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

net/publication/359151073

Biomass from trees for bioenergy and biofuels – A briefing paper

Article in Materials Today Proceedings · March 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.639

CITATIONS READS

6 262

3 authors, including:

Gyanaranjan Sahoo Asim Chandra Dash

Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology
95 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gyanaranjan Sahoo on 21 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Biomass from trees for bioenergy and biofuels – A briefing paper

Gyanaranjan Sahoo a,⇑, Amita Sharma b, Asim Chandra Dash c
a
Research Scholar, Dept. of Forest Biology and Tree Improvement, College of Forestry, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, Uttar
Pradesh 211007 India
b
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002 India
c
Regional Research and Technology Transfer Station, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Chipilima, Sambalpur, Odisha 768026 India

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

Article history: Tree biomass may be utilised to produce heat, electricity, and biofuels. Despite the fact that the technol-
Available online xxxx ogy for turning woody biomass into energy has existed in many cases for decades, bioenergy generation
from woody biomass has not been extensively embraced since the cost of woody biomass energy is not
Keywords: viable with old fossil fuels. However, current predictions of future energy usage, as well as proposed
Biofuel renewable energy and climate change laws, imply that forest and farm biomass energy will be used more
Biomass in the next decades. Biomass, which accounts for roughly 11% of the world’s major energy supply, is
Bioenergy
mostly made up of organic matter, with a lesser proportion of inorganic compounds comprising a range
Climate change
Forest resources
of intricately linked phases or minerals of various origins. Over 55 percent of the 4 billion m3 of wood
utilised yearly in developing countries is immediately utilised as a source of forest products or carbon
to satisfy the daily energy requirements to be used for warming and culinary. The proximal and ultimate
analyses are commonly used to characterise a fuel’s composition. Concerns about the environmental
effect of fossil-fuel-based energy generation are rising. In this context, replacing fossil fuel-based energy
with bio-energy might be a viable option. The attraction to forest biomass as an energy source stems from
some of its characteristics, such as its global availability and homogeneity, as well as its CO2 emissions
neutrality. However, there are concerns associated with its usage, the most of which are connected to the
long-term viability of forest systems and their products. Due to huge uncertainty regarding future agri-
cultural productivity improvements and land availability for biomass plants, bioenergy’s potential for cli-
mate change mitigation remains unknown. Bioenergy potentials, global food costs, and water shortages
are all expected to be affected by large-scale growth of dedicated biomass. As a result, coordinated
energy, land use, and water management strategies are required. Because biomass contains all of the
components found in fossil fuels, albeit in various proportions, current and emerging technologies can
help us move toward a future based on renewable, sustainable, and low-carbon economies.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

1. Introduction produce it [33]. Biomass is the world’s oldest source of energy.

The need for biomass is growing across the world, but climate
change, rising environmental constraints, and widespread extinc-
tion of animal and plant species are putting biomass sources at
jeopardy. The issue is to balance this growing demand for biomass,
which is conscious of all of its benefits in substituting fossil-based
products and fuels, with sustainable management, which includes
the conservation and refurbishment of the forest ecosystems that
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gyanaranjan.sahoo3@gmail.com (G. Sahoo).
It’s been around since the formation of fire and is now the most
widely used origin of clean energy on the planet. Woody biomass
is a significant source of renewable energy now, and it is expected
to continue to be a significant part of any future renewable energy
portfolio. It is used at a rate of 50 EJ per year, which is only a trivial
portion of its projected worldwide viable apparent (about 350 EJ
per year) [13]. Furthermore, the bulk of it is utilized to create heat
in ineffective reservoirs or fireplaces, which does not fully use bio-
mass resources’ exergetic potential. Biomass is unique among
renewable energy sources in that it may provide a wide range of
energy systems (heat, electricity, transport fuel). Biomass is
quickly becoming recognized as a valuable renewable reserve for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.639
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

Please cite this article as: G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash, Biomass from trees for bioenergy and biofuels – A briefing paper, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.639
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
lowering CO2 releases in transportation, engineering, and ménages
by substituting fossil fuels. The use of the biomass generated as an
energy source provides a number of other environmental, social,
and economic advantages. Wood, forestry leftovers, agricultural
crops, waste from agricultural crops, municipal organic waste, ani-
mal waste, waste from food processing, aquatic plants, and algae
are all examples of biomass [7].
Biomass has sparked a lot of current research and development
attention because of its enormous potential for global energy. Tra-
ditional fuels like firewood and animal dung fulfil the description,
but they haven’t been the major focus of developers’ attention in
most situations. Wood and other biomass fuels may be turned into
contemporary energy ‘‘carriers” like fuel alcohol or electricity.
These may be used to replace and mix fossil-based fuels in a vari-
ety of ways, and at a minimal cost of investment. Biofuels may be
used for not just typical household purposes like cooking, heating,
and lighting, but also for innovative energy uses in industry at a
cost comparable to fossil-based technology. Rural employment
can be another economic benefit of bioenergy production because
it is decentralised and labor-intensive.
Biomass as an energy source is carbon neutral because to the
bioactive nature of its carbon concentration, as long as the resource
is handled appropriately. Because biomass is a scarce resource, it
must be used wisely and effectively to maximise its potential for
reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels [7]. Determining the opti-
mal biomass utilisation, on the other hand, is a tough process [31].
