See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349189666

Feasibility of agriculture biomass power generation in Morocco: Techno-

economic analysis

Article  in  Journal of Cleaner Production · February 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126293

CITATIONS READS
16 381

4 authors:

Ali Mana A. Allouhi

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
4 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   3,049 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kamar Ouazzani Jamil A.

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
19 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS    172 PUBLICATIONS   5,320 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sol'r shemsy View project

Create new project "Latent Energy Stor" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Mana on 04 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal Pre-proof

Feasibility of agriculture biomass power generation in Morocco: Techno-economic

analysis

A.A. Mana, A. Allouhi, K. Ouazzani, A. Jamil

PII: S0959-6526(21)00513-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126293
Reference: JCLP 126293

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 27 August 2020

Revised Date: 27 January 2021
Accepted Date: 3 February 2021

Please cite this article as: Mana A, Allouhi A, Ouazzani K, Jamil A, Feasibility of agriculture biomass
power generation in Morocco: Techno-economic analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126293.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Title : Feasibility of agriculture biomass power generation in
Morocco: Techno-economic analysis.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 1 Techno-economic viability of agricultural biomass for sustainable power
2 generation in Morocco

4 AA.Manaa,b, A.Allouhib, K.Ouazzania, A.Jamilb

5
6 a. Department of Energetic Engineering, Innovative Technologies Laboratory (LTI) U.S.M.B.A, FES,
7 Morocco
8 b. Ecole Supérieure de Technologie de Fès, U.S.M.B.A, Route d’Imouzzer, BP 242 Fez, Morocco
9
10 * Correspondance: Email: abdelali.mana@gmail.usmba.ac.ma
11

of
12 Abstract

ro
13 All over the world, agriculture is both the food provider and an energy-intensive consumer, basically
14 in developing countries. Thus, energy inputs into agriculture are often from fossil origin. Nevertheless,
15
16
17
-p
rural development cannot be done without food security and energy independence. In line with this
target, it is proposed that energy from biomass could achieve sustainability, especially in rural areas
where poverty and scarcity of energy raised continually.
re
18 To this end, a techno-economic analysis is progressively developed to examine the opportunity of
lP

19 biomass power generation to furnish clean electricity for rural areas in Morocco. The purpose of this
20 effective work is to valorize the untapped potential of agricultural biomass waste, aiming to achieve
21 rural sustainability and reach a stable electricity supply. For this aim, a case study was drawn at the
na

22 strategic geographical region Fes-Meknes, which possesses a particular agricultural potential of 4.22
23 million tons, equivalent to over 0.5 Mtep/year.
ur

24 Performance results showed that only with olive residues, the selected power systems has the
25 potential, of about 2828.11 GWh /year with an annual capacity factor of 82.5%. The system power
26 generated in 8761 hours per year can supply electricity to 254,252 households. Indeed, to compensate
Jo

27 monthly variations of electricity load and demand, the energy produced is assumed to be supplied to
28 the national grid, and from there, recovered by the local villages.

29 The main results of the financial model can be perceived as a total installed cost of 3755.70 $/kW. The
30 average real and nominal LCOE of 17.23 and 15.03 cents/ kWh respectively, which is exceptionally
31 competitive to solar concentrated technology and fossil resources.

32 Moreover, this work carried both sensitivity and parametric studies to evidence key operating and
33 financial parameters with the most influential effect on the performance indexes. Besides, the results
34 properly show that performance variables depend strongly on flue gas temperature and the LCOE is
35 exceedingly sensitive to feedstock price and finance rates.

36

37 Keywords: sustainability; electricity; agriculture; biomass; bioenergy; LCOE.

38

39

40

1
41 Nomenclature

42

43 Abbreviations:
44
CHP Combined heat and power

LCOE Levelized cost of electricity

PA Precision agriculture

WUE Water use efficiency

PVWP Solar photovoltaic water pumping.

of
LHV Lower heating value

ro
HHV Higher heating value

SAM
-p
System Advisor Model
re
45
46 Symbols:
lP

47
Ef Effective Field capacity (ha/h).
na

Et Annual electrical energy ( MWh/yr)

ur

n Straw yield (%)

Jo

Hi Harvest index in straw

e Enthalpy losses due to flue gas (%)

e Boiler surface heat losses by radiation and convection (%)

e Losses due to the rice straw moisture content (%)

e Losses due to incomplete combustion in the boiler (%)

e Losses due to vaporization of water (%)

Qt Total of annual heat produced ( MWh/yr)

48
49
50

2
51 1. Introduction

52 Over the last decade, climate change has been the major focus area. Currently, it is considered
53 an evident reality and impacts greatly agriculture, water supply, and our ecological sphere
54 (Steffen et al., 2015). In fact, the impacts are strongly related, generally the world population
55 growth and economic extensions are attended by an accelerating demand of energy which is
56 currently supported by unsustainable sources (Avcıoğlu et al., 2019). It was agreed that
57 Energy is primordial provender of life, and it can be acquired from different sources,
58 renewable and non-renewables. There are various renewable energy resources including
59 biomass, solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc., which can be used to recover the energy
60 demand of the burgeoning population (Sagastume et al., 2020). On the other hand, agriculture

of
61 is still energy intensive and the world largest driver of global warming. At the same time, the

ro
62 most affected by these changes (Juhola et al., 2017). The challenge is further complicated by
63 the need not only to produce more, but also to sustain the entire food supply chain much more
-p
64 efficiently and reduce waste which has reached unacceptable proportions (estimated at 30%)
re
65 (Rezaei and Liu, 2017). Mostly, in several developing countries, where fossil fuels
lP

66 predominate in their energy mix, and new photovoltaic technologies have only been used to
67 turn on radios, televisions or mobile phones. In spite of this, rural populations in those
na

68 countries have been omitted from the profits of energy independence and sustainability.

69 Thus, the notion of sustainable development is the pillar guideline to reach a stable and
ur

70 circular economy, accompanied by both rational management of natural resources, and social
Jo

71 development integrating rural society (Martinho, 2018).

72 In this regard, waste to energy technologies can be mentioned as a means and a solution, so
73 that our society can achieve sustainability and reduce its dependence on fossil sources. Those
74 technologies can boost the social development and revalorize wastes as energy sources,
75 especially in rural areas where poverty is constantly increasing (So et al., 2020).

76 These renewable energies source may play a crucial role to promote the agricultural sector
77 and provide great alternatives to developing countries ( Alemayehu, 2015). Biomass energy
78 possesses promising perspectives and became popular worldwide. Thereby, agricultural
79 biomass is considered as suitable for any nation that relies on agricultural economics
80 (Cardoen et al., 2015). This promising source of energy is tilled with abundant quantities, but
81 still barely used globally, with 7 to 12% of the world primary energy consumption
82 (Macqueen and Korhaliller, 2011; Menon and Rao, 2012). Moreover, biomass is composed by

3
 83 different organic materials (celluloses, hemicelluloses carbohydrates) which make biomass as
84 a source of different valuable fuels (Onel et al., 2015). We should remember that biomass can
85 generate many biofuels or forms of energy by relying on several processes (Niziolek et al.,
86 2015). These biofuels come from a wide variety of materials that can be classified under five
87 types: virgin wood, energy crops, agricultural residues, agro-industrial waste, and co-products
88 (Lee et al., 2020). Biomass materials represent sustainable energy that can replace fossil fuels
89 and reduce their negative effects. Biomass allows the recovery of waste, and offer a solution
90 to environmental problems. So, the sustainable use of this technology can bring an interesting
91 opportunity to both rural and urban societies (Ayodele et al., 2020). Further, biomass is
92 almost CO2 neutral and the average calorific value of bioenergy crops is comparable to coal.

of
93 Therefore, natural gas would be replaced by biomass (Celebi et al., 2019). The primary
94 methods for recovering energy from biomass include combustion, pyrolysis, gasification,

ro
95 liquefaction, anaerobic digestion, and fermentation, (Bridgwater et al., 2002). Combustion is
96
-p
the most used process to produce heat and energy from biomass (Erol et al., 2010).
re
97 In particular, agricultural biomass could be attractive for energy production in rural areas. The
lP

98 development of new technologies for the use of biomass in small-scale combined heat and
99 power systems has progressed rapidly in recent years, and several technical systems are now
na

100 available (Murele et al., 2020). Other technologies, such as fuel-efficient small-scale Stirling
101 engines for fuel, are currently promoted by several companies (Henriksen et al., 2006), while
ur

102 small-scale biomass gasification plants have so far existed as a demonstration (Kløverpris,
Jo

103 2008). However, agricultural land is a limited resource and the production of large energy
104 crops will displace food products and eventually result in natural or semi-natural land for
105 agriculture (Börjesson, 2009).

