This file contains data on the economics of Miscanthus production collected in the following review article: Witzel, C.P., Finger, R. (2016). Economic evaluation of Miscanthus production - A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 53: 681–696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.063 See the paper for further details on selection criteria and variable definitions Country year Role of climate policy study focus reference system utilization possibilities sources of demand limited market for Misca. energy content ecological benefits of Miscanthus land primarily committed to Misc. amount of land used (in ha) Miscanthus + other Biomassplants total lifespan of Misc first harvest Cropping flexibility output prices (in €/ t dt) break-even price of Miscanthus (in €/t) price correlation gross margin per ha and year (€/ha) yields (tons dry matter per ha and year) costs of process chain (€/ha) risk aversion risk premium Government intervention to promote Biomass (subsidies) contracting discount rate methods of economic assessment influencing farmer characteristics farm characteristics level of info. as barrier sources of uncertainty sensitivity of profitability to result : profitable?/most important factor? Exchange Rates (in GJ/t) dm (with regular Miscanthus price volatility considered (energy to conventional crops) Miscanthus yield volatility considered uncertainty not considered uncertainty considered other methods y/n/mixed, when, why, under what conditions, compared to what? (10.02.2015) yield) establishment costs of Miscanthus static dynamic comments energetic other possibilities large scale co-firing Biorefinery small scale heat/ power """bad"" land" crop land required to meet target potential availability gross margin required for Misc. uptake potentially realized gross margin land preparation €/ha planting material planting activities €/ha maintenance €/ha total establishment costs €/ha harvest €/ha storage (€/ harvest and ha) closing €/ha total delivered cost €/t dm transport distance km transport cost €/km opportunity costs €/ha influence on decision in % cost-benefit analysis break-even cost analysis costing IRR NPV annuity annual gross margin Monte Carlo Sim. Repetitive Latin Hypercube Sampling Other Stochastic Sim. ROA Sensitivity Analysis Expected Utility Approach … choice experiment GIS mapping Agent-based model probit model tobit model LP model farm survey sample size t-test focus group sample size anova prices yields input costs Source reference refeence (number in paper) publication farm level farm level constraints field level regional level other energy crop kind of energy crop conv. Crop rotation conv. Crop livestock direct combustion liquid fuel other utilization just mentioned eco. assessed (usually with coals) (2nd generation) biofules generation yes/no= 1/0 kind of benefit just mentioned econ. assessed (pasture, marginal, eroded, set aside) (also suitable for conv. Crops) currently used min max mean min max mean Years xth Year min max mean sd range yes/no = 1/0 min max mean range assumed strong weak direction min max mean range min max mean range min max mean sd range yes/ no = 1/0 min max mean range rhizomes/ha €/ piece min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range min max mean range considered min max mean range considered positive negative mentioned calculated mentioned assessed regarded as requirement is subsidy included in the calculation? kind of intervention mentioned assessed regarded as requirement kind of contract age education existence of successor soil quali. farm business farm size region prices yields costs regulatory risk high low high low high low 1 "Alexander P, Moran D. Impact of perennial energy crops income variability on the crop selection of risk averse farmers. Energy Policy 2013;52:587–96." [45] UK 2012 "EU 2020 target, ""UK Biomas Strategy""" 1 1 src 1 1 1 17'000 350'000 16 2 80.71 1 1 387.39 621.45 12.80 2.9 1 2538.24 285.17 53.80 142.58 1 1 1 1 1 1 50% est grant, 45€/ha/y no longer available (EU subsidy) 1 6.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "Misc. Only optimal on highest yielding sites and higher farm gate prices (>14,9odt/ha; > 60£/odt), establishmant grant of more than 100% required; even at high price/ yield level: only 4% of required area will be grown with Misc.;80£/hodt required for Misc. uptake; Riskaversion may lead to higher uptake of energy crops in order to diversify cropping portfolio." €/£= 1,34512 2. "Sherrington C, Bartley J, Moran D. Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 2008;36(7):2504–12." [44] UK 2008 "EU 2020 target/ UK policy/ 20% energy from renewables, ""UK Biomass strategy""" 1 returns 1 src willow 1 1 1 bedding 1 1 1 1 waste water treatment 1 1 15'546 350'000 5'500'000 2'925'000 680'000 4 1 1 1 est. Grant+ 45£/ha/y 1 long term supply contract 1 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "only with est. Grants/attractive contracts/ higher prices considering opport. Costs; secure demand and developped market as key factor; but few demand without supply security for end-users, main barrier is uncertainty of finacial returns and opportunity costs" €/$= 0,88286 3. "Thomas A, Bond A, Hiscock K. A GIS based assessment of bioenergy potential in England within existing energy systems. Biomass and Bioenergy 2013;55:107–21." [38] UK 2013 EU 2020 target/ UK policy/ 20% energy from renewables 1 1 bedding 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 2'521'996 77.30 9 15 12.00 6 1 94.48 101.84 25.00 40.00 2,79€ +0,33€/km 1 1 1 Energy Crop Scheme, 40% est. refund 1 1 "Examination of spatial factors influencing Biomass production--> availability of land, distance to enduser of biomass, transport cost; guaranteed income may be a pre-requisite for cultivation, long term contracts required but difficult due to uncertain futur price building." €/CAN$= 0,70650 4. "Tate G, Mbzibain A, Ali S. A comparison of the drivers influencing farmers' adoption of enterprises associated with renewable energy. Energy Policy 2012;49(0):400–9." [46] UK 2012 EU 2020 target/ 15% energy from renewable sources 1 1 1 1 393 1 1 1 How is the farmer or the farm influencing the adoption to renewable sources (solar,biomass, miscanthus…) 5. "Alexander P, Moran D, Rounsevell M, Hillier J, Smith P. Cost and potential of carbon abatement from the UK perennial energy crop market. GCB Bioenergy 2014;6(2):156–68." [47] UK 2013 UK energy policies and UK renewable energy targets 1 1 930'000 3'630'000 12.00 50.00 1 1 est. grant 50%- 100% 1 1 This article is mostly about the carbon emmissions and uptake of renewable energy plants (e.g. miscanthus) 6. Sherrington C, Moran D. Modelling farmer uptake of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 2010(38):3567–78. [48] UK 2010 EU 2020 target/ UK policy/ 20% energy from renewables 1 land, labour, machinery, crop rotation 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16'000 350'000 2'200'000 1 80.71 168.14 201.77 184.95 33.63 100.88 597.23 349.06 496.35 14.00 0 2274.60 2690.24 2482.42 415.64 259.61 1 1 0 800 £/ha establishment grant 1 0 1 supply contracts/ price guarantee 6.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gross margin of energy crops necessary for uptake are depending on gross margin of alternative crops, size of the farm (larger farms work at lower cross margins and therefore threshold for energy crops uptake is lower), 7. "Wang S, Wang S, Hastings A, Pogson M, Smith P. Economic and greenhouse gas costs of miscanthus supply chains in the United Kingdom. GCB Bioenergy 2012;4(3):358–63." [49] UK 2012 Climate Change Act 2008 target till 2050/ 2020 - 15% renewable energy share 1 1 1 1 1 20 2 62.04 1 10.45 193.70 20'000 0.09 1748.66 454.65 117.03 2397.00 269.02 51.11 134.51 78.02 50.00 0,356£/km 4,28£+0,27£/km 1 1 713 £/ha establishment grant 1 1 1 1 8. "Alexander P, Moran D, Smith P, Hastings A, Wang S, Suennenberg G et al. Estimating UK perennial energy crop supply using farm-scale models with spatially disaggregated data. GCB Bioenergy 2014;6(2):142–55." [50] UK 2013 UK Governments aim of expansion of perennial energy crops/ 2020 - 15% renewable energy share 1 land availability,crop rotation 1 src 1 1 15.1 1 17'000 350'000 16 2 80.71 1 11.5 15.9 14 4.4 0.00 127.79 2621.64 294.58 56.50 146.62 1 1 1 1 50% refund of establ. costs 1 1 6.00% 1 1 1 Very important aspect in this article is the yield change when the climate in the next 20, 30, 50 years is changing 9. "Bauen AW, Dunnett AJ, Richter GM, Dailey AG, Aylott M, Casella E et al. Modelling supply and demand of bioenergy from short rotation coppice and miscanthus in the UK. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(21):8132–43." [51] UK 2010 UK Biomass Strategy/ EU 2020 target 20% +UK-specific target of 15% energy from renewables 1 1 src 1 1 1 350'000 824'000 3'400'000 21 4 1 9.6 11.9 2.3 0.00 117.03 2397.00 269.02 51.11 134.51 150.70 29.30 4,28£+0,27£/km 1 1 40% refund of establ. Costs +26£ ha/y EU energy aid payment 6.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. "Alexander P, Moran D, Rounsevell M, Smith P. Modelling the perennial energy crop market: the role of spatial diffusion. Journal of The Royal Society/ Interface 2013;10(88)." [52] UK 2014 UK renewable energy targets 15% till 2020 1 1 1 1 17'000 350'000 80.71 134.51 107.61 1 0.00 80.00 4,28£+0,27£/km 9,4% 6/8/9/11/13% 1 1 1 1 11. "Glithero NJ, Wilson P, Ramsden SJ. Prospects for arable farm uptake of short rotation coppice willow and miscanthus in England. Applied energy 2013;107(100):209–18." [53] UK 2013 EU 2020 target 1 land 1 willow 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 545'700 967'500 20 3 12 16 4 0.00 3311.69 1 1 50% refund of establ. costs 1 1 244 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Potential farm uptake of Miscanthus is low due to financial, land quality, moral constraints. Even with substantial crop establishment grants, uptake remains low. Policy makers are adviced