It’s hard because there are so many distinct forms of biomass (from
woody biomass to sludge via waste water using vegetation, indus-
trial solid, and so on) that may be converted into a range of end
products (heating oil, transportation fuel, and power) via numer-
ous conversion paths. Because new trees may be formed by
afforestation and appropriate management, woody biomass is a
renewable energy source [13]. Forests are the terrestrial ecosys-
tems that create and store the most biomass, which is why forests
have traditionally provided the majority of biomass for energy [8,
13, 14,]. Forest biomass is affected by site, stand structure, topog-
raphy, climate, management plan, and disturbances [31,36,29].
The availability and homogeneity of biomass on a worldwide scale
are two characteristics that make it a fundamental source of
energy [8,27,25]; more recently, CO2 emissions neutrality has
become an essential element [17,30].
All forests produce biomass, which is mostly eliminated during
harvests, however some is removed in smaller amounts during sil-
vicultural operations (thinnings and prunings). Forest systems
managed for timber and/or other products and services can be
divided into two categories when it comes to biomass removal
for energy purposes [25,19]: energy plantations, where all biomass
is harvested for energy, and forest systems managed for timber
and/or other products and services, where all or part of forest resi-
dues can be removed from stands for energy purposes [25].
There are still some (primary) logging remnants. Leaving some
biomass as a residue on the ground after harvesting can be benefi-
cial because it contributes organic matter and nutrients to the soil,
impacts competing plants and soil microclimate, and has an impact
on soil physical features, soil carbon concentration, and future for-
est production. Brush piles that may serve as habitats are being
demolished, putting biodiversity at risk [8]. However, it’s difficult
to draw broad judgments about potential consequences since the
effects are so varied and site-specific. Biomass energy systems
show great promise for carbon reduction because of their tremen-
dous potential to replace fossil fuels in energy generation. Biomass
reduces emissions and improves carbon sequestration because
short-rotation products or woods established on neglected farm-
land absorb carbon in the soil.
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
1.1. Importance of woody biomass as energy / uses of forest biomass
for energy
One of the advantages of biomass over other renewable energy
sources is its versatility. Biomass in general, and forest biomass in
particular, can be converted into electricity, heat, or transportation
fuels. Forest biomass, on the other hand, is mostly utilised to create
heat and electricity. The conversion of forest biomass into trans-
portation biofuels still faces a number of challenges that have
impeded its commercialization. Bioenergy’s current worldwide
share is still fairly tiny, despite its benefits and the fact that it is
the most extensively utilised renewable energy source. In 2015,
bioenergy and renewable wastes accounted for 9.4% of global
energy supply [2]. Solid biofuels accounted for 63.7 percent of glo-
bal renewable energy supply (liquid biofuels, biogas, and renew-
able municipal waste accounted for 4.3, 1.7, and 0.9 percent,
respectively, with the rest coming from other renewable energy
sources) [2]. Biomass and renewable wastes account for even less
in OECD countries, where biomass is widely used in modern sys-
tems, accounting for just 5.2 percent of total primary energy sup-
ply in 2015 and solid biomass accounting for 36.1 percent of
renewable energy supply [2].
While some wood is used for domestic heating, the majority of
wood is utilized for power generation on a bigger scale. Only
around half of a tree’s wood is used to make lumber, even in the
most sophisticated mills [20]. As a result, waste wood products
such as sawdust and wood chips are a common by-product of
industrial sawmill operations and are frequently burnt to produce
electricity in the wood products sector. By utilizing fast pyrolysis
transformation technology, renewable sources have the potential
to show a significant part in lowering dependency on fossil fuels.
Increased use of biomass-based fuels will also help to protect the
environment, provide new job opportunities, support long-term
growth, and enhance rural health [36,3]. However, in European
countries, it is used for domestic purposes. The EU continues to
be the world’s largest source of wood demand for contemporary
biomass power and heat generation. Solid biomass (mostly wood)
energy accounted for around 7.5% of EU gross final energy con-
sumption and 44% of overall renewable energy consumption in
2016. The majority of biomass was used for heat, accounting for
78% of total renewable heating and cooling consumption; biomass
provided around 10% of total renewable power generation. Resi-
dential biomass energy use was over 40%, industry (especially pulp
and paper) was around 31%, and large-scale power and heat facil-
ities were around 29%. Demand is expected to grow until at least
2020, although the adoption of energy efficiency laws and more
competition from alternative renewable technologies, particularly
in power generation, might cause growth to slow beyond then.
Given the continued growth in demand for wood for energy, future
EU supply potential projections are uncertain, depending on,
among other things, the future development of industries that
compete for the raw material, as well as the potential for increased
use of wood, agricultural residues, and waste wood, as well as the
growth of energy crops. The majority of forecasts expect an
increase in domestic supply as well as imports.
Solid biomass is more widespread in the energy transformation
sector in the United States than it is in Europe, where biomass is
often used in a modern method. Electric power plants account
for 9 percent, combined heat and power (CHP) plants account for
16 percent, and district heating plants contribute for 5% [5]. In
all, the European energy transformation industry uses 30% of solid
biomass consumption, compared to around 9% globally. The ascrip-
tion method takes into account the fossil goods that biomass may
be able to replace. 1 MJ of biodiesel, for example, can substitute
1 MJ of traditional fossil fuel. The difference between the fossil
CO2 emissions saved owing to the substitution of standard petro-
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
leum fuels and the fossil CO2 created in biofuel production is the
remediation prospective [34]. This method concentrates on the
biomass conversion process’s mass, energy, and CO2 balance,
assuming that it has no impact on the outside world (the overall
energy system). Rather of dealing with product replacement (for
example, gasoline), the displacement might be measured at the
degree of power generation (e.g., power, flexibility, and warming).
