Bioenergy and Land use: Local to Global Challenges Jeanette Whitaker Senior Scientist and NERC KE Fellow Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster
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
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)
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
Bioenergy: Political and historical context IEA established IEA Bioenergy set-up UNFCCC Rio Summit Kyoto protocol 1974 1978 1985 1989 1992 1997 2001 2003 IEA environmentally acceptable manner integrated policies which further energy security, environmental protection and economic growth EU white paper and directives 1997 - target to increase proportion of renewable energy to 12% by 2010 2001 - electricity from renewable sources 2003 - promotion of biofuels
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) 1997 2001 2003 2008 2009 2015 2016 EU white paper and directives RED amended to avoid ILUC REDII 2030 targets
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
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
Variability in bioenergy life-cycle assessment g CO 2 eq. MJ -1 fuel 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 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
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
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
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
Soil carbon stock assessment (0-30 and 0-100 cm depth) Grassland (24) SRF (29) Arable (23) Miscanthus (20) SRC willow (21) SRF SRC Miscanthus Crop Range (yrs) Median (yrs) Short rotation forestry 4-24 16 Miscanthus 1-10 7 SRC-Willow 4-23 6.5
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
West Sussex SRC willow and grassland Willow Grassland 2 8.13ha 7.44ha 2.82ha Grassland 1 Power Eddy Tower Met Station Static Chambers
East Grange, Fife: grassland, arable, SRF pine, SRC willow SRF (Scots Pine) 2009 & rotational grassland SRC-Willow & arable (barley)
Aberystwyth grassland to Miscanthus
Aberystwyth GHG emissions: Grassland to Miscanthus GHG emissions were significantly higher from grassland compared to Miscanthus LUC McCalmont et al 2016 GCB Bioenergy
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 -1 400 300 200 SRC willow / SRC poplar Ex-grass = -30.3 t C ha -1 Ex-arable= 9.7 t C ha -1 Bioenergy t C ha -1 400 300 200 Miscanthus Miscanthus Ex-grass = -16.2 t C ha -1 Ex-arable= 3.3 t C ha -1 100 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 Reference t C ha -1 0 0 100 200 300 400 Reference t C ha -1 Rowe et al. (2016) GCB Bioenergy
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 www.elum.ac.uk
LUC from arable to bioenergy: net GHG balance SRC-Willow Miscanthus SRF Net GWP t CO 2 e ha -1
LUC from grassland to bioenergy: net GHG balance SRC-Willow Miscanthus SRF Net GWP t CO 2 e ha -1
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
International Stakeholder and Researcher Network UK Researchers International Industry Knowledge Exchange Fellow Policy Cross-council
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
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
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
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
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
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
ANY QUESTIONS?? Further information and publications CEH website KE4BE page www.elum.ac.uk Contact details jhart@ceh.ac.uk @jen1whitaker