EU bioenergy potential from a resource efficiency perspective. EEA Report No 6/2013. EEA (European...

7/27/2019 EU bioenergy potential from a resource efficiency perspective. EEA Report No 6/2013. EEA (European Environmen

1/64

EEA Report No 6/2013

ISSN 1725-9177

EU bioenergy potential from a

resource-efficiency perspective


2/64


3/64

EEA Report No 6/2013

EU bioenergy potential from a

resource-efficiency perspective


4/64

Cover design: EEACover photo istockphoto/loraksLeft photo istockphoto/fotolinchenRight photo istockphoto/BastunLayout: EEA/Pia Schmidt

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen K

DenmarkTel.: +45 33 36 71 00Fax: +45 33 36 71 99Web: eea.europa.euEnquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Copyright notice European Environment Agency, 2013Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europaserver (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

ISBN 978-92-9213-397-9ISSN 1725-9177doi:10.2800/92247

Environmental productionThis publication is printed according to high environmental standards.

Printed by Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk Environmental Management Certificate: DS/EN ISO 14001: 2004 Quality Certificate: DS/EN ISO 9001: 2008 EMAS Registration: Licence no. DK 000235 Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan, licence no. 541 176 FSC Certificate licence code FSC C0688122

PaperRePrint 90 gsm.CyclusOffset 250 gsm.Both paper qualities are recycled paper and have obtained the ecolabel Nordic Swan.

Printed in Denmark

REG.NO.DK-000244
http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/643

Contents

EU bioenergy potential from a resource-efficiency perspective

Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 4

Executive summary .................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 81.1 Role and limits of renewable energy technologies in enhancing resource efficiency ..... 81.2 Extent and complexity of bioenergy's environmental impact ................................... 91.3 The EU framework for expanding bioenergy production ........................................ 10

1.4 The need to understand energy cropping's land use impacts ................................. 11

2 Types of bioenergy and their role in the renewable energy mix ........................... 142.1 Bioenergy sources and technologies .................................................................. 142.2 Bioelectricity .................................................................................................. 152.3 Bio-heating .................................................................................................... 152.4 Transport fuels ............................................................................................... 152.5 Summing up: a brief reflection on efficiency ....................................................... 16

3 Assessing the environmental performance of bioenergy ...................................... 183.1 Introduction and framework ............................................................................. 183.2 Effects of land use change ................................................................................... 193.3 Direct environmental impacts of changes in land use and management .................. 20

3.4 Estimates of ILUC effects on GHG emissions ....................................................... 213.5 Forest biomass and the 'carbon debt' debate ...................................................... 24

4 Approach to analysing EU energy cropping potential ........................................... 264.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 264.2 Tools used in the analysis................................................................................. 264.3 Summary of bioenergy pathways in each storyline .............................................. 284.4 Review of uncertainty factors............................................................................ 294.5 Brief reflection on analytical system boundaries .................................................. 32

5 Key outcomes of storyline analysis ...................................................................... 335.1 The impact of ILUC effects on the GHG efficiency of energy cropping ..................... 335.2 Storyline outcomes for total EU bioenergy potential and energy crop mixes ........... 345.3 Strong variation of bioenergy GHG performance between storylines ....................... 38

5.4 Effect of bioenergy choices and environmental constraints on ecosystem impacts .... 405.5 Environmental aspects of current energy cropping trends ..................................... 42

6 Key lessons learned and issues for further research ............................................ 446.1 Bioenergy and resource efficiency ..................................................................... 446.2 Implications for bioenergy policies and practice ................................................... 466.3 Reflections on methodology and scope for further analysis ................................... 48

Glossary ................................................................................................................... 51

References ............................................................................................................... 53

Annex 1 Key differences with earlier EEA studies ..................................................... 57

Annex 2 Overview of main storyline assumptions .................................................... 60


6/644

Acknowledgements


Acknowledgements

The project manager for the production of the EEAreport and outside analytical input was JanErikPetersen. Important input to the analysis andwriting came from David Owain Clubb, GabriellaPajna and Michael Asquith. Annemarie BastrupBirkprovided helpful advice on forestry matters.

This report builds closely on a technical analysisby the EEA European Topic Centre on SpatialIntegration and Analysis (ETC/SIA) that reevaluatedEurope's bioenergy potential and development in a

resource efficiency perspective. Key ETC staff andother experts also contributed to the EEA report,in particular Berien Elbersen at Alterra and UweFritsche at IINAS.

EEA acknowledges feedback and input provided

during the consultation process by national andEuropean experts and advice received from formermembers of the EEA Scientific Committee (HelmutHaberl and Detlef Sprinz).


7/645

Executive summary


Executive summary

The bioenergy challenge

The European Union has set itself the ambitioustarget to increase the share of renewable sources infinal energy consumption to 20 % by 2020 (EC, 2009).This is motivated by the widespread recognition

that using fossil fuels to generate energy causessignificant harm to the environment and humanwellbeing. Renewable energy technologies offer away to increase resource efficiency significantly enabling society to meet its energy needs at muchlower environmental costs.

In Europe, bioenergy plays a central role innational renewable energy action plans (NREAPs),accounting for more than half of projected renewableenergy output in 2020. Yet while these targets offerpotentially significant environmental benefits, it isclear that the extent of those benefits will vary hugely

depending on how bioenergy is developed.

Whereas all renewable energy sources necessitatesome use of natural resources, bioenergy differs inthe extent and complexity of its impacts. While some

bioenergy sources and technologies offer significantadvantages over fossil fuelbased systems, otherslead to environmental concerns. This is particularlythe case where bioenergy involves using agriculturalland to cultivate energy crops, since it often resultsin changes to land use, including expanding orintensifying agriculture at other locations. This

can have significant implications for the naturalenvironment, such as biodiversity and the water,nutrient and carbon cycles, affecting ecosystemfunctioning and resilience in diverse ways.

It is very important, therefore, to apply resourceefficiency principles to developing EU bioenergyproduction. This means producing more withless while avoiding environmental impacts. Thereare numerous types and sources of biomass,conversion technologies and potential end uses.Some of these are a good fit with resource efficiencyprinciples, others are not. Biomass from waste andresidues from agriculture and forestry offer highresource efficiency whereas the environmental

benefits from cultivating crops for bioenergy

('energy cropping') are often limited. Findingresourceefficient combinations of biomass sources,conversion technologies and energy end uses isthe main challenge for the further developmentof EU bioenergy production in an environmentalperspective.

Report background and aims

To support decisionmaking in this complex area,the European Environment Agency (EEA) hasproduced a series of reports estimating the EuropeanUnion's bioenergy potential in an environmentalperspective and analysing its most efficient use tosupport greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation (EEA,2006, 2007, 2008). Understanding of key issueshas since advanced, particularly regarding thecrucial role of indirect land use change (ILUC) in

determining environmental impacts of bioenergy.The EEA European Topic Centre on SpatialIntegration and Analysis (ETC/SIA) produced areport in 2013 reevaluating Europe's bioenergypotential and providing further insights into:

the potential GHG savings from differenttechnological options to convert biomass toenergy ('bioenergy pathways');

how to bring a resource efficiency perspectiveinto the design of bioenergy development;

concerns about the GHG benefits of using forestbiomass to produce energy ('carbon debt');

the desirability of current bioenergy croppingtrends from an environmental perspective.

This EEA report provides an analytical summaryof the results of this ETC/SIA report, and includesadditional qualitative analysis of the 'carbon debt'issue. It primarily addresses the agricultural sectoras it is clearly the biomass source with greatestpotential for growth and for adverse environmentalimpacts often as a result of ILUC. However,the study also includes the estimated bioenergypotentials for the EU forest and waste sectors from


8/64

Executive summary

6 EU bioenergy potential from a resource-efficiency perspective

earlier EEA reports in order to provide a completeanalysis of the most resourceefficient approach forreaching the EU 2020 bioenergy ambitions.

Methodology

The present study builds on previous work by theEEA in terms of the analytical approaches applied

but combines them in a novel way and introducesILUC effects in the analysis. Firstly, it updates the2006 estimate of the agriculture bioenergy potential(while the forest and waste potentials remain as in2006). In a second step, life cycle analysis and landuseenvironment models are combined to estimatethe GHG emissions and energy yields from different

bioenergy pathways. The third step involvesthe development of three alternative futures('storylines') to explore the influence of differentenvironmental, technological and policy factors onthe resource efficiency of EU bioenergy production.Their main characteristics are (see also Box 1.3):

The 'Market first' storyline leaves bioenergydevelopment and the attainment of EUrenewable energy targets largely to marketforces. This means no new policy interventionsto avoid environmental impacts or ILUC effectsare expected.

