Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Possibilities for sustainable biorefineries based on agricultural residues – A case

study of potential straw-based ethanol production in Sweden
Anna Ekman a,⇑, Ola Wallberg b, Elisabeth Joelsson b, Pål Börjesson a
a
Environmental and Energy System Studies, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund University, P.O. Box 124, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

h i g h l i g h t s

" Biorefineries can produce ethanol, biogas, heat and power efficiently with profit.
" Location of plant is decided by raw material supply in the region.
" Increased production of high value compounds affects profitability.
" Energy efficiency is increased by availability of heat sinks.
" Several locations may be suitable for construction of a biorefinery plant.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study presents a survey of the most important techno-economic factors for the implementation of
Received 18 April 2012 biorefineries based on agricultural residues, in the form of straw, and biochemical conversion into etha-
Received in revised form 27 June 2012 nol and biogas, together with production of electricity and heat. The paper suggests locations where the
Accepted 2 July 2012
necessary conditions can be met in Sweden. The requirements identified are regional availability of feed-
Available online 2 September 2012
stock, the possibility to integrate with external heat sinks, appropriate process design and the scale of the
plant. The scale of the plant should be adapted to the potential, regional, raw-material supply, but still be
Keywords:
large enough to give economies of scale. The integration with heat sinks proved to be most important to
Biorefinery
Agricultural residues
achieve high energy-efficiency, but it was of somewhat less importance for the profitability. Development
Ethanol of pentose fermentation, leading to higher ethanol yields, was important to gain high profitability. Prom-
Biogas ising locations were identified in the county of Östergötland where integration with an existing 1st gen-
Techno-economic assessment eration ethanol plant and district heating systems (DHSs) is possible, and in the county of Skåne where
District heating both a significant, potential straw supply and integration potential with DHSs are available.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction from the entire agricultural crop by producing multiple products

The debate on sustainability issues concerning biofuels has
intensified, especially about the potential conflict between food
and fuel production and about increased emissions of greenhouse
gases from changes in the use of land [37]. Thus, the great chal-
lenge of today is how to produce food, fuel and bioproducts in
the best possible way, and minimise the risk of land-use changes
and deforestation [23,5].
Despite the concerns with 1st generation biofuels based on su-
gar and starch crops, the majority of biofuels are still produced in
single-product factories from food crops such as corn, sugarcane or
wheat. One way to improve both productivity and sustainability is
the establishment of integrated biorefineries to generate value
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anna.ekman@miljo.lth.se (A. Ekman).
[8]. The interest in producing 2nd generation biofuels based on lig-
nocellulosic feedstock has increased in recent years due to an in-
creased awareness of the drawbacks of 1st generation biofuels.
Straw is a potential raw material for 2nd generation ethanol pro-
duction. It is a by-product generated from the cultivation of various
crops such as grains, oilseeds and rice, which makes it one of the
most abundant agricultural by-products worldwide. With a few
exceptions, such as its use in animal husbandry, soil improvement
and, in some developing countries as a building material and in
domestic stoves for cooking and heating, straw is mainly seen as
a waste residue [18].
This study presents an example of how sustainable, straw-
based biorefinery concepts can be implemented in practice. The
study is divided into two parts of which the first gives a short re-
view of environmental and policy issues concerned with biofuels
and 2nd generation ethanol. The second part presents a case study

