4.8 Article

Geospatial assessment of potential bioenergy crop production on urban marginal land

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 540-547

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.021

关键词

Urban marginal land; Bioenergy; Urban metabolism; Urban sustainability; Energy resilience

资金

  1. Northeastern University Provost's Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban marginal land can be used for growing high yield bioenergy crops such as miscanthus and poplar. Here, a GIS-based modeling framework was created to assess potential urban marginal lands in Boston that include vacant lands and under-utilized public and private areas with adequate soil quality and sunlight. Using ArcGIS model builder as a spatial analysis tool, land parcels were screened for typical urban features such as buildings, driveways, parking lots, water and protected areas. The resultant layer was subjected to bio-geophysical modeling that includes soil quality, slope analysis and finally shadow analysis. Approximately 2660 ha of potential marginal land was identified as suitable, representing 24% of total land area in Boston. Using crop yield information, it was estimated that this marginal land could be used to produce up to a total of nearly 42,130 tons of high yield short rotation poplar biomass in a regular growing season. Also, bioenergy potential calculation revealed that for short rotation poplar, this amount of biomass can potentially yield up to 745 TJ (LHV) to 830 (HHV) TJ of yearly primary energy for the city of Boston that can be used for heat or electricity production, particularly for microgrid or district heating applications. This is equivalent to similar to 0.6% of Massachusetts primary energy demand for 2012. Ongoing work will explore other urban regions of Massachusetts and the Eastern US that might be able to fulfill part of their energy demand locally while providing benefits in environmental quality, economic development, and urban resilience. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据