• Energy Research
• engineering and technology close

AbstractTo achieve net zero greenhouse gas emission by 2050 as set out by the 2019 amendment to the 2008 UK Climate Change Act, a major shift towards renewable energy is needed. This includes the development of new methods along with improving and upscaling existing technologies. One example of new methods in bioenergy is developing new Miscanthus cultivars for electricity generation via thermal power station furnaces. Miscanthus is still relatively new compared with other agriculture practices, so market assessments and improvements are needed to reduce the barriers to entry for prospective growers. This publication provides a profile of UK Miscanthus growers and their businesses, their experiences of benefits and drawbacks of the crop, and what they see as potential barriers to entry for prospective farmers. A survey of current Miscanthus growers in England and Wales was conducted and indicated that most farmers were content with the crop and that its environmental and economic benefits were noted. However, it was evident that with a geographically limited UK market, growers wanted to see a better distribution of biomass processing stations to reduce the ongoing costs of transport. With growing demand for renewables, including bio‐energy sources, it was determined important to provide information and support for stable farming operations and to incentivise the adoption of Miscanthus. Such incentives include ongoing development of new cultivars, focussing on traits such as production potential and stressor resilience, and growers indicated preference for an annual planting grant. These developments are predicted to further improve the crop's profit margin, making it a more cost‐effective crop for farmers. Sensitively managed Miscanthus also has the potential to contribute to carbon sequestration, soil health, and aspects of farmland biodiversity. Incentivising such management in government land–based environmental schemes would offer additional income streams and help to promote environmental positive crop planting.

AbstractThe South Saskatchewan River Basin of southern Alberta drains the transboundary central Rocky Mountains region and provides the focus for irrigation agriculture in Canada. Following extensive development, two tributaries, the Oldman and Bow rivers, were closed for further water allocations, whereas the Red Deer River (RDR) remains open. The RDR basin is at the northern limit of the North American Great Plains and may be suitable for agricultural expansion with a warming climate. To consider irrigation development and ecological impacts, it is important to understand the regional hydrologic consequences of climate change. To analyse historic trends that could extend into the future, we developed century‐long discharge records for the RDR, by coordinating data across hydrometric gauges, estimating annual flows from seasonal records, and undertaking flow naturalization to compensate for river regulation. Analyses indicated some coordination with the Pacific decadal oscillation and slight decline in summer and annual flows from 1912 to 2016 (−0.13%/year, Sen's slope). Another forecasting approach involved regional downscaling from the global circulation models, CGCMI‐A, ECHAM4, HadCM3, and NCAR‐CCM3. These projected slight flow decreases from the mountain headwaters versus increases from the foothills and boreal regions, resulting in a slight increase in overall river flows (+0.1%/year). Prior projections from these and other global circulation models ranged from slight decrease to slight increase, and the average projection of −0.05%/year approached the empirical trend. Assessments of other rivers draining the central and northern Rocky Mountains revealed a geographic transition in flow patterns over the past century. Flows from the rivers in Southern Alberta declined (around −0.15%/year), in contrast to increasing flows in north‐eastern British Columbia and the Yukon. The RDR watershed approaches this transition, and this study thus revealed regional differentiation in the hydrological consequences from climate change.

AbstractDemand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023–27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio‐economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low‐carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long‐term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts.

Onshore wind electricity generation is key to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.​ Poorly sited wind farms degrade high carbon soils and habitats, diminishing overall emission reductions. We explore the viability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy plan with respect to land use, natural capital and low carbon storage. With avoidance of sensitive peatlands a main consideration, six constraining factors were combined to determine areas of least habitat and soil sensitivity to onshore wind development in Scotland. Currently, 14 out of 21 terrestrial habitats have been impacted by installation of 389 onshore wind sites. Accounting for 73% of the total area, Coniferous Woodland, Acid Grassland, Bog, and Heather Grassland have been the largest habitats impacted. The most common soils of the least sensitive areas available for installation are brown earth and podzols, and construction of new wind farms on environmentally sensitive areas can be minimised by targeting relatively disturbed habitats such as improved grasslands. Scotland has a potential of 2.75 Mha of relatively low sensitive land, the largest areas sited in the Highlands, Dumfries and Galloway and Aberdeenshire. Additional to current installed capacity (13.9 GW), Scotland would require 6.6 GW of installed onshore wind capacity to function without nuclear energy generation and 464 GWh additional storage capacity (provided by 8.2 GW wind capacity). This equates to an installed and additional total of 346.676 ha required for wind electricity generation, potentially satisfied by shared land use with 23% of Scottish improved grasslands. Scotland has the available land area to achieve the Scottish Government’s policy to move towards carbon-neutral, nuclear-free electricity generation through the use of renewables alone. Questions remain on which source of low carbon dispatchable (immediately accessible) energy to use in the case of a several day wind lull.

open access via Elsevier agreement Thanks are due to Professor Andrew Lovett and his team at UEA, Scottish Natural Heritage, the James Hutton Institute, and the UK government for providing the GIS datasets interpreted in this study. This work was funded by the ADVENT project funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M019691/1) and ADVANCES funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M019691/1) and EPSRC funded UKERC-4. This work contribute to the RETINA project (NE/V003240/1). ; Peer reviewed