1463 ccc bioenergy review interactive

7/30/2019 1463 CCC Bioenergy Review Interactive

1/45

Committee on Climate Change

December 2011

reviewBioenergy

How to navigate this report:

Roll cursor over this graphic in the

top right o each page, to view the contents list,

move cursor down the list to choose chapter,

then click.


2/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I 1

Photo creditsWe are grateul to the ollowing or permission to reproduce their photographs:Chapter 2 top picture (also reproduced on cover page): John Gilliland, Rural Generation Ltd.All other pictures: Ute Collier, CCC.

The Committee on Climate Change (the Committee) is an independent statutory body

which was established under the Climate Change Act (2008) to advise UK and Devolved

Administration governments on setting and meeting carbon budgets, and preparing or

climate change.

Setting carbon budgets

In December 2008 we published our rst report, Building a low-carbon economy the UKs

contribution to tackling climate change, containing our advice on the level o the rst three

carbon budgets and the 2050 target; this advice was accepted by the Government and

legislated by Parliament. In December 2010, we set out our advice on the ourth carbon

budget, covering the period 2023-27, as required under Section 4 o the Climate Change Act;

the ourth carbon budget was legislated in June 2011 at the level that we recommended.

Progress meeting carbon budgets

The Climate Change Act requires that we report annually to Parliament on progress meeting

carbon budgets; we have published three progress reports in October 2009, June 2010 andJune 2011.

Advice requested by Government

We provide ad hoc advice in response to requests by the Government and the Devolved

Administrations. Under a process set out in the Climate Change Act, we have advised

on reducing UK aviation emissions, Scottish emissions reduction targets, UK support or

low-carbon technology innovation, design o the Carbon Reduction Commitment and

renewable energy ambition. In September 2010 and July 2011, we published advice on

adaptation, assessing how well prepared the UK is to deal with the impacts o climate change.

Preace


3/45

Foreword

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Acknowledgements 32 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Foreword

This report sets out our assessment o the role or bioenergy in meeting carbon budgets.

A crucial issue is the extent to which bioenergy is sustainable. To assess this, we need to

account or emissions on a complete liecycle basis, and to understand whether increasing

levels o bioenergy penetration are compatible with providing ood or a growing and

increasingly wealthy global population, and with wider environmental and social objectives.

In the report we consider these various aspects o sustainability, and develop scenarios or

sustainable supply o bioenergy out to 2050. We conclude that there is likely to be some but

limited supply o sustainable bioenergy, that this is needed to meet carbon budgets, and that

levels o bioenergy penetration required may require trade-os with other objectives. We then

make recommendations on the regulatory ramework to ensure sustainability, ocusing on

European approaches to biouels and UK approaches to biomass over the next decade.

We also present analysis o where scarce bioenergy might best be used across sectors.

This suggests a particularly important role or carbon sequestration, either through the use

o wood in construction or the use o carbon capture and storage (CCS) with bioenergy.

CCS should thereore be demonstrated as a matter o urgency, not just because o its benets

when used with ossil uels, but because negative emissions rom using it with bioenergy will

reduce costs and risks o meeting carbon budgets. Additionally, the scope or greater use owood in construction should be explored by the Government.

This report will be an input into our advice on the inclusion o international aviation and

shipping emissions in carbon budgets (e.g. since the inclusion o these emissions would have

implications or the required emissions reductions in other sectors o the economy). We will

publish this advice in spring 2012, with a Government decision on inclusion required beore the

end o 2012 under the Climate Change Act.

On behal o the Committee, I would like to thank the team who prepared the report or their

great eorts, particularly as this ollows a busy 12 months in which we have produced reports

on the ourth carbon budget, renewable energy, progress meeting carbon budgets, and

shipping emissions.

Lord Adair Turner

Chair

Acknowledgements

The Committee would like to thank:

The core team that prepared the analysis or the report. This was led by Ute Collier

and David Kennedy and included: Alice Barrs, Russell Bishop, Adrian Gault, Jonathan Haynes,

David Joe, Alex Kazaglis, Anna Leatherdale, Eric Ling, Nina Meddings, Stephen Smith,Kavita Srinivasan, Indra Thillainathan, and Katherine White.

Other members o the secretariat who contributed to the report: Neil Golborne,

Swati Khare-Zodgekar, Eleanor Pierce, Meera Sarda, Mike Thompson, Emily Towers

and Jo Wilson.

A number o individuals who provided signifcant support: Rob Arnold, Dr. Ausilio Bauen,

Tim Beringer, Melanie Coath, Matt Georges, Jackie Honey, Pat Howes, Michael Humphries,

Annabel Kelly, Akira Kirton, Ewa Kmietowicz, Ben Marriott, Stella Matakidou, Robert Matthews,

Lszl Mth, Cameron Maxwell, Dr. James Morison, Dr. Nigel Mortimer, Dr. Richard J. Murphy,

Pro. Martin Parry, Alexis Raichoudhury, Caroline Season, Dr. Raphael Slade, Pro. Gail Taylor,

John Tebbit, Dr. Patricia Thornley, Ian Tubby, Pro. Detle van Vuuren, Graham Wynne,

Dr. Jeremy Woods and Mark Workman.

Proessor Pete Smith, Aberdeen University, or his expert advice on the review.

The ollowing organisations who have hosted visits or the CCC Bioenergy team:

Drax Power, Renewable Energy Growers Ltd and Miscanthus Growers Ltd, PwC More London

ofce, Rothamsted Research, RWE npower at Tilbury and Uptown Oil.

A number o organisations or their support, including: Association o Electricity

Producers, BIOENERGY 2020+, Construction Products Association, Dera, DECC, DT, E4tech,

Forestry Commission, IEA Bioenergy, NFU, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government

and Welsh Government.

A wide range o stakeholders who sent us evidence, attended our stakeholder meetings,

or met with us bilaterally.


4/45

The Committee

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I The Committee 54 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I The Committee

Lord Adair Turner, Chair

Lord Turner o Ecchinswell is the Chair o the Committee on

Climate Change and Chair o the Financial Services Authority.

He has previously been Chair at the Low Pay Commission,Chair at the Pension Commission, and Director-general o

the Conederation o British Industry (CBI).

David Kennedy, Chie Executive

David Kennedy is the Chie Executive o the Committee on

Climate Change. Previously he worked on energy strategy and

investment at the World Bank, and the design o inrastructure

investment projects at the European Bank or Reconstruction

and Development. He has a PhD in economics rom the

London School o Economics.

Proessor Samuel Fankhauser

Proessor Samuel Fankhauser is acting Co-Director o the

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London

School o Economics and a Director at Vivid Economics.

He is a ormer Deputy Chie Economist o the European

Bank or Reconstruction and Development.

Sir Brian Hoskins

Proessor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director o the

Grantham Institute or Climate Change at Imperial Collegeand Proessor o Meteorology at the University o Reading.

He is a Royal Society Research Proessor and is also a member

o the National Science Academies o the USA and China.

Proessor Julia King

Proessor Julia King CBE FREng is Vice-Chancellor o Aston

University. She led the King Review or HM Treasury in 2007/8

on decarbonising road transport. She was ormerly Director oAdvanced Engineering or the Rolls-Royce industrial businesses.

Julia is one o the UKs Business Ambassadors, supporting UK

companies and inward investment in low-carbon technologies.

Lord John Krebs

Proessor Lord Krebs Kt FRS, is currently Principal o Jesus College

Oxord. Previously, he held posts at the University o British

Columbia, the University o Wales, and Oxord, where he was

lecturer in Zoology, 1976-88, and Royal Society Research

Proessor, 1988-2005. From 1994-1999, he was Chie Executive

o the Natural Environment Research Council and, rom 2000-

2005, Chairman o the Food Standards Agency. He is a membero the U.S. National Academy o Sciences. He is chairman o the

House o Lords Science & Technology Select Committee.

Lord Robert May

Proessor Lord May o Oxord, OM AC FRS holds a Proessorship

jointly at Oxord University and Imperial College. He is a Fellow

o Merton College, Oxord. He was until recently President o

The Royal Society, and beore that Chie Scientic Adviser to the

UK Government and Head o its Ofce o Science & Technology.

Proessor Jim Skea

Proessor Jim Skea is Research Director at UK Energy Research

Centre (UKERC) having previously been Director o the Policy

Studies Institute (PSI). He led the launch o the Low Carbon

Vehicle Partnership and was Director o the Economic and Social

Research Councils Global Environmental Change Programme.


5/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Executive summary 76 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Executive summary

Executive summary

Bioenergy reers to solid, liquid or gas uels made rom biomass eedstocks which may or may

not have undergone some orm o conversion process.

