ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Worldwide commercial development of bioenergy with a

focus on energy crop-based projects
Lynn Wright
WrightLink Consulting, 111 Crosswinds Cove Road, Ten Mile, TN 37880, USA
Received 10 December 2004; received in revised form 25 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005
Available online 19 May 2006

Abstract

Bioenergy consumption is greatest in countries with heavy subsidies or tax incentives, such as China, Brazil, and Sweden. Conversion
of forest residues and agricultural residues to charcoal, district heat and home heating are the most common forms of bioenergy. Biomass
electric generation feedstocks are predominantly forest residues (including black liquor), bagasse, and other agricultural residues. Biofuel
feedstocks include sugar from sugarcane (in Brazil), starch from maize grain (in the US), and oil seeds (soy or rapeseed) for biodiesel
(in the US, EU, and Brazil). Of the six large land areas of the world reviewed (China, EU, US, Brazil, Canada, Australia), total biomass
energy consumptions amounts to 17.1 EJ. Short-rotation woody crops (SRWC) established in Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia over
the past 25 years equal about 50,000 km2. SRWC plantings in China may be in the range of 70,000–100,000 km2. SRWC and other energy
crops established in the US and EU amount to less than 1000 km2. With some exceptions (most notably in Sweden and Brazil), the
SRWC have been established for purposes other than as dedicated bioenergy feedstocks, however, portions of the crops are (or are
planned to be) used for bioenergy production. New renewable energy incentives, greenhouse gas emission targets, synergism with
industrial waste management projects, and oil prices exceeding 60 $ Bbl 1 (in 2005) are major drivers for SRWC or energy crop based
bioenergy projects.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass energy; Biomass projects; Short-rotation crops; Energy crops; Bioenergy drivers

1. Introduction perennial and annual crops can be included under this

Many countries around the world have been developing
new crops since the mid-1970s in order to increase the
biomass resource base for production of bioenergy. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) initiated a Bioenergy
Agreement in 1978 with the aim of improving cooperation
and information exchange between countries that have
national programs on bioenergy research, development and
deployment. The current IEA Bioenergy Task (Task 30)
dealing with energy crop development is called Short-
rotation Crops for Bioenergy Systems1. Many different
heading and this paper will refer to all ‘‘crop’’ sources of
lignocellulose as ‘‘energy crops2. Since 1978, the technical
feasibility of producing energy crops has progressed
significantly and several energy crop based bioenergy
projects have been started. This paper reviews the status
of all biomass consumption and specifically the contribu-
tion of energy crops to biomass consumption. Brief project
status reports explain some of the reasons why greater
commercial utilization of energy crop technology has not
occurred after 30 years of technology development.

Tel.: +1 865 376 0037. 2

E-mail address: wrightll@att.net.
1
Short Rotation Crops are defined in the IEA Bioenergy Task 30
objective statement as ‘‘woody crops such as willows, poplars, Robinia
and Eucalyptus with coppicing abilities, as well as lignocellulosic crops
such as reed canary grass and Miscanthus’’.
The lignocellulosic or energy crop technologies discussed in this paper
encompass short-rotation coppice (SRC), short rotation woody crop
(SRWC) technology which does not necessarily involve coppicing, the
herbaceous energy crop (HEC) technology which is normally applied to
perennial grasses, and annual crops such as maize and soybeans when they
are used for food, energy and other bioproducts.