106 Interestingly, sustainable agriculture has the unique potential to mitigate global warming and
107 fortify the resilience of renewable solutions to face the impacts of climate change. It is
108 precisely defined as the ecological balance of interactions between modern humans kind and
109 their local ecosystems (Lal, 2008). The aim is to integrate all these key parameters into an
110 equilibrated production system. Mainly, ultimate goals about sustainability in agricultural
111 systems focus on the need to develop sustainable practices that seamlessly integrate
112 environmental health, energetic profitability, social and economic fairness (Johnston et al.,
113 2014). The strategies reviewed in the literature to deepen sustainable agriculture focus on
114 reducing the consumption of fossil fuels on farms (Bentsen et al., 2019; Reynolds et al.,
115 2016). This includes as well as the reduction of the consumption of chemical fertilisers, the

4
116 use of biodiversity practices, improvement of water efficiency and, above all the evaluation of
117 both energy production opportunities and biofuels in the agricultural sector (Alexandratos and
118 Bruinsma, 2012). To merely ensure sustainability in developing countries and quality of life,
119 it is necessary to increase the profitability of crop production (Trivelli et al., 2019) and reduce
120 the negative impact on the environment by adjusting agricultural input application rates as
121 needed locally (Pierce and Nowak, 1999). Managing water resources, is also a key equation
122 to strongly integrate agricultural sustainability (Walmsley and Pearce, 2010). Generally, solar
123 photovoltaic pumping coupled to drip irrigation systems are the most efficient for agriculture
124 and providing water to the rural population. Mainly, solar systems are the most friendly to
125 supply water for agricultural activities and biomass plants. Yet, many studies have focused on

of
126 the use of energy in agriculture, generally, they underlined machinery and electricity as the
127 most energy consumers in agricultural sectors (Singh, 2000; CAEEDAC, 2000; ). Thereby, it

ro
128 is necessary to attend new policies to engage producers in energetic-efficient practices to
129
-p
achieve more sustainability (Ozkan et al., 2004). To sum up, Figure 1 shows the principle
re
130 keys to reach sustainability, and widely integrate waste to energy technologies in agriculture.
lP

131 Therefore, agricultural biomass is one of the important sources of renewable energy. In
132 Morocco, as in the majority of agricultural countries in the Mediterranean region are
na

133 extremely rich in agricultural biomass. But the exploitation of this energy remains weak or
134 almost absent in several countries. Of course photovoltaics and wind turbines are the icon of
ur

135 the energy transition, but biomass is the key to linking between two urban and rural
Jo

136 metabolisms, agricultural biomass is the way to recycle our waste, produce energy and
137 especially for developing countries it is the only technology able to integrate other forms of
138 renewable energy, to create agro-industrial and industrial synergies, and especially to
139 integrate environmental disciplines and the appreciation of agricultural waste.

140 However, the structural integration of biomass technologies depends on several variables that
141 change from one country to another, and even in the same country and region, it changes from
142 one farm to another. Also, calculating agricultural energy inputs is more complex because it
143 differs on several variables. Accordingly, this work focuses on agricultural bioenergy, through
144 a quantitative study of the Moroccan potential. As well as a technical and economic feasibility
145 study of CHP systems are carried out to upgrade biomass and producing energy from
146 agricultural wastes.

147

5
148

149

150

151

152

153

154

of
155

ro
156

157
-p
re
158 Figure 1: Sustainable agriculture Chart
lP

159

160 1.1 Biomass assessment and energy potential

na

161 Despite the current economic situation and the different challenges of developing countries,
ur

162 biomass still widely used in developed countries (Roni et al., 2017). After coal, oil and gas,
Jo

163 biomass is the fourth largest source of energy. In addition, unlike hydroelectricity, solar and
164 wind power, it is present everywhere in the world (Zia et al., 2020). Five million metric tons
165 of biomass are produced annually from agriculture (Ravindran et al., 2018), which is
166 promising if policies and efforts exploit this potential.

167 The energetic assessments of biomass in a given time, usually within one year for a
168 geographic area, can also be considered as a strategy for sustainable and social development.
169 By 2070, up to 400 EJ can be made available through biomass, out of which 75% will be from energy
170 crops (Deng et al., 2015). The available annual biomass residues are varied according to local
171 conditions, among which climatic factors, agricultural production, a variety of livestock,
172 planted crops, energy content, and yields (Karaj et al., 2010). One of the major barriers to
173 biomass development is the absence of knowledge about the resource potential in its logistics
174 (Lourinho and Brito, 2015; González-García et al., 2014). Precise quantitative estimates of

6
175 biomass sources are needed to facilitate the integration of this technology at regional and
176 national scales.

177 Several studies have focused on the sustainable biomass potential from agriculture, with an
178 increasing interest in such studies. In Colombia, is estimated that some 61,000 to 119,400
179 GWh of the bioenergy potential from agricultural residues and livestock wastes can be
180 technical exploited (Sagastume et al., 2020). It was found that Pakistan proceeds about 40
181 million tonnes of crop residue that can be translates to an estimated potential of about 11,000
182 MW of electricity generation capacity, and 16,000 MW by the year 2035 (Kashif et al., 2020).
183 Ukrainian biomass projections for 2035 are up to 28 million tonnes of oil equivalent, which is
184 enough to produce 104 billion kW/h (Skrypnyk et al., 2019). In Sicily over 3.9 million tonnes

of
185 per year of agricultural biomass is available. Equivalent to a potential 255 million Nm3 of

ro
186 biogas capable of producing 408,072.1 MWh / year of electricity energy and 305,672.0 MWh
187
188
-p
/ year in thermal energy (Chinnici et al., 2018). In Greece, Messenia province, it is possible to
recover about 7956 tonnes of biomass per year in Messenia province , and to produce 6630
re
189 MWh of electricity and 8580 MWh of thermal energy (Alatzas et al., 2019). In India, at Uttar
lP

190 Pradesh province, the yearly biomass potential is about 71 million tons, enough to supply a
191 power of 7,028 MW and a significant reduction of the GHG emissions(Hiloidhari et al.,
na

192 2019). Only in China, 60 to 100 million tons of biomass can be retrieved and used to operate
193 about 350–600 power plants with a capacity of 8400–14400 MW.(Cheng et al., 2014) . For
ur

194 Argentina, vegetable biomass is estimated to 204,536 t/year, which is able to provide
Jo

195 electricity to 76,00 users, and heat to 25,160 (Roberts et al., 2015), and 1500 PJ/year of
196 biofuel can be produced in Europe from 1.5 to 2 billion tons of agricultural biomass (Monforti
197 et al., 2013).

198 As reviewed, the energy potential of residual biomass is significant and very important to
199 reduce dependencies, and achieve energy sustainability (Table1).

