Scientific conclusions from the 17th European Biomass Conference: what’s new?

Citation

Dallemand, J.F. (2010), "Scientific conclusions from the 17th European Biomass Conference: what’s new?", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 21 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/meq.2010.08321daf.001

Scientific conclusions from the 17th European Biomass Conference: what’s new?

Article Type: Feature From: Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Volume 21, Issue 4

The objective of this section is to present the main scientific and technical conclusions of the 17 European Biomass Conference. This conference took place in Hamburg (Germany) from 29 June to 3 July 2009. It was attended by about 1,200 participants from 70 countries. The conference focused mainly on issues related to European production and the use of biomass but it also benefitted from input from North and South American, African and Asian participants, since there is now a global market with international trade. The Conference dealt mainly with the use of biomass for bioenergy and its use in transport, heat and electricity, but other uses of biomass (food, feed, green chemistry) were also considered.

In general terms, the development of domestic and international bioenergy markets presents opportunities and risks for sustainable development, from local to global scales. Opportunities may include a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and thus access to clean energy, reduced dependency on imported oil and opportunities for agricultural activity, rural development, including job creation. However, risks may also be encountered, such as increases in GHG emissions, especially resulting from land-use change, and decreases in land biodiversity and natural habitats.

The starting-point of this conference was the present global context with several points directly or indirectly related to bioenergy:

• •

  Increase of global CO₂ emissions of about 2 per cent in 2008, with higher increases in some regions, especially in Asia (e.g. India up 7 per cent, China up 6 per cent), whereas some countries started to see some achievement on the road to reducing the carbon footprint of their economies.

• •

  Increase of world population, change of diet to increased consumption of meat, especially in Asia, leading to increased use of agricultural land for animal production.

• •

  Concern about climate change and global warming and a scenario of an increase of temperature by 2 degrees by 2050, although some regions could contribute to a 4 degrees increase of temperature: the net effect is in any case difficult to quantify precisely at this stage.

• •

  Adoption in the middle of 2009 of the EU Renewable Energy Directive with the targets of 20 per cent share of Renewable Energy Sources in total energy consumption, 20 per cent increase in energy efficiency and 20 per cent reduction of GHG emissions. This Directive also sets a target of 10 per cent renewable energy in transport (with a minimum of 35% of GHG emission savings). Second generation biofuels, biofuels in principle made from non-food ligno-cellulosic biomass are encouraged in this framework through double counting to national targets. Regarding implementation constraints, slow progress has been made so far on bio-heat in the EU. This is due to some extent to fragmented forestry ownership, regional/national differences in the natural capital availability and public acceptability leading in some cases to a deficit of the utilisation of forest resources utilisation. It is also in part due to a lack of district heating infrastructure.

• •

  The US target of 7.5 billion gallons (28.5 billion litres) of biofuels by 2012 (2005 US Energy Policy Act) and 36 billion gallons (137 billion litres) by 2022 (2007 Energy Independence and Security Act) and introduction of a biofuel quota system or blending mandates in many other countries.

International situation

The conference included reports about a number of developments at international level including:

• •

  California. State target of reduction of GHG emissions of 80 per cent in 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This is intended as a measure leading to decarbonisation of the economy, with intermediate targets and a Road Map for Sustainable Biomass Development in California, which has been prepared.

• •

  Brazil. After 35 years of research/technology investment in the pro-alcohol project, progress is still being made in the efficiency, costs and environmental performance, even considering only first-generation bio-ethanol. For example, increase of sugar cane yield of 0.5 per cent per year, increase of sugar content of 2.8 per cent per year and improvement of sugar to ethanol conversion efficiency. Presently, sales of flexi-fuel cars represent 90 per cent of total car sales. National production of biodiesel comes mainly from soya (80 per cent), and there are plans to increase biodiesel production due to its positive social impact in less developed areas. This is associated with a subsidy policy in the case of biodiesel, while there are no longer any subsidies for bio-ethanol, which is a mature market. The Brazilian ethanol programme allows large-scale production of bio-ethanol from sugar cane at a cost competitive with current prices of oil, sugar cane being by far the most energy-efficient raw material for ethanol.