A bio - refinery route provides energy as a commodity substitutes
the energy service given by a fossil fuel conversion pathway in this
idea. The attenuation prospective computation takes into consider-
ation the overall bio-refinery rate route by altering the comparison
point, allowing for the discovery of biomass conversion paths with
the greatest fossil CO2 mitigation impact. The attributional tech-
nique, on the other hand, prevents a systematic approach at the
regional level [1,6].
The scientific literature on bioenergy from biomass, both peer-
reviewed and grey, is substantial, reflecting the interests of various
organizations in utilizing woody biomass. The sheer number of
material accessible necessitates a summary of current understand-
ing [16], despite the fact that the bulk of this information is bene-
ficial. Some have produced syntheses that incorporate estimations
of the amount of available or necessary woody biomass and agri-
cultural wastes). This synthesis differs from others in that it takes
an economic approach and relies on concepts of finance to forecast
demand for and supply of woody biomass [5]. Woody biomass is
analyzed in the context of production amounts and land use
changes in both the agricultural and forest sectors wherever
possible.
1.2. Woody biomass in the forest – Based bioeconomy
Forest-based industries and the energy production industry are
intimately connected, exhibiting both synergy and rivalry [6].
Chemical pulping by-products are used in the chemical industry
and for energy production [18], whereas sawmilling by-products
are utilised for wood pulp (for paper and textile fibres) and
wood-based panel manufacture, as well as for energy production
[15,18]. One of the most important determinants of primary woody
biomass supply, including woody biomass for electricity, is saw log
demand (and thus price) [5]. Natural disturbances may also have
an impact on the availability of primary woody biomass. Primary
sources (removals) of woody biomass are also competed for by
energy and material usage (mostly wood-based panels, but also
wood pulp manufacture, in most instances not sawmilling due to
the high cost of saw logs) [18]. This implies that currency fluctua-
tions for wood-based products have an influence on the supply of
woody biomass for energy, and that any assessment of sources and
uses of woody biomass for energy must factor in forest-based com-
panies. Economic analysis criteria are becoming increasingly
important in forestry investment decisions, driving the selection
of the best projects and, in certain cases, production alternatives
[11]. Up to the time of cutting and stacking wood in the field, an
economic evaluation of wood output was conducted.
Graphic paper use has declined as electronic information and
communication technology (ICT) has replaced printed media, but
packaging paper usage has increased as trade and e-commerce
have grown. Engineered wood products (EWP), prefabrication,
and performance-based common construction standards for Eur-
ope (EU 2011) have all increased wood’s competitiveness in
large-scale building plans [16]. Natural disturbances and reclama-
tion operations, which result in a temporary oversupply of basic
forest residues, and the COVID-19 pandemic, whose full impact
on demand for wood-based goods is still unknown, are two key
phenomena now affecting EU forest-based businesses.
To assist design an optimal forest management strategy, a bioe-
conomic model is utilised. The model, like the fishery, comprises of
3
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
a biological production function coupled with an economic pro-
duction and cost model. The biological production function depicts
the relationship between time and the amount of wood that grows
on a hectare of forest area. The biological model might be a bio-
mass model, such as the logistic or Gompertz model, or a more
complex model detailing a cohort of trees’ experience through
time. The species composition and size composition of particular
species may alter as the forest ages. These changes may have sig-
nificant ramifications for the forest’s value and management. A
precise forest management plan would need to account for such
changes, and a computer simulation model of tree development,
such as the STANDSIM (‘‘stand simulator”) model created by the
Forest Service in Victoria, would be the biological model for this.
Because there is a clear limit to the amount of biomass that can
be sustained by a hectare of land, comparable to the environmental
carrying capacity in the fisheries model, the volume of timber must
expand at a slower pace over time.
1.3. Contemplate bioenergy from woody biomass in this perspective
In 2008, the United States used marginally much as 2.1 quadril-
lion (1015) BTUs of wood and energy made from wood (incorporat-
ing pulp production’s black beverage) across all sectors, equating
to around 8.7 billion cubic feet of forested substantial [14]. To cre-
ate ethanol in 2008, for example, 1.4 quadrillion BTUs of corn and
other ingredients were used. The quantity of renewable energy
consumed by wood and wood-derived fuels has been largely con-
stant at little over 2 quadrillion BTUs since 1989. The quantity of
energy generated from air and bioenergy has grown during the
same time period, notably after 2000. Woody biomass is typically
regarded an input into three processes in the context of climate
change policy: heat generation, electricity generation, and biofuel
production. Woody biomass may also be utilised to make com-
pounds that aren’t employed in the manufacture of bioenergy.
Woody biomass has been used for energy, power, and biodiesel
in the United States in recent decades as an auxiliary technique
to use wood wastes created during the manufacture of other prod-
ucts [17].
As a result, woody biomass is likely to become a more impor-
tant focus of independent operations in which at least a portion
of the biomass is extracted derived from biological with topmost
priority stock’s purpose of producing bioenergy. Biomass from
trees has been utilized to create electricity or heat on its own as
well as in combined heat and power (CHP) systems, commonly
denoted to as power generation. In Europe [33], heat-only opera-
tions utilizing woody biomass are prevalent, with centralized facil-
ities producing heat and hot water that is supplied to local heating
districts. In the United States, comparatively tiny heat-only woody
biomass plants have often been enough to heat sawmills drying cut
timber and, more recently, to heat schools [23]. Milling residues
(for example, in Vermont) or woody stems gathered as part of
hazard-fuel reduction activities (for example, in Montana) are
commonly used in the former, whereas milling residues (for exam-
ple, in Vermont) or woody stems gathered as part of the risk-fuel-
reduction strategy activities (for example, in Montana) are com-
monly used in the latter. In the United States, there is a lot of inter-
est in taking advantage of the considerable efficiency gains that can
be achieved by using CHP facilities to generate electricity from
woody biomass. In several institutional contexts in the United
States, woody-biomass-fired CHP systems have been installed.