0961-9534/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.08.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
2. Approach
This evaluation of the deployment of energy crops as a
biomass energy resource is restricted to selected states,
countries, and regions of the world with a focus on Task 30
member countries. Data collected from published sources
include population statistics, total energy consumption,
and biomass energy consumption. Most data is current to
year 2002, the latest data that could be consistently
obtained for most countries. Exceptions are noted in the
text or tables. Reports and tables from the US Energy
Information Administration’s (EIA) International web
pages [1–7] were initially consulted for information on
population and total energy consumed but finally used for
countries other than the US only where 2002 information
for individual countries could not be obtained (such as
Canada and China). The author found that information on
total energy consumed published by EIA was usually
similar to information in individual country reports. In the
case of Brazil, the information reported by Brazil’s
Ministry of Mines and Energy [8,9] was substantially
different from that reported by EIA.
EIA international data on amount of biomass energy
consumed at the country level is generally lumped together
with all renewable resources, thus bioenergy information
was derived either from individual country sources
(referenced later) or from the World Energy Council’s
2001 survey of energy resources [10]. For most countries,
the biomass numbers represent the gross energy values
embodied in the wide range of primary, secondary and
tertiary biomass materials used to produce heat, electricity,
and liquid fuels in each country. However, New Zealand
statistics only report primary energy supply (including
imports) and ‘‘consumer energy’’ which excludes energy
used or lost in transformation to final energy carriers and
in bringing the energy to the final consumers. New
Zealand’s consumer energy numbers were used in this
report. Information on the area of planted energy crops,
and notes on the contribution of energy crops to bioenergy
production were derived from personal communication or
recent reports.
Personal communication and internet searching for
recent publications were used to obtain information on
the current status of specific energy crop based, bioenergy
research and development projects that were initiated in
the late 1990s in the US and Europe and on new project
developments including energy crops. Relevant market
conditions and project development considerations that
may have affected the status of ongoing projects are briefly
addressed.
3. Biomass energy status in selected regions, countries and
states
Countries that are currently members of Task 30 and
that have been pursuing R&D on energy crop development
for many years include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, New
707
Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom (UK), and the United
States (US). Denmark, Croatia, Finland and The Nether-
lands were also members of the previous related IEA
Bioenergy task (Task 17). Evaluation of bioenergy status
includes most of the previously listed countries plus China.
The comparisons of biomass energy consumption are
summarized in two tables. Table 1 compares regions or
political areas of the world that have relatively large land
areas but a wide range of population levels (20–1300
million). Table 2 compares geo-political entities (countries
or states) that represent smaller land areas with population
levels ranging between 4 and 60 million.
China’s large population [4] will have an increasingly
large effect on world energy demands as their economy
continues to grow. China’s total energy consumption [3] is
less than many individual European countries, but its 2002
consumption of 7.5 EJ of biomass feedstocks for energy
(16.5% of total energy) [13], is more than double that of
any other country. Based on comparison of biomass energy
use numbers reported in 2000 [14] and 2003 [13], Chinese
biomass use is increasing. China’s biomass consumption
includes use of about 200 million tons of firewood, 330
million tons of agricultural residues (straw), and use of
biogas from about 10.2 million family biogas digesters [13].
As much as 47% of the firewood is obtained from non-
forest sources such as brush, trees planted for leaves or
seeds and trees planted along roads and fields [10]. The
area of energy crop plantations in China is uncertain.
However in year 2000, China ranked first in the world
in the speed and scale of afforestation [18]. Manually
planted forests exist on 467,000 km2 in 2002 [19]
though only a portion can be assumed to be woody crops
grown for energy. The WEC 2001 survey [10] reported a
goal of achieving 13.5 million ha of fuelwood forests
by 2010; the China Daily [19] reported a similar goal for
‘‘fast growing plantations’’ for the date of 2015. Based on
the existence of 56,000 km2 of ‘‘fuelwood plantations’’
reported to exist in 1996 by Ping [20], the current amount
could be between 70,000 to 100,000 km2 of woody crops as
of 2002, with most being located in the southern portions
of China. Bioenergy from sugar sorghum is being
investigated as a potential bioenergy resource in Northwest
China [21].
Brazil, with its 30,000 km2 of Eucalyptus plantations and
about 50,000 km2 of sugar cane, [22] may have the largest
area of short-rotation crops being grown for specifically for
energy. Eucalyptus began to be established in Brazil as
early as the early 1900s but the major plantings occurred
between 1966 and 1989 when government incentives were
available [23]. Eucalyptus wood is converted to charcoal
for the Pig iron and Steel industry but it also is a major
pulp resource and makes beautiful furniture. Brazil uses
sugar cane to make more ethanol for transportation fuel
than any other country in the world (11.5 hm3), and
electricity is generated from the sugarcane bagasse.
Recently, Brazil has also begun producing biodiesel fuels
from vegetable oils. Elephant grass, bamboo, and other
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
708 L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714

Table 1
Population and energy consumption from selected large countries or regions

Country Population Total (EJ)b Biomass (EJ) Biomass (%) Energy crop contribution to bioenergyk
(millions)a

China 1295 45.5c 7.5g 16.4 Yes—fuelwood from 70,000 to

100,000 km2 woody crop
EU-25 453 70.5d 2.75h 3.9 Yes—district heat 180 km2 willow
and grasses
U.S. 288 103.4c 2.92i 2.8 Minor—residues and black liquor from
500 km2 woody crops
Brazil 177 7.3e 1.98e 27.2e Yes—charcoal from 30,000 km2
woody crops, ethanol and electricity
from 50,000 km2 sugarcane
Canada 31 13.1c 1.77j 13.5 No—bioenergy from forest residue,
energy crops been tested
Australia 20 5.2f 0.20f 3.8 No—but 60 km2 of mallee expected to
have bioenergy market
a
All population numbers are 2002 data and are derived from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2, 4].
b
All total primary energy consumption is for 2002 data but derived from various sources.
c
Source: EIA [3].
d
Source: Eurostat energy database [11].
e
Source: Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy 2003 report [8]. Biomass EJ are calculated based on data expressed as percentages [8].
f
Source: Donaldson, K., Australian Energy Statistics [12].
g
Source: Shuhua 2003 Conference paper [13]. A more easily retrievable Ref. [14] gives values of 44.2 EJ for total energy use and 6.69 EJ for biomass
consumption for year 2000.
h
Source: EUBIONET IIa 2003 report [15].
i
Source: 2005 EIA Renewable Energy Trends [1].
j
Source: World Energy Council 2001 survey [10] data are from 1999.
k
Source: personal communication with many biomass researchers. Land area of corn grain used for US ethanol is not included and annual oilseed crops
are not reported.