The role o bioenergy in climate change mitigation is controversial. Specically, there

are questions over the extent to which bioenergy use results in emissions reductionswhen liecycle impacts are accounted or, and tensions between the use o bioenergy

and sustainability objectives (e.g. relating to the use o land or growing ood, protecting

biodiversity and water resources).

This review provides an assessment o the potential roles or bioenergy given liecycle

emissions and other sustainability concerns, and also considers alternative uses or bioenergy

eedstocks (e.g. use o wood in construction).

In it, we set out three blocks o analysis:

We consider liecycle emissions, and the extent to which bioenergy can be regarded as

low-carbon when these are accounted or.

Wedevelopscenariosforlong-termsupplyofsustainablebioenergy,reectingconcerns

about ood production, biodiversity, water stress and social issues. Weassessthemostappropriateusesofsustainablebioenergy,anddrawoutimplications

or near-term low-carbon strategy.

Our analysis takes into account two types o uncertainty:

Thosewherefurtherdevelopmentoftheevidencebaseisdesirableandfeasiblegiven

additional detailed research. These relate to: (i) ull liecycle emissions associated with energy

crops, orest biomass and agricultural residues (ii) the current use and characteristics o land

potentially available or growing energy crops, including social (e.g. displacement o people)

and environmental (e.g. soil carbon release, biodiversity loss) impacts that might ollow rom

bioenergy production.

Uncertaintieswhicharemoreinherentandwillonlyberesolvedovertimeandinthe

light o technology demonstration. These relate to: (i) the development o new bioenergytechnologies (ii) the development o carbon capture and storage (CCS) (iii) improvements

in agricultural productivity (iv) trends in ossil uel prices (v) population growth and diet.

Wedeveloparangeofscenarioswhichreecttheseuncertainties,andidentifytechnology

options which i developed would enable us, in some combination, to meet carbon budgets

and the 2050 target.

Our analysis leads us to reach our key conclusions:

Theneedforbioenergyversusitssustainablesupply:

It will be difcult to meet the overall 2050 emissions target unless bioenergy can account

or around 10% o total UK primary energy (compared to the current 2%) and CCS is a

feasibletechnology.Thisreectsthefactthatthereareasmallnumberofeconomicactivities where alternatives to hydrocarbons may either not be easible (e.g. in aviation)

or have not yet been identied (e.g. in iron and steel).

Scenarios or global land use which take account o required ood production suggest

that a reasonable UK share o potential sustainable bioenergy supply could extend to

around 10% (200 TWh) o primary energy demand in 2050. However, it would be unsae

at present to assume any higher levels o bioenergy supply, and even the 10% level

might require some trade-os versus other desirable environmental and social objectives

(e.g. through energy crops production encroaching on land o high biodiversity value).

I CCS is not available at the scale envisaged, the amount o bioenergy required to

meet the 2050 target would have to be signicantly higher than 10% o primary energy

demand, and would imply land use change exceeding currently estimated sustainability

limits.

Thereore i CCS does not prove a viable technology, or i subsequent developments in

ood or energy crop productivity suggest that the land use to achieve 10% bioenergy

penetration is unsustainable, achieving the 2050 target will then require bioenergy

technology breakthroughs (e.g. algae), breakthroughs in other areas (e.g. or production

o iron and steel without hydrocarbons or product substitution), urther reductions in

non-CO2

emissions, or changes in consumer behaviour (e.g. in relation to diet or travel).

Lifecycleemissions. It is important that the role o bioenergy in low-carbon strategy

reectsrealisticestimatesoftotallifecycleemissionsfordierenttypesoffeedstock,

including both direct and indirect land use change impacts. EU and UK regulatory

approaches do not ully mitigate the risks o emissions rom indirect land use change, and

shouldthereforebestrengthened.Specically,bothframeworksshouldreectindirectland

use change emissions, and the emissions saving relative to ossil uels required or use obiomass in UK power and heat generation should be increased. I more robust regulations

limit the supply o bioenergy which can meet dened sustainability criteria, the current 2020

targets or biouels and biomass penetration should be adjusted down.


6/45


Appropriateuseoflimitedsustainablebioenergysupplyinthelongterm.Given

limits to the global supply o sustainable bioenergy, it is important that this is used in an

optimal ashion. In general, this implies use in applications where there are currently noeasible low-carbon alternatives to hydrocarbon input. However, our analysis has illustrated

that the appropriate use depends crucially on whether or not CCS is an available technology

(Figure ES.1).

I CCS is available, it is appropriate to use bioenergy in applications with CCS, making it

possible to achieve negative emissions. These applications could include power and/

or heat generation, the production o hydrogen, and the production o biouels or use

in aviation and shipping.

I CCS is not available, bioenergy use should be skewed towards heat generation in

energy-intensive industry, and to biouels in aviation and shipping, with no appropriate

role in power generation or surace transport.

In either case, the use o woody biomass in construction (rather than as an energy

source) should be a high priority, given that this generates negative emissions through

a very efcient orm o carbon capture.

Implicationsofbioenergyavailabilityforoveralllow-carbonstrategy.Our analysis has

revealed that supplies o sustainable bioenergy may only just be sufcient to make meeting

the 2050 target achievable, and only then i CCS is available. Policy should thereore place a

high priority on:

Developing and demonstrating CCS technology.

Ensuring that sectors which do not need to rely on bioenergy achieve decarbonisation

via other means (e.g. through investment in a range o low-carbon power technologies,

energy efciency and electric heat deployment in buildings, and the development o

electric vehicles (battery or hydrogen)).

Supporting research in areas where it is possible that there could be breakthroughs

which will lessen sustainability constraints (e.g. new bioenergy technologies and

technologies or improving agricultural productivity), or provide alternatives to the use

o hydrocarbons.

We also make a number o recommendations ollowing rom these conclusions, and rom our

analysis o specic sectors (Box ES.1):

Powergeneration.There should be limited i any support or new large-scale dedicated

biomass generation.

Any longer-term role or new dedicated biomass power plants without CCS should be

very limited given its relatively high cost compared to other options or power sector

decarbonisation.

Detailed analysis o the power sector suggests this result also holds or the near term, and

that any near-term investment should be limited to biomass co-ring and the conversion

o existing coal-red power plants.

Thereore while the Governments current ocus on co-ring and conversion isappropriate, saeguards should be introduced to ensure that proposed support or new

dedicated biomass under the Renewables Obligation (RO) does not result in unnecessary

cost escalation or increased emissions. For new dedicated biomass power plants, support

should be limited to small-scale plants and combined heat and power (CHP) plants or, at

a minimum, support or large-scale new dedicated biomass should be limited to a very

small number o projects.

Industry.Continued support or the use o biomass in industry is appropriate. In addition,

industry CCS should be developed and the scope or using wood in construction

explored urther.

There is a clear role or the long-term use o biomass in energy-intensive industry,

whether or not CCS is viable. Thereore support or this should be continued under the

Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).

Given the importance o CCS in industry, which in conjunction with biomass would

become a negative emissions option, the Government should develop a plan or

demonstration and/or deployment o this technology.

There may be scope or signicant emission reductions through the use o woody

biomass in construction. This opportunity and supporting policies should be considered

urther by the Government.

Figure ES.1: Hierarchy o appropriate use o bioenergy in 2050

Wood in construction, industrial heat

Liquid biofuels for surface transport, biomass power without CCS

Power/heat/hydrogen production

with CCS

Liquid biofuels foraviation/shipping

Liquid biofuelswith CCS for

aviation/shipping

CCS available CCS not available

Desirable

Desirabledepending on

circumstances

Undesirable

Source: CCC.


7/45


Box ES.1: Key recommendations

Bioenergy penetration. The Government should plan or levels o bioenergy penetration o around 10% o

primary energy but no higher to meet the 2050 target.

Liquid biouels sustainability.The Government should argue strongly or extending the European sustainability

ramework under the Renewable Energy Directive to cover indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions. This should

either be through the use o ILUC actors or by capping the use o eedstocks with associated risks o ILUC at

sustainable levels.

Forest biomass sustainability. The minimum emissions threshold under the sustainability ramework or the

Renewables Obligation (RO) should be tightened rom the current level o 285 gCO2/kWh to 200 gCO2/kWh. Seriousconsideration should also be given to introducing a sustainability standard or all wood used in the UK (e.g. pulp

and paper, construction) which would provide more condence that RO support or biomass in power does not

result in indirect deorestation.

Flexibility o targets. Liquid biouels targets under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation and biomass targets

intheRenewableEnergyStrategyshouldberegardedasexible,andadjustedintheeventthatthereisinsucient

supply o sustainable bioenergy.

New targets. No new targets or longer-term bioenergy penetration should be set until new regulatory

arrangements are introduced to ensure achievement o sustainability objectives.

