ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME - EPROBIO Energy Production from Biomass in the European Union LOCAL PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY PRODUCTION: APPROACHES AND APPLICATIONS Monteleone M., Cammerino A.R.B. STAR-AgroEnergy Research Group, University of Foggia (IT) Monteleone Massimo & Annarita Cammerino Foggia, 11/07/2012
ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME - EPROBIO Energy Production from Biomass in the European Union 1 - BIOMASS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 2 - AN APPLYED CASE STUDY: CAPITANATA (FG IT) 3 - ENERGY FROM CROP RESIDUES 4 - ENERGY FROM DEDICATED CROPS 5 - BIOMASS LAND PLANNING 6 - AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CHANGE 7 - SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Monteleone Massimo & Annarita Cammerino Foggia, 11/07/2012
CRITERIA OF BIOMASS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT A tailored regional analysis at local level the reference region should have a relatively limited surface in order to allow a detailed assessment Diverse kinds of feedstock should be considered agricultural products and crop residues, by-products and wastes from agro-food industry, according to quality classification criteria A technological oriented analysis to relate the quality of available biomass with the energy conversion process able to maximize the energy output or intercept the energy services that are really needed by local society From potential biomass availability to energy provision the assessment should highlight the realistic contribution of biomass to the regional energy requirements and the possible integration within the regional energy system
CRITERIA OF BIOMASS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Capitanata -Italy
CAPITANATA CASE STUDY the following distinguish features were considered in the assessment: Agricultural residues directly derived from farming activities Feedstock of ligno-cellulosic quality Thermochemical processes are the reference conversion technologies (together with anaerobic digestion) A digital geographical map of land use/land cover was the primary source of information The assessment was worked out according to a GIS processing approach Agricultural land use change to energy dedicated crops on marginal or retired agricultural surfaces
AGRO-ENERGY CONVERSION CHAINS
HOW TO ESTIMATE THE POTENTIAL AVAILABLE BIOMASS 1. The use of GIS(GeographicalInformation System) allows to obtain geo-referred data and to process spatially defined information in order to produce dedicated maps that represent the geographic availability of biomass from specified crops 2. Land UseMap is the basic cartography, it spatially identifies and delimitates a certain number of land use categories, allowing the quantification of the area occupied by specific crops. CASI (INEA, 2001; scala 1:100.000) 3. A grid of regular mesh has been rigidly superimposed to the land use mapof the whole province; the land unit size has 400 ha of surface S(ha) 4. Each mesh is internally partitioned among different land use categories, being Fithe fraction of the i-thspecific considered crop
HOW TO ESTIMATE THE POTENTIAL AVAILABLE BIOMASS 6. Yield Yi(t ha -1 y -1 ) is the amount of biomass (from the i-thcrop) that can be annually collected from the unit cultivated area 7. TheBiomass Productivity Map reports the amount of biomass that can be annually collected from each mesh of the grid W i (t y -1 ) = Y i (t ha -1 y -1 ) * F i (-) * S (ha) 8. To the rasterized productivity map a GIS functioncalled "movingwindow wasapplied, tomediate ("moving average") thevalue of P G expressed by each mesh, with respect to a circular surface with a radius of4 km; in this way a smoothing procedure was applied 9. Applyingthe GIS "contour"procedure the Biomass Land Density Mapwas derived; isoquantcurves,allowsto circumscribe areas with the greatest geographic biomass concentration
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS numbers in tons /ha
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS
CROP RESIDUES: CEREAL STRAWS Load factor = 100% Load factor = 70% Straw supply to a 25 MWe power plant Load factor = 50%
CROP RESIDUES: FRUIT TREES PRUNING
CROP RESIDUES: FRUIT TREES PRUNINGS
CROP RESIDUES: FRUIT TREES PRUNINGS
PLANNING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CHANGE How to estimate the potential agricultural land available to conversion to energy crops. The following areas were excluded: areas of special natural values ( Natura 2000, protected natural parks and reserves) areas covered by permanent meadows and pastures areas of high hydraulic hazard (subjected to floods with a returntime less than 30 years or areas placed at a distance less than 75 m from a river bed) areas affected by active or quiescent landslides (classified as areas of very high hazard ) or characterized by the occurrence of slope instability (classified as areas of high hazard )
PLANNING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CHANGE Two types of agricultural land conversions were considered, thus producing two different scenarios: the first possible conversion is related to marginal areas in hilly and mountainous regions whereperennial crops were supposed to be introduced the second possible conversion pertains to lowland and plain areas, in substitution to agricultural surfaces once cropped with sugar-beet (CAP regulation); a more intensive and irrigated agriculture is performed, thus justifying the introduction of herbaceous annual crops, such as biomass or sweet sorghum (in summer time) and cereal-hay (in winter time), like triticale or barley
PERENNIAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
PERENNIAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
PERENNIAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS 1. Agricultural lands not served by irrigation, continuously cultivated with rainfed cereals, at an altitude higher than 200 m a.s.l. not included in Natura 2000 and not characterized by a high hydraulic risks 2. the average productivity of perennial crops such as panicum (switchgrass) or arundo(giant-reed)can be, conservatively,about 12.0 t ha -1 of dry matter 3. assumingaconversionof10, 20 and 30%ofagricultural non-irrigated surfaces, respectively, the corresponding productivity values are: P (t ha -1 ) = (1.2 * 0.9) + (12.0 * 0.1) = 2.28 (t ha -1 ) P (t ha -1 ) = (1.2 * 0.8) + (12.0 * 0.2) = 3.36 (t ha -1 ) P (t ha -1 ) = (1.2 * 0.7) + (12.0 * 0.3) = 4.44 (t ha -1 )
PERENNIAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
PERENNIAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
ANNUAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
ANNUAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS 1. Arable irrigatedlowlandareas (altitude below 200 m), currentlyinvested in sugar beet cultivation, are considered for conversion 2. Herbaceous annual crops, both winter-or summer-crops, 3. Aconversionof30% of thesurface cropped with sugar beet is considered; only for those districts (municipalities) where at least 100 ha are cultivated with sugar beet P (t ha -1 ) = 18.0 * 0.3 = 5.4 (t ha -1 )
ANNUAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
ANNUAL HERBACEOUS ENERGY CROPS
POTENTIAL AVAILABLE ENERGY Cereal straws Fruit trees pruning Perennial crops Arable crops
POTENTIAL AVAILABLE ENERGY Inventory of biomass resources. Biomass yield and humidity, fuel characteristics (P h = lower heating value) Bioresources considered (energy crops and crop residues) Biomass at harvest Biomass under condition of use (moisture 15%) Weight Moisture Weight P h on weight basis P h on area basis t ha -1 % t ha -1 GJ t -1 MWh t -1 toe t -1 GJ ha -1 MWh ha - toe ha -1 Cereal-hay - straw 1.44 15 1.44 14.62 4.06 0.35 20.99 5.83 0.501 - sorghum 60.00 70 21.18 13.60 3.78 0.32 288.02 80.01 6.881 - triticale 40.00 70 14.12 12.58 3.49 0.30 177.61 49.34 4.243 - giant-reed 40.00 70 14.12 14.11 3.92 0.34 199.21 55.34 4.759 Wine vineyard - vine-stocks 3.71 30 3.06 14.96 4.16 0.36 45.76 12.71 1.093 - vine-trunks 0.76 20 0.72 15.64 4.34 0.37 11.22 3.12 0.268 total 4.48 28 3.78 15.09 4.19 0.36 56.99 15.83 1.361 Fruit vineyard - vine-stocks 5.50 30 4.53 14.96 4.16 0.36 67.76 18.82 1.619 - vine-trunks 0.91 20 0.86 15.64 4.34 0.37 13.43 3.73 0.321 total 6.41 29 5.39 15.07 4.19 0.36 81.20 22.55 1.940 Olive grooves - pruned 2.67 32 2.14 15.30 4.25 0.37 32.71 9.09 0.781 - trunks 1.05 40 0.74 15.64 4.34 0.37 11.64 3.23 0.278 total 3.73 34 2.88 15.39 4.27 0.37 44.35 12.32 1.059
BIOMASS ENERGY PLAN SCENARIOS Medium (A) and long (B) term scenarios of effective conversion of the potential available biomass resources into energy production in Capitanata Gross available energy Weighting coefficient Gross produced energy Partition Installed electrical power Installed thermal power A Short period scenario ktoe a -1 % ktoe a -1 % MW MW Straws + 4% conversion of cereal surface 198.60 30 59.58 54.0 26.0 123.2 Pruning residues 97.80 30 29.34 26.6 12.8 60.7 3,5 % conversion of irrigated agric. surface 21.48 100 21.48 19.5 9.4 44.4 TOTAL of Capitanata 317.88 110.40 100.0 48.1 228.2 B Medium period scenario Straws + 8 % conversion of cereal surface 250.31 50 125.16 57.7 54.6 258.7 Pruning residues 97.80 50 48.90 22.5 21.3 101.1 7.0 % conversion of irrigated agric. surface 42.96 100 42.96 19.8 18.7 88.8 TOTAL of Capitanata 391.07 217.02 100.0 94.6 448.6
BIOMASS ENERGY PLAN SCENARIOS Three different types of agro-energy chains are proposed: Small-size (1-2 MWe) thermochemical conversion plant (CHP systems) in hilly and mountainous areas Larger-size (15-20 MWe) combustion plants (2-3 in number) supply by the large availability of cereal straws Anaerobic digestion and biogas generation plants (1 MWe as average) in low land area of intensive agriculture and ample availability of silage biomass from annual herbaceous crops
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Land is not a donkey but even a donkey shouldn't be treated in this way!
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA ENERGY WATER SOIL CROP PRODUCTIVITY FOOD BIOMASS
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Energy input due to agro-technics
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Energy input due to agro-technics
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Energy input due to agro-technics Total biomass weight Stem biomass weight
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Crop sustainability evaluation scheme
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Crop sustainability evaluation scheme
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Scores of the selected energy crops with respect to the six environmental criteria
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Regeneration of the agricultural landscape
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA What energy system is the most appropriate?
SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA What energy system is the most appropriate? DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MODEL CENTRALIZED ENERGY MODEL
ERASMUS INTENSIVE PROGRAMME - EPROBIO Energy Production from Biomass in the European Union Thank you very much for your kind attention prof. Massimo Monteleone University of Foggia m.monteleone@unifg.it Monteleone Massemo & Annarita Cammerino Foggia, 11/07/2012