If you like our site, mark us as a preferred source on Google — so you’ll see our articles more often in search!
★Mark us as a preferred sourceStraw and corn stalks left on the field, livestock manure, and the branches left behind in forests after harvesting still go largely unused across much of the world, and in the worst cases they go up in smoke. A study published in Nature Communications on 6 October 2026 has calculated, at a global scale and for three feedstock types at once, what it would be worth to turn agricultural and forestry residues into energy in a deliberate, optimised way, and who would actually benefit.
Researchers from Jilin University, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and University College London modelled the process for 32 world regions and four future pathways up to 2060. The result is both encouraging and sobering. Agricultural and forestry residues will not solve the world’s energy supply on their own, but where they are used well, they deliver substantial climate and environmental gains. And those gains do not necessarily appear where residues are most abundant.
In short: Even in the most favourable scenario, agricultural and forestry residues could cover only around 6% of global energy demand by 2060, while avoided greenhouse gas emissions could reach 7.1 billion tonnes. The largest sustainability benefits go not to the most residue-rich countries but to places where plenty of residue is shared among relatively few people and the social structure is favourable, which is why Canada and Eastern Europe lead while the poorest regions gain little.
What exactly did the researchers study?
Although people often speak loosely of “plant waste”, the study covers three feedstock groups together: crop residues (straw, corn stalks and similar), manure from intensive livestock farming, and forestry residues. Manure from extensive, free-range and household livestock was excluded because it is hard to collect in practice.
The team linked the GCAM global model, which covers agriculture, land use, the energy system, the economy and the climate simultaneously, with life cycle assessment of each technology. Fourteen conversion technologies were included, from combined heat and power through briquettes, biogas, bioethanol and pyrolysis to renewable jet fuel. A genetic algorithm then decided, region by region, which feedstock should go to which technology to maximise either sustainability or economic returns.
The impacts were finally mapped onto 11 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) using 12 indicators. Most of these are expressed per person, so that results for a small country and a populous one can be compared.
Four futures, three utilisation levels
The researchers examined four socioeconomic and emissions pathways widely used in climate research:
- Sustainable development (SSP1-2.6): high utilisation, with 30% of crop and forestry residues and 90% of manure going to energy, and technical support for poorer regions too.
- Middle of the road (SSP2-4.5): medium utilisation (20%, 70%, 20%), continuing current trends.
- Unequal world (SSP4-4.5): rich regions use slightly more, poorer ones less, and advanced technologies never reach the latter.
- Fossil-fuelled growth (SSP5-8.5): low utilisation (10%, 50%, 10%), with no modern residue-to-energy deployment modelled in the poorest regions at all.
An important detail: the model only counts residues that already arise in existing production. It does not plant energy crops or cut additional forest, and it leaves the share needed to maintain soil nutrients on the field.
How much energy can agricultural and forestry residues deliver by 2060?
According to the model, the amount of available residues grows worldwide in every scenario up to 2060. On the sustainable pathway, energy output rises from 37.1 exajoules (EJ) in 2025 to 43.6 EJ in 2060. For a sense of scale, 1 EJ is a thousand petajoules, roughly the order of Hungary’s total annual energy use.
Despite this growth, the share of global energy demand covered falls from 6.4% in 2025 to 5.7% in 2060, because demand grows faster than usable residues. On the fossil-fuelled pathway the picture is more modest still, with the share falling from 1.6% to 1.0%.
The uncertainty is considerable: on the sustainable pathway, the 2060 value lies roughly between 34 and 54 EJ at 95% confidence. Yet the core message holds across all simulations: residue-based energy will be a complementary rather than dominant part of the future energy mix.
Which technologies produce the most?
On the sustainable pathway in 2060, more than half of the energy comes from crop residues, a quarter from forestry residues and 19% from manure. The largest single contributor is combined heat and power fuelled by straw and stalks.
On the fossil-fuelled pathway this flips, and manure-based biogas takes first place. There are two reasons: higher meat consumption means more manure, and economically driven optimisation sends less straw to CHP plants, even though their sustainability record is better.
Pyrolysis and renewable jet fuel are not standouts in terms of energy volume, but the study finds they perform well on industrial added value and profit. A good example of how widely pyrolysis can be applied to residues is bio-oil produced from date palm fibres.
