Sustainable biomass production for energy in India

November 29, 2017 | Autor: Sandhya Rao | Categoría: Engineering, Technology, Biomass, Biomass production, Electricity Generation
Share Embed


Descripción

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

Sustainable biomass production for energy in India P. Sudhaa , H.I. Somashekharb , Sandhya Raoc , N.H. Ravindranathb;∗ b Centre

a Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India for Application of Science and Technology for Rural Areas, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India c Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India

Received 5 July 2002; received in revised form 5 May 2003; accepted 12 May 2003

Abstract The availability of land for biomass production, the various biomass production options, biomass productivity rates, +nancial viability, investment required to produce biomass for energy and the barriers to biomass production are analysed. The scenarios considered for estimating the biomass potential are incremental biomass demand, sustainable biomass demand and the full biomass demand. Under these scenarios, two situations namely no increase in cropland by 2010 and increase in cropland by 10% over 1995 area have been considered. The land available for biomass production ranges from 9.6 to 36:5 Mha under the di2erent scenarios. Annually 62–310 Mt of wood could be generated from the surplus land, after meeting all the requirements of biomass, such as domestic fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood, with an investment of Rs168– 780 billion. An electricity generation potential of 62–310 TWh annually is estimated. The key barriers to produce biomass sustainably for energy are lack of commercial demand for wood for energy, lack of +nancial incentives, low productivity of plantations, land tenurial barriers and lack of institutions to integrate biomass production for energy and bioenergy utilities. ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: India; Biomass; Bioenergy; Land; Biomass productivity; Barriers

1. Introduction A majority of the developing countries are currently emphasising on increasing energy supply through centralised grid electricity and oil. But these countries possess (other than Middle East) less than 20% of world’s crude oil reserves and only about half these countries have known recoverable reserves [1]. This has led to inequalities, external debt and environmental degradation in many developing countries [2]. But increasing interest is being shown in renewable energy technologies as they o2er the prospect ∗

Corresponding author. Fax: +91-80-360-1428. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.H. Ravindranath).

of increasing energy supplies in a sustainable way. They also contribute to economic, social and security bene+ts at the national and local levels [1]. Due to technological developments and cost reductions, renewables, especially solar, hydro, wind and biomass energy are gaining momentum. Further, renewable sources, particularly biomass, are equitably distributed and less environmentally destructive than the current fossil fuel sources [3]. Renewables o2er considerable potential for displacing conventional energy sources and in some cases are already competitive with them [4]. Projections by Johansson et al. [5] show that by 2025 given adequate support, renewables could contribute to nearly 30% of direct fuel use and 60% of global electricity supplies.

0961-9534/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00087-4

502

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

Traditional biomass fuels meet a large percent (38%) of the energy needs in developing countries [6]. In some countries such as Bangladesh, Kenya and Paraguay, its use is as high as 75 –90% [7]. Traditional biomass use, mainly for cooking and heating, is characterised by low eIciency of use and drudgery. The unsustainable extraction and use of traditional biomass energy leads to: • degradation of the local environment and forests, • deforestation, and the consequent loss of forest products, • soil erosion and loss of biodiversity, • domestic air pollution a2ecting human health. But the modern forms of biomass energy provide numerous environmental bene+ts. Of all the renewable energy sources, biomass (ligneous, herbaceous crops, agricultural and municipal wastes) is the largest, most diverse and most readily exploitable resource [8]. Bioenergy technologies provide opportunities for conversion of biomass into liquid and gaseous fuels as well as electricity. Largescale utilisation of woody biomass can generate employment and promote rural development in developing countries. It has the potential to relieve the rural households of drudgery and health problems. Reclamation of land and soil conservation are other indirect bene+ts of growing biomass for energy on degraded and deforested lands. Extraction, transportation and the use of fossil fuels lead to environmental degradation such as air pollution, land degradation, ash generation, water pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Sustainable biomass production and its use for electricity generation does not lead to build up net CO2 levels in the atmosphere because CO2 released in combustion is compensated for that withdrawn from the atmosphere for the carbon synthesis and biomass accumulation [9]. Further, bioenergy can lead to net CO2 emission reduction if substituted for fossil fuels and fossil fuel electricity. Bioenergy options help to reduce CO emissions in the atmosphere. So developing countries can seek funding for bioenergy projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Kyoto Protocol, Article 12. According to a study, in an energy-eIcient fossil fuel scenario, global emissions will rise from around

6:23 GtC in 1990 to about 22 GtC by 2050. On the other hand, a combination of renewable energy and energy eIciency could reduce global carbon emissions to just slightly more than 1990 global carbon emissions [10]. According to a study by IIASA and WEC [11], renewables could contribute as much as 37–39 percent of the global primary energy supply by 2050 and net carbon emissions could be below 1990 emissions by as much as 15 percent. As bioenergy options have the potential to be e2ective in reducing CO2 emissions, developing countries can, through the CDM, generate funds to implement bioenergy programmes on a large scale. An earlier study in India has shown that bioenergy based technologies could meet all the rural electricity and cooking energy needs through small biomass gasi+ers and community biogas [2]. Developing countries such as India, where the electricity consumption is low at present, are likely to go in for large-scale new capacity additions. In India coal-based power generation accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total installed capacity and is projected to continue to dominate the country’s power sector. Thus India offers a large potential to explore environmentally sustainable technologies, such as the bioenergy option, to meet its growing needs. Before assessing the country’s bioenergy production potential, it is important to: i. Estimate the land availability for biomass production, ii. Identify and evaluate the biomass production options—yield/ha and +nancial viability, iii. Estimate sustainable biomass production potential for energy, iv. Estimate the energy potential of biomass production, v. Assess the investment required and barriers to producing biomass sustainably for energy. These are the areas of focus of this paper. But, it is essential to meet the biomass demands of the country before considering the option of producing biomass for modern bioenergy options. The +rst priority is to consider forestry options for meeting all the present and the projected future demands of biomass (industrial wood, sawnwood and fuelwood). The priority demands of any developing country are

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

• productivity of biomass energy plantations • eIciency of conversion technology • cost of production of biomass. All these issues are relevant to developing countries, which are experiencing high population growth rates and land shortages. 2. Features of the country 2.1. Geographical details India has a geographical area of 328:7 Mha and 2.3% of the world’s forest stock [12]. India’s population of 966 million (in 1997) is projected to grow to over 1.2 billion by 2010 and 1.4 billion by the year 2025 [13]. The population growth from 1931 to 1981 was at the rate of 2.22%. India’s population is currently growing at 1.6% [14] and accounts for 16% of the world’s population.