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.07.016
300 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308
of straw-based biorefinery concepts developed in Sweden, their
energy and economic performance and options for siting based
on raw material supply and infrastructure for integration with
external heat sinks.
2. Incentives and initiatives for production of 2nd generation
ethanol, globally
2.1. Policy drivers
Most countries have adopted policies or other political or finan-
cial incentives to increase the production of biofuels, sometimes
with special focus on the 2nd generation biofuels [41]. The main
drivers behind these policies are climate-change mitigation, the
security of energy supply and the stimulation of rural development
[8]. In the EU, targets for biofuel consumption are set in the Renew-
able Energy Directive (RED). According to this directive, 10% of the
total energy used for transportation shall originate from renewable
sources by 2020 [15]. Since the previous EU directive of 2003 was
criticised because the drawbacks of crop-based biofuels had not
been considered [13]. The directive of 2009 [15] includes sustain-
ability criteria to prevent increased GHG emissions caused by
land-use changes and to protect sensitive and biodiverse areas.
The directive states that compared to fossil fuels the reductions
of CO2 emissions of biofuels produced in new plants should be at
least 35%, after 2017, 50% and after 2018, then 60% [34,41,15]. To
reach these targets, 2nd generation biofuels will be necessary. In
order to further stimulate the demand and thereby production of
biofuels produced from residues, waste and non-edible crops the
contribution of such biofuels should be considered to be twice that
of other biofuels [15].
In the US the updated Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), adopted
in 2010, requires the producers of biofuels to reduce life-cycle
emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 50% compared to con-
ventional fuels for advanced biofuels, 60% for cellulosic biofuels
and by 20% for 1st generation biofuels [41,34]. In the Energy Inde-
pendence and Security Act (EISA) absolute targets for the supply of
biofuels have been set in which also 2nd generation biofuels are in-
cluded. For 2010 the target was a production of 6.5 million gallons
of cellulosic ethanol. This should be compared with the total etha-
nol supply of 13 billion gallons, which corresponds to roughly 5% of
total gasoline consumption [3].
Brazil introduced its first national alcohol programme in 1975
but in the 1990s the demand for ethanol diminished. With increas-
ing oil prices and concern about global warming, the production of
ethanol gained a new impetus in the 2000s [41]. Thanks to favour-
able conditions for sugarcane production, well-developed technol-
ogy and a dedicated innovation system, Brazil is also the only
country in which ethanol as a vehicle fuel is profitable without
subsidies. Thus, an extended production of 2nd generation ethanol
in Brazil will most likely be driven by economic rather than polit-
ical reasons [17,19].
China was previously not taking actions to promote the use and
production of biofuels, specifically due to the competition with
food production and dependency on imported agricultural prod-
ucts. In recent years however, the fast growing car industry de-
mands increased production of non-food based biofuels [49].
Today only ethanol from non-grain crops is promoted and the gov-
ernment strictly controls the price and production of ethanol
[3,41]. China has substantial straw resources and part of these is
used for energy purposes, mainly in domestic applications in rural
areas [53].
However, despite the various policies adopted around the
world, only a few demonstration-scale plants producing 2nd gen-
eration ethanol has, until now, been built. In Europe, the most
recent investment is the Chemtex plant in Italy that will use straw
and in the future energy crops such as Giant Reed (Arundo donax)
as feedstock. A review of 2nd generation ethanol plants was pre-
sented by Menon and Rao [27].
2.2. Environmental performance
Several studies of the environmental impacts of various biofuels
have been performed and reviewed, among others, by Cherubini
and Strömman [10], Hoefnagels et al. [22] and Singh et al. [39].
Environmental assessments of 2nd generation biofuels in biorefin-
ery concepts are as yet rare, however, a few have been performed
by Cherubini and Ulgiati [11], Cherubini and Jungmeier [9], Uihlein
and Schebek [46] and others.
From the above-mentioned studies it is seen that factors with
high impact on 1st generation biofuels are related to agricultural
production and potential land-use changes. For 2nd generation
biofuels based on agricultural residues and by-products these neg-
ative impacts can be limited since no additional agricultural land is
taken into production. There are, however, limits to the amounts of
residues that can be harvested. Straw, for example, is a soil condi-
tioner used to maintain the organic matter content, and thereby
the long-term productivity of the soil.
Environmental performance of 1st generation ethanol produc-
tion-systems can be improved by gradually integrating these with
2nd generation ethanol production. One example of this is inte-
grated ethanol production from sugarcane and the by-product ba-
gasse. This would increase profits since more ethanol is produced
per unit of biomass. On the other hand, this will reduce the poten-
tial of co-generated electricity, and, depending on the reference
electricity production system replaced, will have different green-
house gas (GHG) implications [48,35,36]. Increased efficiency of
ethanol plants to reduce energy consumption will also improve
the environmental performance.
2.3. Global potentials for supply of agricultural residues
Several studies reviewing the future biomass potentials have
been published but there are significant variations in the results.
According to a study by Akhurst et al. [2], energy crops grown on
marginal land, excess forest production and residues from agricul-
ture (i.e. straw), industry and forestry will all give important con-
tribution to future biomass supply. The amount of straw and other
potential biomass raw materials that can be utilised for energy
purposes differs among regions due to technical, ecological and so-
cio-economic factors [2].
One frequently cited study of the global potential for ethanol
production from agricultural wastes and residues, was performed
by Kim and Dale [24]. According to this study, the potential pro-
duction of ethanol from cereal straw (wheat, barley and oat) is esti-
mated to be 2.83 EJ ethanol globally. Of this, 1.23 EJ is produced in
the EU, 0.98 EJ in Asia and 0.42 EJ in North America. From rice
straw approximately 4.64 EJ ethanol could be produced, 4.24 EJ
in Asia, 0.13 EJ in Africa and 0.15 EJ in South America. Other agri-
cultural residues from which the bioethanol production potentials
are significant are corn stover (1.26 EJ globally) and sugarcane ba-
gasse (1.07 EJ globally). As a comparison, the total amount of gas-
oline and diesel consumed only in Sweden was approximately
0.29 EJ in 2009 of which 87% was diesel and 13% gasoline [42].
For Sweden to fulfil the consumption targets set in the RED and re-
place 10% of gasoline consumption by ethanol, approximately
3.8 PJ of ethanol (corresponding to about 167,000 m3 pure ethanol)
will be needed. However, if 2nd generation ethanol is used, double
counting can be applied and thus the amount could be reduced by
50%, (equal to 1.9 PJ of ethanol) while still achieving the targets for
2020.
 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308 301

3. Straw as a resource for biorefining in Sweden – a case study Table 1

Products produced in the different biorefinery concepts.

The following section presents a case study of how straw-based A B C

biorefinery systems can be implemented in practice in Sweden. Ethanol X a
X b
Xb
The factors considered are raw material supply, process design, en- Biogas X X X
ergy efficiency, economy and integration with existing infrastruc- Electricity X X X
District heat X – X
ture such as district heating systems or other external heat sinks.
Previous studies focused on improvement on energy efficiency a
Only hexoses fermented to ethanol.
b
and economics but less on implementation, have been published Hexoses and pentoses fermented to ethanol.
by, for example, Sassner and Zacchi [32] and Sassner et al. [33].
Biorefinery concepts similar to the ones described in this study
are under development also at the Swedish University of Agricul- yields were based on laboratory-scale work performed by Linde
tural Sciences [12]. et al. [25] and the process development unit at the Department
of Chemical Engineering, Lund University. An overview of the prod-
ucts produced in the biorefinery plant, concerning three different
4. Methods and assumptions concepts, is presented in Table 1.