The second storyline 'Climate focus' assumesmore policy intervention, including constraintson the areas that can be used for bioenergycropping, exclusion of biofuel pathways thatfail to reduce GHG emissions by at least 50 %compared to fossil fuels, and the introduction ofa floor price for biomass feedstock.

The third storyline, 'Resource efficiency',includes all of the conditions of the 'Climatefocus' storyline, but applies the mitigation

requirement of 50 % to all bioenergy pathways.Furthermore, it includes additional policymeasures to prevent negative impacts on naturalresources and biodiversity, and to enhancethe efficiency of bioenergy production acrosssectors.

The fourth step involves combining differentanalytical outputs in an overall assessment.Applying the storyline assumptions enabledthe different input data to be transformed intoprojections of land use change, biomass production,energy output and related GHG emissions. Viamodelling the land use change anticipated in eachstoryline is translated into impacts on water, soil, airand biodiversity.

Taken together, these findings illustrate the potentialenvironmental impacts of energy cropping, themost resourceefficient approaches to developing

bioenergy, and the feasibility and implications of

current bioenergy targets in NREAPs.

Key results

The storylinebased analysis clearly illustratesthat the efficiency and environmental impacts of

bioenergy development in the EU are likely to varysubstantially, depending on the pathways chosen.Specifically, the analysis delivers the following mainfindings:

ILUCmatters: Comparing the bioenergypotential in the three storylines with theestimates of bioenergy potential in earlierEEA reports demonstrates the importance ofincorporating indirect land use change intothe analysis. Accounting for ILUC reduces theamount of bioenergy that can be produced, butmore significantly it alters the bioenergy mix. Inparticular most first generation biofuel pathwaysare excluded as including ILUC renders theirGHG balance negative.

Thecontrastingpolicyconstraintsdeliverlittle

variationintotalbioenergypotentialbutlargerdifferenceintheenergycropmix: Although thetighter environmental constraints in the 'Climatefocus' and 'Resource efficiency' storylines reduce

biomass potential, this is offset by price supportsand more efficient bioenergy pathways, whichare absent from the 'Market first' storyline. As aresult, the overall bioenergy potential is similarin all three storylines. However, the storylineassumptions imply large differences in thecrop mix and the energy conversion pathways.The 'Climate focus' and 'Resource efficiency'

storylines result in a shift away from firstgeneration biofuels and towards perennial cropsand relatively more heat, electricity and biogasproduction.

ThealternativebioenergypathwaysvarysignificantlyintheirGHGefficiency: Theabsence of environmental constraints in the'Market first' storyline implies that the NREAP

bioenergy targets would be achieved at thecost of producing 44 kg of CO

2equivalent

per GJ. That is 62 % less GHG emission thanif the energy were generated using fossilfuels. In contrast, the strict environmentalconstraints in the 'Resource efficiency'storyline imply a substantially lower burden of


9/64

Executive summary

7EU bioenergy potential from a resource-efficiency perspective

25 kg CO2equivalent per GJ, which representsan 80 % reduction compared to fossil fuels.

Thebioenergypathwaysalsovarygreatlyin

theirecosystemimpacts: The storylines differsignificantly in impacts on water quantity, soilerosion and farmland bird diversity. The 'Marketfirst' storyline leads to negative environmentalimpacts in these areas. The 'Climate focus'storyline shows that prioritising the reductionof GHG emissions can still lead to negativeincreases in water abstraction and loss offarmland bird diversity. The 'Resource efficiency'storyline comes closest to an environmentally

beneficial approach as it performs better thanthe other two storylines on both the water

abstraction and the farmland bird effects whilestill achieving current bioenergy targets acrossthe EU.

Currentenergycroppingtrendsarenot'environmentallycompatible': Comparingcurrent energy cropping trends with the'environmentally compatible' croppingscenario developed by the EEA in 2006 revealssubstantial differences. Whereas annual arablecrops currently dominate and perennialsaccount for a tiny proportion of the crop mix,the environmentally compatible energy crop

mix proposed in 2006 foresaw a strong shift toperennial crops and grasses by 2020.

Conclusions

As the storylinebased analysis illustrates clearly,bioenergy's GHG efficiency and ecosystem impactscan vary significantly depending on the economicand policy constraints in place and the resulting

bioenergy pathways. Where feedstock is sourcedfrom waste or agricultural residues, it implies zero

land use change and substantial advantages overfossil fuel energy in terms of both greenhouse gasefficiency and ecosystem impacts. Conversely,where biomass is derived from energy cropping,some bioenergy pathways lead to additional GHGemissions and other environmental impacts. Indirectland use change effects are particularly important

in this regard and need to be addressed by theEU bioenergy policy framework.

From a resourceefficiency perspective, the core

message from this study is clear: bioenergy can play avaluable role in meeting society's energy needs whilepreserving our natural capital but only if it focuseson the most resourceefficient use of biomass throughthe whole biomasstoenergy production chain.

The analysis illustrates that policies aimed at makingupstream parts of the bioenergy chain (i.e. thesourcing of biomass) environmentally compatibleneed to be combined with measures that stimulateimprovements in other parts of the chain. Thisconcerns particularly the downstream conversion

approach but also includes all logistics and finalenduses of bioenergy.

Potentially adverse environmental effects connectedto direct landuse effects, including changes in landmanagement, currently fall outside the EU bioenergypolicy framework. Additional policy incentives andsafeguards are needed to address such environmentalimpacts, particularly with respect to water resourcesand farmland biodiversity.

The use of waste biomass and residues from forestryand agriculture is very favourable in a resource

efficiency perspective. However, the question ofcarbon debt associated with the use of forest biomassfrom trees presents an environmental concern. Thisissue clearly requires further investigation as itpotentially negates the GHG mitigation gains froma substantial part of the currently estimated forest

bioenergy potential.

This analysis has made further progress inunderstanding the potential environmental

benefits and impacts of EU bioenergy production.Nevertheless, further analytical work would help

to address additional policy questions and reduceuncertainties in assessment results. This will requireadditional progress in developing suitable modellingand assessment tools. Improving analytical certainty,however, also requires an adequate investment inmonitoring trends in energy cropping and associatedproduction processes and environmental impacts.


10/648

Introduction


1 Introduction

1.1 Role and limits of renewable energytechnologies in enhancing resourceefficiency

Humanity's greatest challenge in the years aheadarguably lies in finding ways to meet our needs

while maintaining the natural systems that sustainus. In a world of finite resources and ecosystemcapacity, resource efficiency is absolutely central toachieving that goal.

Enhancing resource efficiency essentially meansfindings ways to achieve more at lower costs to theenvironment. This implies reducing the amount ofresources used to meet our needs. But it also relatesto the environmental impacts on water, air, soiland biodiversity that result from extractingresources from natural systems and emitting wastesand pollution. Figure 1.1 shows how resource

efficiency relates to the use of natural capital andecosystem resilience.

Figure 1.1 The two key aspects of resource efficiency

Source: EEA, 2013.

Natural capital

Minerals, land, water, ecosystems, etc.

Material efficiency

Focused on minimisingresource use per output

Ecosystem aspects

Reduce ecosystem impacts,minimise waste and pollution

Addressing resource efficiency

Preserving ecosystem resilience

Socio-economic development

Energy is a key concern in this context. Our economiesand societies require energy to function and thishas enormous implications for our resource use and

broader impacts on ecosystems. Energy sources varyhugely in character: some are nonrenewable subsoilsources, such as coal and oil; some, such as biomass,

are renewables but depletable if natural systems arenot managed properly. Others, such as solar andwind, are in practical terms nondepletable.

The EU's Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe(EC, 2011a) outlines how we can make Europe'seconomy sustainable by 2050. It proposes waysto increase resource productivity and decoupleeconomic growth from resource use and associatedenvironmental impacts. The Roadmap analyses keyresources from a lifecycle and valuechain perspectiveand illustrates how policies interrelate and buildon each other. It sets out a vision for the structural

and technological change needed up to 2050, withmilestones to be reached by 2020 more information


11/64

Introduction


is available under: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htm.

