0. outlook of the overall project - FTP Directory Listing - IPTS

INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIESSEVILLEW.T.C., Isla de la Cartuja, s/n,E-41092 Sevilla

FEASIBILITY STUDY AIMING AT CREATING A

REGIONAL BIO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGICAL

SUPPORT CENTRE FOR THE DIFFUSION AND

TRANSFER OF R&D RESULTS

Authors:

P. MONCADA-PATERNÒ-CASTELLO, F. J. PEINADO, M. A. AGUADO,INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES (IPTS)

(European Commission - Joint Research Centre)

F. ROSILLO, D. O. HALL,KING’S COLLEGE LONDON (KCL), United Kingdom

J. ALONSO MARTÍNEZ, J. ALONSO GONZÁLEZ,UNION FENOSA INGENIERIA (UFISA), Spain

prepared for

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General XIII,

Telecommunications, Information, and Exploitation of Research Results

EUR 18120 EN

JULY, 1998

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONJOINTRESEARCHCENTRE

Regional Biomass Technological Support Centre

2

© ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1998

The orientation and contents of this report cannot be taken as indicating the position

of the European Commission or its services.

The European Commission retains copyright, but reproduction is authorised, except

for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged: neither the European

Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the

use which might be made of the following information.

Printed in Spain


3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

Table Of Tables 9

Table Of Figures 10

0. INTRODUCTION 11

1. BIOMASS RESOURCES, PRESENT UTILISATION, AND R&DRESULTS. MONITORING AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BARRIERS 15

1.1. Spain 16

1.2. Castilla y León (CyL) 18

1.3. Soria 22

1.4. Overview of most relevant European R&D Results: Biomass Feedstocks 27

1.5. Overview of most relevant European R&D Results: Biomass Conversion Technologies 29

1.6. Overview of most Relevant European R&D Results: Biomass Energy End-Uses 33

1.7. Possible Barriers to the Implementation of Biomass Energy Schemes 35

2. DEFINITION AND PLANNING OF THE “REGIONAL BIO-ENERGYTECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORT CENTRE” 38

2.1. Survey of Renewable Energy Centres in Europe 40

2.2. Suggested Solutions for Overcoming the Existing Barriers 43

2.3. Designing of the BioCentre 462.3.1. Communication, Dissemination, and Diffusion activities 462.3.2. Technological Support Activities. 502.3.3. Exploitation activities 52

2.4. Resources needed for the specific activities 552.4.1. Manpower 562.4.2. Investment costs 582.4.3. Annual Operating Costs 59

2.5. Scenarios of investment and action plan 592.5.1. Low investment 602.5.2. Medium investment 622.5.3. High investment 632.5.4. Analysis of the relationship between the direct employment and the total costs for thedifferent investment scenarios 65


4

2.6. Relationship between the Centre and the CEDER 67

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 70

3.1. Hypothesis of biomass utilisation 71

3.2. Employment creation in biomass energy 73

3.3. Economic impact 773.3.1. Direct economic impact 793.3.2. Indirect economic impact 80

3.4. Environmental Impact 81

3.5. Impact in Community policies and in strategic Regional sectors 833.5.1. Energy 833.5.2. Environment 843.5.3. Employment, Regional Development, and Innovation 853.5.4. Agriculture 863.5.5. R&D 87

4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THEKEY ACTORS 88

4.1. National/Regional/Local authorities 88

4.2. Sectoral operators 89

4.3. European Commission 89

5. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 91

Bibliography 97

Acknowledgements 100

Contacts 101


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the last decades the European Union has produced a considerable effort in

promoting the development of renewable energy systems because of their possible

environmental, social and economic benefits. Furthermore, in Europe, biomass energy

has the largest potential as compared to other renewable energy sources. However, the

promising results obtained by the research and development activities have not been

transferred to commercial activities as expected; the "diffusion and transfer" of

innovative technologies is still a task weakly accomplished in the European economic

and social system.

Many cultural, political, socio-economic, technological, and organisational

barriers hinder the rapid implementation of biomass energy in many parts of the

world. This is also the case of Castilla y León (CyL), a region in Central-West Spain

which comprises nine provinces including Soria, where this study has been specially

addressed to. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that biomass energy nowadays

often is not competitive with the present cost of conventional energy sources (e.g. oil)

often because the economic externalities are not taken into consideration.

The present study can represent a valuable reference- the object of which

having the appropriate characteristics (local/regional dimension, large biomass

resource availability, high quantity of energy imported for internal use, high un-

employment rate, low industrialisation, etc.)- to which recent European and National

renewable energy policies and programmes are addressed to.

Among other interesting findings, of particular interest is the fact that - rather

than the availability of technological and financial resources - technical assistance and

business & financial consulting resulted as the most effective technology diffusion

and transfer actions to be implemented by a regional bio-energy centre. The energy,

agricultural, industrial and employment benefits that derive from an increased

biomass energy penetration rate in the region claim for a coherent enhancement

between the Cohesion, R&D and Innovation policies of the European Union also

through the implementation of activities such as those proposed in this study.


6

In Spain, the national government is increasingly recognising the potential

benefits of biomass energy, and thus appropriated policies are being put in place to

support biomass energy schemes. The autonomous government of CyL is also

actively supporting biomass energy and is developing a favourable political

framework and implementation planning, e.g. through the “Plan Enérgetico Regional

de Castilla y León” .

A detailed analysis was carried out in this work to assess the potential, based

on the present biomass availability, and the current use of biomass energy in the

region. CyL resulted with a considerable potential for biomass energy (1.61 Mtoe

from residues and 1.69 Mtoe from energy crops) and a present utilisation that already

accounts for about 9% (i.e. 400 ktoe) of its primary energy consumption (see Biomass

Flow Charts 1.1. and 1.2. pp. 18 and 23). If all the potential was exploited, CyL could

entirely cover its primary energy consumption.

This study proposes that, to help overcome the barriers that hinder the

development of biomass energy in CyL, a Regional Bio-energy Technological

Support Centre (BioCentre) should be set up at the “Centro para el Desarrollo de

Energias Renovables” (CEDER), located in Lubia (province of Soria). This seems the

most appropriate location for the following reasons: i) the existence of an operating

centre (CEDER) which offers appropriate facilities; ii) existence of valuable

infrastructures which are currently under-utilised; iii) good biomass resource base-

Soria province is endowed with natural resources and large extensions of under-

utilised land; iv) considerable local interest in exploiting biomass energy; v)

significant financial efficiencies, e.g. the joint utilisation of the CEDER facilities and

expertise will reduce considerably the costs of establishing the centre; vi) potential

complementary benefits which could be derived from both institutions e.g. scientific

and technical know-how, etc.- the location of the new BioCentre at CEDER will

strengthen the potential for development of both institutions in the future; vii) strong

local support for the centre which could materialise through the commitment by the

socio-economic and political actors.

The study has identified various key activities to be possibly implemented by

the centre which have been grouped as follows (see pp. 41-48):


7

• Communication, dissemination, and diffusion

• Technological support

• Exploitation of research results.

These activities should act as a catalyst for a greater utilisation of existing

R&D and resources, and provide a further stimulus for greater use of biomass energy

in CyL.

Three main investment scenarios have been proposed to allow the BioCentre

to develop three different sets of activities. The annual costs range from 500 KECU to

1250 KECU, depending on the level of investment, although in the first years these

costs should be slightly lower (see section 2.5).

To estimate the potential socio-economic and environmental impacts, three

scenarios of biomass energy utilisation for Castilla y Leon in the year 2010 are

proposed, based on the regional bioenergy objectives proposed by the “Ente Regional

de la Energía” (EREN, 1997). These scenarios range from the installation of 20 MWe

+ 180 MWth to 85 MWe + 720 MWth of additional biomass energy generation

capacity (see pp. 62-63).

The potential impact on employment range from 1700 to 6700 direct jobs

created and from 500 to 4200 indirect additional jobs, depending on the level of

bioenergy penetration achieved (see section 3.2). In terms of potential economic

impact, the investment necessary to implement the additional bioenergy capacity

ranges from 64 MECU to 256 MECU. Agriculture will be the sector which benefits

the most since 28% of such investment will end up as added value in this sector (see

section 3.3). The construction of biomass energy plants would produce

environmental benefits since the avoided emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx and

particulates would be up to 1,500 Ktonnes, 26 Ktonnes, 5.3 Ktonnes, and 0.6 Ktonnes

respectively.

European and National policies on regional development (e.g. economic

growth, employment, environment, agriculture/forestry, energy, R&D and innovation)

would be significantly strengthened from an increase of biomass energy utilisation in

CyL.


8

It should be also pointed out that, based on the experience of similar centres in

Europe (surveyed within the activities of the study,-see section 2.1-), the success

strongly depends on local and regional awareness and the commitment by local

entrepreneurs, policy-makers and society towards the support of biomass energy

schemes.

In conclusion, the study’s findings indicate that the creation of such biomass

centre (i.e. the BioCentre) in the Soria province can foster the utilisation of innovative

biomass energy schemes by adopting the most appropriate R&D in the field of

bioenergy. Furthermore, it can be stated that the possible creation of the designed

BioCentre results in many positive impacts ranging from socio-economic

development and better utilisation of natural resources to greater regional

energy independence and cleaner environment.


9

Liste of Tables

Table 1.1. Electricity production in Spain using renewable energy (1994-5)

Table 1.2. Productivity and costs of energy crops

Table 1.3. Techno-economic data of three direct combustion hypothetical plants in

Castilla y Leon.

Table 1.4. Overall electrical efficiency and operating costs of different gasification

systems

Table 2.1. Main activities carried out by Regional Biomass Energy Centres of Similar

Characteristics to the Proposed BioCentre in Soria.

Table 2.2. Summary of section 2.2.

Table 2.3. Summary of the proposed activities for the BioCentre.

Table 2.4. Annual costs of the personnel, overheads excluded

Table 2.5. Personnel needed by activity, intensity of the activity and category of

personnel

Table 2.6. Investment costs required for each activity, or group of activities,

according to the intensity at which is carried out

Table 2.7. Low investment activities

Table 2.8. Personnel needed along the time for the low investment scenario

Table 2.9. Total annual costs for the low investment scenario

Table 2.10. Medium investment activities

Table 2.11. Manpower needed for the medium investment scenario

Table 2.12. Total annual costs for the medium investment scenario

Table 2.13. High investment scenario activities

Table 2.14. Manpower needed for the high investment scenario

Table 2.15. Total annual costs for the high investment scenario

Table 2.16. Comparison of manpower requirements

Table 2.17. Comparison of total annual costs

Table 2.18. Cost of conversion plants

Table 3.1. Provisional additional capacity of bioenergy proposed for the year 2005 in

Castilla y León

Table 3.2. Scenarios proposed of biomass utilisation for the year 2010 in Castilla y

Leon.

Table 3.3. Biomass resources needed to cover the proposed scenarios

Table 3.4. Jobs created for the construction and installation of a biomass plant

Table 3.5. Number of jobs needed for the construction and installation of the biomass

plants of the three scenarios.


10

Table 3.6. Direct employment at biomass power stations according to scale.

Table 3.7. Direct job creation for the operating and maintaining of the additional

biomass plants.

Table 3.8. Number of jobs created by multiplying effect for the 3 scenarios of

utilisation.

Table 3.9. Effects on the employment for the three different scenarios of utilisation.

Table 3.10. Sectoral share of the total jobs created when implementing the bioenergy

plants.

Table 3.11. Expected investments for implementing the additional bioenergy capacity

Table 3.12. Sectoral desegregation of the investments to create the BioCentre

Table 3.13. Effects on added value by sector of the investments for the creation of the

BioCentre

Table 3.14. Sectoral desegregation of the investment for implementing a biomass plant.

Table 3.15. Amount of money from the total investment that rebounds as added value in

the different sectors

Table 3.16. Emissions from coal combustion per GWh of electricity and GWh of heat

Table 3.17. Avoided emission for the proposed three scenarios of utilisation

Table of Figures

Chart 1.1. Biomass Energy Flow Chart for Castilla y León

Chart 1.2. Biomass Energy Flow Chart for Soria

Figure 1.3. Biomass conversion processes

Figure 1.4. Gas product from biomass.

Figure 1.5. Diagram showing an IGCC operating system.

Chart 2.1. Comparison of Manpower Requirements for the different Investment

Scenarios

Chart 2.2. Comparison of annual costs for the different investment scenarios

Chart 2.3. Facilities available at CEDER and the centre’s activities that could be

covered by them


11

0. Introduction

This study has been implemented with the support of the European

Commission (EC), Directorate-General (DG) XIII (Telecommunications, Information

Market and Exploitation of Research) and in the framework of the specific activities

of its Directorate D (Dissemination and exploitation of R&D results, technology

transfer and innovation), and Unit D.1 (Strategic aspects of innovation and

Exploitation of RTD results, and intellectual property). This action originated from a

specific request by DG XVI (Regional Policy and Cohesion) to DG XIII/D.1.

The implementation of the study was awarded to a consortium constituted by

the EC’s Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

(IPTS), who acted as the co-ordinator, King’s College of London (KCL), and Unión

Fenosa Ingeniería (UFISA). The consortium presented an excellent mixture of

complementary competencies.

This activity is related to supporting the European decision-makers in the

management of technological change. The project also fits the convergent objectives

of several European Union policies, i.e. Regional Cohesion, R&D, innovation and

environment. Furthermore, this service, which relates well to the strategic activities of

IPTS, provides a valuable knowledge-basis for the implementation of actions at

regional/local level, attempting, in addition, to improve the understanding of the

impact of adopting new technologies, and their relationship in the socio-economic

context.

The study concerns the feasibility of mobilising resources for the diffusion and

transfer of biomass energy (bioenergy) R&D results in a region of Spain. The

approach used and the results obtained are a valuable reference, applicable to other

European regions, and in line with recent EU and national policies and programmes.

Biomass energy is experiencing a surge in interest in many parts of the world,

there are many reasons for this: greater recognition of its current role and future

potential contribution as a modern fuel in the world's energy supply; its availability,

versatility, and sustainability; a better understanding of its global and local


12

environmental benefits; perceived potential role in climate stabilisation; the existing

and potential development and entrepreneurial opportunities; technological advances

and knowledge which have recently accumulated on many aspects of biomass energy;

greater understanding of the possible conflict of food versus fuel, etc.

However, there are in place many cultural, political, technological,

organisational, and conflict of interest barriers which hinder a rapid implementation of

such biomass systems. In particular, the R&D effort in bioenergy by public and

private organisations is often dispersed and the best R&D results present difficulty to

be transferred from laboratory to commercial scale. This has been reflected in many

studies such as for example ECOTEC (1996).

This is the case of Castilla y León (CyL), a region in Spain which integrates

nine provinces including Soria.

The study aims at the following:

• identifying existing barriers in the exploitation of research results and

technology transfer in the bio-energy sector in the province of Soria in particular

and in Castilla y Leon in general

• proposing an implementation procedure for overcoming these barriers

based on the definition of a Regional Bio-energy Technological Support Centre

(thereafter as BioCentre) as an operative instrument to enable the mobilisation of

resources for the exploitation of research results and technology transfer

opportunities, and for the promotion of biomass issues into society, policy, and the

economy

• demonstrating technical and economic feasibility of the

implementation of a BioCentre for the study and the promotion of the use of the

Biomass as energy source in Soria (Objective 1 region in Spain)

• evaluating, from a global point of view, the positive or negative

potential contribution of bioenergy activities implemented in the studied area to

meet the objectives of European policies, and in particular those related to:


13

regional development (economic growth), employment, environment,

agriculture/forestry, energy, R&D and innovation.

Presently there is an operative R&D Centre in Soria that is considered as the

“core” of the centre defined in this study. Given that bioenergy systems have a strong

local/regional dimension, one of the aims of this study has been to implement an

appropriate methodological approach that can be applied to other specific EU regions

of similar characteristics of Castilla y Leon.

The report has been divided in four major chapters:

The first of them examines in detail the present production, utilisation and

potential use of biomass energy in CyL. This is reflected in the "Biomass Energy

Flow Chart" for CyL, in general, and Soria province in particular (see charts 1.1. and

1.2.), along with the collection and analysis of the information on the actual situation

of the studied region and present utilisation of biomass. Moreover, the identification

of most promising biomass energy R&D results, technologies and systems from EU

and National programmes/markets applicable in Soria/Castilla y León is carried out.

Finally, in this chapter, the existing barriers for the use of R&D results and in the

implementation of biomass systems in the region are identified.

The second chapter is the definition and planning of the Regional Bio-energy

Technological Support Centre; the major aim of this chapter is to efficiently define

the appropriate activities to be undertaken in the BioCentre and to elaborate an action

plan for its implementation. Three kind of activities have been proposed:

i) Communication, Diffusion and Dissemination

ii) Technological Support

iii) Exploitation of research results

In addition, an indication of the technical, organisational and economic

requirements is provided as well as a time schedule for implementing the proposed

centre.


14

Chapter three has the aim of analysing, from a global point of view, the

impact, positive or negative, at a regional level on the employment, the environment,

the economy, and the sectoral policies deriving from the implementation of the

Regional Bio-energy Technological Support Centre (BioCentre) and from its

activities, as defined in chapter 2. The impact, consequence of a larger use of biomass

as an energy source in the region, is studied using as a basis three scenarios of

biomass energy utilisation in Castilla y Leon, for the year 2010.

Chapter four contains the main operational recommendations to be

implemented by the key actors, mainly Local/Regional/National authorities, sectoral

operators and at a European level. These recommendations try to answer the question

of what type of activities are the best to adopt in order to help overcome the existing

biomass barriers and realise the benefits offered by a larger use of biomass in the

region.

Finally, the conclusions of the study are summarised in chapter 5 of this

document.


15

1. Biomass resources, present utilisation, and R&D results.Monitoring and analysis of existing barriers

The main objective of this chapter is a detail analysis of the existing biomass

R&D results, resources and present utilisation of biomass energy and to identify and

analyse the existing barriers to transfer R&D results into commercial applications in

CyL. It has been divided into six sections.