Table 2
Population and energy consumption from selected small countries or states

Country Population Total (EJ)b Biomass (EJ)c Biomass (%)c Energy crop contributiond
(Millions)a

UK 59.7 9.48 0.060 0.6 Yes—small part of 25 km2 willow

Sweden 8.9 2.2 0.34 15.9 Yes—district heat 160 km2 willow and
Reed Canary grass
Netherlands 16.1 3.6 0.083 2.3 Yes—trial stage 1.2 km2 willow and
grasses
Denmark 5.4 0.83 0.098 11.8 Yes—trial stage; small amount of
pellets & briquettes from willow,
miscanthus commercial for rhizome
export
New Zealand 3.8 0.49 0.031 6.3 Yes—residues from 18,000 km2 short-
rotation pines
California 35.0 8.3 0.16 1.9 Yes—residues from 40 km2
eucalyptus
New York 19.2 4.36 0.16 3.6 Yes tests only—from 1.6 km2 willow
Florida 16.7 4.36 0.16 3.6 Yes—thinnings from 200 km2 pine, and
0.2 km2 woody crops
Minnesota 5.0 1.7 0.064 3.7 Yes—residues from 150 km2 poplars
a
Source: US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [2,4]. All are 2002 data.
b
Sources: Eurostat energy database [11], New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development [16], EIA states data tables [6]. Total EJ primary energy is
from year 2002 for European countries and New Zealand but from year 2001 for states in the US.
c
Sources: EUBIONET IIb report [17], New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development [34], EIA states data tables [6]. Biomass EJ for European
countries was by calculation using reported biomass % data. Biomass EJ for US states was based on the ‘‘wood/wastes’’ column in the EIA states data
tables.
d
Sources: Personal communication with many biomass researchers. Area of perennial crops (trees or grasses) and sugarcane dedicated for energy use is
reported. Area of corn (maize) and oil seed crops used for multiple products is not included.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
short-rotation crops are being used or evaluated as a
bioenergy resource in Brazil [24]. Bioenergy comp-
rised about 27% of the total energy consumed in Brazil
in 2002 [8].
The US consumes the most energy of all countries
surveyed (103 EJ) with the bioenergy contribution being
2.8% [3,5]. About 60% of the biomass energy is produced
and consumed by the forest products industry. The fiber
industry harvests about 250 million dry tons of wood from
private forests (natural forests and pine plantations) and
about 40% of that material is used for energy [25]. It is
speculated that by 2030, forest bioenergy could grow
by a factor of 2 over current levels (1.7 EJ) with
improvements in forest productivity and biomass conver-
sion technologies. At present there are about 500 km2 of
short rotation woody crop plantations in the US planted
for fiber. A small portion of the woody crops contribute to
bioenergy production through industry use of the woody
crop residues (hogfuel) or black liquor. US biomass
numbers include grain converted to ethanol as well as
landfill gas, agricultural residues, municipal solid wastes,
and tires.
The 25 countries now forming the European Union
consumed 70.5 EJ of total primary energy in 2002, with
biomass contributing 3.9% [15,17]. Wood consumption for
households slightly exceeds wood consumption by industry
but together they account for 76% of the biomass
consumed in the EU [15]. The 36% of the biomass used
for energy by industry results primarily from forest
industry activities in Sweden and Finland. Gross use of
biomass is highest in the largest countries, Germany and
France, but Finland has the highest biomass use as a
percent of total energy use (20%) [17]. Wood use for
households occurs throughout the EU and includes direct
use of ‘‘firewood’’ for heating as well as wood used in the
generation of district heating. In the UK there are several
existing power stations operating on agricultural residues,
biomass wastes and small amounts of energy crops. Co-
fired power stations are testing use of small amounts of
energy crops in anticipation of UK’s Renewables Obliga-
tion requirements to make energy crops equal 75% of their
biomass supply beginning in April 2006 [26,27]. Several of
the 25 EU Countries have small trial plantings of a wide
variety of energy crop species. The number of planted
hectares of energy crops supplying biomass energy in the
EU was estimated to be about 18,600 based on personal
communication [26,28,29] and a recent report [30]. Sweden
accounts for most of the area (160 km2). Fiber plantations
of short-rotation trees (poplar, Eucalyptus, black locust
and other) are also common in Southern Europe and it is
highly probable that they are contributing to biomass
energy with utilization of the black liquor and wood
residues.
Canada, a large land mass with a small population,
consumes a correspondingly small amount of biomass [3].
However, Canada ranks near China in the percentage of
total primary energy being generated from biomass
709
(13.5%3 and 15% respectively) [10,11]. Nearly all of the
bioenergy is being generated by the forest products
industry. Canada is expected to increase it’s percentage of
energy production from biomass since it signed the Kyoto
Agreement and the government appears to be taking the
commitment seriously as shown by new biomass energy
initiatives [31]. Private sector developers in Canada have
moved quickly to develop wood pellets for home heating
use and a Canadian biotechnology firm, Iogen Corpora-
tion, has established a pilot scale facility in Ottawa,
Canada for the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic
feedstocks (from wheat straw or other small grain straws).
They are now searching for appropriate locations for a
commercial facility [32].
Australia’s population and total energy consumption are
the smallest of the countries with large land area. However,
3.7% of the country’s total energy consumption (5.2 EJ) is
derived from biomass [12]. Australian bioenergy resources
in 2005 are primarily agricultural residues. Forestry