• •

  The Russia Energy Strategy includes a target of 4.5 per cent share of renewable energy sources by 2020, the country’s natural biomass resource corresponds to 25 per cent of the world’s forest resource. Efficient biotechnology is not yet well developed and part of the biomass harvested is exported, particularly to Finland.

• •

  Asia-Pacific ethanol production is expected to grow significantly in the coming years and could represent as much as 20 per cent of global ethanol production by 2015, with a large increase planned in India.

Biomass resources

Regarding biomass resources, it appeared that even after many years of research on biomass feedstock production, there is still significant work ongoing in the field of genetic improvement, farming practices, maintaining or improving soil quality, crop yield optimisation, pre-treatment of biomass for transport and storage, and effective use of animal and crop/forestry residues. The amount of biomass available, or considered available, for bioenergy purposes is the subject of much debate. There is even limited consensus on the amounts of some of the most common forms of biomass available for bioenergy, such as farm residues and forestry residues, largely due to competing uses for the biomass. In addition, there is a multitude of forms of biomass, ranging from commonly used agricultural crops and less common crops such as triticale, sorghum, kenaf, Jerusalem artichoke, energy grasses (switchgrass, miscanthus, etc.), forest residues and short rotation forestry/short rotation coppice (mainly poplar and willow in Europe). The interest of jatropha in semi-arid regions is growing, but constraints on soil/water interactions, soil quality and fertiliser input has to be taken into account in order to achieve satisfactory yields. Jatropha can be adapted for degraded land, and the cost competitiveness is strongly influenced by the cost of labour. A key point is the market-building component, the possible support to feedstock production being only one component of the entire bioenergy chain.

Regarding the use of crop residues, in addition to cereal straw, which is commonly used for electricity and combined heat and power (CHP) in a number of countries (e.g. Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands), the use of linseed straw is being evaluated in France. Quantification of available straw/crop residues for bioenergy purposes (dedicated power or CHP plants) is being conducted in the EU (e.g. for 10MWe plants from cereals, sunflower, rapeseed), in France and in India (paddy rice …). There is growing interest in the use of straw as a feedstock for second-generation biofuel production (e.g. in Denmark and Spain).

For short rotation coppice and short rotation forestry, in addition to bioenergy, the feedstock obtained is being used for water treatment (e.g. Sweden), countering soil salinity and phyto-remediation, thus with a direct land use change (LUC) component that is not always negative. Applied research is also ongoing in the field of mechanisation/harvesting of biomass, this part being important for the competitiveness of European produced biomass, due to the higher costs of labour compared to other regions of the world.

At national level, Spain has an important programme to assess the potential of energy crops. Three million hectares of agricultural land have been abandoned in the country since 1990 and thus there is significant potential for re-exploiting this land for biomass production.

Only 5 per cent of forestry residues are presently used in Europe (source: VTT) and there is a deficit of forest resource utilisation, for example in France. Sustainability assessment also encompasses the use of water resources for biomass cultivation, with quantification of green/blue/grey water necessary for biofuels (the grey component is related to waste water from industrial processes, which represents about 10 per cent of the total, the main component being water for irrigation). Presently, agriculture accounts for about 70 per cent of the use of the world’s fresh water.

It is very apparent that there is a need for further work to reduce uncertainties in the assessment of N₂O emissions related to fertiliser use, this part being essential to improve the accuracy of LCA results.

Biofuels today are responsible for about 2 per cent of land use globally according to UNEP, but there are more concerns about future growth rates in bioenergy than for other uses of agriculture. Degraded/marginal/wastelands can be used but there is some confusion about the potential assessment due to the lack of internationally agreed definitions for these categories of land.

Regarding competition of uses in Europe, VTT Finland reported the results of a study on the assessment of bioenergy market potential in the European Forest Industry for second-generation biofuels production and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) by 2020. This study considers the current use of wood to energy at 60 Mtoe/year with an additional demand in this study of 45mm³ (∼9Mtoe) and 20Mt/year solid recovered fuels (950 pulp and paper mills in Europe).

