Full length article
Temporal and geographic drivers of biomass residues in California

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.08.022Get rights and content

Highlights

  • California generates over 70 million tonnes dry-matter per year of waste biomass.

  • By 2050, waste biomass supply could increase by 16%.

  • Existing combustion infrastructure could convert 17% of low moisture solids.

  • Existing AD infrastructure could convert 14% of food waste and manure.

Abstract

Expanding bioenergy conversion and composting of organics can enable a near-term transition away from the landfilling, burning, and mismanagement of biomass residues. Strategic development of transportation, storage, and conversion infrastructure to enable this expansion requires detailed information on patterns and drivers of waste biomass production, quality, and geography that are currently lacking. This analysis contributes new geographic and temporal data on biomass residue availability for the state of California. Biomass residues are characterized for the year 2014 at the county- and month-scales for the agriculture, municipal, and forestry sectors in California, with values collected or estimated from numerous publications, databases, industry surveys, and methodologies. We present methods for developing supply scenarios out to the year 2050 that reflect anticipated changes in key environmental, market, and policy drivers. Our results suggest that biomass residue production could grow 16% by 2050 to 71 million tonnes of dry-matter per year, and that the co-processing of diverse high-moisture residue sources and storage of seasonally available low-moisture residues is needed to ensure adequate steady supply to bioenergy and composting facilities. Additional research and better reporting on organic waste management is needed to bound uncertainties regarding the response of residue production to market trends and recycling policies, and the influence of agricultural practices, plant selection, and climate impacts on residue yields.

Introduction

Characterizing biomass residue supply is central to understanding the role bioenergy and bioproducts can play in offsetting fossil fuel and petrochemical consumption in the United States (U.S.). Numerous biomass inventory assessments have demonstrated the diversity and long-term abundance of the resource at the national and regional scales (Turhollow et al., 2014; Perlack et al., 2011; Langholtz et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2015). At the same time, data on biomass production, quality, and availability have largely been reported or derived at the county and annual scales, while techno-economic analyses suggest that finer resolution spatial and temporal data are needed to estimate local opportunities, barriers, and costs for facility-level decision-making (Tittmann et al., 2010; Breunig et al., 2017; Jaffe, 2018; Xie et al., 2014). This study seeks to provide the spatial and temporal resolution needed for decision-making at the locality and facility-levels for California, while also providing broader perspectives relevant to state-level bioenergy production strategies.

Biomass residue inventories generally use residue yield factors to approximate waste production from databases reporting harvested acres or harvested produce, food and cotton productivity, forested land acres, and livestock and population head counts. Few studies have contributed to our understanding of the spatial heterogeneity and temporal variation in residue yields. In the absence of survey or other measured data, seasonal variation must be inferred from seasonal and quarterly reports on agriculture and municipal activities. Monthly production of food waste, from farm to plate, was estimated by Breunig et al. using seasonal and quarterly harvest and waste disposal reports (Breunig et al., 2017). Studies of seasonality for agriculture in California dating back to 1976 estimate monthly production of crop residues, and have been used extensively by subsequent resource assessments (Williams et al., 2015; Knutson et al., 1976; Knutson and Miller, 1982; von Bernath et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2008, 2006). Matteson and Jenkins estimated monthly production for several food processing residues in a 2007 analysis of food processor waste in California (Matteson and Jenkins, 2007).

Past projections of biomass residues rely on high-level trends in human population, forest and agriculture land availability, with little variation in the yield factors used. Notable exceptions include a projection of biomass residues developed by the California Biomass Collaborative (CBC) out to 2020 (Williams et al., 2008), and a projection of municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal rates out to 2025 developed by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) (Facility Information Toolbox CalRecycle, 2018). Projections of county-level forestry-, municipal-, and agricultural-residue production and consumption out to 2030 were developed as part of the Billion-Ton Report series in the US (Turhollow et al., 2014; Perlack et al., 2011; Langholtz et al., 2016). Published in a publically available database, this study is widely used to estimate biomass resources, despite limited characterization of drivers at local and regional scales.

