature


26

Pisarek, M., Ganko, E. et al 2004: The Review - Biomass resources and potentials assess-ment. Regional studies and experiences, RENEW- Renewable fuels for advanced power-trains, D 5.1.1.

Sasse, J. and Sands, R. 1996: Comparative responses of cuttings and seedlings of Eucalyp-tus globulus to water stress. Tree Physiology 16, 287-294.

Sieverdingbeck, A. 2010: Ökonomische Bewertung unterschiedlicher in der Praxis ange-wandter Anbau- und Verwertungsverfahren von Miscanthus.

Van Bueren, M. and Vincent, D. 2003: Eucalyptus biomass fuels: Price competitive or way off the money?, 47th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Re-source Economics Society, Perth, 12th-14th February, 2003.

Wallenbererer, F.T. and Weston, N. 2004: Natural fibers, plastics and composites, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, USA.

Pictures: CAPAX, NNFCC, Wikipedia, nova, Timo Lötjönen, John Purse

11-05-17 biocore multi-criteria evaluation of niche cropsbiocore-europe.org/file/biocore...

Documents