Tim Beringer

The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints

Research highlights ▶ Food demand, agricultural technology and conservation constrain bio-energy supply. ▶ Global bio-energy crop potentials in 2050 may be 44–133 EJ/yr. ▶ Total global primary bio-energy potentials in 2050 may be 160–270 EJ/yr.

The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system

Biomass from cellulosic bioenergy crops is expected to play a substantial role in future energy systems, especially if climate policy aims at stabilizing greenhouse gas concentration at low levels. However, the potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation remains unclear due to large uncertainties about future agricultural yield improvements and land availability for biomass plantations. This letter, by applying a modelling framework with detailed economic representation of the land and energy sector, explores the cost-effective contribution of bioenergy to a low-carbon transition, paying special attention to implications for the land system. In this modelling framework, bioenergy competes directly with other energy technology options on the basis of costs, including implicit costs due to biophysical constraints on land and water availability. As a result, we find that bioenergy from specialized grassy and woody bioenergy crops, such as Miscanthus or poplar, can contribute approximately 100 EJ in 2055 and up to 300 EJ of primary energy in 2095. Protecting natural forests decreases biomass availability for energy production in the medium, but not in the long run. Reducing the land available for agricultural use can partially be compensated for by means of higher rates of technological change in agriculture. In addition, our trade-off analysis indicates that forest protection combined with large-scale cultivation of dedicated bioenergy is likely to affect bioenergy potentials, but also to increase global food prices and increase water scarcity. Therefore, integrated policies for energy, land use and water management are needed.

Model collaboration for the improved assessment of biomass supply, demand, and impacts

Existing assessments of biomass supply and demand and their impacts face various types of limitations and uncertainties, partly due to the type of tools and methods applied (e.g., partial representation of sectors, lack of geographical details, and aggregated representation of technologies involved). Improved collaboration between existing modeling approaches may provide new, more comprehensive insights, especially into issues that involve multiple economic sectors, different temporal and spatial scales, or various impact categories. Model collaboration consists of aligning and harmonizing input data and scenarios, model comparison and/or model linkage. Improved collaboration between existing modeling approaches can help assess (i) the causes of differences and similarities in model output, which is important for interpreting the results for policy‐making and (ii) the linkages, feedbacks, and trade‐offs between different systems and impacts (e.g., economic and natural), which is key to a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of biomass supply and demand. But, full consistency or integration in assumptions, structure, solution algorithms, dynamics and feedbacks can be difficult to achieve. And, if it is done, it frequently implies a trade‐off in terms of resolution (spatial, temporal, and structural) and/or computation. Three key research areas are selected to illustrate how model collaboration can provide additional ways for tackling some of the shortcomings and uncertainties in the assessment of biomass supply and demand and their impacts. These research areas are livestock production, agricultural residues, and greenhouse gas emissions from land‐use change. Describing how model collaboration might look like in these examples, we show how improved model collaboration can strengthen our ability to project biomass supply, demand, and impacts. This in turn can aid in improving the information for policy‐makers and in taking better‐informed decisions.

Global biomass potentials under sustainability restrictions defined by the European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC

The political will to reduce global GHG emissions has largely contributed to increased global biofuel production and trade. The expanding cultivation of energy crops may drive changes in the terrestrial ecosystems such as land cover and biodiversity loss. When biomass replaces fossil energy carriers, sustainability criteria are therefore crucial to avoid adverse impacts and ensure a net positive GHG balance. The European Union has set mandatory sustainability criteria for liquid biofuels in its Renewable Energy Directive (RED) 2009/28/EC to ensure net positive impacts of its biofuel policy. The adoption of sustainability criteria in other world regions and their extension to solid and gaseous biomass in the EU is ongoing. This paper examines the effect of the EU RED sustainability criteria on the availability of biomass resources at global and regional scale. It quantifies the relevance of sustainability criteria in biomass resource assessments taking into account the criterias spatial distribution. This assessment does not include agricultural and forestry residues and aquatic biomass. Previously unknown interrelations between sustainability criteria are examined and described for ten world regions. The analysis concludes that roughly 10% (98.5 EJ) of the total theoretical potential of 977.2 EJ occurs in areas free of sustainability concerns.

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C4 grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad. Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C4 grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C4 grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (Ceq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg Ceq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.

Productivity ranges of sustainable biomass potentials from non-agricultural land

Land is under pressure from a number of demands, including the need for increased supplies of bioenergy. While bioenergy is an important ingredient in many pathways compatible with reaching the 2 °C target, areas where cultivation of the biomass feedstock would be most productive appear to co-host other important ecosystems services. We categorize global geo-data on land availability into productivity deciles, and provide a geographically explicit assessment of potentials that are concurrent with EU sustainability criteria. The deciles unambiguously classify the global productivity range of potential land currently not in agricultural production for biomass cultivation. Results show that 53 exajoule (EJ) sustainable biomass potential are available from 167 million hectares (Mha) with a productivity above 10 tons of dry matter per hectare and year (tD Mha−1 a−1), while additional 33 EJ are available on 264 Mha with yields between 4 and 10 tD M ha−1 a−1: some regions lose less of their highly productive potentials to sustainability concerns than others and regional contributions to bioenergy potentials shift when less productive land is considered. Challenges to limit developments to the exploitation of sustainable potentials arise in Latin America, Africa and Developing Asia, while new opportunities emerge for Transition Economies and OECD countries to cultivate marginal land.

Bioenergy and Biospheric Carbon

Land use change is responsible for about 15% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Major efforts are underway to reduce deforestation and expansion of agriculture for food production which are responsible for the ongoing depletion of terrestrial carbon (C) stocks. At the same time, the global demand for biomass as an energy source is rising. Recent analyses of the global energy system suggest that large amounts of bioenergy are needed to achieve ambitious climate protection targets at reasonable economic costs. Efforts to cut GHG emissions and increase energy security with bioenergy may, thus, stimulate future land use changes leading to decarbonization of the terrestrial biosphere. Various sustainability standards are discussed in order to reduce the social and environmental impacts of large-scale bioenergy production. In this study, a dynamic global vegetation model was used to simulate the cultivation of modern lignocellulosic energy crops under different scenarios of land availability that consider competing land use objectives for food security, nature conservation and C pool protection. The analyses indicate that global bioenergy potentials are lower than previously thought, because many regions with potentially high productivity do not qualify for the establishment of dedicated biomass plantations. Human encroachment into these areas generates large C emissions that would delay any climate-benefits for centuries. However, biomass may still play a significant role in future energy production because large areas remain where simulated biomass yields offset emissions from land use change within a short period of time. Exploiting these potentials, however, will inevitably affect a large number of ecosystems that are already under pressure from human activities.