4.7 Review

Financial analysis of the cultivation of poplar and willow for bioenergy

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 52-64

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.04.006

关键词

Bioenergy crops; Short rotation coppice; Feasibility assessment; Production costs; Review

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme [233366]
  2. Flemish Hercules Foundation as Infrastructure contract [ZW09-06]
  3. Flemish Methusalem Programme
  4. Research Council of the University of Antwerp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews 23 studies on the financial feasibility and on the production/cultivation costs of bioenergy plantations of fast-growing poplars and willows (SRWCs), published between 1996 and 2010. We summarized and compared methods used thus far to assess the economics of SRWCs, identified the shortcomings and/or gaps of these studies, and discussed the impact of government incentives on the financial feasibility of SRWCs. The analysis showed that a reliable comparison across studies was not possible, due to the different assumptions and methods used in combination with the lack of transparency in many studies. As a consequence, reported production costs values ranged between 0.8 (sic) GJ(-1) and 5 (sic) GJ(-1). Moreover, the knowledge of the economics of SRWCs was limited by the low number of realized SRWC plantations. Although specific numerical results differed, it became clear that SRWCs are only financially feasible if a number of additional conditions regarding biomass price, yield and/or government support were fulfilled. In order to reduce the variability in results and to improve the comparability across studies (and countries), we suggest the use of standard calculation techniques, such as the net present value, equivalent annual value and levelized cost methods, for the assessment of the financial viability of these woody bioenergy crops. (C) 2012 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

4.7
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