200 Table 1: Survey results based on the international review

REFERENCE COUNTRY-REGION RESIDUE TYPE BIOMASS ENERGY OUTPUTS

POTENTIAL POTENTIAL

(Cheng et al., 2014) China Forest and agricultural 60 to 100 8400–14400 MW Electricity
million tons and Heat

(Hiloidhari et al., 2019) India,Uttar Forest and agricultural about 71 7,028 MW electricity

7
 Pradesh million tons/y

(Chinnici et al., 2018) Italy-Sicilia agricultural biomass 3.9 million 255 million Nm3 Biogas
tonnes/year of biogas

(Roberts et al., 2015) Pueyrredón, herbaceous and vegetable 204,536 t/year 76,000 users Electricity
Argentina residues electricity/ 25,160 and heat
use heat

(Alatzas et al., 2019) Greece, Messenia Forest and agricultural 7956 6630 MWh Electricity
province tonnes/year electricity /8580 and heat
MWh heat

of
(Kashif et al., 2020). Pakistan crops residues 40 million 11,000 MW Electricity

ro
tonnes

(Sagastume et al., 2020) Colombia -p

agricultural residues and
livestock wastes
_ 61,000 to 119,400
GWh
bioenergy
re
(Monforti et al., 2013) European Union agricultural crops 1.5×1012to 1500 PJ/yr. biofuel
lP

12
2×10 tons

201
na

202 1.2 Biomass availability for power generation in Morocco

ur

203 Moroccan agriculture depends heavily on unsustainable sources, a typical characteristic of

Jo

204 developing countries. in 2008 the Moroccan government announced the strategical
205 ‘’Moroccan Green Plan’’, to promote the productivity of agriculture, by addressing as well as
206 climate change, overexploitation of groundwater, and alleviation of poverty (El-Halwagi,
207 2012). Concerning the energy recovery from biomass in Morocco, very few studies have
208 confronted this subject, this lack of research motivated the present study. Therefore, it is the
209 first survey of the energy potential from agricultural waste for Morocco.

210 Besides, the biomass sector will be strengthened to replace fuel oil in agricultural and
211 industrial practices. However, this potential has not yet been untapped by national actors. The
212 main constraint of biomass as a technology of energy production is the non-mastery of
213 technology and the current undeveloped status of Morocco.

8
214 Residual biomass, municipalities, the agricultural sector, and industry represent an
215 unsuspected potential for energy production up to 950 MW (Kousksou et al., 2015b), and it is
216 mainly in rural areas where traditional biomass is still used for everyday use. Annual wood
217 consumption is estimated at 30 000 ha, while forest land is about 9 million ha (Rokni, 2015).
218 Accordingly, the urban contributes 11% against 89% of the rural in the national biomass
219 which amounts to more than 11 million tons/year (Table 2). The 9 million ha of the forest
220 provides almost 5 million tons every year, which accounts for over 52% of all biomass
221 produced, so the estimated agricultural biomass is around 3 million tons. Total solid bio-
222 energy potential is estimated at 12.5 GWh/year, with a further 13 GWh/year from biogas and
223 biofuels. The biogas sector presents a total installed capacity of 33,800 m2, with an annual

of
224 production of about 21.6 million m3 (Kousksou et al., 2015a). Despite the countless benefits
225 and quantities of biomass, Morocco uses only 2% of these potentials, because of colossal

ro
226 investments and especially to the lack of technical knowledge. To see that there is no
227
-p
integration of biomass in the industrial sector. In particular, agricultural biomass is the key
re
228 step to weave agro-industrial synergies to valorize the materials and to promote energy
229 biomass. Moreover, Morocco has a large capacity in olive growing, for example, the city of
lP

230 Meknes produces more than 4,000 tons of olives/day. Notably, 2 kg of olive stones represents
231 the equivalent of one litter of gas oil, almost 10 kW, which is a very interesting figure to
na

232 value. Thus, the biomass could, in particular, be of interest for energy production in rural
ur

233 areas where end-users are near the farm producing biomass.
Jo

234 Table 2: Biomass Production in Morocco a

Area Forest fruit Wood(tons) Agro-biomass(tons) Total(tons)

Wood(tons)

Urban 887,900 230,790 155,030 1,273,720

Rural 5, 078,900 1, 920,400 3, 030,190 10, 029,490

Total 5, 966,800 2, 151,190 3, 185,220 11, 303,210

a
235 :Own estimations by comparing annual reports of the Ministry for agriculture(http://www.agriculture.gov.ma/).

9
 of
ro
-p
re
236
lP

237 Figure 2: Biomass distribution in Morocco.

238 But several challenges loom for Morocco; Social development, energetic transition, and
na

239 sustainability are vestigial but must be aligned with energy efficiency and agricultural
240 activities. Compared to the size of conventional technologies, Green technologies are smaller,
ur

241 giving them an advanced opportunity to be incorporated in industry, urban, and rural
Jo

242 activities. As quickly solar and wind power are accelerated in adopting to reduce costs and
243 increase benefits.

244 2. Methodology

245 2.1 Goal and scope

246 This study obtains more proper understanding of the quantities of biomass and the
247 exploitation of combustion techniques to valorize the residual matter, and convert it into
248 electricity. Therefore, we cast light on the Meknes-fez region, by evaluating the theoretical
249 biomass potential of the most predominant species in this region, with the prospect of
250 transforming the resource into electricity. This article set out to elaborate on the parametric
251 and sensitive analysis of the model output parameters and LCOE cost, in order to prove their

10
252 performance for the located region. As stated in figure 3, the flow chart summarize the
253 proposed Methodology.

254

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

255

256

257 Figure 3: Flow chart methodology

258

259

260

261

11
262

263

264 2.2 Biomass availability and feedstock selection

265 Biomass feedstock availability is favourably related to location, climate, and seasons. This
266 work aims to estimate regional biomass resource availability. The biomass of forest origin is
267 not considered for the unavailability of some data. In the absence of country-specific studies,
268 crop residue yields per hectare were estimated. These estimates took into account the
269 productivity levels calculated from the areas and productions collected from the Regional
270 Directorate of Agriculture in Fes-Meknes. The calculation aspect involves estimating the

of
271 number of agro-residues generated and their potential for electricity production. For tackling

ro
272 this, the current study tried to lay emphasis only on the biomass produced by crop residues.
273
274
-p
Biomass of forest origin, livestock waste, and waste food industry are not considered due to
the unavailability of some data.
re
275
lP

276 2.2.1 Raw dry residues

na

277 Agro-residues include all crop residues which would have normally been regarded as waste.
ur

278 These remains have usually been disposed by burning or deposition in dumpsites if they are
Jo

279 not combustible. The total production of straws or grains is calculated by multiplying the
280 yield in straws or grains by the cultivated area and the associated harvest index. However, the
281 amount of biomass thus estimated includes the portion of straw required for ground cover
282 after harvest (Afilal et al., 2010). This fraction of the biomass must be deducted from the total
283 quantity produced at the regional scale. The formula used to estimate the production potential
284 biomass of plant origin is expressed as follows:

285 = × × (1)

286 where A is the area under cultivation (Ha), n is the straw yield, and Hi is the Harvest index in straw.
287
288 2.2.2 Biomass Properties
289 Before any biomass power generation evaluation, it is crucial to distinguish the categories of biomass
290 resources and their physical properties. One of the most important properties are:

12
291 • Moisture: it represents the percent of water existing in biomass substance. It is
292 frequently expressed on a dry basis (Mdb), as follows:

293 = (!"#$ − ! &' )/! &' (2)

294 where Wwet, and Wdry are the weight of wet and dry product respectively.

295 • Heating value: expressed in [J/kg], it properly identifies the chemical energy bound in
296 the fuel. Heating values are strongly related to the moisture as shown in next (Malek et
297 al., 2017):

298 * += + (1 − ) − 2.443 (3)

of
299 where LHV is the lower heating value, and HHV is the higher heating value.

ro
300 Empirically, the heating value can be calculated using the following formula (Friedl et al.,
301 2005). -p
re
302 + = 3.552 3 − 232 2 − 2.23 + 131 5 + 20.6 (4)
lP

303 where C, H, and N are the biomass weight % of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, respectively.
na

304 2.2.3 Olive waste to energy

ur

305 Olive is a major woody crop in arid and semiarid regions, where it has great economic
306 importance, it is the chief fruit crop in Morocco(Carr, 2013). The olive tree is very resistant to
Jo

307 drought (Albacete et al., 2015) and can grow over a large part of the territory, except coastal
308 and desert areas (Fernández, 2014). It is mainly available in the following regions: Fez
309 Boulmane Taounate, Meknes Tafilalet, Marrakech Tensift Haouz, Beni Mellal Tadla Azilal,
310 and Tangier Tetouan region. Morocco is the 5th largest producer of olive oil in the world. The
311 total planted areas are about 560 000 ha, from which 200 000 ha can benefit from irrigation.
312 The average annual production of olives (average of the period 2010-2015) is around
313 1,500,000 tons of which 65% is for crushing, 25% to the table olive, the remaining 10%
314 representing self-consumption and losses. This represents 5% of Morocco's GDP and the
315 workforce for this crop is estimated at 15,000,000 days worked per year (El Mouhtadi et al.,
316 2014). The olive residues are largely sufficient for biomass fuel production. The residues of
317 olives are composed of olive kernels/stones/pits and olive dried husk. As shown in Table 3,
318 olive pits have a high heating value (about 20kJ/kg) and contain low moisture (9-10%)
319 (Sahraoui and Darhmaoui, 2016).