In California, the management of biomass residues, which consists of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW), crop residues, food and fiber processing residues, and forestry residues, is evolving as the state aggressively pursues its 2020 goal of 75% diversion of MSW from landfills, pursues tighter restrictions on greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria air pollutant (CAP) emissions, and seeks ways to reduce fire risks in forests and wildlands. Expanding bioenergy generation and composting of organics can complement source-reduction strategies to reduce landfill methane emissions and avoid the burning and mismanagement of municipal-, agriculture-, and forestry-organic wastes. However, careful estimation of net changes in emissions and other impacts is necessary, as residue collection, conversion, and byproduct management require energy and result in emissions. Consequential life-cycle assessment (LCA) (Finkbeiner et al., 2006) is a useful method for evaluating net changes in environmental impacts as a result of shifting organic residue management. Robust LCA of statewide scenarios requires detailed information on patterns and drivers of waste biomass quantity, quality, and geography that are currently lacking.

Our research builds on past work by deriving sub-annual biomass residue yields and developing new methods for constructing a comprehensive county-level biomass residue inventory for California. We also develop estimation and adjustment methods for missing or outdated information on seasonality, waste volumes, and management practices, and identify key uncertainties that could be reduced with additional survey or measured data (Williams et al., 2015; Breunig et al., 2017). Secondly, we identify socio-economic and environmental trends affecting biomass residue production and quantify expected future changes to develop scenarios for biomass residue availability out to 2050. Technical availability factors, which represent the fraction of residue that is potentially available for bioenergy after accounting for established uses, such as animal feed, and likely limitations to collection, are useful for gauging the impact of logistical challenges and market competition (Williams et al., 2015; Breunig et al., 2017). These factors are challenging to bound, as they are subject to unknown market dynamics and site-specific economics. For this reason, we limit the scope of this paper to the drivers of current and future gross biomass residue availability. Finally, we provide a discussion on the allocation of county-level residue inventory to sub-county locations that can be used to enable bioenergy/bioproduct facility siting research.

Our study ultimately provides a current inventory and set of projections for California with greater temporal, geospatial, and compositional specificity than any previous work, including sub-annual detail that is crucial in estimating energy generation potential and making strategic infrastructure investments. Our scenarios of residue availability for forestry, agri-industry, and municipal sectors out to 2050 provide the first estimate of biomass residues past 2030 that we are aware of. The methods documented here also can be applied more broadly across the U.S. and globally. California is a leader in developing and implementing environmental policy. Therefore, understanding opportunities and barriers to organic residue diversion in California can result in valuable insights for stakeholders across the U.S. and world.

Section snippets

Sub-annual availability factors

When crops are harvested, there are typically three categories of biomass generated: marketable product (produce), culls, and residues. A crop is grown for specific portions of its biomass (fruit, seed, fiber, root etc.), however a plant requires additional biomass to support itself. The above-ground fraction of the plant that remains once the marketable product is harvested is referred to as residue, and part or all of this biomass may remain on the field to ensure soil health (Collins et al.,

Sub-annual variations in wet and dry residues

Seasonality of biomass residue supply when aggregated as collective dry-matter is prominent in the Northern Valley (which includes the agriculturally-productive Central and Sacramento Valleys) and moderate in most other regions (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Biomass categories with an average moisture content >50% or biomass types typically processed using anaerobic digestion are grouped as high-moisture solids (HMS); this includes row crop residues, agricultural culls, high-moisture food processing wastes,

Conclusions

To develop a comprehensive strategy for improved biomass residue management and diversion from landfills, decision-makers need a complete understanding of the quantities and types of residues being generated across time and space. This information can guide research and technology development, as the specific composition of residue types/blends is important for deciding how best to manage and derive value from them. We have presented the most detailed biomass residue inventory and projection

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the California Energy Commission. We thank S. Smith, N. Carr, and S. Sherman for their insights and thoughtful advice. This work was part of the DOE Joint BioEnergy Institute (http://www.jbei.org) supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, through contract DE-AC02-05CH11231 between Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government retains, and the publisher,

References (60)

  • System, B. o. G. o. t. F. R. (Ed.), 2017. G. 17 Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. Washington,...
  • H.M. Breunig et al.