A general overview of the energy situation in Spain is provided in Section

1.1., particular attention is paid to renewable energy, including some energy policy

issues. The following section, 1.2., concentrates on the region of Castilla y Leon

(CyL) with particular attention to issues related to population, geography, climate,

hydrology, natural resources, energy potential, and current industrial uses of biomass.

Section 1.3. deals specifically with Soria province, more or less in the same order,

including some wider socio-economic and technical issues. Both sections include a

detailed analysis of the biomass energy potential which is illustrated in a “Biomass

Energy Flow Chart”. Each flowchart provides, the following information:

• total biomass production

• biomass theoretically available

• present biomass consumption (energy and non-energy uses)

• present biomass energy use

• producers and users of biomass energy.

Section 1.4. includes a brief analysis of the most promising biomass

feedstocks for CyL, e.g. natural resources, agroforestry residues and energy crops,

taking into account the climatic and soil conditions of the region along with the most

promising R&D results from biomass feedstocks, paying particular attention to

herbaceous crops, short rotation forestry, and agro-forestry residues, together with

industrial residues and MSW.

Biomass conversion technologies are summarised in section 1.5. including

direct combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, and hydrolysis technologies. Section 1.6.


16

analyses performances, economic issues, and current status at a commercial level of

different biomass energy systems, derived from the above mentioned technologies,

aiming at transforming biomass into more useful energy products, i.e.: heat,

electricity, and liquid fuel for transportation.

Finally, section 1.7. addresses the main barriers associated with the

introduction of biomass energy schemes in general and CyL and Soria province in

particular.

1.1. Spain

Spain is highly dependent on imported energy sources and thus specific

policies have been put in place over the years to reduce such dependency e.g. oil

substitution for domestic sources, energy efficiency, and the promotion of renewable

energy of which biomass is an important component. This is particularly the case for

CyL where indigenous energy resources are being actively promoted through specific

policies.

The general objectives of Spain’s energy policy for the 1990s are presented in

the Plan Energético Nacional 1991-2000 (PEN), whose main objectives include:

1. to guarantee energy supply

2. the diversification of energy supply sources

3. to reduce oil import dependency

4. to provide greater incentives for the utilisation of renewableenergy sources

5. to provide greater emphasis and support to environmentalaspects related to energy production and utilisation.

PEN introduced new policy thinking into the energy sector in Spain. Non-

conventional energy sources are currently receiving a more preferential treatment than

in previous programs, together with technical innovation, environment and other

matters related to consumers’ demand. A further policy change is the emphasis on

privatisation, in particular for electricity generation, which will gradually be

liberalised based on the new EU guidelines on electricity production and distribution.


17

The specific policy dealing with renewable energies is set out in the Programa

de Energias Renovables (PER), as part of the Plan de Ahorro y Eficiencia Energética

(PAEE). The plan forecasts an increase of about 43% in the use of renewable energy

sources for the period in question, representing an additional increase of 1.1

Mtoe/year by the year 2000 when all sources are taken into account. The total

investment was estimated at 334,000 Million PTAs. (2225 MECU) of which 70,000

Million PTAs will come from the public sector. Public and private investment in this

industry in 1995 represented about 22,000 MPTAs in which some 300 companies are

directly involved. The main aspects of PAEE are:

1. direct public support to renewables which could serve as anexample to the rest of the energy sector

2. diffusion and promotion of commercial applications

3. training of personnel

4. financial support from third parties

5. subsidies.

According to official figures (table 1.1), electricity generation from all the main

renewable sources in Spain for the years 1994 and 1995 represented a production of

29,270 and 24,890 GWh/year respectively. The main areas are mini-hydro plants of

less or equal to 5 MW, biomass, MSW, wind, solar (thermal and photovoltaic), and

geothermal.

Table 1.1. Electricity production in Spain using renewable energy (1994-5)

Production (GWh/year) 1994 1995

Hydroelectricity(>5MW) 25,608.00 21,085.00

Hydroelectricity(<5MW) 2,566.30 2,296.00

Biomass 679.2 780.2

Solid Waste Residue 230.5 446.3

Wind 176.2 270.9

Solar Photovoltaic 10.3 11.7

Total 29,270.50 24,890.10

Source: Miner 1996


18

1.2. Castilla y León (CyL)

The Autonomous region of Castilla y León, where the province of Soria is

located, is Spain's largest region with 94,224 Km2, representing about 19% of the

country's land area, comprising 9 provinces. CyL has a population of about 2.5

million with a density of 26.6 inhabitants per Km2, very low compared to a national

average of 78.5 inhabitants/ Km2. Population density varies considerably from 60

inhabitants/ Km2 in Valladolid province to 9 inhabitants/ Km2 in Soria. The birth rate

is also lower while its death rate is higher than the national average. In addition, there

is a strong emigration trend which has resulted in an overall population decline over

the past few decades.

Another important aspect in population trends is the rapid urbanisation and

population concentration in a few towns e.g. Valladolid, Burgos, Salamanca and

León, which represent approximately a third of the total population of the region. This

calls for new approaches to socio-economic development.

Despite adverse geographic and climatic conditions, CyL has a rich, varied

and complex natural vegetation due to the diversity of its territory. Agriculture,

livestock, forestry and mining have historically been the four key socio-economic

sectors of this region.

The agricultural participation of the GDP is much greater in CyL than the

national average e.g. 7.8% (1992) against 4.1% in Spain. However, the industrial

participation is also much greater averaging 26.6% compared to 22.8%, respectively.

Despite the modernisation drive of the past two decades, CyL still has an agrarian

character. Industrialisation arrived rather late and when it did it was mainly due to

investment from outside the region. In addition, the industrialisation process has been

highly concentrated in the provinces of Valladolid and León which represent over

60% of the total industry in CyL.

The region has a total area of 9.4 Mha of which about 42% is cultivated land,

17% is pasture land, 25% is forested land and others 16%. In 1994 the theoretical

primary energy potential of crops, 15.26 M tonnes, was estimated at 249 PJ. An

estimated 26.48 M tonne of forest residues were generated with an estimated energy

value equivalent to 378 PJ.


19

The possibility of obtaining energy from human and livestock residues on a

medium to large scale in the region is highly unlikely. However, in certain

circumstances and in areas where there is a high concentration of livestock farming,

this may be a viable alternative, albeit be in a small scale.

Forestry has played an important role in this region but unlike other parts of

Spain, where many forests were destroyed or badly damaged by the shipbuilding

industry, the forest of CyL were barely affected due to its distance and transport

difficulties to the shipyards. The greater pressure on these forests has been clearing for

agricultural and livestock expansion. Historically forest land has remained

approximately between 1.6 to 2.5 Mha.

Currently there are about 2.5 Mha of forested land of different types and this

still constitutes an important source of income for many people. In 1994 firewood

production was 364,943 tonnes, roundwood about 799,000 tonnes with a combined

energy value equivalent to 17.4 PJ; in addition, the residue potential has been

estimated at about 1.15 M tonnes (energy potential equivalent to about 17.3 PJ), from

a total of 2.18 M tonnes of wood extracted from the forests,.

The most important non-biomass sources of energy in CyL are coal, nuclear

and hydro power which in 1995 represented 3.20 Mtoe (69%), 1.03 Mtoe (22%) and

0.42 Mtoe (9%), respectively. About 413 Ktoe of biomass were consumed in 1994 of

which the domestic sector was responsible for about 73%, followed by industrial uses

with 26%. These sectors used 17.4 PJ equivalent from biomass compared to 27.4 PJ

from non-biomass sources. The main industrial users of biomass energy in CyL are,

as the rest of Spain, pulp and paper, food and beverages, wood and furniture,

ceramics, and cement industries.

The Biomass Flow Chart for CyL (1994) (See Chart 1.1, following page)

shows the potential use of biomass energy sources as the mean annual flow of

biomass theoretically available for utilisation, (e.g. the theoretical available biomass

that reaches a form in which the material is actually used either as fuel, timber, food,

etc.). The total biomass production for 1994 has been estimated to be the equivalent to

702 PJ. After losses are taken into account the total biomass use (fuel, food and

roundwood) is equivalent to 305 PJ. The bands show the production and flow of


20

biomass use category from the point of production to the final use as a percentage of

the total biomass harvested, in an approximate scale.

The total biomass energy theoretically available from wood cut at present has

been estimated at 33 PJ. After losses (18 PJ) have been taken into account,

approximately 15 PJ are used now (5 PJ for firewood, and 10 PJ for industrial round

wood).

Biomass is a promising source of energy for this region particularly forest

residues which are still mostly wasted. Other residues from crops, livestock, fruit

trees, etc., have other alternative uses, e.g. some industry uses, animal feed and

bedding and thus it is perhaps unrealistic to regard them as a potential source of

energy in CyL. Nonetheless there may be circumstances in which its use as energy

source may be justified. The total estimated potential of crop residues available as an

energy source is equivalent to 340 PJ of the total.


21

No te s :

Th e s c a le i s b a s e d o n th e to ta l b i o ma s s h a rv e s te d i n a g ri c u l tu re a n d fo re s try , e x p a n d e d a re a s

+ ’En d u s e ’ s h o ws th e fi n a l fo rm o f th e ma te ri a l a n d n o t n e c e s s a ri l y th e e ffe c t i v ed i d PJ 1 0

F ig u re s i n p a re n th e s i s i n d i c a te % to ta l

P roduction

100 % = 702 P J

Re s i d u e s f ro m fo o d c ro p s a re a s s u me d to h a v e b e e n a c c o u n te d fo r i n th e c ro p re s i d u et

To ta l s ma y n o t a d d u p d u e to ro u n d i n g .

Harvest Categories Losses and Utilisation

To ta l wo o d c u t 3 3 PJ (4 .7 % )

Fire wood 5 PJ ( 0 .8 % ) Indus tria l Roundwood 1 0 PJ (1 .4 % )

Du n g 4 2 PJ (5 .9 % )

Cro p Re s i d u e s 3 7 8 PJ (5 3 .9 % )

Fo o d Cro p s 2 4 9 PJ (3 5 .5 % )

Du n g 2 PJ (0 .3 % )

Cro p Re s i d u e L o s s e s 3 4 0 PJ (4 8 .5 % ) L o s s e s = 3 4 0 PJ (4 8 .5 % )

L o s s e s = 5 7 PJ (7 .9 % )Un u ti l i s e d W o o d re s id u e s 1 7 PJ (2 .5 % )

Un u t i l i s e d Du n g 4 0 PJ (5 .6 % )

Fo o d Cro p s 2 4 9 PJ (3 5 .5 % )

Chart 1.1. A biom ass energy f low chart for Castilla y Leon (1994).

Fo o d2 4 9 PJ (3 5 .5 % )

F i re wo o d

5 PJ (0 .8 % )

In d u s tri a l

ro u n d wo o d

1 0 PJ (1 .4 % )Du n g

2 PJ (0 .3 % )

Cro p Re s i d u e s

3 8 PJ (5 .4 % )

0

4 0

7 0

1 0 0

9 0

3 0

2 0

6 0

5 0

1 0

Cro p Re s id u e s 3 8 PJ (5 .4 % )

8 0

Di re c t En e rg y Us e = 4 5 PJ (6 .5 % )

To ta l Bio ma s s Us e = 3 0 5 PJ (4 3 .4 % )

To ta l L o s s e s = 3 9 7 PJ (5 6 .4 % )

’Endus e’ C ategor ies


22

CyL, according to the National policy and realising the benefits that renewable

energies provide, has developed a favourable framework for renewable energy that is

captured in the Plan Energético Regional de CyL (PERCYL). This programme has

the objective of consuming some additional 117 Ktoe of energy from biomass in the

region by the year 2005 (the current consumption is of about 400 ktoe); 10,3 Ktoe

from them would be electricity (about 120 GWh). For the achievement of this

objective several action lines are being carried out, some of them are taken into

account to be carried out in the centre, as it will be pointed out hereafter:

1. Creating an adequate climate for the development of R&D

activities in the region (Universities, research centres, and companies)

2. Training technicians for the design, manufacturing, operating

and maintaining of installations

3. Quantification of existing resources

4. Promoting the creation of a market

5. Research of financing solutions

6. Promotion of a centre which channels the development of

renewable energies technologies. This is the “Ente Regional de la

Energía” (EREN)

7. Making possible the follow up of demonstration projects,

assessing their impacts and promoting the diffusion of the results.

It is worth noticing that the proposed centre could be promoted as a part of the

point 6 above mentioned. In summary, renewable energies in CyL, and in particular

biomass energy, appear to have a potential bright future due to a combination of

availability of natural resources and political support at the highest regional level.

1.3. Soria

Soria has a land area of 10,036 Km2 (1.03 Mha), and a population density of 9

inhabitants/ Km2. Soria has been described as Spain’s poorest, coldest, more isolated,


23

less populated and less industrialised province. Its territory is diverse comprising

different natural areas in which poor soil and adverse climatic conditions

predominate. The geography of the province is characterised by high mountain

ranges, which have historically acted as a major impediment to socio-economic

development.

Natural Resources. Although there has been significant changes in recent years

such as increased urbanisation, industrialisation, migration, etc., the economic base of

this province still continues to be largely based on three traditional sectors: i)

agriculture, ii) livestock, and iii) forestry, all of which are declining as a source of

wealth and employment generation. Currently the largest source of employment in the

province is the service sector. Almost 92.5% of the province’s land area could be

regarded as suitable either for agricultural, livestock or forestry.

Agriculture still predominates, consisting mostly of unirrigated cereal

production, cultivated on a rotation basis. The best lands are rotated with legumes but

the most frequent practice is called “cultivos de año y vez”, which consists of planting

one year followed by another fallow year. This means that in any one year only a

small proportion of the land is actually cultivated for cereals or any other crop e.g. in

1994 only about 4% of the land was actually dedicated to crop production.

Traditional agriculture was aimed at self-sustainability and soil fertilisation

was largely by organic means, e.g. by applying animal manure to the agricultural

fields. For this reason there was a strong relationship between agriculture and

livestock. Mechanisation and utilisation of chemical fertilisers have broken this

relationship and brought many social and economic changes to the Sorian

countryside. Agricultural production and productivity is still low even by regional

standards. In 1994 the province produced 635,579 tonnes of agricultural crops with an

estimated primary energy potential of 10.6 PJ. The energy potential from residues has

been estimated at 14.8 PJ from 975,599 tonnes and an utilisable energy potential

equivalent to 5.0 PJ. (See Chart 1.2)

Forestry is still an important activity for this province although it is now

declining. There have been important changes in the past but the total forested land

area has not changed dramatically. An important feature of the forested land has been


24

the interconnection with livestock production. Large areas of land were cultivated and

then abandoned because of low productivity and with time became secondary forests

and pasture lands, suitable only for animal grazing. Thus many of the Soria’s forests

can in fact be regarded as secondary or tertiary forests, with less than 20% canopy

cover.

More recently there has been a reduction of public/community owned forest

land in favour of the privately owned land. An important characteristic of the past

three decades has been an increase in afforestation activities stimulated by the

government (Ley de Montes de 1957) often for environmental and ecological reasons

rather than commercial e.g. some 44,300 ha by 1969. (IFN-2, 1994). Forest

production was estimated at 223,377 tonnes with an energy potential value equivalent

to 2.8 PJ. The estimated utilisable residue potential is 1.2 PJ.

During the past few decades there has been a profound transformation in the

way forests are being exploited in the Soria province. This is for a number of reasons,

including: i) changing population trends, in which emigration out of the province,

provincial towns and villages, are important features. Emigration and urbanisation,

together with low birth rate, mechanisation, etc., have depopulated the Sorian

countryside; ii) economic and social changes which have resulted in greater economic

diversification away from the traditional sectors e.g. service sector, iii) declining

economic value of agroforestry activities. For example, it is often argued the cost of

afforestation and management of Sorian forest exceeds its benefits and that if these

forests are to have a future other alternative uses are urgently needed e.g. recreational

and educational.

Only those people living in mountain villages are still largely dependent on

income generated from forestry activities. The decline in agriculture, livestock and

forestry activities are all helping to depopulate the countryside. The irony is that this

trend should facilitate the gradual expansion of the forests. This problem is further

exacerbated by its geography, and unequal land ownership which is dominated by a

large number of very small land holdings.

Energy consumption in the province of Soria is also low due to low population

density and low industrial level. An important characteristic is that Soria does not


25

have any electricity thermal power plants. Taking all sources together, Soria produced

in 1994 about 2.18 M tonnes of biomass equivalent to 34 PJ compared to 702 PJ for

CyL as a whole. The total biomass consumption was about 940,000 tonnes (15 PJ)

against 304.7 PJ for CyL. The biomass energy theoretically available for utilisation in

Soria is also illustrated in the Biomass Flow Chart (see chart 1.2.), e.g. 34 PJ in 1994

which includes wood cut, dung, crop residues and food crops. The total biomass use

(firewood, roundwood, dung, crop residues and food) is the equivalent to 15.5 PJ.

Total wood cut has been estimated to have an energy value of 6.3 PJ, and 2.1

PJ for roundwood. This is an important source of biomass energy in Soria, but more

data is still required to determine the standing stock of its forests. It is possible that in

certain circumstances crop residues, with estimated value equivalent to 14.8 PJ, and a

present use of 1.5 PJ, may become an important alternative source of biomass energy.

It is clear that there are considerable losses of biomass which offer good opportunities

for waste utilisation. Currently the bulk of these residues are burnt or let in the fields

to rot.


26

No tes :

Th e s c a le i s b as e d o n th e to ta l b i oma s s ha rv es te d i n a g ric u l tu re a n d fo res try , e x p a nd e d a rea s re p re s en ti ng l os s es a re n o t d ra wn to s c a le .

+ ’End us e ’ s h ows th e fi n a l fo rm o f th e ma te ri a l a n d n o t n e c e s s a ri ly the e ffe c ti v e e n e rg y d e riv e d . PJ =10

1 5J = 1 06 GJ

Fig u re s i n pa re n th es i s i n d ic a te % to ta l p rod u c ti o n . Di re c t e n e rg y u s e re p re s en ts th a t p o rti o n o f th e e n du s e c a te g o ry u ti l i s e d as fue l .