The lack of centralized heating districts in the United States, how-
ever, poses a hurdle to widespread adoption of CHP units powered
by woody biomass by the electrical segment. In household and
small commercial buildings, timber furnaces that are exclusively
used for heating [10], that burn fuelwood gathered from standing
timber or wood pellets generated from wood wastes are commonly
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
utilized to provide space heating utilizing woody biomass [26]. In
electricity-only operations, woody biomass can be utilized as a
stand-alone fuel source or in conjunction with additional energy
basis. When wood is cofired, it is usually collective with coal. Co-
firing woody biomass with fossil fuels such as coal is possible with
current plant technology and only requires minor burner adjust-
ments, allowing a direct replacement of a renewable energy with
a fossil fuel [3]. The wood products sector owns and operates
almost two-thirds of the about 1,000 wood-fired power facilities
in the United States. Rather of being fed into the electrical grid,
much of the power created by industry-owned facilities is utilized
on-site [23].
The most well-known biofuel is bioethanol. Methanol and liq-
uid fuels made from vegetable oils (biodiesel, for example) are also
biofuels that can be made with present skill. Bioethanol is desired
because it eliminates the need for octane boosters in gasoline,
decreases carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from cars
by boosting fuel oxygenation, and balances the use of fossil-fuel-
derived gasoline [11]. The rise of conflict in corn demand for food
vs. corn demand for energy is one well-documented disadvantage
of generating bioethanol from corn. Corn ethanol production
accounted for around a quarter of all corn grown in the United
States in 2007 [4]. Aside from the food rivalry, some claim that
maize ethanol is not a sustainable renewable resource since its
production takes more energy than the ethanol itself [24], but
others disagree.
Cellulosic ethanol production on a commercial scale is a 2nd
innovation, although corn-based ethanol is a first-generation bio-
diesel. Ethanol production from maize or sugar cane (or other
sugar/starch crops) is less technically challenging (and hence less
expensive) than lignocellulose production from wood [11,36].
The present volume of ethanol refining in the United States is 8.5
billion gallons per year, with dry milling maize providing the
majority of the production [4]. In 2007, the United States formed
around 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol and trade in roughly 440 mil-
lion gallons [9]. Cellulosic ethanol may be made from lignocellu-
lose using a variety of methods that differ largely in how the
cellulose is hydrolyzed (e.g., with concentrated acid, diluted acid,
or enzymes) into monomer sugars. Since the nineteenth century,
pyrolysis has been employed, but enzymatic techniques are typi-
cally the focus of newly discovered technology utilized in new
plants (AE Biofuels Inc. 2008). Liquid fuels were made from wood
in the United States during World War I and Germany and Switzer-
land during World War II, contrary to common perception [36].
Although wood pellets are the only important traded product, a
portion of the wood utilized for energy is imported. In 2015, net
imports of wood pellets (i.e., imports minus exports) accounted
for 3% of the overall resource blend with wood (around
16 Mm3). The United Kingdom was responsible for 97 percent of
the EU’s particles imported from abroad (JFSQ). With a 77 percent
share of EU wood pellet imports, the United States was by far the
crucial supplier [34].
In the United States, there are no commercial-scale biofuels
production plants in operation right now; though, numerous pre-
sentations for business units are either being built or have recently
begun operations. The US Department of Energy funds several of
the demonstration plants, which use a wide range of raw materials,
comprising woody biomass (DOE). In 2007, the Department of
Energy (DOE) provided money to a handful of promotional biofuels
plants capable of producing 130 million gallons of renewable fuels
per year [12]. The vast of these trees will begin producing during
the next several years. Only one of the 2007 plants used as exam-
ples (capacity of 40 million gallons per year) would use woody bio-
mass as a sole feedstock, while the other two (capacity of 33
million gallons per year) will combine wood wastes with other
feedstocks. 89.5 L of cellulosic ethanol are produced from a tonne
4
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
of dry woody biomass [4]. At this conversion rate, 223,000 oven
dry tonnes (odt) of woody biomass would be required to produce
20 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol.
Regardless of the fact that ethanol obtains the greatest atten-
tion; wood-based methanol production has also been investigated.
Others have pushed in current ages for the production of liques-
cent elements (including liquid fuels) and black liquor-derived
artificial emission, a by-product of Kraft pulp manufacturing, for
the creation of energy [19]. Methanol synthesis from woody bio-
mass has been demonstrated to be inefficient [35], and most
methanols are now generated using natural gas, despite long-
term interest. Much of the black liquor waste is now used to create
heat and energy for pulp and paper plant procedures, and pulp and
paper mills are unsure if they will invest in bio-refinery plants.
Although biodiesel may be generated from woody biomass, soy-
bean oil is the most common source [35].
1.4. Feedstocks for woody biomass
Short-rotation woody crops (SRWC), byproducts from woody
crops retained operational (either dispersed or in piles), leftovers
from processing that may or may not have been utilised in multiple
procedures, and all stocks of biomass feedstocks for use in biofuels
and biofuel production are waste wood and removal obtained
through disposal of solid waste operations (comprising those that
may be collected during sustainable forest operations) [7]. In the
bioenergy production process, some woody biomass resources
are available for free or at a very cheap cost. The use of a few
woody biomass feedstocks for bioenergy might reduce disposal
costs. Other biomass resources, as long as they are collected and
supplied, can be utilised in bioenergy production processes [28].