Against this backdrop, renewable energy has a crucial

role to play in sustaining economic output at lowerenvironmental costs meaning significant resourceefficiency improvements relative to fossil fuels. Thecommitment to resource efficiency has two importantimplications for developing renewable energy,including bioenergy:

1. new energy sources should be as resource efficientas possible, which implies that small relativereductions in greenhouse gas emissions comparedto fossil fuelbased energy systems are notsufficient;

2. renewable energy sources should not lead tomedium or longterm depletion of nonrenewableresources or cause negative impacts on the world'snatural capital, such as forests, productive soils,natural ecosystems, or water resources.

Figure 1.2 Projected life-cycle land use of fossil, nuclear and renewable electricity systems in

2030 (m2/GJel)

(a)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Naturalg

as

Hydro(ru

n-of

-river)

Nucle

arCo

al

Lignite

Windon

shore

El-mixEU

-27

Geothe

rmal

Solar

-CSP

Solar

-PV-

poly

Biog

as-maiz

eICE

SRCcoge

n

Bio-SN

GCC

Bio-SN

Gcogen

Land use m2/GJel

Note: (a) SNG = substitute natural gas; cogen = cogeneration; SRC= short-rotation coppice; CC= combined-cycle; ICE= internalcombustion engine; PV= photovoltaic; CSP= concentrating solar power.

The 2030 time horizon was chosen to include advanced bioenergy technologies such as bio-SNG, and solar CSP. Thereasoning behind the calculations (including the assumptions regarding technologies available in 2030) is set out in ETC/SIA (2013). Note that potential ILUC effects of bioenergy systems are excluded here.

Source: Fritsche, 2012a, based on GEMIS 4.8 data.

1.2 Extent and complexity of bioenergy'senvironmental impact

Renewable energy technologies potentially offer an

important means of reducing humanity's burdenon the environment while sustaining economicdevelopment. Nevertheless, all such technologieshave advantages and limitations, which varydepending on how and where they are deployed.

Like all renewable energy sources, bioenergy offersa mixture of environmental and financial benefitsand risks. Where bioenergy differs is in the extentand complexity of its impacts. Whereas most formsof renewable energy exploit geophysical energysources, such as solar radiation or wind, bioenergy

often uses feed stocks cultivated on land whichcould be used productively for other purposes.Other renewable technologies do indeed use someland but the area is comparatively small. Figure 1.2illustrates these differences in relation to electricitygeneration.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/about/roadmap/index_en.htm


12/64

Introduction


Box 1.1 Land as a resource

To understand the implications of increased bioenergy production, it is important to recognise that the land

used for energy cropping is a natural resource, comprising soil, minerals, water and biota (MA, 2005). Assuch, it plays an essential role in delivering valuable ecosystem services, such as supporting the cultivationof biomass for food, energy and other products, and regulating the environment, e.g. via water filtrationor carbon sequestration. Communities also often attach considerable cultural and religious value to locallandscapes. Land's capacity to provide these services depends on its management for agriculture, forestry,transport, living and recreation.

From a physical and economic perspective, land is an inherently fixed and scarce resource. Competition forland is already projected to increase to meet the food and fibre needs of a global population of nine billionin 2050 (FAO, 2010), which could consume at least 50 % more food than today (Royal Society, 2009).Increased energy cropping implies an additional demand for land, necessitating either the conversion ofnatural ecosystems or more intensive use of existing farm and forest land (WGBU, 2008). Both will affectenvironmental quality and biodiversity, which must be reflected when analysing bioenergy's impacts.

Where bioenergy involves energy cropping it oftennecessitates changes to land use, with significantimplications for related systems, such as water,nutrient and carbon cycles, and biodiversity. Thiscan affect ecosystem functioning and resilience indiverse ways.

Understanding the full impacts of bioenergy onthe environment therefore presents considerablechallenges. Clearly, the effects of using biomass for

energy will vary greatly from location to location. Itcould involve further intensification of existing landuses, both in agricultural and forest lands. It couldmean converting directly or indirectly noncropped

biodiversityrich land into cropped land orplantation forests.

There are also many types and sources of biomassand many different pathways for converting theminto energy for diverse end uses. Net effects ongreenhouse gas emissions will vary greatly as aresult, as will the wider ecosystem impacts. The

complexity of analysing bioenergy's full costs andbenefits only grows when effects on local economicactivity, employment and so on are also considered.

1.3 The EU framework for expandingbioenergy production

Determining where, how and how much to cultivateenergy crops is evidently a very significant challenge

but it is one that EU governments must confront.This is because, in addition to the generalisedneed for countries to enhance resource efficiency,EU Member States have agreed to specific, legally

binding renewable energy targets and they aresubstantial.

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED, EC, 2009)sets a general binding target for the European Unionto derive 20 % of its final energy from renewablesources by 2020. This includes a subtarget of 10 % ofEU transport energy to be derived from renewablesources. The RED also specifies that all biofuels andother bioliquids counting towards the target mustmeet a set of mandatory sustainability criteria toachieve greenhouse gas reductions compared tofossil fuels and to mitigate risks related to areas of

high biodiversity value and areas of high carbonstock. The mitigation criteria cover emissions relatedto direct landuse changes.

The European Parliament and Council asked theEuropean Commission to examine the question ofindirect landuse change and possible measuresto avoid it. This resulted in an impact assessmentand a European Commission communication(EC, 2010a) summarising the consultations andanalytical work conducted on this topic since 2008.In this communication the European Commission

acknowledge that indirect landuse change canreduce the greenhouse gas emissions savingsassociated with biofuels and bioliquids. This led tothe publication of a Commission proposal (EC, 2012)for an amendment of the RED and the Fuel QualityDirective in which it is proposed (amongst othermeasures) to limit the contribution of foodbased

biofuels within the overall 10 % renewable transporttarget to 5 % in the future.

The general target of 20 % renewable energy for2020 translates into individual targets for MemberStates, which range from 10 % (for Malta) to 49 %(for Sweden). In 2010 Member States adoptedNational Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs),which indicate how much each bioenergy source


13/64

Introduction


Box 1.2 Environmentally compatible bioenergy potential

In its 2006 report, the EEA sought to identify the 'environmentally compatible potential of bioenergy'. Thispotential is derived from the quantity of biomass that is available for energy generation if all technicaloptions are exploited and imposes no additional pressures on biodiversity, soil and water resourcescompared to a development without increased bioenergy production.

'Environmentally compatible' implies that growing and harvesting the biomass is in line with the overall setof EU environmental policies and objectives and has practical management implications. For example, inforestry it means that a minimum share of deadwood has to remain in the forest and that the use of forestresidues should not exceed a level that maintains soil fertility and organic content. In agriculture a 30 %

share of low-input and/or organic farming is assumed, extensive farming systems are to be preserved andthe choice of crops and farming practices is expected to take account of environmental considerations.

will contribute to achieving their renewableenergy targets. From these NREAPs it is apparentthat bioenergy will make up more than half of allrenewable energy in 2020 implying that it will

account for about 10 % of the EU's total gross finalenergy consumption. Some Member States thathave limited alternative renewableenergy optionsand large biomass resources significantly exceedthe average EU share of biomass within their finalenergy consumption.

Looking beyond 2020, the EU's Energy Roadmap2050 (EC, 2011b) likewise foresees a central rolefor bioenergy in delivering an 8095 % reductionin EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Suchambitious reduction targets underline the

importance of developing bioenergy in a way thatenables very substantial cuts in GHG emissions anddoes not impact on ecological resources.

1.4 The need to understand energycropping's land use impacts

The planned growth in bioenergy output andthe extent of its potential impacts clearly make itessential that we understand how much biomass can

be produced sustainably in the EU, and how we canmaximise bioenergy output within environmental

constraints. In this context, it is also important toconsider the environmental impacts of biomassimports.

To address this need, the EEA has produced aseries of studies in recent years contributing to theknowledge base in this complex area:

EEA (2006, 2007) investigated how muchbioenergy the EU could produce withoutharming the environment. This was done by

developing scenarios for the agriculture, wasteand forestry sectors for the period up to 2030,

based on various assumptions about policies andenvironmental constraints.

EEA (2008) explored the optimal use of biomassestimated in earlier studies, quantifying theamount of GHG emissions that could be avoided

by exploiting the environmentally compatiblebioenergy potential in a resource efficientmanner.