P roduction

100 % = 34 PJ

Re s id u es from foo d c ro ps a re as s ume d to ha v e b e en ac c ou n ted fo r i n th e c rop res id ue c a te go ry .To ta l l o s s e s + To ta l e nd p ro d uc t = To ta l p ro d uc ti on . To ta ls may no t ad d up du e to rou n d in g .

Harvest Categories Losses and Utilisation

To ta l woo d c u t 6 .3 PJ (18 .3% )

Fire wood 0 .7 PJ (2 .0% )

Indus tria l Roundwood 2 .1 PJ (6 .2 % )

Du n g 2 .5 PJ (7 .3% )

Cro p Re s id ue s 14 .8 PJ (4 3 .3 % )

Fo o d Crop s 10 .7PJ (3 1 .1% )

Du n g 0 .5 PJ (1 .5 % )

Crop Re s idu e L o s s e s 1 3 .3 PJ (3 8 .8 % )L os s es = 1 3 .3 PJ (3 8 .8 % )

L os s es = 5 .5 PJ (1 6 % )

Un u ti l i s e d Wo od res id ue s 3 .5 PJ (1 0 .2% )

Un u ti l i s e d Du n g 2 .0 PJ (5 .8% )

Fo o d Cro ps 10 .7 PJ (3 1 .1% )

Chart 1.2. A biomass energy flow chart for Soria (1994).

Fo odC1 0 .3 PJ (3 1 .1 % )

Fi re woo d

0 .7 PJ (2 .0% )

In du s tri a l

ro un d wo o d

2 .1 PJ (6 .2% )Du ng

0 .5 PJ (1 .5% )

Crop Re s idu e s

1 .5 PJ (4 .4% )

10

0

5 0

4 0

7 0

1 00

9 0

3 0Cro p Re s id u e 1 .5 PJ (4 .4% ) Dire c t En e rg y Us e = 2 .7 PJ (7 .9 % )

To ta l Bio ma s s Us e = 15 .5 PJ (4 5 .2 % )

’Enduse’ Categories+

To ta l L o s s e s = 18 .8 PJ (5 4 .8 % )

8 0

6 0

2 0


27

1.4. Overview of most relevant European R&D Results: Biomass Feedstocks

There is a wide range of materials that can be used as biomass resources; they

can be sorted within three groups according to their origin: natural, energy crops and

residues. However, only ecologically sustainable energy crops and utilisation of

biomass residues are hereafter considered (i.e. biomass residues and energy crops).

• Biomass residues:

Biomass residues are organic by-products of food, fibre, and forest production.

In the case of MSW (Municipal Solid Wastes) these residues also include other

organic and inorganic components. At present these residues are readily available

often at very low, zero, or even at negative cost, and excluding some specific

industries such as the pulp and paper industry, most residues are not used for energy

purposes.

Agricultural and forestry residues: The leaves and those parts of the

plant that are left on the floor after harvesting. Only 25-35% of these residues

are recoverable as the rest must be left on the ground to provide nutrients to

the soil and help prevent erosion. Cattle dung, and other animal manure, has

been used in many parts of the world for energy either to burn directly or to

produce biogas, but this option is only realistic for large cattle farms. Forestry

residues are those that are available after harvesting the forest or other

operations such as pruning. The same problems concerning fertilising and

erosion apply here; in addition, it must be pointed out that fire risks can be

reduced by removing the residues.

Industrial residues: They are generated when processing the raw

material at the industries (food-processing industry, forestry industry,

chemical industries). This form of biomass is the cheapest, and it would be

both economically and environmentally desirable to use these residues for

energy purposes. There are some examples of industries in CyL that make use

of their residues to produce energy.


28

Municipal Solid Wastes are the wastes generated by households,

commercial and institutional operations, and some industries; these include

waste paper, wood, yard wastes, plastics, metals and the unsorted MSW itself

such as organic wastes. Disposal of wastes has become a major problem for

cities. It is estimated that 1 kg of MSW is generated per person and day in

industrialised countries and from 0.5 to 0.7 kg/day per capita in developing

countries. There are several ways to treat these wastes: recycling, landfilling,

composting, thermochemical treatments (mainly incinerating, but also

gasifying and pyrolysing) and biological treatments.

• energy crops:

There are several characteristics highly desirable for energy crops, the main

aim being to achieve high yield at low cultivation costs. We take into consideration

the following classification:

Herbaceous energy crops (HEC): These are perennial crops with

usually high productivity, short growth cycles and diversity. HEC comprise

many varieties that can be harvested for their total aboveground cellulose

material, although as yet only a handful can be regarded as serious contenders

for biomass energy feedstocks. The productivity of herbaceous crops can vary

significantly but a major characteristic is their usually high yields.

The herbaceous energy crops that, acording to their characteristics,

seem to be the most appropriate for CyL have been identified in this study as

Cynara, Fibre Sorghum and Miscanthus. The productivity of these crops are

displayed in table 1.2.

Short rotation forestry (SRF): Forest energy plantations usually consist

of intensively managed crops of predominately coppiced hardwoods, grown

on cutting cycles of between 3 and 5 years and harvested solely for use as

source of energy. In most cases, tree planting requires such agricultural

practises as fertilisation, suppression of competition from weeds, and control

from diseases and fauna. Harvesting trees requires specialised equipment that


29

may be owned co-operatively by groups of energy crops farmers, provided by

contract harvesters or supplied by the conversion facility.

It seems that the SRF most suitable for CyL are Poplar and Eucalyptus

whose costs and productivity are displayed in table 1.2, together with those of

the herbaceous crops.

Table 1.2. Productivity and costs of energy crops

tdm/ha/y ECUs/tdm

Fibber Sorghum 15-25 50-55

Miscanthus 15-25 50-65

Cynara 20-30 30-60

Poplar 12-16 53-60

Eucalyptus 12.5-17 60

Note: tdm = tonne of dry material

1.5. Overview of most relevant European R&D Results: Biomass ConversionTechnologies

The energy contained in the biomass can be converted directly to heat or into

more useful energy carriers such as electricity or liquid biofuels. There are several

ways to convert the biomass, they are summarised in the following figure:

Fig. 1.3. Biomass conversion processes

BIOMASS

DirectExtraction

Thermochemical Processes Biochemical Processes

DirectCombustion

65-95%

Gasification65-75%

Pyrolysis30-90%

Alcoholfermentation

20-25%

Anaerobicdigestion20-35%

Fuels Heat andElectricity

Poor gas,Synthesis gas

Fuels Ethanol Methanol

The most important processes are commented hereafter:


30

• Direct combustion is the easiest and most traditional process of

obtaining energy from the biomass. It is very well established world wide,

especially in Developing Countries, and it is readily available commercially. The

combustion involves the total oxidation of the feed material with the aim of

releasing the maximum high grade heat as possible. MSW incineration is an

application of the combustion technology; incinerating seems to be the most

promising solution for the problem of MSW, especially now that the EC has

announced the complete ban of landfills by the year 2002. Growing importance is

being given in the last years to co-firing technologies; this is the burning of at

least two different fuels at the same time under controlled combustion conditions;

the most usual practice is burning coal and wood.

• Gasification is the process of transforming the solid feed into a gas,

this gas is combustible and certainly easier to use than the solid feed; gasification

is carried out by partial oxidation, this is the oxidation in the presence of a limited

amount of oxidising agent. The oxidising agent can be air, oxygen, steam or a

mixture of them.

Gasification itself has three sequential stages: i) Drying to evaporate

moisture, ii) Pyrolysis to give gas, vaporised tars or oils and a solid char residue,

iii) Gasification of the solid char, pyrolysis tars, and pyrolysis gases to give CO,

CO2, H2, and lesser quantities of hydrocarbon gases (see fig 1.4). A fourth stage of

the process should be added as the gas product has to be cleaned up in order to

reduce erosion, corrosion, and environmental problems in downstream equipment.


31

Fig. 1.4. Gas product from biomass.

Gas Product

Biomass CO, CO2

Gasifier Hydrogen, CH4

1600/17000C Water, Nitrogen

Oxidisingagent

Trace amounts of higherhydrocarbons

Various contaminants such as charparticles, ash, tars, and oils

Two qualities of gases can be produced, poor and medium, depending on

the oxidising agent used. The gas product can be used in a gas turbine with an

efficiency of about 30 %. These turbines are used in plants with an installed

electric power of about 20 MWe. The gas can also be burnt in an internal

combustion engine, which have higher tolerance to contaminants; the efficiency of

the system reaches 31%.

The most advanced and efficient system available in the gasification field

is the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) (see figure 1.5). This

system takes advantage of the sensible heat of the exhaust gases from the gas

turbine to generate steam in a heat exchanger; this steam is then expanded in a

conventional steam turbine cycle to produce more electricity and, occasionally,

district heat. This kind of systems can reach an overall efficiency of around 40-

45%.


32

Figure 1.5. Diagram showing an IGCC operating system.

Biomass Gasification Gas cleaning Gas turbine Electricity

Heat exchanger Stack

Condenser

Steam turbine Electricity

• Pyrolysis is a process in which biomass is heated in the absence of an

oxidising agent. Under these conditions the material is degraded and transformed

into simpler forms. Solid, liquid and gas can be obtained from these processes,

being their relative proportion dependent on the temperature, the heating rate and

the residence time.

Basically there are two extreme ways to operate the reactor: Low pyrolysis

which maximises solid char yields, and flash pyrolysis which gives higher yields

of liquid and gas products; however the reactor can be operated in a number of

different intermediate ways to optimise some parameters as yields, quality, etc.

The liquid obtained from biomass pyrolysis is a complex mixture of

hydrocarbons highly oxygenated with a water content that depends on the

moisture of the feedstock and the reactions involved. This liquid is known as bio-

oil or bio-crude and it may be readily burned, but care has to be taken in storage,

handling and atomisation. These bio-oils have always some undesirable

characteristics that limit its use; in order to improve their characteristics, bio-oils

can undergo an upgrading process.

• Enzymatic hydrolysis: This technique, still at a R&D stage, is a

biological conversion involving enzymes and micro-organisms to produce

ethanol. This primary product can be used to obtain a wide range of secondary

products.


33

1.6. Overview of most Relevant European R&D Results: Biomass EnergyEnd-Uses

The conversion technologies above mentioned are devoted to transform

biomass into more useful energy products. These products can have the following

end-use function: heat, electric power and liquid fuels for transportation.

• Heat can be obtained by direct combustion of biomass as it is done in

the biomass district heating plants. This heat can be used in the domestic sector,

industrial and agriculture. The average size of the systems lies between 1-5 MW,

investment costs are around 1000$/kW. The district heating plant of Lofer

(Austria) is an example of a relatively large system (7 MW). Combustion of wood

has undergone substantial progress in the last decade in the field of domestic

appliances and large collective boilers with automatic feeders.

• Electric power can be obtained by different ways and it is often

coupled with heat co-generation. For example an important biomass-gasification

electricity-generation programme using a combined cycle has been launched in

Finland and has given rise to the THERMIE targeted projects in Denmark,

England and Italy. The aim is to construct three plants of between 8 and 20 MWe,

consuming 50 to 100,000 tonnes of wood per year, and by means of the combined

cycle reaching an electrical efficiency of between 40 and 50%.

• Liquid fuels for transportation can be obtained as well from biomass,

they can be sorted within two groups: alcohol’s, such as ethanol, ETBE, MTBE;

bio-diesel and upgraded pyrolytic oils. Alcoholic fermentation/distillation and

esterification of vegetable oils are both mature technologies while ethanol

production from ligno-cellulose and methanol and gas production from biomass

for fuel cells are still emerging technologies.

This study shows the technical and economic data of three hypothetical combustion

power plants placed in Castilla y Leon, with net electric capacity ranging 10-22 MWe;

net electricity efficiency was found to be 22-25% (table 1.3). The exploitation costs

were 75 ECUs/MWh for a plant of 10 MWe and 58 ECUs/MWh for a plant of 22


34

MWe. This technology has been implemented in large scale and can be regarded as a

mature technology.

Table 1.3. Techno-economic data of three direct combustion hypothetical plants in Castilla y Leon.

BOILER

CAPACITY:

Nominal (MW) 53,5 53,5 103,5

Thermal

efficiency*(%)

85 85 85

NET ELECTRIC

CAPACITY:

MWe 10 10 22

Net Electricity

efficiency (%)

22 22 25

NET THERMAL

CAPACITY

MWth 35,5 35,5 35,5

OPERATION

TIME

hours/year 7000 8070 7000

CAPACITY

FACTOR

% 90 90 90

ENERGY

PRODUCTION:

Electricity

(MWh/y)

63000 72630 138600

Thermal (TJ/y) 714,8 927,0 1496,8

Total (TJ/y) 1078,1 1398,2 2348,0

Total Expenses (ECUs /MWhe) 75 75 58

* Without losses in transport

Four gasification systems have been taking into account: Pressurised

Gasification Combined Cycle (PGCC), Atmospheric Gasification Combined

Cycle (AGCC), Pressurised Steam Injected Gas Turbine (PSIGT), Atmospheric

Gasification Diesel Power (AGDP). Table 1.4. shows efficiencies and operating

costs for plants with nominal capacities ranging 25 to 60 MWe. Many projects

have been developed and many others are currently under development.

Table 1.4. Overall electrical efficiency and operating costs of different gasification systems

Gasification System Overall Efficiency(Electricity)

Operating costsECU(96)/MWh

PGCC 45,1-42,9 51-54

AGCC 40,9-37,4 54-62

AGDP 33,9 72

PSIGT 34,9-28,9 62-66


35

Two pyrolysis systems have been analysed: Pyrolysis Diesel Power

(PYDP) and Pyrolysis with a Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (PYGTCC). The

efficiencies of PYGTCC (46,6-51%) were higher than those of PYDP (42,2%);

also the operating costs of PYGTCC (57-76 ECU(96)/MWh) were found to be

lower than those of PYDP (96-110 ECU(96)/MWh). In Europe there are two good

examples of commercial development of the fast pyrolysis process: The pilot plant

built by ENEL with Ensyn technology of a 650 kg/h transport bed reactor; and the

200 kg/h pilot plant of Union Fenosa sited on Meirama (Galicia, Spain).

1.7. Possible Barriers to the Implementation of Biomass Energy Schemes

A number of potential barriers have been identified which have been grouped

into six main categories, as follows:

1. Political and Legislative Barriers: In Spain there is no specific law dealing

with all aspects of biomass, a matter made worse by the many actors involved

resulting from Spain’s present political and administrative structure. There is

considerable political interest at national level to support REs. A good example is the

National Energy Plan and more specifically the Programa de Energias Renovables

which clearly sets the basis for supporting REs projects together with energy

efficiency, under the direct responsibility of IDAE (Instituto para la Diversificación y

Ahorro de la Energía). Despite the general political willingness to support REs, new

measures may still be necessary to improve collaboration between IDAE, the private

sector and the local communities.

The Autonomous Government of Castilla y Leon is a strong supporter of REs,

and has subsequently enacted the necessary legislation e.g. Law No. 23 16 de

February 1995. A further example are the Red de Centros Tecnológicos Asociados

(RCTA). However, it is not clear if the authorities responsible are willing to provide

the necessary economic and financial resources.

2. Social Barriers: Social acceptability and participation are important

elements for the success of biomass energy plants. Many consumers still regard

biomass energy as the poor man’s fuel, both in the developed and developing


36

countries. Much needs to be done at all levels to change this perception and to show

that bioenergy is a modern energy carrier requiring the application of advanced

technology. Consultation with all parties interested in biomass energy is currently

being conducted.

3. Economic/financial Barriers: This is one of the most important criteria.

Detailed costs analysis are essential. A major constraint for many biomass schemes is

the relatively high cost per unit of output because the small scale nature of most

biomass energy-based projects, high capital and initial investment, high costs of raw

material, low cost of competitive fuel, etc. A major difficulty for biomass schemes is

to find adequate funding because the financial community does not fully understand

what is being proposed. It is well documented that many biomass schemes, although

technically well prepared and costed, often overlook the financial implications. All

these factors have combined in discouraging many potential financial backers and

investors in biomass energy projects. In Spain the cash flow problems have been

particularly serious from an investment point of view because interest rates have

historically been high in comparison to other EU member countries, although this

situation is changing. A further obstacle specific to the Spanish conditions is the

subsidy paid to conventional sources particularly domestic coal.

4. Institutional Barriers: Bureaucratic obstacles can be a major problem

because of the poor understanding that such bureaucracies have about biomass, in

particular those in the conventional energy institutions due the different nature in

which they operate. Integrating new energy sources into the existing energy systems

have always required a long time span. Until quite recently almost all major energy

suppliers were state monopolies or large private corporations which have made it very

difficult for the small independent energy producer to enter the market. This situation

is changing rapidly in Spain where there is an increasing emphasis on privatisation

and open competition. In Soria a specific obstacle can be land ownership since there

is a large number of small farms which are too small for most biomass energy

projects. Setting up co-operatives may be a partial answer but experience shows that

this, sometimes, can be a complicated business.


37

5. Technical Barriers: Given the nature of biomass energy resources e.g. low

energy density, high transportation costs, the dispersed nature, etc., the total biomass

resource should be studied, in the region, in some detail. Accessibility problems due

to physical barriers, transportation systems, grid connection issues, availability of

equipment, skills, etc. needs still to be investigated in more detail. Soria province is

very mountainous making difficult to use forest residues, the most important potential

energy source. In addition, and in spite of the INF-2, much forest data is still needed

to determine real potential resources.

6. Environmental Barriers: All biomass energy schemes have environmental

costs and benefits which need to be quantified and compared with non-biomass

schemes. Public perception of biomass schemes is important and their views on

possible disruption to habitats, ecosystems, conservation areas, visual effects, etc.,

must be taken into consideration. The conditions in Soria point to far greater benefits

than costs. There are differing attitudes when dealing with biomass energy depending

on the type of resources used.