Milling wastes and black liquor are examples of low-cost biomass
products that have been widespread for energy production (includ-
ing wood pellets) and other wood products (e.g., oriented strand
board, bark mulch). Other types of woody biomass that are difficult
to obtain (e.g., non-merchantable stems) or aren’t widely produced
(e.g., SRWC) may only become broadly used as a result of increased
funding in their power generation (e.g., extensive SRWC planta-
tion), benefits brought, rising fossil fuel costs, and/or increasing
bioenergy benefits. Wood, like other kinds of biomass, has histori-
cally been used for energy in traditional applications like open fires
and rudimentary kitchen stoves. These applications are still preva-
lent in many underdeveloped and even developed countries’ rural
areas. Timber harvesting waste and leftovers have long been uti-
lised to produce electricity on-site in sawmills and pulp mills.
Incentives to utilise biomass for power and heat generation have
resulted in a substantially higher uptake of wood feedstocks for
those applications in recent years. Up to this point, most woody
biomass studies have identified four ‘‘categories” of availability.
According to certain studies [20], the woody biomass is ‘‘poten-
tially available” in all or almost all of its forms. In some research
[20], the amount of biomass that is ‘‘technically accessible” and
might be utilised is reported. This is usually proficient by multiply-
ing the theoretically accessible quantity of woody biomass by a
proportion issue that indicates the amount of biomass that can
be retrieved by means of existing or anticipated technologies.
Merely a few scholars have sought to estimate the amount of
woody biomass available at a predetermined spot rate. Finally, a
supply curve for woody biomass has been calculated in a few stud-
ies, which is a schedule of delivered volumes throughout a price
range [11].
1.5. Forest plants with a shorter cycle
Short-lived tree crops that are planted in short rotations and
maintained more intensely than timber plantations, are known
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
as woody crops. SRWC generated on agricultural land was the main
focus of all of the investigations reported here. SRWC, on the other
hand, might be planted on previously used land for forest planta-
tions or naturally regenerated forests. Hybrid poplars (Populus
spp.) and willow (Salix spp.) are the most often considered SRWC
tree species, but sycamore (Platanus spp.) and silver maple (Acer
saccharinum L.) have also been measured [32].
SRWC may be used in the manufacture of pulp and paper, as
well as saw wood, bioenergy, and biofuels [29]. During the oil
embargo of the 1970 s, SRWC was considered a promising biofuel
source. Since then, and until recently, SRWC has been primarily
focused on providing a fast-growing, high-yield wood supply
[32]. SRWC rotation periods are normally 6 to 12 years, however
they might be shorter (3 years, for example, [1]) if sold for bioen-
ergy feedstock or longer (up to 15 years, for example, Stanton
et al. 2002) if sold for saw wood. Harvested SRWC stands can sup-
ply a range of items, similar to forest land wood harvests, with
stems utilised for clean chips for pulp and paper, and limbs and
other fragments used for energy [29]. According to some studies
[21], 25% of the material collected from SRWC stands (mostly bark
and small limbs) may be sold for energy, while the remainder is
utilised to create higher-value commodities. SRWC stands that
have been harvested stump coppicing or planting new cuttings
can be used to rejuvenate the tree. Stump coppicing reduces regen-
eration costs, but it can raise labour costs if coppice sprouts need to
be trimmed. Regeneration by stump coppicing necessitates a dif-
ferent harvest schedule, which may as a result of lost chances to
benefit from genetic changes in new planting material [24]. When
a stand is harvested for bioenergy production, coppice regrowth is
more prevalent [9]. In low-cost bioenergy feedstock circumstances,
coppiced willow may become the most popular crop for bioenergy
production [16].
1.6. Challenges to biomass utilization
We explore a sum of communal, organizational, and ground-
work hurdles to prevalent acceptance of woody biomass-based
bioenergy production. The five categories of hurdles to bioenergy
production outlined by [27] include a relatively little information,
money, funding, and insurance; circumstances of operation; orga-
nizational issues; and perception and acceptance.
Existing administrative limitations, which are frequently not
built with bioenergy production in mind, can make the permission
process complicated and time-consuming, with a lack of clarity
regarding the preconditions and criteria for bioenergy-specific
issues (e.g., residue removal). Furthermore, conventional plant
approval procedures may not apply to bioenergy, causing misper-
ception about the procedure and prospects. The scale of future
woody biomass use and the events convoluted in providing woody
biomass feedstocks may be influenced by administrative or legisla-
tive regulations that outline what counts as woody biomass for
contributing to renewable energy goals, tax relief, or other compre-
hensive climate policies [30]. Researchers are using the FASOM
model to solve these challenges of restricted eligibility, as seen
by the publications listed below. Because many of the regulations
are still being considered, and the delineations of qualifying sub-
stantial are frequently indistinct, it’s hard to assess the impact of
legislative and regulatory limitations on feedstock supply.
In terms of organizational challenges, the effective deployment
of big biomass plants necessitates the participation of various indi-
viduals and organizations. Identifying an adequate network of bio-
mass providers is a unique issue. This might be achieved via a
aggregator for bioenergy or by contracting with a large number
of independent feedstock producers [36]. For the energy producer,
the former scenario is likely to be more appealing. There are addi-
5
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
tional apprehensions about the absence of facilities for gathering,
conveying, and preserving biofuel.