Since 2008, scientific knowledge, public debate andthe political landscape have all evolved, generatingnew insights and providing a context withinwhich the environmentally compatible bioenergy

potentials should be reassessed. In addition, twoopinions of the EEA's Scientific Committee reviewedthe development of bioenergy output in the contextof more recent knowledge about indirect land useeffects, ecosystem carbon cycles and greenhousegas accounting standards. In these opinions theCommittee recommended careful consideration ofwhich bioenergy pathways and production volumesensure real greenhouse gas savings (EEA SC, 2009and 2011).

Since 2009, therefore, the EEA has investedsubstantial resources via its European Topic Centres

on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC) and theETC/SIA into updating its previous analysis. Thatwork has pursued five main objectives:

updating the estimate of the 'environmentallycompatible' bioenergy potential fromagricultural sources on the basis of recent dataand technological insights;

integrating current knowledge of indirect landuse change effects into the analysis of likely


14/64

Introduction


greenhouse gas savings from different EUbioenergy pathways;

reviewing recent scientific debates on the

actual greenhouse gas benefits of using forestbiomass to produce energy (i.e. the 'carbon debt'concept);

exploring the resource efficiency concept witha view to an optimal design of EU and national

bioenergy policies until 2020;

comparing current bioenergy cropping trendsand cropping projections to 2020 to scientificmodels of the environmental impact ofagricultural land use.

In 2013, the ETC/SIA produced a report addressingthese issues on behalf of EEA (ETC/SIA, 2013). TheETC/SIA report integrated the potential consequencesof global indirect land use change (ILUC), adaptedthe earlier estimates of agricultural biomass potentialand environmental constraints, and reflected thecurrent timeline and objectives of EU policy. It alsoupdated technology and cost data for bioenergysystems, and their respective lifecycles.

The new analysis primarily addressed theagricultural sector, which is, by some distance, the

biomass source with greatest potential for growthand for adverse environmental impacts. However,it also included the estimated bioenergy potentialsfor the EU forest and waste sectors from the EEA's2006 report. This enabled a complete analysis of theimplications of the 2020 bioenergy targets for GHG

balance and ecosystem impacts in different bioenergypathways (ETC/SIA, 2013).

Aims and approach of this report

The main objective of this report is to review the

implications of resource efficiency principles fordeveloping EU bioenergy production. The resultspresented are primarily based on the 2013 ETC/SIAstudy, capturing key messages while excluding someof the more technical elements. The report aims to

be a more accessible version of the ETC/SIA study,aimed at the nontechnical reader.

The primary analytical focus is on energycropping, since other biomass sources (waste andresidues) are considered to have significantlylower environmental impacts. Nevertheless,the carbon effects of using forest biomass wereexplored in a qualitative manner. The report setsout key resource efficiency principles, develops

an analytical approach for applying these tobioenergy production and draws out key analyticaloutcomes for the development of a resourceefficient

bioenergy sector.

Chapter 2 of the report reflects upon the range ofbioenergy technology currently available and indeedexpected in the coming years. This information setsthe technical framework for the resource efficiencyanalysis to follow.

Chapter 3 allows the reader to reflect upon tothe possibility of assessing the environmentalperformance of bioenergy against the two keyaspects of resource efficiency as mentionedpreviously. The chapter focuses on potential

ecosystem impacts and analyses the land usedimension of bioenergy production. It describes thetypes of direct and indirect impacts that can ariseand summarises estimates of ILUC impacts andthe carbon debt debate related to the use of forest

biomass.

Chapter 4 describes the modelling chain that wasemployed to analyse efficiency aspects of bioenergyproduction. This provides insight into use ofdifferent models and the way ILUC effects wereintegrated into analysis. The chapter also discussesanalytical and data uncertainties associated with the

study.

Chapter 5 presents the relative energy and GHGbalances of the use of biomass in the heat, powerand transport sectors and illustrates the importanceof the choice of energy crops for the overallenvironmental performance of energy pathways

based on agricultural biomass.

Finally, Chapter 6 sets out key conclusions of thestudy with regard to the analytical approach andpolicy implications. The approach employed and the

timeframe of the development of the underpinningtechnical study do not allow a direct evaluation ofcurrent policy proposals. Nevertheless, the analysisset out in this report is considered to be a potentialinput to current EU policy debates.

The ETC/SIA study utilised the development of threedifferent storylines as a key methodological tool forexploring the influence of different environmental,technological and policy factors. These do not aimto forecast likely futures, but they explore plausible

bioenergy development paths from a resourceefficiency perspective under three specific sets ofeconomic and political assumptions. Box 1.3 sets outthe key characteristics of the three storylines.


15/64

Introduction


Box 1.3 Storyline assumptions in brief

Bioenergy development in the 'Market first' (Storyline 1) is largely left to market forces. Energy cropping

patterns follow projections that are derived from agro-economic modelling (the CAPRI model). Policyintervention is limited to the renewable energy targets for 2020 set out in the Renewable Energy Directive(EU, 2009a) and further specified in the NREAPs; reaching these targets is left to market forces anddomestic quotas and indirect land use change is not addressed. Biomass feedstock will be used at a costlevel of around EUR 3/GJ.

'Climate focus' (Storyline 2) assumes more policy intervention. Only biofuel pathways capable of mitigatingat least 50% of GHG emissions (including an ILUC factor) compared with fossil alternatives are used.Areas with high biodiversity or high carbon stocks are not to be used for dedicated energy cropping. The10 % target for transport biofuels is also relaxed to promote a shift in energy cropping towards the mostappropriate pathways and areas. The storyline integrates a range of support measures such as a floor pricefor biomass feedstock of up to EUR 6/GJ. It also favours second-generation technologies and perennialenergy cropping with very limited ILUC effects over alternatives that have limited GHG mitigation effects.

'Resource efficiency' (Storyline 3) assumes stronger policy intervention than 'Climate focus' and respondsto the efficiency as well as the ecosystem resilience aspects of resource efficiency. All the conditionsof Storyline 2 apply to biofuels as well as bio-heat and bio-electricity pathways. In addition, stricterrequirements are imposed for converting land to energy cropping in order to ensure that there are nonegative impacts on natural resources and biodiversity. Finally, while the aggregate bioenergy targetsin NREAPs remain binding, the sectoral split is relaxed such that more heat could be produced and lesselectricity, if that proves to be more efficient.


16/6414

Types of bioenergy and their role in the renewable energy mix


2 Types of bioenergy and their role in therenewable energy mix

2.1 Bioenergy sources andtechnologies

As explained in Chapter 1, determining howto develop resourceefficient renewable energysources requires an understanding of the costs and

impacts of alternative technologies. This chapterinitiates the assessment of bioenergy options byoutlining the technologies currently available,which feature in the storylinebased analysis.A more detailed summary of current technologiesis presented in Chapter 4 of ETC/SIA (2013).

At present, the three different types of energyenduses for which biomass can be employed transport fuel, electricity generation and heating

use different but overlapping types of biomass.However, it is expected that these markets will

become more integrated in the coming decades asadvanced conversion technologies, biorefineries andcascading use of biomass become more prominent.

The diverse pathways for transforming differenttypes of biomass into different forms of energyobviously imply a potentially wide range ofenvironmental impacts. Figure 2.1 shows themost common biomass categories derived fromagriculture, forests and wastes, and the conversionroutes that are expected to become economic

by 2020. The remainder of this chapter looks inmore detail at the technologies used in each of the

bioenergy subsectors.

Figure 2.1 Routes for converting biomass to energy

Source: IEABioenergy2009,simpliedbyEEA,2013.

(Biomass upgrading) + combustion

(Hydrolysis) + fermentation

Gasification (+ secondary process)

Pyrolysis (+ secondary process)

Oil crops (rape, sunflower, etc.)waste oils, animal fats

Sugar and starch crops

Lignocellulosic biomass(e.g. wood, straw, energy crop,

municipal solid waste (MSW))

Biodegradable MSW, sewagesludge, manure, wet wastes

(farm and food wastes),macro-algae

Photosyntheticmicro-organisms,

e.g. microalgae and bacteria

Feedstock Conversion routes

Heat

Power

Trans-esterification or hydrogenation

Anaerobic digestion (+ biogas upgrading)

Other biological/chemical routes

Liquid fuels (bioethanol,biodiesel/syndiesel,methanol, etc.)