Table 1 Land use pattern in India (Mha) [27] Land use category

1990

1995

Cultivated area Natural forest [12] Forest plantations [12] Non-agricultural uses land Under miscellaneous tree crops and groves Culturable waste Permanent pastures and grazing Fallow land other than current fallow Barren unculturable Current fallow Miscellaneous

143.00 51.73 13.23 21.09 3.82 15.00 11.40 9.66 19.39 13.70 26.71

142.81 50.38 14.62 22.51 3.63 14.20 11.23 9.76 18.77 13.53 27.29

Total

328.73

328.73

Total forest area (Mha)

land requirement for crop production and conventional biomass. Once these needs are met, the surplus land available could be used for producing biomass for modern bioenergy options. The bioenergy potential would depend on:

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1982

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Mid assessment year

> 40% tree crown

2.2. Land use categories Cropland: The land use pattern +gures for India, for the years 1990 and 1995, are given in Table 1. The net sown area of India increased from 119 Mha in 1950 to 140 Mha in 1970 –71, and has remained more or less stable at 142 Mha in the ninth 5-year plan period (1997–2002) [15]. Cropping intensity is expected to increase from 134% in 1996 –97 to 150% in 2011–12. Forestland: The area under forests in India has remained stable, at around 64 Mha (Fig. 1) since 1980. This has been due to: • The e2ective Forest Conservation Act, 1990, which fully regulates forest conversion. • The a2orestation programme taken up in India, which is one of the largest in the world. Though small-scale forest conversion has taken place, the area under a2orestation has been signi+-

503

10-40% treecrown

Source: FSI, 1998

Fig. 1. Changes in area under forests under di2erent tree-crown classes (Source: FSI, 1998).

cant. According to an estimate by the FAO [12], natural forest accounts for 80% of the forest area, while plantations account for the remaining 20% (Table 1). There is a marginal decrease in the natural forest area, while forest plantation area has increased. The average annual growth of natural forest is 0.5% and of plantation, 2% [12]. Yet, an estimated at 24,400 ha, accounting for 0.38% of area under forest during 1997 [12], are expected to be deforested by 2010. The area a2orested in India since 1951 has been a staggering 28:38 Mha (Fig. 2). During 1950 –80, the area a2orested was only about 3:54 Mha. During 1980 –85, the area a2orested increased signi+cantly to about 4:65 Mha at the rate of 0:95 Mha=yr and peaked during 1985 –90, when about 8:86 Mha was further afforested, at the rate of 1:7 Mha=yr. Between 1990 and 1998, about 11:33 Mha has been a2orested at the rate

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

Annual area (000 ha)

2000

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

1500 1000 500

19 5 19 1- 5 56 6 19 - 6 6 1 19 1- 6 66 6 19 - 6 6 9 19 9- 7 74 4 19 - 7 7 9 19 9- 8 80 0 19 - 8 8 5 19 5 - 9 9 0 19 0- 9 91 1 19 - 9 9 2 19 2- 9 97 7 -9 8

0

Cummulative area (000 ha)

504

Area afforested annually

iv.

v.

Cummulative area afforested

Fig. 2. Area a2orested in India (000 ha) (Source: MoEF, 1999).

of about 1:4 Mha=yr (Fig. 2). The a2orestation programme was implemented on village common lands, degraded forestland, and farmers’ lands and as plantations along the sides of roads, streams and irrigation tank beds. According to a report of the Ministry of the Environment [16], nearly half of the a2orestation was due to farm forestry on private lands and the rest was through community forestry on common village lands and degraded forestlands. The ninth plan (1997– 2002) [15] envisages that a2orestation activities will rehabilitate the degraded forests as well as meet the biomass requirements of the community. According to the National Forestry Action Plan [17], it is envisaged that 2:225 Mha of land needs to be a2orested annually for a period of 20 years to attain the forest cover of 33% of geographic area of the country. If this can be achieved, the additional area that will be planted by 2010 will be about 22 Mha and the total area afforested by 2010 will be about 50 Mha. However the achievable rate of a2orestation is likely to be low, due to shortage of investment and other constraints. The broad land use categories in India, other than cropland and forest, are as follows (Table 1); i. Non-agricultural area: accounts for about 22:51 Mha. This land is under settlement, buildings, road, railways, water bodies and other land uses and thus not available for agriculture. ii. Tree crops and groves: Area under Casuarina trees, thatching grass, bamboo bushes and other tree groves which are not included under orchards, is under this category. This land category is in a degraded state. iii Culturable fallow: Includes lands available for cultivation but not taken up for cultivation or taken up for cultivation once but not cultivated during the current year and the last 5 years or

vi. vii.

more in succession. Such land may either be fallow or covered with shrubs. Permanent pastures and grazing land: These cover all grazing lands and meadows including village common lands and permanent pastures. Fallow land other than current fallow: All lands which were taken up for cultivation but are temporarily out of cultivation for a period of 1–5 years, and left fallow. Barren unculturable land: covers all barren and unculturable land, which cannot be brought under cultivation except at a high investment cost. Current fallow: includes cropped areas that are kept fallow during the current year.