to invest in extension-activities (information-transfer) and to provide secure finacial and market conditions to farmers 12. "Smeets EM, Lewandowski IM, Faaij AP. The economical and environmental performance of miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009;13(6-7):1230–45." [25] PL, HU, UK, IT, LI 2009 EU 2020 target 20% of the total primary energy consumption from renewables 1 1 switchgrass 1 1 paper,construction materials, plastic 1 1 1 18.3 less soil erosion, biodiversity is higher, low enviromental pressure 1 1 1 15 2 15 34 19 0 139.00 20'000 0.16 3200.00 55.00 106.00 50.00 200.00 100.00 11.00 18.00 0 1 1 1 1 1 "Miscanthus more profitable than switchgrass; large yield increase potential for Misc assumed; results indicate large GHG reduction potenial due to biofuels and a high ratio between bio-energy output and fossil fuel input 32-56:1 ; uncertainty remains about fertilizer, transport and land-conversion requirements and its GHG emissions. All in all Misc and Switchgrass promising crop for biomass production; Doubling of crude oil and natural gas prices makes perennial grasses competitive" 13. "Clancy D, Breen J, Butler AM, Thorne F, Wallace M. A discounted cash flow analysis of financial returns from biomass crops in Ireland. Journal of Farm Management;13(9):1–17." [54] IRL 2009 Kyoto targets to reduce GHG emissions 1 costs of contractors, policy constraints 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 1 bioremediation, waste water treatment 1 1 16 3 1 60.00 0 10 0 0.00 2363.00 225.00 1 208.35 1 1 1 1450€ establishment grant + 45 €/ ha EU energy crop subsidy 1 1 price guarantee 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "NPV and IRR of Misca. Significantly higher than those of Willow (886€/ha vs. -757€/ha; 10.31% vs. -1.68%); depending on opportunitiy cost assumption, NPP and IRR can be positive as well as negative for Misca. and Willow; compared to winter wheat both are unprofitable" 14. "Clancy D, Breen JP, Thorne F, Wallace M. A stochastic analysis of the decision to produce biomass crops in Ireland. Biomass and Bioenergy 2012;46:353–65." [10] IRL 2010 undefined environmental targets 1 costs of contractors, policy constraints 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 bioremediation 1 16 2 86.00 1 6.98 17.69 12.68 2.94 10.71 1 0.00 3486.00 334.00 297.00 1 1 1 1450 €/ha est. Grant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "uncertainty of returns from biomass regarded as a key barrier; depending on opportunity cost, NPV can be positive as well as negative. NPV always negative when Misc. is compared to winter weed. Willow much more likely to generate negative NPVs. If bioremediation is rewarded it always leads to higher NPVs (not necessarily positive NPVs!)" 15. "Deverell R, McDonnell K, Ward S, Devlin G. An economic assessment of potential ethanol production pathways in Ireland. Energy Policy 2009;37(10):3993–4002." [55] IRL 2009 EU directives 98/70/EC (fuel quality directive) and 2003/20/EC (mandatory blending) 1 1 wheat, sugar beet, triticale, straw, fossil fuel 1 1 1 1 19.7 16 60.00 0 50.69 114.40 82.55 148.90 16 0.231861199 0 0.00 1 0 7.00% 1 1 "ethanol produced from indigenously produced feedstock in Ireland is not competitve with ethanol from imported feedstock from other EU countries, the US and Brazil; but it is competitve with conventional fuel, most promising is the ethanol production from straw" 16. "Clancy D, Breen J, Buttler AM, Thorne F. The economic viability of biomass crops versus conventional agricultural systems and its potential impact on farm incomes in Ireland. Paper submitted to the 12th congress of the ""European association of agricultural economists"" in Sevilla, Spain, January 29th-February 1st 2008." [43] IRL 2008 "national target to replace peat for energy generation by energy crops; Kyoto target to reduce GHG" 1 soil, land, returns,age of farmer 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 1 36'000 55'000 45'500 20 3 10 0 0.00 1 0 1450 €/ha est. Grant PPA (power purchase agreement) price guarantee 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1'159 1 1 1 1 Renewable energy target in Ireland only to be achieved if higher prices for Misc. are offered to farmers. Prices required to make Miscanthus attractive for farmers lay between 7,20 € and 8,90 € per GJ. Current price for electricity produced from peat is 3,70 €/ GJ. Besides prices, farm and personal characteristics of farmers are important 17. "Clancy D, Breen J, Butler AM, Thorne F, Wallace M. Valuing the risk associated with willow and miscanthus relative to conventional agricultural systems. Paper submitted to the international congress of the ""European association of agricultural economists"" in Ghent, Belgium, August 26th-29th 2008." [42] IRL 2008 national target to replace peat for energy generation by energy crops 1 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A risk premium is always required (exception: spring barley) to make farmers indifferent