Assessment of biomass utilization pathways: a German case study
バイオマス利用経路の評価：ドイツのケーススタディ (AI 翻訳)
Johanna Ruett, Ali Abdelshafy, Ben Wichelhaus, Grit Walther
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、ドイツの小麦わらを対象に、バイオマス利用経路（バイオエネルギー、BECCS、バイオ炭除去）を統合的に評価した。民間投資の観点では現状バイオエネルギーが最も収益性が高いが、環境外部性を内部化すると全経路が社会的に有益となる。政策支援によりBECCSやバイオ炭除去の競争力が向上し、エネルギー部門の脱炭素化に伴いこれらの経路の重要性が増すことを示した。
English
This study assesses biomass utilization pathways (bioenergy, BECCS, biochar carbon removal) for wheat straw in Germany. From private perspective, bioenergy currently has highest net benefit, but BECCS can surpass it with incentives. All pathways have positive social benefits when externalities are monetized. The results highlight the need for policy support to make negative emission technologies viable.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではバイオマス発電が主流だが、炭素除去技術（BECCS、バイオ炭）の導入検討にも示唆を与える。ドイツの政策・市場条件の分析は、日本のバイオマス戦略の参考となる可能性がある。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a comprehensive framework for comparing biomass utilization pathways, relevant for countries considering negative emission technologies. It highlights the role of policy incentives in making BECCS and biochar economically viable, contributing to global discussions on carbon removal deployment.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides an integrated assessment framework comparing private and social net benefits of biomass pathways.
🏢実務担当者:Can help corporate sustainability teams evaluate investment in bioenergy vs. carbon removal projects.
🏛政策担当者:Offers insights on designing incentives for negative emission technologies in the biomass sector.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Currently, biomass utilization is predominantly directed toward bioenergy (BE) production. Yet, alternative pathways such as biochar carbon removal (BCR) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) are emerging options within negative emission technologies. Given limited biomass resources, determining their most beneficial allocation remains a pressing question. This study addresses the research gap by jointly evaluating the private investment perspective (net private benefit, NPB) and the broader societal perspective (net social benefit, NSB). Through an integrated assessment framework, the analyses compare biomass utilization pathways across a range of technological, regulatory, and market developments. Herein, wheat straw in Germany was selected due to its high theoretical potentials. Under current conditions, BE shows the highest NPB, followed by BECCS, while BCR displays a negative NPB without policy or market adjustments. However, all pathways demonstrate positive NSB when environmental externalities are monetized. Scenario analyses indicate that BECCS can surpass BE in NPB with incentives such as higher carbon removal credit, cost reductions, or improved CO 2 storage infrastructure. BCR becomes NPB-positive under scenarios with either cost reductions or revenue increases. It surpasses BE only when both occur simultaneously but does not exceed BECCS in any scenario. As the energy sector decarbonizes, BCR and BECCS become increasingly competitive. The study emphasizes the need for flexible, context-dependent pathways and robust policy support to ensure that biomass utilization in Germany is viable from both private economic and societal standpoints.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00083-3first seen 2026-05-05 07:53:02 · last seen 2026-05-05 19:14:21
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。