    Bioenergy potential from food waste in California

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2017)
  • H. Brunke et al.

    Future Food Production and Consumption in California under Alternative Scenarios

    (2004)
  • S. Charnley et al.

    Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit

    (2013)
  • H. Collins et al.

    Crop rotation and residue management effects on soil carbon and microbial dynamics

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1992)
  • CropScape- Cropland Data Layer (Ed.), 2016. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington...
  • V. Daioglou et al.

    Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry

    Gcb Bioenergy

    (2015)
  • Department, C. E. D. (Ed.), 2016. Employment Projections: Long Term Projections (Ten-Years). Sacramento,...
  • Disposal Reporting System: Single-year Countywide Origin Detail 2014. 2015. CalRecycle. Disposal-Facility-Based...
  • Division, U. E. P. A. M. I. S. W. (Ed.), 1999. Biosolids generation, use, and disposal in the United...
  • E. Emissions

    Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID).

    (2000)
  • Facility Information Toolbox CalRecycle

    Project Future Disposal Amounts. County Queries. CalRecycle

    (2018)
  • M. Finkbeiner et al.

    The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044

    Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.

    (2006)
  • IBISWORLD

    Industrial Report Series

    (2016)
  • A.M. Jaffe

    The Feasibility of Renewable Natural Gas as a Large-scale, Low-carbon Substitute; 13-307; Prepared for the CARB and CAEPA by UC Davis

    (2018)
  • A.-M. Klein et al.

    Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops

    Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.

    (2007)
  • J. Knutson et al.

    Agricultural Residues (biomass) in California… factors Affecting Utilization. Leaflet 21303, Cooperative Extension

    (1982)
  • J. Knutson et al.
  • M.S. Kukal et al.

    US agro-climate in 20th century: growing degree days, first and last frost, growing season length, and impacts on crop yields

    Sci. Rep.

    (2018)
  • J.D. Landis et al.

    How we will grow: baseline projections of California’s urban footprint through the year 2100

    Integrated Land Use and Environmental Models, Springer

    (2003)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Current state of industrial heating and opportunities for decarbonization

      2022, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      For the purpose of this case study, we consider two types of biomass residue for fuel switching. First, we assess fruit hulls/pits and nut shells that are separated from edible crops at industrial processing facilities as secondary byproducts that have few existing use cases or markets despite their high energy density [117]. Second, we consider mill and forest management residues, including orchard prunings, unused mill residues, urban wood waste, and fire treatment thinnings [116].

    • Status of and expectations for flexible bioenergy to support resource efficiency and to accelerate the energy transition

      2022, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      The supply-chain view facilitates to link the flexible bioenergy valorization discussion back to existing scientific domains: On the one end, feedstock flexibility provides the option to valorize either feedstock of varying quality or different types of biomass, for example, depending on seasonal availability or prices, or to cater to suddenly emerging needs due to severe weather or pests [128]. managed to combine geospatial data of biomass residues in California, US, with information on their seasonal availability.

    • Sustainable energy for a winery through biogas production and its utilization: A Chilean case study

      2020, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments
      Citation Excerpt :

      Only a small part of this waste is subjected to the composting process, giving a value to the waste, converting it into a by-product soil improver. Several studies show the results of vineyard residues and WAS composting processes [21–23]. The sludge generated in the treatment plant entails a very high cost due to its provision in a sanitary landfill.

    • Annual biomass variation of agriculture crops and forestry residues, and seasonality of crop residues for energy production in Mexico

      2020, Food and Bioproducts Processing
      Citation Excerpt :

      As biomass residues from agricultural crop and forest timber production may be a feasible option for energy production due to their social and environmental benefits, primarily green job creations and GHG emission reduction, it is important not only to evaluate the amount and the spatial distribution of these residues in specific areas but also to consider the annual and seasonal variation of available residues. For California, for example, such data exist, and are helpful for policy and decision makers (Xie et al., 2014; Breunig et al., 2018). Such data would be helpful as a starting point for strategic planning and decision-making for setting up biomass-based plants.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text