Gaseous fuels (biomethane)

Transport


17/64



2.2 Bioelectricity

Electricity is a versatile energy carrier. It is efficientin providing a variety of energy services such as

communication, lighting and mechanical power,but also capable of powering rail and road transportand providing (cogenerated) heat. Partly becauseof this versatility, electricity's share in total energyconsumption is likely to increase markedly fromcurrent levels, almost doubling to 37 % in 2050(EC, 2011b).

Bioelectricity is generated from two bioenergysources.

Solidbiomass wood chips, pellets, straw,

dry manure can be cofired in conventionalcoalfired power plants. This is a lowcost option,requiring comparatively little investment.The conversion efficiency of biomass intoelectricity is practically the same as for the fossilfuel (IRENA, 2012). Smallerscale dedicated

biomasstoelectricity plants often employcogeneration (combined heat and powergeneration, as described in Box 2.1) to makeuse of waste heat, thus compensating for lowerelectric efficiency and higher costs.

Biogasandbiomethane can be used both for

electricity generation or cogeneration, and forinjection into the gas grid as a direct substitutefor natural gas. Electricity generation fromthese sources is already quite efficient andlowpolluting. The extent of methane leakagesfrom biogas plants can be substantial, however,and the losses of this potent greenhouse gasinfluence the final GHG efficiency of this

bioenergy pathway significantly.

Producing biogas from dedicated energy crops,such as maize, sugar beet or wheat, requires careful

analysis due to their land use implications. Theemissions of greenhouse gases and acidifying gasessuch as ammonia from these systems are substantial.Where manure or organic residential wastes are used,the greenhouse gas performance of biogas pathwaysis far better.

2.3 Bio-heating

Throughout history, humans have burned biomassfor heating in smallscale systems. Today, the

best option for generating heat from biomass insmallscale units is burning wood pellets or logs inspecialised heating systems, although this requireshigh capital investment compared with fossil fuel

heating. Even traditional log stoves can reach a highefficiency (> 80 %) if operated properly, but producesignificant air emissions, especially in terms of fineparticles (PM

10) and black carbon, the latter having

comparatively high shortterm global warmingimplications.

Four bioheating pathways are particularly relevantto the analysis presented.

Usingwoodchipsinboilersforlargerheatingsystems such as multifamily houses is awidespread conversion route it requiresadequate emission controls to reduce localnitrogen oxide and PM

10loads.

Small-scaledecentralisedbiomassheating isincluded in the shape of advanced automatedpellet systems.

Districtheating can supply both large areas ofdenselypopulated buildings, and smallerscaleneighbourhoods or larger building complexesusing packaged cogeneration. District heating isa very efficient system with low GHG emissions,in particular if operated on residues and wastes.

Biogas/biomethane is not expected to play aprominent role due to its low overall resource

efficiency, but can provide heat indirectly fromcogenerated electricity. In principle, however,

biomethane can be a resourceefficient transportfuel.

Looking beyond 2020, the limited availability ofbiomass and the resourceefficiency paradigmnecessitate the most efficient design of biomassto heat pathways. This does not involve directheating but rather using the waste heat producedin power generation and industrial processes fordistrict heating (OEKO, 2010; EEA, 2008; IEA,

2012a). Cogenerated heat of this sort can supplyboth large areas of densely populated buildings andsmallerscale neighbourhoods as well as process heatand steam for industrial sites. It is described in moredetail in Box 2.1.

2.4 Transport fuels

Transport fuels derived from biomass can be splitinto two groups.

First-generationbiofuelswhich are commerciallyavailable rely on relatively simple technologyand use dedicated feed stocks, such as sugar beet,oilseeds, and starch crops. Sugars in these crops


18/64



Box 2.1 Combined heat and power

Combined heat and power (CHP), also known as co-generation, is an efficient means of converting biomass

into electricity while extracting waste heat to supply district heating or industry.

Biomass co-generation plants vary in technology and size, ranging from 0.01 MWel

to > 300 MWel, and can

use biogas or biomethane, wood and many waste products including straw and pellets. Combined heat andpower co-firing also includes gas-based approaches, operating on a mix of natural gas and biogas, includingbiomethane.

Solid biomass for cogeneration can either be based on co-firing in coal CHP plants, or on dedicatedbiomass-only CHP systems which, due to logistical constraints, are typically medium-sized (150 MW

el).

The CHP technologies for solid bioenergy are typically less efficient than those operating on biogas orbiomethane. The latter involve higher investment but have lower operating costs.

An interesting option is to use straw as a co-feed with liquid manure in biogas fermenters to enhanceconversion (DBFZ, 2012). This hybrid system is under development and could boost biogas-based energy

output, especially in regions with large manure and straw surpluses.

are fermented to produce ethanol (EEA, 2008;OEKO, 2009; IEA, 2011), while oil crops provideoil that is transesterified to form fatty acidmethyl ester (biodiesel, or FAME). The resultingethanol and biodiesel are then generally mixedwith fossilbased liquid fuels.

Mostadvancedorsecond-generationbiofuels

are generally not yet commercially viable but areexpected to play an increasing role in the comingdecades. They use mainly lignocellulosic feedstocks, e.g. short rotation coppice, perennialgrasses, forest residues and straw. Thissocalled cellulosic biomass has a characteristiccomposition of mainly cellulose, hemicelluloseand lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins,fatty substances and ash. Cellulosic biomass isnaturally resistant to being broken down, sorequires advanced technologies to convert itinto liquid fuels. Examples of these technologies

include (IEA, 2010, 2011): Thermo-chemicalconversion: biomass isgasified to syngas at 6001 100 C, and thenconverted to biodiesel using FischerTropschsynthesis. This 'biomasstoliquid' processcan be applied to woody or grassderived

biomass and cellulosic or lignocellulosicdry residues and wastes. Currently, thereare no commercial biomasstoliquid plants

but several precommercial plants exist inGermany, Japan and the United States.

Biochemicalconversion: this involvespretreatment of cellulosic biomass andenzymatically enhanced hydrolysis andsubsequent fermentation to converthemicellulose and sugar into ethanol.There are demonstration plants in the EU(Denmark, Spain and Sweden), and Canada.Other countries such as Brazil, China,

Germany, Japan and the United States arealso developing such 'second generation'ethanol technologies.

2.5 Summing up: a brief reflection onefficiency

The various bioenergy technologies differsubstantially in their overall efficiency in termsof energy output per volume biomass input.This is due to the technical efficiency of different

conversion technologies as well as the inherentefficiency of using biomass for different energy enduses (transport fuel, heat or power). This was onekey conclusion of the 2008 EEA bioenergy reportand is discussed in Section 4.3.

Figure 2.2 provides a first overview of the relativeefficiency of different types of bioenergy. The dataare derived from the GEMIS 4.8 life cycle database(Global Emissions Model for Integrated Systems),developed by the koinstitut Germany (1).

(1) GEMIS is now hosted by the International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (IINAS).


19/64



Figure 2.2 Efficiency range of different biomass-to-energy conversion routes

Note: Datarepresentnetefcienciestakingintoaccountresultsofstandardlife-cycleanalysis.Thiscoverstheproductionprocessfrom the point of harvest to energy end use. For land-use aspects please consult Figure 1.2.

Source: ETC/SIA, 2013.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4030

50

65

85

25

50

45

35

85

85

> 85

70

60

Type of energy generation

High efficiency Low efficiency

Efficiency in %

Co-firingwith

coal(electricity)

Dedicatedbiomass

combustion(electricity)

Biogas/biomethane

Solidbiomasscogeneration

(electricityandheat)

Combustiontoproduceheatonly

Firstgenerationtransportfuel

Secondgenerationtransportfuel


20/6418

Assessing the environmental performance of bioenergy


3 Assessing the environmentalperformance of bioenergy

3.1 Introduction and framework

Analysing all the effects bioenergy can have on theenvironment is a complex undertaking as there arenumerous types and sources of biomass, and diverseways to convert them into energy. This study

combines an assessment of ecosystem impacts witha GHG and energy efficiency focus to address thetwo aspects of resource efficiency the efficiencyof the bioenergy pathway and the wider ecosystemimpacts associated with producing a given amountof energy.

The analytical tools employed build on qualitativeand quantitative approaches and include lifecycle methodology, global and European land

use modelling as well as a qualitative assessmentof EU energy cropping trends and of the globalwarming impact of using forest biomass.