Energy forests/crops. Much data is still needed on the environmental

influences of large-scale plantations. It is recognised, however, that energy

forestry/crops can help to restore ecosystems which have been degraded. For example,

displacement of annual agricultural crops with perennial energy crops appears to be,

in almost all cases, capable of providing substantial environmental benefits such as

greater vegetative cover throughout the year, thereby increasing soil and watershed

protection, as well as improving wildlife.

Residues. The use of waste wood in its various forms presents opportunities to

address a number of economic, energy, and environmental factors. Energy can be

thought of as just one of the many outputs of forests. Forest managers, special interest

groups, and forest user groups advocate different kinds of forest management for

different values and outputs. Depending on their nature and intensity, forest

management practices can increase some forest resources while decreasing others e.g.

pulp in preference to charcoal.


38

2. Definition and Planning of the “Regional Bio-energyTechnological Support Centre”

The aim of this chapter of the report is to define the appropriate and efficient

activities for setting up a “Regional Bioenergy Technical Support Centre”

(BioCentre), to be located in Soria province, and to prepare an action plan for its

implementation to help overcome the existing barriers for biomass energy in the

region of Castilla y Leon. Therefore, this chapter provides a clear and efficient

operational tool to be implemented through activities of the BioCentre, as well as

indicates the technical, organisational, and economic requirements for the centre. A

time schedule for the implementation of the centre is also proposed.

Most of the activities are carried out in the centre because one of the obstacles

to the take up of biomass and the other renewable energy technologies is associated

with the absence of collaboration at regional and local levels. The existence of a

centralised agency or centre with the competence and the resources (financial and

human) for promoting and supporting potential projects will greatly facilitate a greater

utilisation of biomass energy. The BioCentre in Soria could run as an efficient local

operator to contribute to the dissemination and exploitation of biomass R&D results.

An alternative to the establishment of a fully-fledged energy agency at regional/local

level, would be the clear development of a department/section within existing

structures with the competence and resources to carry out the tasks similar to those of

an agency (ECOTEC, 1996). There are several examples of regional energy centres in

Europe from which important lessons can be drown; some of them have been taken as

examples in a survey.

Currently there exists an operative R&D centre in Soria, the “Centro para el

Desarrollo de Energias Renovables” (CEDER), that should constitute the basis of the

proposed centre defined in this study. The advantage of using the same existing

infrastructures at CEDER is twofold, as it would require far lower costs, and,

secondly, a synergy would be created with existing know-how that would be mutually

beneficial for both centres. The relationship between the CEDER and the proposed

centre is described in section 2.6.


39

Section 2.1. assesses a survey of a limited, but representative, Regional

Centres or Agencies of similar characteristics in Europe. This preliminary

“benchmarking” is an useful exercise in the identification of the best solutions, means

and tools to ensure that the activities of Soria’s BioCentre are successfully

implemented, and to avoid possible errors and risks, typical of start-up activities, and

the un-referred elaboration of strategic and managerial planning.

Section 2.2. identifies the main barriers that hinder a wider use of bio-energy

in the region are matches them with general strategies or solutions, to overcome these

barriers, which could contribute to the dissemination and exploitation of biomass as

energy source, throughout the activities of the BioCentre.

Specific activities to implement the solutions previously proposed are outlined

in section 2.3. these activities of definition of the centre include:

Section 2.3.1. considers the specific Communication, Dissemination and

Diffusion activities needed to develop and maintain relationships and communication

flows with the public authorities, local entrepreneurs, farming communities and the

European sources of RD&D information, as well as other International and National

Biomass Energy Networks. Recognising that training efforts are one of the best ways

to diffuse know-how among entrepreneurial, scientific, and public environments, the

establishment of thematic courses is taken into account and analysed as well in this

section.

Technological Support activities are pointed out in section 2.3.2. This includes

the identification of priority lines and the best type of biomass projects to be

promoted and supported by the BioCentre.

The identification of possible activities to favour the commercial exploitation

of RD&D results and the other commercial available know-how is presented in

section 2.3.3.

Section 2.4. deals with the resources, or means, and their characteristics

required by the centre to accomplish its role. Section 2.5. presents an action plan

consisting of three different investment scenarios and a time schedule for its


40

implementation. Finally, Section 2.6. describes the relationship between the proposed

centre and the CEDER.

2.1. Survey of Renewable Energy Centres in Europe

A survey of the most representative European Centres of similar

characteristics to the proposed one was carried out to identify the pros and cons of

such centres and their potential relevance, usefulness, pitfalls, and lessons that could

be learned in the implementation of the BioCentre at Soria.

Regional agencies for energy and environment are concerned with energy

management and the utilisation of natural resources and waste. In this way, and for a

sustainable development, they serve to protect the environment, the local economy

and national and regional development. The emphasis of their work is placed on the

rational use of energy and the development of local energy sources. Among them

there are many devoted to renewable energies and some of them are devoted almost

exclusively to biomass.

These agencies offer advice and technical assistance to local communities,

small and medium-sized companies and industries, the world of agriculture,

associations and individuals. They constitute a real force of opportunity for all socio-

economic actors in their region.

About 70 such centres were contacted of which only 9 replied to the request,

the list below shows the name of those organisations.

• Energieinstitut Voralberg

• Regional Agency Biomass Energy (Erbe)

• Association Suisse Pour L’energie Du Bois (Aseb)

• Regional Energy Agency Of Crete

• The Styrian Energy Agency

• Association Regionale Biomasse Normandie

• Okoplan

• Association Jurassienne pour la difussion des energies alternatives,AJENA

• Institut Technique Europeen du bois energie,ITEBE


41

• Irish Energy

The countries that are large users of biomass energy (Austria, Belgium,

Switzerland, France and Norway) showed the greatest willingness to reply to the

request of information. A common characteristic of these centres or agencies was their

specific role in promoting biomass energy. Their general objectives with regard to

biomass energy are summarised below.

Information dissemination. This regards one of the key activities and it is

carried out by means of publications, such as newsletters, information campaigns, a

web site, workshops, meetings, visits, etc.

Training and education, such activities consist of courses, seminars, etc. and

are carried out by some of the centres. These courses are both about general and

specific aspects of biomass energy.

Other general activities include advise about biomass energy issues, including

consulting and auditing, answering specific questions from potential users, etc.. In

addition, some of the centres give technical support or assistance to the setting up of

projects. Most of the centres, as well, have a supportive or authoritative role to

collaborate in defining the local or regional energy planning. This is important as it

allows the centre to give advice to the local/regional authorities of how best

implement policies that favour of biomass energy in the region.

Bioenergy databases receive support in some centres with the aim of

facilitating contacts among key actors. Creating and maintaining a relationship or a

communication channel among the policy and economic key-actors is also important,

particularly if such centres act as a liaison centre.

In general, most of the centres are fully or partially publicly-funded (e.g. EU,

national, regional/local authorities) and some of them carry out the management of

funds available for bioenergy projects, by special promotion programmes giving

financing help, and subventions. The research of financing solutions and financial

arrangements for potential projects is a very interesting activity as this is one of the

main barriers for project developers.


42

RD&D activities are carried out by some of the centres and addressed mainly

to energy efficiency. Techno-economic feasibility studies of different scopes are also

an integral part of the workload of some of these centres.

Some of these centres have reached good results e.g. biomass heating projects,

most of which addressed to both domestic and industrial sectors. One of the best

results in terms of biomass use, have been achieved by Energieinstitut Voralberg,

ASEB, the Styrian agency, and AJENA who have made possible the installation of a

large number of biomass systems within their areas. In these centres it has been very

important the availability of public funds e.g. subsidies, which have played a key role

in the development and implementation of commercial projects.

The centres surveyed did not provided exhaustive or sufficient information on

financing issues; nevertheless there are centres that are self-financing due to the fact

that their financial sources are contracts with public institutions.

Table 2.1. shows the activities that have been found to be the most relevant in

these centres:

Table 2.1.: Main activities carried out by Regional Biomass Energy

Centres of Similar Characteristics to the Proposed BioCentre in Soria.

Relevant activities

Spreading of information

Training and educational activities

Advising

Technical support

Helping to define energy planning policy

Bioenergy databases

Liaison centre

Management of funds

Research of financing solutions

RD&D

Feasibility studies


43

2.2. Suggested Solutions for Overcoming the Existing Barriers

The aim of this section is to identify the role that the centre may have to

overcome the barriers that hinder a wider implementation of biomass systems in the

region and thus a better exploitation of the available resources. These barriers have

already been described in chapter 1 of the project (pp. 31-33), but are briefly

mentioned here for comparison with proposed strategies.

Obviously, not all the barriers can be addressed from the centre as there are

some of them whose solution is out of the competencies of the centre. The following

section (2.3) regards the definition of specific activities to carry out these strategies.

The lack of information is one of the most important problems affecting all the

actors involved, as it raised during the visit in Soria. These actors who play a key role

in the development of bioenergy projects are:

• Regional and Local authorities, since they have to provide public

support for biomass energy also from an economic point of view,

• Industrialists and entrepreneurs, since they have to be convinced of

the economic advantages of biomass energy,

• Farming communities, since they also need to be convinced of the

opportunity of increasing their incomes through bioenergy,

• The financing sector, since they have to understand clearly the risks

and implications of such projects,

• Technicians , since they have to acquire know how on biomass energy

projects,

• The general public, since they have to acquire understanding of the

potential benefits deriving from bioenergy, both from the environmental and

economic viewpoint.

It is particularly important to establish communication channels between the

actors and to provide them with access to national and international information on


44

bioenergy related issues. To improve this situation the centre should carry out

communication and diffusion activities in order to provide all parties involved with

information on biomass energy. An information campaign is proposed to a targeted

audience for all the key actors, with specific information apart from general

awareness. It is important that information is precise and clear to avoid

misunderstandings.

Education is also essential when taking up a new system. Formation of

technicians, farmers, project developers, managers, entrepreneurs, etc. would be

necessary as they have to learn how to growth new crops, techniques, designs,

operating, maintaining, economic issues, etc.. A modular training programme

should be set up in the centre to allow a better understanding of biomass issues.

Social barriers are important as there are different points of view, approaches,

values, priorities and interests. Social acceptability and participation are essential for

the success of biomass energy plants; therefore a campaign of basic awareness

information and rising sensibility should be useful in order to get the social actors

involved in biomass schemes. For example, in order to get the backing of

environmental associations, they should be encouraged to participate in the activities,

evaluating the possible benefits and damages related to biomass energy.

Financial barriers are due to the technical risk and the high investment

(capital) costs. It is often a major difficulty to find adequate funding, even more, that

the financial community understands what is being proposed. A possible solution for

these problems could be an adequate campaign of rising awareness towards the local

authorities and economic actors. In addition the centre could provide the necessary

advice and information to potential project developers to assist them in the

preparation of the business plan to be submitted to a financial organisation in a

manner which sets out all the information a financier requires and is in a form they

can understand. This will enhance the possibility of projects been accepted.

The Local and Regional authorities can play a key role in overcoming existing

problems related to legislation or regulation. One problem is that often these

authorities are not familiar with renewable energies. The centre could be a recognised


45

organism acting as an advisor to define the energy policies in order to promote the

development of bioenergy, and remove legislative barriers or regulations that hinder

the deployment of biomass energy in the region.

Operating costs is a major constrain for many biomass schemes as the cost per

unit of output is relatively high. Often there are not economic benefits in selling or

using biomass energy under present economic schemes, or margins are so small that

they make the operation risky. Subsidies are needed to make biomass energy

competitive with fossil fuels, at least at a first stage. At this point, authorities play a

key role in supporting economically, not only publicly, biomass energy.

Technical barriers are from different nature. Generally, technological

improvements would be desirable in order to make biomass competitive. For

example, the lack of standardisation of biomass fuels complicates the development of

more efficient technologies as the design is almost exclusive for every particular

project, consequently the cost of the projects increases. The nature of biomass energy

usually requires costly storage; and their disperse nature makes necessary high

transportation costs. In addition, pre-treatment, conversion and utilisation processes

are as well costly. All these barriers could be addressed through the implementation of

technological support activities in the centre. Technological support could be

offered by the centre to help all the actors (industries, collectives such as schools,

communes, particulars, public regional and local authorities, etc.) in setting up a

biomass-energy project. This could include techno-economic feasibility studies and

advice on biomass energy, and may require detail studies of biomass availability in

the region.

Table 2.2. Summary of section 2.2.

Barrier Solution

Information Communication and diffusion activities

Social Information and sensibilization

Formation Training programme

Economics / financing Rising awareness, advises.

Legislative Advice to local authorities

Technology Technological support.


46

2.3. Designing of the BioCentre

The proposed Centre should mainly act promoting the bridge of RD&D results

to commercial applications. The Centre’s role of helping the process of technology

transfer is considerably important since this is one of the priority issues for European

innovation and competitiveness, its importance is reflected in many EU policies, and

particularly those for industrial, regional development, co-operation, and RTD.

Considering, for example, that for the latter, the importance of technology transfer -

which is already stressed in the 4th EU RTD Framework Programme (1994-1998)-

has been reaffirmed and emphasised in the contents of the recent proposal presented

by the commission for the 5th RTD Framework Programme (1998-2002). In this

proposal, the beneficial links between technology transfer, innovation and SMEs is

even more evident than in the past. The promotion of REs through the diffusion and

transfer of R&D results is also strongly emphasised in the white paper on REs (EC,

26/11/97).

This study considers that CEDER would provide the centre with initial

scientific and technical facilities to enable the centre to provide support to potential

commercial projects. In Section 2.6. it is discussed a different scenario in which

CEDER would be unable to provide these facilities.

In this section specific activities for the implementation of the proposed

solutions are described. These have been grouped, according to their nature as

follows:

2.3.1. Communication, Dissemination, and Diffusion activities

This section deals with the identification of activities, to be carried out by the

centre, which are needed to develop and maintain relationships and communication

flows with the public authorities, local entrepreneurs, farmer communities, and the

European sources of RD&D information as well as other International and National

Biomass Energy Networks. The lack of information is one of the main barriers to

biomass energy development and use in Soria. The following activities are proposed:


47

• CDD 1. Liaison and information centre

Liaison centre between industry, business community, local authorities,

and individuals. The objective is to meet regularly to discuss how the

regional/local energy plan can be implemented through the activities of the other

market actors. In this way, a co-ordinated and cost effective strategy can be

developed which harness the power of the market actors in terms of making things

happen within local industry. In addition, other programmes can be set up to

exchange experiences in the field between different organisations, e.g. University

and Industry.

Technology monitoring. A technology monitoring service by which the

centre would be permanently updated about any emerging technology, new

processes, crops, techniques, executed projects, etc., in other words, the state-of-

the-art in biomass energy. The flow of information needed for this service would

be obtained from publications, electronic networks, etc. Therefore it will be

important to be presented in the mailing lists of all the relevant organisations. This

service would allow as well the access to specialised databases, expert advises,

etc..

Permanent information point where industrials as well as private bodies

or local communities can freely ask any information or advice about the use of

biomass as energy.

Technical visits to biomass plants, which would consist of visiting a

successful case study in order to convince the potential users of the economic and

technical feasibility of biomass plants. It can be learned a lot as well from failures

of biomass plants. This has been proven to help understand the nature of the

projects, their scale, risks involved, and the fact that they are “real” commercial

projects, not R&D facilities.

Personal visits to the key actors could help them realise biomass

opportunities and advice them in how to move forward in order to develop their

ideas.


48

• CDD 2. Dissemination

Several activities can be identified under this heading:

Workshops and seminars could be organised in the centre in order to

share information and to better know the needs and opportunities of potential

biomass users. These events will gather representatives of all the sectors and

experts from other regions. From these workshops, new strategies and specific

activities to implement them could arise.

A periodic bulletin could be published by the centre aiming at informing

potential users of emerging technologies, improvements in costs, projects under

development, etc. This bulletin could be distributed among a targeted audience,

for example those potential users of biomass. Previously, it is necessary to

identify all those who could be potential users. The publication could consist of

few pages identifying what is more important, and there could be an English

version to be sent to international organisations. Additional information about

how to move forward could also be provided. The publication of leaflets can be

also considered.

A web page of the centre on Internet could be created in order to let the

general public know any news related to biomass. This web page could include a

general presentation of the centre, the activities that they develop, general

information on biomass, links to the databases of the centre and of other

organisations, etc.. It would be periodically updated.

A publicity programme could, when possible, be implemented through a

local media campaign (e.g.: radio, press, etc.) to inform the general public about

the benefits of biomass and inform them on the existence of the centre. This

information should consist mainly of the following points: i) Renewable energy

use, ii) Environmental benefits, iii) Reduction of dependence on fossil fuels, iv)

Improvement of farmers economy, v) Social benefits (including employment).

The campaign could be, for example, by means of giving a brochure together with

the local newspaper, an advert on the local TV, or the broadcasting of a biomass

conference by the local radio.


49

Expositions and presence in events. Publicity by means of expositions at

local/regional University will help to raise awareness in the students community

on biomass issues. These expositions should inform, at a basic level, about

biomass issues and would help the students get involved in biomass energy

schemes. It would be interesting to be present in major events such as fairs, trade

expositions, etc. setting up a stand or similar in order to become more known.

These activities could be sponsored by industries, companies, and public

authorities.

• CDD 3. Training activities

The organisation of courses and technical seminars on biomass issues

addressed to industrials, farmers, technicians, etc. is essential to get a good degree

of diffusion. The following activities are proposed:

Thematic courses. These can be organised in the centre aiming at the

training of post-graduate students. The two main areas to be covered by these

courses are: i) basic principles, e.g.: technologies regarding cropping, harvesting,

collection, pre-treatments, conversion processes, and end-use energy systems. ii)

commercial opportunities from biomass energy, e.g.: financing, economics,

accounting, strategy, human resources management, marketing, etc. For example,

at present, CEDER has a 10 days course on biomass energy, e.g. opportunities and

applications of biomass energy, potential agricultural and industrial applications,

environmental and social impacts, etc..

Short courses. For the formation of industrials, farmers, technicians, etc..