Accounting. Any new global agreement limiting emissions should ully account or agriculture, orestry and land

use change emissions, including those related to the use o bioenergy.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration.CCS should be demonstrated as a matter o urgency,

particularly because the negative emissions ensuing when this is used with biomass may be required to meet long-

term emissions targets.

Biomass power generation. Support or biomass power generation under the RO should be ocused on co-

ring and conversion o existing coal power plants. Any suppor t or new dedicated biomass generation should be

limited to small-scale only or, at a minimum, any support or n ew large-scale dedicated biomass should be limited

to a very small number o projects.

Biomass heat generation and biogas production. There should be continued support or the use o biomass in

heat generation and production o biogas rom waste under the Renewable Heat Incentive.

Supportfornon-bioenergytechnologies.Going beyond bioenergy, our analysis conrms the need to continue

incentivising energy efciency improvement, decarbonisation o the power sector, use o heat pumps in buildings,

and electric vehicles, all o which appear to be least-regrets options or the longer-term decarbonisation path or

the economy.

The main considerations in reaching these conclusions are (Figure ES.2):

Liecycle emissions. We set out estimates o liecycle emissions or dierent types o land

and eedstocks. These include emissions rom cultivation, production and transportation

o eedstocks, together with emissions rom direct and indirect land use impacts, both

as regards crops and biomass rom orests. We identiy crops and land types to minimise

liecycle emissions, and consider regulatory approaches to ensure this. This assessment

isreectedinourestimatesofthesustainablebioenergyresourceandouranalysisof

appropriate use, which accounts or liecycle emissions.

Aviation. Meeting aviation emissions targets is likely to require a combination o biouels,

efciency improvements and constrained demand growth.

In a world without CCS, our analysis suggests an important role or aviation biouels rom

the 2020s.

Where CCS is viable, continued use o biouels in aviation would require application o

CCS to biouels plants. Recognising this possibility, any investment in aviation biouels

plants over the next decade with a payback period more than twenty years should be

planned on the basis that CCS may have to be retrotted. In either case, meeting the target to reduce aviation emissions in 2050 back to 2005

levels is likely to require a combination o biouels, technology and operational efciency

improvement, as well as constrained demand growth.

Surfacetransport. Battery and hydrogen electric vehicles are the most promising options

or decarbonising surace transport and should thereore be supported.

In the longer term, there is likely to be only niche use o liquid biouels in surace

transport.Thisreectsopportunitiesforcost-eectivedecarbonisationofcars,vansand

heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) through electric (battery and hydrogen) technologies.

Thereore support or electric vehicle development is appropriate now in order to

prepare or this uture.

The declining role or biouels in surace transport should be actored into investmentdecisions about biouels plants (e.g. these should pay back by the early 2030s, or should

be based on advanced conversion processes and around this time switch to other

markets such as shipping or surace transport in other countries).

In addition to large-scale bioenergy applications that deliver large emission savings,

we recognise that there is a range o sensible smaller-scale applications using local resources

(e.g. buses running on used cooking oil, anaerobic digestion plants using ood or arm waste,

or biomass boilers using woodchip rom tree surgery waste).


8/45Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Executive summary 13

Thestartingpointoftheanalysisoffuturebioenergysupplyisglobal,reectingthefactthat

a lot o bioenergy eedstocks are likely to be traded globally.

Givenourglobalanalysis,andarangeofestimatesofUK-producedfeedstocks,wedevelop

scenarios or UK bioenergy supply, which we use as inputs to our detailed analysis and

modelling o the UK energy system. These scenarios assume a UK share o total global

bioenergy in line with the UKs share in total global energy (i.e. not a disproportionately high

level o UK bioenergy consumption relative to the global total).

TheanalysisofappropriateuseofscarcebioenergyisattheUKlevel,withtheaimtodrawout implications or UK low-carbon strategy. These implications are also relevant more

generally, considering that all countries subject to a tight carbon constraint are likely to

ollow broadly similar decarbonisation paths, although at dierent paces and with a dierent

mix o abatement options.

We set out our analysis in ve chapters, starting with an introduction, then setting out the

three blocks o analysis described above, and nishing with a conclusion:

1. What is bioenergy?

2. Is bioenergy low-carbon?

3. Sustainable bioenergy supply

4. Appropriate use o scarce bioenergy

5. Summary o conclusions and recommendations or low-carbon strategy

More detailed analysis is set out in ull in our technical papers available on our website

(http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/bioenergy-review ).

1. Is bioenergy low-carbon?

2. Global and UK bioenergy supply scenarios

3. Appropriate use o scarce bioenergy

4. Biomass in power generation

This review is an input to our advice on the inclusion o aviation and shipping emissions in

carbon budgets which we will publish in spring 2012. It will inorm our assessment o how

carbon budgets and targets might be achieved when aviation and shipping emissions areincluded. Following our advice, the Government will make a decision on inclusion and

depending on the decision propose a statutory instrument to Parliament beore the end

o the year. The review also provides recommendations to Government to eed into its new

bioenergy strategy to be published in early 2012 and its current review o banding within the

Renewable Obligation Certicate regime rom 2013 onwards.

Bioenergyresourceestimates. We set out our scenarios which represent possible

bioenergy supply (dedicated energy crops, orestry and agricultural residues, and waste

resources) under plausible assumptions on population growth, diet change, agricultural

productivity, sustainability constraints (e.g. relating to biodiversity and water stress) and

implied land available or growth o energy crops. These illustrate a range o possible utures

that allow planning or dierent bioenergy contributions to meeting UK carbon budgets. We

use these scenarios as inputs to our modelling o appropriate bioenergy use across sectors.

Analysisofappropriateusesofbioenergy.We use a model to identiy where scarce

supplies o sustainable bioenergy might best be used across sectors (minimising costs andmaximising abatement), given other low-carbon technologies available. Within this, we

consider the use o biomass as a substitute or carbon-intense products in construction

or industry. From our assessment o appropriate use in the longer term, we draw out

implications or near-term strategy, relating to the development o bioenergy and other

low-carbon options.

Our analysis covers both global and UK levels, with a ocus on UK insights and implications that

are also relevant more generally:

Thelifecycleemissionsanalysistakesaninternationalperspective,consideringemissionsfor

a range o crops grown globally. The recommendations that ollow rom this analysis relate

to EU and UK bioenergy sustainability rameworks.

12 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Executive summary

Figure ES.2: Analytical approach in the Bioenergy Review

Lifecycle emissions (Chapter 2)

Sustainable bioenergy supply (Chapter 3)

Appropriate use of bioenergy (Chapter 4)

Carbon budgets strategy (Chapter 5)

Bioenergy roleand support

Lifecycle emissionsSector use

Blocks of analysis

Conclusions and recommendations

Source: CCC.
http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/bioenergy-reviewhttp://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/bioenergy-review


9/45Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 1 What is bioenergy? 15

(continued)

Chapter 1

What is bioenergy?

Bioenergy eedstocks and technologies

The key bioenergy eedstocks are ood and odder crops, dedicated energy crops, orestry,

waste and agricultural residues (Box 1.1). Currently the vast majority o modern bioenergy

(excluding traditional biomass, i.e. small-scale uses or heating, lighting and cooking) comes

rom ood and odder crops. These are used to produce conventional liquid biouels through

a range o established conversion processes.

Box 1.1: Bioenergy key terms and denitions

Bioenergy is created by combusting solid, liquid or gas uels made rom biomass eedstocks which may or may not

have undergone some orm oconversion process.

Biomass:

Various dierent types o biomass can be used as a eedstock or bioenergy:

Food (and odder) crops are the edible parts o sugar, starch and oil plants traditionally developed and grown

to produce ood or humans and animals. Food crops being used or uel include wheat, maize, soya, palm oil and

sugar cane.

Agricultural residues are the by-products rom crops, such as wheat straw and seed husks, as well as other

agricultural by-products including slurry and manure.

Forestry & orest residues denote woody material rom existing orests (which may or may not be managed)

plus residuesfromsawmills,forestoorsandtreepruning.

Waste denotes ood waste, sewage and other biological waste rom homes or industry, which otherwise tend to

be discarded.

Dedicated energy crops are not grown or ood but are being targeted or energy use. Examples include ast-growing

trees and grasses with a high lignin content such as miscanthus and willow, and oil crops such as jatropha.

Conversion processes:

While biomass can be combusted directly or heat and power, chemical processes are oten used to convert a

eedstock into a viable uel. For the purposes o this repor t we identiy two general types:

Current conversion processes are mature technologies which are already being widely used to produce biouels

on industrial scales, including ermentation and anaerobic digestion.

