wood pellet production in the U.S.
“An enormous amount of nonsense” has been told about bio-energy, says André Faaij, scientific director of Energy Academy Europe and professor Energy Systems Analysis at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. According to Faaij, it is high time for the real – scientifically validated – story. “The bio-based economy is indispensable for our climate policy and can mean huge progress for agriculture and nature in developing countries”. Interview with an energy and environmental expert who is indignant about the European debate on bio-energy.
Bio-energy has acquired a bad reputation in many European countries in recent years, as André Faaij knows all too well. “There is this idea that as a result of the production of palm oil and wood pellets forests are being cut down, food prices are going up and people are starving to death. That’s a totally one-sided picture. It is deadly for the development of a sector that is crucial for the economy and the climate.”
Faaij is one of the top experts in the bio-based economy in Europe. The concept “bio-based economy” refers to the broad aim to make a transition from an economy based on fossil fuels to one in which biomass is one of the key raw materials.
“Cutting trees for power plants? That is much too expensive. That is not the way it works”
This transition is not really happening at the moment, at least not in Europe. Investment and research are held back because policymakers doubt the necessity and value of biomass, says Faaij. “Within the European Commission the directorates of Environment and Energy are totally at odds with each other over this. Some people don’t even want to talk about bio-energy anymore. About such a crucial topic! That’s really terrible. It’s a disaster.”
Managed cleverly
Faaij is indignant about what he regards as misleading reports on bio-energy in the media and by some environmental groups. Take the forests in the southeast of the U.S., which deliver a lot of the biomass used in the Netherlands and other European countries. “Documentaries have been made about this, suggesting that natural forests are cut down to supply wood pellets for our power plants. That is really nonsense, as shown by a lot of recent research. Cutting trees for power plants? That is much too expensive. That is not the way it works.”
According to Faaij, these are production forests and plantations, from which waste products are produced that are then turned into wood pellets. “These forests are managed very cleverly so they can supply more biomass. This does not require any extension of acreage. In fact, the forestry industry in the southeast of the U.S. is confronted with a lack of demand for their products, because of the recession in the paper industry. If they had not had biomass as a new source of demand, the forests would have been cleared to make way for urban development. So the truth is the exact opposite of what is being claimed.”
“You don’t need to use more land to make biomass production possible; on the contrary, you can produce more with the available land”
This does not mean that things can’t go terribly wrong with biomass. This is what happened, for example, with the production of palm oil in Indonesia, for which parts of the tropical rainforest were destroyed. “Indonesia is known for its corruption around land ownership. Tropical rainforest has disappeared there to make way for palm oil. That is an assault on nature. It also leads to a terrible greenhouse balance. It’s not what we want.”
But on degraded soil – and there is a lot of that too in Indonesia – the production of palm oil can be a good option, says Faaij. “Then more carbon is being captured than released. And this offers rural communities a source of income, which keeps them from cutting down forest. So in these circumstances palm oil can be good for the climate and for the rainforest.”
Damaged or destroyed
Production of biomass should never happen at the expense of food production, says Faaij. In fact, “the starting point of sustainable biomass is that it must be accompanied by an increase in the production of agriculture and livestock farming”.
This may seem contradictory, but according to Faaij it is very well possible: “There is a large and growing area of degraded and marginal lands in the world, partly the result of faulty agricultural methods. This is particularly the case in subsistence farming, the most basic form of agriculture. Hundreds of millions of hectares have been damaged or destroyed. With relatively simple improvements, by better use of soils, water and fertilizers, you can increase food production by a factor of 3 to 4. In addition through reforestation and the right use of residues and waste flows, you can diversify the rural economy. So you don’t need to use more land to make biomass production possible; on the contrary, you can produce more with the available land.”
If we move to a bio-based economy trillions of dollars that now go to producers of oil, coal and gas will go to farmers producing biomass
Take Brazil, says Faaij. This country has achieved a much more sustainable and efficient agriculture by growing sugarcane both for the production of sugar and for ethanol. “Because they can switch between sugar and ethanol, depending on market prices, they have created a more stable revenue stream. In this way they have managed to modernize their agricultural sector. At the same time a lot of R&D is taking place and environmental standards have been raised.”
Another example Faaij cites is jatropha in Africa, with has seen good and bad experiences. “Large-scale jatropha projects that were meant purely for export have been failures. These were insane. But projects in places where jatropha is a byproduct, used at a much smaller scale, have been very successful. There jatropha can be used to generate electricity locally, replacing much more polluting diesel oil.”
Faaij points out that if we move to a bio-based economy trillions of dollars that now go to producers of oil, coal and gas will go to farmers producing biomass. “We are talking about a big shift in the global economy, an enormous impulse for the agricultural sector, which can then continue to modernize, become cleaner and more efficient.”