13
320

321

322

323 Table 3: Olive pits proprieties.

324
Olive pits proprieties Value
325
Carbon 52.27 Wt%

of
Hydrogen 7.48 Wt%

ro
Nitrogen -p 0.06 Wt%
re
oxygen 40.00 Wt%
lP

volatile 80.94 Wt%

na

Ash 0.56 Wt%

ur

Moisture 9-10 Wt%

Jo

LHV 18.96 MJ/Kg

HHV 20.70 MJ/Kg

326 Accordingly, olive pomace, pulp, stone, make up the biomass of the olive tree and open the
327 way to new sources of energy. This biomass could be a particular interest in energy
328 production in rural areas where end-users are near the farm producing biomass. It is an
329 alternative for boilers that produces heating and generate electricity. Two kilograms of kernels
330 represent the energy equivalent of one litter of gas oil, almost 10 kW, a very interesting figure
331 to value the energy potential of this biomass.

332 2.3 Conversion technology

333

14
334 After having discussed the essential characteristics of olive, this part furnishes a brief description of
335 the main small-scale power generation plants. As shown in Table 4, many viable technologies convert
336 biomass into generated electricity (Faaij, 2006; Balat et al., 2009; Saidur et al., 2011). Biomass
337 power plants are very comparable to coal-fired power plants (Jorgenson et al., 2011).
338 Standardly, the system uses biomass in the combustor to generate efficiently steam, which then turns
339 into a typical Rankine cycle turbine. This steam turbine is connected to an electric generator that
340 produces electricity (Figure 4).

341 Table 4: Main conversion technologies (Faaij, 2006; Balat et al., 2009; Saidur et al., 2011).

Conversion Biomass type feedstock Main product End use

of
technology

ro
Combustion Dry biomass Wood logs, pellets, heat Heat/electricity
solid biomass

Co-firing Dry biomass

-p
Straw, agro-forest Heat/electricity Heat/electricity
re
residues
lP

Gasification Dry biomass Wood chips, syngas Heat/electricity

pellets and solid
na

waste

Pyrolysis Dry biomass Wood chips, Pyrolysis oil Heat/electricity

ur

pellets and solid

waste
Jo

CHP Dry biomass Straw, forest Heat/electricity Heat/electricity

residues, wastes
and biogas

Anaerobic Wet biomass Manure, vegetable Biogas Heat/electricity

digestion waste...

Hydrolysis/ Sugar , starches Sugarcane, woody ethanol Liquid fuels

and cellulosic biomass and corn
fermentation
material

342

343
344
345

15
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355

of
356
357

ro
358
359
-p
re
360
361
lP

362
363 Figure 4: Biomass plant layout and components (Jorgenson et al., 2011).
na

364
ur

365 The mathematical formula estimating the amount of heat produced and transferred from the
366 combustion system to the boiler is expressed as follows (Abdelhady et al., 2018):
Jo

367
368 $ = × +(100 − 89 &':;<# + 9&= =$ >? +9<? .@=& >? + 9;=$#?$A#=$ + 9:<#;B> C$. D)/100 (5)
369
370 where M is the dry biomass rate, and e the various efficiency losses.
371 2.4 Potential of electricity produced in the area of study
372
373 This section discusses the biomass power generation potential. Accordingly, the esteem of
374 potentially predictable electricity could be landed from the quantity of biomass and the
375 heating value.

376 -The electrical energy predictable during a year is found by applying the efficiency of the
377 system to the total heat produced from biomass as following:

378 E$ = ∑GHIJ
K ×η×L (6)

16
379 where 8761 represents operating hours during the year, and η is the Rankine cycle efficiency.
380 The efficiency of the steam Rankine cycle was reported to be in the range between 25% and
381 40% (Guercio and Bini, 2017).

382 2.5 Economic Analysis

383 The biogas plants operate with capacity ranges from 20 to 110 MW, while the effectiveness of
384 the systems is between 20 and 29% (Jorgenson et al., 2011). In this section, the economic
385 feasibility of the proposed power plant is analyzed by estimating the LCOE using SAM
386 Financial model. The LCOE is estimated based on 25 years, which represents the expected
387 lifetime of the power plant.

of
388 The levelized cost of energy is largely used as a financial metric to assess various renewable

ro
389 energy-producing plants (Delivand et al., 2011). The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in
390 ($/kWh) is given by the following: -p
re
Q ST SU
∑RV R R R R
N<B >: @>C$C >O#& $A# ; :#$ B# (VSW)
391 *2ME = = XR (7)
N<B >: P;#@$& @=; &> <@$ >? >O#& ; :#$ B# ∑RV
(VSW)R
lP

392 with (It) is the annual investment expenditures. (Mt) is the annual operations and maintenance
na

393 expenditures. While (Ft) is the fuel expenditures in the year and (Et) the electrical energy
394 generated in the year. The (r) represents the discount rate and (t) is the Expected lifetime of
ur

395 the system.

Jo

396 More particularly, as part of this economic analysis, the investment decision is taken into
397 account. Although, the capacity of the Biomass project can be determined from the different
398 investment possibilities and whether or not to invest.

399 However, to implement this project, the major costs include those for equipment, maintenance
400 (O&M), fuel, logistics, storage, and others. As shown in Table 5, fixed investment capital is
401 divided into two components: direct and indirect costs. The direct capital cost relates to the
402 purchase of equipment, and installation expenses, including contingency costs. Where the
403 indirect cost includes costs related to the land, the construction of the power plant, including
404 analysis and engineering costs. It is convenient at this stage to list the cost figures used in the
405 present analysis (Table 5):

406 • Direct costs amount to around 80% of the total investment (U.S. Environmental
407 Protection Agency, 2011). The total installation cost reaches a value of

17
408 1,469,521,920.00 $, which is equivalent to a total cost per capacity of 3,755.70 $/kW.
409 Whereas the cost of the boiler, turbine, and generation represents almost 40% of the
410 total costs (Bain et al., 2003).
411 • Indirect costs related to the land are about 5% of direct cost, while the construction of
412 the plant and engineering costs represent 20% of direct cost (U.S. Environmental
413 Protection Agency, 2011; Bain et al., 2003).
414 • O&M costs represent the costs of material and resources used in the repair and
415 operation of the plant. Maintenance costs are based on plant capacity and power
416 generation, estimated at 200 $/kW and 4 $/MWh respectively (Bain et al., 2003).
417 • The cost of fuel includes the price of agricultural waste (olive) and costs such as
418 logistics and transport costs. Logistics costs are classified into two categories: fixed
419 distance delivery cost and variable distance delivery cost. The fixed distance cost
420 includes a set of materials (harvesting engines, trucks, handling, etc.) and human

of
421 (personnel, tours, etc.) resources. As well as the variable distance cost shows the cost
422 of transporting one tonne of biomass harvested per one thousand (Mahmudi and

ro
423 Flynn, 2006; Ghosh, 2016). In this analysis, it has been proposed that the ton of
424 biomass does not exceed $ 40 and that the costs of harvesting storage are ignored
-p
425 (GIZ; and ADEREE, 2009; Birkenfeld, 2010).
re
426 Table 5: Economic model parameters.
lP

Parameters value
na

Logistics
Distance-fixed delivery cost 6.00 $/dry ton
ur

Distance-variable delivery cost 0.10 $/tone-mile

Jo

Direct capital cost

Boiler 750.00 $/kW
Turbine& generator 510.00 $/kW
Fuel handling equipment 330.00 $/kW
Other equipment 270.00 $/kW

Indirect capital cost

Engineering, Procurement and Construction 20.00% direct cost
Land Cost 5.00 % direct cost
Total installed costs 3755.70 $/kW

Total Operations and Maintenance cost

Variable cost by generation 4.00 $/MWh

18
 Fixed cost by capacity 200.00 $/kW-year

427

428 3. Results and discussion

429 3.1 Outline of the region study and selected Model:

430 The region selected for this work is Meknes-Fes. This area typically occupies a strategic
431 geographical position. Overlooking Europe at North and bordering the Algerian frontier in the
432 East, this region is predestined to play the role of crossroads of communication and
433 exchanges, which form a hyphen between Africa and Europe. Thus, and given the pedo-

of
434 climatic conditions favourable for most crops, this region knows an enormous diversity of
435 plants and animal production. The agricultural plain is situated in the Sebou basin that covers

ro
436 40,000 square kilometers of the coverage areas, representing 6% of the national territory and
437 -p
contains 30% of Moroccan surface water resources (Figure 5) (“monographie Meknes Fes,”
438
re
2009).
lP

439

440
na

441
ur

442
Jo

443

444

445

446

447 Figure 5: Boundaries of the Sais Basin and the most productive agricultural region
448 (“monographie Meknes Fes,” 2009).