These tools are applied to the entire bioenergyproduction process from initial resource inputs over

biomass sourcing logistics to the final conversionof biomass to different energy outputs. Figure 3.1outlines critical factors for the overall environmentalperformance of bioenergy and how the resourceefficiency concept can be applied for environmentalassessment.

The complexity of impacts is arguably greatestwhere biofuels are produced from cultivated energycrops. Expanding biomass feedstock production

Figure 3.1 Assessing the environmental performance of bioenergy

Source: EEA, 2013.

Land-use changeForest composition

Indirect effects (ILUC),water cycle, etc.

Bioenergy production process

Land, forests stands,fertiliser, water, etc.

Oilseeds, grains,waste products, residues,cellulosic material, etc.

GHG balanceEnergy efficiencyOutput per hectare

Biomass sourcing(volume, uniformity)Logistic infrastructure

Energy use

Inputs Biomass types and logistics Conversion to energy

Physical efficiency,technological choice,

energy end use

Resource efficiency

Reduce ecosystemimpact

Improve materialefficiency


21/64



can imply substantial land use change, with directand indirect impacts in Europe and globally. Inparticular the likely size of ILUC is very importantfor the overall GHG balance of different bioenergy

pathways. The quantitative assessment in this studytherefore focuses on land use impacts in Europe andworldwide.

The potential environmental impacts of increasingthe use of forest biomass for bioenergy should,however, not be underestimated (EEA, 2006,Mantau et al., 2010). In particular the question ofthe potential 'carbon debt' associated with the useof forest biomass needs to be further investigated as discussed in Section 3.5. On the other hand,exploiting biomass residues and wastes as well as

agricultural byproducts for energy purposes carriesvery little environmental risk as long as appropriateenvironmental safeguards are observed.

The remainder of this chapter sets out theenvironmental assessment framework employedand discusses the land use component of bioenergyproduction, which includes most of the ecosystemaspects of resource efficiency. A more detailedaccount of the assessment framework summarisedhere is presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of theaccompanying ETC/SIA (2013) report.

3.2 Effects of land use change

Managing and exploiting natural resources land, water, forests and other ecosystems in asustainable manner is a key challenge for societiesin Europe and globally (EEA, 2010a). Land useplays a central role in this endeavour as it interactsdirectly with natural cycles that determine theglobal climate, the availability and quality of waterresources, the productivity of soil resources and theresilience of ecosystem processes that underpin food

production. Figure 3.2 illustrates the interactionsbetween land use and important environmentalcycles.

Figure 3.2 demonstrates that land use has animpact on nearly all environmental media. Infact it is frequently the most important factor inhuman impacts on the environment makingthe effects of bioenergy production on land usea critical component of its overall environmentalperformance.

Land use effects are often divided into direct andindirect effects. This distinction derives from theposition of impacts in the causeeffect chain in theland use sector and related parts of the economy.

Direct effects represent the direct impact on landmanagement as a consequence of the additionaldemand for output that is linked to bioenergyproduction (or other economic drivers). Dependingon the scale of analysis such land use effects can beevaluated at the local, country or continental scale.

Indirect effects are the subsequent reaction by landmanagers to the changed situation caused by directeffects. Indirect effects generally include a widerrange of impact types than direct effects and they

can include effects in economic sectors beyond landuse, such as consumer reaction to raised food or fuelprices. Figure 3.3 shows a simplified chain of effectsthat use of land for bioenergy production can bringabout. Direct and indirect effects include:

intensified food and fodder production on otherland, leading to higher yields but no additionalland use;

conversion of additional uncultivated land toagricultural use elsewhere, both inside and

outside the EU;

changes in consumption, for example, reducedfood consumption due to higher food prices.

The relative importance of different responses,e.g. intensification or land conversion, dependson many parameters, which vary betweenlocations. They include such factors as the typeand availability of land for agricultural conversion,legal restrictions on land conversion, nationalpolicies favouring use of particular inputs or landcultivation, the economic ability of farmers to buyinputs or invest in technologies, and the standardsthat biomass for energy purposes has to meet(including environmental criteria).

Figure 3.2 Land use and ecosystem cycles

Source: EEA, 2013.

Agricultural land use

Nutrient cycles(N and P)

Carbon cycle

Water cycle Ecosystemresilience


22/64



Figure 3.3 Direct and indirect effects of land use for bioenergy

Demand for land for the cultivation of biomass

Directeffects

Indirecteffects

Intensification of agriculture Use of currently farmed land Conversion of non-farmed land

Intensification of agriculture Conversion of non-farmed land Change in consumption

Source: EEA, 2013, building on ETC/SIA, 2013.

As both direct and indirect effects can include verysimilar responses in terms of land use change bothtypes lead to a similar range of environmentalimpacts. However, whereas direct effects can beevaluated through direct observations (if suitablemonitoring programmes and statistical datacollection are in place), the assessment of the typeand size of indirect effects is far more complex relying nearly exclusively on (agro) economic and

biophysical modelling approaches.

The next two sections discuss direct environmentaleffects and review currently available knowledge ofthe effects of ILUC on the GHG balance of biofuels.

3.3 Direct environmental impactsof changes in land use andmanagement

The net impacts of expanding energy cropping varysignificantly depending on the type of biomass

cultivated and the previous use of the land affected.If direct land use change is not induced then theenvironmental impact of energy crops depends verymuch on the types of crops chosen as well as thepattern and intensity of the current land use thatthey are replacing.

There are two potential approaches available fordeveloping an overview of the direct environmentaleffects of energy cropping: reviewing the types ofland management change that are likely to createenvironmental impacts or analysing the types ofimpact by different environmental media.

The types of land management change that arelikely to create environmental impact can be

analysed by reviewing the following aspects(O'Connell et al., 2005; and EEA, 2007):

1. Effect on land use: changes in land use,whether between land cover classes (see above)or within one land cover class (e.g. withinagricultural land) affect not only the carbon

balance but also the risks of soil erosion, diffusepollution of waters and loss of biodiversity.

2. Impact on land use intensity:

a) What is the choice and pattern of bioenergycrops? Are they grown in a diverse rotation,or do they have a dominant share in theoverall crop area?

b) What is the management intensity of thebioenergy crop? For example, does it requirehigh or low external inputs of fertiliser and/orwater, is it harvested once or several times peryear?

c) How do energy crops influence the

structural diversity of the farmed landscape?Permanent crops, for example, can increaselandscape diversity or contribute to closingup previously open landscapes, dependingon the location.

The possible impact of bioenergy cropping ondifferent environmental media is influenced by avariety of factors, including those set out below(EEA, 2007 and 2010b):

Climate: Both landuse conversions andintensification can lead to additional GHGemissions. Land contains carbon which is storedin vegetation and soil. The amount of carbondepends on the type of soils and vegetation. Peat


23/64



Box 3.1 Introduction of new species via energy cropping

New energy crops are often selected because of their fast and productive growth but can have their originin other continents. This means that some (e.g. miscanthus) are classified as invasive alien species (GISP,2008). If such species escape from their confined cultivated environment they can dominate or push outnative species and thus alter European ecosystems. The ecological impact of invasive species can be verysignificant and also lead to substantial economic damage (EEA, 2013).

For this reason, the likelihood of a species becoming invasive in Europe needs to be assessed before itis cultivated in new areas. That issue was not addressed specifically in this study but academic and fieldresearch is available on evaluating and mitigating the invasion risk posed by some biofuel crops (IUCN,

2009; Barney and DiTomaso, 2010; Quinn et al., 2013). This information can be utilised by national bodiesresponsible for the development of energy cropping.

land and forests, for example, are high in carbon.In general, agricultural land contains less carbonthan land with natural vegetation cover, even ifcompared to natural grassland areas. According

to the Global Carbon Project (2012) about 10 %of global greenhouse gas emissions in the period20022011 were related to land use change principally associated with deforestation andexpanding agricultural land use.

Water: Agriculture is the major source of nitrogenpollution of European water bodies, includinglakes, rivers, ground water and the Europeanseas (EEA, 2010b). The agricultural sector alsoaccounts for a large proportion of water useacross Europe, particularly in southern countries

where the importance of irrigation means thatagriculture can account for as much as 80 % oftotal water use in some regions (EEA, 2009).