between conventional farming and biomass production. Risk premium for Misc. lower than for Willow--> risk involved with Misc. is lower than for Willow 18. "Clancy D, Breen J.P., Thorne F, Wallace M. The influence of a renewable energy feed in tariff on the decision to produce biomass crops in Ireland. Energy Policy 2012;41(0):412–21." [56] IRL 2011 national target to replace peat for energy generation by energy crops 1 land, soil, milk quota, stocking rate, 1 src willow, coal 1 1 1 1 40'000 16 3 1 50.00 80.00 65.00 30 10 0 0.00 3130.00 314.00 225.00 1 0 1 1 (PPA)price guarantee 5.00% 1 1 1 998 1 1 1 "The inclusion of co-firing in the ""Renewable Energy Feed in Tariff"" will allow energy producers to offer fixed prices to biomass-farmers as the energy producers are secured against increasing costs arising from biomass combustion. The required fixe price is calculated: At a price of 65€/t for Misca. a sufficient amount of farmers would be willing to grow Misca. in order to reach the required 40.000€ ha. Current price, offered to farmers by power stations is 60€/t; " 19. "Styles D, Thorne F, Jones MB. Energy crops in Ireland: An economic comparison of willow and miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass and Bioenergy 2007;32(5):407–21." [9] IRL 2007 Kyoto targets to reduce GHG emissions 1 1 src willow 1 1 1 1 1 16 3 63.00 254.00 853.00 11.7 21.7 20'000 0.00 2470.00 237.00 207.00 37.00 48.00 0 1 50% est. Grant, 80€/ha/a energy crop premium 1 5.00% 1 1 1 Main barriers to energy crop production are the high upfront establishment costs in combination with long payback periods, lack of an established biomass market in Ireland associated with future price uncertainties, and a lack of policy coordination among sectors. Dissemination to farmers of energy crop knowledge and opportunities, and an extension of recently announced establishment subsidies in the context of coordinated policy, could promote a new market for energy-crop biomass in Ireland. 20. "Zimmermann J, Styles D, Hastings A, Dauber J, Jones MB. Assessing the impact of within crop heterogeneity ('patchiness') in young miscanthus x giganteus fields on economic feasibility and soil carbon sequestration. GCB Bioenergy 2014;6(5):566–76." [57] IRL 2013 GHG reduction and independency from fossil fuels 1 1 soil carbon sequestration 1 1 21 4 1 75.00 170.00 265.00 10.5 13.5 12 3 0 0.00 2595.00 270.00 200.00 0 1 1295 €/ha est. grant 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1 Yield losses and thereby decreased gross margins as a result of field patchiness. 21. "Spicer MR, Fagan CC, Ward S, McDonnell K. Economic assessment of commercial biofuel production in Ireland. Energy sources part b-economics planning and policy 2012;7(1):10–20." [33] IRL 2011 GHG reduction and independency from fossil fuels 1 1 straw, src willow 1 1 16.2 22 2 18 0.00 2500.00 306.00 20.52 40.00 0,3€/t/km 0 1 1 1 Straw, Willow and Miscanthus have potential to serve as feedstock for competitive btl fuels if production, provision and conversion into biofuel are further optimized 22. "Augustenborg CA, Finnan J, McBennett L, Connolly V, Priegnitz U, Mόller C. Farmers' perspectives for the development of a bioenergy industry in Ireland. GCB Bioenergy 2012;4(5):597–610." [58] IRL 2011 GHG reduction and independency from fossil fuels 1 1 1 grass, willow, oil seed rape 1 carbon sequestration 1 1 1 0.00 2500.00 3000.00 0 1 1 est. Grant up to 50% + 80€/ha/y 1 1 long term contracts 1 172 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "Most important barriers: requirement of lont term contracts, government support, outreach to promote energy crops; no guaranteed market, uncertainty about profits, costs, prices; viability compared to conentional crops, lont term commitment, high est. Cost," 23. "Clancy D, Breen J, Moran D, Thorne F, Wallace M. Examining the socio-economic factors affecting willingness to adopt bioenergy crops. Journal of International Farm Management 2011;4(5)." [59] IRL 2011 EU Emission Trading Scheme, high fossil fuel prices 1 personal characteristics of farmers 1 0.00 0 1 1 no est. Aid available at that time 1 1 998 1 1 1 Most influencing characteristics are system of farming (tillage farmer more likely to adopt than others) and farm size, 24. "Shastri Y, Rodriguez L, Hansen A, Ting KC. Agent-based analysis of biomass feedstock production dynamics. Bioenergy Research 2011;4(4):258–75." [60] US 2011 US renewable energy targets 1 1 1 1 15 3 75.04 1 20 0 0.00 3310.73 10.00 60.00 35.00 0,25$/t/km 1 169.51 1 1 Biomass Crop Assistance Program 45$/t for 2 years 1 1 1 3 years delivery contract 1 1 1 1 1 Production system (crop production and processing) can take upt to 15 years to achieve stable productivity which will be at only 60% of the assumed capacity of the refinery --> establishment of bioenergy is a stepwise process depending on technological, economic and socioeconomic drivers 25. "Aravindhakshan SC, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM. Economics