MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6991999562

Is there a serious potential for bio-energy based resources for biofuels (especially 2nd generation) taking into consideration that there is no competition with resources for food production or other existing production streams? : a country study

2010· article· en· W6991999562 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuereposiTUm (TU Wien) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian GovernmentEuropean Environment AgencyEuropean CommissionAustralian GovernmentForeign Agricultural ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
Mots-clésBiofuelAgricultureGreenhouse gasFossil fuelProduction (economics)Competition (biology)Work (physics)CommodityBiomass (ecology)Food prices
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The world used an unbelievable 2.079 trillion1 liters of liquid fuels in 2007 for transportation. Biofuels contribute only a very small amount yet. Biomass is by far the biggest contributor to bioenergy and offers a big potential for biofuels. A big potential is seen in 2nd generation biofuels - especially for those from lignocellulosic sources - because they do not compete for food resources. Biofuels had a pretty good start and looked like the one big alternative in substituting fossil fuels. Technical modifications for vehicles were quite low, energy density high, but then the discussion about food or fuel rose and biofuels were made responsible for rising commodity prices. At the moment everybody is talking about electric mobility and electric vehicles. And for the public it looks as if electric vehicles are the only valid alternative in individual transportation. From the author's point of view biofuels can make a strong contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases if resources are used properly and any source that is already used by the food industry is not considered. The special focus of this work is on agricultural and wood-based residues and wastes that form the vast majority of currently used biomass. Their long term potential is mainly dependent on the future developments in agricultural and forestry production. These residues and wastes have one very big advantage: they are not used by the food industry, or they are not used at all. But how big is the volume of these "free" or not yet used resources? This paper finds an answer to the question if there is a serious potential for bioenergy based resources for 2nd generation biofuels taking into consideration that there is no competition with resources for food production or other existing production streams? The 10 countries with the biggest wood resources (Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, United States, China, Australia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Peru and India) and the EU27 are examined in detail focusing on residues from agriculture and forestry to figure out existing unused biomass potential for the production of biofuels from lignocellulosic material (2nd generation biofuels). Based on literature and online research information is condensed and calculations on unused biomass potentials in terms of volume and energy content are carried out. The residue potential of 2,300 million tons of unused agricultural residues and 365 million tons of forestry residues together with 66 million tons of woody waste from municipal solid waste streams would theoretically lead to 589 billion liters of lignocellulosic Bioethanol. This amount would substitute more than 28% of the worldwide liquid fuel demand in 2007. The available potential from municipal solid waste and landfill gas is hard to predict, as no qualified data was available, but it also has to be kept in mind, as it will be considerable. Residues and waste material can provide a significant amount of resources for the production of 2nd generation biofuels without any competition with food industries and without any competition with industries that already use some of these residues and wastes. But 2nd generation biofuels still have some challenges to solve before becoming a success story.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,517
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuereposiTUm (TU Wien)Même sujetForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementTravaux en français237 207