residues are not a major source of bioenergy because
utilization of eucalypts for bioenergy is prohibited due to
concerns about over-harvesting of native forests [34].
Energy crop research is focused on tree species that would
be managed as a coppice species such as Acacia’s or other
shrub type woody crops. Giles and Harris [34] reported
that mallees (a type of eucalyptus with small tree form), of
which about 22 million have been planted to remove excess
water from crop and pasture land [35], are being viewed as
a potentially major bioenergy resource.
The comparisons in Table 2 are between land areas of
relatively similar size including 4 states in the US and 5
individual small countries. Of the small Task 30 member
countries included, Sweden consumes the largest amount of
bioenergy (0.34 EJ) and has the highest percentage (15.9%)
of total energy consumed) with Denmark not far behind
(11.8% of total) [17]. Sweden also has the largest area of
energy crops (160 km2). New Zealand has a very large
amount of short rotation hardwoods for multiple use
(180,000 km2) [36] but only 6.3% of its energy is obtained
from biomass [16]. In the US, the states of New York,
California and Florida have the same level of biomass
consumption (0.17–0.18 EJ) [6]. Minnesota consumes
about 1/3 the biomass of the other states [6], however
Minnesota’s consumption of bioenergy as a percentage of
total energy consumed is very similar to New York and
Florida.
In summary, in all countries evaluated, bioenergy in
2005 is primarily derived from a combination of forest and
agricultural residues, municipal residues, landfill gas, or
manures processed in anaerobic digesters. Thus, as of 2005,
energy crop biomass is generally not a significant bioenergy
resource except as previously discussed for the countries of
3
The percent of biomass consumed in Canada in 2002 is likely to be
higher than indicated in Table 1 since data was from approximately 1999.
Canada recently signed the Kyoto agreement resulting in a push to
increase renewable energy.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
710 L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
China, Brazil and Sweden where it is used as fuel for home
heating and cooking, for charcoal, or for district heating.
The status of several energy crop based bioenergy projects
initiated in the mid to late 1990s are discussed below.
4. Status of 1990s bioenergy projects based on energy crops
The projects discussed in this section include most of the
integrated projects4 whose progress has been followed at
IEA Bioenergy Task 17 and Task 30 meetings in the
1998–2003 time period. All projects received some funding
from the country (federal) level and had local cost-sharing
in most cases.
Sweden provides an excellent example of successful use
of energy crops. Many district heating facilities in Sweden
rely on a combination of forest residues and willow. One
specific project that has received worldwide attention as a
model for a successful enterprise using short rotation crops
is the Enköping Combined Heat and Power plant. The
facility was built in 1994 to produce 45 MW heat and
24MW of gross electricity and runs at 90% efficiency [37].
Since 1997, the facility has relied totally on biomass. The
primary supply consists of woodchips, bark sawdust and
pellets from forest residues but willow is added to the mix
in winter. By the end of 2003, 150 ha of willows had been
planted within 30 km of the Enköping plant with a multi-
purpose goal of providing cleaning for municipal waste-
water as well as biofuels [38]. The utility plans to rent
200 ha from local farmers to provide additional energy
crop fuel for the facility [28]. The Enköping CHP manager
reported in fall 2004 the production processes at the facility
were going to be broadened to include pellet production
as well as ethanol in order to supply current market
demand [39].
The UK funded renewables projects in the late 1990s
under a program called the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation
(NFFO). A brief summary of NFFO projects on the UK’s
Department of Trade and Industry website [40] shows that
as of April 2005 there were 32 biomass projects contracted
with up to 16 proposing to use some combination of
agricultural or forestry residues together with energy crops.
Two of the early NFFO contracts were awarded to
Ambient Energy, who proposed gasification of energy
crops. The projects did not progress to construction
because of objections by local residents [41]. Two other
energy crop based NFFO projects in the UK were
progressing at the time of the IEA Bioenergy Task 17
meetings in March 2000. Both (described below) had been
abandoned by early 2003 [41].
(1) The Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE)
project, a high visibility project with funds from both
the UK and Europe, came closest to being completed.
A gasifier facility was constructed and 15 km2 of willow
4
Projects with both feedstock supply and conversion technology
partners contractually involved in the projects.
were planted and grown successfully. However, delays
in commissioning and technical problems resulted in
withdrawal of the developers. Though completed, the
gasifier has stood idle since August 2002 [41]. The
farmers growing the willow were left without a market,
though one farmer installed woodchip heating on his
farm to utilize some of the wood.
(2) A second project initiated by Border Biofuels planned
to make high-quality oils from willow coppice, forest
residues and other organic wastes, using pyrolysis
technology. The location of the project resulted in
difficulties with road access, and costs of road
improvements were very high [41]. The project was
not completed due to financial and technical problems
and Border Biofuels had gone into liquidation by
January 2003.
In the US, five energy crop based projects were initiated
in the 1990s with federal support [42]. As of summer 2005,
