Advantages and disadvantages of composition and properties of biomass in comparison with coal: An overview

Published Date
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.05.050
Review article

Author 

Stanislav V. Vassilev ^a,,

Christina G. Vassileva ^a

Vassil S. Vassilev ^b

aInstitute of Mineralogy and Crystallography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Street, Block 107, Sofia 1113, Bulgaria

bSpace Research and Technology Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Street, Block 1, Sofia 1113, Bulgaria

Received 23 February 2015. Revised 22 April 2015. Accepted 19 May 2015. Available online 30 May 2015. 

Highlights 

• •
  Composition and properties of biomass were summarised.
• •
  Comparative characterization between biomass and coal was given.
• •
  Advantages of biomass composition and properties were described.
• •
  Disadvantages of biomass composition and properties were discussed.

Abstract

An extended overview of the advantages and disadvantages of biomass composition and properties for biofuel application was conducted based on reference peer-reviewed data plus own investigations. Initially, some general considerations and comparisons about composition and properties of biomass and coal as the most popular solid fuel are addressed. Then, some of the major advantages related to the composition and properties of biomass and/or biomass ash (BA) are discussed. They include: (1) high values of volatile matter, H, structural organic components, extractives and reactivity of biomass, water-soluble nutrient elements and alkaline-earth elements in biomass and BA, and pH of BA; and (2) low values of C, fixed C, ash, N, S, Si and initial ignition and combustion temperatures of biomass, and low contents of many trace elements including hazardous ones in biomass and BA. Further, some of the major disadvantages connected with the composition and properties of biomass and/or BA are described. They comprise: (1) high values of moisture and O in biomass, water-soluble fraction, alkaline and halogen elements, and some hazardous trace elements in biomass and BA; (2) low values of energy density (bulk density and calorific value), pH and ash-fusion temperatures of biomass, and bulk density and size of BA; (3) highly variable composition and properties of biomass and BA; and (4) indefinite availability of sustainable biomass resources for production of biofuels. Finally, a discussion about the availability of sustainable biomass resources for production of biofuels and biochemicals is given. It was found that the disadvantages of biomass for biofuel and biochemical applications prevail over the advantages; however, the major environmental, economic and social benefits appear to compensate the technological and other barriers caused by the unfavourable composition and properties of biomass.

Keywords

Biomass

Coal

Ash

Composition and properties

Advantages and disadvantages

---

Nomenclature

A

ash yield

AFT

ash-fusion temperature

BA

biomass ash

daf

dry, ash-free basis

db

dry basis

DTA

differential-thermal analysis

DWR

dry water-soluble residue

EDX

energy dispersive X-ray analyser

FC

fixed carbon

HHV

higher heating value

IAM

inorganic amorphous matter

ICP

inductively coupled plasma

IM

inorganic matter

LA

laser ablation

M

moisture

MS

mass spectrometry

OM

organic matter

SEM

scanning electron microscopy

TE

trace element

TGA

thermo-gravimetric analysis

VM

volatile matter

XRD

X-ray powder diffraction

%

weight%

 Table 1

Table 1.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

 Table 4

Table 4.

 Table 5

Table 5.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

• ⁎ 
  Corresponding author. Tel.: +359 2 9797055; fax: +359 2 9797056.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236115005578

Intensification of tropical fallow-based agriculture: Trading-off ecosystem services for economic gain in shifting cultivation landscapes?

Published Date
1 January 2016, Vol.215:47–56, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.005

Author 

Sylvia L.R. Wood ^a,,1,

Jeanine M. Rhemtulla ^b

Oliver T. Coomes ^c

aBioversity International and Columbia University Earth Institute, 1200 Amsterdam Ave, 1005 Schermerhorn Ext, New York, 10027, USA

• bDept. of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
• cDept. of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Received 12 March 2015. Revised 19 August 2015. Accepted 9 September 2015. Available online 25 September 2015. 

Highlights

• Shifting cultivators in the tropics are replacing natural forest fallows with orchards.
• •
  We compare biodiversity, ecosystem services and potential revenue from fallows and orchards.
• •
  Orchards provide equivalent levels of ecosystem services, but lower biodiversity
• •
  Economic gains from orchards are small suggesting an income diversification strategy.
• •
  Tree diversity in the managed landscape is maintained by retention of both fallows and orchards.