4.1. Raw material supply 4.2.1. Pretreatment and liquefaction

The global perspective on bioenergy potentials as discussed
previously is important for the general discussion of bioenergy
and related policies but the local and regional availability of feed-
stock is crucial for the practical implementation of biorefineries.
The practical potential resources of straw from grain and oilseed
crops in Sweden have been estimated based on official statistics
and reports as well as scientific literature. Restrictions in the use
of straw for energy purposes include straw in animal farming, eco-
logical constraints, limited harvest periods due to prevailing cli-
matic conditions, etc. Average uptake distances were calculated
for the counties of Skåne and Östergötland, using a calculation
model described by Berglund and Börjesson [4].
4.2. Process design
The plant was modelled to be in production for 8000 h per year
and run by 28 employees. In the base scenario the raw material
loading was 15 tonnes dry weight (dw) of wheat straw per hour,
resulting in a yearly demand of 120,000 tonnes dw of straw
(146,000 tonnes with 18% moisture content). The simulation mod-
els were based on techno-economical evaluations performed pre-
viously [31,33,32,51,50], adjusted in ethanol yield and layout to
fit the wheat straw case implemented in this study. The base case
process is illustrated in Fig. 1. The data on process conditions and
The reactor was modelled as a continuous reactor working at
190 °C, for which the steam consumption was set 10% higher than
a system working adiabatically. The content of water insoluble sol-
ids (WISs) in the material going into the reactor was 10%. The pre-
treated material was processed and then cooled in two steps by
flashing the material at 4 bar and 1 bar. The flashed steam contains
the volatile compounds formed during the pretreatment. The
steam was then condensed, the heat utilised in other processes
and the water was treated in the biogas plant.
4.2.2. Yeast cultivation and SSF
In the models, yeast was produced continuously in a yeast cul-
tivation fermentor. The yeast was cultivated on hydrolysate from
the pretreatment, supplemented by molasses and was modelled
by assuming a biomass conversion of 0.5 g biomass/g fermentable
sugar. The content of WISs during fermentation was set at 10%.
The expected ethanol yield was based on the results of Erdei
et al. [14] and Linde et al. [25].
4.2.3. Distillation
Distillation and molecular sieves are used to concentrate the
ethanol from 3% to 4%, depending on configuration, up to 100%.
The distillation unit consists of two parallel, 25-stage stripper col-
umns with a Murphree efficiency of 50% and a maximum pressure
of 3 and 1.25 bar followed by a 35-stage rectification column with

SSF

Enzymatic
Fermentation Distillation Dehydration EtOH
Hydrolysis

Stillage
Yeast
Cultivation

Combustion
Pretreatment Filtration Heat, power
(CHP)

Liquid
Condensate AD Biogas

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the biorefinery concepts studied.

302 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308

a 75% efficiency and a maximum pressure of 0.3 bar. Heat integra- Table 2a
tion in the distillation step was established by utilising the 3 bar Input data for economic assessment.

stripper overhead vapour to operate the 1.25 bar stripper reboiler. Depreciation period 15 years
In the next step the 1.25 bar stripper overhead vapour was used as Interest rate 7%
a heat source for the rectifier reboiler as well as for primary steam Depreciation 0.110
Interest rate on working capital 7%
if needed. The ingoing SSF stream was preheated by heat exchange
with the stillage from the stripper columns.

4.2.4. Biogas and wastewater treatment (WWT) Table 2b

The stillage from the stripper columns contains mainly water
and lignin, but also unfermented carbohydrates, unhydrolyzed cel-
lulose and inorganic substances. The stillage is filtered to remove
the solids, which are then combusted for heat to produce steam.
The liquid part of the stillage together with the flash steam from
the pretreatment is sent to an anaerobic digestion facility where
biogas is produced. It was assumed that 90% of the easily digested
compounds (monomeric carbohydrates mainly), 50% of the moder-
ately difficult substances (such as unhydrolysed carbohydrates)
and 0% of the inert substances such as lignin were converted in
the biogas plant. The amount of biogas was calculated to be
0.35 m3 per kg Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) digested.
4.2.5. On-site energy production
The solid residue, mainly lignin, is combusted in a boiler–tur-
bine system producing superheated steam (90 bar, 470 °C) to cover
the steam demand of the processes. The steam generated is ex-
panded to 4 bar by a withdrawal of 20 bar steam. This low-pres-
sure (LP) steam is also withdrawn and is used together with the
20 bar, high-pressure (HP) steam, to heat the process. The isentro-
pic and mechanical efficiencies of the turbines were set to 90% and
97%, respectively.
4.2.6. Technical and economic evaluation
The processes were modelled in Aspen Plus (version 7.2, from
Aspen Technology Inc.), to solve mass and energy balances. The
physical property data for the biomass components such as lignin
and cellulose were taken from the NREL database for biofuel com-
ponents [52].
The results of the Aspen Plus simulation were used to design the
equipment, and the capital costs were obtained using Aspen Pro-
cess Economic Analyzer (APEA, version 7.2 from Aspen Technology
Inc.) or vendor quotations. Working capital was accounted for
according to recommendations in the literature [30].
4.3. Energy efficiency
The heat and power consumed in the ethanol production is gen-
erated internally from the by-product lignin, which makes the
plants self-sufficient in energy. In this study, total energy efficiency
is defined as the ratio between the energy content in outgoing,
marketable products and the incoming feedstock, including the
primary energy input in straw harvest and transport (based on
lower heat value, LHV). The energy consumed in the production
of chemicals and enzymes used in the production is not included
in this analysis. However, enzyme production is relatively energy
intensive [28] and in a more detailed study of the environmental
performance of the biorefinery systems, enzyme production should
be included.
Input data for base case economic assessment.
Costs
Straw 2.13 €/GJa
Incomes
Ethanol 30 €/GJb
Methane 9.17 €/GJc
Electricity (sale price) 11 €/GJd
Electricity (certificate) 6.11 €/GJe
District heat 8.33 €/GJf
a
Lantmännen Agrovärme, Skurup (Personal communication).
b
SEKAB (Personal communication).
c
Swedish Energy Agency (Personal communication).
d
NordPool (Personal communication).
e
Swedish Energy Agency (Personal communication).
f
Swedish District Heating Association (Personal communication).
material and products was assessed. Price levels used were chosen
to represent realistic, medium-term variations, such as increased
prices of straw due to a regional increase in the demand for straw
for energy purposes. Extreme prices of raw materials caused by, for
example, unfavourable weather conditions and thereby a reduced
harvest of straw in a specific year are not considered. Raw material
prices include costs for transport and storage under conditions
applicable in Skåne. The impact of increasing the cost for transport
by, for example, longer transportation distances in order to suit the
conditions in i.e. Östergötland, are in the sensitivity analysis thus
included in the increased price of raw material and are not as-
sessed separately. The sensitivity to labour costs is also assessed
in the sensitivity analysis.
4.5. Integration with heat sinks
The choice of location of the plant will depend on the availabil-
ity of raw materials, logistics and infrastructure. For concepts with
excess heat production, also the access to district heating systems
or other external heat sinks will be important. Logistics and infra-
structure include storage facilities and access to road, rail and har-
bours to facilitate the transports of feedstock and products. Access
to district heating systems or industries with high heat demand, is
a crucial parameter to maintain an overall, high energy-efficiency
for the category of biorefinery concepts producing large amounts
of excess heat. The Swedish District Heating Association [43] and
the Swedish Energy Agency [42] provide official statistics on dis-
trict heating-systems and their main fuels used today.
5. Results
5.1. Raw material supply