Quantity isn’t everything: why Canada comes out on top
Perhaps the most striking finding is that abundant residues do not in themselves translate into large sustainability gains. The United States, Brazil and China hold vast quantities of residues, yet they do not achieve the highest scores.
In 2060, energy produced in the United States covers just 6.5% of domestic demand. Northern South America (Venezuela and its neighbours), with about one-fifth of that output at 1.1 EJ, meets 33.2% of its demand, and Brazil also exceeds 30%. On the sustainable pathway, nine regions cover more than a tenth of their energy demand from residues, six do so in the middle-of-the-road and unequal-world pathways, and none on the fossil-fuelled one.
Canada is the clear winner: residue-based energy could supply nearly 20% of its energy demand by 2060, and it stands far ahead on climate action (SDG13) and clean energy (SDG7). The secret is a large per-capita residue base, mostly from forestry, combined with a moderate population. Canada’s greenhouse gas savings come to roughly 305 million tonnes, of which 237 million tonnes come from forestry residues.
China, by contrast, suffers from a “dilution effect”: large absolute volumes translate into modest per-capita gains across a huge population. Countries like Japan, with few residues and many people, gain even less.
Eastern Europe’s surprising edge
Eastern Europe outperforms Northern South America despite having fewer residues per person: it reaches a score of 4.0 with 10.7 GJ per person, while the latter scores 2.7 with 17.7 GJ per person. There are two reasons. A smaller low-income population means the revenues translate into more noticeable income gains for poorer groups (SDG1, SDG10). And a higher share of manure improves the clean water result (SDG6) by cutting nutrient loads to water bodies.
The study names four main factors behind the regional differences:
- the amount of residue available per person,
- the composition of residues (manure, crop or forestry),
- whether a region optimises for sustainability or for economic return,
- and shifts in social structure over time, such as a falling share of people living in poverty.
On the sustainable pathway, avoided greenhouse gas emissions could reach 7.1 billion tonnes by 2060. The United States, Brazil and China account for 35% of this, and those three countries alone save 580 million tonnes more than the entire world does on the fossil-fuelled pathway. The gains come from two sources: bioenergy replaces fossil energy, and improper disposal is avoided, such as open burning of straw or manure runoff into waterways.
The environmental balance is not positive everywhere. Bioethanol from crop residues cuts carbon emissions effectively, but nitrogen oxides and phosphorus compounds released during processing worsen acidification and freshwater eutrophication. For marine eutrophication, both crop-based biogas and bioethanol add to the burden.
The clash between economic and environmental priorities shows clearly in the fate of manure on the fossil-fuelled pathway. There, composting receives 18% more manure than biogas-based power generation because it pays better economically, yet it delivers only 63% of the environmental benefit of biogas.
Where do the benefits show up in the Sustainable Development Goals?
The global composite SDG score is 0.82 on the sustainable pathway, 19% higher than in the middle-of-the-road scenario, but only 0.24 on the fossil-fuelled pathway. These numbers sit on a 0–100 scale, so in absolute terms they are modest. The score measures only how much residue use contributes to each goal, not a country’s overall sustainability performance.
The gains are concentrated in environmental and energy goals: clean water (SDG6), clean energy (SDG7), climate action (SDG13) and life below water (SDG14). Improvements in poverty and inequality reduction (SDG1, SDG10) are barely measurable at the global level.
The trajectory for life below water on the sustainable pathway is interesting: the score first improves, then declines. Using manure initially reduces the nitrogen reaching water bodies, but a dietary shift towards less meat gradually reduces the amount of manure, and with it this benefit.
The poorest regions fall behind
Low and lower-middle income regions, especially in Africa, score lowest in every scenario, and even on the sustainable pathway most of their score comes from clean energy. The authors argue this is not necessarily a sign of inequity but rather a result of low per-capita residues and limited infrastructure. Their conclusion is nonetheless clear: bioenergy alone cannot bridge deep-rooted development gaps without institutional and infrastructure support.
What does this mean for Central Europe?
In the model, Hungary belongs to the EU-12 region alongside Bulgaria, Czechia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and other member states that joined from 2004 onwards. The study’s text does not single out figures for this region; its charts suggest the region achieves a measurable, mid-table result in every scenario. The results should therefore be read as regional averages rather than a forecast for any single country.