Soil: Farming exposes soils to water and winderosion, and can lead to soil compaction andsalinisation if inappropriate farming practices areused (JRC, 2010). All these factors contribute tosoil loss, declines in soil organic carbon contentand productivity as well as other environmentalimpacts (JRC, 2010).

Biodiversity: Numerous studies have recognised

that the changes to water tables, soil structureand the destruction of habitats that occur whereland is converted to agricultural uses can havenegative impacts on biodiversity (Bertzky et al.,2011; Fargione et al., 2009, 2010; Gallagher, 2008;van Oorschot et al., 2010).

It worth noting that bioenergyinduced land usechange can have positive effects, for example ifan area converted to energy crops was previouslydegraded land. If these lands are managedappropriately then it could lead to improved soil

quality and vegetation structure, and thereforeenhanced habitat quality (Tilman et al., 2009).Increased cropping of perennial biomass, such asmiscanthus, fastgrowing poplar or reed canary grass,

offers benefits as input requirements are generallylower than those of annual crops and perennialcrops can be grown on low quality soils that are notsuited for rotational arable crops. In addition, manyperennials are also shown to improve soil quality,increase the amount of carbon sequestered in thesoil, and reduce soil erosion. Because of these factorsperennial crops are projected to play a strong rolein the environmentally oriented storylines in thisanalysis.

Due to the importance of agricultural land

use intensity for the environment in Europeprevious EEA studies developed agriculturalland use assumptions that were considered toensure agricultural land management that wasenvironmentally compatible and which includedadditional energy cropping (see Box 1.2). Thisperspective was expressed in the projected cropmixes, environmental safeguards and the significantuse of crop residues foreseen in earlier EEA work(see EEA, 2006 and 2007). The present study appliesvariations of these strict environmental standardsonly in two of the storylines. Moreover, in additionto the assessment tools utilised in past reports, this

study also employs biophysical models of the impactof agricultural land use on key environmental mediato assess the likely environmental impact of energycrop projections.

3.4 Estimates of ILUC effects on GHGemissions

A key argument for expanding bioenergy is that itwill reduce net GHG emissions from the transport,energy and household sectors which still largely


24/64



depend on fossil fuel stocks. If, however, the GHGmitigation potential of bioenergy is diminished oreven fully offset by effects of changes in land use, animportant reason for promoting bioenergy loses its

validity.

Various studies have generated estimates of GHGemissions arising from the conversion of differenttypes of natural land to agriculture. According tothese studies (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchingeret al., 2008; Van Minnen, 2008), converting forest toagricultural use typically results in average emissionsover a 20 year period of 3001 600 tonnes of carbondioxide equivalent per hectare (t CO

2equivalent

per ha). Contrastingly, converting grassland orsavannah generates 75364 t CO

2equivalent/ha.

Given the importance of land use change for global(and European) GHG emissions, understandingsuch processes is crucial for developing crediblelife cycle balances for different bioenergy pathways(e.g. Petersen, 2008; Leopoldina, 2012). Thedesign of EU biofuel policies and national and EUenvironmental legislation makes it unlikely thatsignificant indirect land use change, such as forestconversion, occurs as a consequence of bioenergytargets in EU27 Member States. This implies thatonly direct land use change effects need to beconsidered for Europe. These are estimated in the

current study by combining agriculture and energycropping projections with biophysical models thatassess the carbon cycle connected to land use.

European and global agricultural markets arestrongly connected via international trade flowsas the EU is among the largest importers andexporters of agricultural products and food. Thismeans that a change in EU cropping patterns canhave important indirect effects by displacing 'lostproduction' to other continents. Building a robustknowledge base on indirect land use change effects

is therefore essential to analysing the GHG balanceof EU bioenergy policies. However, analysingindirect land use change is complicated because:

ILUC effects depend on many factors, such asthe yield of the energy crop, the yield of cropspreviously grown on the land and their yield atnew locations;

effects will vary strongly between differentregions and over time, and are likely to increasewith growing demand for bioenergy if nosafeguard policies are employed;

local and international trade flows mean thatland use impacts can occur in many different

locations of the globe.

Review of recent studies of ILUC effects

Progress has been made in recent years in usingmodelling approaches to analyse the effects ofILUC on bioenergy's GHG balances. ETC/SIA (2013)reviewed a large number of studies publishedduring the period 20082012 in order to derivean overview of ILUCrelated GHG emissions fordifferent biomass feedstock types in differentregions of the world. The key findings of that

review are presented here and provide an importantinput to the storylinebased analysis described inChapter 4.

The results of the various studies are difficult tocompare in detail because of differences in thetypes of models and approaches used and in thescenario assumptions. Partly for this reason, theILUCrelated GHG emissions calculated variedsignificantly. ETC/SIA (2013) judged, however,that all the studies reviewed were relevant in thecontext for which they were developed and that

Box 3.2 Agricultural intensification, GHG emissions and the environment

Intensification is often cited as a means of avoiding the expansion of agricultural land use but it can workagainst efforts to mitigate climate change. Intensifying output by applying more fertilisers increasesemissions of nitrous oxide, which is a GHG. Generally, such increases are less (in CO

2-equivalent terms)

than agricultural land expansion. They are not negligible, however, and in some cases might equal theeffects of agricultural expansion, so should not be ignored (PBL, 2010).

Agricultural intensification can also lead to additional environmental impacts. These are often linked toreduced crop variety (as only very productive crops are grown) and the increased use of external inputs(fertiliser, pesticides, water etc.). Past intensification processes in European agriculture have had significant

environmental impacts (e.g. EEA, 2006) and further agricultural intensification is likely to increase suchpressures.


25/64



seven of the studies would be an appropriatebasis for developing an estimate of average ILUCemissions. Viewed collectively, the studies providestrong evidence that ILUCrelated emissions are

substantial and cannot be ignored in the context ofpolicies designed to mitigate climate change. Thisis also corroborated by the more recent study forthe European Commission that estimated ILUCeffects for typical EU biofuel feed stocks (Laborde,2011).

Table 3.1 summarises the outcomes of the studiesreviewed, presenting the extremes and medianvalues for ILUCrelated GHG emissions that werederived from the different studies. The medianvalues presented are only indicative the use

of lower or higher values could also be justified,for example, in a policy context of taking higheror lower risk (Ros et al., 2010). At the same timemedian values suggest that most indirect land usechange factors are similar in scale to the carbondioxide emissions of fossil fuels: around 84 g CO2per megajoule (MJ). As such, indirect land usechange effects alone can often negate the positive

contribution of bioenergy to greenhouse gasemissions reduction.

The median of the estimated values for

ILUCrelated GHG emissions for seven studies thatare presented in Table 3.1 are taken as an upper

boundary for the potential impact of ILUC. Theserepresent in fact midrange results, rather thanhigh estimates of indirect landuse change. Theresults of the most recent IFPRIMIRAGE analysis(Laborde, 2011) represent the lowerend boundaryin the overall analysis and are taken as a startingpoint for the sensitivity assessment elaborated inChapter 5.

ILUC emissions from perennial cropping

Most studies of ILUC effects focus on transportbiofuels because they have been a central part ofpolicy debate in recent years. The effect of standardtransport fuel crops can also be more easily analysedwith current modelling tools. In addition, renewableheat and electricity pathways are expected, in

Table 3.1 Estimated values for ILUC-related GHG emissions in studies reviewed

Type of biofuel

Minimum indirect

land-use change

emission factor

(g CO2-eq/MJ

biofuel) derived

from inventory of

studies (a)

Maximum indirect

land-use change

emission factor

(g CO2-eq/MJ

biofuel) derived

from inventory of

studies (a)

Median from

average values

(g CO2-eq/MJ

biofuel) derived

from inventory of

studies (b)

Average ILUC

emissions from

IFPRI-MIRAGE

ATLASS (Laborde,

2011)

Biodiesel based on

rapeseed from Europe 113 80800 77

55

Ethanol based on wheat

from Europe 158 337 73

14

Ethanol based on sugar

beet from Europe1333 65181 85

7

Biodiesel based on palm oil

from South-East Asia 100 34214 77

54

Biodiesel based on soya

from Latin America1367 751 380 140

56

Biodiesel based on soya

from the United States011 100273 65

56

Ethanol based on sugar

cane from Latin America 49 1995 60

15

Note: (a) A minimum value implies that there is a net mitigation in the total well-to-wheel emission which is usually causedby the allocation of by-products. In the E4Tech (2010) study for example the negative value for wheat ethanol from

Europe is assumed to be 79 g CO2-equivalent/MJ. This is because the study assumes that wheat is produced on EU

land that would otherwise have been abandoned. The Dried Distillers Grains and Solubles (DDGS) that is producedas a by-product is considered to prevent the soya area from being expanded in Brazil. In this way the carbon dioxide

emission balance can become negative.