The use of forest thinning residues for bioenergy production,
whether for hazard reduction or other management reasons, has
been widely explored and encouraged. There are a number of other
obstacles to employing small-diameter thinned forest material for
bioenergy generation or other commodities, in addition to the eco-
nomic and technological restrictions described above [14]. For
instance, the infrastructure for collecting, transporting, and pro-
cessing small-diameter material might be restricted. Part of this
is due to the decommissioning of certain harvesting facilities as a
result of decreasing wood gathering on federal lands. Additionally,
the remaining infrastructural capacity may not be well adapted to
properly handle small-diameter material. Second, depending on
market circumstances and, particularly if obtained from federal
lands, harvesting laws and limits, the availability of wood may
be unpredictable. To finish, some people and groups are concerned
by hazard thinning efforts, which entail tree removal. The issue of
hazard-fuel thinning programmes’ efficacy and economic viability
is complicated by the inclusion of big stems. According to Mubar-
eka et al. [22], hazard thinning approaches that incorporate the
removal of at least some bigger stems are more capable of meeting
objectives for lowering forest stand vulnerability to wildfire top-
ping and torching. Furthermore, those researchers discovered that
only when bigger stems could be cut and sold for saw timber and
pulp did hazard-fuel reduction techniques become revenue neu-
tral. On public property, the fear of removing big stems generally
shows itself in a restriction on the diameter of any thinning activ-
ities. Certain individuals and groups may be concerned if large
trees are chopped down for conventional wood manufacture on
private lands under the guise of hazard reduction or renewable
energy generation [8].
Woody biomass (together with other biomass resources) has
long been considered to be energy independent, and the Kyoto Pro-
tocol recognised biomass as such. Conversely, some have recently
proposed that using woody biomass for bioenergy may not be
energy independent if carbon emissions from land use change
and other activities in the production of woody biomass are
included in energy consumption computation [10]. Ceccherini
et al. [7] proposed a scenario in which old forests are destroyed
to produce energy crops as an example of carbon releases not
accounting for in biomass generation. Despite the fact that this
example demonstrates the need of correctly accounting for carbon
discharges in energy generation, none of the experiments pre-
sented here necessitated such dramatic land use changes to pro-
vide biomass for power generating. Many of the forest woody
biomass will come from waste from harvests that would have
occurred otherwise, or from hazard-fuel thinning activities that
might enhance forest growth and perhaps reduce wildfire activity
[6]. The energy crop plantings examined in these models are
mostly on marginal or fallow cropland. In some cases, increased
planting of energy crops may result in land conversion from forest
to agriculture (e.g., no long-term improvement in crop yield).
Despite the significance of their consideration of land use change,
Ceccherini et al. appear to ignore the urbanisation that would
occur if fossil fuels were utilised instead of biomass feedstocks
(e.g., mountaintop removal). Fiscal concerns and carbon life-cycle
emanations will be major challenges when considering ways to
improve the woody biomass bioeconomy.
1.7. Bioenergy has ethical, financial, and huge benefits
Bioenergy has long been recognized for its broader societal,
monetary, and functional benefits. The most major environmental
advantage of bioenergy is to combat climate change. When fossil
fuels are substituted with sustainably generated biomass fuels,
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
CO2 produced in generating power is countered by carbon re-
sequestered from the environment as biomass reserves refill. By
increasing the quantity of carbon stored onsite, reforestation of
agricultural or mining regions, for example, can help to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions [25]. Trees take CO2 and break it down
into oxygen and carbon during photosynthesis. The carbon is held
(sequestered) in the tree stem, branches, and roots, and the oxygen
is released back into the atmosphere. As a result, replacing treeless
landscapes with forested land will result in net carbon accumula-
tion in these regions. Improved soil and water quality, as well as
improved animal habitat with more physiological and behavioural
variation, are some of the other environmental benefits of refor-
estation and afforestation. Because bioenergy production systems
emit far lower levels of nitrogen oxide (NO2), sulphur oxide
(SO2), and mercury into the atmosphere, localized environmental
problems such as nitrogen oxide (NO2), sulphur oxide (SO2), and
mercury emissions can also be mitigated through reduced fossil
fuel combustion [6]. The costs of thinning overgrown or sick forest
stands can be offset by developing markets for woody biomass in
the WUI, which can enhance forest health and minimize forest fuel
loading and fire hazard. Planting and maintaining forests may also
aid in the management of fire-intolerant or exotic trees, the
restoration of native ecosystems, and the economic competitive-
ness of wooded land through alternative land uses, all of which
contribute to the preservation of green space in developing places.
When used as dedicated energy fuel supply systems, short-rotation
woody crops (SRWC) may reduce mineral absorption from recov-
ered waste water and other urban and rural wastes, including
the remediation of mined areas, and manage invasive exotics like
cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) [36]. Bioenergy can not only offer
energy security by reducing reliance on imported oil, but it can also
generate jobs and have economic multiplier benefits in rural areas.
2. Conclusion
Woody biomass bioenergy generation is expected to play a key
part in long-term climate policy. Woody biomass’s future contribu-
tion to renewable energy will be bolstered by expanding its appli-
cation in energy generation. Because different ‘‘categories” of
availability are taken into consideration and different assumptions
are employed in the calculations, recent predictions of the quantity
of woody biomass that could be used for bioenergy vary widely.
Milling wastes and wood in MSW are the most common materials
used in the manufacture of bioenergy and other products.