Advanced conversion processes are the subject o current research, with some demonstration plants in operation,however they are not yet widely deployed. Examples include cellulosic ethanol production, Fischer-Tropsch

synthesis, and pyrolysis.

Research and development is under way to create new and improved uels rom biomass. Much o this is devoted

to methods or creating liquid uels rom alternative eedstocks. We thereore reer to two types o liquid biouel

signiying their stages o development:

Conventional biouels are derived rom crops and waste using current conversion processes. Examples include

bio-ethanol rom sugar cane and biodiesel rom cooking oil.

Advanced biouels incorporate a range o less developed methods. Many o these apply advanced conversion

processes to the dedicated energy crops and the lignocellulosic parts o residues. Others use novel eedstocks such

as algae and bacteria.


10/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 1 What is bioenergy? 1716 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 1 What is bioenergy?

Box 1.2: Microalgae

Microalgae include a wide variety o photosynthetic micro-organisms capable o xing CO2 to produce biomass

more efciently and rapidly than terrestrial plants. Furthermore, many algal strains have high oil content. Due to these

characteristics, microalgae have very high potential energy yields relative to other eedstocks, consume little water,

and can be cultivated on non-ar able land or in brackish, saline, or waste water. Production o liquid biouels rom

microalgae is thereore considered to be attractive because they can be cultivated without causing indirect land use

change (ILUC).

Production o biouels rom microalgal oil, using similar processes to production rom vegetable oils, is well

understood, with the major challenges relating to cultivation and harvesting o microalgae and ex traction o the algal

oil at sufciently low cost. The innovations necessary to reduce costs require signicant research and development

and are only expected over the longer term.

Even with the necessary cost reductions, it is not clear that microalgal biouels will deliver signicant greenhouse gas

savings. A number o studies estimate liecycle emissions o microalgae cultivation to be high, mainly due to energy

inputs and high mineral ertilizer use, though these issues could potentially be addressed.

More signicantly, it is likely that much o the carbon content o algal biouels will not be atmospheric CO2. This is

because atmospheric CO2 cannot diuse into intensive microalgae mass cultures at a sufcient rate to enable high

growth. This means that to enable sufcient yields, the majority o the CO2 required by the algae must be supplied

rom non-atmospheric sources. This CO2 would thereore be produced during the combustion o ossil uels or

biomass during power generation or industrial processes and captured or transer to the algae cultivation process.

There is limited scope or continued burning o ossil uels in an increasingly carbon-constrained world. Although

there is scope or continued burning o biomass, this will be limited by sustainable biomass supply, and very limited

in a world where CCS can be applied to processes where biomass is burned.

Thereore it is possible that microalgal biouels will be used in sectors such as aviation, where low-carbon alternativesare limited. However, widespread use across the transport sector is unlikely given constraints on the availability o

non-atmospheric CO2 in a carbon-constrained world.

Current and projected bioenergy use in the UK and globally

Currently bioenergy accounts or around 2% o total primary energy in the UK. Most bioenergy

(65%) is used in the orm o solid (orest) biomass and biogas (rom landll) in power

generation, ollowed by biouels in surace transport (18%). The remainder is used in buildings,

industry and agriculture (Figure 1.2):

Liquid biouels. The use o liquid biouels in transport has increased in recent years

under the UKs Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). This requires that biouels

penetration reaches 5% by volume (4% by energy) in 2013/14. The proportion o biouels

in the UK transport uel mix was 3.3% by volume in 2009/10, which is in line with theRTFO requirements.

Solid biomass. Solid biomass is currently primarily used in power generation or co-ring

with coal and accounts or around 3% o total generation. There is also limited use in

biomass boilers, which currently delivers around 1% o total heat generation.

Biogas. Waste gas rom landll currently contributes around 3% o total power generation,

with a small amount o additional generation rom sewage sludge digestion.

In uture, there may also be scope to use new dedicated energy crops which are not yet widely

cultivated (e.g. perennial grassy or woody crops such as miscanthus and short rotation coppice,

and oily crops such as jatropha and camelina), as well as a greater use o waste and residues as

eedstocks. Through various technologies and conversion chains, it will be possible to use the

ull range o eedstocks either as solid, liquid or gaseous uels in a range o applications (power,

heat, surace transport, aviation and shipping) (Figure 1.1).

There is also the possibility that novel processes and technologies currently at the pilot stage

will be developed. This includes the cultivation o microalgae, which may provide potential to

reduce emissions where CCS proves not to be viable (Box 1.2). Breakthroughs in these currently

unproven technologies could signicantly increase the supply o sustainable bioenergy, with

implications or decarbonisation strategies.

Figure 1.1: Feedstock conversion chains

Feedstock1 Conversion routes2 Heat and/or Power

Liquid fuels

Gaseous fuels

Biodiesel

Bioethanol

Syndiesel/renewable diesel

Methanol, DME

Other fuels andfuel additives

Biomethane

Hydrogen

Lignocellulosic BiomassWood, straw, energy crop,

MSW, etc.

Sugar and starch crops

Oil cropsRape, sunower, soya etc.

waste oils, animal fats.

Biodegradable MSWSewage sludge, manure, wet

wastes (farm and food wastes),macroalgae.

Photosyntheticmicro-organisms

e.g. microalgae and bacteria.

Transestericationor hydrogenation

(Hydrolysis) +fermentation

Gasication(+ secondary process)

Pyrolysis(+ secondary process)

Anaerobic digestion(+ biogas upgrading)

Other biological/chemical routes

Bio-photochemicalroutes

(Biomass upgrading3) +combustion

Source: Bauen et al. (2009), Bioenergy A reliable and sustainable energy source: A review o st atus and prospects, IEA Bioenergy, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2009.Notes: 1 Parts o each eedstock, e.g. crop residues, could also be used in other routes. 2 Each route also gives co-products. 3 Biomass upgrading includes any one othe densication processes (pelletisation, pyrolysis, torreaction, etc.).


11/45

18 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 1 What is bioenergy? Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 1 What is bioenergy? 19

Over the next decade, the Governments Renewable Energy Roadmap envisages that

bioenergy penetration will rise signicantly, with increased use in surace transport, power

generation and heat generation (Figure 1.3).

At the global level, bioenergy accounts or 10% o total primary energy use and around 50% o

all renewable energy. The majority o this (around two-thirds o total bioenergy) is accounted

or by traditional biomass. The largest users o bioenergy are Brazil, China, India, and the United

States, which together account or around 40% o all bioenergy used across the world, with

another 30% used across Arica.

Between 1990 and 2009, a 36% increase in the use o bioenergy globally has been due mainly

to increased bioenergy demand rom the EU, Arica, Brazil and India. Between 2009 and 2020,

the IEA1 projects a urther increase in bioenergy use o up to 26%, driven by policy initiatives

across the world to stimulate the uptake o bioenergy as an alternative to ossil uels. In the EU,

many member states are planning or a major expansion o bioenergy, which is expected to

account or two-thirds o the 20% renewables target under the EU Renewable Energy Directive

(RED, Figure 1.4).

1 World Energy Outlook 2012, 450ppm Scenario.

Figure 1.2: UK bioenergy use (2010)

Power65%

Transport18%

Residential6%

Non-residential2%

Agriculture2%

Industry7%

Total79 TWh

Source: DECC DUKES (2011).

Figure 1.3: UK Renewables Roadmap ambition in 2020

Electricity Heat Transport

Low High Low High Low High

T

Wh/year

Biofuels in transport

Residential heat

Non-residential ground/air source heat pumps

Biomass heat(non-residential)

Other electricity

(including hydro,geothermal and solar)

Marine electricity

Offshore wind

Onshore wind

Biomass electricity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Source: DECC (2011).Note:The category residential heat includ es some biomass heating.

Figure 1.4: EU Renewable Energy Directive expected contribution rom bioenergy in 2020

E lec tri cit y Heati ng/cool ing Trans por t

Mtoe/year

Other renewables

Bioenergy

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Source: EU National Renewable Energy Action Plans published by the European Environment Agency (2011).Note: Data can be accessed rom: http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pd. 1 Mtoe = 0.086 TWh.
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pdfhttp://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pdf


12/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 2 Is bioenergy low-carbon? 21

(continued) Is bioenergy low-carbon?

Chapter 2

Bioenergy could in principle be zero carbon, as carbon is absorbed in the growth phase o

eedstocks and released when these are combusted (i.e. bioenergy eectively acts as a carrier

o solar energy).

In practice this is not the case, given liecycle emissions rom cultivation, processing and

transportation o biomass eedstocks and products, and possible direct and indirect changes

in land use emissions.

ThecurrentaccountingframeworkintheUKreectstheselifecycleemissionsonlyfor

domestically-produced bioenergy eedstocks. Imported bioenergy, which accounts or

the majority o total UK bioenergy consumption, is regarded as zero carbon in the national

inventory, and hence in carbon budgets.

