IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i2p397-d1318473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market

Author

Listed:
  • Leanda C. Garvie

    (Forest Research Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs 4556, Australia)

  • David J. Lee

    (Forest Research Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs 4556, Australia)

  • Biljana Kulišić

    (Decarbonisation and Sustainability of Energy Sources Unit, DG Energy, European Commission, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
    The information and views set out in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Institution.)

Abstract

Australia has abundant volumes of forest residues that are a potential feedstock for supplying biomass as a renewable carbon carrier to the market. However, there remains an underutilization of this resource, even in mature bioeconomy markets. Several existing or perceived barriers can be attributed to the underdeveloped, forest-based bioeconomy in Australia. One of these is the limited understanding of feedstock supply costs. In this study, two ranking approaches were applied to identify the optimal biomass feedstock supply chain from field to conversion plant gate. A panel of experts embedded in the Australian bioeconomy were employed to first assign ranks to biomass supply chain items by cost intensity. Then, a layer of analytic hierarchical process (AHP) was used to weigh and rank various biomass supply pathways by efficiency. The results reveal that biomass extraction ranks the highest and biomass feedstock storage ranks the lowest, relative to other supply chain costs. Extracting and chipping material in the field attracted the most support from the experts in terms of efficiency, followed by transporting and chipping at the roadside and, finally, transporting and chipping at the conversion plant. This study provides insights for designers of the forest-based bioeconomy in Australia into relative cost drivers that may be applied to investment and industry decisions. It also provides a framework to support further investigations into forest biomass development and the management of biomass as a renewable carbon carrier at a time when Australia is transitioning from an energy policy focused on fossil fuels to a renewable energy strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Leanda C. Garvie & David J. Lee & Biljana Kulišić, 2024. "Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:2:p:397-:d:1318473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/2/397/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/2/397/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yasmin Imparato Maximo & Mariana Hassegawa & Pieter Johannes Verkerk & André Luiz Missio, 2022. "Forest Bioeconomy in Brazil: Potential Innovative Products from the Forest Sector," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Tim Nelson & Tahlia Nolan & Joel Gilmore, 2022. "What’s next for the Renewable Energy Target – resolving Australia’s integration of energy and climate change policy?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 136-163, January.
    3. Pokharel, Raju & Grala, Robert K. & Grebner, Donald L., 2017. "Woody residue utilization for bioenergy by primary forest products manufacturers: An exploratory analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 161-171.
    4. Windisch, Johannes & Väätäinen, Kari & Anttila, Perttu & Nivala, Mikko & Laitila, Juha & Asikainen, Antti & Sikanen, Lauri, 2015. "Discrete-event simulation of an information-based raw material allocation process for increasing the efficiency of an energy wood supply chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 315-325.
    5. Vassilis Daioglou & Matteo Muratori & Patrick Lamers & Shinichiro Fujimori & Alban Kitous & Alexandre C. Köberle & Nico Bauer & Martin Junginger & Etsushi Kato & Florian Leblanc & Silvana Mima & Marsh, 2020. "Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international bioenergy trade," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1639-1658, December.
    6. Cambero, Claudia & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2016. "Incorporating social benefits in multi-objective optimization of forest-based bioenergy and biofuel supply chains," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 721-735.
    7. Bryngemark, Elina, 2019. "Second generation biofuels and the competition for forest raw materials: A partial equilibrium analysis of Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    9. Vassilis Daioglou & Matteo Muratori & Patrick Lamers & Shinichiro Fujimori & Alban Kitous & Alexandre Köberle & Nico Bauer & Martin Junginger & Etsushi Kato & Florian Leblanc & Silvana Mima & Marshal , 2020. "Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international bioenergy trade," Post-Print hal-03133038, HAL.
    10. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    11. Paul J. Burke, 2023. "On the way out: Government revenues from fossil fuels in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(1), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Tani, Almona & Tartiu, Valentina Elena & Imbriani, Cesare, 2020. "Towards a sustainable forest-based bioeconomy in Italy: Findings from a SWOT analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. Saaty, Thomas L., 1978. "Modeling unstructured decision problems — the theory of analytical hierarchies," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 147-158.
    14. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    15. Vasiliki Tzelepi & Myrto Zeneli & Dimitrios-Sotirios Kourkoumpas & Emmanouil Karampinis & Antonios Gypakis & Nikos Nikolopoulos & Panagiotis Grammelis, 2020. "Biomass Availability in Europe as an Alternative Fuel for Full Conversion of Lignite Power Plants: A Critical Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-26, July.
    16. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    2. Wu, Yazhen & Deppermann, Andre & Havlík, Petr & Frank, Stefan & Ren, Ming & Zhao, Hao & Ma, Lin & Fang, Chen & Chen, Qi & Dai, Hancheng, 2023. "Global land-use and sustainability implications of enhanced bioenergy import of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    3. Mosayeb Dashtpeyma & Reza Ghodsi, 2021. "Forest Biomass and Bioenergy Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review on the Barriers and Enablers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    5. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Dranka, Géremi Gilson & Ferreira, Paula & Vaz, A. Ismael F., 2021. "A review of co-optimization approaches for operational and planning problems in the energy sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Abbasi, H.N. & Zeeshan, Muhammad, 2023. "An integrated Geographic Information System and Analytical Hierarchy process based approach for site suitability analysis of on-grid hybrid concentrated solar-biomass powerplant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    8. Oner, Oytun & Khalilpour, Kaveh, 2022. "Evaluation of green hydrogen carriers: A multi-criteria decision analysis tool," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Oshiro, Ken & Fujimori, Shinichiro, 2022. "Role of hydrogen-based energy carriers as an alternative option to reduce residual emissions associated with mid-century decarbonization goals," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    10. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    11. Fanny Groundstroem & Sirkku Juhola, 2021. "Using systems thinking and causal loop diagrams to identify cascading climate change impacts on bioenergy supply systems," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 1-48, October.
    12. Ball, Christopher Stephen & Vögele, Stefan & Grajewski, Matthias & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm, 2021. "E-mobility from a multi-actor point of view: Uncertainties and their impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Aloini, Davide & Dulmin, Riccardo & Mininno, Valeria & Pellegrini, Luisa & Farina, Giulia, 2018. "Technology assessment with IF-TOPSIS: An application in the advanced underwater system sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 38-48.
    14. Toma, Pierluigi & Frittelli, Massimo & Apergis, Nicholas, 2023. "The economic sustainability of optimizing feedstock imports with environmental constraints," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    15. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Simsek, Yeliz & Watts, David & Escobar, Rodrigo, 2018. "Sustainability evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 421-438.
    17. Höfer, Tim & von Nitzsch, Rüdiger & Madlener, Reinhard, 2019. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," FCN Working Papers 4/2019, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    18. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    19. Wang, Ni & Heijnen, Petra W. & Imhof, Pieter J., 2020. "A multi-actor perspective on multi-objective regional energy system planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    20. Mukisa, Nicholas & Zamora, Ramon & Lie, Tek Tjing, 2022. "Multi criteria analysis of alternative energy technologies based on their predicted impact on community sustainable livelihoods capitals: A case of Uganda," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 1103-1125.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:2:p:397-:d:1318473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.