Feasibility study of a Great Lakes bioenergy system

• Published in: Bioresource technology Vol. 102; no. 2; pp. 1087 - 1094
• Main Authors: Hacatoglu, Kevork, McLellan, P. James, Layzell, David B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 2011; [New York, NY]: Elsevier Ltd; Elsevier
• Subjects: Agriculture; Air pollution; Bioenergy; Biofuel production; Biofuels - analysis; Biofuels - economics; Biological and medical sciences; Biomass; Biotechnology; Carbon - economics; Climate change; Crops, Agricultural - growth & development; Delivery systems; Diesel; Diesel fuels; Electric power generation; Energy; Energy systems analysis; Feasibility Studies; Fossil Fuels; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gasification; Great Lakes; Great Lakes Region; Greenhouse Effect; Industrial applications and implications. Economical aspects; Lakes; Markets; Transportation; Transportation - economics; Trees; Great Lakes Region; Energy systems analysis; Bioenergy; Gasification; Transportation; Great Lakes; Energy analysis; Lakes; Feasibility; System analysis
• ISSN: 0960-8524; 1873-2976
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.063

A bioenergy production and delivery system built around the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway (GLSLS) transportation corridor was assessed for its ability to mitigate energy security and climate change risks. The land area within 100 km of the GLSLS and associated railway lines was estimated to be capable of producing at least 30 Mt(dry) yr −1 of lignocellulosic biomass with minimal adverse impacts on food and fibre production. This was estimated to be sufficient to displace all of the coal-fired electricity in Ontario plus more than 620 million L of green diesel (equivalent to 5.3% of diesel consumption in GLSLS provinces). Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions were 88% and 76% lower than coal-fired power and conventional diesel, respectively. Production costs of $120 MWh −1 for power and up to $30 GJ −1 ($1.1 L −1) for green diesel were higher than current market prices, but a value for low-carbon energy would narrow the price differential.