Bioenergy and Land use: Local to Global Challenges. Jeanette Whitaker Senior Scientist and NERC KE Fellow Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster

Transcription

1 Bioenergy and Land use: Local to Global Challenges Jeanette Whitaker Senior Scientist and NERC KE Fellow Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster

2 Bioenergy Diversity Diverse feedstocks 1 st generation Wheat, sugar-beet, oilseed rape Sugar-cane, oil palm, soy, maize, jatropha 2 nd generation Perennial grasses: Miscanthus, switchgrass Woody crops: Short rotation coppice (SRC) willow, SRC poplar Forest biomass and forest residues Maize stover, wheat stalks Waste tallow, municipal solid waste, recycled vegetable oil Transport fuel Transport fuel, Heat Electricity Biogas Transport fuel Biogas

3 Bioenergy statistics Biomass 10% world energy supply (58 EJ, traditional and modern) Modern bioenergy 2% of world electricity generation 4% of world road transport fuel UK Bioenergy = 71% of renewable energy use (2015) 4.4% of UK electricity 3.3 % road transport fuel 2.4% heat (84% of renewable heat)

4 Land Use, Bioenergy and the Energy Trilemma Food Climate change Fibre Energy Land Biodiversity Environmental degradation Bioenergy could deliver upto 50% of global primary energy by 2100 (IEA/IPCC scenarios) Keeping warming below 2 o C is almost impossible without bioenergy and more costly (Integrated Assessment Modelling) But significant sustainability concerns Energy Technologies Institute 2016

5 Bioenergy: Political and historical context IEA established IEA Bioenergy set-up UNFCCC Rio Summit Kyoto protocol IEA environmentally acceptable manner integrated policies which further energy security, environmental protection and economic growth EU white paper and directives target to increase proportion of renewable energy to 12% by electricity from renewable sources promotion of biofuels

6 Carbon reductions and carbon neutrality monitor/report on C emission reductions and crop sustainability C reductions assumed no criteria for sourcing sustainable biomass UK Gallagher review: indirect effects of biofuels EU Climate and Energy Package RED (2020 targets) Renewables must contribute to carbon reduction targets quantified and reported minimum sustainability criteria (solid and gaseous biomass excluded) EU white paper and directives RED amended to avoid ILUC REDII 2030 targets

7 Bioenergy: Potential Risks GHG reductions are not guaranteed Crop type Land management Land type converted RISKS Requires significant land-use change Direct LUC Indirect LUC (food v fuel) Air quality isoprene /ozone Particulates from combustion Radiative forcing of black carbon

8 Bioenergy life-cycle carbon balance GHG balance from cultivation N-fertilizer production, harvesting, drying, processing, transport combustion CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Co-products from biofuel production Soil carbon stock change Indirect N 2 O

9 Variability in bioenergy life-cycle assessment g CO 2 eq. MJ -1 fuel Bioethanol GHG emissions Wheat-grain No co-products DDGS Straw as fuel 1 Sugarbeet 2 straw straw woody woody grasses grasses GWP of petrol 60% GHG saving Real Fertiliser use Crop yields Feedstock drying method LCA methodology System boundaries Co-product credit method Uncertainty N 2 O emissions from field Soil carbon stock change? DDGS/straw All co-products Whitaker et al 2010, GCB Bioenergy Rowe et al 2011, Biofuels

10 Bioenergy life-cycle carbon balance GHG balance from cultivation harvesting, drying, processing (chipping/fuel production), transport combustion CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Co-products from biofuel production Soil carbon stock change Indirect N 2 O Uncertainties Effects of changing land-use Effects of long-term cultivation Effects of land management

11 CEH Bioenergy and Land Use Research Aim to reduce uncertainty in carbon savings from perennial bioenergy feedstocks in the UK Quantify the impact of direct land-use change to bioenergy on soil carbon and GHGs (CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O) Test land management and mitigation strategies Develop a knowledge exchange network to increase impact

12 Measurement Framework Short rotation forestry Short rotation coppice willow Miscanthus (perennial grass) 18 Land use change scenarios for the UK Original land use Bioenergy land use Arable Grassland Forestry Wheat, sugar beet, OSR, SRC willow, SRF, Miscanthus Wheat, sugar beet, OSR, SRC willow, SRF, Miscanthus Wheat, sugar beet, OSR, SRC willow, SRF, Miscanthus Measurements on commercial farms: Intensive soil C and GHG monitoring sites (4) Paired site soil carbon stock assessments (~70) Carbon isotope techniques to improve mechanistic understanding