The future centre could develop specific courses in biomass applied technologies

needed to implement R&D commercial activities (e.g. specific courses about

operating different biomass systems; gasification, pyrolysis, fluidised reactors,

etc.). The subjects of these courses can be determined within the same groups as

the thematic courses, i.e. biomass as a business and biomass as technology and

systems.


50

Exchange of personnel with other laboratories. It is important to provide

the personnel and the activities with a high scientific level, and to improve the

competitiveness of the centre; this can be achieved through a complete training of

its professionals in relevant laboratories in their scope of work.

Sharing access to the facilities. The centre could share the access to its

facilities with universities and other organisations, by mutual agreement of those

involved.

2.3.2. Technological Support Activities.

This section is to identify the possible technological support activities to be

undertaken in the centre. These activities are those aiming at answering questions but

that involve some tests and/or experiments. Technological support can be

commissioned by potential biomass users, developers, financiers, etc.. The main

objective of these projects is to provide the customers with answers to their particular

requests.

From another point of view, these activities have the objective of, firstly,

acting as a mobilising action as it shows the feasibility of the systems; and secondly it

is useful to provide the centre with the appropriate technological capacity.

The lines that have been taken into account for Technological Support

activities are:

• TS 1. Technological support for the adaptation of existing

technologies

This activity has the objective of adapting to the particular bioenergy

system requirements the existing available technologies. It can be quoted as

examples the search of the best solutions for the feeding system of an existing

boiler conventionally fuelled, or the determination of the profitability of using a

determined resource, etc.


51

• TS 2. Technological support for the adoption of new technologies

This activity has the aim of answering any potential user questions related

to emerging, or not yet available, technologies, in order to facilitate the adoption

of these new technologies.

Gasification, Bioethanol, and Pyrolysis are appearing as promising

technologies for conversion to be included in this activity. Furthermore, it is also

considered new harvesting, pre-treatment, drying, waste disposal, etc.

technologies. This could include the support of demonstration activities, at a pre-

commercial scale, of a given new technology.

• TS 3. Technological support for the adoption of biomass raw

materials

This activity would carry out complete tests of selected materials,

available in the region, aiming at determining optimal operating parameters,

energy consumption, etc.. This would include pre-treatment (chipping, drying,

briquetting, pelleting, etc.), the determination of the most adequate type of boiler

(e.g. the adaptation of the present commercially most used technology,

combustion), the best operating conditions for the particular biomass material and

the particular end-use, etc..

In connection with this line it is interesting to carry out some activities on

standardisation of biomass resources and combustion conditions. It is considered

that a centre of these characteristics should not be directly involved in research but

the centre could be supported in these activities by the CEDER.

For example, a research line of great importance at this moment is the

fluidised bed combustion; this line would investigate operating parameters,

optimal conditions for different types of biomass, efficiency, design

improvements, etc. in order to get higher energy production, lower costs and

minimal environmental impact. Standardisation would investigate both resources

and products, with, for example, the implementation of a briquettes index, the


52

tendency of ash fouling and slugging, etc.. The access to these backgrounds of

technology developments is essential to provide adequate technical support.

• TS 4. Technological support for the adoption of energy crops

The aim of this line is to demonstrate technical and economical feasibility

of energy crops, making trials of large crops in order to assess the behaviour of the

R&D results in the real life; this would include also the promotion of these crops

and the involvement of farmers by talking to them.

This activity would allow the centre to provide potential users with

answers regarding to questions such as what crop is best suited for the final end-

use required; what conditions are the most adequate to get high biomass

production and low cost, etc.

In relation to this line, and within the framework described in TS 3, it

could be considered the realisation of an activity of R&D on energy crops; this

would research, in limited areas of land, species not well known, as well as

growing techniques, designing of improved techniques of harvesting and storage,

and low environmental impact techniques, such as minimal amount of fertilisers

or herbicides, etc.

This services could be financed by the client who makes the request (co-

operatives of farmers, enterprises, companies, etc.), for example under a technological

support contract, and/or by European Community funds adequate to this purpose,

such as, for instance, the Thermie programme.

2.3.3. Exploitation activities

Within the activities to be carried out by the centre, exploitation actions

appear among the most important activities due to the fact that they deal with the

possible implementation at a commercial level of RD&D results on biomass use field.

It is proposed that the BioCentre in Soria carry out the following activities:


53

• EA 1. Quantification of resources

This service should be able to identify and quantify biomass resources in

determined areas and should include data on the biomass energy balance to

determine the possibilities of implementing commercial exploitation activities in

different zones of the region.

• EA 2. Characterisation of biomass resources

Determining chemical, physical and energy characteristics. Such analysis

will allow to develop and determine the more suitable solutions from a techno-

economic point of view, for the different types of biomass considered (e.g.

suitability of animal manure, agroforestry residues, energy crops, etc.).

• EA 3. Assessing programmes

The centre should be able to undertake specific assessing services for

public and private bodies and individuals. Consultant service should take into

account specific requirements of final users, as follows:

a) Public and residents’ associations. This area would be focused

on the implementation of biomass energy technology for buildings, district

heating systems as well as the development of specific programmes for the

promotion of biomass uses showing their techno-economic profitability.

For the public, the centre could include general consulting in biomass field

issues like the state-of-the-art of different technologies as well as the

potential of its use in the region in order to increase the knowledge of the

general public about this renewable energy source.

b) Entrepreneurs & SMEs. This program would be focused on

industrial activities related to wood transformation processes as well as

activities in the field of agriculture and livestock. In the industrial sector,

the centre would focus the studies on the use of wood residues generated in

the own processes (e.g. co-generation systems fuelled by wood and wood

residues). The centre should assist industries that want to develop these


54

energy schemes, helping them in finding the more suitable technologies to

be installed. Moreover the centre could include, when possible, the

implementation of co-operatives that can promote the use of the

agricultural residues generated at small scale (e.g. a network for collecting

these residues to be used in a large conversion plant).

c) Companies and large enterprises. Within this area, the centre

would assist large users of biomass feedstocks (e.g. utilities) in the area,

increasing the knowledge that these companies have about the local

environment trying to develop collaborative programs between them and

small producer of biomass.

d) Regional/local authorities. The centre should assist the

regional/local authorities to develop specific programmes and policies to

promote the use of biomass energy, including the application of new

technological developments.

The centre should propose to carry out feasibility studies in order to

evaluate the resources, potential profitability, and technical possibilities of their

projects. A feasibility study consists of:

1. Identifying energy needs

2. Quantifying and qualifying resources

3. Identifying the optimal technical way(s): resource, transportation,

preparation, storage, conversion technologies and applications

4. Putting in contact all biomass partners: boilers and grinders

manufacturers, local authorities, consultants, banks or third financing parties,

etc.

5. Estimating the economics and looking for financial solutions

6. Following up the projects

7. Advising and advertising.


55

Feasibility studies could be done not only under request but also

independently in order to promote the use of biomass energy systems.

A summary of the activities that have been proposed in this section is shown

in table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Summary of the proposed activities for the BioCentre.

Reference Activity

CDD 1 Liaison and Information Centre

CDD 2 Dissemination

CDD 3 Training activities

TS 1 Technological Support for the Adaptation of Existing technologies

TS 2 Technological Support for the Adoption of New technologies

TS 3 Technological Support for the Adoption of Biomass Materials

TS 4 Technological Support for the Adoption of Energy Crops

EA 1 Quantification of Resources

EA 2 Characterisation of Biomass Resources

EA 3 Assessing Programmes

2.4. Resources needed for the specific activities

This section is to estimate the requirements, in terms of personnel, investments

for equipment and infrastructures, and operating costs associated to the activities to be

carried out in the BioCentre in order to make an estimation of the total annual costs.

The means needed follow the same structure as the definition of the different

actions (Communication, Dissemination and Diffusion activities (CDD),

Technological Support activities (TS), and Exploitation activities (EA)) evaluating

additional labour, equipment, infrastructures, etc. for each activity, starting from the

current means of the CEDER.

This evaluation is carried out developing a preliminary budget with general

overview of the prices/investments needed for these resources. Nevertheless, this

preliminary economic evaluation should be analysed and separated in detail once all

the specific means have been well established. Moreover, the budget for each activity

is developed into three different levels of intensity (low, medium, high), with different


56

levels of investment and costs. Later, in section 2.5., the study includes three

scenarios of investment (low, medium and high investment) and the resources needed

for their implementation.

2.4.1. Manpower

Four different skill levels are considered to classify the personnel working in

the centre: senior graduate (corresponding to a high level degree with some 10-15

years of experience), junior graduate (high level degree with less experience),

technician (medium level degree), and administrative staff . The annual costs,

excluding overheads, of each of these categories are shown in table 2.4.

Table 2.4. Annual costs of the personnel, overheads excluded. (KECU/year)

Category Cost (KECU/year)

Senior graduate (SG) 38

Junior graduate (JG) 24

Technician (T) 18

Administrative Staff (AS) 16

Source: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998)

The following table shows the labour needed for each activity, or group of

activities, depending on the intensity (low, medium, high) in which the activity is

developed.

Data are given by groups of four figures which indicates the labour needed of

each category (i.e.: Senior graduate (SG) / Junior graduate (JG) / Technician(T) /

Administrative Staff (AS)).


57

Table 2.5. Personnel needed by activity, intensity of the activity and category of personnel. (*)

Intensity of the activity

Ref. Activity LOW

(SG/JG/T/AS)

MEDIUM

(SG/JG/T/AS)

HIGH

(SG/JG/T/AS)

CD&D activities 1/1/0/0 0/0/0/1 0/0/0/0

CDD 1 Liaison Centre 0/0/0/0 0/1/0/0 1/1/0/1

CDD 2 Workshops and seminars 0/0/0/0 1/1/0/0 1/1/0/0

CDD 3 Training 0/0/0/0 1/0/0/0 1/1/0/0

Technological Support and Demonstration 1/1/0/0 1/0/0/1 0/0/0/1

TS 1 Adaptation of existing tech. 0/0/1/0 0/1/2/0 1/2/3/0

TS 2 Adoption of new technologies 0/0/1/0 0/1/1/0 1/1/2/0

TS 3 Adoption of materials 0/0/1/0 0/1/1/0 1/2/3/0

TS 4 Adoption of Energy crops 0/0/1/0 0/1/1/0 1/1/2/0

Exploitation Activities 1/0/0/1 0/0/0/1 0/0/0/1

EA 1 Quantification of resources 0/0/1/0 0/1/1/0 1/1/1/0

EA 2 Analysis of biomass 1/1/1/0 1/1/2/0 1/1/3/0

EA 3 Assessing Programmes 0/1/0/0 1/4/0/0 1/5/0/1

SG: Senior graduateJG: Junior graduateT: TechnicianAS: Administrative staffSource: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998)(*) additional to the existing personnel of CEDER

CDD activities is the group of activities with less requirements in terms of

personnel, this is mainly because there is no need of technicians due to the fact that no

work in the laboratory is carried out. The maximum number of people working in this

area has been estimated in 7, when all the activities are carried out at the high level of

intensity.

The staff needed to develop the activities of technological support (TS) is the

most numerous due mainly to the needs of technicians. At a high level of activity

about 20 people are needed to carry out the work.

In the exploitation activities (EA), for low intensity of activity, a senior

graduate will be responsible of the management of the exploitation actions as well as

an office worker will carry out the administration activities. Moreover, in this


58

intensity, another senior graduate is required to manage and co-ordinate the activities

related to EA2, characterisation of biomass resources, with the collaboration a junior

graduate and a technician for the works carried out in the laboratory. In the case of the

medium and the high intensity scenario, the staff is reinforced with junior graduate for

each specific department of the assessing programme and with the incorporation of

more administrative staff for the extra work to carry out.

2.4.2. Investment costs

In relation to the scheme of staff, the following table shows the investment

required for infrastructures for each intensity scenario. Care should be taken, when

reading these data, as if an activity was previously being carried out at a lower level

the necessary investment costs to carry out the activity at a higher level would be the

difference between them.

Table 2.6. Investment costs required for each activity, or group of activities,according to the intensity at which is carried out (KECU).

INVESTMENT COSTS (KECU) Low int. Med. Int. High int.Communication, Dissemination and Diffusion activities 8 14 10 CDD1. Liaison and information centre 0 4 12 CDD2. Workshops, seminars, etc. 0 4 4

Workshops and seminars 0 4 4Periodic bulletin 0,5 0,75 1

Web page 0,75 1,5 2Publicity programme 0,6 0,8 1,2

CDD3. Training activities 0 4 12 Technological Support and Demonstration activities 12 12 6 TS1. Tech. support for existing technologies 13 41 69 TS2. Tech. support for new technologies 3 9 12 TS3. Tech. support for adoption of materials 10 26 45 TS4. Tech. support for energy crops 3 15 24Exploitation activities 8 4 4 EA1. Quantification of resources 4 8 12 EA2. Analysis of biomass resources 12 16 20 EA3. Assessing programmes 4 4 12

Public and residents’ associations 0 4 4Entrepreneurs & SMEs 0 4 4Companies and large enterprises 0 4 4Regional/local authorities 0 4 4



59

2.4.3. Annual Operating Costs

In order to carry out the evaluation of the maintenance and operating costs,

excluding the labour costs, an extrapolation of usual yields had been made for

consulting and engineering companies (Salas, 1995). According to these data, the

consulting companies tend to show a rate between 60-80% of labour costs and 8-10%

for the operating costs of the total production of incomes. So, an average of 66%

approx. for labour costs and 9.5% approx. have been used for the estimation.

According to this, the operating costs would be of about the 15% of the costs in

personnel.

2.5. Scenarios of investment and action plan

Three possible options are analysed in this study; it must be borne in mind that

intermediate scenarios, between these three, could be also considered. The specific

activities proposed in section 2.3. are classified in these scenarios by priorities:

a) A basic option which is the minimum necessary to make an

adequate impact; this is to be identified as the “low investment scenario”,

b) a number of additional optional activities that make the centre more

interesting although more costly; this is “medium investment scenario”,

c) “high investment scenario” includes all the proposed activities.

For each activity an indication of the intensity along the time with which

should be carried out is also provided. The time horizon has been divided in the first

year, second and third year, and the fourth year. During the second and third year, the

costs and the intensity would be the same.

As previously said, in this study it will be considered that the facilities needed

to offer technological support are available at CEDER; in section 2.6. it is discussed

what would be the situation if CEDER could not provide the centre with the

appropriate capacity.


60

It must be highlighted that any initiative or scenario for the BioCentre should

be made with the agreement, collaboration, and support of the local/regional

authorities and the industrial and social associations.

In addition it should be stated that some services offered by the BioCentre

could recover money which, in part, can refund the investment and operational costs

of the centre.

2.5.1. Low investment

They are the minimum activities to be carried out in order to make an adequate

impact in the region. The following table shows the nature of the activities and a

timing for their implementation. In this scenario the emphasis is put on the activities

of liaison centre and the technological support activity of adoption of existing

technologies.

Table 2.7. Low investment activitiesReference Activity 1st year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year

CDD 1 Liaison Centre ** ** ***

CDD 2 Dissemination * * *

TS 1 Existing technologies * ** **

TS 3 Adoption of materials * * **

EA 3 Assessing Programmes * ** **

* = Low intensity

** = Medium intensity

*** = High intensity

According to the activities, and their intensity, to be developed in this scenario

the labour needed for the low investment scenario is shown below:

Table 2.8. Personnel needed along the time for the low investment scenario (*)1st year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year

Senior graduates 3 3 4

Junior graduates 2 7 8

Technicians 2 3 3

Administrative staff 1 3 3

Total 8 16 18

Source: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998)(*) Independent from, or additional to, the existing personnel of CEDER


61

The total costs along the time would be, expressed in KECU/year:


62

Table 2.9. Total annual costs for the low investment scenario (KECU/year) (*)

1st yr. 2nd yr. 3rd yr. 4th yr.

Labour costs 214 384 384 446Operating costs 32 58 58 67Investment costs 52 38 38 25 From 5th yr. on

Total annual costs 298 480 480 538 513

Source: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998)(*) Cost of amortisation, inflation and interest are not considered

2.5.2. Medium investment

This include a number of additional activities. In this scenario, the

intensification of the CDD activities, technological support, and exploitation actions

are the main characteristics, as they make the cost rise.

The table below includes the activities to be developed in this scenario and an

indication of the intensity along the time.

Table 2.10. Medium investment activities

Reference Activity 1st year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year

CDD 1 Liaison Centre ** ** ***

CDD 2 Dissemination ** ** **

CDD 3 Training ** ** **

TS 1 Existing technologies ** *** ***

TS 3 Adoption of materials * ** **

TS 4 Energy crops * ** **

EA 1 Quantification of resources * ** ***

EA 2 Characterisation of resources * ** ***

EA 3 Assessing Programmes ** ** ***

* = Low intensity



In this scenario the requirements of personnel are much higher than

previously, specially because the centre would need some technicians to develop the

additional activities of technological support.


63

Table 2.11. Manpower needed for the medium investment scenario (*)

1st year 2nd and 3rd

year

4th year



Technicians 5 8 9


Total 18 27 32


The total costs along the time are:

Table 2.12. Total annual costs for the medium investment scenario (KECU/year) (*)

1st year 2nd yr. 3rd yr. 4th yr.

Labour costs 472 622 622 794Operating costs 71 93 93 119investment costs 130 43 43 26 From 5th yr. on

Total annual costs 673 758 758 939 913


2.5.3. High investment

This includes all the proposed activities. In this case, the reinforcement of the

other activities are the main characteristics of this complete scenario. The activities

and their intensity to be developed in the centre are shown below.

Table 2.13. High investment scenario activitiesReference Activity 1st year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year

CDD 1 Liaison Centre *** *** ***

CDD 2 Dissemination ** ** ***

CDD 3 Training ** ** ***

TS 1 Existing technologies *** *** ***

TS 2 New technologies * ** ***

TS 3 Adoption of materials ** *** ***

TS 4 Energy crops * ** ***

EA 1 Quantification of resources ** ** ***

EA 2 Characterisation of resources ** ** ***


64

Reference Activity 1st year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year

EA 3 Assessing Programmes ** *** ***

* = Low intensity



The manpower needed for this scenario of investment, is displayed in the

following table:

Table 2.14. Manpower needed for the high investment scenario (*)

1st. year 2nd and 3rd year 4th year



Technicians 9 11 14


Total 29 37 45


This investment scenario has costs much higher than the others due mainly to

the requirements of personnel. The total costs along the time are:

Table 2.15. Total annual costs for the high investment scenario (KECU/year) (*)

1st yr. 2nd yr. 3rd yr. 4th yr.

