Cited by 285Bioenergy crop production and managementBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentForest Biomass Utilization and Management

The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints

Open access
Haberl, Helmut, Beringer, Tim, Bhattacharya, Sribas C, Erb, Karl-Heinz, Hoogwijk, Monique·2010·Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Abstract

Bio-energy, that is, energy produced from organic non-fossil material of biological origin, is promoted as a substitute for non-renewable (e.g., fossil) energy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and dependency on energy imports. At present, global bio-energy use amounts to approximately 50 EJ/yr, about 10% of humanity's primary energy supply. We here review recent literature on the amount of bio-energy that could be supplied globally in 2050, given current expectations on technology, food demand and environmental targets ('technical potential'). Recent studies span a large range of global bio-energy potentials from ≈30 to over 1000 EJ/yr. In our opinion, the high end of the range is implausible because of (1) overestimation of the area available for bio-energy crops due to insufficient consideration of constraints (e.g., area for food, feed or nature conservation) and (2) too high yield expectations resulting from extrapolation of plot-based studies to large, less productive areas. According to this review, the global technical primary bio-energy potential in 2050 is in the range of 160-270 EJ/yr if sustainability criteria are considered. The potential of bio-energy crops is at the lower end of previously published ranges, while residues from food production and forestry could provide significant amounts of energy based on an integrated optimization ('cascade utilization') of biomass flows.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.007

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estimates of global primary bioenergy potentials available around 2050 published in the last 5 years span from 30 to 1300 EJ/year.

    “Estimates of global primary bioenergy potentials available around 2050 published in the last 5 years span range from 30 to 1300 EJ/year [9,10].”
  • Given biospheric constraints, it seems impossible that bioenergy could physically provide more than 250 EJ/year in 2050, substantially below many published bioenergy projections.

    “Given the biospheric constraints outlined above, it seems impossible that bioenergy could physically provide more than 250 EJ/year in 2050 [9,65,66], substantially below many published bioenergy projections.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Sims R.E.H. Schock R.N. Adegbululgbe A. Fenhann J. Konstantinaviciute I. Moomaw W. Nimir H.B. Schlamadinger B. Torres-Martinez J. Turner C. Energy supply Metz B. Davidson A. Bosch P.R. Dave R. Meyer L.A. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Cambridge University Press pp. 250–322.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haberl, H., Beringer, T., Bhattacharya, S. C., Erb, K.-H., & Hoogwijk, M.
Affiliations
  • Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
  • Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management (IN)
  • Ecofys (Netherlands) (NL)
Corresponding author
Haberl, Helmut
Venue
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
2
Issue
5-6
Pages
394-403
ISSN
1877-3435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964860660
Cited by
285
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 29
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
Keywords
technical potential, 2050 energy scenarios, sustainability constraints, land availability, food demand, nature conservation, biomass residues, cascade utilization, greenhouse gas emissions, energy import dependence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review