4.4. Economy
Depending on product-mix, production costs and price of the
products, the profitability will differ among the three different con-
cepts studied. The economy is simulated according to present con-
ditions and the parameters are shown in Tables 2a and 2b. In a
sensitivity-analysis the sensitivity to variations in prices of raw
The availability of straw for energy purposes depends on the
production of cereals and oilseeds, which makes the intensity
and structure of the regional agriculture the most important factor
affecting straw supply. In this assessment straw supply is not re-
stricted to type even though the models are based only on wheat
straw. In Sweden there are large regional variations in both the
availability of agricultural land and agricultural productivity and
 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308 303

cereal and oilseed production is highest in the south. Modern 5.2. Energy efficiency
grains have been developed to have low straw-to-grain ratios of
on average 0.6 (0.4–1) [29]. The total amount of straw produced Comparison of the energy efficiency of the three different mod-
in Sweden is almost 2.4 Mtonnes/year. Technical factors limit the els is shown in Fig. 3. The energy efficiency increases with the
possible harvest to about 60–80% of total straw biomass [29,6]. A amount of heat that can be recovered and sold. If a heat sink such
certain amount of straw should remain in the field to maintain as a district heating-system or a heat-demanding industry is not
the organic matter content of the soil. A too high removal of straw available, excess heat could be used to produce power as in con-
can increase emissions of GHGs from the soil [11]. The amount to cept B. This option decreases the overall energy efficiency but
be left on the fields varies depending on geographic factors, weath- opens up for more potential locations since integration with exter-
er conditions and agricultural practices [29,6]. nal heat sinks is not necessary. Increased production of ethanol by
Energy production is still a minor use for straw in Sweden [47]. the introduction of pentose fermentation has a small effect on
The major use of straw is feed and bedding in animal husbandry. overall energy efficiency because less biogas and heat will be pro-
Available straw resources will therefore be smaller in areas with duced, as is seen in a comparison of models A and C. The total en-
extensive animal production, for example, the county of V. Göta- ergy efficiency, based on lower heating values (LHV), of model A is
land, see Table 3. Taking these factors into account, only about 71%, of model B 56% and of model C 70%.
35% of total straw biomass can be regarded as potential biorefinery The primary energy input in straw harvest operations, including
feedstock [6]. The total straw potential in the most productive agri- transportation by truck for 50 km to a biorefinery plant, is esti-
cultural regions is shown in Table 3. The location and straw density mated to be equivalent to, on average, 2.5% (normally varying from
in tonnes/km2 is illustrated in Fig. 2. In Skåne, the amount of straw 2.0% to 4.0%) of the energy content in the straw biomass [7]. Thus,
to supply a biorefinery was calculated to be present within an aver- when this energy input is added to the primary energy input in the
age radius of 45 km and in Östergötland a similar average radius is biorefinery plant, the total energy efficiency of the system, from
67 km. field to plant gate, will be approximately 69% (concept A), 55%
(concept B) and 68% (concept C). Increased transport distances of
the raw material will have a negative effect on the overall energy
efficiency, although the transport cost will probably be the limiting
Table 3 factor.
Potential straw resources in Sweden (data adapted from [6,29]). Amounts in the table
are wet weight with 18% water content.
5.3. Economy
County Agricultural area Total straw Net supply for
(Cereals and oilseed) supply (ton) energy purposes
(ha) (ton) The costs and incomes associated with the three biorefinery
Skåne 245,000 773,000 308,000 models are shown in Fig. 4. Income is shown as positive figures
Östergötland 103,000 323,000 126,000 and costs are negative figures. Total profit for concept A was
V. Götaland 220,000 543,000 114,000 9.0 M€/year, for concept B 14.4 M€/year and concept C 16.8 M€/
Uppsala 87,200 220,000 101,000 year. The costs are similar for all models, with raw material (straw
Västmanland 64,600 150,000 64,300
Södermanland 61,100 159,000 58,900
and input chemicals) and capital costs as the dominating posts.
Örebro 53,800 134,000 45,500 Ethanol gives the highest income per produced unit, and increased
Stockholm 35,900 86,400 11,700 ethanol production by the development of pentose fermentation
Total 830,000 will increase the total profitability. The possibility of selling the
co-products, namely, district heat, electricity and biogas has a
smaller effect on profit than on energy efficiency. This corresponds
well with results from studies of similar systems, for example,
Heyne and Harvey [20].
The incomes from electricity production comprise both income
from sales and electricity certificates. Electricity certificates are is-
sued by the Swedish Energy Agency and are a market-based tool to
support production of renewable electricity. The system of electric-
ity certificates will be in place until 2035 [44]. Model C in which
ethanol production is optimised and additional products can be
sold both as heat and electricity gives the highest profitability.

Fig. 2. Map of Sweden showing the counties and their respective densities in straw
resources. Fig. 3. Annual energy output from the alternative biorefinery concepts.
304 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308