In the international context, some o the emissions related to the growth or harvesting o

biomass eedstocks are recorded under the Kyoto Protocol o the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, or example as emissions rom agriculture or land use change.

However, current coverage is incomplete, given that land use change emissions are not ully

accounted or even in some Annex 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. orest and crop

management emissions), and that non-Annex 1 countries (e.g. the majority o developingcountries) together with the United States (which did not ratiy the Protocol) do not report

emissions and removals under the Protocol, and are major eedstock suppliers.

It is important to consider these emissions in the near term, where there is the possibility that

ambitious bioenergy targets may have limited benets or negative greenhouse gas emissions

impacts. In the longer term, liecycle emissions are key to assessing the contribution bioenergy

can make to meeting emissions targets, both in the UK and internationally.

Our aim in what ollows is to assess the implications o liecycle emissions or near-term

bioenergy ambition, and to understand the extent to which these may persist in the longer

term, as an input to our assessment o appropriate bioenergy use. We do this in six sections:

(i) Emissions rom cultivation, processing and transportation o bioenergy crops

(ii) Land use change emissions rom bioenergy crops

(iii) Limiting liecycle emissions rom bioenergy crops

(iv) Limiting emissions rom orest biomass

(v) Conclusions is bioenergy low-carbon?

(vi) Approaches to liecycle emissions in assessing appropriate bioenergy use


13/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 2 Is bioenergy low-carbon? 2322 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 2 Is bioenergy low-carbon?

Figure 2.1: Cultivation emissions o ood and odder crops

Oil seedrape

Wheat Corn Soyabean

Sunower Oilpalm

Sugarcane

Sugarbeet

gC

O2e/MJfuel

Emissions allocatedto co-product(s)

CH4

from trash burning

Seeds material

Pesticides

Other fertiliser production

Diesel

N-fertiliser production

Field N2O emissions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Source: Biograce.Note: Biograce is an EU unded project which aims to harmonise calculations o GHG emissions that are perormed in the EU under legislation implementing theRenewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive. The EU-RED method or allocating emissions to co-products is based on energy content; soya meal is themain product and soya biouel is the co-product, so in this exhibit the emissions in the lower section o the soya bar corresponds to the biouel (the co-product) andemissions in the upper section to the soya meal.

We do not cover liecycle emissions related to wastes and agricultural residues, as in most

cases these are signicantly lower than or other eedstocks, especially where there are

avoided methane emissions. This has been recognised under the Renewables Obligation (RO)

sustainability criteria which have an exemption or various waste eedstocks (e.g. sewage gas,

municipal solid waste and ood waste).

We do not consider the design o a uture global agreement to reduce emissions as this should

relate to emissions associated with bioenergy. However, given gaps in the current approach,

any agreement should ully record all liecycle emissions associated with bioenergy including

those rom agriculture and land use impacts. Failure to ully account or bioenergy emissionswould result in a level o total emissions incompatible with limits required to achieve climate

objectives.

(i) Emissions rom cultivation, processing and transportation obioenergy crops

Emissions rom cultivation

Emissions related to the cultivation o bioenergy crops (ood and odder crops and dedicated

energy crops) occur because o energy-related emissions rom the manuacture o ertiliser and

other agrochemicals, nitrous oxide emissions rom the application o ertiliser to soil, and the

use o ossil uel-powered arm machinery.

Although these emissions could erode up to around 35% o the potential savings rom using

biouels instead o ossil uels or transport use on a liecycle basis, there are crops with lower

associated emissions (Figure 2.1) and increased availability expected in the uture:

Oil seed rape and wheat. Temperate annual crops, such as oil seed rape and wheat have

cultivation emissions o the order 23-28 gCO2e/MJ o biouel, equivalent to between 28-34%

oflifecycleemissionsfromconventionalfuels.Thisreects:

The ertiliser intensity o the annual crops, with high emissions associated with both the

production (CO2) and application (N

2O) o nitrogen ertiliser. Combined, these emissions

account or around 80% o the total cultivation emissions o these crops.

The need to re-establish the plant each year has implications or emissions arising rom

site preparation and planting (e.g. tractor diesel emits CO2).

For these crops in particular, there is scope to reduce emissions through efcient ertiliser

use, both as regards quantity and timing o application and crop development and

breeding.

Wheat, maize and oil seed rape can also produce useul co-products such as dried

distillers grain with solubles (DDGS) and rape meal or use as animal eed.

Oil palm and sugar cane. These perennial crops require relatively less ertiliser than annual

crops,reectedinassociatedcultivationemissionsofaround14gCO2e/MJ o uel or both

crops (n.b. land use change emissions rom oil palm can be very high, see Section (ii) below).

Sugar beet. Despite being a temperate annual crop, cultivation emissions are low (around

12 gCO2e/MJoffuel),reectingrelativelylowernitrogenfertiliserrequirement.Thisisduein

part to soil incorporation o the sugar beet tops, which is a nitrogen rich residue.

Oil crops. New types o oil crops such as camelina and jatropha are at an early stage

o development as biouels but evidence suggests that they could have relatively low

cultivation emissions due to low ertiliser requirements.

Dedicated energy crops. Dedicated energy crops such as miscanthus and short rotation

coppice (SRC) have very low ertiliser requirements. They are already used in biomass

combustion or power and heat but as advanced conversion technologies become

commercially available, they are likely to compete with ood and odder crops as a liquid

biouel eedstock.


14/45


Emissions rom production and transportation

Emissions arising rom the production and transportation o conventional biouels produced

rom ood and odder crops (i.e. excluding cultivation emissions) urther erode the emissions

savings o biouels over the use o ossil uels on a liecycle basis:

Emissionsfromproducingbiofuelscanexceed30gCO2e/MJ o uel, eroding over 36% o

emissions savings. However, emissions can be signicantly lowered by altering the uel used

to power the processing o the eedstock. For example, while processing wheat into ethanol

uelled by lignite can generate emissions o around 32 gCO2e/MJ, using natural gas will

lower processing emissions by around 10 gCO2e/MJ.

Emissionsfromtransportingbiofuelsareofasimilarordertothosefortransporting

conventional uels.

In uture, emissions rom the use o dedicated energy crops with new technologies (e.g.

biouel derived rom ligno-cellulosic conversion) are expected to be signicantly lower. We

reectemissionsassociatedwithdierentfeedstocksandtechnologiesinourmodellingof

appropriate use o bioenergy in Chapter 4.

Summary on emissions rom cultivation, production and transportation o

bioenergy crops

Taking the combined emissions rom cultivation, production and transportation, these

could signicantly erode emissions savings, depending on crop type, production processand transport distance (Figure 2.2). They are thereore material, and should be accounted or

when considering the emissions impacts o bioenergy. The aim should be to minimise these

emissions, through crop choice, arming practices, and production processes.

(ii) Land use change emissions rom bioenergy crops

Why land use change results in emissions

There are many drivers o land use change, which include amongst other actors, bioenergy,

agriculture, and urbanisation. Land use change can result in a change in the level o

sequestered carbon in two main carbon pools:

Soil organic carbon. Carbon is captured rom decomposing organic matter such asleaves and root tissues and accumulation can take rom decades to centuries.

Living and dead vegetation (biomass). This is ound below (e.g. roots) and above

ground (e.g. leaves and branches).

Direct versus indirect land use emissionsThere are two types o land use changes associated with growing bioenergy crops (ood and

odder and dedicated energy crops):

Direct land use change emissions occur when converting land to grow crops, resulting in

a release o carbon stored in the soil and existing vegetation.

Indirectlandusechange(ILUC)emissions result when growth o bioenergy crops

displaces an existing economic activity (e.g. agricultural and timber production) to new

land which on conversion releases emissions.

Bioenergy impacts by land and crop type

The extent o carbon release depends upon the type o land and crop grown:

Wherelandusedforcropgrowthwasformerlycarbon-rich(e.g.tropicalrainforestor

grassland), resulting emissions could be hundreds o times the annual emissions saving rom

the use o bioenergy rather than ossil uels. This can result in a carbon debt which takes

decades i not centuries to repay (Figure 2.3).

Moregenerally,dedicatedenergycropshavelowerdirectlandusechangeemissionsthan

arable ood crops, and may actually result in negative emissions (i.e. additional storing o

carbon in soil) when planted on arable and degraded land (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.2: Range o GHG savings o dierent biouel chains compared to ossil uel

Palm

oilFAME

RapeseedFAME

Cornethanol

Wheatethanol

Sugarbeetethanol

Sugarcaneethanol

BioSG

BtLdiesel

HVO

Cellulosicethanol

Butanol

Algaebiodiesel

Biogas

GHG

savings(%)

Gasoline replacement

Diesel replacement

Natural gas replacement

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Ad va nc ed b io fu el s C on ve nt io na l b io fu el s

Demonstration

R&D/

Pilot Commercial

Source: OECD/IEA (2011).Note: Exhibit based on 60 well-to-wheel liecycle emissions studies and shows a large range or each biouel. Excludes land use change emissions.