The categories ii–vii can be brought under forestry options to produce biomass to meet fuelwood, industrial wood, sawnwood and for bioenergy. This land accounts for 67 Mha (Table 2). 2.3. Projected biomass demand In India, the biomass demand for fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood in 1995 was 226 Mt, of which fuelwood accounted for 86.9 percent [18], industrial wood 7.68 percent and sawnwood, 5.4 percent. It is projected that the biomass demand will increase to 290 Mt by 2010, fuelwood accounting for 241 Mt; industrial wood, 26 Mt and sawnwood, 23 Mt (Table 3). The sawnwood demand is projected to nearly double in 15 years. 3. Land available for biomass production 3.1. Land use pattern Before analysing the area that will be potentially available for biomass production, it is essential to understand the projected trends in land use pattern for the future. • Demand for additional increase in crop area to meet the food demand due to increase in population is a priority that needs to be addressed. • The increase in demand for fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood also has to be met either from the natural forests or the plantations.

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

505

Table 2 Land use pattern and the availability of land biomass production for energy (Mha)

Land use category

1995

Cultivated area Natural forest Forest plantations Under miscellaneous tree crops and groves Non-agricultural uses land Miscellaneous Culturable waste Permanent pastures and grazing Fallow land other than current fallow Barren unculturable Current fallow

2010

142.81 50.38 14.62 3.63 22.51 27.29 14.2 11.23 9.76 18.77 13.53 67.49c

Total

157.09 46.56 18.80 3.99 22.51 26.51 6.92 11.23 9.76 18.77 6.59 53.27c

Feasible surplusa land for plantations

Feasible surplusb land for bioenergy

S1

S2

S1 (IBD)

S2 (IBD)

S1 (FBD)

0 0 0 0 0 0 10.65 5.05 7.32 14.08 10.15

0 0 0 0 0 0 5.19 5.05 7.32 14.08 4.94

0 0 0 0 0 0 7.65 4.05 5.02 11.78 6.15

0 0 0 0 0 0 2.19 4.05 5.02 11.78 0.94

3.65 2.05 2.22 0.38 1.35

47.25

36.58

34.65

23.98

9.65

Notes: S1—No increase in cultivated area by 2010; S2—increase in cultivated area by 10% IBD—incremental biomass demand scenario; FBD—full biomass demand scenario. a 75% of the remaining land is the feasible surplus land for bioenergy production and for permanent pastures and grazing land assumed to be 50%. b This is the land available exclusively for biomass production for bioenergy after deducting the area earmarked for production of fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood. c Total of area under culturable waste, permanent pasture, fallow land, barren unculturable, and current fallow.

Table 3 Biomass demand in India (Mt) [18,28] Biomass type

1995 [18]

2010 [28]

Industrial wood Sawnwood Fuelwood

17 12 197

26 23 241

Total

226

290

Keeping in perspective a mid-term goal, projections for 2010 have been considered in this paper, to assess the biomass production for bioenergy. The major factor that determines land availability for biomass production for energy is the demand on land for food production. Throughout the 1990s, the net-cropped area was about 142 Mha. At present, about one-third of the cropland is irrigated and 62% is under high yielding varieties [14]. Over the last four decades India has more than tripled the food production, from 51 Mt in 1950 –51 to 199 Mt in 1996 –97, primarily due to increase in irrigated area, adoption of high yielding varieties of crops and ap-

plication of inorganic fertilisers. This production of grain outpaced the population and thus there was an increase in availability of grain per capita—from 469 g/capita/day in 1961 to 510 g/capita/day in 1991. Many studies [2,19] have estimated that the area under food production is unlikely to increase till 2010. Though the population has increased and nearly doubled in the last 30 years, the area under food crops increased by only 10%. Since the cropped area has stabilised, the increase in food demand will be met by increasing the productivity of the agricultural land. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [20] has estimated that there will be an increase of 25% in cropland in developing countries by 2010. Though there are contradicting estimates about the future area under cultivation, looking at the trends in the past, it can be safely assumed that there is not going to be a signi+cant increase in the cropped area. But, to make a safer and conservative estimate of the land availability for biomass production, we have assumed that there will be an increase of 10% in crop area by 2010 (Table 2).

506

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

3.2. Land categories for biomass production Woody biomass can be obtained by • • • •

clear felling natural forests, sustainable extraction from forests, collecting residues of the timber processing industry from dedicated plantations.

Extraction of biomass from natural forests is not desirable as primary forests must be conserved for their biodiversity and for their role as watersheds. So, clear felling of primary forests cannot be considered as a source of woody biomass for energy. Forests are already subjected to non-sustainable extraction, as there is limited knowledge at present on the modes of sustainable extraction in di2erent forest ecosystems. Further, natural regeneration of desired species is dif+cult to achieve. Thus sustainable extraction may not be feasible. In case of timber processing waste, due to a scarcity of fuelwood in rural areas, these residues are generally sold in the local market or left to be collected freely by the local communities for use as cooking fuel. Thus, the only potential option for biomass supply is dedicated plantation forestry. The incremental biomass demand for fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood has to be met through these dedicated plantations and the surplus considered for bioenergy generation. The land categories that can be considered for biomass production are culturable waste, permanent pastures, barren unculturable land and current and other fallow lands. According to the current land use pattern, the area available for biomass production is 67 Mha. In estimating the area for biomass production two situations are considered. 1. Situation I—No increase in the area under food production by 2010 2. Situation II—Increase in area under food production by 10% by 2010. It has been observed that increase in cropland between 1950 and 1970 was largely through conversion of cultivable waste and fallow land [21]. So, we have assumed a similar trend for meeting the increased cropland demand by 2010, under situation II. With