models in the base case is about 120,000 tonnes. According to Ta-

Fig. 4. Economic performance of the different biorefinery concepts based on
current price levels, total revenue (in M€) written in parenthesis.
The scale is assumed to have a high impact on the revenue of the
biorefineries and the effect of down-sizing the models is studied
in the sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis also includes
variations in prices of raw materials, products and labour.
5.4. Integration potentials
As was shown in the previous section, the possibility to increase
the production of the high-value product ethanol is more impor-
tant than selling excess heat if the aim is to increase the total rev-
enue of the biorefinery, based on current price levels. However, as
has also been shown in this paper, integration with a heat sink,
such as a district heating system, is important to achieve a high en-
ergy-efficiency.
The costs of the transport of biomass exceed the costs of the
transport of products regardless of biomass type or transportation
mode [38]. Straw is a low-density product and transport will have
a high impact on the cost and environmental performance imply-
ing that transport distances for biomass feedstock should be min-
imised [16]. The total annual straw consumption in the biorefinery
ble 3, this amount will be available in the county of Skåne and
practically also in the county of Östergötland. In the county of V.
Götaland the required amount could also be provided but here
the competition with animal farming is greater. To supply the re-
quired amount of straw in the counties of Uppsala, Västmanland
and Södermanland, the scale of the biorefineries must be reduced.
The effects of down-sizing the ethanol plants, here to 50% of raw
material intake compared to the base case, are assessed in the sen-
sitivity analysis.
According to the simulations, biorefinery models A and B will
have an excess heat production equivalent to 139 GW h/year and
93 GW h/year, respectively. In the best possible case, the heat pro-
duced by the biorefinery concept should be used as base load in the
district heating system and therefore not exceed 1/3 of total heat
supply in DHSs. This is because there are large seasonal variations
in the demand for district heating but the production in the biore-
finery is constant throughout the year. In the regions with suffi-
cient straw resources there are 12 district heating-systems with
sufficient capacity to be utilised as heat sinks for concept A and
16 systems possible for concept C. An overview of municipalities
with district heating systems of appropriate size is presented in Ta-
ble 4. The location of the counties is shown in Fig. 2.
Commonly used base loads in district heating are waste inciner-
ation or waste heat from other industries, and the integration of
biorefineries should not compete with these applications. The dis-
trict heating systems with the best potential for integration are
therefore based on fossil fuels (natural gas or coal), heat pumps,
peat or other biomass. In some district heating-systems, big invest-
ments in plants, boilers and other equipment have recently been
made, which makes integration with a biorefinery system unlikely
in the near future. However, this is not considered in this study.
For a larger system, one promising option is the city of Norrkö-
ping in the county of Östergötland. The city of Norrköping has a
district heating-system of sufficient size. Even though waste is an
important fuel in this system, biofuels also have a large share. Nor-
rköping hosts the biggest 1st generation (cereal-based) ethanol
plant in Sweden and this plant receives process steam from the
same CHP plant as the district heating system [1]. The

Table 4
District heating systems in the regions under consideration.

