IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7849-d417735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Pehlken

    (Cascade Use, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerlaender Heerstraße 114–118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Kalle Wulf

    (Cascade Use, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerlaender Heerstraße 114–118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Kevin Grecksch

    (Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ, UK)

  • Thomas Klenke

    (Centre for Environment and Sustainability Research, COAST, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerlaender Heerstraße 114–118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Nina Tsydenova

    (Cascade Use, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerlaender Heerstraße 114–118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

Abstract

Bioenergy is a building block of the ongoing transformation toward renewables-based energy systems. Bioenergy supply chains are regionally embedded and need to be seen in a place-based context with specific characteristics and constraints. Using a German case study, the potential of regionally embedded bioenergy chains in the past and the future is analyzed and discussed in this paper. The analysis integrates socio-ecological data and applies sustainability criteria in a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enriched Evaluation (PROMETHEE) methodology. The case study is focused on an industrial biogas fermenter in northwestern Germany, which currently uses predominantly maize as a substrate for bioenergy. Objectives for future development according to the ambitions of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) discussion are set and include the involvement of the farmer as biogas plant operator and other regional stakeholders. Since the focus of the research is put on the contribution of alternative biomass, such as grass, for the optimization of bioenergy settings, the question concentrates on how different mixtures of alternative biomass can be embedded into a sustainable management of both the landscape and the energy system. The main findings are threefold: (i) bioenergy supply chains that involve alternative biomass and grass from grasslands provide optimization potentials compared to the current corn-based practice, (ii) with respect to more sustainable practices, grass from grassland and alternative bioenergy supply chains are ranked higher than chains with increased shares of corn silage, and, more generic, (iii) optimization potentials relate to several spheres of the social–ecological system where the bioenergy structure is embedded. To conclude, sustainable enablers are discussed to realize optimization potentials and emphasize the integration of regional stakeholders in making use of alternative biomass and in making regional bioenergy more sustainable.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Pehlken & Kalle Wulf & Kevin Grecksch & Thomas Klenke & Nina Tsydenova, 2020. "More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7849-:d:417735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7849/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7849/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Schröder & Lars-Peter Lauven & Beatriz Beyer & Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2019. "Using PROMETHEE to assess bioenergy pathways," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-309, June.
    2. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Saija Rasi & Karetta Timonen & Katri Joensuu & Kristiina Regina & Perttu Virkajärvi & Hannele Heusala & Elina Tampio & Sari Luostarinen, 2020. "Sustainability of Vehicle Fuel Biomethane Produced from Grass Silage in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    5. Grit Walther & Thomas Spengler & Dolores Queiruga, 2008. "Facility location planning for treatment of large household appliances in Spain," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 405-425.
    6. Appel, Franziska & Ostermeyer-Wiethaup, Arlette & Balmann, Alfons, 2015. "Effects of the Renewable Energy Act on structural change in Agriculture- The case of biogas," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210956, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Stefanie Linser & Markus Lier, 2020. "The Contribution of Sustainable Development Goals and Forest-Related Indicators to National Bioeconomy Progress Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Andrea G. Capodaglio & Arianna Callegari & Maria Virginia Lopez, 2016. "European Framework for the Diffusion of Biogas Uses: Emerging Technologies, Acceptance, Incentive Strategies, and Institutional-Regulatory Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, March.
    9. André Wüste & Peter Schmuck, 2012. "Bioenergy Villages and Regions in Germany: An Interview Study with Initiators of Communal Bioenergy Projects on the Success Factors for Restructuring the Energy Supply of the Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Wang, Haoqi & Zhang, Siduo & Bi, Xiaotao & Clift, Roland, 2020. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction potential and cost of bioenergy in British Columbia, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. Lutz, Lotte Marie & Fischer, Lisa-Britt & Newig, Jens & Lang, Daniel Johannes, 2017. "Driving factors for the regional implementation of renewable energy ‐ A multiple case study on the German energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 136-147.
    12. Cavicchi, Bianca & Bryden, John M. & Vittuari, Matteo, 2014. "A comparison of bioenergy policies and institutional frameworks in the rural areas of Emilia Romagna and Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 355-363.
    13. Appel, Franziska & Ostermeyer-Wiethaup, Arlette & Balmann, Alfons, 2016. "Effects of the German Renewable Energy Act on structural change in agriculture – The case of biogas," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 172-182.
    14. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    15. Kadambari Lokesh & Luana Ladu & Louise Summerton, 2018. "Bridging the Gaps for a ‘Circular’ Bioeconomy: Selection Criteria, Bio-Based Value Chain and Stakeholder Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    16. Andreas Meyer-Aurich & Yulia Lochmann & Hilde Klauss & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "Comparative Advantage of Maize- and Grass-Silage Based Feedstock for Biogas Production with Respect to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muhamed Rasit Atelge & Halil Senol & Mohammed Djaafri & Tulin Avci Hansu & David Krisa & Abdulaziz Atabani & Cigdem Eskicioglu & Hamdi Muratçobanoğlu & Sebahattin Unalan & Slimane Kalloum & Nuri Azbar, 2021. "A Critical Overview of the State-of-the-Art Methods for Biogas Purification and Utilization Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-39, October.
    2. Idiano D’Adamo & Piergiuseppe Morone & Donald Huisingh, 2021. "Bioenergy: A Sustainable Shift," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-5, September.
    3. Hmouda, Ahmed M.O. & Orzes, Guido & Sauer, Philipp C., 2024. "Sustainable supply chain management in energy production: A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Alexander Titov & György Kövér & Katalin Tóth & Géza Gelencsér & Bernadett Horváthné Kovács, 2021. "Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Erika Winquist & Michiel Van Galen & Simon Zielonka & Pasi Rikkonen & Diti Oudendag & Lijun Zhou & Auke Greijdanus, 2021. "Expert Views on the Future Development of Biogas Business Branch in Germany, The Netherlands, and Finland until 2030," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Valentyna Kukharets & Dalia Juočiūnienė & Taras Hutsol & Olena Sukmaniuk & Jonas Čėsna & Savelii Kukharets & Piotr Piersa & Szymon Szufa & Iryna Horetska & Alona Shevtsova, 2023. "An Algorithm for Managerial Actions on the Rational Use of Renewable Sources of Energy: Determination of the Energy Potential of Biomass in Lithuania," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Ananna Paul & Nagesh Shukla & Sanjoy Kumar Paul & Andrea Trianni, 2021. "Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-28, June.
    8. Lucas Blickwedel & Laura Stößel & Ralf Schelenz & Georg Jacobs, 2020. "Multicriterial Evaluation of Renewable Energy Expansion Projects at Municipal Level for the Available Biomass Potential," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Jaroslav Demko & Ján Machava, 2022. "Tree Resin, a Macroergic Source of Energy, a Possible Tool to Lower the Rise in Atmospheric CO 2 Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.

