Göran Berndes

The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: A review of 17 studies

This paper discusses the contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply. The discussion is based on a review of 17 earlier studies on the subject. These studies have arrived at widely different conclusions about the possible contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply (e.g., from below 100 EJ yr-1 to above 400 EJ yr-1 in 2050). The major reason for the differences is that the two most crucial parameters - land availability and yield levels in energy crop production - are very uncertain, and subject to widely different opinions (e.g., the assessed 2050 plantation supply ranges from below 50 EJ yr-1 to almost 240 EJ yr-1). However, also the expectations about future availability of forest wood and of residues from agriculture and forestry vary substantially among the studies. The question how an expanding bioenergy sector would interact with other land uses, such as food production, biodiversity, soil and nature conservation, and carbon sequestration has been insufficiently analyzed in the studies. It is therefore difficult to establish to what extent bioenergy is an attractive option for climate change mitigation in the energy sector. A refined modeling of interactions between different uses and bioenergy, food and materials production - i.e., of competition for resources, and of synergies between different uses - would facilitate an improved understanding of the prospects for large-scale bioenergy and of future land-use and biomass management in general.

Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy

Abstract This study explores the range of future world potential of biomass for energy. The focus has been put on the factors that influence the potential biomass availability for energy purposes rather than give exact numbers. Six biomass resource categories for energy are identified: energy crops on surplus cropland, energy crops on degraded land, agricultural residues, forest residues, animal manure and organic wastes. Furthermore, specific attention is paid to the competing biomass use for material. The analysis makes use of a wide variety of existing studies on all separate categories. The main conclusion of the study is that the range of the global potential of primary biomass (in about 50 years) is very broad quantified at 33−1135 EJy −1 . Energy crops from surplus agricultural land have the largest potential contribution (0– 988 EJy −1 ) . Crucial factors determining biomass availability for energy are: (1) The future demand for food, determined by the population growth and the future diet; (2) The type of food production systems that can be adopted world-wide over the next 50 years; (3) Productivity of forest and energy crops; (4) The (increased) use of bio-materials; (5) Availability of degraded land; (6) Competing land use types, e.g. surplus agricultural land used for reforestation. It is therefore not “a given” that biomass for energy can become available at a large-scale. Furthermore, it is shown that policies aiming for the energy supply from biomass should take the factors like food production system developments into account in comprehensive development schemes.

Bioenergy and water - the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply.

There are major expectations that bioenergy will supply large amounts of CO2 neutral energy for the future. A large-scale expansion of energy crop production would lead to a large increase in evapotranspiration appropriation for human uses, potentially as large as the present evapotranspiration from global cropland. In some countries this could lead to further enhancement of an already stressed water situation. But there are also countries where such impacts are less likely to occur. One major conclusion for future research is that assessments of bioenergy potentials need to consider restrictions from competing demand for water resources.

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land‐use and energy experts, land‐use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life‐cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end‐use efficiency, improved land carbon‐stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small‐scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr−1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large‐scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land‐intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.

Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: an analysis of the 1975–2006 period

Does agricultural intensification reduce the area used for agricultural production in Brazil? Census and other data for time periods 1975-1996 and 1996-2006 were processed and analyzed using Geographic Information System and statistical tools to investigate whether and if so, how, changes in yield and stocking rate coincide with changes in cropland and pasture area. Complementary medium-resolution data on total farmland area changes were used in a spatially explicit assessment of the land-use transitions that occurred in Brazil during 1960-2006. The analyses show that in agriculturally consolidated areas (mainly southern and southeastern Brazil), land-use intensification (both on cropland and pastures) coincided with either contraction of both cropland and pasture areas, or cropland expansion at the expense of pastures, both cases resulting in farmland stability or contraction. In contrast, in agricultural frontier areas (i.e., the deforestation zones in central and northern Brazil), land-use intensification coincided with expansion of agricultural lands. These observations provide support for the thesis that (i) technological improvements create incentives for expansion in agricultural frontier areas; and (ii) farmers are likely to reduce their managed acreage only if land becomes a scarce resource. The spatially explicit examination of land-use transitions since 1960 reveals an expansion and gradual movement of the agricultural frontier toward the interior (center-western Cerrado) of Brazil. It also indicates a possible initiation of a reversed trend in line with the forest transition theory, i.e., agricultural contraction and recurring forests in marginally suitable areas in southeastern Brazil, mainly within the Atlantic Forest biome. The significant reduction in deforestation that has taken place in recent years, despite rising food commodity prices, indicates that policies put in place to curb conversion of native vegetation to agriculture land might be effective. This can improve the prospects for protecting native vegetation by investing in agricultural intensification.