449 At the scale of the agro-pole Meknes-Fes, it is possible to recover more than 4.22 million tons
450 of agricultural residues, this is equivalent to more than 0.5 Mtep / year as revealed in Table 6.

19
451 In terms of the potential mobilized output, the total residue is over 4.2 million tons. Broadly,
452 olive residues in the majority represent 48 % of agricultural wastes.

453

454

455 Table 6: Agricultural biomass quantification in the selected region.

Cultuvation Average areab Productionb Straw yieldc Harvest in strawc Residue

(ha) (t/yr) (t/ha) (t/ha) quantity (t)
cerals 779, 065 1, 312, 288 1.68 2.50 1, 947,662
olives 342, 902 407.737 1.18 6.00 2, 057, 412

of
rosaceae 68, 055 509.372 1.50 2.00 136, 110

ro
vegetables 29, 094 749.646 2.00 0.50 14, 547
legumes 137,795 118.249 -p 0.85 0.50 68, 897
total 1, 356, 911 4, 224, 628
re
b
456 :These estimates held productivity levels calculated from the areas and production published by the Ministry of
lP

457 Agriculture(2008-2016).

c
na

458 : Straw yields and index harvest was calculated by comparing FAO data and local indicators (RAFRAFI and
459 DROUSSI, 2006).
ur

460
Jo

461 As mentioned earlier, the current study focuses on the utilization of olive residues in the
462 province of Fez-Meknes, which has the highest potential energy production, with a value of
463 about 2828.11 GWh/year. According to recent statistics from the High Commission for
464 Planning of Morocco, the rural population of the Meknes-Fes region is around 1,673,968 with
465 319,384 households, 11% of these install photovoltaic systems and 254,252 dwellings use
466 fossil resources. The daily average electricity demand for the residence has been estimated at
467 4.3 kW. Mainly, Figure 6 presents the hourly electricity load for 254,252 households
468 compared to the system power generated in 8761 hours per year. Indeed, to compensate
469 monthly variations of electricity load and demand, the energy produced is assumed to be
470 supplied to the national grid, and from there, recovered by the local villages.

20
 600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0
jan fev mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec
Hourly Data: Electricity load (year 1) (kW)
Hourly Data: System power generated (kW)

of
471

ro
472 Figure 6: Electricity load and system power generated profiles

473 -p
re
474 According to SAM simulations, the main results of the performance and financial model are
475 presented in Tables 7. It can be perceived for a total installed cost of 3755.70 $/kW, that the
lP

476 average real LCOE is estimated at 15.03 ¢/kWh, which is exceptionally promising and
na

477 competitive compared to other power generation modes in Morocco.

478 Table 7: Technical and financial model parameters.

ur

479
Jo

Metric performance Value

Annual energy (year 1) 2, 828, 113, 664 kWh
480
Annual biomass usage (year 1) 2, 057, 410 dry tons/yr
481 Capacity factor (year 1) 82.50 %
Total boiler efficiency 79, 8055 %
482
Plant capacity 391, 278 kW
483
Economic Parameters value
484 Real levellized COE 15.05 ¢/kWh
Feedstock cost 40.00 $/dry ton
485
Real discount rate 5.50
486 inflation rate 2.50

487

21
488 3.2 Sensitivity and parametric analysis

489 This section deals with the sensitivity of the performance and financial model results. In this
490 regard, the sensitivity analysis is used to investigate how sensitive the production of
491 electricity, capacity factor, and LCOE to the main parameters. Principally, the uncertainty of
492 outputs is related to variations in the values of input variables. The parametric analysis
493 involves assigning multiple values to one or more input variables to explore the relationship
494 between the input variables and resulting metrics.

495 3.2.1 Technical parameters

496 It has been accorded in previous literature that bio-power generation depends on the following

of
497 input variables: excess air percentage, flue gas temperature, and moisture content. In this

ro
498 work, we further test the sensitivity of the results to thermal properties with an incremental
499
500
-p
variation of 10%. Therefore, the sensitiveness of energy production and annual capacity factor
to these variables is studied. The results of the sensitivity analysis are illustrated respectively
re
501 in Figures 7 and 8. The temperature of the combustion gases has a great impact on output
lP

502 results. Changing temperature by 10% leads to changes in both energy production and
503 capacity factor by 1%. Similarly, degradation of stock moisture content by 10% change
na

504 outputs by 1%. The other two variables equally affect energy production and annual capacity
505 factor, but their contribution is lower. Consequently, we conclude that results are directly
ur

506 related to the temperature of the combustion gases and moisture component, but much less
Jo

507 sensitive to variations in the thermal proprieties.

input HHV(Btu/drylb)20(±10) 0

exced fed air(%)20(±10) 82,520% 82,518%

stock moisture content (wet%)9(±10%) 82,492% 82,528%

flue gas temperature ('F)390(±10%) 82,440% 82,578%

508

509 Figure 7: Sensitivity of annual capacity factor for different important parameters.

22
 imputHHV(Btu/drylb)20(±10) 0

percent exced fed air(%)20(±10) 2,82E+09 2.83E+09

moisture content(wet%)9(±10%) 2,82E+09 2.83E+09

flue gas temperature ('F)390(±10%) 2,78E+09 2.87E+09

510

511 Figure 8: Sensitivity of annual energy production (kWh) for different important

of
512 parameters.

ro
513 The temperature of the flue gas reveals how much energy is being dropped away to the
514
515
-p
atmosphere. This input variation greatly acts on the annual production, which influences the
thermal efficiency of the boiler and how well it transfers heat. In this study, two boilers have
re
516 been considered with the same thermal outlets because of the decent capacity of the biomass
lP

517 plant. Figure 9 exhibits the sensitivity of annual energy to the temperature of the boiler gas.
518 According to this, the temperature impresses thermal efficiency and annual production. This
na

519 is accepted in normal assessment because boilers should always run with a limited volume of
520 flue gas.
ur

3.25E+09
Jo

3.20E+09

3.15E+09
Energy (kWh)

3.10E+09

3.05E+09

3.00E+09

2.95E+09

2.90E+09
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
flue gas temperature (°F)
521

522 Figure 9: variation of annual energy with flue gas temperature fluctuation.

23
523 Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of annual energy and capacity factor to the moisture of olive
524 residues. The simulations portray that energy outputs depend slightly on biomass proprieties.
525 Consequently, it concluded that the levels of these operating parameters affect marginally the
526 performance of the proposed plant.

