Evaluation of water use for bioenergy at different scales

This perspective reviews water metrics for accounting total water demand to produce bioenergy at various spatial scales. Volumes of water abstracted, consumed, and altered are estimated to assess water requirements of a bioenergy product, providing useful tools for water resource management and planning at local, regional, and global scale. Blue‐water use accounting, integrated over time and space, provides the most direct measurements of the effects of bioenergy production on freshwater allocation among various end‐users, and on human and ecosystem health and well‐being. Measurement of total water demand for crop evapotranspiration, which includes both blue and green water, communicates vital information of how land and water productivity supports/constrains bioenergy expansion, and helps identify potential areas to increase the productivity of agriculture through improved soil and water conservation, changes in crop choice, and improved crop management. Life‐cycle water use accounting provides a useful comparison of water required for production and conversion of feedstock to various forms of energy, and opportunities to improve water use efficiency throughout the supply chain. In addition, life‐cycle water use may be used to account for water use avoided as a result of displacement of products by coproducts of biofuel production; though these applications must be interpreted with caution. Local or regional conditions and the objective of the analysis at hand determine which water accounting metrics are most relevant and the relative importance of water use impact compared to other impacts, such as impacts to soil quality and biodiversity

Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well-studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production

Bioenergy production and sustainable development: Science base for policymaking remains limited

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) : Finding the win–wins for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters

Funding information Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/M019764/1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the NERC-funded UK Energy Research Centre, by the NERC project Addressing the Valuation of Energy and Nature Together (ADVENT, NE/M019764/1) and by The University of California, Davis with CD the recipient of a NERC PhD studentship (1790094). It also contributed to the NERC FAB-GGR project (NE/M019691/1).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States

The ongoing debate about costs and benefits of wood-pellet based bioenergy production in the southeastern United States (SE USA) requires an understanding of the science and context influencing market decisions associated with its sustainability. Production of pellets has garnered much attention as US exports have grown from negligible amounts in the early 2000s to 4.6 million metric tonnes in 2015. Currently, 98% of these pellet exports are shipped to Europe to displace coal in power plants. We ask, ‘How is the production of wood pellets in the SE USA affecting forest systems and the ecosystem services they provide?’ To address this question, we review current forest conditions and the status of the wood products industry, how pellet production affects ecosystem services and biodiversity, and what methods are in place to monitor changes and protect vulnerable systems. Scientific studies provide evidence that wood pellets in the SE USA are a fraction of total forestry operations and can be produced while maintaining or improving forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are protected by the requirement to utilize loggers trained to apply scientifically based best management practices in planning and implementing harvest for the export market. Bioenergy markets supplement incomes to private rural landholders and provide an incentive for forest management practices that simultaneously benefit water quality and wildlife and reduce risk of fire and insect outbreaks. Bioenergy also increases the value of forest land to landowners, thereby decreasing likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to verify that regulations and good practices are achieving goals and to enable timely responses if problems arise. Conducting rigorous research to understand how conditions change in response to management choices requires baseline data, monitoring, and appropriate reference scenarios. Long-term monitoring data on forest conditions should be publicly accessible and utilized to inform adaptive management

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy-making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short-term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium- to long-term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy

Valorisation of agricultural biomass‑ash with CO2

This work is part of a study of different types of plant-based biomass to elucidate their capacity for valorisation via a managed carbonation step involving gaseous carbon dioxide (co2). the perspectives for broader biomass waste valorisation was reviewed, followed by a proposed closed‑loop process for the valorisation of wood in earlier works. the present work newly focusses on combining agricultural biomass with mineralised co2. Here, the reactivity of selected agricultural biomass ashes with co2 and their ability to be bound by mineralised carbonate in a hardened product is examined. three categories of agricultural biomass residues, including shell, fibre and soft peel, were incinerated at 900 ± 25 °C. The biomass ashes were moistened (10% w/w) and moulded into cylindrical samples and exposed to 100% CO2 gas at 50% RH for 24 h, during which they cemented into hardened monolithic products. the calcia in ashes formed a negative relationship with ash yield and the microstructure of the carbonate‑cementing phase was distinct and related to the particular biomass feedstock. this work shows that in common with woody biomass residues, carbonated agricultural biomass ash‑based monoliths have potential as novel low‑carbon construction products

Антикризисное управление

Учебно-методический комплекс (УМК) по учебной дисциплине «Ан-тикризисное управление» создан в соответствии с требованиями Положения об учебно-методическом комплексе на уровне высшего образования, утвер-жденного постановлением Министерства образования Республики Беларусь от 26.07.2011 № 167, предназначен для реализации содержания образова-тельной программы для обучающихся первой ступени высшего образования для студентов специальности 1-26 02-02 «Менеджмент». Содержание разделов УМК соответствует образовательному стандарту высшего образования данной специальности. Главная цель УМК – оказание методической помощи магистрантам в освоении и систематизации учебного материала в процессе обучения и под-готовки к аттестации по дисциплине «Антикризисное управление». УМК включает: 1. Теоретический раздел (конспект лекций, аннотированный перечень основных учебных и научно-практических изданий). 2. Практический раздел (тематика практических занятий по дисци-плине в соответствии с учебным планом и учебной программой). 3. Контроль работы обучающихся (материалы для текущей аттестации, позволяющие определить соответствие учебной деятельности обучающихся требованиям образовательного стандарта высшего образования и учебно-программной документации, в т.ч. вопросы для подготовки к зачету). 4. Вспомогательный раздел (содержание учебного материала учебной дисциплины; методические рекомендации по организации самостоятельной работы магистрантов; информационно-аналитические материалы: список ре-комендуемой литературы, перечень электронных ресурсов и их адреса; при-мерный перечень тем для написания рефератов). Работа с УМК должна включать на первом этапе ознакомление с со-держанием учебного материала учебной дисциплины, посредством которого можно получить информацию о тематике лекций и практических занятий, перечнях рассматриваемых вопросов и рекомендуемой для их изучения ли-тературы. Для подготовки к практическим занятиям необходимо использо-вать материалы, представленные в Теоретическом и Практическом разделах. В основу структуры программы легла учебная программа «Антикри-зисное управление» Белорусского государственного университета для выс-ших учебных заведений по специальности Э.01.03.00 «Экономика и управле-ния на предприятии» (регистрационный № ТД-182/баз.)