increase in agriculture land by 14 Mha (10%), the land available for biomass production is reduced to 53 Mha (Table 2). Of the land available for biomass production, it is assumed that only 75% can be dedicated for the purpose due to physical barriers like stone quarries, water bodies and other encroachments. In the case of permanent pasture and grazing land, area available for biomass production is assumed to be 50% as in addition to physical barriers, the livestock’s fodder requirement is essential, making it important to take care that the pastureland is not completely utilised for biomass production. Considering the barriers discussed above, the land available for biomass production under situations I and II are 47.2 and 36:5 Mha respectively (Table 2). This estimate is comparable to the estimates made by several authors [22–24] as shown in Table 4. 3.3. Scenarios for estimating land availability for biomass production by 2010 Based on biomass demands, three scenarios are considered for estimating the biomass production for energy: i. Incremental biomass demand scenario; ii. Sustainable biomass demand scenario; iii. Full biomass demand scenario. Incremental demand scenario: The incremental demand scenario is that option where only the increase in biomass demands (fuelwood, industrial wood, and sawnwood) from 1995 to 2010 are generated through plantation forestry, using the available land. The assumption is that the current levels of biomass use will continue to come from the existing sources such as forests, plantations, farmland and pastures. The land availability under the S1 and S2 situations has been estimated for this scenario. The incremental biomass required by 2010 compared to 1995 for industrial wood, sawnwood and fuelwood is 8.42, 11.16 and 44:55 Mt respectively. At the productivity rate of 6.6 t/ha/yr and considering 70% as the commercial portion of the biomass produced through short rotation, the area required to meet the incremental demand for industrial wood is about 1:8 Mha (Table 5). To meet the sawnwood demand through long rotation forestry and at a productivity of 3 t/ha/yr and assuming 70% as

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

507

Table 4 Estimates of land available for biomass production by di2erent authors

Authors/sources

Category and area of land available (Mha)

Total (Mha)

Degraded land quoted in Planning Commission [29] (1992)

Degraded forest—36 Degraded non-forest—94

130

Chambers et al. (1989) [30]; Land available for tree planting

Cultivated land—13 Strips and boundaries—2 Uncultivated, degraded land—33 Degraded forest land—36

84

Kapoor (1992) [31]; Land available for tree planting

Agricultural land—45 Forest land—28 Pasture land—7 Fallow land (long and short)—25 Urban land—1

106

Ministry of Agriculture (1992) [24]

Forest land with ¡ 10% tree crown cover—11 Grazing land—12 Tree groves—3 Culturable land—15 Old fallow—11 Current fallow—14

Sudha and Ravindranath (1999) [22]

Cultivable land under agro-ecological zones—26.1 Land not suitable for cultivation—13.6 Pasture land—2.9

NRSA (1995) [23]

Forest degraded land—16.27 Wasteland—38.11 Other category—11.07

66

42.6

65.45

Table 5 Land required to meet the incremental biomass demand by 2010

Biomass type

Incremental biomass requireda (Mt)

MAI (t/ha/yr)

MAI for commercial use (t/ha/yr)b

Industrial wood Sawnwood Fuelwood

8.42 11.16 44.55

6.6 3.0 6.6

4.62 2.10 6.60

Total

Total area to meet the demand (Mha)

Area required to meet incremental biomass demand (Mha) 1.80 5.30 5.5c 12.60

a The

incremental biomass required is the additional demand by 2010 compared to 1995. proportion of commercial use is 70% for industrial wood and sawnwood; and 100% for fuelwood. c The 30% residue from industrial wood and sawnwood is used for fuelwood and the remaining demand to be met by dedicated fuelwood plantations. b The

commercial portion, the area required for producing the incremental biomass demand for sawnwood is about 5:3 Mha. The remaining 30% of residue from

the industrial wood and sawnwood plantation is considered to contribute towards fuelwood requirement. To meet the remaining fuelwood demand, the area

508

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

required is about 5:5 Mha. Thus the total land required for dedicated industrial wood, sawnwood and fuelwood production to meet the incremental demand of biomass is 12:6 Mha (Table 5). Under the S1 situation, i.e. with no increase in the cropland by 2010, the area available for bioenergy plantation is about 47:2 Mha. After deducting the area of 12:6 Mha for the incremental biomass demand, the surplus area available for bioenergy plantation is 34:6 Mha (Table 2). Under the S2 situation, i.e. with increase in cropland by 10%, the area available for bioenergy plantations after deducting the area to produce the incremental biomass demand is about 24 Mha (Table 2). Sustainable biomass demand scenario: In this scenario the assumption is that the demands will be met from sustainable extraction from natural forests. This scenario has not been considered for India as there is a ban on logging in reserve (state controlled) forests, pursuant to India’s resolve to conserve the forests to preserve biodiversity and enhance soil and water conservation. Full biomass demand scenario: In this scenario, the natural forests are not harvested for meeting biomass demand and the biomass demands will have to be met from other non-forest sources. To meet the demand for sawnwood and industrial wood by 2010, it is essential to grow dedicated new plantations from the projected available land of 47:2 Mha. In case of fuelwood, currently a portion of the biomass is being met from private sources such as farm trees, homestead gardens and plantation trees and these sources will continue to be available even in the future (Table 6). The remaining biomass has to be met from dedicated fuelwood plantations. About one-third of biomass production from sawnwood and industrial wood would also be available as fuelwood, this being the residue from logs used for commercial purposes. The total biomass demand by 2010 could be about 290 Mt. The area required to meet the demand for industrial wood and sawnwood is 5.6 and 11:10 Mha respectively (Table 7). Fuelwood that will be coming from the lands other than the forests are farm trees from private lands and homestead gardens, besides existing plantations. According to a study [2] homestead gardens, farm trees and tree plantations together contributed about 102 Mt. Fifty percent of the tree plantations in India have been raised on farmlands, and

Table 6 Sources of sustainable biomass for fuelwood, other than natural forest Source

Quantity (Mt)