Abstract

Farmers are under ever growing pressure to increase productivity to meet both food and fibre needs, as well as rising household economic demands. In many shifting cultivation systems, farmers are taking advantage of restorative forest fallow periods to plant commercially-oriented orchards to increase output. While there is an economic benefit to this intensification pathway, we ask: what are the trade-offs in ecosystem services with planting low diversity orchards? We compare the capacity of native forest fallows vs. planted umarí orchards (Poraquieba sericea) to provide critical regulating services (soil fertility regeneration, woody biomass accumulation), provisioning services (commercial fruit production, timber, charcoal, wild fruits and handicraft materials production), and tree biodiversity in lowland forests of Peru. In addition, we estimate their potential contribution to farmer livelihoods to better understand the economic incentives behind orchard planting. Orchards were found to provide similar or higher levels of both regulating and provisioning services than forest fallows, apart from harvestable timber. Although biodiversity was lower under orchards, tree diversity and composition recovered fully in subsequent fallow rotations. Potential revenues from orchard planting were greater than from fallows, however they were small compared to median incomes suggesting that the motivation to plant orchards is income diversification. Together these results highlight that orchard fallows may be an ecologically and economically viable pathway for intensification.

Keywords

Agroforestry

Biodiversity

Ecosystem services

Trade-offs

Livelihoods

Amazon

---

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

 Table 1

Table 1.

 Table 2

Table 2.

• ⁎ 
  Corresponding author.
  
  

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915300712

Planning land use for biogas energy crop production: The potential of cutaway peat production lands

Published Date
February 2016, Vol.85:355–362, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.12.030

Research paper

Author 

Kari Laasasenaho ^a,,

Anssi Lensu ^b,

Jukka Rintala ^c,

aUniversity of Jyvaskyla, Department of Chemistry, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland

bUniversity of Jyvaskyla, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland

cTampere University of Technology, Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, P.O. Box 527, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland

Received 26 June 2015. Revised 15 December 2015. Accepted 23 December 2015. Available online 7 January 2016. 

Highlights

• GIS method was used to improve the assessment of decentralized biomass resources.
• •
  Cutaway peat production land in Finland was used to calculate wasteland for biogas energy crop production.
• •
  By year 2044, about 300 GWh a-1 gross energy yield could be achieved with biogas technology.
• •
  This biomass resource could help e.g. farmers to invest farm-scale biogas plants in Finland.
• •
  GIS based biomass resource allocating is a useful tool to promote decentralized bioenergy.

Abstract

Each year, thousands of hectares of peatland that had been harvested are being released in Finland, which can offer an opportunity to increase energy crops and attain the bioenergy targets for non-agriculture lands. In this study, the Geographic Information System (GIS) method was used to improve the assessment of decentralized renewable energy resources. The amount of peat production lands and future cutaway areas for energy crop production was calculated as a case study by using ArcGIS and the Finnish Topographic database. There are almost 1000 km² of peat production lands in Finland, and theoretically, approximately 300 km² of cutaway peatlands could be used for energy crops after 30 years. The dry biomass yield of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) or timothy-fescue grass (mix of Phleum pratense and Festuca pratensis) could be higher than 100 Gg a⁻¹ in these lands indicating methane potential of approximately 300 GWh. The exhausted peat production areas in the western region of Finland have significant potential for use for energy crops; North and South Ostrobothnia account for almost 45% of the total peat production land. A future goal could be to use the cutaway peat production lands more efficiently for bioenergy to mitigate climate change. Since the use of wastelands (including peatlands) are being considered in Europe as a way to avoid competition with food production, the GIS method used in the study to identify suitable peat lands could be applicable to biomass resource studies being conducted in many countries.

Keywords

Wasteland

GIS

Bioenergy

Phalaris arundinacea

Phleum pratense

Festuca pratensis

---

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

 Table 1

Table 1.

Fig. 6.

 Table 2

Table 2.

Fig. 7.

• ∗ 
  Corresponding author.
  
  

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953415302026