2.85E+09 C.F: [VALEUR]% 85

80
2.80E+09
75

Capacity factor(%)
Energy (kWh)

2.75E+09 70

2.70E+09 65

of
60
2.65E+09

ro
55

2.60E+09 50
1 3 5 -p
moisture(%)
7 8 10
re
527
lP

528 Figure 10: sensitivity of annual energy and annual capacity factor to moisture variation.

529
na

530 3.2.2 Financial parameters

ur

531 The sensitivity of the LCOE to the important cost parameters of the system (feedstock price,
Jo

532 inflation rate actual discount rate) is carried out. The results, illustrated in Figure 11, show
533 that LCOE is very sensitive to feedstock prices and the discount rate. As indicated, an
534 augmentation of 10% in the cost of feedstock increases the LCOE from 15.05 to 15.49
535 cents/kWh. This explains why accurate data on the price of raw materials and the actual
536 discount rate must be collected and updated. This current sensitivity analysis also reveals that
537 LCOE is less sensitive to inflation. As determined, the levels of operating parameters require
538 further study to understand their major effects and interaction effects on energy efficiency and
539 LCOE to improve system performance. The feedstock price is an important parameter
540 influencing the economy of the project, therefore it shall be analyzed within a sensitivity. Its
541 impact on real LCOE is shown in Figure 12. Apparently, with each increase of feedstock
542 price, the LCOE increase by a larger factor. It is also portrayed in Figure 13, that LCOE was
543 much more sensitive to other financial parameters (the inflation rate and real discount rate).

24
 feed stock price ($/dt) 40(±10%) 14,95 15.49

inflation rate (%/year)2,5(±10%) 14,62 15.15

Real discount rate (%/year)5,5(±5%) 14,9 15.4

544

545 Figure 11: Sensitivity of real LCOE (cents/kWh) for different important parameters.

16
15
14
LCOE (cents/kWh)

13

of
12
11

ro
10
9
8
7
6
-p
re
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Feedstock ($/t)
546
lP

547 Figure 12: Fluctuation of LCOE with feedstock price variation.

na

25
ur

20
Jo
LCOE (cents/kWh)

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20

with inflation rate with discount rate

548

549 Figure 13: Variation of LCOE with the inflation rate and discount rate (%).

550

551

25
552 3.3 Comparing concentrated solar power and Bio-power plant LCOE in Morocco

553 In a global context, Morocco is highly dependent on fossil fuels by exporting 97% of its
554 energy envelope. Aware of this situation, morocco is progressing the integration of renewable
555 energies by developing the large Nour-Ouarzazate complex with a total installed capacity of
556 510 MW and by investing around 7 billion dollars for solar energy, which explains the total
557 installed cost per capacity of 13,725.49 $/kW. Accurately, the LCOE generated by the NOOR
558 I is about 0.2450 $/kWh, 0.19 $/kWh for NOOR II, and 0.17 $/kWh for Redstone(Tizgui et
559 al., 2018).

560 Biomass combustion can be more profitable and competitive. In the current work, the model

of
561 performed has an LCOE of 0.15 $/kWh with a total installed cost per capacity of 3755.70 $
562 /kW. This explains the good factor capacity of this technology and the flexibility of the LCOE

ro
563 to be more reduced. A more critical examination of the uncertainty analysis reveals additional
564
-p
economic profitability of the studied power plant. For example, a reduction of 20% in the
re
565 boiler and turbine equipment price minimizes the LCOE from 15.04 to 14.54 cents/kWh
566 (figure 14).
lP

16
na

15
ur
LCOE (cents/kWh)

14
Jo

13

12

11

10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Boiler and turbine price reduction(%)
567

568 Figure 14: Variation of LCOE due to reduction in components price

569

570 According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the LCOE range of CHP plants
571 varies between 11 and 28 cents/Kwh, for the year 2012. As reviewed before, in Egypt, the
572 electricity cost is about 10.55 cents/Kwh when using straw rice (Abdelhady et al., 2018), and

26
573 26 cents/Kwh for Pakistan (Naqvi et al., 2016), in both cases the cost is highly related to the
574 rice husk price. Recently in 2020, the LCOE was estimated from academic papers between
575 12.3- 25 cents/Kwh (Shen et al., 2020). Thus, An LCOE of 14.54 cents/kWh, seems to agree
576 with literature, and prove the viability of the proposed system comparing with key previous
577 literature survey.

578

579 4. Conclusion

580 Nowadays photovoltaics and wind turbines are the icon of the energy transition, but biomass
581 is the key to linking my two urban and rural metabolisms. In this context, agricultural biomass

of
582 is the way to recycle our waste, produce energy and especially for developing countries it is

ro
583 the only technology able to integrate other forms of renewable energy, to create agro-
584
585
-p
industrial and industrial synergies, and especially to integrate environmental disciplines and
the valorisation of materials.
re
586 The analysis of the structure of energy consumption in the Moroccan agricultural sector
lP

587 shows that the energy consumption of this sector is of the order of 1,561.8 Ktep with an
588 annual increase of 9.5%. These are concentrated on two uses: tractors and agricultural
na

589 machinery (diesel) with 686.2 Ktep and pumping for irrigation (gas, oil and electricity) 398.6
ur

590 Ktep. More accurately, these two consumers represent 69.5% of the total energy consumption
591 of the sector. According to the current situation current energy in Morocco is highly
Jo

592 dependent on fossil fuels, Morocco is seeking to increase the share of renewable energy in the
593 country to 42% by 2020 and 52% by 2030, divided between hydro, wind and solar energy.
594 Yet, Morocco produces more than 400 million tons of agricultural products a year. Much of
595 the agricultural biomass waste consists of various natural fibres that have brilliant properties
596 and could be successfully exploited in the development of composite materials for various
597 structural and non-structural applications.

598 Biomass power generation is a promising way to recycle from agricultural waste to produce
599 clean electricity. The development potential of bio-power plants has been analyzed in
600 Morocco. The analysis was performed from technical and financial data using SAM software
601 to assess the energy and economic effectiveness of biomass power generation. Parametric and
602 sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the effect of different parameters on the
603 project viability. The results revealed that only with olive residues, Using combined heat and

27
604 power systems (CHP) for electricity production has the potential, of about 2828.11 GWh /year
605 with a high annual capacity factor of 82.5%. The system power generated in 8761 hours per
606 year can supply electricity to 254,252 households. Indeed, to compensate monthly variations
607 of electricity load and demand, the energy produced is assumed to be supplied to the national
608 grid, and from there, recovered by the local villages. The main results of the financial model
609 can be perceived as a total installed cost of 3755.70 $/kW. The average real and nominal
610 LCOE of 17.23 and 15.03 cents/ kWh respectively. Thus the LCOE is too competitive to
611 thermal energy parks installed in the country. Furthermore, the LCOE is more flexible to be
612 reduced, if we take into account the sensitivity study developed.

613 For these reasons, it can be concluded that bio-power plants can be considered very reliable.

of
614 Thus, there is a need to follow modern policies to force producers to engage in energy-

ro
615 efficient practices, as an effective way to inaugurate sustainable production systems. Many
616
617
-p
strategies can be adopted like accepting minimum efficiency standards for technologies and
devices, reform and reorient energy subsidies, and using Artificial Intelligence with renewable
re
618 technologies.
lP

619
na

620
621
ur

622
Jo

28
623

624 References:
625
626 Abdelhady, S., Borello, D., Shaban, A., 2018. Techno-economic assessment of biomass power plant fed with
627 rice straw: Sensitivity and parametric analysis of the performance and the LCOE. Renew. Energy 115,
628 1026–1034.
629 Afilal, M.E., Bakx, A., Belakhdar, N., Membrez, Y., 2010. Evaluation of the biogas potential of organic waste in
630 the northern provinces of Morocco. Rev. des Energies Renouvelables 13, 249–255.
631 Alatzas, S., Moustakas, K., Malamis, D., Vakalis, S., 2019. Biomass potential from agricultural waste for
632 energetic utilization in Greece. Energies 12, 1095.
633 Albacete, A., Martínez-Andújar, C., Martínez-Pérez, A., Thompson, A.J., Dodd, I.C., Pérez-Alfocea, F., 2015.

of
634 Unravelling rootstock× scion interactions to improve food security. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 2211–2226.
635 Alemayehu, Y.A., 2015. Status and benefits of renewable energy technologies in the rural areas of Ethiopia: A

ro
636 case study on improved cooking stoves and biogas Technologies. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 4, 103.
637 -p
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision.
638 Anttila, P., Vaario, L.-M., Pulkkinen, P., Asikainen, A., Duan, J., 2015. Availability, supply technology and
re
639 costs of residual forest biomass for energy–A case study in northern China. Biomass and bioenergy 83,
640 224–232.
lP

641 Avcıoğlu, A.O., Dayıoğlu, M.A., Türker, U., 2019. Assessment of the energy potential of agricultural biomass
642 residues in Turkey. Renew. Energy 138, 610–619.
na