1. Homestead gardens 2. Farm trees 3. Tree plantationsa

16 46 20

Total

82

a Total tree plantations on farmland, community land and degraded forest department land in India is about 17 Mha with a total contribution of 40 Mt=yr [2] of which 50% is on community and degraded forestland. Hence 50% of the quantity is assumed to be available for fuelwood.

the rest on community and degraded forestland. We have hence assumed that only half of the fuelwood is available from the plantations on degraded community and forestland (Table 6). Thus, the total fuelwood that will be available from these sources is estimated to be 82 Mt. The commercial biomass residue that will be available from the dedicated industrial wood and sawnwood plantations is estimated at 21 Mt. Thus, a total of 103 Mt will be available for use as fuelwood. The area required for raising dedicated fuelwood plantations to ful+l the remaining requirement is 20:9 Mha. Thus a total of 37:6 Mha will be required to meet the total biomass demand of the country. The area available for bioenergy plantation after meeting the biomass demands is about 9:6 Mha. 4. Biomass production options The land available for biomass production ranges from 9.6 to 36:5 Mha (Table 2). Dedicated energy plantations are proposed for generating biomass for energy. In the present study, plantations on non-cropped area only are included. The option considered to generate biomass for bioenergy is short rotation plantations of fast growing trees to provide feedstock for bioenergy plants by the third year of planting. Further, 100% of the biomass produced can be utilised for bioenergy generation. These plantations are also easy to grow, maintain and replicate. Tree species considered for short rotation plantations are Eucalyptus sp., Acacia auriculiformis, Cassia siamea, Albizia sp. and Casuarina equisetifolia.

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

509

Table 7 Land required to meet the full biomass demand through plantations by 2010

Biomass type

Biomass requirement 2010 (Mt)

MAI (t/ha/yr)

MAI for commercial use (t/ha/yr)a

Area required (Mha) to meet biomass demand

Industrial wood Sawnwood Fuelwood

26 23 241

6.6 3.0 6.6

4.62 2.10 6.60

5.60 11.10 20.9b

Total

290

37.60

a The

proportion of commercial use is 70% for industrial wood and sawnwood; and 100% for fuelwood. remaining fuelwood to be met from other sources (Table 6) and 30% residue from industrial wood and sawnwood could be used as fuelwood and the remaining demand to be met by dedicated fuelwood plantations. b The

Eucalyptus is the preferred species for plantation due to its fast growing and high coppicing features, and high rate of survival. Multi-species plantations incorporating leguminous species such as Cassia siamea and Albizia lebbeck are desirable to enrich the soil. 4.1. Biomass productivity of di7erent options The land use categories for biomass production are culturable waste, permanent pastureland, barren unculturable land, current fallow and other fallow land (Table 2). The annual biomass production potential for the above land categories depends on soil quality and rainfall apart from species choice and silvicultural practices. The species considered for estimating the biomass production is Eucalyptus as: • this is the most dominant species in the a2orestation programme in India, • productivity data is available. The productivity of Eucalyptus is considered both without any genetic improvement of seeds and with fertiliser application and irrigation facilities, as this is the most common practice in the a2orestation programme in India. Silvicultural interventions or genetic improvement of the seeds can enhance the productivity of short rotation plantations. So, in the later sections, we have also evaluated the following options: • considering superior quality seeds with genetic improvement, • planting eucalyptus species with genetic improvement and applying fertiliser as well.

The productivity of Eucalyptus sp. for barren unculturable land is estimated to be 3 t/ha/yr (air dry) due to degraded land condition [25]. A productivity of 6.6 t/ha/yr, which is the national average for Eucalyptus plantations in India, has been assumed as the productivity for short rotation plantation on other land categories [26]. The productivity of plantations with genetic improvement of seeds is assumed to be 8 t/ha/yr and the addition of fertilisers is assumed to enhance the productivity to 12 t/ha/yr [22]. 4.2. Financial assessment of biomass production options Financial assessment of bioenergy options is carried out using discount cash Pow techniques. Eucalyptus plantation is considered to assess the +nancial viability for biomass production for energy. Plantation establishment costs for Eucalyptus were based on actual costs at 1999 prices and +nancial analysis was done to assess biomass production of all options: plantations with no improvement, plantations with genetic improvement, and plantations with genetic improvement plus fertiliser application. Eucalyptus plantations are usually harvested after 8 years rotation and 2 additional rotations of 8 years each are considered from the planted Eucalyptus. Hence, the +nancial assessment has been carried out for a period of 24 years encompassing all the three rotations. 4.2.1. Cost-e7ectiveness The investment and life cycle costs are considered for assessing the cost e2ectiveness. The investment or plantation establishment costs include nursery, land preparation, planting and after care in the initial

510

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

Table 8 Financial analysis of Eucalyptus plantations for bioenergy at 8 years rotation with 3 rotations, using 12% discount rate

Productivity (t/ha/yr) Present value of life cycle costs (Rs) Present value of returns (Rs) Net present value (Rs) Internal rate of return (%) Bene+t cost ratio (%)

With no genetic improvement and fertiliser

With genetic improvement only

With genetic improvement plus fertiliser application

6.6 21,756.0 37,426.0 15,670.0 19.8 172.0

8.0 24,224.0 45,365.0 21,141.0 21.5 187.0

12.0 27,623.0 68,048.0 40,425.0 26.2 246.0

2–3 years. The life cycle costs include all costs over the 24 years period. The land value for raising the plantations is also included, at the rate of Rs500 ha/year. The present values (PV) of establishment cost and life cycle cost are given in Table 8. The Net Present Value is Rs15,670, Rs21,141 and Rs40,425 at a discount rate of 12% for the options of plantations with no treatment, with genetic improvement and with genetic improvement plus fertiliser application, respectively. This indicates that the investment in bioenergy plantation is pro+table at a discount rate of 12%. The internal rate of return for the investment is 19.8%, 21.5% and 26.2% for the three options (Table 8). The bene+t cost ratio is also high at 172%, 187% and 246% respectively (Table 8). It can be seen that though the initial investment cost is higher for establishing plantations with genetic improvement plus application of fertiliser compared to the other two options (Table 13 and Table 8), the net income is also higher due to the higher productivity. 4.2.2. Cost per ton and GJ of wood Investment cost per ton of wood in the Eucalyptus plantation is calculated as the investment cost of establishment for the initial 3 years to produce biomass at the end of the +rst rotation cycle. The reason for not considering all the rotations is that the income derived from the harvest is likely to be ploughed back into land preparation and other investments for the subsequent rotations. This is an important parameter for the funding agencies. The investment cost per ton of wood for the three types of plantations is given in Table 9. The investment cost for plantations with genetic improvement plus fertiliser application is the least at Rs234/t of wood compared to Rs320/t for genetically improved plantations and Rs330/t for