four are stalled, and one is abandoned. Their status is
summarized below.
(1) In New York, a consortium involving utilities, uni-
versity staff, farmers, and federal agency groups
collaborated to grow willows and co-fire them with
waste wood in a coal-burning facility. Willow was
successfully planted on 200 ha involving 16 farmers
[43,44]. Tests were conducted on the harvesting,
delivery and co-firing of the waste wood and willow,
all providing positive results. The initial delay in
commercialization occurred because the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation delayed in
giving a permit for full-time co-firing of waste wood
and willow with coal. The new owners of the coal
facility have not yet (as of summer 2005) requested a
permit, but they are doing an economic and engineering
analysis of the co-firing opportunity.
(2) In Iowa, farmers formed a cooperative and worked
together to successfully demonstrate switchgrass pro-
duction, and transport switchgrass supplies to a local
utility for co-firing tests. While initial tests demon-
strated the feasibility of the supply system, the utility,
Alliant Energy, has delayed awaiting a longer co-firing
trial (and better market conditions) before making a
long-term commitment to commercially co-firing the
switchgrass. The switchgrass producers group signed a
contract with Alliant Energy in 2004 to supply the
switchgrass needed for the more extensive tests [45].
(3) In Alabama, a coal burning facility in the city of
Gadston is being supplied with switchgrass by one local
farmer. A 120 ha planting was initially established to
supply fuel for co-firing test burns and the company has
continued to purchase and co-fire that switchgrass [45].
The switchgrass supply is a very small percentage of the
facilities fuel supply.
(4) In Minnesota, a power purchase agreement (PPA) was
signed about 3 years ago between the small company,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
Energy Performance Systems, and the utility, Excel
Energy, for power that was to be supplied from poplar
plantations. The PPA has been sold twice, and the
proposed type and location of the poplar burning
facility has changed. The inability of the project
developers and local farmers to agree on a price for
the woody crops was partially responsible for the
changes in site location. The group currently owning
the PPA received the approval from the state to
proceed with the project in summer 2005 [46].
(5) Of the US projects ongoing in 2000, only one has been
completely abandoned. The project plan was to use an
advanced gasification technology to burn alfalfa stems.
The gasifier would have been owned by a group of
farmers who were also interested in selling the alfalfa
leaves as a protein by-product. Problems included: the
gasifier developers pulling out of the project, objections
to the project from alfalfa producers in nearby areas,
and removal of funding support by the US Department
of Energy.
In the Netherlands, a project was underway as of March
2000 to supply 10% of the annual feedstock required for a
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant in Lelystad (called
the Flevo-project). It required 200 ha of energy crops to
provide the required supply. The first 50 ha had been
planted by spring 2000. As of December 2004, only 75 ha of
energy crops had been planted [29]. Land acquisition was
identified as a complicated and crucial factor in spring
2000, which apparently was not resolved. Dutch utilities
have turned to importing fairly large amounts of biomass
to meet renewable targets [29].
Most of the above projects were successful in demon-
strating the technical feasibility of producing, harvesting,
and supplying short-rotation crops for energy use. The lack
of commercial success in using energy crops for bioenergy
is often due to non-technical issues related to the building
or locating of the conversion facilities—which occurs due
to lack of understanding of bioenergy energy technologies
by the public [41]. Technical issues related to the building
and operation of unproven gasifier technology also
occurred. In fairness to the project developers, it should
be noted that both the US Department of Energy’s project
development solicitation in the mid 1990s and the UK
NFFO program encouraged projects linking commercially
unproven energy crop supply systems with commercially
unproven conversion technologies in the hopes of advan-
cing the commercial viability of the technologies. Unfortu-
nately these ‘‘high risk’’ projects were started without
sufficient financial backing from the government funding
sources. Gary Elliott, an experienced biomass project
developer, makes the point that projects will only be
successful if the developers stay with commercially proven
technologies and get help with areas in which they don’t
have sufficient knowledge. His philosophy is ‘‘if it is one of
a kind—it is not time’’ [47]. The energy crop based
bioenergy projects that still have a chance at attracting
711
sufficient private sector financing are linked to co-firing or
proven combustion technology. A good summary of
technical and non-technical barriers that has been experi-
enced by many projects can be found in a recent Task 30
report [48].
5. New bioenergy projects using short-rotation crops
With the lessons that have been learned from both
successful projects (the Enköping CHP plant in Sweden)
and stalled projects, new efforts involving utilization of
energy crops are being initiated. Government incentives
such as renewable targets or requirements are key to
stimulating these developments.
The UK established in 2003 a target of obtaining 10% of
all electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Government
subsidized producer groups are working closely with
bioenergy project developers to find bioenergy markets
for energy crops [49]. One such producer group (TV
Bioenergy Coppice) is working on developing contracts for