Output/yeara Input/year
County Municipality Total heat supply (GW h) Waste (GW h) Industrial heat Biomass Peat Heat pumps Fossil fuels
(GW h) (GW h)c (GW h) (GW h) (GW h)
Skåne Helsingborg 844 339 1073
Kristianstad 277 363
Lund 763 111/345 330
Malmö 2331 1178 138 241 30/104 689
Östergötland Linköping 1220 1154 206
Norrköping 1005 459 495 156
V. Götaland Borås 573 303 473
Göteborg 3661 1226 1110 799 89/285
Skövde 295 143 145
Trollhättan 290 340
Uppsala Uppsala 1289 1100 781
Västmanland Västerås 1483 816 1431
Södermanland Eskilstuna 669 920
Örebro Örebro 1103 180 833 314
Karlskoga 332 108 54 84
Stockholm Södertälje 725 405 110 27
Stockholmb 11471 1382 26 4680 171 1107/3386 2172
a
Electricity production from CHP plants is not included in the table.
b
Stockholm includes the entire region plus neighbouring municipalities.
c
Biomass includes both refined and unrefined biomass.
 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308
consumption of steam in the existing ethanol plant is approxi-
mately 600 GW h/year for the production of 200,000 m3 ethanol.
To integrate 1st and 2nd generation ethanol production would be
an option to utilise the heat from the 2nd generation plant even
though external biomass will still be needed to cover the total en-
ergy supply. An advantage of this integration compared to integra-
tion with the district heating system is that the heat demand in the
ethanol plant is not seasonal. There are also technical advantages
of integration of 1st and 2nd generation ethanol production [14].
Another location with great potential would be in the munici-
pality of Lund in the county of Skåne. Lund is situated in an area
of high straw density and minor animal farming which could as-
sure short transportation distances, and thereby low costs. Today,
the greatest share of district heat in Lund is provided by fossil fuels,
which would then be replaced.
The municipality of Västerås in the county of Västmanland has a
large district heating system based on the combustion of peat and
is therefore an interesting option as the location of a biorefinery in-
spite of Västerås being situated somewhat marginally to the area
with available straw resources. However, Västerås would be an
interesting option for the integration of a smaller biorefinery or a
biorefinery that utilises multiple feedstocks such as a combination
of agricultural and forestry residues.
Trollhättan, Kristianstad, Eskilstuna and Södertälje are munici-
palities with district heating systems of similar size, today mainly
biomass-fired but with capacity to incorporate a 2nd generation
ethanol plant in the systems. It is possible to integrate both large
and smaller plants in these cities although smaller ones would
be preferable from a heat-integration perspective, especially in
Trollhättan, Eskilstuna and Södertälje due to limitations in straw
supply.
Despite the large capacity of its district heating system, Stock-
holm is not considered a suitable site for a biorefinery, among
other things due to the complexity of the system. Malmö and Göte-
borg are therefore the two largest systems considered. Even
though they both have waste incineration as base-load in their dis-
trict-heating systems, these would still be big enough to also incor-
porate a biorefinery since a large proportion of natural gas is
consumed for district heating in both of these cities.
5.5. Logistics and storage conditions
Straw is a seasonal raw material and is mainly harvested in Au-
gust and must thereafter be stored until used. Storage of straw can
be costly since a high quality must be maintained. Danish studies
have shown that, from an economic perspective, it is preferable
to store and transport straw as bales rather than chaffed or pelleted
[21]. The most cost-efficient seasonal storage is on the farm, in
stacks under plastic sheeting.
All the regions identified in this study have a well-developed
infrastructure. However, an increase in heavy traffic on roads and
railroads already used to capacity can make the capacity of the
infrastructure a limiting factor. Furthermore, such intensified traf-
fic can become unacceptable in built-up urban areas (e.g. Stock-
holm, Göteborg and Malmö). If raw material is available
regionally, transportation by truck is the most probable option.
However, to secure the supply of raw material at reasonable cost
even in cases where the regional supply is insufficient, access to
a harbour is an advantage since it facilitates import. This will sig-
nificantly reduce the economic risk for the plant operator.
6. Sensitivity analysis
The most important parameters included in this assessment for
implementation of the biorefinery concepts were availability of
305
straw feedstock, and, for the models producing excess heat (A
and C), access to heat sinks. There were limited options for the sit-
ing of a plant of the suggested scale in the base case due to limita-
tions in heat demand, and the impact of reducing scale to an intake
of 300 GW h straw/year (50% of the base case, or 60,000 tonnes/
year) was assessed. The impact on energy efficiency was minor
and the total energy efficiencies for the down-sized concepts, here
referred to as a, b and c, were 68% for concept a, 50% for concept b
and 67% for concept c. Thus, the energy efficiencies were approxi-
mately 90–95% of the energy efficiencies in the base case.
The impact on the economy was significantly higher for plants
of reduced scale (Fig. 5). The only concept generating profit is con-
cept c, 0.83 M€/year, approximately 5% of the revenue for concept
C in the base case. The total net incomes for the other concepts
were 2.4 M€/year for a, and for b 0.57 M€/year. The main reason
for the negative balance is the capital cost. The capital costs are al-
most of the same magnitude for a plant of reduced scale but the in-
comes are reduced by 50%.
The sensitivity to variations in price of both raw materials and
products was also assessed. Since increases in prices are consid-
ered to be more likely than reductions, prices lower than in the
base case are not assessed. The variations in prices were chosen
to represent realistic variations. The price of straw is linked to
the prices of other types of solid biomass, such as wood chips,
which is the most important fuel in district heating in Sweden to-
day. Generally the price of straw is lower than the price of wood
chips which is approximately 6.10 €/GJ today [45]. In a similar
way the price of ethanol is linked to the price of petrol. How vari-
ations in price affect the total revenue of the concepts is presented
in Table 5.
The prices of straw and ethanol were found to be the factors
with the highest impact on revenue. The price of straw is in the
base-case equivalent to approximately 35% of the current price of
wood chips delivered to district heating plants, which has in-
creased by some 80% over the past 6 years [44]. An increase in
the price of straw by, for example, 100% (equivalent to 70% of cur-
rent price of wood chips) can be compensated by a smaller increase
in the price of ethanol. Increasing the prices of heat and power
within the boundaries of this study is, however, not sufficient to
compensate for a higher price of straw. Concept C, which has a high
diversity of products, was found to be less sensitive to changes in
price than concepts A and B. However, optimised production of
the high-value product ethanol is the most important parameter
to reduce the sensitivity of the biorefineries to changes in feed-
stock price. The assessment was also applied to the biorefinery
Fig. 5. Calculation of the economy of biorefinery concepts, including base-case A, B
and C, and reduced scale a, b and c, equivalent to 50% of the base-case. Net profits
(M€) in parenthesis.
306 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308
Table 5
Analysis of sensitivity of resulting profitability to changes in price on feedstock and energy carriers produced.
Changed parameter Base case Sensitivity analysis
Straw 2.13 €/GJ +50% +100%
Ethanol 30 €/GJ – –
Electricity (spot) 11 €/GJ – –
Electricity (certificate) 6.11 €/GJ – –
Heat 8.33 €/GJ – –
Biogas 9.17 €/GJ – –
Laboura 65 k€/year – –
Results
Revenue A 9.0 M€/year 26%
Revenue B 14.4 M€/year 16%
Revenue C 16.8 M€/year 14%
a
One average employee including overhead costs.
concepts of reduced scale. The negative revenues remained nega-
tive except for the alternative with increased ethanol price when
also concept b generated positive revenue. Labour costs are not
likely to decrease and the effect of increasing the cost of each em-
ployee by 50% was assessed and the results are shown in Table 5.
The importance of labour costs was less significant than raw mate-
rial or products but in a similar manner, the sensitivity to increased
labour costs was reduced if the output of ethanol was maximised.