(b) Where studies only reported a minimum and maximum value, the average was taken. Most studies report both the

average and a range.

Source: ETC/SIA, 2013.


26/64



the short and mediumterm, to be based mainlyon agricultural byproducts such as manure andstraw, organic wastes and wood residues (with theexception of biogas). Nevertheless, where perennial

crops for heat and power pathways are grown onagricultural land the ILUC mechanisms discussed for

biofuels also apply to these pathways.

Potential ILUC mechanisms are the same for allenergy crops grown on agricultural land, whetherannual or perennial crops are utilised and whatever

bioenergy pathway the biomass is employed in. Thisstudy has therefore used the ILUC emission factordeveloped on the basis of biofuel modelling studiesalso for the life cycle analysis of other bioenergypathways. Nevertheless, ILUC related GHG

emissions constitute generally a lower share of totalemissions for heat and power bioenergy pathwaysas only part of the biomass used in these pathwayscompetes with food production. Another importantfactor determining the relative emissions of allpathways is total energy production per hectare. Thisis partly determined by the biomass yield per hectare,which is generally much higher for perennial crops.

Broader ILUC impacts on ecosystems

In addition to GHG mitigation, other policy goals alsorequire the consideration of indirect land use change

in environmental assessments of bioenergy pathways,for example the need to protect biodiversity. Suchgoals only strengthen the case for avoiding anyconversion of land with (semi)natural vegetationto agricultural production either directly orindirectly. A further discussion of this issue can befound in Chapter 2 of the accompanying ETC/SIAreport.

3.5 Forest biomass and the 'carbon debt'debate

European forests currently provide the largest shareof biomass for energy purposes. Various studies andprevious EEA work (EEA, 2006) have estimated asignificant potential for increasing the use of forest

biomass for bioenergy, even if strong environmentalconstraints are applied. The present analysis did notreevaluate these quantitative estimates. However,a recent research project financed by the EuropeanCommission (the socalled 'EUwood' project) hasprovided an uptodate analysis of demand for forestproducts in relation to the annual growth incrementof EU forests.

The EUwood analysis predicts an undersupply ofharvestable forest growth in relation to societal

demand (for energy and other purposes) inthe coming decades (Mantau et al., 2010). Thiswould indicate a likely intensification of the useof European forests in the coming years with

potential impacts on the forest carbon pool andbiodiversity. This would not allow the EEA criteriafor an 'environmentally compatible' exploitation ofEuropean forests (EEA, 2006) to be met.

In this context it is important to discuss theconcept of 'carbon debt' when estimating the GHGmitigation potential from the use of forest biomassfor energy. Recent scientific papers show that theGHG saving potential of using forest biomassfor energy can essentially be negated for severaldecades or even longer if stem wood is used for

energy rather than being retained in forests or usedfor longlived products, i.e. not burnt (e.g. Cherubiniet al., 2011; Schulze et al., 2012).

This occurs due to the fact that when harvestedwood or woody residues are directly combusted toprovide energy, the carbon content of the wood isreleased as a onetime burst of CO2 in a very shortperiod, whereas forest regrowth takes place overseveral decades. This leads to a socalled 'carbondebt' which is initially large and then declinesduring the period of regrowth as CO

2is absorbed

again in plant biomass (the carbon 'payback'). It is

important to note, however, that the extent of the'carbon debt' depends strongly on the forest andenergy system baseline against which additionalforest bioenergy use is compared. This includesfactors such as carbon stocks in forests, types offorest biomass used, decay rates of forest products,and substituted fossil energy systems, includingtheir efficiencies.

A further potentially important consideration is thatmost carbon in forest ecosystems is stored in soils,except in tropical forests (Trmborg et al., 2011).

Extracting residues, in particular stumps and roots,may alter soil fertility and negatively affect theoverall forest carbon balance. Indeed, recent studiessuggest that harvest residue removal could haveimplications for longterm carbon storage (Thiffaultet al., 2011; Strmgren, Egnell and Olsson, 2012).Metaanalysis conducted by Nave et al. (2010) foundthat (increased) forest harvesting resulted overallin an average 8 % decrease in total soil carbon intemperate forest soils.

Figure 3.4 expresses the carbon debt effect in anidealised manner for two different types of forest

biomass forest residues and stem wood. Forforest residues, the studies show typical carbonpayback times of 520 years if coal is the reference


27/64



system, and 1030 years for natural gas (Zanchiet al., 2010; Repo et al., 2012). This means that ittakes 530 years of biomass regrowth before theinitial carbon debt is eliminated. However, for

bioenergy from additional fellings or intensifiedharvesting of older trees (i.e. stem wood), thepayback time can be over one hundred years. Thisis illustrated by the two different carbon restockingcurves in Figure 3.4.

Currently, no overall European estimates areavailable regarding the implications of thecarbon debt issue for GHG mitigation fromusing European forest biomass. Due to resourcelimitations it was not feasible to analyse thecarbon debt potentially associated with current

EEA estimates of forest biomass in a quantitativemanner. As a consequence, this report probablyoverestimates the GHG mitigation from usingforest biomass to generate energy. This issue isdiscussed further in Section 4.4.2.

It is also important to note that, while exploitingforest residues avoids most of the potential carbondebt consequences, it may have other negative

Figure 3.4 The carbon debt

Source: EEA, 2013.

environmental side effects. Maximising forestutilisation, whether via stem wood felling or use ofharvesting residues, creates potential impacts on soilcarbon stocks and forest biodiversity, in particular

for species that live off biomass residues, such asdead wood, crop roots and harvest surpluses (2).Estimates of forest bioenergy potential in previousEEA work therefore assumed certain environmentalconstraints to be in place (see EEA, 2006), whichremain valid in the present study.

Tackling climate change is a key motivationfor using forest (and other) biomass for energyproduction. This means that bioenergy productionhas to be developed in a way that it leads to realcarbon savings. Scientific work over the last few

years has shown that the use of forest biomassfor energy can initially create a carbon debt incomparison with fossil fuels (e.g. Zanchi et al., 2010;McKechnie et al., 2011). There is therefore a needto develop analytical tools and accounting systemsthat reflect the complexities of carbon fluxes inforestenergy systems (Searchinger et al., 2010; EEASC, 2011; JRC, 2013). Further work on this issue isclearly required.

(2) Sustainability requirements for bioenergy from forest residues are discussed in the output from 'Joint Workshops' on the EU level

(Fritsche and Iriarte, 2012), and in a recent WWF position paper (WWF, 2012).

Carbon volumein biomass

CO2

releasedinto atmosphere

Size of carbon debt

Carbon restocking

Time

Use of

stem wood or

entire forests

Use of

residues


28/6426

Approach to analysing EU energy cropping potential


4 Approach to analysing EU energycropping potential

4.1 Introduction

The scientific understanding of the potentialenvironmental benefits and costs of increasing

bioenergy production has advanced substantiallysince 2008. In particular, better knowledge about

ILUC effects associated with EU renewableenergy targets marked them as a crucial factor forthe overall GHG balance of different bioenergypathways using (agricultural) land. Giventhe particular importance of ILUC effects foragricultural biomass, the main focus of the analyticalupdate is on the agricultural potential while wasteand forest biomass sources are included in theefficiency analysis.

The present study builds on previous work by theEEA (3) in terms of the analytical approaches applied

but combines them in a novel way. Combining

biomass estimates with information on the efficiencyof different bioenergy pathways allows the potentialdevelopment of bioenergy production to be assessedfrom a resource efficiency perspective. Overall, themost important differences to previous work lie inthe integration of estimated indirect land use changeeffects in the analysis, and an updated life cycledatabase.

This chapter sets out the modelling approach used foranalysing the GHG and energy efficiency o

EU bioenergy potential from a resource efficiency perspective. EEA Report No 6/2013. EEA (European...

Documents

Transcript of EU bioenergy potential from a resource efficiency perspective. EEA Report No 6/2013. EEA (European...