Labour costs 702 888 888 1096Operating costs 105 133 133 164Investment costs 179 34 34 24 From 5th yr. on

Total costs 986 1055 1055 1284 1260



65

2.5.4. Analysis of the relationship between the direct employment and thetotal costs for the different investment scenarios

The proposed scenarios have different levels of costs and different effects on

direct job creation; this is analysed in this section. It should be borne in mind that

other scenarios, representing intermediate options between these three could be also

considered and analysed. In order to assess the best option, indirect impacts (in terms

of employment, environment, economic, etc.) must be evaluated and balanced; this is

properly addressed in chapter 3.

Currently, the staff of CEDER is of about 20 people; the proposed investment

scenarios would increase the number of people working in the centre along the first

four years. Table 2.16. shows the total manpower needed in the proposed centre, apart

from those currently working at CEDER, for the three different levels of investment.

As it can be seen, the low investment scenario would need an additional staff of 8

people the first year, and this quantity is doubled during the second and third year.

The medium investment scenario would initially need more than twice the personnel

of the previous one, and would rise steadily during the following three years. The high

investment scenario would need 29 people the first year and would increase up to 45

the fourth year.

As it can be seen, in the fourth year, the time horizon of the study, the number

of people needed is increased by about 15 when we move from an investment level to

an upper one; this is consistent with a lineal approach given to the different

investment scenarios. It is worth noting that the limits of manpower would be a

minimum of 18 (for the low investment scenario) and a maximum of 45 (for the high

investment scenario) although this amount could be increased after the fourth year.

Table 2.16. Comparison of manpower requirements

Investment First year Second and third year Fourth yearLow 8 16 18Medium 18 27 32High 29 37 45


(*) Independent from, or additional to, the existing personnel of CEDER


66

From the point of view of direct job creation the option of high investment

scenario is the one in which more people are working. This must be interpreted

carefully as it is a bad indicator of the BioCentre benefits since a exponential and

artificial job creation due, mainly, to public expenditure needs solid justification for

their eventual positive impact in the real economy and society (i.e. indirect impact).

Chart 2.1. shows the needs of personnel along the first four years.

1st yr. 2nd&3rd yr. 4th yr.0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Tot

al s

taff

1st yr. 2nd&3rd yr. 4th yr.

Chart 2.1. Comparision of Manpower Requirements for the different Investment Scenarios

Low

Medium

High

In terms of total costs is obvious that the most costly is the high investment

scenario. In the first year the cost is double higher from the low scenario to the

medium. The initial cost for the centre in the high investment scenario is four times

higher than that for low scenario investment.

The results of chapter 3 provide a better appreciation of the efficiency of each

investment scenario, according to the potential and feasibility targets of the bioenergy

penetration in the regional energy system, and the foreseeable needs (also satisfiable

by the BioCentre) to reach the given targets.

Table 2.17. and chart 2.2 show the total annual costs for the three different

scenarios of investment.


67

Table 2.17. Comparison of total annual costs (KECU)

Investment 1st yr. 2nd yr 3rd yr. 4th yr. From 4th yr. onLow 285 466 466 513 513Medium 673 758 758 939 913High 986 1055 1055 1284 1260


Low Medium High0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

KE

CU

s

Low Medium High

Chart 2.2. Comparision of annual costs for the different investment scenarios (KECUs)

1st yr.

2nd yr.

3rd yr.

4th yr.

2.6. Relationship between the Centre and the CEDER

For this study it has been assumed that the facilities and know-how available

at CEDER can be utilised, by the centre that has been defined.

A centre for the diffusion and technological support needs scientific and

technical skills in order to be able to efficiently accomplish the services that it should

provide; therefore it is necessary to have access to current and promising technology

and know-how, including also from R&D activities. This can be achieved by, mainly,

three different ways:


68

1. To benefit from the present know how, and the future development of

the CEDER in S&T capabilities,

2. The proposed centre can have access to the technical and technological

support and know-how from universities and other public and commercial

organisations at, Regional, National and European world level which are

outstanding in bioenergy,

3. The centre could decide to set up a parallel own capability to carry out

some R&D activities for that purpose, even if this is not the scope of a centre

devoted to promote European wide obtained R&D results in Castilla y Leon.

To allocate the centre within the facilities of CEDER (following the first of the

ways above mentioned), seems to be the most appropriate (synergies, existing

expertise, low fixed costs, etc.). We are confident that CEDER continues or improves

its R&D efforts in order to share the results of their activities with the proposed

centre.

The facilities available at CEDER could efficiently cover the needs of some of

the technological support and exploitation actions, nevertheless it would be opportune

that CEDER is provided with some additional facilities in order to efficiently cover

the other areas in which the centre intends to have competence, specially if the

medium or high investment scenarios are adopted. However, as previously explained,

these areas can be covered- depending on the specific needs and requests- by means of

universities, experts, networks and other organisations world-wide.

In particular, the activities TS1, TS3, TS4 and EA 2 can be carried out with

the means currently available at CEDER. Although, as there is a fluidised bed

combustion boiler, and most of the demand is for a fixed bed boiler, it would be

opportune that CEDER is provided with a fixed bed boiler combustion plant. In

addition, to carry out the activity TS2, it would be appropriate for CEDER to be

provided with a gasification plant, and possibly also with a pyrolysis plant. In fact, to

be able to provide technological support in such promising new technologies it is

essential to benefit from a focused S&T development activity (also including basic,


69

targeted, and applied R&D) in those new technologies. As an indication, the costs of

this equipment are displayed below, in table 2.18.

Table 2.18. Cost of conversion plants (KECU)

Facility KECUs

Direct Fixed Bed Combustion Plant 250

Gasification Plant 563

Pyrolysis Plant 250


In the hypothesis in which the CEDER can not carry out any R&D activity or

cannot support the proposed centre, the required scientific and technical skills for the

centre could be obtained, as previously stated in the second and third bullet points.

The following figure (Chart 2.3.) shows the facilities available at CEDER and the

centre’s activities that could be covered by them, as well as the additional equipment

that would be beneficial for CEDER to be provided, and of usefulness for the centre.

Chart 2.3. Facilities available at CEDER and the foreseen centre’s activities that could be covered by

them

FacilitiesAvailable at CEDER

Activityof the proposed centre

Mill and Tubular drier

Acid hydrolysis plant TS 1. Adaptation of Existing technologies

BFBC (Biomass Fluidised Bed Combustion)

Lab: Biomass analysis and emission analysis. TS 2. Adoption of New technologies

Laboratory: Samples preparing and drying

Laboratory: Combustion

Energy crops: 300 ha available TS 3. Adoption of Biomass Materials

forestry: 250 ha

TS 4. Adoption of Energy Crops

FacilitiesNot presently available at CEDER

Direct Fixed Bed Combustion Plant EA 2. Characterisation of biomass resources

Gasification Plant

Pyrolysis Plant


70

3. Socio-economic and Environmental Analysis

The possible impacts caused by a greater use of biomass energy in CyL are

discussed in this chapter. To estimate such impacts, three scenarios of biomass energy

utilisation are proposed for CyL, for the year 2010, based on the provisional

objectives in bioenergy of the region. These scenarios are described in section 3.1.

The potential employment impact (jobs created, jobs displaced, and

multiplying effects) in CyL is discussed in section 3.2., taking into account the overall

feedstock collection, production, harvesting, pre-treatment, transport, conversion and

end-use cycle of the biomass energy systems. Job creation due to the implementation

of the required biomass plants to cover the three scenarios are also calculated,

including the multiplying effect on job creation in manufacturing, products, and

services.

The possible economic impact at regional level of the expected biomass

resources mobilisation is described in section 3.3. Particular attention is paid to

additional regional investment that may accrue as a result. The input-output method is

also used to estimate the effects that the expected investments, both to create the

centre and to provide the additional power supply, can have on key socio-economic

variables, in particular on value-added.

The possible environmental impact of the expected increased and more

efficient use of biomass resources is analysed in section 3.4. including the main

atmospheric pollutants.

Section 3.5. presents an analysis of the potential impact on sectoral policies

deriving from the implementation of the BioCentre and from its activities. It is

pointed out if an increase of biomass utilisation in the region could result in a

convergent or divergent position with the main concerned policies: regional

development (economic growth), employment, environment, agriculture/forestry,

energy, R&D and innovation.


71

3.1. Hypothesis of biomass utilisation

Biomass already accounts for some 9% (more than 400 ktoe) of the primary

energy of the region, used almost exclusively in thermal applications. To assess the

impact, direct and indirect, that a larger use of biomass energy could have in the

region of Castilla y Leon, 3 different scenarios of utilisation are proposed in this

section.

The scenarios are constructed taking as a base the provisional bioenergy

objectives for the year 2005 proposed by the EREN (“Ente Regional de la Energía”);

these objectives are summarised in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Provisional additional capacity of bioenergy proposed for the year 2005 in Castilla

y León (Ktoe).

Resource Thermal Electrical Total

Residues 97,5 10,3 107,8

Organic waste 5,0 2,2 7,2

Liquid biofuels 2,0 - 2,0

Total 104,5 12,5 117

Source: EREN 1997

From the above, the three scenarios proposed are the following:

a) to meet the objectives, that EREN has for 2005, in the year 2010 (low

scenario)

b) in the year 2010, double the provision of EREN for 2005 (medium

scenario)

c) the most optimistic scenario doubles the share of the medium scenario.

It has been assumed that the biomass power plants required to provide the

proposed electrical capacity are of co-generation type, which allows to recuperate the

exhaust heat. For each MW of electricity, 2.5 MW of heat are produced, in average, in

a co-generation plant .


72

The three different scenarios of biomass utilisation are displayed in the table

3.2. In this table it is shown the electricity capacity to be installed, the heat associated

by cogeneration to that electricity capacity, and the non-electrical capacity to be

installed to produce heat.

Table 3.2. Scenarios proposed of biomass utilisation for the year 2010 in Castilla y Leon.

Scenario Electricity Heat by cogeneration(associated to the

production of electricity)

Heat capacity apart fromthat of cogeneration

Total Heatcapacity

1 ktoe 12.5 31.25 73,25 104,5

Gwh 146 364.7 854.8 1220

MW 21.5 53.75 125.7 179.45

2 ktoe 25 62.5 146,5 209

Gwh 292 729 1709 2439

MW 43 107.5 252.4 359.9

3 ktoe 50 125 293 418

Gwh 584 1459 3419 4878

MW 86 215 502.8 717.8

Note: the conversion factor that has been used is 1 MW = 6.8 Gwh/year (Pietro Moncada, 1996)

The equivalent biomass primary energy, needed to cover the proposed

scenarios, is shown in the table 3.3.; this has been calculated considering a conversion

efficiency at the power station of 85%, both in the cogeneration plants and thermal

plants.

Table 3.3. Biomass resources needed to cover the proposed scenarios (Ktoe)

Scenario Total output (electricity+heat) Input needed (85% efficiency)

1 117 137,6

2 234 275,3

3 468 550,6


73

The existing potential for biomass energy in Castilla y Leon is clearly higher,

both residues and energy crops (see sections 1.2. and 1.3.), to meet the resource

requirements of the most optimistic scenario. In the following sections, these

assumption figures are used as the basis to estimate the impact.

3.2. Employment creation in biomass energy

Direct job creation for a biomass plant includes the construction and

installation of the plant, which is referred to a period of 2-3 years, plus the manpower

required for operating the plant and fuel supply chain, which is referred to the life of

the plant, typically 15-20 years. However, it is necessary to subtract the number of

employees displaced from the conventional energy sector in order to obtain the total

net number of employees corresponding to new jobs. On the base of results of recent

studies on this argument (see e.g. OME, ETSU) the number of employees needed for

building, or manufacturing, and installing the plants can be reduced, on average, by

28%, and by 8% the number of those needed for operating and maintaining the plants.

• Manufacturing and installation of the plants

Table 3.4. shows the number of jobs that can be created by the construction and the

installation of biomass co-generation and heat plants, per MW installed. In the case

of co-generation each MWe includes also 2,5 MWth of heat production. The jobs

displaced and created are also indicated.

Table 3.4. Jobs created for the construction and installation of a biomass plant (2-3 years)

Jobs for BFBC & BGCC jobs/MWe jobs/MWth

Plant Construction jobs 10 2.85

Plant Installation jobs (*) 4.8 1.37

Displaced jobs by manufacturing and installation (28%) 4 1.14

Net 10.8 3.08

(*) Includes engineering, civil work, and auxiliary

Source: H. Li. Chum, R. Overend (1993)

Taking into account the three scenarios of utilisation described in section 3.2.

the jobs needed for the construction and installation of the biomass plants of each

scenario are displayed in table 3.5. These jobs, as previously mentioned, have a


74

duration of 2-3 years, which is the usual time for this phase of the implementation of a

plant.

Table 3.5. Number of jobs needed for the construction and installation of the biomass plants of the

three scenarios.

Scenario Capacity to be installed Construction Installation Displaced(28%)

Net Total

1 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 215 103 86 232

125,7 MWth 358 172 143 387 619

2 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 430 206 172 464

251,4 MWth 716 344 286 774 1238

3 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 860 413 344 929

502,8 MWth 1433 689 573 1548 2476

Note: MWth produced by cogeneration are displayed in brackets beside the associated electricity

generation

• Operating and maintaining of the plants

In the 1 to 5 MWe range, approximately 4 jobs per MWe are required at power

stations (Table 3.6.). The data used to estimate the impact are those of the second

column in table 3.6. In fact, the most favourable plant size in Castilla y León is 1

MWe of capacity.

Table 3.6. shows the number of direct jobs per year created for operating and

maintaining the plants according to their size or capacity. These data are referred to

electricity generation; for heat production the same data are used in this study,

assuming that producing 1MWe is, in terms of job creation, roughly equivalent to

producing 3,5 MWth.

Table 3.6. Direct employment at biomass power stations according to scale.

Activity Number of direct jobs/year required

1 MWe 5 MWe 10 MWe 30 MWe

Fuel handling and treatment 12 16 20 24

Conversion 4 8 8 12

Power generation 4 4 4 8

Total (direct) 20 28 32 44

Source: elaboration from Grassi (1996) and Scrase (1997).


75

In addition, more jobs would be created for producing the fuel in the case of

energy crops. Grassi (1996) has estimated the employment requirements for biomass

to electricity and ethanol in the EU when produced from dedicated energy. At a 35 %

conversion efficiency a further 3 to 5 direct jobs per MWe are employed in the fuel

supply chain.

In the European Union, looking ahead to 2010-2015, the potential energy

supply from biomass is estimated at 130 Mtoe (some 80 Mtoe more than the current

situation), a level which corresponds to a renewable resource equivalent to two-thirds

of current oil production from the North Sea. Thirty Mtoe could be derived from

energy crops and plantations (about 37.5% of the total additional capacity).

The percentage of 37,5% is utilised when estimating the job creation in the

production of biomass fuel. Therefore for each MWe a further 1,5 direct jobs are

supported in the fuel supply chain.

With these data, table 3.7. is constructed which shows the number of direct

jobs created for the three different scenarios of biomass utilisation for operating,

maintaining, and fuel supply. It must be remembered that the jobs for the construction

and installation of biomass plants are for a period of 2-3 years, while the jobs for the

operating and fuel supply chain are for 15-20 years.

Table 3.7. Direct job creation for operating and maintaining the new biomass plants.

Scenario Capacity to be installed Fuel Production,handling and pre-

treatment

Conversion equipmentand power generation

Displaced(8%)

Net Total

1 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 290 172 37 425

125,7 MWth 485 287 62 710 1135

2 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 580 344 74 850

251,4 MWth 970 574 124 1420 2270

3 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 1160 688 148 1700

502,8 MWth 1940 1148 248 2840 4540

Note: MWth produced by cogeneration are displayed in brackets beside the associated

electricity generation


76

• Multiplier effect

The multiplier effect is a complex but an important component when

estimating employment benefits. Such effects vary from approximately 1.5 to 2, i.e. if

8 direct jobs/MWe are created in the production and conversion of biomass to

electricity, a further 4-8 indirect jobs are created in related industries e.g. in Austria it

is estimated that for each MW of installed capacity of energy from biomass 2 to 3 new

jobs are generated in rural areas.

The jobs created by multiplying effect are shown in table 3.8.

Table 3.8. Number of jobs created by multiplying effect for the 3 scenarios of utilisation.

Scenario Capacity to be installed Jobs per year Total

1 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 198-395

125,7 MWth 330-661 528-1056

2 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 395-790

251,4 MWth 666-1322 1056-2112

3 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 790-1580

502,8 MWth 1322-2644 2112-4224


generation

• Summary

Table 3.9. summarises the findings showing the number of jobs both for

manufacturing-installing and maintaining, operating and fuel supplying (including

collecting, cropping and harvesting, pre-treatment and transport). It can be noted that

the jobs created for 15-20 years are almost the double than those of short duration (2-

3 years).

Table 3.9. Effects on the employment for the three different scenarios of utilisation.

Scenario Construction andinstallation Total jobs (2-3

years)

Maintaining and operating Total jobs (15-20 years)

Jobs created by multiplyingeffects

1 619 1056 528-1056

2 1238 2112 1056-2112

3 2476 4224 2112-4224


77

The Input-Output table methodology has been used to evaluate the distribution

of the total jobs created (direct and indirect) in the sectors of the society (a brief

explanation of this technique is provided within section 3.3.) giving the following

result (table 3.10.):

Table 3.10. Sectoral share of the total jobs created when implementing the bioenergy plants.