How climate neutral is biomass?
Hoe climate neutral is biomass really? Trees and plants capture CO2 which is released again when they are burned. That results in zero emissions – in theory at least.
But critics have argued that things may look different in practice. First of all, the use of land can change negatively: if forest is cut to grow energy crops, emissions increase. This means that the ILUC factor (“indirect land use change”) is crucial to show whether biomass has been produced sustainably, says Faaij. If biomass production is accompanied by a higher productivity of agriculture and livestock farming, then the ILUC factor is not negative. That is why sustainable biomass and making agriculture sustainable are closely connected.
Another problem occurs if trees in a forest are cut for biomass. It can take dozens of years before they have grown back, in other words, before the emission balance is neutral again. This is too long in view of the urgency of the climate problem. But according to Faaij this is not the way biomass is produced. First of all, the overwhelming majority of biomass for energy is made from waste wood and is therefore a byproduct of commercial forestry, he says. Secondly, “large producers such as Sweden, Finland and Canada show that increased use of biomass for energy can be combined with a growing forest cover and more carbon capture in more productive forests.”
Gigantic
This brings us to Faaij’s second urgent message. Large-scale, sustainable biomass is not only good for farming and nature, it is also indispensable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming, he says. “All studies – using many different models and scenarios – show a consistent picture, namely that in the second half of the century some 300 Exajoule (EJ) of our energy supply must come from biomass. That is 20 to 30% of the expected future energy consumption. At this moment global energy consumption is around 550 EJ, but this is expected to rise significantly over the coming decades.”
A share of 20-30% is comparable to the role now played by oil, says Faaij. “It’s gigantic. We now produce some 15 EJ of sustainable biomass. That has to be increased by a factor of 20.”
Faaij says it’s an illusion to think that the world can solve the climate problem without the contribution of biomass. “All serious studies show that all options available must be used. If you remove biomass, it is certain we won’t reach the 2 degree target.”
Biomass is particularly important for applications for which there are no good alternatives. “If you want to decarbonize, then biomass is indispensable as feedstock for the chemical industry and by far the best option for heavy road transport, shipping and aviation.”
“The effect of doing nothing on biomass is to continue with oil, gas and coal”
Another crucial application, says Faaij, is bio-energy in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS), known as BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage). “If we want to limit warming to 2 degrees, it won’t be enough to reduce emissions to zero. We will also need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That’s called negative emissions. One of the most important options for this is sustainable biomass with CCS.”
Faaij explains that if you burn biomass in a power plant, this will release CO2, just as in a coal or gas fired power plant. Unlike with coal and gas, however, the biomass is regarded as climate neutral because the CO2 has first been fixed by plants and trees and because these are replaced by new plants and trees that capture CO2. But you can go a step further: “If you capture and store the CO2 from a biomass-fired plant, you actually reduce emissions. This can be done at quite reasonable cost.”
According to Faaij, society should stop polarizing and face the facts. “Biomass is necessary and it can be produced and used in a sustainable way. We have to start looking at how we can achieve a sustainable bio-based economy. Not if, but how.”
If we don’t do this, he adds, the energy transition will slip out of our hands. “The effect of doing nothing on biomass is to continue with oil, gas and coal.”
Who is André Faaij?
Previously, he was a Professor and scientific director of the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University.
He is or was a member of a variety of expert groups in bio-energy and energy policy, research and strategic planning and works or worked as advisor for governments, the European Commission, the International Energy Agency, UNIDO, UNEP, FAO, the World Economic Forum, and other institutions.
[adrotate group=”9″]
I would add that in the waste biomass to energy market not only are you achieviing the benefits discused in your article but you are eliminating pollution to our water and the atmosphere a good portion of biomass pollution comes in the for of methane a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
It is not just palm-oil that has given biomass a bad reputation. Bio-diesel and power from maize/corn have a very poor EROEI, and thus do (allmost) nothing for the climate. Stimulated by subsidies they have changed large parts of the agricultural land area into pesticide soaked monocultures. This has driven up land prices and thus pushed out food agriculture and nature.
