Assessing bioenergy potentials in rural landscapes

Abstract:

The use of available land and its suitability for energy cropping alone as a measure of bioenergy potential is inadequate because non-energy cropping options are not considered. Defining bioenergy potentials in terms of potential biomass and energy yield is also inadequate because the energy invested into getting such energy outputs is not considered. The use of monetary valuation is also inadequate prices changes easily. However, the energy gained in terms of Net Energy Gain (NEG) and Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is more representative of the actual bioenergy potential of biomass/bioenergy sources because energies invested have been factored into them. NEG and EROEI are more holistic energy indices that help address these limitations. With the Overijssel province as a case study, we used Life Cycle Inventory and GIS tools as part of an SEA framework to estimate the NEG and EROEI of different conventional and unconventional biomass/bioenergy production activities. We determined their capacity to support social and economic functions; assessed their feasibilities and vulnerabilities in terms of existing policy constraints; and evaluated the potential contribution of the local bioenergy sources to the EU's bioenergy target. We showed that 66.01PJ can be contributed from the unconventional biomass sources, while only 3.34TJ was from the conventional biomass sources, if biogas is produced. The expected NEG from biogas can take care of all of Overijssel's bioenergy targets. The study shows that there is a big potential of unconventional biomass sources, providing energy without compromising the ecological or agricultural functions of the landscapes.