ECONOMIC SECTORS Share

Agriculture 47.4

Mining & Energy 3.26

Manufacturing 19.8

Building Industry 11

Services 18.4

total 100

Source: Elaborated from input-output tables of Spain(1992)

As it can be seen, agriculture is the sector that benefits the most, as 47% of the

jobs created are in this sector.

3.3. Economic impact

According to the EU White Paper on Renewable Sources of Energy within the

next years it will be utilised 90 Mtoe of additional biomass, this will require

investments of about 84 billion ECU all over Europe. Moreover, the additional annual

benefits from biomass energy related activities are estimated at 24.1 billion ECU.

To estimate the investment needed to implement the plants we have used the

figures of 1.3 MECU per MWe installed (P. Moncada, 1996), and 0.28 MECU per

MWth. Therefore, the following investments are estimated to implement the

additional electric and thermal capacities (table 3.11.):


78


(MECU)

Scenario Plants Capacity to be installed MECUs Total

1 Cogeneration 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 28

Heat 125,7 MWth 36 64

2 Cogeneration 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 56

Heat 251,4 MWth 72 128

3 Cogeneration 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 112

Heat 502,8 MWth 144 256

Note: Assumption, 1 MWe=1.3 MECU; 1 MWth = 0.28 MECU; Source: IPTS 1996

Note: MWth produced by cogeneration are displayed in brackets beside the associated

electricity generation

The input-output method has been used at this point to estimate the effects that

the expected investments, both to create the centre and to provide the additional

power supply, can have on key socio-economic variables, in particular on value-

added.

This method takes into account the intersectoral linkages of the economy

within a mathematical framework. These linkages are arranged in a matrix where any

element indicates the effect that a unit of the sector represented in the row has on the

sector represented in the column. A detailed explanation of this method is out of the

scope of this study, but the methodology and its application to energy issues are

exposed, for instance, in Hsu (1989), Heen (1991), and Wu and Chen (1990).

The input needed by the method is the sectoral desegregation of the

investments, in other words, in which sectors the money of the investment is directly

spent; they are different depending on whether is to create the centre or to install a

plant. These issues are analysed in the following subsections.

The results of the input-output analysis are the sectors that, at the end, are

benefiting the most, in terms of added value. In other words, the amount of money

from the investment that ends up as added value by sectors.


79

3.3.1. Direct economic impact

In order to assess the direct impact on the economy that the expected

investments to create the centre can have in Castilla y Leon, the scheme of the

scenarios of investment (low, medium, high) is taken into account. According to these

schemes the necessary input vector is displayed in table 3.12.; the meaning of this

vector is the share of the investment that is spent in each sector.

Table 3.12. Sectoral desegregation of the investments to create the BioCentre

ECONOMIC SECTORS Share

Agriculture 0

Mining & Energy 0

Manufacturing 12%

Building Industry 8%

Services 80%

Source: Elaborated from data provided by UFISA (1998)

With this vector, and the elements above mentioned (matrix and the vectors)

the input-output method is employed, providing the following sectoral distribution of

the money invested (table 3.13)

Table 3.13. Effects on added value by sector of the investments for the creation of the

BioCentre (KECUs)

ECONOMIC SECTORS Low Medium High Share(%)

Agriculture 215 375 525 11.9

Mining & Energy 179 312 437 9.9

Manufacturing 149 260 364 8.3

Building Industry 186 324 454 10.3

Services 1067 1857 2600 59.4

Total 1796 3128 4380 100

Source: Elaborated from input-output tables of Spain (1992)

It can be seen that the total money spent in the centre during the first four

years ends up mainly in the added value of the services sector; the rest of the sector

have a similar share of around 10% each.


80

3.3.2. Indirect economic impact

This subsection has the aim of evaluating the indirect impact caused by the

increased utilisation of biomass energy in CyL. The following table is concerning the

cost breakdown for the biomass plants (table 3.14.).

Table 3.14. Sectoral desegregation of the investment for implementing a biomass plant.

ECONOMIC SECTORS Share (%)

Agriculture 0

Mining & Energy 0

Manufacturing 60%

Building Industry 20%

Services 20%

Source: Elaborated from data provided by CIEMAT

With this input vector, the method gives, for every scenario of utilisation, the

following sectoral distribution of the invested money as shown in table 3.15. As

previously explained, these figures indicate the amount of money from the total

investment that rebounds as added value in the different sectors. As it can be seen the

sector that benefits the most is the agricultural sector (27.8%), followed by the

manufacturing sector (24.4%).

Table 3.15. Amount of money from the total investment that rebounds as added value in the different

sectors.(KECU)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Share(%)

Total investment 64 128 256

ECONOMIC SECTORS

Agriculture 17.8 35.6 71.2 27.8

Mining & Energy 7.4 14.8 29.6 11.5

Manufacturing 15.6 31.2 62.4 24.4

Building Industry 9.8 19.6 39.2 15.3

Services 13.3 26.6 53.2 20.8

Total 64 128 256 100

Source: Elaborated from input-output tables of Spain(1992)


81

3.4. Environmental Impact

Biomass energy is diverse and its impacts are site, and management, specific.

It can be treated to produce solid, liquid or gaseous fuels and these in turn can be used

in various ways for heat and power or transport. Different approaches will be

appropriate for different localities. Given this diversity no single, composite figure or

indicator can express the environmental impacts of biomass energy in general. This is

further complicated by a relatively early stage of modern biomass energy applications.

Where a technology is some way off maturity it can be misleading to predict its

environmental profile.

Biomass energy is recognised as having significant environmental advantages

when compared with fossil fuels when produced and used in a sustainable manner.

Indeed this is a major factor for promoting bioenergy, but there are also negative

effects which should not be overseen. Burning any solid fuel has some negative

impacts on health, particularly when burned in household cooking/heating stoves

where there is little or no ventilation. Exposure to particulates from biomass or coal

burning causes respiratory infections, and carbon monoxide is implicated in problems

in pregnancy. The health problems associated with residential cooking and heating

should be associated with the way these services are provided, including cultural

practices, rather than the fuel used. Centralised provision of electricity and heat on a

local scale from biomass greatly reduces exposure to pollutants, increases the

efficiency of fuel use and can be economically viable.

There is no single best way to use biomass for energy, and the environmental

acceptability will depend on sensitive and well informed approaches to new

developments in each location. It is clear that biomass for energy can be

environmentally friendly, and steps must be taken to ensure that it is, if biomass is to

be accepted as an important fuel of the future. Perhaps the single greatest

environmental benefit of biomass is that it can help to prevent the build up of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The annual emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from fossil fuel combustion

and land use change are approximately 6.7 and 1.6 Pg C, respectively. There are

various ways in which biomass energy can help to reduce pollution:


82

i) by direct substitution of fossil fuels by biomass. This option seems the

more suitable and less costly, in particular when afforestation is undertaken, than

sequestration alone;

ii) by creating carbon sinks. The flow of carbon during the life cycle of the

biomass should determine whether it is left standing, used as fuel or used as long-

lived timber products. Where there are good standing forests there is general

agreement that they should not be cut for fuel and replanted.

Management options have been identified to conserve and sequester up to 9 Pg

C in the forest sector in the next century, through global afforestation. (Dixon et. al.,

1994). However, simply sequestering carbon in new forests is problematic because

trees cease sequestering once they reach maturity, and as available land is used up

(and emissions from fossil fuels continue) the cost of further afforestation will grow.

Indeed the cost of removing GHGs from the atmosphere is already lower for fossil

fuel substitution than for sequestration, since fast growing energy crops are more

efficient at carbon removal, and because revenue is generated by the sale of electricity

(Martin, 1997).

iii) by increasing energy efficiency, which is the most effective way, both in

the short and long terms.

The annual benefit, in terms of avoided emissions, that could be achieved

when implementing biomass energy plants are calculated in basis of the emissions

produced when producing electricity from coal. Table 3.16. shows the tonnes of

pollutants emitted to the atmosphere when producing a GWh of electricity from coal.

Table 3.16. Emissions from coal combustion per GWh of electricity and GWh of heat

Pollutant ton/GWhe ton/GWhth

CO2 955.2 273

SO2 16.7 4.77

NOx 3.4 0.97

Particulates 0.4 0.11

Source: Elaboration from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingenieria (1998)


83

Due to the neutral balance of CO2 for biomass, the absence of sulphur, the low

level of NOx emissions and the controlled particulate emissions, the avoided

emissions per GWh are approximately those produced when burning coal. Therefore

the environmental benefit produced in each scenario is calculated in table 3.17.

Table 3.17. Avoided emissions for the proposed three scenarios of utilisation (tonnes/year)

Scenario Capacity to be installed GWh CO2 SO2 NOx Particulates

1 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 146.2 139650 2441 497 58.5

125,7 MWth 854.7 233333 4077 829 94

Total scenario 1 1001 372983 6518 1326 152.5

2 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 292.4 279300 4882 994 117

251,4 MWth 1709.4 466666 8154 1658 188

Total scenario 2 2002 745966 13036 2652 305

3 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 584.8 558600 9764 1988 234

502,8 MWth 3418.8 933333 16308 3316 376

Total scenario 3 4004 1491932 26072 5304 610

Source: Elaboration from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingenieria (1998)


generation

It is clear that significant avoided emissions of CO2 can be achieved by direct

substitution of coal by biomass, e.g. for the first scenario the avoided emissions in

terms of CO2 emissions would be of 373,000 tonnes.

3.5. Impact in Community policies and in strategic Regional sectors

This section deals with the impact, in terms of convergence, that the expected

increase of biomass utilisation in the region could have in Community Policies and in

the strategic regional sectors of energy, environment, employment, regional

development, innovation, agriculture, and R&D.

3.5.1. Energy

An evident benefit deriving from the implementation of the proposed centre is

a significant contribution from bioenergy large diffusion to ameliorate the negative

energy balance situation of Soria province, in Castilla y León region.


84

This objective is in line with the contents of:

a) the European Energy Chapter (signed in December 1991) Title III -

"Specific Agreements": development of the renewable energy sources) which

represents a first strategic commitment to the energy & environmental issue, and of

b) the Declaration of Madrid on Renewable Energies (March 1994), and

c) the EC’s White Paper on Renewable energies entitled: Energy for the

Future: Renewable Sources of Energy (November, 1997) in many parts and forms.

Among other issues, these documents underline the need of use of instruments

and measures to promote the security of energy supply.

3.5.2. Environment

Through the application of the innovative EU R&D efforts, and through a

better knowledge by the society of the environmental balance of biomass systems (for

a better biomass acceptability and promotion in the field), both of which are key

objectives of the BioCentre studied, the environment will benefit.

In fact, the neutral CO2 balance and the insignificant presence of sulphur

emissions in biomass-based power generation systems make them environmentally

very attractive.

Moreover, energy crops can fit into local landscape and can receive acceptance

by local communities, if implanting these crops

a) biomass energy, in particular dedicated energy crops, do not result in a net

landscape incremental change. This can be ensured by proper choice of crop species

and management practices;

b) maintain biodiversity and,

c) sustainablity principles are applied e.g. adequate use fertilisers, pesticides,

water, environmental friendly conversion process, etc.


85

Other positive environmental implications depend on the better balance in the

soil & water pollutant emissions when compared to conventional energy systems, and

to the avoided negative environmental effects due to the abandonment of agricultural

lands. The coincidence of EU environmental policy goals with the mentioned benefits

is obvious.

3.5.3. Employment, Regional Development, and Innovation

If the existing barriers to implement at commercial scale the R&D results in

bioenergy are overcome, these activities would considerably contribute to the job

creation (in particular in the rural areas) and therefore would help to secure rural

development. Direct socio-economic development in depressed areas of the EU

through the implementation of biomass energy schemes is an important policy

objective in the EU.

An increase in job position availability can derive not only from biomass

production and conversion processes but on parallel activities as well, such as

growing out season vegetables in greenhouses and open-field. These benefits will

impact the EU employment creation efforts through technology innovation, transfer,

and diffusion.

According to the green paper on innovation (EC, 1995) technological progress

generates new wealth. Product innovations lead to an increase in effective demand

which encourages an increase in investment and employment. Process innovations

contribute to an increase in productivity of the factors of production. In the course of

time, the result is another increase in purchasing power, which promotes increased

demand and, here again, employment.

Keeping in mind this theory, and applying it to the biomass energy in the

hypothesis of a considerable market penetration share in Castilla y León/Soria region,

the following sequence can be proposed:

“More local energy resources exploited ----> more energy from biomass

produced ----> more capital investment in Castilla y León/Soria ----> more

technology locally manufactured ----> better regional balance of trade ----> more

incentives for technology innovation ----> more system efficiency (economical and


86

technological) ----> more profits for enterprises ----> more consumer saving ---->

more purchasing power ----> more jobs created ----> better (in qualitative and

quantitative terms) regional socio-economic growth” (Pietro Moncada-Paternò-

Castello & Miguel Aguado, 1996)

In other words, this sequence can be differently explained by saying that

biomass gives new possibilities to improve energy security, trade balance, and

technology innovation, providing new economic opportunities for rural areas. In

addition, energy-conversion industries would spring up near bio-fuel farms to reduce

the transportation costs. As rural energy industries grow, they will attract new

business and stimulate regional economic development.

3.5.4. Agriculture

The development of an operational methodology to promote the use of

biomass energy, would meet the objectives set out in the CAP, which can be

summarised as follows:

a) reduce surplus of food production;

b) control irregular fluctuations in international prices;

c) maintain or improve farmers' income;

d) enhance rural development and reduce emigration;

e) encourage non-food production;

f) protect and improve environmental conditions of the above and below

ground.

All such objectives can be met through the implementation, wide acceptance,

and the spreading of bioenergy systems. The improvement of the technology toward

attributes of simplicity and reliability, implied makes the transfer and the acceptance

very easy.

The mobilisation of resources through the application of the methodology

proposed and the application of the results of the present project will, preferentially,


87

address the benefits of biomass for energy large use to the agricultural sector (see

sections 3.3.1. and 3.3.2.), helping to achieve EU agricultural policy objectives.

3.5.5. R&D

The EU has ever researched and stimulated the link between R&D results and

their commercial applications. The EU R&D policy is making a considerable effort to

increase technological competitiveness and employment generation. Moreover, the

EC’s White Paper on European energy policy, particularly towards RTD, confirms the

importance of the following objective: "to integrate renewable energy into the market;

this action will allow the diffusion in the market of technologies such as ......biomass,

.....".

In conclusion, an increase of bioenergy utilisation in the region would result in

a convergent position with the European and National policies of regional

development (economic growth), employment, environment, agriculture/forestry,

energy, R&D and innovation.


88

4. Operational Recommendations to be Implemented by theKey Actors

An overall strategy to exploit and commercialise R&D results in biomass

energy would consist on a wide variety of polices, activities and instruments.

However, not all the tasks should, or could, be carried out by the range of market

actors such as regional and local authorities, utilities, financiers, industry,

entrepreneurs, etc. Thus the rational approach would be to identify and match

different recommendations on what would be more suited and targeted for each key

actor, trying to answer questions such as what is the role for each key actor within the

area of biomass and the development of the BioCentre?, what are the type of activities

best adopted to help overcome these problems and realise the benefits offered by a

greater use of biomass in the region?, etc.

4.1. National/Regional/Local authorities

Within the operational recommendations for the authorities, the general roles

of this type of institutions are the following:

• To promote and stimulate energy savings and energy efficiency

programmes.

• To participate and encourage renewable energy projects,

including biomass, regional development based on local resources, creation

of local employment and industrial activities.

With regard to political and legislative barriers, regional authorities, with

support from the National government, should promote the development of REs to

open suitable market niches for biomass energy e.g. through subsidies and policy

support, to ensure that biomass energy projects are put in an equal footing than fossil

fuels.

Regional authorities should facilitate the administrative procedures to help

overcome institutional barriers e.g. assisting in obtaining licenses. The BioCentre

could act as a connecting point between the regional authorities and project promoters

to speed-up administrative procedures.


89

4.2. Sectoral operators

Efforts should be made to overcome the technological barriers that hinder the

development of biomass energy projects e.g. by improving existing technologies,

R&D, etc., in collaboration with the proposed BioCentre.

All the key actors from sectoral operators (Utilities, financing groups, large

agroforestry industries, SME’s, resident’s associations and individuals) should be

aware of new developments in biomass energy so that they can identify and

implement heat and power projects at different scales according to the requirements of

each key-actor. For this purpose, all of these groups should be involved, within their

possibilities and own objectives and characteristics, participating in the activities of

the BioCentre that will be able to promote the development of biomass energy in the

region.

4.3. European Commission

The V Framework Program will present the opportunity to strengthen the

financial opportunities available for REs and above all to increase its weight within

the energy programmes. An important factor for the promotion of this kind of

activities is to support and encourage the less favoured regions, highly dependent on

energy imports, such as Castilla y Leon.

Therefore, the EC should give support to regional and local projects and

planning, in the framework of its promotional programmes such as ALTENER. In

addition, it is essential to encourage Member States to include REs implementation

plans in their programmes that are submitted to receive structural funds support for

co-financing.

The uncertainties for the medium and long term should encourage prudence

and the preparation of alternative solutions. The political will is essential in order to

prepare the medium and long term future and to obtain the support of the principal

actors. These actions have to be integrated and must be coherent with the other

existing policies. Within the actions to be promoted by the European Commission it

can be quoted:

• Using scenarios to limit uncertainty


90

• Prompting the regions draw up energy policies

• Occupying favourable market niches

• Assess incentives, encourage their harmonisation and promote the

most effective.

The most successful programmes are those that have been undertaken by small

countries or regions benefiting from a high degree of decision autonomy in the field

of energy planning (this is the specific case of Spain). Regional authorities, in

partnership with the local professionals and associative networks, have also been

very effective promoters of biomass energy. The European Union, undoubtedly, has a

role to play in encouraging regional and local authorities to prepare energy policies by

promoting local and regional partnerships.