13 Soil carbon stock assessment (0-30 and cm depth) Grassland (24) SRF (29) Arable (23) Miscanthus (20) SRC willow (21) SRF SRC Miscanthus Crop Range (yrs) Median (yrs) Short rotation forestry Miscanthus SRC-Willow

14 Lincolnshire Miscanthus, SRC willow and arable Miscanthus 11.5 ha Miscanthus 11.5 ha Eddy covariance Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE): balance between photosynthesis and plant and soil respiration SRC-Willow 9.5 ha SRC-Willow 9.5 ha GHG emissions Measurements of CO, CH 4 and N 2 O Power Eddy Tower Arable (OSR-barleywheat) 8 ha Met Station Static Chambers Arable 8 ha Soil carbon stock change 30 cm and 1 m depth sampling

15 West Sussex SRC willow and grassland Willow Grassland ha 7.44ha 2.82ha Grassland 1 Power Eddy Tower Met Station Static Chambers

16 East Grange, Fife: grassland, arable, SRF pine, SRC willow SRF (Scots Pine) 2009 & rotational grassland SRC-Willow & arable (barley)

17 Aberystwyth grassland to Miscanthus

18 Aberystwyth GHG emissions: Grassland to Miscanthus GHG emissions were significantly higher from grassland compared to Miscanthus LUC McCalmont et al 2016 GCB Bioenergy

19 Soil carbon stock change following LUC to bioenergy Planting on arable land = soil carbon gain Planting on grassland = soil carbon loss Bioenergy t C ha SRC willow / SRC poplar Ex-grass = t C ha -1 Ex-arable= 9.7 t C ha -1 Bioenergy t C ha Miscanthus Miscanthus Ex-grass = t C ha -1 Ex-arable= 3.3 t C ha Reference t C ha Reference t C ha -1 Rowe et al. (2016) GCB Bioenergy

20 The Ecosystem Land Use Modelling Tool A user-friendly spatial tool to explore the consequences of land use change to bioenergy, in terms of soil carbon and GHG emissions to 2050 Available to download from the CEH website in 2017 All publications available on

21 LUC from arable to bioenergy: net GHG balance SRC-Willow Miscanthus SRF Net GWP t CO 2 e ha -1

22 LUC from grassland to bioenergy: net GHG balance SRC-Willow Miscanthus SRF Net GWP t CO 2 e ha -1

23 Temporal impact of bioenergy land-use change in the UK to 2050 Changes in soil carbon stocks determine the site GHG balance Knowledge gaps - conversion and reversion impacts on N 2 O emissions and soil carbon stocks

24 International Stakeholder and Researcher Network UK Researchers International Industry Knowledge Exchange Fellow Policy Cross-council

25 Bioenergy and land-use change workshop Researchers: Brazil, USA, Belgium and UK Policymakers: DECC, EU JRC and UNCCD Industry: Shell, BP, AHDB Compare outcomes from UK and global research on bioenergy and land-use change and identify areas of consensus and uncertainty Ecosystem Land-use Modelling (ETI-ELUM) UK Niall McNamara Miscanthus, SRC willow, Short rotation forestry POPFULL (ERC) Belgium Reinhart Ceulemans SRC poplar and willow Energy Biosciences Institute, Illinois USA Evan DeLucia Carl Bernacchi Soil carbon & Land-use change Brazil Ado Cerri Sugarcane Miscanthus, switchgrass

26 Consensus, uncertainties, opportunities facts knowns / certainties risks hurdles / barriers / issues in approaches used unknowns uncertainties/gaps in data or knowledge opportunities future research needs / maximising impact of current knowledge decisions what should we be doing, changes to policy needed

27 Variability in soil N 2 O emissions N 2 O emissions from perennial bioenergy crops are typically small largest during the establishment phase strongly depend on prior land use Figures removed as data un-published

28 Biofuel life-cycle emissions: Soil carbon and N 2 O N-related emissions are significant and variable Soil C changes are highly variable and significantly affect the net global warming intensity Figures removed as data un-published

29 Key uncertainties remain Perennial bioenergy crops can provide substantial climate mitigation when used to replace fossil fuels but this is not guaranteed We have reduced the uncertainty in direct GHG savings to identify relative benefits of different bioenergy feedstocks Priorities going forward Improve our capability to predict /manage soil C stock change globally N 2 O emissions data at high temporal resolution Lack of data on grassland transitions and reversion effects

30 Bioenergy: yes or no? What safeguards are needed to support development of bioenergy supply chains which contribute to: sustainable management of natural resources avoid unintended consequences Robust assessment of trade-offs is needed to enable policy which: supports options that mitigate risks provides co-benefits for environment and society

31 ANY QUESTIONS?? Further information and publications CEH website KE4BE page Contact