643 Ayodele, B.V., Alsaffar, M.A., Mustapa, S.I., 2020. An overview of integration opportunities for sustainable
644 bioethanol production from first-and second-generation sugar-based feedstocks. J. Clean. Prod. 245,
ur

645 118857.
646 Bain, R.L., Amos, W.P., Downing, M., Perlack, R.L., 2003. Biopower technical assessment: State of the industry
Jo

647 and the technology. National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO.(US).
648 Balat, Mustafa, Balat, Mehmet, Kırtay, E., Balat, H., 2009. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of biomass
649 into fuels and chemicals. Part 1: Pyrolysis systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 50, 3147–3157.
650 Bentsen, N.S., Jørgensen, J.R., Stupak, I., Jørgensen, U., Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., 2019. Dynamic sustainability
651 assessment of heat and electricity production based on agricultural crop residues in Denmark. J. Clean.
652 Prod. 213, 491–507.
653 Birkenfeld, U., 2010. Etude sur les potentiels de biomasse pour la région Souss-Massa-Drâa et la province d ’
654 Essaouira.
655 Börjesson, P., 2009. Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective–what determines this? Appl.
656 Energy 86, 589–594.
657 Bridgwater, A. V, Toft, A.J., Brammer, J.G., 2002. A techno-economic comparison of power production by
658 biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 6, 181–246.
659 CAEEDAC, A., 2000. Descriptive analysis of energy consumption in agriculture and food sector in Canada.
660 Final Rep.
661 Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M., Pant, D., 2015. Agriculture biomass in India: Part 1. Estimation

29
662 and characterization. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 39–48.
663 Carr, M.K. V, 2013. The water relations and irrigation requirements of olive (Olea europaea L.): a review. Exp.
664 Agric. 49, 597–639.
665 Celebi, A.D., Sharma, S., Ensinas, A.V., Marechal, F., 2019. Next generation cogeneration system for industry–
666 Combined heat and fuel plant using biomass resources. Chem. Eng. Sci. 204, 59–75.
667 Cheng, S., Li, Z., Gao, R., Wang, X., Mang, H.-P., 2014. Methodology development of evaluating agricultural
668 biomass potential for biomass power plant in China. Energy Procedia 61, 13–16.
669 Chinnici, G., D’Amico, M., Rizzo, M., Pecorino, B., 2015. Analysis of biomass availability for energy use in
670 Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1025–1030.
671 Chinnici, G., Selvaggi, R., D’Amico, M., Pecorino, B., 2018. Assessment of the potential energy supply and
672 biomethane from the anaerobic digestion of agro-food feedstocks in Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
673 82, 6–13.

of
674 Delivand, M.K., Barz, M., Gheewala, S.H., Sajjakulnukit, B., 2011. Economic feasibility assessment of rice
675 straw utilization for electricity generating through combustion in Thailand. Appl. Energy 88, 3651–3658.

ro
676 Deng, Y.Y., Koper, M., Haigh, M., Dornburg, V., 2015. Country-level assessment of long-term global bioenergy
677 potential. biomass and bioenergy 74, 253–267. -p
678 El-Halwagi, M.M., 2012. Biogas technology, transfer and Diffusion. Springer Science & Business Media.
re
679 El Mouhtadi, I., Agouzzal, M., Guy, F., 2014. L’olivier au Maroc. OCL 21, D203.
680 Erol, M., Haykiri-Acma, H., Küçükbayrak, S., 2010. Calorific value estimation of biomass from their proximate
lP

681 analyses data. Renew. energy 35, 170–173.

682 Faaij, A., 2006. Modern biomass conversion technologies. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 11, 343–375.
na

683 Fernandes, U., Costa, M., 2010. P[1] U. Fernandes, M. Costa, Potential of biomass residues for energy
684 production and utilization in a region of Portugal, Biomass and Bioenergy. 34 (2010) 661–666.otential of
ur

685 biomass residues for energy production and utilization in a region of Portugal. Biomass and bioenergy 34,
686 661–666.
Jo

687 Fernández, J.-E., 2014. Understanding olive adaptation to abiotic stresses as a tool to increase crop performance.
688 Environ. Exp. Bot. 103, 158–179.
689 Friedl, A., Padouvas, E., Rotter, H., Varmuza, K., 2005. Prediction of heating values of biomass fuel from
690 elemental composition. Anal. Chim. Acta 544, 191–198.
691 Ghosh, S.K., 2016. Biomass & bio-waste supply chain sustainability for bio-energy and bio-fuel production.
692 Procedia Environ. Sci. 31, 31–39.
693 GIZ;, ADEREE, 2009. Etude sur les potentiels de biomasse dans la région de l ’ Oriental.
694 González-García, S., Dias, A.C., Clermidy, S., Benoist, A., Maurel, V.B., Gasol, C.M., Gabarrell, X., Arroja, L.,
695 2014. Comparative environmental and energy profiles of potential bioenergy production chains in
696 Southern Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 42–54.
697 Gonzalez-Salazar, M.A., Morini, M., Pinelli, M., Spina, P.R., Venturini, M., Finkenrath, M., Poganietz, W.-R.,
698 2014. Methodology for estimating biomass energy potential and its application to Colombia. Appl. Energy
699 136, 781–796.
700 Guercio, A., Bini, R., 2017. Biomass-fired Organic Rankine Cycle combined heat and power systems, in:
701 Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Power Systems. Elsevier, pp. 527–567.

30
702 Halder, P.K., Paul, N., Beg, M.R.A., 2014. Assessment of biomass energy resources and related technologies
703 practice in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 444–460.
704 Henriksen, U., Ahrenfeldt, J., Jensen, T.K., Gøbel, B., Bentzen, J.D., Hindsgaul, C., Sørensen, L.H., 2006. The
705 design, construction and operation of a 75 kW two-stage gasifier. Energy 31, 1542–1553.
706 Hiloidhari, M., Baruah, D.C., Kumari, M., Kumari, S., Thakur, I.S., 2019. Prospect and potential of biomass
707 power to mitigate climate change: A case study in India. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 931–944.
708 Jiang, D. potential from crop residues in C.A. and distribution, Zhuang, D., Fu, J., Huang, Y., Wen, K., 2012.
709 Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: availability and distribution. Renew. Sustain. Energy
710 Rev. 16, 1377–1382.
711 Johnston, J.L., Fanzo, J.C., Cogill, B., 2014. Understanding sustainable diets: a descriptive analysis of the
712 determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security, and
713 environmental sustainability. Adv. Nutr. 5, 418–429.

of
714 Jorgenson, J., Gilman, P., Dobos, A., 2011. Technical manual for the SAM biomass power generation model.
715 National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).

ro
716 Juhola, S., Klein, N., Käyhkö, J., Neset, T.-S.S., 2017. Climate change transformations in Nordic agriculture? J.
717 Rural Stud. 51, 28–36. -p
718 Karaj, S., Rehl, T., Leis, H., Müller, J., 2010. Analysis of biomass residues potential for electrical energy
re
719 generation in Albania. Renew. Sustain. energy Rev. 14, 493–499.
720 Kashif, M., Awan, M.B., Nawaz, S., Amjad, M., Talib, B., Farooq, M., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., 2020.
lP

721 Untapped renewable energy potential of crop residues in Pakistan: Challenges and future directions. J.
722 Environ. Manage. 256, 109924.
na

723 Kemausuor, F., Kamp, A., Thomsen, S.T., Bensah, E.C., Østergård, H., 2014. Assessment of biomass residue
724 availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 86, 28–37.
ur

725 Kløverpris, J.H., 2008. Consequential life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption.
726 DTU Management.
Jo

727 Kousksou, T., Allouhi, A., Belattar, M., Jamil, A., El Rhafiki, T., Arid, A., Zeraouli, Y., 2015a. Renewable
728 energy potential and national policy directions for sustainable development in Morocco. Renew. Sustain.
729 Energy Rev. 47, 46–57.
730 Kousksou, T., Allouhi, A., Belattar, M., Jamil, A., El Rhafiki, T., Zeraouli, Y., 2015b. Morocco’s strategy for
731 energy security and low-carbon growth. Energy 84, 98–105.
732 Kumar, A., Kumar, N., Baredar, P., Shukla, A., 2015. A review on biomass energy resources, potential,
733 conversion and policy in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 530–539.
734 Lal, R., 2008. Soils and sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 57–64.
735 Lee, M., Lin, Y.-L., Chiueh, P.-T., Den, W., 2020. Environmental and energy assessment of biomass residues to
736 biochar as fuel: A brief review with recommendations for future bioenergy systems. J. Clean. Prod. 251,
737 119714.
738 Lewandowski, I., Weger, J., Van Hooijdonk, A., Havlickova, K., Van Dam, J., Faaij, A., 2006. The potential
739 biomass for energy production in the Czech Republic. Biomass and Bioenergy 30, 405–421.
740 Lourinho, G., Brito, P., 2015. Assessment of biomass energy potential in a region of Portugal (Alto Alentejo).
741 Energy 81, 189–201.