supplying willow biofuels to existing coal-fired utilities and
to CHP plants. A federal energy crop grants scheme is
stimulating establishment of new energy crop plantings
[26,30]. A 6MW biomass CHP/tri-generation plant in the
city of Bracknell is expected to be the first plant to have a
demand for willow coppice. All new projects are being
developed in close consultation with local communities and
simple, reliable conversion technologies are being used [41].
In the US, State renewable portfolio standards, exten-
sion and redefinition of the federal bioenergy tax credit,
and changes in US Department of Agriculture regulations
on the use of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land
are combining to stimulate increased interest in energy
crops (and other biomass resources). The coal burning
facility in Gadston, Alabama maintains its small contract
for switchgrass supplies for this reason. The Tampa
Electric Polk Power Station located in Mulberry, Florida
has recently conducted co-firing tests using both wood and
grasses. Tampa Electric is particularly interested in using
Bahiagrass, a grass naturally growing in the area and
suitable for growing on some of the 18 km2 of reclaimed
phosphate mining land owned by the station as well as
CRP land [50]. The state of New York established a
renewable portfolio goal in 2004 to acquire 25% of its
energy from renewables by 2013. Hydroelectric already
supplies 19% of the states energy, but the 6% increment
needed could provide a substantial market for biomass.
About 60 km2 of land has been identified as suitable for
willow coppice, creating an excellent opportunity for
energy crop based bioenergy projects in New York [44].
Australia recently established a mandatory requirement
for electricity retailers to increase their annual renewable
energy production by 9.5 TWh nationwide [33]. All types of
renewables may satisfy the requirement, but the mandate
has created a small but relatively high value market for
delivered biomass at 10–12 $ t(wet) 1. While helpful,
energy crop production is still not likely to be profitable
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
712 L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
unless multiple uses of the biomass can increase the value
of delivered biomass. As of December 2003, the Western
Australian mallee industry was anticipating delivering
mallee wood to an integrated tree processing facility (under
construction) that would produce carbon, eucalyptus oil,
and bioenergy from the resource [34]. A summer 2005
update on the status of the project revealed that delays had
occurred due to intermittent funding, but new funds are
expected to result in commissioning of the facility before
the end of 2005. However, no mechanized harvester has yet
been developed for harvesting the mallee coppice [35].
The development of ‘‘Forest Products Biorefinery’’
concepts now being advanced by the forest products
industry in the US has the potential of stimulating
establishment of large areas of short rotation woody crops
[51]. This concept involves three focus areas.
 Application of biotechnology to sustainable forestry to
allow management of US forest land at a high intensity
on fewer acres. This translates to an increased use of
short-rotation woody crops in the future for fiber,
bioenergy, and bioproducts.
 Extraction of value prior to pulping. Of interest is
hemicellulose extraction from wood chips followed by
their utilization as a feedstock for biomaterials.
 New value streams from residuals and spent pulping
liquors. A key focus here is the conversion of biomass
residues and spent pulping liquors into syngas using
gasification technology. The syngas could be converted
into biofuels, power, chemicals and other high value
materials.
With the experience of the forest products industry in
growing trees, and their commitment to increased energy
efficiency as well as new value streams, they are likely to be
leaders in using woody crops for energy as well as other
new and traditional products.
Fig. 1. Biomass large-scale thermal annual installed capacity projections over the next 10 years. Source: Douglas-Westwood Ltd. 2004 presentation on the
World Biomass Market. www.dw-1.com.
6. Summary
Production and consumption of all types of biomass
varies widely among countries involved in the IEA
Bioenergy Agreement. The reasons for country to country
variation are due to a combination of differences in natural
resources and in government policies toward energy,
environment, agriculture and forestry. Energy crops have
been most successful in penetrating the bioenergy market,
where there has been heavy subsidies or tax incentives
provided by governments (e.g. Brazil, China and Sweden).
Energy crop based bioenergy projects initiated in the late
1990s with government program solicitations and federal
funding have not yet resulted in new bioenergy production.
Many of these projects were high risk projects linking
multiple unproven technologies, but the federal funding
was insufficient to overcome the technical and non-
technical hurdles. However, much useful knowledge and
experience has been gained, providing a basis for new
projects to move forward. A very positive result of energy
crop research has been the adoption of this technology by
the forestry sector. While fiber for pulp is the primary
product to date, the development of Forest Products
Biorefinery concepts in the US is a direct outcome of both
energy crop research and federally subsidized industry
research on gasification technologies.
Growth in biomass markets worldwide are being
predicted by energy analysts. Bruce Knight, a contributor
to The Douglas-Westwood Limited 2004 World Biomass
Report reported that annual installed capacity of large
thermal plants is anticipated to double between 2004 and
2013 [52] (Fig. 1). The greatest growth of biomass thermal
plants on a percentage basis is expected to occur in Asia