plantations with no treatment (Table 9). One ton of wood is equivalent to 15 GJ. Accordingly, the cost per GJ of energy is Rs16, Rs21 and Rs22 for the above three plantation types, respectively. Thus, it is desirable to adopt the plantation strategy with genetically improved seeds coupled with fertiliser supplement, as it is the least cost option for producing biomass for energy. 5. Biomass production potential for energy In the earlier sections we estimated: • the potential land availability for biomass production under di2erent scenarios, • the actual land that could be available for biomass production after subtracting the area where cultivation is not feasible due to physical constraints, • land for production of biomass to meet the biomass demands for industrial wood, sawnwood and fuelwood, • the actual area that can be utilised for biomass production for bioenergy. The total land available for biomass production under the incremental biomass demand scenario for situation S1 and S2 is 34.6 and 24 Mha. Under the full biomass demand scenario and situation S1, the land available is 9:6 Mha. Utilising the feasible productivity +gures for the various land categories, an assessment is made of the potential biomass that can be acquired to use for generating bioenergy. The productivity of plantations on these lands is estimated to be 6.6 t/ha/yr (considering the national average) and for barren unculturable land, it is estimated to be 3 t/ha/yr due to its low-productive

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

511

Table 9 Investment cost and total biomass production under S1 and S2 situations for three productivity scenarios

Investment/ha (Rs) Productivity (t/ha/yr) Investment cost/ton of wood (Rs)

No genetic improvement + no fertiliser

Genetic improvement + no fertiliser

Genetic improvement + fertiliser

17,450 6.6 330

20,500 8 320

22,500 12 234

Area (Mha)

S1 (IBD) S2 (IBD) S1 (FBD)

34.6 24.0 9.6

34.6 24.0 9.6

34.6 24.0 9.6

Total investment Cost (Rs billion)

S1 (IBD) S2 (IBD) S1 (FBD)

604 418 168

710 492 197

779 540 216

Total biomass production (Mt/yr)

S1 (IBD) S2 (IBD) S1 (FBD)

186 116 62

218 133 75

310 182 112

Energy equivalent (million GJ/yr)

S1 (IBD) S2 (IBD) S1 (FBD)

2790 1740 930

3270 1995 1125

4650 2730 1680

IBD, incremental biomass demand scenario; FBD, full biomass demand scenario.

Table 10 Biomass production potential for energy and the total electricity generation potential under the current silvicultural practices (no genetic improvement and fertiliser application) for di2erent scenarios

Land available for biomass production (Mha)

Productivity (t/ha/yr) Annual biomass production potential (Mt)

S1 (IDB) S2 (IDB) S1 (FBD) Culturable waste 7.65 Permanent pastures and grazing 4.05 Fallow land other than current fallow 5.02 Barren unculturable 11.78 Current fallow 6.15

2.19 4.05 5.02 11.78 0.94

3.65 2.05 2.22 0.38 1.35

Total 34.65 23.98 Total annual electricity generation potential (TWh)

9.65

S1 (IBD) S2 (IBD) S1 (FBD) 6.6 6.6 6.6 3.0 6.6

50 27 33 35 41

15 27 33 35 6

24 14 15 1 8

186 186

116 116

62 62

S1—no increase in cultivated area by 2010; S2—increase in cultivated area by 10%. IBD, incremental biomass demand; FBD, full biomass demand: biomass production for bioenergy and the total electricity generation potential after meeting the FBD from plantation forestry.

nature [25]. Applying these productivities, the biomass that can be produced for bioenergy under incremental biomass scenario annually is 186 Mt under S1 situation and 116 Mt under the S2 situation (Table 10). Under the full biomass demand scenario, the biomass produced will be 62 Mt under S1. Raising plantations

with genetic improvement will increase the productivity of plantations. Under the incremental biomass demand scenario the biomass production will increase to 218 Mt=yr at a productivity rate of 8 t/ha/yr under S1 while also providing fertiliser will increase it to 310 Mt=yr at a productivity rate of 12 t/ha/yr. While

512

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

under S2, the biomass production under the three plantations types range from 116 to 182 Mt=yr. Under the full biomass demand scenario and S1 situation, with increased productivity at 8 and 12 t/ha/year (Table 9), the biomass production will be 75 and 112 Mt respectively. In all the cases, the productivity level of barren unculturable land is retained at 3 t/ha/yr as the land is in a highly degraded state. Thus the total biomass production for energy could be in the range 62–310 Mt=yr in India under the di2erent scenarios and productivity levels (Table 9). The objective of the report is to analyse the surplus energy potential from biomass that can be obtained from non-forest and non-cropland sources. In other words, what is the quantity of wood that would be available after ful+lling the demand for land for agriculture, and production of fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood to meet India’s requirements in 2010. It is observed that a minimum of 62 Mt to a maximum of 310 Mt of wood could be generated annually from the surplus land, after meeting all the requirements of domestic fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood. The energy content of wood is considered as 15 GJ=t, and thus the range of energy potential of surplus biomass would be to 930 – 4650 million GJ. The electricity generation potential (1 Mt = 1 TWh of electrical power) would be 62–310 TWh annually (Table 9).