    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. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Konstantinos Kokkinos & Vayos Karayannis, 2020. "Supportiveness of Low-Carbon Energy Technology Policy Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodologies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    5. Olena Myrna & Martin Odening & Matthias Ritter, 2019. "The Influence of Wind Energy and Biogas on Farmland Prices," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    7. Evangelos-Nikolaos D. Madias & Lambros T. Doulos & Panagiotis A. Kontaxis & Frangiskos V. Topalis, 2022. "Multicriteria decision aid analysis for the optimum performance of an ambient light sensor: methodology and case study," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1333-1361, April.
    8. Mohrmann, Sören & Steins, Aaron & Schaper, Christian, 2021. "Erfolgsfaktoren und Zukunftsaussichten für eine wirtschaftliche Biogasproduktion in Deutschland - Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317072, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Cord-Friedrich von Hobe & Marius Michels & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "German Farmers’ Perspectives on Price Drivers in Agricultural Land Rental Markets—A Combination of a Systematic Literature Review and Survey Results," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Xueqing Yang & Yang Liu & Mei Wang & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Identifying the Necessities of Regional-Based Analysis to Study Germany’s Biogas Production Development under Energy Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Islam, KM Nazmul & Sarker, Tapan & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Atri, Anashuwa Chowdhury & Alam, Mohammad Shafiul, 2021. "Renewable energy generation from livestock waste for a sustainable circular economy in Bangladesh," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    12. O'Connor, S. & Ehimen, E. & Pillai, S.C. & Black, A. & Tormey, D. & Bartlett, J., 2021. "Biogas production from small-scale anaerobic digestion plants on European farms," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    13. Stelios Rozakis & Andrea Bartoli & Jacek Dach & Anna Jędrejek & Alina Kowalczyk-Juśko & Łukasz Mamica & Patrycja Pochwatka & Rafał Pudelko & Kesheng Shu, 2021. "Policy Impact on Regional Biogas Using a Modular Modeling Tool," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    15. Heinrich, Florian & Appel, Franziska & Balmann, Alfons, 2019. "Can land market regulations fulfill their promises?," FORLand Working Papers 12 (2019), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    16. Mario Martín-Gamboa & Luis C. Dias & Paula Quinteiro & Fausto Freire & Luís Arroja & Ana Cláudia Dias, 2019. "Multi-Criteria and Life Cycle Assessment of Wood-Based Bioenergy Alternatives for Residential Heating: A Sustainability Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    17. De Clercq, Djavan & Wen, Zongguo & Gottfried, Oliver & Schmidt, Franziska & Fei, Fan, 2017. "A review of global strategies promoting the conversion of food waste to bioenergy via anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 204-221.
    18. G. Venkatesh, 2022. "Circular Bio-economy—Paradigm for the Future: Systematic Review of Scientific Journal Publications from 2015 to 2021," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 231-279, March.
    19. Iván García Kerdan & Sara Giarola & Ellis Skinner & Marin Tuleu & Adam Hawkes, 2020. "Modelling Future Agricultural Mechanisation of Major Crops in China: An Assessment of Energy Demand, Land Use and Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-31, December.
    20. Zhu, Tong & Curtis, John & Clancy, Matthew, 2019. "Promoting agricultural biogas and biomethane production: Lessons from cross-country studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7849-:d:417735. 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.