and Latin America. Worldwide landfill gas installations are
projected to increase for a few years then remain relatively
stable while anaerobic gas installations are expected to
show strong but not dramatic growth. Biofuels (both
ethanol and biodiesel) are rapidly increasing in production
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
levels in the US, EU and Brazil. Knight and Westwood [53]
proposed in 2004 that key drivers for worldwide biomass
expansion are the following:
(1) Meeting increasing energy demands where indigenous
fossil fuel sources are non-existent or in decline.
(2) Meeting greenhouse gas emission targets.
(3) Supporting domestic and industrial waste management
projects.
(4) Utilizing forest, crop and livestock residues.
The rise in fossil fuel prices in 2005 (with oil exceeding
60 $ Bbl 1 as of this writing) is refocusing interest in
biomass energy. The upward trend in oil prices is being
driven by a combination of increased demand by countries
such as China, India and the US, reduced supplies
controlled by the mid-east oil cartel, and financial
speculation [54]. Global oil demand in 2004 grew at the
fastest rate in 25 years. With the economics of China and
India predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 5.1%
[1], the high demand for oil and coal may continue for
sometime. If so, this could significantly change the
competitive status of biomass energy worldwide, but not
all experts agree that oil prices will remain high [54].
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the task 30 leader, Theo Verwijst for
encouraging the development of this paper, Mark Coleman
for his very helpful guidance in narrowing the scope of the
paper, Jonathon Scurlock for his assistance with biomass
developments in the UK, Ralph Overend for assisting with
SI units, and all of the Task 30 representatives who
contributed information on the status of energy crops in
their respective countries.
References
[1] Energy Information Administration (EIA). International energy
outlook 2004: highlights, 2005.
[2] EIA. Country Analysis Briefs, 2005.
[3] EIA. Table 11.3, World primary energy consumption by region,
1993–2002, 2005.
[4] EIA. Table B.1 World population, 1980-present, 2005.
[5] EIA. Renewable energy trends, 2005.
[6] EIA. State data. Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/
_states.html Verified August 22, 2005.
[7] FedStats. US states population data. Retrieved from www.census.
gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html Verified August 22, 2005.
[8] Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy. Brazilian Energy Balance 2003.
Retrieved from www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_menu_
item.do?channelId=1432&pageId=1501 Verified August 16, 2005.
[9] Brazil Ministry of Mines and Energy. Brazilian Energy Data Profile
2004 retrieved from www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_
menu_item.do?channelId=1432&pageId=1501 Verified August 18,
2005.
[10] World Energy Council. WEC Survey of Energy Resources 2001—
Biomass (other than wood). Retrieved from www.worldenergy.
org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/biomass/biomass.asp Verified
August 10, 2005.
713
[11] Eurostat. Environment and energy statistics selected from the
Eurostat home page. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/
portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,1090_33076576&_dad=portal&_
schema=PORTAL Verified August 22, 2005.
[12] Donaldson K. Australian energy statistics—Australian energy con-
sumption by industry and fuel type-energy units 1973–74 to
2003–04. Retrieved from http://abareonlineshop.com/product.asp?
prodid=13180 Verified August 22, 2005.
[13] Shuhua G. Development and Utilization of Biomass Energy and
Related Supporting Policies in China. In: Proceedings 6th LAMNET
workshop—international conference on bioenergy utilization and
environment protection, 24–26 September 2003, Dalian, P.R.
China. Retrieved from www.bioenergy-lamnet.org/publications/
LamnetPublications.html, Verified August 22, 2005.
[14] Jingjing L, Xing Z, DeLaquil P, Larson ED. Biomass energy in China
and its potential. Energy for Sustainable Development, December
2001, V (4).
[15] EUBIONET IIa. Use of biomass and other renewable energy in
Europe 2002. Statistics available from www.eubionet.net/ (select
facts/statistics/report title). Verified August 22, 2005.
[16] New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Energy data file
January 2004: Energy overview. Retrieved from www.med.govt.nz/
ers/en_stats/edfonlin/edfjan2004/overview/index.html#P14_1192
Verified August 22, 2005.
[17] EUBIONET IIb. Bioenergy and renewable energy in europe: country
basis information for EU-25. Statistics available from www.eubionet.
net/ (select facts/statistics/report title). Verified August 22, 2005.
[18] Kangmei L. Afforestation: a strenuous ecological project. Article
from China Internet Information Center. Date unknown but webpage
is copyrighted as of 2004. Retrieved from www.chinagateway.
com.cn/english/1845.htm Verified August 22, 2005.
[19] Anon. The forest or the trees? China Daily news article published
2003-11-27. Retrieved from www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/
27/content_285194.htm Verified August 19, 2005.
[20] Zhou Jia Ping. China’s new and renewable energy situation.
Conference presentation in 2001. Retrieved December 2004 from
www.eva.ac.at/publ/pdf/china_res.pdf article not available at website
on August 22, 2005, but downloaded copy available from author
(L. Wright).
[21] Zhaomu W, Shoushan L. Bioenergy from sugar sorghum in China.
In: Proceedings of the 6th LAMNET workshop, 24–26 September
2003, Dalian, P.R. China. Retrieved from www.bioenergy-lamnet.
org/publications/LamnetPublications.html, Verified August 22,
2005.
[22] Rosillo-Calle F. A brief account of Brazil’s biomass energy potential.
Biomassa & Energia 2004;1(3):225–36 (in English).
