The previous sections focussed on the use of biomass in simple energy production systems such as open fires made from gathered fuelwood. Such systems produce a large percentage of the cooking and heating energy required by the rural poor in developing countries. The “Climate Change Debate” has, however, brought with it an increasing demand for biofuels and the need for carbon sinks plus the system of carbon emissions trading, especially in developed countries (Tauli — Corpuz and Tamang 2007). “Modern bioenergy chains” encompass advanced concepts related to biomass feedstock production, supply chain logistics and conversion technologies such as combustion, gasification, fermentation, etc. The end uses of biomass derived energy can range from household heating with modern fuel pellets stoves to international distribution chains for liquid biofuels (Buchholz et al. 2007).
In developing countries the impact of these “modern bioenergy chains” on poverty alleviation will depend on the opportunities that are presented for agricultural development and the potential to increase poor peoples’ access to
|
|
|
Energy source Traditional open fire
|
|
|
Key implications
Traditional uses include firewood/charcoal, dung, and crop residue. Relatively cheap and available. Potentially unsustainable production/collection. Wasteful energy conversion. Emissions from renewable resource. Inconvenient and potential health impacts.
Fuels include firewood/charcoal, crop residue. More expensive than open fire (capital investment required) and requires adjustment of cooking techniques. Potentially unsustainable production/ collection. Higher levels of energy conversion than traditional open fire. Requires less biomass. Could use biomass pellets and reduce health impacts. Emissions from renewable resource. More convenient than open fire and potentially less health impacts.
Fuels such as paraffin, and LPG gas can be purchased at village level. More expensive than firewood/charcoal. Do not affect local sources of biomass. Higher levels of energy conversion than firewood. Require capital investment in special stoves and cooking equipment. Emissions from fossil fuel. More convenient than fuelwood based energy sources. Can be dangerous to use.
Could include smaller power stations that use only biomass; small to medium-scale facilities that provide power or heat in the forestry and agricultural processing industries and at village level. Will require electrification of village houses with associated costs. Electricity will have to be purchased by consumer. Requires capital investment in electric stoves, heaters, lights. Emissions from renewable resources if fuelled by biomass. Higher production cost (in most cases) and lower energy content of biomass makes it more expensive than coal. Conversion efficiency of biomass is slightly lower than that of fossil fuels. More convenient than fuelwood or alternative household fuels. Safer with less health impacts. Could allow for sustainable community based biomass supply projects. Co-generated heat can be used locally for drying or heating.
Village electrification as part of national electricity grid. Capital cost in supplying electricity. Electricity will have to be purchased by consumer, most likely at lower price than from small scale generator. Requires capital investment in electric stoves, heaters, lights. Emissions from fossil fuel. Lower production cost and higher conversion efficiency than biomass. More convenient than fuelwood or alternative household fuels. Safer with less health impacts. Limited options for community involvement in electrification projects.
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative fuels for household use (paraffin, LPG gas, etc.)
|
|
|
Small scale energy generation facilities at rural level (could be fuelled by biomass)
|
|
|
National grid
electricity derived from coal burning power plants
|
|
|
Sources: Adapted from Cushion et al. (2010); Arnold et al. (2003) and Practical Action Consulting (2009)
|
|
|
improved types of bioenergy. There are significant concerns about the impact that these systems could have on agriculture, food security and sustainable forest management and the social impacts of bioenergy development, particularly in relation to land use and security of tenure (Cushion et al. 2009). This section will review the role of bioenergy production for modern bioenergy chains on job creation; land availability and rights; food security; and the sustainability of rural livelihoods in developing countries.
|
|