If the demand for biomass for bioenergy rises significantly,
readily available residues (such as mill and harvest residues)
would most likely be the first biomass feedstocks. Mill wastes used
for bioenergy may reduce the quantity of residue available for
other purposes, such as woody litter. Biomass from SRWC and
thinned small-diameter material may become increasingly preva-
lent as the future woody biomass bioenergy sector expands. In
some regions, niche markets based on local woody biomass
sources (for example, secondary mill wastes and MSW streams)
may arise. To enhance the inventory and monitoring of woody bio-
mass availability, further research is needed. This research should
include not just the amount of woody biomass generated (for
example, in MSW), but also the supply that may be available at
various feedstock costs. Because there isn’t an accurate inventory
of current and projected supplies, it’s impossible to develop knowl-
edge of likely future results. Further study is needed to properly
analyse the ‘‘additionality” and ‘‘leakage” impacts of using woody
biomass for bioenergy and overall climate change measures, given
existing concerns regarding bioenergy carbon emissions account-
ing. More research is needed to have a greater comprehension of
how regulations affecting bioenergy use influence the power, farm-
6
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
ing, and forest sectors. Only a few models are capable of simulating
the interactions of all three industries at the same time. The impli-
cations of new climate change policies may be misinterpreted if
one sector is evaluated in isolation since the forest and agriculture
sectors are so interconnected. There are both synergies and rival-
ries within the wood-based economy. Forest industry by-
products are widely used in the wood-based panel and pulp indus-
tries, as well as in the energy sector. As a result, the energy sector,
the production of wood-based panels, and pulp manufacturing are
all depending on sawnwood supply and compete for the same raw
materials. Because of these interconnections, any study of the
sources and uses of woody biomass for energy must take into
account the whole forest-based economy.
The majority of the negative repercussions of acquiring and
using woody biomass may be mitigated with careful planning. Fur-
thermore, when forestry methods replace conventional agricul-
ture, the majority of negative impacts are almost eliminated.
Benefits to the land, water, atmosphere, environment, and commu-
nity are all significant benefits associated with woody biomass.
Forests filter contaminants from water, making it safe to drink,
and their continuous cover aids in erosion prevention. Woody bio-
mass will have a favourable influence on the environment by
reducing NO2 and SO2 radiations and increasing carbon sequestra-
tion. Furthermore, afforestation and replanting will help to restore
environment and biodiversity. The problem of calculating biomass
as a source of energy has become more challenging as interest in it
has grown. Remote sensing, as compared to forest inventory, is a
useful technology that enables for more cost-effective evaluation
and monitoring. Although forest biomass represents for a modest
fraction of world energy production, it is a remarkably diversified
renewable energy source.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gyanaranjan Sahoo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Amita Sharma: Data
curation, Supervision, Validation. Asim Chandra Dash: Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] AE Biofuels Inc, AE Biofuels opens integrated cellulosic ethanol demonstration
plant, Focus Catal. 10 (10) (2008) 4.
[2] I. Alberdi, R. Michalak, C. Fischer, P. Gasparini, U.-B. Brändli, S.M. Tomter, A.
Kuliesis, A. Snorrason, J. Redmond, L. Hernández, A. Lanz, B. Vidondo, N.
Stoyanov, M. Stoyanova, M. Vestman, S. Barreiro, G. Marin, I. Cañellas, C. Vidal,
Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood
supply in Europe, Forest Policy and Economics 70 (2016) 20–29.
[3] R.L. Bain, R.P. Overend, Biomass for heat and power, For. Prod. J. 52 (2) (2002)
12–19.
[4] Biomass Research and Development Board [BRDB]. Increasing feedstock
production for biofuels: economic drivers, environmental implications, and
the role of research. http://www.brdisolutions.com/Site%20Docs/Increasing%
20 Feedstock_revised.pdf. (17 February 2010). 2008.
[5] A. Camia, N. Robert, R. Jonsson, R. Pilli, S. García-Condado, R. López-Lozano, M.
van der Velde, T. Ronzon, P. Gurría, R. M’Barek, S. Tamosiunas, G. Fiore, R.
Araujo, N. Hoepffner, L. Marelli, J. Giuntoli, Biomass production, supply, uses
and flows in the European Union ISBN978-92-79-77237-5, doi:10.2760/
539520 (2018) JRC109869..
[6] N.E. Cazzaniga, R. Jonsson, D. Palermo, A. Camia, Sankey diagrams of woody
biomass flows in the EU-28, in: EC Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2760/227292.
[7] G. Ceccherini, G. Duveiller, G. Grassi, G. Lemoine, V. Avitabile, R. Pilli, A.
Cescatti, Abrupt increase in harvested forest area over Europe after 2015,
Nature 583 (7814) (2020) 72–77.
G. Sahoo, A. Sharma and A. Chandra Dash
[8] FAO, Terms and Definitions - FRA 2020. Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)
Working Paper 188. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf. 2018.
[9] A.E. Farrell, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, D.M. Kammen,
Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science 311 (5760)
(2006) 506–508.
[10] First Energy Corporation, FirstEnergy to repower R.E. Burger plant with
biomass. Akron, OH. April 1.http://www.firstenergycorp.com/NewsReleases/
2009-04-01%20Burger%20Plant%20Biomass.pdf. 2009.
[11] M. Galbe, G. Zacchi, A review of the production of ethanol from softwood, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 59 (2002) 618–628.
[12] T. Gschwantner, I. Alberdi, A. Balázs, S. Bauwens, S. Bender, D. Borota, M.
Bosela, et al., Harmonisation of Stem Volume Estimates in European National
Forest Inventories, Ann. For. Sci. 76 (1) (2019) 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13595-019-0800-8.
[13] T. Hlásny, P. Krokene, A. Liebhold, C. Montagné-Huck, J. Müller, H. Qin, K. Raffa,
M.J. Schelhaas, R. Seidl, M. Svoboda, H. Viiri, Living with bark beetles: impacts,
outlook and management options. From Science to Policy 8, European Forest
Institute. (2019).