Regarding the indirect land use change (ILUC) impact of biofuels and in the wider use of bioenergy, in order to reach helpful quantitative results it would be necessary to couple economic models/land use change models/emission models, all of them having with their respective data constraints, assumptions, methodological choices and accuracy ranges. This conference did not provide conclusive information about ILUC, which is still at a relatively early stage of research. Concern was expressed about the need to ensure that ILUC does not become a weapon against the development of biofuels by setting double standard policies, rather to contribute positively to a world wide, harmonised tool to ensure sustainability.

The use of agricultural and forest biomass is to a certain extent well established, whereas the use of algae is at a rather early stage of development. Several presentations reported on the potential advantages of algae as a biomass feedstock. Microalgae are regarded as having a large potential for cultivation as energy crops. They can be cultivated under difficult agro-climatic conditions and are able to produce a wide range of commercially interesting co-products, such as fats, oils, sugars and bioactive compounds. Algae can be grown either in open land-based systems (lakes or ponds), or closed photo-bio reactors (PBRs). In contrast to macroalgae (seaweed), commercial large-scale culture of microalgae only started in the 1960s with the cultivation of the green alga, Chlorella.

Among the advantages of micro-algae, there is no competition with food production (or competition significantly reduced) since photo-bio reactors are not necessarily located on land. Under optimum conditions, much higher yields (up to 150t dry matter/ha/year) than with agricultural/forest biomass can be obtained, although a significant amount of the intrinsic energy is used in the harvesting and drying process. There are still ecological challenges with the energy balance, which can be positive or negative, depending on the options selected. Algae production could be combined with activities of CO₂ mitigation for industrial plants, which allows a reduction of the electricity use, but there is a need of further LCA studies.

Economy is the main challenge related to the development of algae use in bioenergy. By 1980, there were 46 large-scale factories, primarily in Asia, producing about 12t of dry matter per year (mainly Chlorella, and the cyanobacterium Arthrospira). Since then, the microalgal biotechnology industry has grown and diversified significantly. Nowadays, the microalgal biomass market produces about 5,000t of dry matter per year and generates a turnover of approximately US $1.25×10⁹ per year. Current commercial production of algae is a small volume of high value, but production costs for use in biodiesel are too high due to the fact that the mass production of algae is still in its infancy. The major economic factor to be considered for input costs of biodiesel production from microalgae is the feedstock, which accounts for about 75-80 per cent of the total costs. Although the production per area of microalgae is much higher than terrestrial plants, the cost of microalgae oil is still much higher than for other feedstock. Commercial algae biomass production in the US is about US$5,000/ton dry biomass for Spirulina, i.e. more than in the case of palm, soybean or jatropha, while the cost of extraction is similar. In order to be able to compete with other feedstock, microalgae biomass cost of production will have to decrease significantly. Nevertheless, co-production of higher value products such as pigments and integration with wastewater-treatment could be options to make bioenergy from microalgae economically feasible.

Biomass conversion

Biomass conversion techniques (combustion, pyrolysis or gasification) are still being improved. Biomass combustion plants still have a high potential for optimisation, for example through better definition of feedstock composition and better knowledge of blending feedstocks to avoid processing problems such as fouling and corrosion. There is a growing interest in biomass co-firing in both existing and new thermal power plants. The optimum use of residues of processing (bottom ashes and fly ashes) as fertilisers is being studied for better site-specific solutions. The residues (digestate) from bio-chemical process, such as biogas production, are in some cases already being used as bio-fertilisers, replacing mineral fertilisers, but there is still a lot of work to be completed before the maximum potential use of all digestates can be realised.

The biorefinery concept, with integrated processing of various feedstocks for different biomass uses, is very attractive. There are issues of definition/classification for biorefineries, with definitions based on feedstock type, processing method or end product, the four main features to be considered being: platform, products, feedstock, and processes. The issues of costs, size and logistics for biomass supply are essential for an optimum biorefinery performance and are the subject of many ongoing studies.

One of the main issues debated by the community is the realistic assessment of the second-generation biofuels from ligno-cellulosic material. At which date will second generation biofuels be commercially available? Expectations are high, but deployment faces a number of challenges; second-generation processes being particularly capital intensive. First-generation ethanol, palm oil biodiesel and rapeseed biodiesel from Europe continue to be the dominant biofuels produced. Despite major public policy interest in next-generation biofuels, actual commercial growth in the production and use of these fuels between 2009 and 2015 is projected to remain behind expectations. After a number of years and intense discussion about their impacts on the environment, first-generation biofuels for transport seem to have passed the threshold for acceptance and a true market has been established. Second-generation biofuels will have to wait a few more years before they reach the same level. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis on a case-by-case basis is necessary to assess the efficiency/constraints/advantages of each biofuel production pathway.