7. Discussion
In Sweden the demand for heating is large due to the cold cli-
mate and the majority of municipalities provide a district heat-
ing-system to which a majority of buildings are connected. In
conjunction with re-investments in a district heating system, the
possibility of establishing a biorefinery should be considered. The
possibility to utilise the excess heat, produced in some of the po-
tential biorefinery concepts assessed within this paper, has a sig-
nificant impact on the overall energy efficiency. However,
dependence on existing infrastructure for integration can limit
the possibilities for implementation. The option of stand-alone sys-
tems, in which excess heat is used only for production of electric-
ity, provides more siting options. This since access to raw materials
and transport infrastructure are the only factors to be considered.
According to the results shown in this paper, the effect on profit-
ability by integration is minor and there are not always obvious
economic reasons for selling heat as long as production of a
high-value product, in this case ethanol, is developed and opti-
mised. However, a large supply of cheap heat could attract indus-
tries with high heat demand and thereby create biorefinery
clusters.
In the scenarios discussed above, ethanol will be used as a vehi-
cle fuel and the remaining biomass residues that are not converted
to ethanol or biogas will be used for electricity and heat produc-
tion. However, ethanol and biogas have numerous possibilities to
be used in the chemical industry either as it is or converted to
other chemical building blocks. Increased demand for ethanol in
different applications might affect both the price and the choice
of location of biorefinery plants. A possible partner for integration
might be a chemical factory with significant heat consumption. The
sugars could also be fermented to chemicals such as organic acids
or other alcohols. Also the lignin fraction has possibilities to be
used as a raw material for chemicals, although extensive research
is needed before this can be implemented in reality. The end-use of
the ethanol and co-products might have an effect on the sales
price, of which the potential effects was shown in the sensitivity
analysis.
Raw material prices could increase due to an increase in de-
mand or changes in economic incentives or climate policies.
+100% +100% +100% –
+30% – – –
– +50% +50% –
– +50% +50% –
– – +30% –
– – – –
– – – +50%
52% +14% 36% 21% 10%
33% +33% 24% 24% 6.4%
28% +28% 22% 17% 5.5%
Investment costs could decrease with rapid technological develop-
ment. A factor with high impact on the revenue is the scale of the
plant. This is shown in the sensitivity analysis but has been studied
in detail by Slade et al. [40] and others. Another factor that can vary
greatly but may be of importance for both economy and environ-
mental performance is the consumption of enzymes. A study by
Liptow [26] shows that the effect of enzyme consumption on the
environmental performance of bioethanol varies greatly between
studies.
Today, enzyme costs are relatively high but there may be sev-
eral possibilities to reduce these. Technology development, both
to improve the enzymes and the ethanol process in order to reduce
consumption, has a great potential. Increased competition in the
enzyme industry or possibilities to produce enzymes in-house
may also decrease the cost whereas other factors such as increased
demand may increase enzyme prices. Thus, the assessment of en-
zyme costs is outside the scope of this paper but will be of partic-
ular importance for future studies. However, changes in enzyme
prices will most likely follow a pattern similar to the one seen
when assessing changes in raw material or labour costs.
To be used as a feedstock for energy production or biochemical
products, the straw must fulfil certain quality criteria. It must
therefore be profitable for farmers to provide straw of the desired
quality even though this could entail extra investment and labour
costs. In Denmark, the use of straw for energy production is well
established Danish farmers soon organised themselves in suppli-
ers’ organisations, now called the Danish Straw Suppliers Associa-
tion. This arrangement has been successful and has helped to
guarantee both reasonable straw prices for farmers and an assured
supply of high quality raw material for the energy companies
[21,47].
According to global studies, the greatest potential for lignocellu-
losic ethanol production from agricultural residues is in Asia where
especially rice straw and wheat straw are generated in large
amounts. In some areas, straw is used as animal feed, building
material or in other domestic applications. A large fraction of the
straw is left or burned in the field [18]. To be able to harvest the
straw, significant investments may be needed both by the farmers
in machinery and storage and in infrastructure. However, if a de-
mand for straw is created and fair farmers’ cooperatives are estab-
lished to make some of these investments, this could be profitable
also for farmers through increased profits and access to locally pro-
duced fuel and power.
Integration of the production of 1st and 2nd generation ethanol
is considered a successful strategy and thus ethanol produced from
bagasse, corn stover or straw, that are residues from conventional
ethanol production, might be more likely to be established in a
shorter time perspective. The potential for such raw materials is
significant as discussed previously in this paper. The ethanol con-
sumption in the Swedish transportation system is currently
 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308
8.3 PJ. The majority of this is covered by imports but an increased
demand for ethanol might improve the conditions for domestic
ethanol production. Apart from agricultural residues such as straw,
Sweden has a significant potential to supply forestry residues that
can also be used for ethanol production. However, that is outside
the scope of this study.
In recent years, the negative environmental impacts of biofuels
have been brought into focus. This discussion is of value in order to
heighten awareness of the drawbacks and problems involved in
the use of biomass for biofuels, especially the 1st generation biofu-
els based on food crops. However, there are several alternatives, for
example, the ones presented in this paper, to use biomass sustain-
ably by utilising residues with at present, limited alternative uses,
in integrated biorefinery systems with high energy and cost effi-
ciencies. An increasing part of the biomass residues available glob-
ally today, such as straw, is used for stand-alone electricity
production. However, electricity can be produced in numerous
alternative ways, not only in biorefinery concepts, but also utilising
wind, solar or other renewable energy sources. For food, liquid
fuels and chemicals, however, biomass is the only renewable
source of organic carbon.
8. Conclusions
The increased concern about the drawbacks of a fast and exten-
sive expansion of 1st generation biofuel has increased awareness
among policy makers, and the incentives for the production of
2nd generation biofuels, especially from residues, are being in-
creased. Straw is an agricultural residue that is available world-
wide and that is suitable for the production of biofuels and bio-
based products.
In order to build an energy-efficient biorefinery based on straw
and with ethanol as the main product, the possibility to utilise ex-
cess heat has a high impact, e.g. in district heating systems. To in-
crease the economic profit of such a system, optimising ethanol
production by fermentation of C5-sugars gives the highest
contribution.
The benefits of scale are significant for a biorefinery concept
since the capital costs are relatively high. Biorefinery concepts with
optimised production of ethanol are also less sensitive to variations
in price, for example, of the feedstock. For the siting of a biorefin-
ery, regional availability of raw material was identified as an
important parameter, in addition to the availability of external
heat sinks for some concepts. In Sweden, a handful of places were
identified as suitable locations for a biorefinery based on straw as
feedstock, integrated in the district heating system. However, from
an economic point-of-view, some stand-alone biorefinery concepts
can be almost as effective. Thus, straw-based biorefineries should
be an attractive option around the world in regions with excess
straw, independent of whether external heat sinks are available
or not.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the economic support from
the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Knowledge Centre for
Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3).