6. Total investment for bioenergy plantations If all the available land for bioenergy is utilised for biomass production for bioenergy generation, the

total investment cost under the three input levels for situations 1 and 2 ranges from Rs168 billion to 780 billion (Table 9). The total biomass production potential is in the range of 62–310 Mt under the S1 and S2 scenario. India a2orestation programme is one of the largest in the world. The budget allocation for this programme under the 5-year plans has been increasing over the years (Table 11). Before considering investment to grow bioenergy plantations, it is essential to estimate the investment required to grow biomass for industrial wood, sawnwood and fuelwood under the full biomass demand, wherein extraction from natural forests is restricted. Under this scenario, a total of 37:6 Mha has to be planted. At an initial investment cost of Rs17,450 each in short-rotation plantations to grow industrial wood and fuelwood and Rs37,700 in long-rotation plantation to produce sawnwood, the total investment required would be Rs880 billion (Table 12). The investment required annually would be about Rs88 billion for a planting programme spanning a period of 10 years from 2000 to 2010. Under the same scenario, the area available for bioenergy plantations is 9:6 Mha. The total investment required for growing plantations for bioenergy is Rs168 billion. The annual investment is about 16.8 billion by phasing over 10 years (Table 12). If the programme to meet the biomass demand and also to grow bioenergy plantations is taken up simultaneously, the total annual investment required is about Rs104.8 billion. During 1992–94 the annual state and central budget allocations for a2orestation programmes in India were Rs7.8 billion. The budget requirement of Rs104.8 billion is nearly 13 times the current budget spent on the a2orestation programme. At current levels of expenditure by the government,

Table 11 Progress of a2orestation/reforestation and expenditure in India [32] Five year plan period

Area a2orested in plan period (Mha)

A2orestation expenditure in plan period (Rs million)

Mean annual expenditure (Rs million)

Sixth (80 –85) Seventh (1985 –90) 1990 –91 1991–92 1992–93 1993–94

4.650 8.886 0.052 1.016 1.062 0.964

9260.1 25,868.4 6277.9 6653.0 7981.2 9017.7

1852.02 5173.68 6277.90 6653.00 7981.20 9017.70

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

513

Table 12 Investment required for the dedicated bioenergy plantations and for meeting full biomass demand from plantation forestry

Biomass type

Area required to meet biomass demand (Mha)

Investment cost to establish plantationsa (Rs/ha)

Total investment cost (Rs billion)

Investment cost annually with planting phased over 10 years (Rs billion)

Industrial wood Sawnwood Fuelwood

5.6 11.1 20.9

17,450 37,700 17,450

97.7 418.4 364.7

9.7 41.8 36.4

Total

37.6

880.8

88.0

168.3

16.8

Bioenergy plantations Full biomass demand (S1) a Source

9.6

17,450

for data—KFD (1999) [33].

Table 13 Input costs for raising Eucalyptus plantation

Plantation packages

Norm considered

Nursery raising

Polythene bags at 3000 plants/ha, Red soil; Rs45/cl, 100 basket/cl, Sand; Rs100/cl, 50 basket/cl, Manure; Rs130/cl, 100 basket/cl 1:1:1 pot mixture, 1 basket = 20 p.bags Mixing and +lling p.bags Rs20/1000 Arranging and sowing Rs10/1000 p.bags Watering, weeding, shifting for 360 man days at Rs50/day for 50,000 seedlings Seed (not from improved genetic stock) Nutrient/insecticide spray

Land preparation Transplanting Aftercare Fertiliser application Watch Harvesting

Cost/ha 510

180 60 30 1080 30 60

Total Seed (with improved genetic stock)

1950 3000

Trench 3*0.45*0:45 m at 800/ha 10 man days/ha at Rs50/day 6 man days/month at Rs50/day for 6 months Lump sum/ha At Rs50/ha/month for 12 months 30 month days/ha at Rs100/day (no important genetic stock and fertiliser) 50 man days/ha at Rs100/day (with important genetic stock) 60 man days/ha at Rs100/day (with important genetic stock + fertiliser)

9600 500 1800 1000 600 3000 5000 6000

Source: ASTRA 1999 [25].

it is not possible to take up such a large-scale planting programme. Thus, there is a great need for +nancing from external agencies to meet the biomass demands and for producing biomass for bioenergy projects.

7. Barriers and policy options for biomass production for energy India is facing a severe shortage of biomass [17] on one hand while at the same time, vast degraded

514

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

areas are being subjected to further degradation due to biomass extraction, grazing, +re, encroachment, etc. Thus there is a need to reclaim the degraded lands as quickly as possible. Producing biomass for energy and other biomass products competes for land with food production. India has to grow forest plantations to meet the projected biomass demands, conserve the natural forest and village tree resources. Bioenergy technologies o2er an opportunity to reclaim degraded lands and to generate large rural employment, through a commercial approach, with minimal budgetary support from the national and state government. Funding for bioenergy programmes, which include producing biomass feedstock, could potentially come from private sector and external agencies. The key barriers to producing biomass for energy are: (i) lack of demand for wood for energy as bioenergy projects are still in the demonstration phase, (ii) lack of +nancial incentives for producing biomass for energy, (iii) the productivity is still low and genetically improved planting stock and appropriate silvicultural practices for high yields are not accessible to farmers, (iv) there are land tenurial barriers to ensuring sustainable biomass supply to bioenergy utilities (v) there are no institutions to integrate biomass production for energy and bioenergy utilities. There is a need for policies to promote bioenergy utilities, so that the demand for biomass for energy could be generated. A discussion on such policies is beyond the scope of the present analysis, but a few suggestions may be made: • The government should promote tenurial policies to enable farmers and bioenergy utilities to enter into long-term contracts for sustained biomass supply. • Financial incentives, such as low cost credit and easy access to credit, access to high yielding plantation forestry practices and institutions for integrating biomass producers and bioenergy utilities are required to promote biomass production for energy. • Given the limitations of budget allocation from the government sources, the opportunity provided by CDM under Kyoto Protocol may be examined to