The feasibility of large-scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy production

Global, large-scale use of bioenergy may replace a significant part of present fossil fuel use. We show that labor availability and water resources are large compared to those required to operate a bioenergy system of such size. The present study contradicts the assertion by Giampietro et al. [Bioscience 47(9) (1997) 587], that labor and water availability provide invincible barriers to a large-scale use of biofuels. We examine water and labor requirements under more reasonable assumptions about bioenergy supply options and demand levels. Bioenergy supplies are based on dedicated plantations of lignocellulosic crops and bioenergy demand is based on the renewable intensive global energy scenarios (RIGES). We find that labor and water requirements are an order of magnitude lower than the estimates by Giampietro et al. For instance, labor requirements do not exceed 1 percent of the estimated total work force in any country.

Future biomass energy supply: the consumptive water use perspective.

There are major expectations that bioenergy will supply large amounts of CO2 neutral energy for the future. A large-scale expansion of energy crop production would lead to a large increase in evapotranspiration appropriation for human uses, potentially as large as the present evapotranspiration from global cropland. In some countries this could lead to further enhancement of an already stressed water situation. However, there are also countries where such impacts are less likely to occur. Studies that assess bioenergy potentials need to consider restrictions from competing demand for water resources. Studies of the future state of water availability and use need to include the possibility of new high demands for water from a growing bioenergy sector.

Modeling Potential Freshwater Ecotoxicity Impacts Due to Pesticide Use in Biofuel Feedstock Production: The Cases of Maize, Rapeseed, Salix, Soybean, Sugar Cane, and Wheat

The inclusion of ecotoxicity impacts of pesticides in environmental assessments of biobased products has long been hampered by methodological challenges. We expanded the pesticide database and the regional coverage of the pesticide emission model PestLCI v.2.0, combined it with the impact assessment model USEtox, and assessed potential freshwater ecotoxicity impacts (PFEIs) of pesticide use in selected biofuel feedstock production cases, namely: maize (Iowa, US, two cases), rapeseed (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany), Salix (South Central Sweden), soybean (Mato Grosso, Brazil, two cases), sugar cane (São Paulo, Brazil), and wheat (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany). We found that PFEIs caused by pesticide use in feedstock production varied greatly, up to 3 orders of magnitude. Salix has the lowest PFEI per unit of energy output and per unit of cultivated area. Impacts per biofuel unit were 30, 750, and 1000 times greater, respectively, for the sugar cane, wheat and rapeseed cases than for Salix. For maize genetically engineered (GE) to resist glyphosate herbicides and to produce its own insecticidal toxin, maize GE to resist glyphosate, soybeans GE to resist glyphosate and conventional soybeans, the impacts were 110, 270, 305, and 310 times greater than for Salix, respectively. The significance of field and site-specific conditions are discussed, as well as options for reducing negative impacts in biofuel feedstock production.

The prospects for large-scale import of biomass and biofuels into Sweden - a review of critical issues

Sweden is one of the biggest consumers of both domestic and imported biofuels in the EU. This paper evaluates the prospects for an increased and large-scale import of biofuels to Sweden in the future. The parameters included are prospective Swedish and global biofuel supply and demand, the cost, energy input and environmental impact of long-distance biofuel transport as well as the capacity of global freight and of Swedish ports to handle increased biofuel flows. The Swedish bioenergy potential seems large enough to accommodate a substantial increase in the domestic use of biofuels. However, an extensive import of biofuel feedstock would be needed for a prospective Swedish biofuel industry to be able to export substantial volumes of biofuels. The costs, including transport, of imported biofuels from regions, where the assessed potential supply of biomass are higher than the estimated future regional demand, are estimated to be equivalent to or lower than current costs of domestic biofuels. But the price is dependent on future competition for biofuels as well as freight and port capacity. Current specialization at Swedish ports may in the short term be an obstacle to a rapid increase in biofuel import. The energy input in long-distance biofuel transport is estimated to be low. However, to make large-scale biofuel trade flows acceptable special attention needs to be paid, e.g., to the impact on biodiversity and socioeconomic conditions in the exporting countries.

Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policy-making remains limited

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.