Regarding the emissions resulting from the biomass conversion, there is also ongoing research about the link between climate change (GHG emissions savings) and air quality. As an example, it was reported that local pollution (CO, HC, SOx, NOx …) has been significantly reduced through the use of high blend ethanol in the bus fleet of São Paulo (BEST Project). Despite the progress achieved, zero-emission technologies are still concepts of the future.

In terms of use, there is presently no competition between advanced biofuels for road and air transport and the assessment of the substitution potential of biofuels in air transport has only recently started.

Policies and sustainability

Regarding the sustainability component of biofuels and bioenergy, there is now an intense international activity on standardisation and certification, which is progressing in parallel with the market development. There are very different starting points for sustainability/certification since for example 70 per cent of German forests are certified, compared with 52 per cent in the EU as a whole, and 7.5 per cent at global level.

The issue of the advantages/disadvantages of biomass transport is being studied, with conclusions depending on the type of feedstock/product considered and the local/regional/national/international situation. There is now a global market for biomass with international trade and biomass products such as pellets that are exported in large quantities from Canada to Europe (about 60 per cent of Canadian pellets are exports). In Brazil, sugar cane is transported up to 50kms, while wood from Russia is exported to Finland. The maximum transport distance is thus highly variable, one of the possible options is, for example, to transport electricity instead of biomass.

In the European Union, as demonstrated by the photovoltaic development in Germany, the bioenergy market development is closely linked to regional policies and public support mechanisms. The Upper Austria Region (Linz) has a regional target to reach 100 per cent renewable heating in the period 2010-2030, together with a reduction of the heat demand by 39 per cent. A difficulty in the EU is often the funding of small-scale activities, such as biogas projects.

In the EU, at Member State level, the preparation in 2010 of Renewable Energy Action Plans will be an opportunity to set national targets with the corresponding implementation mechanisms that will require the support of the research community. During this exercise, each country will define the details of its own policy (e.g. priorities about the use of waste and biomass for electricity or heat or mobility), as well as, for example, the split between imports and national production.

The assessment of GHG emissions, related to biofuels and bioenergy chains, is based on a large number of LCA studies, but there is often confusion and misunderstanding due to insufficient documentation.

Biomass is often the main fuel in many parts of Africa, and for example in some regions of China traditional use of biomass for heating and cooking accounts for 50 per cent of the energy consumption. The transition to modern bioenergy technologies and the link with rural development policies is thus a pressing issue.

Conclusions

The European Biomass Conference of Hamburg took place in June/July 2009. In relation to the previous conference organised one year earlier, there has been no major scientific or technological breakthrough in the field of biomass use for bioenergy, considering the main three applications in transport, heat and electricity. Nevertheless, the new element is that due to the growth of the use of biofuels and bioenergy, mainly in Europe, North America and Brazil, and the development of global markets and international trade, there is presently a very strong component of research and development aiming at maximising the practical exploitation of biomass. This corresponds to a development of the technical and scientific support from the research community in the fields of biomass/bioenergy certification, sustainability assessment, improvement of the conversion efficiency and cost reduction along the entire chain. Due to the uncertainties in research, market development and public support mechanisms, the difference between first-, second- and even third-generation biofuels is sometimes blurred. Due to the projected growth of world population, there is a need to further establish the positive or negative aspects of the competition between uses of agricultural biomass (food, feed, fuel, fibre and green chemistry) and forest biomass (pulp and paper, wood panels, bioenergy) and to improve the quantitative assessment of the benefits of process integration. Starting in each country or region from the various policy drivers, there is also a need to improve the understanding of the external environmental impact of all energy options, including renewables and bioenergy.

J.F. Dallemand, G. De Santi, D. Baxter, H. OssenbrinkJoint Research Centre, European Commission, Institute for Energy, Ispra (Va), Italy