The issues are the same everywhere, the low energy density of biomass and the distance between the supply and demand make the biomass use uneconomical.

The problem looks smaller in developed countries due to the highly developed road, railway, and sea shipping systems. The present of biomass alone cannot justify (does not make feasible) new roads. Other businesses and people need to use the transportation system for evidencing the necessity.

Decentralization and improving energy density could help to reach out these valuable sustainable resources.

Please find one of my paper enclosed (optimization of torrefaction from economic, social and environmental perspectives):

Article Use of Linear Programming to Optimize the Social, Environmen...

The issues are the same everywhere, the low energy density of biomass and the distance between the supply and demand make the biomass use uneconomical.

The problem looks smaller in developed countries due to the highly developed road, railway, and sea shipping systems. The present of biomass alone cannot justify (does not make feasible) new roads. Other businesses and people need to use the transportation system for evidencing the necessity.

Decentralization and improving energy density could help to reach out these valuable sustainable resources.

Please find one of my paper enclosed (optimization of torrefaction from economic, social and environmental perspectives):

Article Use of Linear Programming to Optimize the Social, Environmen...

The usual (simplified) representation of biomass flow in an ecosystem is something like soil biomass - plant life (with the input of solar energy, natural and artificial fertilizers) - cash crop for consumption + waste returned to soil. Trying to intercept this flow at the waste point removes the biomass returned to the soil and generally converts it into carbon dioxide via combustion. So you now have poorer soil and increased CO2 in the air. I don't think the argument that the CO2 came from biomass is very strong because it doesn't place a negative value on the poorer soil at point of growth. You have to recover the structure of the soil, plus returning the trace elements you've taken out before you can claim biomass is fully 'sustainable'. I would be interested to see how biomass energy actually works out in the real world.

Biogas especially produced near farms from wastes of argricutral or animals. So it is resonable to produce biogas near local area. But considering in many contries is related to goverments and their pathes.

Dr Aliehyaei is quite right of course - but that is exactly what villagers in 'third world' countries have been doing for thousands of years. Are we now expected to break this cycle and transfer the waste biomass to some remote site, with the disadvantages I mentioned earlier? And this is 'progress'?

in Pakistan specifically, Punjab and Sindh province producing 113 Million tons of crop residue every year on the other side of picture farmers have less time to incorporates these residues to soil because of their set cropping system and interest to grow more cash crops have almost no time for this. Farmer uses fertilizer and pesticides to increase the fertility of soil, so less amount incorporates in the soil system. moreover, a large number of residues is going to be wasted via the burning of cotton, wheat and rice stalks, household heating, paper and kiln industry. so why not these resources use optimum way via producing max power apply engg technologies as the country is witness to a shortfall of electricity.

Due to their high cost and immature technology in relation with conventional fuels. Policy paralysis is another significant reason for it. Need of proper policy and planning for creating demands for these biofuels.

Dear Tahir

I think biomass resources are not developed in some areas due to 3 main reason:

The first is energy policy, the energy managers decide about the consumed energy in an special region (always based on their own benefits and not environmental).

The second one is that the biomass is categorized as a low grade energy, for example you can not produce high pressure steam, but you can evaporate organic fluids.

The third one relates to technology limitation. Even if you produce for example evaporated organic fluids via biomass resources, the ORC expander technology is needed to produce electricity.

Best,

1 All biomass resources contribute to the Photosynthesis process, thus *capturing naturally* CO2. This is very important for the whole world!

2 better not to use them, in comparison to devastate the region (by cutting ancient forests..etc..or putting into fire the agricultural waste on open fields, etc..)!!

3 waste biomass should be used!!

4 biomass, if he humidity is not high, is a CO2 neutral fuel, which can be used for bio-gas production, co-firing with fossil fuels, as independent fuel, etc. It has a lot of benefits, including social ones (the local energy remains normally in the region, including the economic benefits)

5 Keep in mind that the calorific value is quite good (depending mostly on the humidity), the sulfur mostly is absent, etc. but other *bad*characteristics are also to be mentioned: softening temperature of the ashes, transport to the energy capacity (covering more than 20 km!!) , etc

6 regional/national strategy must be applied, and this is not always *the best selected*, in accordance to international laws/regulations. Such local/national strategies must/should/ support financially the development of the biomass waste in the region, by all means.

7 some combustion technologies for waste biomass are not very different from those necessary for fossil fuels, but the CO2 exhaust is *friendly* and does not contribute to the raising green gas concentration in the atmosphere.

Biomass can be a very important source, can be made carbon-netral or even carbon-negative. Technology is also developed - in developing countries. General perception though is that it is not!

The crucial reason for this resource not being capitalized upon is that solar pholtaics has attracted the attention of people with much better advocacy and financial resources that it has pushed back biomass resource in those segments that it could make a difference - distributed electricity generation and supply to cluster of villages with mini-grids and smart grids as well clean heat for cooking. I am not sure this situation will change unless environmental effects are truly understood by politicians of all kinds - those in power and those in opposition and the benefits of distributed "clean" heat and electricity from biomass are appreciated and supported.

Thank you very much to all respected experts for your opnions

The main problem the bioenergy industry facing in India is the sustainable supply of biomass. Biomass supply chain poses lot of problems in the smooth functioning of the bioenergy facilities. Another problem that bioenergy facilities are facing these days is the competition for feedstocks.

The rise in the cost of the feedstocks over the time leads to the operational difficulties and poses significant risks to the investor. The spatio-temporal heterogeneity of the feedstock supplies coupled with price escalations makes bioenergy facility operation more difficult with resulting less capacity factors.

I recommend Robert's answer

Best Regards

Compared to solar and wind technologies these days there is no competition for biomass. The cost for solar and wind technologies are reducing with time and this will only continue. Many studies support this. The technology in battery storage is improving and also cost for batteries is reducing. Although the R & D is new when compared to biomass is less popular. The Internet bubble has gone now its the solar energy bubble.