of switchgrass and miscanthus relative to coal as feedstock for generating electricity. Biomass and Bioenergy 2010;34(9):1375–83." [32] US 2010 1 1 switchgrass, coal 1 1 1 1 1 1 16.11 carbon sequestration 1 22'000'000 10 45.64 47.59 46.62 9.27 14.56 12.39 1.87 5.29 1 69.66 10'000 0.00 622.68 45.64 50.00 1 1 cofiring only with subsidies, mandates, carbon taxes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cofiring not competitve with coals without subsidies, mandates or carbon reduction taxes--> cost of biomass production is main barrier to cofiring with coals. Based on the on the energy content relative to coal, the production cost of Misc. and Switchgrass create negative net returns per ha. Switchgrass produces significantly more biomass in that region than Miscanthus. CO2 tax is required on order to make biomass competitive with coals for electricity generation 25. "Aravindhakshan SC, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM. Economics of switchgrass and miscanthus relative to coal as feedstock for generating electricity. Biomass and Bioenergy 2010;34(9):1375–83." [32] 11.27 15.97 13.04 1.64 4.7 0.00 26. Huang HX, Khanna M, Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G et al. The breakeven costs of alternative feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels. Aspects of Applied Biology 2011(112):153–62. [61] US 2011 1 land availability, income 1 corn stover, switchgrass, prairie grasses, poplar 1 1 1 erosion reduction, biodiversity, N leaching 1 1 1 15 2 39.46 90.81 65.14 29.54 5.59 10'000 0.22 2207.15 1 1 1 subsidies required 4.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "break even cost differ strongly depending on feedstocks, regions, committed area; subsidies such as est. Grant will be required to reduce the uprfront cost of farmers. If biomass plants are adopted to for environmental reasons, considerably subsidies have to be payed, depending on the scenario (high/ low cost scenario). required subsidy ranges from 12- 52 $/t for Miscanthus, depending on production costs" 26. Huang HX, Khanna M, Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G et al. The breakeven costs of alternative feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels. Aspects of Applied Biology 2011(112):153–62. [61] 25.16 3.88 0.00 26. Huang HX, Khanna M, Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G et al. The breakeven costs of alternative feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels. Aspects of Applied Biology 2011(112):153–62. [61] 15.45 4.46 0.00 27. "James LK, Swinton SM, Thelen KD. Profitability analysis of cellulosic energy crops compared with corn. Agronomy Journal 2010;102(2):675–87." [62] US 2010 1 poplar, switchgrass, mixed grasses, canola, prairie 1 1 1 1 1 carbon sequestration 1 1 1 10 3 52.97 0 176.57 108.15 22.4 11'240 1.02 11411.85 1 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 "at current prices/ yield cellulosic biofuel crops are not competitive with continuous corn; corn stover as by product of corn grain production makes it the most likely biomass in the great lakes region; most important to increase competitivenes of Misc. is the reduction of costs for rhizomes (Rhizomes in EU are 10 times cheaper than the rhizomes in the ""cheap szenario"" of this paper)" 28. "Villamil MB, Silvis AH, Bollero GA. Potential miscanthus’ adoption in Illinois: information needs and preferred information channels. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008;32(12):1338–48." [63] US 2008 GHG reduction and independency from fossil fuels, federal renewable energy legislation 1 1 0.00 1 313 1 27 1 1 29. "Villamil MB, Alexander M, Silvis AH, Gray ME. Producer perceptions and information needs regarding their adoption of bioenergy crops. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012;16(6):3604–12." [64] US 2012 GHG reduction and independency from fossil fuels, federal renewable energy legislation 1 1 0.00 1 1 1 1002 1 42 1 1 1 1 "24% of farmers are identified as potential adopters; reliable sources of information (policies, subsidies, environmental, social, uncertainties of markets and infrastructure), technical assistance are required. Preferred way of information: farmer-researcher-workshops, field-days, farm demonstrations, on farm research...." 30. "Cope MA, McLafferty S, Rhoads BL. Farmer attitudes toward production of perennial energy grasses in east central Illinois: implications for community-based decision making. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2011;101(4):852–62." [24] US 2011 divers federal and state renewable energy policies (e.g. BCAP) 1 1 reduction of soil erosion, water purification, biodiversity 1 1 0.00 1 1 1 57 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 Most important barrier: lack of market and concerns about profitability 31. "Khanna M, Oenal H, Dhungana B, Wander M. Economics of herbaceous bioenergy crops for electricity generation: implications for greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35(4):1474–84." [65] US 2010 concerns about GHG emissions 1 1 switchgrass, coal 1 1 1 carbon sequestration 1 20 40.26 0.00 56.00 24.00 1 1 1 1 "carbon tax; direct subsidies" 4.00% 1 1 1 1 energy content based prices for Misc. much lower than brack even price of Misc production. Subsidies/ carbon taxation required to make Misc competitive with coal. Switchgras even less competitive. A carbon tax of 18$/t Co2 for coal firing could make biomass competitive 32. "Khanna M, Dhungana B, Clifton-Brown J. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008;32(6):482–93." [20] US 2008 concerns about GHG emissions 1 switchgrass, coal 1 1 1 1 1 18 carbon sequestration 1 20 3 36.20 51.21 43.70 30 42 35.8 0 10'000 0.03 291.34 724.05 40.00 1,12$+0,07$/km 1 71.23 177.21 259.29 1 1 "carbon tax; payments for C sequstration" 4.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 break-even price of Misc is much lower (only 1/3) of b-e price of switchgrass in Illinois. Large variabilty in break-even prices across the regions+ large differences in the transport distances to the nearest power plant causes variability in the costs of using Misc for co-firing. Break even cost of Misc much higher than price for coals--> under current prices Misc not profitable business for farmers to supply power plants. Subsidies are required e.g. to reward for soil carbon sequestration or by carbon taxation of coal firing 33. "Scheffran J, BenDor T. Bioenergy and land use: a spatial-agent dynamic model of energy crop production in Illinois. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 2009;39(1-2):4–27." [37] US 2009 energy security and climat concerns, Energy policy Acz 2006 1 1 switchgrass 1 1 1 carbon sequestration, enhance soil quality 1 1 38.1 60.8 48.5 22.7 0.00 1,12$+0,07$/km 1 1 1 1 50$/t bioenergy crop subsidy is assumed 1 1 1 "cost, especially opportunity cost are a key determinant of competitiveness of biomass crops; profitability depending to a large extent on the regarded region (is there demand--> transport distance, soil quality--> competitiveness compared to other crops)" 34. "Jain AK, Khanna M, Erickson M, Huang H. An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the midwestern United States. GCB Bioenergy 2010;2(5):217–34." [15] US 2010 Renewable Fuel Standard until 2020 under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), 2007 1 1 switchgras 1 1 biochemicals 1 carbon sequestration 1 1 15 3 46.79 120.07 77.69 7 48 37.2 41 1 10'000 0.22 2207.15 2610.62 100.00 0,1275$/t/km 1 323.13 693.05 4.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "economic viability strongly depends on the region--> highly divers opportunity cost and yield expectations; at most sites Misc is more profitable than switchgrass due to higher yields (2x) and longer life time. Large spatial variation in break-even prices. But Misc has much higher est cost. Bioenergy crops suitable in locations which provide high biomass yield but low convetional crop yields." 35 "Dolginow J, Massey RE, Kitchen NR, Myers DB, Sudduth KA. A stochastic approach for predicting the profitability of bioenergy grasses. Agronomy Journal 2014;106(6):2137." [16] US 2014 concerns about GHG emissions 1 1 switchgrass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 4 48.56 48.56 48.56 0 0 15.49 28.97 21.81 4.7 13.48 1 16'050 0.11 1700.39 1751.59 1 1 1 1 1 1 BCAP, 75% of est. Cost + 24$/ha/year 1 1 1 1 1 1 "corn always most profitable on all kind of soils, corn has highest max profit; Miscanthus allways more profitable than other energy crops due to its higher yields; Misc. not viable on productive soils compared to corn and soybeans. BCAP improves profitability of Miscanthus more than switchgrass due to higher est. cost; planting Miscanthus on eroded soils is most profitable way of producing biomass in northeastern Missouri " 0.88286 35. "Dolginow J, Massey RE, Kitchen NR, Myers DB, Sudduth KA. A stochastic approach for predicting the profitability of bioenergy grasses. Agronomy Journal 2014;106(6):2137." [16] 16.35 33.23 23.60 3.43 16.88 1 0.00 0.7065 36. "Diamantidis ND, Koukios EG. Agricultural crops and residues as feedstocks for non-food products in western Europe. Industrial Crops and Products 2000;11(2–3):97–106." [39] GR 2000 CO2 emission reduction 1 src willow, poplar, eucalyptus 1 0 17 1 76.00 83.30 20 21 20.3 1 0.00 1 1 1 37. "Lychnaras V, Schneider UA. Multi-farm economic analysis of perennial energy crops in central Greece, taking into account the CAP reform. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35(1):700–15." [66] GR 2010 "EU directives 2003/30; 2001/77; 2003/87; Council Regulation 1782/2003; 2009/28/EC (2020 Targets)" 1 1 arundo, switchgrass, cardoon 1 20 1 6.26 16.44 11.28 1.69 1 0.00 1 600.00 900.00 1 decoupled CAP subsidies, 45€/ha 1 1 1 1 52 1 1 "decoupling of CAP subsidies (2003 CAP reform) has positive effect on biomass production due to strongly decreased opportunity cost of biomass production; switchgrass seems to be most attractive followed carddon and Miscanthus; cotton farm most likely to adopt energycrops due to decoupled, former non-cotton-specific subsidies under the CAP 2003 reform--> cotton less profitable. decoupling effect larger than the 45€/ha biomass payment. long harvest time-span is important factor in terms of cost-effectivenss" 38. "Bocquιho G, Jacquet F. The adoption of switchgrass and miscanthus by farmers: impact of liquidity constraints and risk preferences. Energy Policy 2010;38(5):2598–607." [67] F 2010 EU 2020 target 1 liquidity 1 src, switchgrass 1 1 1 1 15 4 70.00 1 0 327.00 427.00 399.00 17.00 1 0.14 0.00 800.00 130.00 3730.00 200.00 27.00 207.00 1 1 1 1 energy crop subsidy 32€/ ha 1 1 1 "price guarantee; est. Loan" 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 depending on assumptions on risk, contracts and conducted model, Energy crops can be competitve with conventional crops or not. With the standart NPV approach, energy crops are less profitable than conventional crops. For risk avers farmers, energy crops can serve to diversify price risks Misc. much less competitve than switchgrass. contracts, especially est. loan can help stimulate farmers willingness to adoption--> reducing liquidity constrains of famers more effective way to increase Misc. adoption than long term supply contracts 1.34512 39. Bocquιho G, Jacquet F, Reynaud A. Determinants of miscanthus adoption: an empirical investigation among French farmers. Paper submitted to the 5th “Journιes de recherches en sciences sociales” in Dijon, France, December 8th-9th 2011. [41] F 2011 1 3 1 1 1 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 availability of marginal land and intention to enhance profits by growing Misc on it could be main determinant for the observed farmers 40. "Simon D, Tyner WE, Jacquet F. Economic analysis of the potential of cellulosic biomass available in France from agricultural residue and energy crops. Bioenergy Research 2010;3(2):183–93." [68] F 2009 "Kyoto target to reduce GHG; EU directive 2003/30/EC" 1 land-> max./min. crop-share 1 1 1 carbon sequestration 1 192'864 17 4 90.00 16 21 18.5 5 0.00 62.00 168.00 115.00 0,18€/km/t 1 1 decoupled CAP payments, 45€/ha for energy crops 1 long term supply with guaranteed revenues 1 1 1094 economically most feasable supply for Btl production comes from crop residues (weed, corn stover). Cost of supplying the plant with Misca much more expensive (costs almost twice as high). Dedicated energy crops for Btl production not economically viable up to now due to higher production cost. Yield increases (30t/ha+) required. Subsidies currently paid for 1st generation biofuels should be instead offert to Btl establishment to make it viable 41. "Rizzo D, Martin L, Wohlfahrt J. Miscanthus spatial location as seen by farmers: a machine learning approach to model real criteria. Biomass and Bioenergy 2014;66:348–63." [69] F 2014 Sustainability requirements by EU Directive (2009/28/EC) 1 1 1 1 0.00 10.00 30.00 boosted regression tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 "decision determinants identified: size of famers ""blocks"" (unit of field size)-> Misc more likely to be planted on relatively small (<10ha) blocks; existence of woodland boundary (bad conditions for other crops due to shadow etc.); distance to transformation plant-> Misc most likely to be grown within 10-30km around a Btl plant; distance to farm center->rather isolated parcels. Misc. in that region most likely to be grown on marginal, not highly attractive land" 42. "Fazio S, Barbanti L. Energy and economic assessments of bio-energy systems based on annual and perennial crops for temperate and tropical areas. Renewable Energy 2014;69:233–41." [19] I 2014 GHG reduction and energy security 1 1 oil and coconut palm, jatropha, castor bean, sunflower, rapeseed, sugar cane, maize, wheat, poplar, cardoon, giant reed, switchgrass, fibre sorghum 1 1 17 15 55.00 0 18 0 15000 0.00 0 10.00% 1 1 Misc creating relatively high annual net profits of 335€/ha (higher than poplar and swithcgrass but lower than oil plam, sator bean and giant reed. 43. "Vavrova K, Knapek J. Economic assessment of miscanthus cultivation for energy purposes in the Czech Republic. Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy 2012;91(6):485–94." [36] CZ 2012 EU 2020 target, renewable energy sources - national action plan 1 1 1 18 1 200000 10 3 0 54.00 284.00 169.00 2.5 13 10.5 0 264.00 10000 0.24 2400.00 155.50 2828.00 232.00 10.00 0 0 0 normal payments under CAP are considered 8.70% 1 Results are expressed in minimum energy prices to make M profitable. land rental prices and level of gegernal direct payments are mentioned to be very important 44. "Krasuska E, Rosenqvist H. Economics of energy crops in Poland today and in the future. Biomass and Bioenergy 2012;38:23–33." [34] PL 2012 EU 2020 target 1 1 src willow, triticale 1 1 1 22.18 8700 16000000 20 4 70.30 0 14 0 145.00 10000 0.13 1300.00 371.00 136.00 1671.00 168.00 95.00 213.00 30.00 1 0 0 6.00% 1 1 1 Miscanthus is less profitable than willow. Actually, gross margins are negative - wheat and barley production more profitable. 