15/45


It is thereore important to ensure that crops are not grown on carbon rich land, but on land

which would result in minimal (or a positive) change in the carbon balance.

Measuring land use change impacts

Direct land use impacts can be measured and regulated against (e.g. by limiting the use

o crops rom land with high stocks o carbon). Indirect land use change emissions, on the

other hand, are more uncertain and harder to regulate, particularly in the absence o a global

agreement to reduce emissions covering all countries.

Thisisreectedinthelargerangeforestimatedindirectlandusechangeemissions(Figure2.5)

and the ocus o current policy on limiting direct rather than indirect land use change emissions.

Given that ILUC emissions are potentially very large and are currently unaccounted or, reducing

uncertainties and developing robust rameworks to account or ILUC should be a priority.

(iii) Limiting liecycle emissions rom bioenergy crops

Short-term measures to limit liecycle emissions

The EUs sustainability ramework

The sum total o cultivation, production and transportation emissions and land use change

impacts means that overall emissions savings rom bioenergy crops (ood and odder and

dedicated energy crops) to meet near-term targets or liquid biouels are highly uncertain and

could be very low or even negative.

Figure 2.4: Annual soil carbon changes o arable crops and dedicated energy crops

Miscanthus

SRC(poplar)

Winterwheat

Oilseedrape

Miscanthus

SRC(poplar)

Winterwheat

Oilseedrape

Miscanthus

SRC(poplar)

Winterwheat

Oilseedrape

tC/ha

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Replace arable Replace managedgrassland

Replace forest/semi-natural grassland

Source: Hillier, Smith et al (2009).Note: Mean soil emissions and error bars or the soil emissions represent 2 x standard deviation. It can be interpreted that 95% o the data points lie between the twoextremes.

Figure 2.5: Range o estimates or ILUC emissions

Ecometrica

E4Tech

RFS II

LCFS II

AGLINK

IFPRI BAU

IFPRI FT

gCO2e/

MJ

Palmoil

biodiesel

Sunower

biodiesel

Soybean

biodiesel

Rapeseed

biodiesel

1stgen

biodiesel

Sugarcane

ethanol

Maize

ethanol

Wheat

ethanol

Sugarbeet

ethanol

1stgen

ethanol

HFOpalm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Source: CE Delt (2010).

Figure 2.3: Carbon debt incurred rom land conversion to grow ood and odder crops

Palmbiodiesel

Palmbiodiesel

Soya-bean

biodiesel

Soya-bean

biodiesel

Sugar-cane

ethanol

Cornethanol

Prairiebiomassethanol

Prairiebiomassethanol

Cornethanol

Indonesian

tropicalrainforest

Brazilian

tropicalrainforest

Brazilian

cerradowooded

Brazilian

cerradograssland

USA

centralgrassland

Abandoned

cropland

Abandoned

cropland

Marginal

cropland

Indonesian

peatlandrainforest

Yearsto

repaycarbond

ebt

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

96

423

319

17

37

93

48

1 0

Source: J. Fargione et al (2008).


16/45


Implicationsforbiofuelstargetsandcarbonbudgets

ReectingILUCimpactscouldsignicantlyreducethesupplyofsustainablebioenergyrelativeto what is available under the current sustainability criteria, with implications or the 2020 liquid

biouels target. For example, the 2008 Gallagher Review on the indirect eects o biouels

production suggested that a lower level o ambition may be appropriate, without ruling out

that current targets could be achieved sustainably.

I it were to become clear that current targets cannot be achieved when indirect emissions are

accounted, then these should be adjusted. The imperative should be to deliver sustainable

bioenergy, rather than to deliver current targets which may go beyond sustainability limits.

We note that the rst our legislated carbon budgets build in lower transport biouels

penetration than assumed by the Government (i.e. 8% in 2020 rather than the Governments

10%). A reduction in biouels ambition o this order o magnitude or slightly higher would

thereore not jeopardise meeting carbon budgets, assuming ull delivery on other measures

to reduce emissions across the economy.

Longer-term measures to limit lifecycle emissions

In the longer term, there is scope or limiting liecycle emissions through growing dedicated

energy crops which do not require prime agricultural land, require limited use o ertiliser and

can result in increased soil carbon sequestration when grown on certain land types. Other

options include more integrated production systems or ood and uel, e.g. through agro-

orestry or the greater use o co-products.

Rather than invalidating the targets, this suggests the need to ensure that bioenergy does

actually result in emissions savings when liecycle impacts are ully accounted or. This in

turn requires a regulatory approach or the types o crops and land that are allowed to count

towards targets. Recognising this, the EU is attempting to limit liecycle emissions through

employing sustainability criteria under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED):

Thecriteriarequirethatbiofuelsandbioliquidsshoulddeliveremissionssavingsofatleast

35% on a liecycle basis relative to use o transport ossil uels, rising to 50% in 2017 and to

60% in 2018 or new installations.

Iteectivelyrulesouttheconversionofcertainlandtypeswithhighcarbonstocks(e.g.

peatland, wetlands, and rainorest).

Questions have been raised whether this approach ully accounts or direct land use

change(e.g.ithasbeensuggestedthatthecurrentapproachdoesnotfullyreectforgone

sequestration on land that is converted or growth o bioenergy crops); and about the extent

to which these emissions are accurately recorded under the RED ramework.

More undamentally, the EU approach only includes direct land use impacts, and as a

consequence it leaves open the possibility that biouels which have resulted in indirect land

use emissions will be used to meet RED targets.

Extending the ramework to cover indirect land use change impacts

TheEUiscurrentlyconsideringwhetherandwaysinwhichtoreectILUCemissionswithintheRED sustainability criteria.

Given the importance o ensuring emissions reductions rom biouels produced rom ood and

odder crops, it is imperative that liecycle emissions are ully accounted or, and that the EU

introduces ILUC emissions to its ramework in the near term, in order to avoid damaging ILUC

that might occur under the current ramework.

O the various options under consideration, we recommend that the UK Government should

strongly support either the use o crop-specic ILUC actors (i.e. adding estimates o ILUC

emissions by crop, Figure 2.6), or the setting o caps on the use o eedstocks with associated

risks o ILUC at levels consistent with sustainable supply.

In support o these approaches, positive incentives could be included or growth o eedstocks

with low ILUC risk. For example, in a ramework with ILUC actors, these actors could be

reduced i it can be demonstrated that crops are grown on degraded land with low ILUC risk.

In view o uncertainties over ILUC emissions, the introduction o ILUC actors or capping

the use o eedstocks with ILUC risks would necessarily be imperect. However, both would

be preerable to simply increasing the emissions savings thresholds (which could restrict

potentially sustainable supply) or ignoring ILUC emissions altogether (which could allow

unsustainable supply).

Figure 2.6: Addition o crop specic ILUC actors to EU-RED typical emission values

Palm

Rapeseed

Sunower

Soy

Sugarcane

Wheat

Maize

Sugarbeet

Surfacetransport

fossilfuel

gCO2e/MJ

ILUC emissions

RED typical value

35% GHG savingsthreshold

50% GHG savingsthreshold

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Source: IFPRI (2011), EU-RED.Note: ILUC is central scenario based on biouel target use by 2020 under the NREAPs.


17/45


The aim should be or a comprehensive international agreement to reduce global emissions,

covering all countries and ully accounting or all land use change emissions. This would

reduce risks o liecycle emissions rom bioenergy crops. Provided such an agreement can

be eectively monitored and enorced, the need or complementary arrangements to limit

liecycle emissions may no longer be required. They should thereore be kept under review.

(iv) Limiting emissions rom orest biomass

Liecycle emissions rom orest biomass

While the discussion above has ocused on liecycle emissions associated with bioenergy crops,

there are also important issues relating to emissions rom orest biomass (e.g. wood chips or

wood pellets) used in the power and heat sectors. Forests are important carbon reservoirs and

intensied harvesting (e.g. going beyond thinning orest stands to practising stump removal)

or deorestation could result in a very signicant loss o orest carbon stocks and increased

emissions relative to burning ossil uels. There is a need to ensure sustainable orestry

management practices i emission reductions rom the use o orest biomass are to ensue.

High ambition and risk o unsustainable orest biomass

Near-term measures to ensure orest biomass results in emissions reductions are particularly

important given targets or renewable energy penetration over the next decade, to which

orest biomass used in power and heat generation is likely to contribute.