Pointing out that biomass can be done in a good way is useful. However, one should not ignore that most policies have stimulates the wrong way. Any new policies should take the negative side-effects into account and policy makers should not just be satisfied by looking green and satisfying the agricultural lobby
I agree Hans, US Agriculture has taken a serious turn toward the unsustainable! This began actually during the Nixon years by the policies set forth by then Secretary Earl Butz. Farm sizes were considerably smaller back then and farms marketed their grain by feeding livestock to sell a more value added product . Today 55 farmers control 90% of the US hog production. Farmers today are much more specialized in the products they produce. The fact that agriculture is currently producing ethanol and biodiesel has absolutely nothing to do with renewable energy production rather trying to find a new market for Agricultural products we are drowning in caused by policies set forth by the Department of Agriculture to encourage over production. You can thank Senator Bob Dole and others for US agriculture’s foray into renewable fuels. As it turns out crop rotations from corn to Wheat to soybeans is a proven production practice in US agriculture and Monsanto has made this practice much more efficient with much improved weed contol and increased yields. This is what has caused the mono culture concept. Along with politicans who represent rural constituents desire to keep those folks employed. I learned a long time ago (I am a Ag major) a producer should never grow ANYTHING that you can put in your mouth! First of all it is bad politics for any politician to allow a constituient to go hungry. It is also bad politics to ignore job creation in rural America. By encouraging overproduction they are solvimg both of these problems And help make the world dependant on US Ag exports. This hoodwinks the American voters into not recognizing just how many jobs they are actually losing to The Far East as the trade imbalance due to US imports is not near as obvious. Not to mention that the US uses food as a weapon… Remember President Jimmy Carter’s decision to embargo the Russians on our wheat exports? Agriculture in America has very little to do with the production of food and Sustainable Agriculture is just a pie in the sky concept at this point.
I allowed this comment, but only just. The idea of the comment section is to comment on the article. You don’t give any sign of even having read it. The editor.
Lots of good stuff in your article but I do question this one claim –
“If you capture and store the CO2 from a biomass-fired plant, you actually reduce emissions. This can be done at quite reasonable cost.”
We have not been able to affordably capture CO2 from fossil fuel plants to date. And we have found almost no way to safely sequester that CO2.
We have pumped some CO2 into oil wells as a way to pull out more oil. But there’s no assurance that the CO2 will stay there. And shale oil drilling won’t go on much longer.
—
The long term role I see for biofuel is as ‘deep backup’. Those few times a year when both wind and solar production are low for extended days. That’s when we might want to fire up some thermal plants run on biomass as our dispatchable, fill-in source.
Since we could use ‘worthless’ coal plants with a small amount of conversion the capital cost would be very low, making it affordable to leave the plants sitting idle 98% of the time.
How about the use of biochar from pyrolysis and similar processes for soil amendment as a simple CC’s process.
That might be part of the solution. But I’ve never seen a convincing argument (data) that shows it could be a large part.
Just like planting more trees. That would help as well. But it’s not enough to pull down the amount of CO2 we need to remove from the atmosphere.
pyrolysis will never be a viable oil production process because the oil produced is to dirty. Most refineries won’t even consider it.
The oil might serve as industrial feedstock.
And “wood diesel” has been used in unmodified diesel engines.
—–
I don’t view biochar as a major player. But we don’t have any great ideas for pulling carbon out of the atmosphere so we might have to settle for getting a few percent here and a few percent there….
The article lacks mention of the most promising source of biomass for energy – marine macroalgae. While being much better at converting sunlight into useful energy, seaweeds are the only option for meaningful biofuel production as their farming can be done without the use of land, scarce freshwater, or fertilizers.
A piece of fact from Sweden. Bioenergy now accounts for 37 % of our final energy use, growing year by year. At the same time, the standing volume and the carbon stock in the forests is increasing. The biomass is used efficiently in combined heat and power plants – the heat used for district heating. Now the industry is converting from fossil fuels to pellets, chips, biogas, biooil and district heating, e.g. dairies, breweries, asphalt preparation, etc. Almost all greenhouses heated with biomass. Biofuels accounted for more than 20 % of all transport fuels in the first quarter of this year. It works, and our dependence on fossil fuels is reduced year by year, as are our fossil carbon emissions.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to increase carbon stock in forests AND produce energy without burning biomass and releasing carbon into the atmosphere? For example nuclear or geothermal replacing the biofuels and hydrocarbons while also pursuing forestation.
To a point, but eventually that forest will mature and the fallen trees will return that stored carbon back to the atmosphere. It is better to take advantage of that eventuality by harvesting and capturing that biomass energy and avoiding the need to burn fossil fuels.
If we take most of the mass in a tree and sequester it in a building for 100 years or more then use the freed land to grow more trees we end up pulling more carbon out of our atmosphere.
The waste that can’t be used in construction can be used for fuel.
As I write, the carbon stock in forests ARE increasing, while we at the same time use large amounts of biomass for energy (and renewable products) from these forests. It may seem like a contradiction, but it is a fact, very clear in our statistics. The reason is that we cut a bit less than the increment, and that young forests grow better than old ones. To leave the forest standing would increase stock even more in the short run, but after some time the growth of the stock would decrease, and level out, as the trees age. In a very old forest, there is practically no net growth. Eventually the carbon in old forests will be released through massive distrurbances like forest fires, pests, storms, etc. This is what happens in Siberia and Canada every year. Carbon in forests can not be stored forever, it is part of the natural carbon cycle between the biosphere and the atmosphere.
