Imperial College London
Alternate

DrRaphaelSlade

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Centre for Environmental Policy

Snr Research Fellow (IPCC Working Group III Head of TSU Sci)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 7306r.slade

 
 
//

Location

 

405Weeks BuildingSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@inbook{Slade:2011,
author = {Slade, R and Bauen, A and Gross, G},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the bioten conference on biomass, bioenergy and biofuels 2010},
publisher = {Cplpress},
title = {Prioritising the use of biomass resources: conceptualising trade-offs},
year = {2011}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - CHAP
AB  - This paper reviews metrics used to compare alternative bio-energy pathways and identifies limitations inherent in the way that they are calculated and interpreted. It also looks at how companies and investors approach strategic decisions in the bio-energy area. Bio-energy pathways have physical and economic attributes that can be measured or modelled. These include: the capital cost, operating cost, emissions to air, land and water. Conceptually, comparing alternative pathways is as simple as selecting the attributes and metrics you consider to be most important and ranking the alternative pathways accordingly. At an abstract level there is good agreement about which features of bio-energy pathways are desirable, but there is little agreement about which performance metrics best capture all the relevant information. Between studies there is also a great deal of variation energetic performance and this impedes comparison.Common metrics describe energetic performance, economic performance, environmental performance (emissions, land and water use), and social and ecological performance. Compound metrics may be used to assess multiple attributes simultaneously but their highly aggregate nature may make them difficult to interpret. Insights that may be drawn from the analysis include: •That none of the commonly used metrics capture all pertinent information, and the diversity of bio-energy feedstocks and conversion technologies means that there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all best use of biomass. •The option value of individual bio-energy pathways may change if the relative prices of different fuels change. Some bio-energy applications – e.g. second generation biofuels – may be strategically important even if at current prices the cost-per-tonne-of-carbon-saved appears unattractive. •Slavish adherence to a single metric – e.g. the cost-per-tonne-of-carbon-saved – is best avoided.•When deciding upon their strategic dir
AU  - Slade,R
AU  - Bauen,A
AU  - Gross,G
PB  - Cplpress
PY  - 2011///
SN  - 978 1 872691 54 1
TI  - Prioritising the use of biomass resources: conceptualising trade-offs
T1  - Proceedings of the bioten conference on biomass, bioenergy and biofuels 2010
ER  -
Download