References
[1] Agroetanol, 2011. http://www.agroetanol.se.
[2] Akhurst M, Kalas N, Woods J. Meta-analysis of biomass potentials for biofuel
production. Sci Insights Biofuel Policy 2011(2).
[3] Balat M, Balat H. Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-
ethanol fuel. Appl Energy 2009;86:2273–82.
[4] Berglund M, Börjesson P. Energianalys av biogassystem, Report No. 44,
Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, Lund; 2003.
307
[5] Bogdanski A, Dubois O, Jamieson C, Krell R. Making integrated food-energy
systems work for people and climate – an overview, food and agriculture
organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ISBN 978-92-5-106772-7;
2011.
[6] Börjesson P. Bioenergi från jordbruket – en växande resurs, Statens Offentliga
Utredningar, SOU 2007:36, ISBN 978-91-38-22752-7; 2007.
[7] Börjesson P, Tufvesson L. Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource efficiency
and environmental performance including direct land-use changes. J Clean
Prod 2011;19:108–20.
[8] Cherubini F. The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for
producing energy and chemicals. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51(7):1412–21.
[9] Cherubini F, Jungmeier G. LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,
bioenergy and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2010;15:53–66.
[10] Cherubini F, Strömman AH. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state
of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:437–51.
[11] Cherubini F, Ulgiati S. Crop residues as raw material for biorefinery systems – a
LCA case study. Appl Energy 2010;87:47–57.
[12] Dererie DY, Trobro S, Momeni MH, Hansson H, Blomqvist J, Passoth V, et al.
Improved bio-energy yields via sequential ethanol fermentation and biogas
digestion of steam exploded oat straw. Bioresour Technol
2011;106(6):4449–55.
[13] Doornbosch R, Steenblik R. Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? Round
Table on Sustainable Development, OECD, SG/SD/RT(2007) 3; 2007.
[14] Erdei B, Bart Z, Sipos B, Réczey K, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Ethanol production from
mixtures of wheat straw and wheat meal. Biotech Biofuels 2010;3:16.
[15] European Commission (EC), Directive 2009/28/EC; 2009.
[16] Forsberg M, Baky A, Westlin H, Ljungberg D, Ytterberg P. Agricultural supply of
biomass fuels to large-scale cogeneration plants – a case study of Värtan, JTI
Report 361, ISSN 1401-4963; 2007.
[17] Furtado AT, Scandiffio MIG, Cortez LAB. The brazilian sugarcane innovation
system. Energy Policy 2011;39:156–66.
[18] Gadde B, Menke C, Wassmann R. Rice straw as a renewable energy source in
India, Thailand and the Philippines: overall potential and limitations for
energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass Bioenergy
2009;33:1532–46.
[19] Gee S, McMeekin A. Eco-innovation systems and problem sequences: the
contrasting cases of U.S. and Brazilian biofuels. Ind Innov 2011;18(3):301–15.
[20] Heyne S, Harvey S. Assessment of the energy and economic performance of
second generation biofuel production processes using energy market
scenarios. Appl Energy 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2012.03.034.
[21] Hinge J. Elaboration of a platform for increasing straw combustion in Sweden
based on Danish experiences, Värmeforsk, ISSN 1653-1248; 2009.
[22] Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A. Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel
production systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1661–94.
[23] Karp A, Richter GM. Meeting the challenge of food and energy security. J Exp
Bot 2011:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err099.
[24] Kim S, Dale B. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and
crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;26:361–75.
[25] Linde M, Jakobsson E, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Steam pretreatment of dilute H2SO4-
impregnated wheat straw and SSF with low yeast and enzyme loading for
bioethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32(4):326–32.
[26] Liptow C. Life cycle assessment of renewable-based hydrocarbon plastics,
Thesis for the degree of licentiate of engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden; 2011.
[27] Menon V, Rao M. Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform
chemicals & biorefinery concept. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2012. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.02.002.
[28] Nielsen PH, Oxenboll K, Wenzel H. Cradle-to-gate environmental assessment
of enzyme products produced industrially in denmark by novozymes A/S. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 2007;12(6):432–8.
[29] Nilsson D, Bernesson S. Straw as fuel – Part 1: Available resources and harves
times, Report 011, ISSN 1654-9406, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology, Uppsala; 2009.
[30] Peter MS, Timmerhaus KD. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers.
3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[31] Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Techno-economic aspects of a wood-to-ethanol
process, energy demand and possibilities for integration. Chem Eng Trans
2007;12:447–52.
[32] Sassner P, Zacchi G. Integration options for high energy efficiency and
improved economics in a wood-to-ethanol process. Biotechnol Biofuels
2008;1:4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834/1/4.
[33] Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol
production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;32:422–30.
[34] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy
sustainability certification: a global overview. Energy Policy
2011;39:1630–46.
[35] Seabra JEA, Tao L, Chum HL, Macedo IC. A techno-economic evaluation of the
effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-products refinery options with
sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:1065–78.
[36] Seabra J, Macedo IC. Comparative analysis for power generation and ethanol
production from sugarcane residual biomass in Brazil. Energy Policy
2011;39:421–8.
308 A. Ekman et al. / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 299–308
[37] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land-use change. Science 2008;319:1238–40.
[38] Searcy E, Flynn P, Ghafoori E, Kumar A. The relative cost of biomass energy
transport. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2007:136–40.
[39] Singh A, Pant D, Korres NE, Nizami A-S, Prasad S, Murphy JD. Key issues in life
cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass:
challenges and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5003–12.
[40] Slade R, Bauen A, Shah N. The commercial performance of cellulosic ethanol
supply chains in Europe. Biotechnol Biofuels 2009;2:3. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1754-6834-2-3.
[41] Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C. An overview of biofuel policies across the world.
Energy Policy 2010;38:6977–88.
[42] Swedish Energy Agency, Energiläget 2010, Official Swedish Energy Statistics,
2010.
[43] Swedish District Heating Association, 2011. <http://www.svenskfjarrvarme.se/
Statistik–Pris/Fjarrvarme/Energitillforsel/>.
[44] Swedish Energy Agency, The Electricity Certificate System 2011, Swedish
Energy Agency Report ET2011:52; 2011.
[45] Swedish Energy Agency, Wood fuel and peat prices No. 4/2011, Official
Statistics Sweden, Statistical announcements EN 0307 SM 1104; 2011.
[46] Uihlein A, Schebek L. Environmental impacts of a lignocellulose feedstock
biorefinery system: an assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:793–802.
[47] Voytenko Y, Peck P. Organisational frameworks for straw-based energy
systems in Sweden and Denmark. Biomass Bioenergy 2011. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.049.
[48] Walter A, Ensinas AV. Combined production of second-generation biofuels and
electricity from sugarcane residues. Energy 2010;35:874–9.
[49] Wang Q. Time for commercializing non-food biofuels in China. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:621–9.
[50] Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Energy consideration for a SSf-based bioethanol
plant. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(7):2121–31.
[51] Wingren A, Söderström J, Galbe M, Zacchi G. Process consideration and
economical evaluation of two-step steam pretreatment for production of fuel
ethanol from softwood. Biotech Prog 2004;20(5):1421–9.
[52] Wooley R, Putsche V. Development of an aspen plus physical property
database for biofuels components. MA, 425-20685: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL); 1996.
[53] Zheng X, Ma Y, Ma L. Utilization of straw in biomass energy in China. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:976–87.