91

5. Summary of Conclusions

The conclusions reached in this study can be summarised as follows:

The total biomass production in CyL in 1994 was estimated to be the

equivalent to 702 PJ and, after losses were taken into account, the total biomass use

was equivalent to 305 PJ; therefore it is clear that there are considerable losses of

biomass which offer good opportunities for waste utilisation. Currently the bulk of

these residues are burnt or let in the fields to rot. The same can be said with respect to

Soria province where the total biomass production in 1994 was of about 34 PJ and the

use was the equivalent to 15.5 PJ. In addition the availability of about 9.4 Mha

extension of land in CyL, of which 42% is cultivated land, offers good opportunities

for dedicated energy crops.

The identification of the most promising R&D results regarding biomass

feedstocks reveals that industrial and agroforestry residues are the most suitable

resource due to their availability and lower costs. The energy crops which appear the

most appropriate for the region include Cynara, Fibre Sorghum and Miscanthus; on

the other hand, as short rotation forestry crops, Poplar and Eucalyptus were identified

as most adequate for the region.

Regarding conversion technologies, direct combustion is a world-wide mature

and well established technology available commercially. Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the most advanced and efficient (40-45% efficiency)

system available in the gasification field but the capital costs are still much higher

than those for combustion. Other technologies such as pyrolysis and enzymatic

hydrolysis are still emerging technologies.

A number of barriers for Castilla y León in general, and in Soria in particular,

that hinder a wider development of biomass energy systems, have been identified;

these are political, legislative, social, economic, financial, institutional, technical and

environmental.

The activities that seem the most appropriate to be realised in the Regional

Bioenergy Technological Support Centre (BioCentre) have been identified; these


92

activities should act as a catalyst for a greater utilisation of existing R&D resources

and take better advantages of existing biomass resources in Castilla y Leon.

This kind of centres have been demonstrated to efficiently contribute to this

objective, as it has been reported in the survey carried out of similar centres in

Europe. This experience have been taken into account when designing the activities

and objectives of this Centre.

The priority activities identified for the possible centre in Castilla y Leon are

shown in table 5.1. :

Table 5.1. Proposed activities for the BioCentre

Communication, Dissemination, and Diffusion activities

Liaison and Information Centre

Dissemination

Training activities

Technological Support activities

Adaptation of Existing technologies

Adoption of New technologies

Adoption of Biomass Materials

Adoption of Energy Crops

Exploitation actions

Quantification of Resources

Characterisation of Biomass Resources

Assessing Programmes

The three investment scenarios proposed reflect what could be the final picture

of the centre, and provide with a good idea of the priority of the activities, the costs,

and the requirements of personnel. It is obvious that other scenarios, between the

proposed minimum (low investment) and maximum (high investment) can be equally

considered. The activities considered are within a period of 4 years. Table 5.2. shows

the requirements of personnel and table 5.3. the annual costs for the first four years.


93

Table 5.2. Comparison of manpower requirements for the three investment scenarios

Investment First year Second and third year Fourth year Low 8 16 18 Medium 18 27 32 High 29 37 45

Source: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998) (*) Independent from, or additional to, the existing personnel of CEDER

Table 5.3. Comparison of total annual costs (KECU) for the three scenarios of investment

Investment 1st yr. 2nd yr 3rd yr. 4th yr. From 5th yr. on Low 285 466 466 513 513 Medium 673 758 758 939 913 High 986 1055 1055 1284 1260

Source: Elaborated from data provided by Union Fenosa Ingeniería (1998) (*) Cost of amortisation, inflation and interest are not considered

There are many reasons which justify locating the centre within the same

infrastructures of CEDER, i) considerable lower construction costs; ii) advantages

from existing facilities and infrastructures which are currently under-utilised ; iii)

expected benefits from its know how in bioenergy activities e.g. energy crops,

gasification technology, characterisation of biomass; iv) potential financial

contribution; v) potential complementary benefits, etc.

In addition, it should also be pointed out that, based on the experience of

similar centres in Europe, the success of such BioCentre strongly depends on the

local/regional awareness and commitment at the level of the economic, social and

policy actors which to a certain extent CEDER has already been promoted.

The impact at a regional level on the employment, the environment, the

economy, and the sectoral policies deriving from the implementation of the BioCentre

has been analysed. To estimate such impacts, three scenarios of biomass energy

utilisation in Castilla y Leon, for the year 2010, have been built taking into account

the provisional objectives in bioenergy of the regional energy plan (EREN, 1997).

These scenarios of biomass utilisation/penetration are shown in table 5.4.:


94

Table 5.4. Scenarios of biomass penetration, in the year 2010, additional to the present

capacity, used for the impact analysis

Scenario electricity (MWe) heat (MWth)

1 21.5 179.45

2 43 359.9

3 86 717.8

The impact on employment, takes into account not only the jobs that would be

created by the implementation of the required biomass plants to cover the three

scenarios proposed, but also the multiplier effect on job creation (e.g. manufacturing

of products and services). Table 5.5. summarises the effects of bioenergy penetration

on employment generation. The input Output statistical method has been used to

estimate the sectoral share of the total jobs created when implementing the bioenergy

plants; agriculture is the sector that benefits the most, as 47% of the jobs created are

in this sector

Table 5.5. Effects on the employment for the three different scenarios of biomass energy

penetration, for the year 2010.

Scenario Manufacturing andinstallation

Total jobs (2-3 years)

Maintaining and operating Total jobs (15-20 years)

Jobs created by multipliereffects

1 600 1050 525-1050

2 1240 2100 1050-2100

3 2500 4200 2100-4200

The expected investment necessary to implement the additional bioenergy

capacity has been calculated for the three scenarios and are shown in table 5.6.

(figures in MECU).


95


(MECU)

Scenario Capacity to be installed MECUs Total

1 21.5 MWe (+ 53,75 MWth) 28

125,7 MWth 36 65

2 43 MWe (+ 107,5 MWth) 56

251,4 MWth 72 125

3 86 MWe (+ 215 MWth) 112

502,8 MWth 144 250

Note:1 MWe=1.3 MECU; 1 MWth = 0.28 MECU; Source: IPTS


generation.

The input-output method has been also used to estimate the effects that the

expected investments can have on the added-value by sectors, providing a result that

states that agriculture would be the sector that most benefits from the investments

made, as 28% of those investments would end up as added value in that sector.

The environmental benefits are calculated on the basis of the emissions

produced when producing electricity from coal. The estimated avoided emissions

from the implementation of the biomass plants are shown in table 5.7.:

Table 5.7. Avoided emissions for the proposed three scenarios of utilisation (tonnes/year)

Scenario GWh CO2 SO2 NOx Particulates

1 1000 370,000 6,500 1,300 150

2 2000 745,000 13,000 2,650 300

3 4000 1,500,000 26,000 5,300 600

As can be seen an increase in bioenergy utilisation in CyL would result in a

convergent position with the European and National policies of regional development

(e.g. economic growth, employment, environment, agriculture/forestry, energy, R&D

and innovation).


96

Local, regional and national authorities should promote, and stimulate, energy

savings and energy efficiency programmes, participate and encourage biomass energy

projects (e.g. subsidies and promoting activities) and facilitate the administrative

procedures in obtaining licenses to develop projects.

The sectoral operators, mainly centred in the utilities due to be larger

companies with suitable means for R&D works, should continue developing and

improving mature technologies (e.g. efficiency of direct combustion systems) as well

as researching in new technologies that can reach an industrial scale. Moreover all the

key actors from sectoral operators (Utilities, financing groups, large agroforestry

industries, SME’s, Resident’s Associations and individuals) should be aware of new

developments in biomass energy so that they can identify and implement heat and

power programmes at different scales according to the requirements of each key actor.

The most successful programmes are those that have been undertaken by small

countries or regions benefiting from a high degree of decision autonomy in the field

of energy planning (this is the specific case of Spain). Also the regional authorities, in

partnership with the local professionals and associative networks, have been the most

effective promoters of biomass. In this way, the European Union undoubtedly has a

role to play in encouraging regional and local authorities to prepare energy policies by

associating all the local partners concerned.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that the creation of such biomass centre in

the Soria province will stimulate the development of biomass energy-related activities

in CyL. Thus, it can be stated that the creation of a BioCentre will result in many

positive impacts ranging from socio-economic development, better utilisation of

natural resources, greater regional energy independence, and cleaner environment.


97

Bibliography• Anon, “The utilisation of biomass for energy in Austria”. IEA Bioenergy News 8, 2, 12. (1996)

• “Anuarios Estadisticos de Espana”, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE). (various years)

• “Anuarios Estadisticos de la Junta de Castilla y Leon”, Junta de Castilla y Leon. (various years)

• “Anuario Estadistico de Castilla y Leon” Consejeria de Economia y Hacienda. Junta de Castilla yLeon, (1996)

• “Anuarios Estadisticos”, Ministerio de Industria y Energia (MINER), (various years)

• “Anuario de Estadistica Agraria”, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion(MAAP) .(various years)

• “Atlas de Castilla y Leon”, Consejeria de Economia y Hacienda. Junta de Castilla y Leon (1996).

• Bridgewater, “Thermal Biomass Conversion and utilisation” Biomass Information System,University of Aston, European Commission 1996.

• “Boletin Mensual de Estadistica”, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE) (various issues)

• “Boletin Mensual de Estadistica del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y Pesca” (variousissues)

• “Boletin Mensual de Estadistica”, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion (MAAP).(various years)

• Chartier, P.,“Perspectives for Biomass Energy in the European Union”. (1996)

• Christian Rakos. “The diffusion of Biomass District Heating in Austria”. (1996)

• CIEMAT, “Biomasa como Fuente de Energia y Productos para la Agricultura y la Industria”,(1990)

• “Coyuntura Economica de Castilla y Leon”, Consejeria de Economia y Hacienda. Junta de Castillay Leon (1997).

• “Datos Estadisticos de los Municipios de Castilla y Leon”, Consejeria de Economia y Hacienda.Junta de Castilla y Leon (1997).

• Dixon R.K., Brown, S. Houghton R.A.. Solomon, A.M. Trexler M.C. and Wisniewski J. “Carbonpools and flux of global forest ecosystems”, Science 263, 185190 (1994)

• “Energía de la biomasa”. Manuales de energías renovables, IDAE, (1996)

• Ericson, T., “Nutrient cycling in energy forest plantations”. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 6, pp 115-121. (1994)

• ETSU “Good practice guidelines: Short rotation coppice for energy productio”. Department ofTrade and Industry (London), Seacourt Press Ltd., Seacourt. (1996)

• “Evaluation of Biomass Potential and Development in Castilla y Leon”, Junta de Castilla y Leon,Consejeria de Castilla y Leon, (1992)

• “Exploiting R&D: Strategies to increase the use of biomass and biofuels. Main Report” ECOTECResearch & Consulting Ltd, UK and Spain. (1996).

• Ghislain Gosse, “Lignocellolosic energy crops in different agricultural scenarios”, Station deBioclimatologie, European Comission, 1996.

• Grassi G. “Potential employment impacts of bioenergy activity on employment”. Proceedings ofthe 9th European Bioenergy Conference, Vol 1, pp. 419-423. Eds. P. Chartier, G.L. Ferrero, V.M.Henins, S.Hultberg, J. Sachan and M. Wiinblad. (1996)


98

• Grubl A, Dell G. and Egger Ch. “Biomass Technologies in Austria market study”. Proceedings ofthe 9th European Bioenergy Conference, Vol 3, pp. 1788-1793. Eds. P. Chartier, G.L. Ferrero,V.M. Henins, S. Hultberg, J. Sachan and M. Wiinblad. (1996)

• “Guia de las Energias Renovables en Castilla y Leon”, Junta de Castilla y Leon IDAE/MINER.(1995).,

• Hall D.O., Rosillo Calle F. and Scrase J.I. “Biomass: An environmentally acceptable andsustainable energy source for the future”. Report to the Division of Sustainable Development,United Nations, New York. (1996)

• Hillring B. “Price trends in the Swedish woodfuel market”. Biomass and Bioenergy 12, 4151.(1997)

• Instituto de Estudios de la Energia (CIEMAT/IEE) (Various)

• “Integrated Biomass System”, Finesport engineering s.r.l., European Commission, 1992

• Jim Coombs, “Bioconversion Assessment Study”, CPL Scientific, European Commission, (1996)

• “Las Energias Renovables en Espana, Balance y Perpectivas 2000”, Secretaria de Estado de laEnergia y Recurso Minerales. Ministerio de Industria y Energia (MINER), (1996).

• “Las Energias Renovables en Castilla y Leon”, EREN (Ente Regional de la Energia) Junta deCyL. (1997)

• “Manual de Energia de la Biomasa”, Instituto para la Diversificacion de la Energia (IDAE),IDAE/MINER. (1996).

• Martin J.A. “A total fuel cycle approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Solar generationtechnologies as greenhouse gas offsets in U.S. utility systems”. Solar Energy 59, 195203. (1997)

• “Memoria de la Division de Biomasa 1994-1995.”. Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas,Medioambientales y Tecnologicas (CIEMAT). (1996),

• Moncada Paternò Castello, et al. “Studio di Prefattibilita di un’Agencia Mediterranea in Sicilia perla Promozione delle Energie Rinnovabili e la Gestione Efficiente dell’Acqua”. The IPTS TechnicalReport Series, EUR 17255 IT(1996).

• Moncada Paternò Castello, Aguado, M. “Bioelectricity & employment impact”. Proceedings of theseminar “La biomasa fuente de riqueza”, Córdoba 1996.

• Myers N., “Lifting the veil on perverse subsidies”, Nature:392, 327327. (1998).

• Oriol Amat Salas, “Análisis Económico Financiero”. ed. Gestión 2000 S.A. (1995)

• Parfomak P.W. “Falling generation costs, environmental externalities and the economics ofelectricity conservation”. Energy Policy 25, 845860. (1997)

• “Politica Energetica Espanola”, Ministerio de Industria y Energia (MINER)., Secretaria Generalde la Energia y Recursos Minerales (various).

• Rijtema, P.E., De Vries, D., “Differences in Precipitation Excess and Nitrogen Leaching fromAgricultural Lands and Forest Plantations”, Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 6, pp. 103113. (1994)

• Scrase, I. “Employment Opportunities from Biomass”(1997).

• Scrase, I. “Overview of Biomass in the EU” (1998).

• “Segundo Inventario Forestal (IFN2), Provincia de Soria”. Instituto Nacional para la Conservacionde la Naturaleza (ICONA/MAAP) (1994).

• Smith, C.T., “Environmental Consequences of Intensive Harvesting”, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol.9, pp.161179. (1995)

• Solantausta, Bridgewater, Beckman, “Electricity Production by Advanced Biomass PowerSystems”, Technical Research Centre of Finland ESPOO, 1996.


99

• “Total Costs and Benefits of Biomass in selected regions of the European Union”: Final Report onPhase 1 of the EUJOULE project JOR3CT950006. BioCosts (1996)

• Venendaal R., Jrrgensen U. and Foster C.A. “European Energy Crops: A synthesis”. Biomass andBioenergy 13, 147185. (1997)

• Weinrech V.S. “Costs and employment impacts of renewable energies”. Paper presented at theETSU/Altener conference on The Social and Economic Impact of renewable Energy,StratforduponAvon, 11 September 1996. Research carried out as part of the EUAPAS ProjectRENACT940041: Long term integration of renewable energy sources into the European energysystem and its potential economic and environmental impacts. (1996)

• “White Paper on renewable Energies”. European Commission(1997).

• Wood E. “Biofuels and job creation”. Biologue 10, 6 11, (1992)


100

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all those people who has collaborated in putting

together this report. We would like to thank all of them individually but they are too

many to list; we offer our apologies.

We would like especially to thank Dr. Juan Carrasco, Director of CEDER, for

his encouragement and support, and to the rest of the personnel at CEDER for their

assistance during our visit to the centre; to Mr. Domingo Heras, Director of the

Patronato para el Desarrollo Integral, and Mr. Gonzalo Mendoza Zabala, Director of

Soria Proyecta, for their support and contribution to the organisation of the meeting

in Soria.

In addition we would like to thank the organisations who answered our

enquiry of information, and specially to: Wilhelm Schlader (Energieinstitut

Voralberg); Pascaline Lamaire (Regional Agency Biomass Energy (Erbe)); Andreas

Keel (Association Suisse Pour L’energie Du Bois (Aseb)); Dr. N. Zografakis

(Regional Energy Agency Of Crete); Horst D. Scheuer (The Styrian Energy Agency);

Yann Oremus (Association Regionale Biomasse Normandie); Unni Lestum

(Okoplan); Yannick Marcon (Association Jurassienne pour la difussion des energies

alternatives,AJENA); Frederick Douard (Institut Technique Europeen du bois

energie,ITEBE); David Taylor (Irish Energy).


101

Contacts

Pietro Moncada Paternò-Castello

European Commission - Joint Research Centre

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)

W.T.C. Isla de la Cartuja, E-41092 Sevilla

Tel:+34-95-4488388, Fax: +34-5-4488279

E-mail: [email protected]

Web:http://www.jrc.es/~moncada

Francisco Javier Peinado Lebrero




Tel:+34-95-4488329, Fax: +34-5-4488279


Web:http://www.jrc.es/~peinado

Miguel Angel Aguado Monsonet




Tel:+34-95-4488290, Fax: +34-5-4488279


Web:http://www.jrc.es/~aguado

Dr. Frank Rosillo-Calle

King’s College London (KCL)

Division of Life Sciences

Campden Hill Road

London W8 7AH, UK

Tel: +44 (171) 333 4085

Fax: +44 (171) 333 4084


Prof.D.O. Hall


102

King’s College London (KCL)

Division of Life Sciences

Campden Hill Road

London W8 7AH, UK

Tel: +44 (171) 333 4317

Fax: +44 (171) 333 4500


Jesús Alonso Gonzalez

Unión Fenosa Ingeniería (UFISA)

c/Orense, 81 28020 Madrid

Tel: +34-1-5718582, Fax: +34-1-5711529


Javier Alonso Martínez

Unión Fenosa Ingeniería (UFISA)

c/Orense, 81 28020 Madrid

Tel: +34-1-5718582, Fax: +34-1-5711529


Documents

0. outlook of the overall project - FTP Directory Listing - IPTS