[14] E. Hjerpe, J. Abrams, D.R. Becker, Socioeconomic barriers and the role of
biomass utilization in southwestern ponderosa pine restoration, Ecol. Restor.
27 (2) (2009) 169–177.
[15] E. Hurmekoski, R. Jonsson, J. Korhonen, J. Jänis, M. Mäkinen, P. Leskinen, L.
Hetemäki, Diversification of the forest industries: Role of new wood-based
products. Canadian, J. For. Res. 48 (2018) 1417–1432, https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjfr-2018-0116.
[16] E. Hurmekoski, R. Jonsson, T. Nord, Context, drivers, and future potential for
wood-frame multi-story construction in Europe, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 99 (2015) 181–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.002.
[17] R. Jonsson, N.E. Cazzaniga, A. Camia, S. Mubareka, Deriving wood removals and
fellings from woody biomass uses - comparisons with official data,
Forthcoming as an EC Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2021.
[18] R. Jonsson, F. Rinaldi, The impact on global wood-product markets of
increasing consumption of wood pellets within the European Union, Energy
133 (2017) 864–878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.178.
[19] I. Landalv, Pulp mills—the optimum location for biorefineries. Gasification
TechnologiesConference.http://www.gasification.org/Docs/Conferences/2009/
23LANDALV.pdf. (9 October 2009). 2009.
[20] A. Milbrandt, A geographic perspective on the current biomass resource
availability in the United States. Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-560-39181. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2005) 62.
[21] U. Mantau, Wood flow analysis: Quantification of resource potentials, cascades
and carbon effects, Biomass Bioenerg. 79 (2015) 28–38.
[22] S. Mubareka, G. Vacchiano, R. Pilli, M. Hilferink, G. Fiorese, R. Jonsson,... & A.
Camia, Integrated modelling approach to assess woody biomass supply,
demand and environmental impacts of forest management in the EU. 2018.
View publication stats
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] D. Nicholls, R.A. Monserud, D.P. Dykstra, International bioenergy synthesis-
lessons learned and opportunities for the Western United States, For. Ecol.
Manage. 257 (2009) 1647–1655.
[24] D. Pimentel, M. Hertz, M. Glickstein, R.A. Zimmerman, K. Becker, J. Evans, B.
Hussain, R. Sarsfeld, A. Grosfeld, T. Seidel, Renewable energy: current and
potential issues, BioScience 52 (12) (2002) 1111–1120.
[25] R. Pilli, G. Giacomo, A.K. Werner, F. Giulia, A. Cescatti, The European Forest
Sector: Past and Future Carbon Budget and Fluxes under Different
Management Scenarios, Biogeosciences 14 (9) (2017) 2387–2405, https://
doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2387-2017.
[26] M. Réjou-Méchain, N. Barbier, P. Couteron, P. Ploton, G. Vincent, M. Herold, J.B.
Féret, Upscaling forest biomass from field to satellite measurements: sources
of errors and ways to reduce them, Surv. Geophys. 40 (4) (2019) 881–911.
[27] N. Robert, J. Giuntoli, R. Araujo, M. Avraamides, E. Balzi, J.I. Barredo, B. Baruth,
W. Becker, M.T. Borzacchiello, C. Bulgheroni, A. Camia, G. Fiore, M. Follador, P.
Gurria, A. la Notte, M. Lusser, L. Marelli, R. M’Barek, C. Parisi, G. Philippidis, T.
Ronzon, S. Sala, J. Sanchez Lopez, S. Mubareka, Development of a bioeconomy
monitoring framework for the European Union: An integrative and
collaborative approach, New Biotechnol. 59 (2020) 10–19, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.nbt.2020.06.001.
[28] G.R. Sahoo, A.M. Wani, Impact of Biofuel Production on Biodiversity: A review.
Environment and Society. Book chapter. (2020) 113-127. ISBN: 978-81-
931262-3-3.
[29] R. Seidl, D. Thom, M. Kautz, D. Martin-Benito, M. Peltoniemi, G. Vacchiano, J.
Wild, D. Ascoli, M. Petr, J. Honkaniemi, M.J. Lexer, V. Trotsiuk, P. Mairota, M.
Svoboda, M. Fabrika, T.A. Nagel, C.P.O. Reyer, Forest disturbances under
climate change, Nature Clim. Change 7 7 (6) (2017) 395–402.
[30] N. Scarlat, J. Dallemand, N. Taylor, M. Banja, Brief on biomass for energy in the
European Union, Sanchez Lopez, J. and Avraamides, M. editor(s), Publications
Office of the European Union, 63, 2019.
[31] J.S. Schurman, V. Trotsiuk, R. Bace, et al., Large-scale disturbance legacies and
the climate sensitivity of primary Picea abies forests, Glob. Change Biol. 24
(2018) 2169–2181, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14041.
[32] G.A. Tuskan, Short-rotation woody crop supply systems in the United States:
What do we know and what do we need to know?, Biomass Bioenerg 14 (4)
(1998) 307–315.
[33] Unrau, A., Becker, G., Spinelli, R., Lazdina, D., Magagnotti, N., Nicolescu, V.N.,
Buckley, P., Bartlett, D., Kofman, P.D. (Eds.) Coppice Forests in Europe. Freiburg
i. Br., Germany: Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg. 2018.
[34] United Nations, UN comtrade. http://comtrade.un.org/ 2020.
[35] J.I. Zerbe, Liquid fuels from wood-ethanol, methanol, and diesel, World
Resource Review. 3 (4) (1991) 406–414.
[36] J.I. Zerbe, Thermal energy, electricity, and transportation fuels from wood, For.
Prod. 56 (1) (2006) 6–14.