Some general lessons still apply. The Eastern European example shows that using manure for energy not only produces energy but also reduces nutrient loads to waters. There is a Hungarian precedent: MOL is expanding the Szarvas biogas plant with a biomethane unit, where manure and slurry are key feedstocks. For a regional comparison of the biomethane potential of biogenic waste, the Austrian Environment Agency’s report is also useful.
The other lesson concerns technology choice. According to the study, the same residue can yield very different climate and environmental outcomes depending on the conversion route. For straw, combined heat and power and briquetting perform best; for manure, biogas beats composting. Planning should therefore ask not only how much residue there is, but which technology it goes to.
Limitations: what the model does not tell us
The authors list the limitations in detail, and they matter for interpreting the results.
- Upper-bound estimate: the model assumes all bioenergy fully replaces fossil energy. As the share of solar and wind grows, this displacement effect may weaken, so real-world climate benefits could be smaller.
- Global averages: emission factors are global averages and do not capture regional technology differences.
- Partial SDG picture: 11 of the 17 goals were assessed. Zero hunger, education, gender equality and decent work were left out, and interactions between goals were not modelled.
- Per-capita framing: this helps comparison but may understate absolute gains in populous regions.
- Land use: the model only counts residues from existing production and does not assess additional impacts on land-use change, water use or biodiversity.
The 10,000-run uncertainty analysis confirms that the main directions are robust: the sustainable pathway beats the fossil-fuelled one on every dimension, Canada and Eastern Europe stay ahead, and the poorest regions lag everywhere. Precise regional numbers, however, should be treated with caution.
Conclusion
The study’s key message is that the energy locked in residues is real but no silver bullet. Agricultural and forestry residues can play a transitional, complementary role in the future energy system, alongside other renewables. Their real value lies in the fact that a single step can replace fossil energy, prevent straw burning and manure-driven water pollution, and, where conditions allow, raise rural incomes. Success depends not on tonnes but on matching the right technology to the right feedstock, with strategies tailored to local conditions.
Frequently asked questions about agricultural and forestry residues for energy
How much energy can agricultural and forestry residues deliver by 2060?
In the most favourable scenario they could deliver 43.6 exajoules in 2060, about 5.7% of global energy demand. Output grows compared with 2025, but demand rises faster, so the share falls. On the fossil-fuelled pathway the share would be only 1.0%. The uncertainty range runs roughly from 34 to 54 exajoules.
Which technology produces the most energy from residues?
On the sustainable pathway, combined heat and power fuelled by straw and stalks produces the most energy. In 2060, more than half of the energy comes from crop residues, a quarter from forestry residues and 19% from manure. On the fossil-fuelled pathway, manure-based biogas takes the lead because there is more manure and economic optimisation favours it.
Why does Canada benefit the most from using residues?
Canada has a large residue base, mostly from forestry, shared among relatively few people. As a result, residue-based energy could cover nearly 20% of its energy demand by 2060, and the country stands out on climate action and clean energy. Its greenhouse gas savings come to about 305 million tonnes, of which 237 million tonnes come from forestry residues.
How much can using residues for energy cut emissions?
On the sustainable pathway, avoided greenhouse gas emissions could reach 7.1 billion tonnes by 2060. The United States, Brazil and China account for 35% of this. The gains come from bioenergy replacing fossil energy and from avoiding improper disposal, such as open burning of straw or manure runoff into waterways.
Why is residue-based energy not enough for the energy transition on its own?
Because even in the best case it would cover only around 6% of global energy demand by 2060. According to the study, residues can play a transitional, complementary role alongside the expansion of other renewables. The model also gives an upper-bound estimate, as it assumes all bioenergy fully replaces fossil energy.
What do the results mean for Central Europe?
In the model, Hungary belongs to the EU-12 region, so the results should be read as regional averages rather than a country forecast. The study’s text gives no separate figures for this region. A general lesson is that using manure for biogas produces energy and reduces nutrient loads to waters, while technology choice strongly shapes climate benefits.
🔗 Hivatalos források és hivatkozások: 👉
- Liu, C., Song, J., Deng, S. et al.: Prospects and complexities in sustainability impacts of global residue-based bioenergy deployment. Nature Communications (2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-78339-6
- Open data and code for the study (Zenodo): https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.22122700
Consistent structure, quick answers: every article is built so that both readers and AI search tools can find the key points easily. Our content is produced with the help of AI tools and reviewed by our editor.