For UK orest biomass, we can be reasonably condent that this is rom sustainable sources,

given arrangements in place to prevent deorestation, strategies to encourage sustainable

orest management, and scope or increased growth o short rotation orestry or use in

biomass power and heat generation.

However, given limits on domestic supply much o the orest biomass or power and heat

used in the UK will have to be imported (Figure 2.7). In addition, ambitious EU targets are at

the limits o potential global supply o sustainable biomass over the next decade, as estimated

by the Forestry Commission (Figure 2.8). The risk, thereore, is that biomass is imported rom

countries where rameworks to ensure sustainable orest management are less robust, in which

case emissions benets would be eroded (Figure 2.9).

Ensuring low-carbon orest biomass: current ramework under the Renewables

Obligation (RO)

Measures are in place to try to ensure that the UK use o orest biomass is sustainable, but these

provide limited condence that signicant emissions savings will ensue, and leave open the

possibility that using biomass will actually increase emissions:

Figure 2.8: EU solid biomass ambition or heat and power in 2020 versus global supply o orest biomass

2020 EU ambition(solid biomass) Power generated fromcombusting global forest biomass(200 Modt + implied shortfall)

Finalenergybasis(TWh/year)

Implied shortfall tobe met from othersources (e.g. increasedforest management,dedicated plantationsand agricultural residues)

Global forest biomassresource

Heat energy

Power generation

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Source: European Environment Agency (2011), Renewable Energy Projections as Published in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans o the European MemberStates; AEA (2011), UK and Global Bioenergy Resource.Notes: (i) Figures presented on a nal energy basis assuming a conversion efciency o 80% or heat and 36% or power. (ii) Focuses on sustainable orest biomass(e.g. residuals o timber industry under AEAs business-as-usual assessment (2011)) rather than increased management o orests and dedicated plantations. Indicates asignicant increase in sustainable supply over a relatively short time period is required to meet EU ambition. (iii) Forest biomass assumed converted to pellets, with acaloric value o 17 GJ/oven-dried tonne (odt) o eedstock.

Figure 2.7: UK solid biomass ambition or heat and power in 2020 versus domestic orest biomass resource

2020 UK ambition(solid biomass)

Power generated fromcombusting UK forest biomass(3.8 Modt + implied shortfall)

Finalenergybasis(TWh/year)

Implied shortfall tobe met via importsand/or other sources(dedicated plantationsand agricultural residues)

UK forest biomassresource

Heat energy

Power generation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Source: UK Renewables Roadmap (2011); CCC (2010), Fourth Budget Report; CCC (2011), Renewables Review; AEA (2011), UK and Global Bioenergy Resource.Notes: (i)Figurespresentedonanalenergybasisassumingaconversioneciencyof80%forheatand36%forpower.(ii)UKforestbiomassresourcereectsamediumscenarioinAEAassessment(2011),reectingabioenergypriceof6/GJandovercomingeasyconstraints.(iii)Pelletsproducedfromforestbiomassassumedto have a caloric value o 17 GJ/oven-dried tonne (odt) o eedstock.


18/45


Thereisarequirementthatby2013biomassusedtomeettheROmustataminimummeetan emission threshold o 285 gCO

2e/kWh.

Thisrepresentsa60%savingrelativetotheEUgridaveragecarbonintensity,whichismuch

higher than that o the UK (i.e. around 700 gCO2/kWh or the EU compared to around 500

gCO2/kWh or the UK).

Asaresult,emissionscouldbesignicantlyhigherthanalternativeformsoflow-carbon

power generation, and only slightly lower than those rom gas-red power generation.

Whenrisksofindirectdeforestationareaccountedfor(seebelow),useofbiomasscould

actually increase emissions relative to gas-red generation (i.e. rom a carbon perspective,

it would be preerable to invest in gas generation rather than biomass, notwithstanding that

gas generation is carbon-intense).

We thereore recommend that the threshold or use o biomass to meet the RO should betightened to 200 gCO

2/kWh. This would represent a signicant enough saving relative to

gas-red generation, allowing a margin or emissions rom possible indirect deorestation.

In addition, we recommend that this should be enorced by operators reporting on actual

liecycle emissions, rather than use o the EU deault values, which are potentially inaccurate.

Limiting risks o indirect land use impacts

Although UK biomass sustainability criteria cover emissions rom direct deorestation and

orest management, they do not mitigate risks o indirect deorestation related to potential

displacement o demand rom other wood consuming industries:

TotalcurrentwooddemandintheUKisaround30Mt,themajorityofwhichisimported,

and o which 0.7 Mt is used in power generation.

Demandfrompowergenerationisexpectedtoincreaseto25Mtin2020iftheambition

set out in the Governments Renewables Roadmap is to be achieved.

Thereisariskisthatthiswilldisplaceexistingdemandfromotherwoodconsumingsectors,

which might then be met rom unsustainable sources. This risk is more pronounced given

the sustainability ramework in place under the RO and the lack o similar standards covering

wood demand more generally.

There are also potential indirect land use impacts rom the growth o energy crops and

short rotation orestry or use in biomass power and heat generation (e.g. this could displace

agricultural production to carbon-rich land).

Thereore ways should be ound to provide condence that there will be no direct or indirect

deorestation, nor other land use impacts as a result o orest biomass use:

GiventhatthereisgenerallymorecertaintyaboutthesustainabilityofUK-grownbiomass,

the aim should be to maximise UK supply without threatening supplies to other industriesthat use wood, through enhanced orest management, new woodland planting and growth

o dedicated energy crops.

TheGovernmentshouldincludeinitsforthcomingbioenergystrategyanassessmentofthe

global wood industry, with a view to understanding the demand-supply balance associated

with increasing use o bioenergy in the UK and other countries. The key issues o interest

here are whether there is currently enough supply rom sustainably managed orests to

meet demand or biomass in power and heat generation and rom other industries which

use wood, and whether in the event o excess demand there is scope or a rapid expansion

o sustainable supply.

Thereshouldbeclosemonitoringofwoodindustrydevelopmentswithafocusonsupply

expansion,andexibilitytochangethebiomasspowerambitiondependingontheextent

to which increased supply is or is not likely to be sustainable.

Considerationshouldalsobegiventointroducingasustainabilitystandardforallwood

consumed in the UK, which would provide more condence that the UK biomass strategy

was not causing indirect deorestation.

Figure 2.9: Impact o orestry management practice on GHG emissions o biomass in power generation

BorealEurasia

Thinning/no felling

FellingBalticsUKBorealNorth

America

BorealEurasia

Baltics

Managedconifer forest

Managedbroadleaf forest

Neglected UKbroadleaf forest

Old growthconifer (felling)

UK BorealNorth

America

g

CO

2/kWh

Chips

Pellets

EU grid average

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Source: Environment Agency BEAT2.Notes: Evaluated over a 20 year time horizon. BEAT2 uses a dierent methodology to the UK biomass sustainability criteria, and these dierences will be importantwhen results are close to the 60% threshold (e.g. 285 gCO

2e/kWh) under the UK sustainability criteria or biomass.


19/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 2 Is bioenergy low-carbon? 35

The modelling includes an assumption that near-term targets or renewable transport uels

are achieved. However, in practice we believe that these targets should have a degree o

exibility,recognisingthepossibilitythatarobustsustainabilityframeworkcouldresultina

lower level o ambition being achieved. Should this be the case, it would not change the long-

term assessment o appropriate bioenergy use, which is the main ocus o our modelling (e.g.

a lower level o liquid biouels penetration in 2020 would not change longer-term bioenergy

supply and appropriate use).

Liecycle emissions rom orest biomassWhen assessing appropriate use o bioenergy rom orest biomass, we assume that a

robustsustainabilityframeworkisintroduced.Inthenear-term,wereectthepossibilityof

constrained sustainable supply when considering Government support or biomass power

generation.

We now set out our assessment o long-term sustainable bioenergy supply including rom

dedicatedenergycropsandforestry,reectinglifecycleemissionsandwidersustainability

concerns beore considering where this might best be used to meet emissions targets, given

other low-carbon technologies available.

Indirectlandusechangeemissionsduetothegrowthofenergycropsshouldbeincluded

in the UKs biomass sustainability ramework (e.g. using ILUC actors rom the EUs

sustainability criteria or biouels).

The risk o indirect land use impacts and deorestation through the increased use o biomass

remains an important issue, and should be ully addressed in the Governments orthcoming

bioenergy strategy, to be published early in 2012.

(v) Conclusions is bioenergy low-carbon?