45. "Wolbert-Haverkamp M. Miscanthus and poplar plantations in short rotation as an alternative to classical crop husbandry - a risk analysis by means of Monte Carlo simulation. Berichte όber Landwirtschaft 2012;90(2):302–16." [70] GE 2012 1 1 src, poplar 1 1 1 1 1 21 3 64.01 114.49 89.38 20.92 1 1 1 positive 454.50 14.51 20.92 3,78 - 4,35 1 119.27 10000 0.20 2000.00 280.48 404.38 342.43 1 549.00 1 1 1 stochstic dominance 1 1 1 Miscanthus dominates both poplar and crop rotation (assuming 'good' yield levels). Many things remain unreported in the paper. Questionable quality, confusing. Two different field trials for Miscanthus are underlying - somehow belnded at the end 46. "Venturi P, Gigler JK, Huisman W. Economical and technical comparison between herbaceous (miscanthus x giganteus) and woody energy crops (salix viminalis). Renewable Energy 1999;16(1-4):1023–6." [30] NL 1999 1 1 willow 1 building materials, geotextiles, paper, packaging materials 1 15 3 20 1 0.00 120.40 313.20 38.30 3,69€+0,16€/km the main production chains of the two crops is worked out. Special attention has been paid to the costs and energy input in the Netherlands. 46. "Venturi P, Gigler JK, Huisman W. Economical and technical comparison between herbaceous (miscanthus x giganteus) and woody energy crops (salix viminalis). Renewable Energy 1999;16(1-4):1023–6." [30] 0.00 120.40 190.80 88.00 4,66€+0,21€/km 47. "van der Hilst F, Dornburg V, Sanders J, Elbersen B, Graves A, Turkenburg WC et al. Potential, spatial distribution and economic performance of regional biomass chains: the north of the Netherlands as example. Agricultural Systems 2010;103(7):403–17." [40] NL 2010 National and EU biofuel and emission reduction targets 1 1 sugar beet 1 1 1 1 1 20 0.00 0 1 1 5.5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "without regarding subsidies, Misca. Could be competitve to conventional crops mainly on pasture land; Miscanthus likely to be competitive on land with lower soil quality; 600 €/ha subsidy required to make ethanol from Misanthus competitive compared to sugar beet" 48. "Laporte AV de, Weersink AJ, McKenney DW. A spatial model of climate change effects on yields and break-even prices of switchgrass and miscanthus in Ontario, Canada. GCB Bioenergy 2014;6(4):390–400." [71] CAN 2013 Green Energy Act of 2009, elimination of all coal-fired electricity till 2014 1 1 switchgrass 1 1 animal bedding 1 1 1 1 1 15 3 44.12 87.00 51.38 15.7 38.9 29.6 1 17500 0.11 1993.06 17.45 2320.62 37.09 1 203.74 5.00% 1 1 1 49. Vyn RJ, Virani T, Deen B. Examining the economic feasibility of miscanthus in Ontario: an application to the greenhouse industry. 50 / 1. Energy Policy 2012:669–76. [72] CAN 2012 Green Energy Act of 2009, 10,700MWofinstalledelectricity capacity from renewable sources by 2030 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60'000 20 3 54.96 74.24 62.19 1 106.69 17500 0.11 1993.06 66.31 96.91 1930.96 313.59 47.53 77.22 203.74 5.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 50. "Hu M, Lin C, Chou C, Hsu S, Wen T. Analysis of biomass co-firing systems in Taiwan power markets using linear complementarity models. Energy Policy 2011;39(8):4594–600." [73] TW 2011 1 switchgrass 1 1 1 1 18 10-20 38.85 70.63 54.74 linear complementarity problem (LCP) and GAMS (gerneral algebraic modelling system) 51. "Ericsson K, Rosenqvist H, Nilsson LJ. Energy crop production cost in the EU. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33(11):1577–86." [23] SW 2009 EU 2020 targets (20% renewable energy overall and 10% biofuel in transport sector) 1 labour, machinery, overhead, limited land 1 1 willow, poplar, eucalyptus, reed canary grass, switch grass, hemp, triticale, sorghum 1 1 1 1 1 waste water, soil erosion, carbon sequestration, cadmium removal improved hunting conditions 10000 21 1 71.04 88.80 79.92 10 18 14 30.00 1 1 1 1 1 "decoupled CAP payments, set aside program, energy crop subsidy of 45€/ha; establishment grant required (50%) to reduce financial risk/ liquidity constraints" 1 contracts that distribute risks between producers (cultivation risk) and buyer (fuel price risk) 6.00% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "Energy crop production cost are lowest for SRC crops and highest for annual straw crops; assumed high prices of conventional crops (wheat and barley) lead to increased opportunity cost and reduces the relative profitability of energy crops as their prices are considered to be related to their energy content and not correlated to the price of cereals. The price for energy crops is therefore mainly determined by the market price for energy. Opportunity cost, knowledge-level and risk (loss of flexibility, uncertain prices) play major role in the decision of crop adoption" 0 17.71583333 5.58% 2575.00 422.99 112.21 0.16 0.04 -69.35