If we didn’t use biomass, we would have to use fossil fuels instead, as we did also in Sweden (In 1970, we were 80 % fossil fuel dependent). We would at the same time miss the substitution of fossil fuels (forgone substitution). There is no way we could have substituted all fossil fuels in boilers and motors without using bioenergy, and no way this could be done globally. Remember that 80% of all European, or global, energy still comes from fossil fuels, and that the CO2 emissions stand for two thirds of the climate effect.
By the way, in Sweden we need no more forestation, because there is forest everywhere. In many other countries, yes. But they also need to use these new forests for renewable products and energy for maximum climate benefit.
The answer is complex.
First, there’s a significant amount of wood/plant waste that is a byproduct of things like producing lumber and growing corn. That “waste”, unusable parts of trees and corn cobs/husks, is usable as fuel and has no impact on how land is used.
Second, wind and solar have become our two least expensive ways to generate electricity. And are rapidly becoming cheap ways to generate electricity.
But wind and solar have the obvious problems in that the wind does not always blow, the Sun does not always shine. We need some way to fill in for those low wind/solar hours.
Storage (battery) is becoming low enough cost to cover a day of low input and might be an affordable way to cover a few days. But we sometimes (not often at all) have extended periods of low wind/solar input. We need a solution for those few extended periods.
Pump-up hydro is one solution. Another could be using lumber/ag waste and sewage/landfill gas to fuel converted coal plants and combined cycle gas plants.
Nuclear and geothermal are not solutions. Geothermal is more expensive than wind and solar and nuclear is a lot more expensive. Run either as wind/solar fill-ins and their cost would be astronomical. Both suffer from high installed costs, not fuel costs. Run either only a few days a year and you’ve got to capture all their annual costs over a short number of days.
The cost of electricity = Total annual costs / Total electricity produced.
New nuclear in the US is running over $0.10/kWh. If we used nuclear as a fill-in for wind and solar then the reactors might run only a month a year. Do that and the cost of nuclear electricity goes up 12x to more than $1.20/kWh.
I agree with author that a bio-based and circular economy is important for a sustainable future. And for a certain point I agree that bio-energy e.g. bio-gas will have an important role, too.
However, to my opinion the opportunities for BECCS and Bio-Energy (300 ExaJoule) are well overestimated, where at the same time the task beyond 2050 on Net Negative Emissions is insufficient addressed. I would say do the math and calculate what is required to go to 388 ppm CO2 in 2150 as suggested in the Global Carbon Project. And what-if the timescale and the limit has to be adjusted, as we have seen earlier? To preserve biodiversity and realize a negative Land-Use-Change, bottom-line more natural preserved areas are required. Furthermore since the CCS opportunities are limited as well as uncertain I think it is more wise to look into Bio-Char Storage instead, to fulfill our future tasks. Both meaning that Bio-Energy is less promising than expected.
As Sweden is ahead in CO2 emission reduction, which is highly appreciated and a good example for others, the above implies that it should be ahead in future as well, meaning that Sweden should move from CO2 neutral to CO2 negative, which to my opinion also means that ultimatly it should rely less on bio-energy and look for other clean energy sources as well. In the end we only have one globe to live on.
Sewage is going to offgas. We can use it as fuel or we can let it escape unused into the atmosphere. (I’m unaware of any other option.)
The same is true with compostables unless we bury them so deeply that the gas gets trapped.
Should we not use that gas as one of our energy sources?
I would like to know what evidence exists that biomass carbon emissions can be sequestered at “quite reasonable cost.” What is a reasonable cost and what technology would be used? I have seen no evidence or implementation of affordable carbon sequestration.
As far as I know the only affordable CO2 sequestration that has occurred is with a modest sized plant in Canada where the CO2 is captured and sold to an oil company. The oil company uses the CO2 to force more oil out of its wells.
I guess we have to assume the CO2 will stay there.
The downside, obviously, is that we need to quit using oil which means that there hopefully will be no long term demand for CO2 for this purpose.
—
I read one BS article recently where they were talking about carbon capture. They were taking the CO2 and pumping it into a greenhouse in order to increase plant growth.
That CO2 was not being sequestered. The carbon was simply being delayed a bit on its way into our atmosphere and oceans.
The first and probably least costly way to apply BECCS is to capture CO2 in ethanol plants, and possibly also in biogas plants. In both cases we have a concentrated flow of CO2 from the biogenic processes. This is already done large-scale in Illinois (ADM/Decatur) at an ethanol plant.
At the Swedish ethanol plant in Norrköping (Lantmännen Agroetanol), the CO2 is captured and sold on the market as “green CO2”, e g to producers of carbonated drinks, substituting CO2 produced from natural gas.