Assessing farmers' willingness to supply biomass as energy feedstock: Cereal straw in Apulia (Italy)

Giannoccaro, Giacomo; Gennaro, Bernardo De; Meo, Emilio De; Prosperi, Maurizio

doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.009

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that there are other ways of determining prices. Examples include a method discussed by Giannoccaro et al (2017), with which availability is handled based on biomass prices in a region, and a method discussed by Bai et al (2012), which considered 10% too low for some substrates. However, investigating these methods was not the main focus of this paper.…”

Section: Profit Allocation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory

Skovsgaard

Jensen

2018

Energy Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

Section: Profit Allocation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory

Skovsgaard

Jensen

2018

Energy Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many respondents who had livestock voiced concerns about potential increases in costs resulting from the use of straw for bioenergy, whilst respondents without livestock were also concerned about the impact on livestock farmers. Giannoccaro et al (2017) found that farmers wanted a higher price for selling straw to a bioenergy market than to existing markets; although our questionnaire did not specify the straw was for bioenergy uses, from the description of the project that the survey was part of, it may have been assumed that this was the case. It is unclear if, once a bioenergy market is established, whether farmers' opinions about the supply of straw for bioenergy would change, and whether prices would equilibrate with other straw markets.…”

Section: Future Straw Supplymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Glithero et al (2013a), in surveying arable farmers in England, found a third would not supply wheat straw for bioenergy, and in a survey of farmers in Missouri and Illinois, Altman et al (2013) found that 42% and 39% of farmers respectively, were not willing to make their hay, wheat straw or corn stover available to sell in a biomass market, though it is unclear if they were already using their crops/hay or residues for other uses. Giannoccaro et al (2017) found 31% of survey participants in Apulia (Italy) were unwilling to supply straw to a bioenergy market.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wheat straw availability for bioenergy in England

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to meet energy demands while reducing carbon emissions, crop residues, such as wheat straw, have been investigated for their use as feedstock for biofuel production. In order to identify the feasibility of utilising crop residues as bioenergy feedstock, a postal survey was conducted to determine current farm business wheat straw use, destination and potential future supply. The survey responses showed a bias towards larger, more commerciallyminded farms, therefore capturing a large area of straw production. Results demonstrated a wide range of responses to both current straw use and potential for the supply of straw to different markets in the future. Interestingly, even for a very generous payment for straw, 28.5% of straw currently chopped and incorporated would not be sold, suggesting that straw supply for bioenergy feedstock is likely to be more limited than previously assumed. However, higher prices for straw would encourage farmers to explore ways of increasing straw yield. Highlights  Straw supply for bioenergy more constrained than previous indications  East of England farmers least likely to supply straw for bioenergy purposes  Crop management changes could increase straw supply but to a limited extent

show abstract

“…Since biomass markets are not established, farmers will need contractual agreements that minimize their risks. Such contracts will establish pricing, harvest parameters (including timeframe), storage requirements, land area requirements, quality levels, and other arrangements between farmers and biorefineries [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Feedstock Contract Considerations for a Piedmont Biorefinery

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A biorefinery purchasing feedstock (perennial grass) must offer contracts that provide the same opportunity to earn a profit for a feedstock contractor located 50 or 5 km from the biorefinery. The business plan presented here specifies that the biomass is purchased in satellite storage locations (SSLs), and the load-out and hauling costs are paid by the biorefinery. Contracts can be offered for harvest in September, October, and November, a three-month harvest window, or the harvest window can be extended to December, January, and February, a six-month harvest window. Required total storage capacity is 75% of annual consumption for the three-month window and 50% for the six-month window, a significant difference in total storage capacity (cost). The storage cost difference paid by the biorefinery is 5.27 and 3.52 USD/Mg for the three-month and six-month, respectively. Several issues must be addressed in the feedstock contracts: (1) earlier harvest, before plant senescence, means less nutrients are translocated back into the soil and more are removed at harvest; (2) harvest losses are higher for all harvests after the September harvest; and (3) storage losses increase with storage time in the SSL. Time of removal from the SSL is dictated by the biorefinery; thus, the feedstock contractor must be compensated. The contracts paid by the biorefinery, averaged across the entire annual consumption, were about the same for the three-month window, and six-month window. This result was obtained because fertilizer cost decreases and harvest losses increase as the harvest date increases; thus, the two factors tend to offset. Using a 77 USD/Mg base cost, representative feedstock payment at the SSL (no storage losses included) for contractors with various month contracts are September (84.30), October (85.54), November (86.72), December 88.63), January (89.98), and February (90.58). Subsequent compensation for storage losses depends on the amount of time the particular unit of biomass is in storage before shipment.

show abstract

Assessing farmers' willingness to supply biomass as energy feedstock: Cereal straw in Apulia (Italy)

Cited by 32 publications

References 18 publications

Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory

Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory

Wheat straw availability for bioenergy in England

Feedstock Contract Considerations for a Piedmont Biorefinery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About