31
742 Macqueen, D., Korhaliller, S., 2011. Bundles of energy: the case for renewable biomass energy. IIED.
743 Mahmudi, H., Flynn, P.C., 2006. Rail vs truck transport of biomass, in: Twenty-Seventh Symposium on
744 Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals. Springer, pp. 88–103.
745 Malek, A.B.M.A., Hasanuzzaman, M., Rahim, N.A., Al Turki, Y.A., 2017. Techno-economic analysis and
746 environmental impact assessment of a 10 MW biomass-based power plant in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod.
747 141, 502–513.
748 Martinho, V.J.P.D., 2018. Interrelationships between renewable energy and agricultural economics: An
749 overview. Energy Strateg. Rev. 22, 396–409.
750 Menon, V., Rao, M., 2012. Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals &
751 biorefinery concept. Prog. energy Combust. Sci. 38, 522–550.
752 Monforti, F., Bódis, K., Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F., 2013. The possible contribution of agricultural crop
753 residues to renewable energy targets in Europe: A spatially explicit study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

of
754 19, 666–677.
755 monographie Meknes Fes [WWW Document], 2009. URL http://www.equipement.gov.ma/Carte-

ro
756 Region/RegionFes/Presentation-de-la-region/Monographie/Pages/Monographie-de-la-region.aspx
757 (accessed 4.26.20). -p
758 Murele, O.C., Zulkafli, N.I., Kopanos, G., Hart, P., Hanak, D.P., 2020. Integrating biomass into energy supply
re
759 chain networks. J. Clean. Prod. 248, 119246.
760 Naqvi, M., Yan, J., Dahlquist, E., Naqvi, S.R., 2016. Waste biomass gasification based off-grid electricity
lP

761 generation: a case study in Pakistan. Energy Procedia 103, 406–412.

762 Niziolek, A.M., Onel, O., Elia, J.A., Baliban, R.C., Floudas, C.A., 2015. Coproduction of liquid transportation
na

763 fuels and C6_C8 aromatics from biomass and natural gas. AIChE J. 61, 831–856.
764 Omer, A.M., 2005. Biomass energy potential and future prospect in Sudan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9, 1–
ur

765 27.
766 Onel, O., Niziolek, A.M., Floudas, C.A., 2015. Integrated biomass and fossil fuel systems towards the
Jo

767 production of fuels and chemicals: state of the art approaches and future challenges. Curr. Opin. Chem.
768 Eng. 9, 66–74.
769 Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., Fert, C., 2004. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew. energy 29,
770 39–51.
771 Pantaleo, A., De Gennaro, B., Shah, N., 2013. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic co-digestion plants: an
772 application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 57–70.
773 Perera, K., Rathnasiri, P.G., Senarath, S.A.S., Sugathapala, A.G.T., Bhattacharya, S.C., Salam, P.A., 2005.
774 Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-plantation biomass resources in Sri Lanka. Biomass and
775 Bioenergy 29, 199–213.
776 Pierce, F.J., Nowak, P., 1999. Aspects of precision agriculture, in: Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier, pp. 1–85.
777 RAFRAFI, M.M., DROUSSI, M.B., 2006. Evaluation de la production des résidus agricoles au Maroc.
778 Ravindran, R., Hassan, S.S., Williams, G.A., Jaiswal, A.K., 2018. A review on bioconversion of agro-industrial
779 wastes to industrially important enzymes. Bioengineering 5, 93.
780 Reynolds, M.P., Quilligan, E., Aggarwal, P.K., Bansal, K.C., Cavalieri, A.J., Chapman, S.C., Chapotin, S.M.,
781 Datta, S.K., Duveiller, E., Gill, K.S., 2016. An integrated approach to maintaining cereal productivity

32
782 under climate change. Glob. Food Sec. 8, 9–18.
783 Rezaei, M., Liu, B., 2017. Food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Int. Nut Dried Fruit Counc. Reus, Spain
784 26–27.
785 Roberts, J.J., Cassula, A.M., Prado, P.O., Dias, R.A., Balestieri, J.A.P., 2015. Assessment of dry residual
786 biomass potential for use as alternative energy source in the party of General Pueyrredón, Argentina.
787 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 568–583.
788 Rokni, M., 2015. Thermodynamic analyses of municipal solid waste gasification plant integrated with solid
789 oxide fuel cell and Stirling hybrid system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40, 7855–7869.
790 Roni, M.S., Chowdhury, S., Mamun, S., Marufuzzaman, M., Lein, W., Johnson, S., 2017. Biomass co-firing
791 technology with policies, challenges, and opportunities: A global review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78,
792 1089–1101.
793 Sagastume, A., Cabello Eras, J.J., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2020. The energy potential of agriculture,

of
794 agroindustrial, livestock, and slaughterhouse biomass wastes through direct combustion and anaerobic
795 digestion. The case of Colombia.

ro
796 Sahraoui, F., Darhmaoui, H., n.d. WATER HEATING IN MOROCCAN HAMMAMS USING OLIVE PITS
797 CAPSTONE PROJECT FINAL REPORT FALL 2016. -p
798 Said, N., El-Shatoury, S.A., Díaz, L.F., Zamorano, M., 2013. Quantitative appraisal of biomass resources and
re
799 their energy potential in Egypt. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24, 84–91.
800 Saidur, R., Abdelaziz, E.A., Demirbas, A., Hossain, M.S., Mekhilef, S., 2011. A review on biomass as a fuel for
lP

801 boilers. Renew. Sustain. energy Rev. 15, 2262–2289.

802 Shen, W., Chen, X., Qiu, J., Hayward, J.A., Sayeef, S., Osman, P., Meng, K., Dong, Z.Y., 2020. A
na

803 comprehensive review of variable renewable energy levelized cost of electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy
804 Rev. 133, 110301.
ur

805 Singh, J.M., 2000. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana. India. Ger. Sustain.
806 Energy Syst. Manag. MSc. Int. Inst. Manag. Univ. Flensbg.
Jo

807 Skrypnyk, A., Klymenko, N., Talavyria, M., Goray, A., Namiasenko, Y., 2019. Bioenergetic potential
808 assessment of the agricultural sector of the Ukrainian economy. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.
809 So, D., Oo, F., Eo, Y., 2020. Bioenergy technologies adoption in Africa: A review of past and current status. J.
810 Clean. Prod. 121683.
811 Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., Ludwig, C., 2015. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the
812 great acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2, 81–98.
813 Tizgui, I., El Guezar, F., Bouzahir, H., Vargas, A.N., 2018. Estimation and analysis of wind electricity
814 production cost in Morocco. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 8, 58–66.
815 Trivelli, L., Apicella, A., Chiarello, F., Rana, R., Fantoni, G., Tarabella, A., 2019. From precision agriculture to
816 Industry 4.0. Br. Food J.
817 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. CHP Project Development Handbook 85.
818 Walmsley, N., Pearce, G., 2010. Towards sustainable water resources management: bringing the Strategic
819 Approach up-to-date. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 24, 191–203.
820 Yaldiz, O., Ozturk, H.H., Zeren, Y., Bascetincelik, A., 1993. Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey
821 (Turkiye’de tarla bitkileri uretiminde enerji kullanımı), V, in: International Congress on Mechanization

33

View publication stats