[23] Couto L, Muller MC, Barcellos DC, Couto MMF. Eucalypt based
Agroforestry systems as an alternative to produce biomass for energy
in Brazil (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of conference on
biomass and bioenergy production for economic and environmental
benefits. Charleston, S.C. November 2004. Available at: www.
woodycrops.org/publications.html (select ‘‘abstracts from the 5th
conference’’) Verified August 22, 2005.
[24] Mazzarella V, Feitosa V, de Siqueira Silva PC, Urquiaga S, Quesada
DM, Camata D, Pacheco BM, de Alencar JA. Elephant grass pilot
project: charcoal source for industrial uses (extended abstract). In:
Proceedings of conference on biomass and bioenergy production for
economic and environmental benefits. Charleston, S.C. November
2004. Available at: www.woodycrops.org/publications.html (select
‘‘abstracts from the 5th conference’’) Verified August 22, 2005.
[25] Raymond D, Thorp B. The technology platforms of agenda 2020.
Solutions July 2004:45–7.
[26] Scurlock JMO. Renewables and recyclables manager north east
community forests, UK . Personal communication November 2005.
[27] Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Energy White Paper: our
energy future-creating a low carbon economy. February 2003. Crown
copyright 2003. retrieved from www.dti.gov.uk Verified January 31,
2005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
714 L. Wright / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 706–714
[28] Nordh N-E. Task 30 representative from Sweden, Personal commu-
nication November 9, 2004.
[29] Kuiper L. Biomass researcher in Netherlands. Personal communica-
tion December 2004.
[30] Biomass Task Force. Biomass task force report to Government,
October 2005. Crown copyright 2005. Retrieved from www.defra.
gov.uk Verified January 31, 2006
[31] Gordon A. Task 30 representative from Canada. Personal commu-
nication November 9, 2004.
[32] Port O. Not your father’s ethanol. Businessweek, 21 February 2005 .
Retrieved from http://iogen.ca/5000html. Verified August 11 2005.
[33] Brenden G. Task 30 representative from Australia. Personal
communication November 9, 2004.
[34] Giles RC, Harris HD. Developing a biomass supply chain for new
Australian crops. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy. Proceedings
of the IEA task 30 Conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in
Tauranga, New Zealand. Available on-line at www.shortrotationcrops.
com/taskreports.htm. Verified August 11, 2005.
[35] Schuck S. Editor of bioenergy Australia newsletter. Personal
communication August 22, 2005.
[36] Nichols I. Task 30 representative from New Zealand. Personal
communication November 9, 2004.
[37] Johansson E. The Swedish Enköping CHP plant. In: Short rotation
crops for bioenergy. Proceedings of the IEA bioenergy task 30
conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New Zealand.
Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/taskreports.htm. Verified
August 21, 2005.
[38] Johansson E. Markets for short rotation crops—European experi-
ence. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy, Proceedings of the IEA
task 30 conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in Tauranga, New
Zealand. Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/taskreports.htm.
Verified August 21, 2005.
[39] Johansson E. Enköping Plant manager. Personal communication
October 20,2004.
[40] UK Department of Trade and Industry, Renewable Energy Website.
NOFFO Fact Sheet 11, NOFFO/SRO/NI-NFFO Status Updates;
revised April 2005. Retrieved from www.dti.gov.uk/renewables.
Verified August 22, 2005.
[41] Bruton C, Richards K. Delivering on the energy coppice promise — a
UK experience. In: Short rotation crops for bioenergy. Proceedings
of the IEA task 30 conference, December 1st–5th, 2003 held in
Tauranga, New Zealand. Available at www.shortrotationcrops.com/
taskreports.htm. Verified August 11, 2005.
[42] Wright L, Downing M, Turhollow A. Progress and problems with
implementation of short-rotation crops in the United States. In:
Proceedings of IEA bioenergy task 17 meeting held in Albany,
Western Australia 7–9 March, 2000.
[43] State University of New York, College of Environmental Sciences
and Forestry (SUNY- ESF). Willow Biomass Newsletter vol. 5, (1)
February 2002. Retrieved from www.esf.edu/willow/PUBLICATIONS/
newsletters/newsletters.htm Verified August 22, 2005.
[44] Volk, T. Biomass willow researcher from Northeastern US. Personal
communications November 9, 2004 and August 22, 2005.
[45] Downing M. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bioenergy Program
staff. Personal communication December 2004.
[46] Ostlie, D. President of energy performance systems. Personal
communication August 2005.
[47] Elliot G. Developer of biomass combustion systems. Personal
communication November 7, 2004.
[48] Bruton AGC, Richards K. Full-scale implementation of SRC-
systems: Assessment of Technical and Non-Technical Barriers.
Published on the IEA Bioenergy Task 30 website in April 2005.
Retrieved from www.shortrotationcrops.com/ Verified August 22,
2005.
[49] Richards K. UK bioenergy expert. Personal communication Novem-
ber 9, 2004.
[50] Bransby, D. Biomass researcher from southeastern US. Personal
communication, November 7, 2004.
[51] Raymond, D. and Closset, G. 2004. Forest products biore-
finery: technology for a new future. Solutions September 2004:
49–53.
[52] Knight B. 2004. The world biomass market. Presented at the world
biomass conference in Rome, 10–14th May 2004. Retrieved from
www.dw-1.com (select downloads/papers and presentations/name of
specific document) Verified August 23, 2005.
[53] Knight B, Westwood A. 2004. Global biomass resources for heat and
electricity generation and capital expenditure forecasts. Retrieved
from www.dw-1.com (select downloads/papers and presentations/
name of specific document) Verified August 23, 2005.
[54] Anon. Oil in troubled waters. The Economist April 30th 2005.