The evidence set out above suggests that bioenergy could be low-carbon in principle, but this

may not always be the case in practice:

Liecycle emissions rom energy crops. Our discussion above has highlighted the risk

that near-term targets or liquid biouels result in only small, or even negative, emissions

savings when accounting or liecycle emissions. This risk could be mitigated through

limiting the types o crop and land used or bioenergy, which could be achieved through

enhancing the EUs current sustainability ramework to include indirect land use impacts,

and in the longer term through a comprehensive global agreement to reduce emissions.

Liecycle emissions rom orest biomass. Very ambitious targets or the use o biomass

in the UK and the EU to 2020 could put pressure on sustainable supply, and result in direct

and indirect land use impacts including deorestation. This risk could be mitigated through

extending the UKs sustainability ramework under the RO in the near term, and through acomprehensive global agreement to reduce emissions in the longer term.

Thereore the challenge is to ensure that regulatory rameworks are strengthened to provide

condence that bioenergy supply will be low-carbon. I sufcient low-carbon eedstock can be

sourced, bioenergy has a potentially useul role in meeting carbon budgets and targets subject

to other sustainability constraints being met.

(vi) Approaches to liecycle emissions in assessing appropriatebioenergy use

Liecycle emissions rom crops

Ourmodellingofappropriatebioenergyuse(Chapter4)reectsemissionsfromcultivation,

production and transportation o bioenergy. For example, we assume a dierent carbonintensity o bioenergy eedstocks depending on where they come rom and the technology

used to produce them. We also assume that land use change impacts are addressed either

throughaglobalagreementtoreduceemissions,orthroughspecicregulations.Toreectthis

and other sustainability concerns (e.g. tension with use o land to grow ood, or biodiversity),

we limit the land available or growing bioenergy crops.

34 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 2 Is bioenergy low-carbon?


20/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 3 Sustainable bioenergy supply 37

(continued)

In this section we develop scenarios or global bioenergy resources. We start by considering

the scope or growing dedicated energy crops, where relevant actors include the demand or

ood, agricultural productivity, biodiversity, water stress, social and ethical issues (e.g. relating

to property rights or the displacement o indigenous people). We then review estimates o

tradable global bioenergy resources rom orestry, orest residues, and agricultural residuesand non-tradable domestic resource such as waste. Finally, we set out UK bioenergy scenarios

whichreectourassessmentofpossibleglobalanddomesticresources,andwhichwethen

use in our modelling o appropriate bioenergy use.

Scenarios or global dedicated energy crops: approach and objectives

We now set out our scenarios or the uture global supply o bioenergy rom dedicated energy

crops in 2050. We develop the scenarios rom the bottom up in order to make our assumptions

on the key supply drivers ully transparent. We then benchmark the scenarios against those

rom the literature.

In doing this, we are not attempting to predict the uture. Instead, our aim is to illustrate a

broad range o alternative assumptions about demand or ood, agricultural productivity

growth and land availability, and to explore sustainability constraints relating to ood supply,biodiversity, water stress and social issues. Our scenarios then illustrate a range o possible

utures or bioenergy contributions to meeting carbon budgets.

We do not assume major breakthroughs in technology or behaviour change, recognising that

while these are possible, we do not consider them an appropriate basis or current planning, as

they are highly uncertain.

Dedicated energy crops, ood prices, and increasing ood demand

There is increasing concern over the impact o bioenergy on the availability o ood. Given a

xed stock o land in the world, and acknowledging that providing enough ood or people

is a priority, this limits the amount o land available or growing dedicated energy crops. Even

now, at a relatively low level o bioenergy use, there is some evidence to suggest a relationship

between the use o land or growing conventional liquid biouel eedstocks and ood price

spikes (Box 3.1).

Sustainable bioenergy supply

Chapter 3


21/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 3 Sustainable bioenergy supply 3938 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 3 Sustainable bioenergy supply

Box 3.1: Bioenergy and ood security

Therearevariousquantitativestudiesoftheimpactofbiofuelsproductiononfoodprices,whichndthatbiofuels

mayaccountforbetween20-70%ofmaizepriceinationin2008.

Otherstudieshaveplayeddownthecontributionofbiofuelsmandatesinrisingfoodprices,citingweatherand

commodity speculation as key actors.

Thebalanceofevidencesuggeststhatbiofuelswereoneamongstanumberofsignicantfactorsindrivingfood

price spikes.

Giventhisevidence,multilateralorganisationshavearguedthatbiofuelsambitionshouldbeloweredtoprotect

ood security(i).

Notwithstanding the uncertainty over the precise impact o biouels production on ood prices in recent years, it is

clear that in the longer term there is likely to be a tension between growth o bioenergy and ood production in a

world where the land constraint is increasingly binding.

Figure B3.1b: Factors contributing to ood price infation and volatility

Demand

Food price ination and volatility

Biofuel demand

Growing population

Growing income

Weather problems

Government responses

Low stock to use ratios

High oil prices

Supply

Weak dollar Commodity speculation

Notes: (i) Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses. Policy Report including contributions by FAO, IFAD, IMF,OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the WorldBank, the WTO, IFPRI and the UN HLTF.

The tension between using land or ood, eed, and grazing versus growing bioenergy

eedstocks is likely to continue in the uture, given a rising global population and changing

diets, and limited scope or urther agriculture productivity improvement based on

conventional technologies:

Population growth. The United Nations central estimate is that the global population will

increase rom its current level o 7 billion to 9.1 billion over the next our decades in a central

case, with a range o 8.7-11.3 billion.

Box 3.1: Bioenergy and ood security

The rapid expansion o the biouel industry over the last decade has triggered concerns over adverse eects on ood

pricesnamelythatbiofuelscausefoodpriceinationandincreasedvolatility.

Highfoodpricelevels.Afterseveraldecadesoflowandstablefoodprices,thepriceofmanyagricultural

commodities has spiked twice in the last our years. Food prices began to rise sharpl y in 2006, peaking in 2008.

Although they then ell in 2009, they remained higher than pre- crisis levels and once again rose sharply into 2010.

In early 2011, ood prices went even higher than the 2008 peak (Figure B3.1a).

Increasedvolatility.Highpriceshavenotbeentheonlyconcerningtrend;afteraperiodofrelativestabilityfor

several decades, prices have been increasingly volatile in the last ve years.

Figure B3.1a: Annual ood prices rom FAO Real Food Price Indices

Index(2002-2004

=1

00)

2011

2009

2010

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

0

50

100

150

200

250

Source: FAO Food Price Indices.

There is a broad consensus that the two recent price spikes have occurred due to the coincidence o a number o

actors, including biouels production (see Figure B3.1b and technical paper or more detail).


22/45

Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 3 Sustainable bioenergy supply 4140 Bioenergy review I Committee on Climate Change I Chapter 3 Sustainable bioenergy supply

Diet change. It is likely that income growth will drive diet change in emerging economies,

where demand or meat is expected to increase. Red meat and dairy production are

particularly land intense, both as regards land or grazing and or growth o eed (e.g. the

land requirement or cattle is around thirty times that o cereals to produce the same calorie

content). Thereore increasing demand or meat and dairy products in emerging economies

will result in increased demand or grassland and cropland or eed production.

Agricultural productivity growth. In the past, agricultural productivity growth has been

sufcient to provide ood or a growing population without signicantly increasing the

amount o armed land. However, a signicant proportion o this productivity improvementhas resulted rom the use o carbon-intense ertilisers and irrigation. In uture, scope or

urther such improvement may be limited in a carbon- and water-constrained world subject

to a changing climate.

The FAO suggests that the combination o increasing population and changing diet could

require an increase in agricultural production by 70% by 2050, resulting in a small increase in

the amount o land required or growing ood i all production were to be based on current

best practice (Box 3.2).

Box 3.2: FAO agricultural outlook to 2050

FAO analysis projects that an additional 72 million hectares (a 5% increase in arable land) will be required to meet ood

demand in 2050. This analysis is based on an assessment o uture population growth, diet change, and improvements

in agricultural productivity.

Demand assumptions

The FAO analysis assumes a rising and increasingly wealthy global population, with both o these contributing to an

increase in ood demand o 70% over the next our decades:

Populationwillgrowfrom7billionnowtoover9billionby2050,inlinewithUNprojections.

Averagedailyconsumptionpercapitawillriseto3130calories(kcal),representingan11%increasebetweennow

and 2050.

Meatconsumptionisprojectedtoincreasefromanaverageof37kg/capita/dayto52kg/capita/daybetweennow

and 2050. This increase is due to a move towards high protein Western diets in the developing world.

45%ofprojectedcerealdemandincreaseisfordirectfoodconsumptionand40%forlivestockfeeding(withthe

remainder or other uses, including industrial uses, seeds, etc.).

Agricultural productivity assumptions

A small increase in land required or ood production is projected on the basis that increase

1463 ccc bioenergy review interactive

Documents