Search

Cascading, or cascade use, is concept that has many different definitions, but a common theme is a sequential use of resources for different purposes. The cascading concept was first presented in the early 1990s but has become an intensively debated topic primarily in the most recent decade. In the available literature on cascading of wood, there are few studies that discuss policy implementation. As this is currently heavily debated, there is an important gap here that we aim to fill. In this paper, we (a) critically review the conceptual history of cascading and (b) highlight the complexities involved in its implementation in policy frameworks. Originally, cascading was discussed as a broad framework for how society better should manage natural resource flows. In more recent debates on woody biomass however, cascading is often presented as simply a hierarchy, wherein material use of wood should hold priority over energy use of wood. This is partly based on an idea that certain forms of wood utilization are inherently more valuable than others, an assumption that becomes problematic when implemented in policy. In reality, how and for what a certain wood resource is used varies with time and place and historical examples of implementation of hierarchical policy frameworks indicate a high risk of unwanted consequences, such as unstable policy structures and tendencies toward a negotiation economy. Cascading of woody biomass can have benefits from both an economical and environmental perspective. However, cascading systems should emerge bottom‐up, not be imposed top‐down through politically determined hierarchies. WIREs Energy Environ 2018, 7:e279. doi: 10.1002/wene.279 This article is categorized under: Energy and Climate > Economics and Policy Energy Policy and Planning > Economics and Policy [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Different configurations were tested for producing biogas from roadside grass. • Dry digestion succeeded at pilot and large scale, but the latter can be improved. • Digested fibers performed better than undigested fibers for biomaterial production. • Anaerobic digestion might be stopped midway for improved fiber recovery. • Market potential of roadside grass for biomaterials production was significant. Roadside grass clippings hold potential as a sustainable source of bioenergy as they do not compete with crops for land use, and are only partially utilized for low-value applications. In this study, we proposed using roadside grass as a sole feedstock for anaerobic digestion (AD) in three different settings, and assessed the potential of producing biomaterials and fertilizers from grass-based digestate. Wet continuous digestion at pilot scale and dry batch digestion at pilot and large scales resulted in biogas yields up to 700 Nm3.t−1 DOM with a methane content of 49–55 %. Despite promising results, wet AD had operational problems such as clogging and poor mixing; once upscaled, the dry digestion initially also presented an operational problem with acidification, which was overcome by the second trial. Digested grass fibers from the pilot dry AD were processed into biomaterials and performed similarly or better than the undigested fibers, while around 20 % performance reduction was observed when compared to reference wood fibers. A mass balance indicated reduced fiber recovery when higher biogas production was obtained. The liquid fraction from the pilot dry AD was characterized for its nutrient content and used as a biofertilizer in another study. In contrast, the leachate collected from the large-scale dry AD had a low nitrogen content and high chloride content that could hinder its further use. Finally, a regional market analysis was conducted showing that the biocomposites produced with the available grass fibers could substitute at least half of the current European market based on our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]