seek funding from Annex-I countries for bioenergy projects. 8. Conclusions Biomass production potential for energy and its +nancial viability was assessed for India in this paper. The scenarios considered for estimating the biomass potential are incremental biomass demand, sustainable biomass demand and full biomass demand. Under these scenarios, two situations namely no increase in cropland by 2010 and increase in cropland by 10% over the 1995 area have been considered. Annually, 62–310 Mt of wood could be generated from the surplus land, after meeting all the conventional requirements of biomass, such as of domestic fuelwood, industrial wood and sawnwood, with an investment of Rs168–780 billion. The annual energy potential of plantation biomass is estimated to vary from 930 to 4650 PJ. It is projected that the energy consumption in 2010 will be 19,200 PJ; thus plantation biomass could supply about 5 –24% of projected total energy consumption in 2010. Financial analysis shows that, with a discount rate of 12%, the net present value for all the plantation options is positive. The internal rate of return ranges from 20% to 26%; this shows that energy plantation is a +nancially attractive option. The cost of biomass production lies in the range US$5.6 –7.8 per tonne. The key barriers to producing biomass for energy are lack of demand for wood for energy and +nancial incentives to promote bioenergy, low productivity of plantations, inaccessibility of genetically improved planting stock, inappropriate silvicultural practices for high yields of plantations, land tenurial barriers and absence of institutions to integrate biomass production for energy and bioenergy utilities. There is a need for policies to promote bioenergy such as, promotion of appropriate land tenurial policies, +nancial incentives to promote bioenergy, access to high yielding plantation practices and Pow of additional funding for bioenergy under CDM from Annex-I countries. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida) for the +nancial support to undertake this study.

P. Sudha et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 25 (2003) 501 – 515

The authors would also like to thank Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya and Abdul Salam of AIT, Bangkok, and their sta2 for the co-ordination and assistance to undertake this study. References [1] WRI. World resources 1994 –95. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 83–180. [2] Ravindranath NH, Hall DO. Biomass, energy and environment: a developing country perspective from India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. [3] Goldemberg J, Johannson TB, Reddy AKN, Williams RH. Energy for a sustainable world. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited, 1988. [4] Jackson T. Renewable energy; summary paper for renewable series. Energy Policy 1992;20:861–83. [5] Johansson TB, Kelly H, Reddy AKN, Williams RH. Renewable energy. Washington: Island Press, 1993. [6] Hall DO, Woods J, Scurlock JMO. Biomass production and data. In: Hall DO et al., editors. Photosynthesis and production in a changing environment: a +eld and laboratory manual, Appendix C. London: Chapman & Hall, 1992. [7] UNEP. Environmental data report 1993–94. Prepared for UNEP by the GEMS Monitoring and Assessment Research Centre, London, UK, in co-operation with the World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Program, Washington DC, 1994. [8] World Bank. Development in practice, rural Energy and development, improving energy supplies for two billion people, 1996. [9] Hall DO, Mynick HE, Williams RH. Cooling the greenhouse with bioenergy. Nature 1991;353:11–2. [10] Agarwal A, Narain S, Sharma A. Green politics. Global environmental negotiations. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment, Thomson Press, 1999. [11] Nebojsa Nakicenovic, et al., editors. Global energy perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1998. [12] RWEDP in Asia, GCP/RAS/154/NET. Regional study on wood energy today and tomorrow in Asia. Bangkok: FAO, 1997. [13] WRI. http://www.wri.org. Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1999. [14] TSL. Statistical outline of India. Bombay: Tata Services Limited, 1999.

515

[15] Ninth Year Plan 1997–2002. http://www.nic.in. New Delhi: Indian Planning Commission, Government of India. [16] Ministry of the Environment. Developing India’s wastelands. New Delhi: Government of India, 1990. [17] MoEF. National Forestry Action Programme—India. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 1999. [18] FAO. http://www.fao.org. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1999. [19] Brown LR, Kane H. Full house, reassessing the earth’s population carrying capacity. London: Earthscan, 1995. p. 261. [20] IPCC. Scienti+c-technical analysis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. [21] Teddy, TERI, 1998–99. p. 147– 64. [22] Sudha P, Ravindranath NH. Land availability and biomass production potential in India. Biomass and Bioenergy 1999;16:207–21. [23] NRSA. Report on area statistics of land use/land cover generated using remote sensing techniques. Hyderabad: National Remote Sensing Agency, Department of Space, 1995. [24] Ministry of Agriculture. Land use statistics. New Delhi: Government of India, 1992. [25] ASTRA. Biomass production to meet rural energy needs. A pilot project. Bangalore: Application of Science and Technology to Rural Areas, Indian Institute of Science, 1999. [26] Seebauer M. Review of social forestry programmes in India. Michelstadt, Germany: GWB Gesselschaft Fur Walderhaltung und Waldbewirtschaftung GMBH, 1992. [27] CSE. State of India’s environment. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment, 1995. [28] FAO. Forest statistics, today and tomorrow, 1945 –1993 : : : 2010. Rome: FAO, 1993. [29] Planning Commission. Report of the eighth +ve-year plan. New Delhi: Government of India, 1992. [30] Chambers R, Saxena NC, Shaw T. To the hands of the poor— water and trees. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publication, 1989. [31] Kapoor RP. In: Agarwal A, editor. The price of forests. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment, 1992. p. 173. [32] Indian Forestry Statistics. Dehra Dun, India: Forest Survey of India, 1995. [33] KFD. Data sheets. Government of Karnataka, India: Karnataka Forest Department, 1999.

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentarios

Copyright © 2017 DATOSPDF Inc.