Mobilisation of agricultural residues for bioenergy and higher value bio-products:Resources, barriers and sustainability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Agricultural crop residues are relevant types of biomass for bioenergy and other bioproducts as they are by-products of agricultural crop production, and do not require additional land for harvest.Estimates of the potential available for bioenergy and other uses vary significantly.While the theoretical potential is high, the economic availability can vary greatly.It depends on numerous factors including the yield and site specific parameters, the type of crop rotation, slope and soil type, length of the harvest window, the presence of a local processor or aggregator, and whether the agriculture producer sees value in collecting a portion of the crop residue.Several product-based sustainability schemes were reviewed, namely Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), ISO 13065, PROSUITE, LEEAFF and a new scheme developed by U.S. DOE.While these schemes all address the three pillars of sustainability -social, environmental and economic -they vary in terms of the level of application and data requirements.Dale et al. (2015) propose a process for clearly defining the goals of the assessment to select the most appropriate tool.National cases of supply chains were assessed more closely.A sustainability assessment using the GBEP framework was made for Denmark.Ten sustainability indicators were evaluated and it was found that the use of agricultural residues for energy contributes to GHG emission reductions, to diversification of the energy supply, to income generation in rural areas.The most critical issue from an environmental point of view is the risk of depleting soil organic matter through continued removal of crop residues.The area affected by crop residue harvest has increased since 2000 putting increased pressure on carbon stored in agricultural soils.Business economic viability of the Danish supply chains are ensured by a strong political focus and mandated use of crop residues for energy combined with economic incentives as tax exemption and feed in tariffs.The Danish case also evaluated the applicability GBEP framework and highlighted a number of issues that could be discussed and may be further developed.The framework is data intensive, unambiguous attribution of impacts to processes and supply chains is difficult, and boundary crossing data and imported feedstock is not covered adequately.The GBEP framework is, however, not special in that respect as these issues pertain to most sustainability assessment frameworks.Research was done to define categories for indicators of environmental and socioeconomic sustainability for the U.S.Here focus is on the use of crop residues for liquid fuels.Targets set by the Renewables Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) drives research and industry development toward lignocellulosic ethanol production.The most critical barriers for the continuous expansion of the U.S. cellulosic biofuel industry are related to economic viability and project finance.The industry is considered as a high risk investment due to technical barriers and uncertainty about the projects' profitability.For Canada, here exemplified by Ontario, a corn stover to bioenergy case is not viable, and higher value products would have to be produced in a biorefinery type configuration to ensure economic profitability.A system based on partial corn stover removal added to corn grain harvest was compared with an existing corn grain only harvest using LEEAFF.The stakeholder exercise showed that neither system was without some issues or sensitivities.A corn stover system would likely provide benefits for categories of sustainability, such as land use efficiency, broad stakeholder acceptability, GHG emission reduction, and employment.Corn stover feedstock supply chains are not operational currently and several new technologies would have to demonstrate financial profitability at scale, and there are unknowns to address regarding nutrient addition and long term soil health.It is concluded that further opportunities for sustainable use of agricultural residues exist.Opportunities are, however, country and site specific, making it difficult to predict the global impact.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».