• Energy Research
• 12. Responsible consumption close

AbstractA systematic review and meta-analysis were used to assess the current state of knowledge and quantify the effects of land use change (LUC) to second generation (2G), non-food bioenergy crops on soil organic carbon (SOC) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of relevance to temperate zone agriculture. Following analysis from 138 original studies, transitions from arable to short rotation coppice (SRC, poplar or willow) or perennial grasses (mostly Miscanthus or switchgrass) resulted in increased SOC (+5.0 ± 7.8% and +25.7 ± 6.7% respectively). Transitions from grassland to SRC were broadly neutral (+3.7 ± 14.6%), whilst grassland to perennial grass transitions and forest to SRC both showed a decrease in SOC (−10.9 ± 4.3% and −11.4 ± 23.4% respectively). There were insufficient paired data to conduct a strict meta-analysis for GHG emissions but summary figures of general trends in GHGs from 188 original studies revealed increased and decreased soil CO2 emissions following transition from forests and arable to perennial grasses. We demonstrate that significant knowledge gaps exist surrounding the effects of land use change to bioenergy on greenhouse gas balance, particularly for CH4. There is also large uncertainty in quantifying transitions from grasslands and transitions to short rotation forestry. A striking finding of this review is the lack of empirical studies that are available to validate modelled data. Given that models are extensively use in the development of bioenergy LCA and sustainability criteria, this is an area where further long-term data sets are required.

The UK has a significant biomass resource, estimated at an annual 20 million tonnes, but only a fraction of this is captured effectively for energy, contributing approximately 4.1% of the UK's heat and electricity production (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007a. UK Biomass Strategy: http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/climatechange/uk/energy/renewablefuel/pdf/ukbiomassstrategy-0507.pdf (accessed 24 May 2008)). Much biomass combustion technology may be considered as mature, although bottlenecks in the quality and quantity of feedstock are apparent, and further fundamental research is required to increase crop yield in a sustainable manner, with low-chemical inputs to ensure efficient energy balance. In the short term, it could be useful for the UK to focus on developing a limited number of bioenergy chains, linked to combined heat and power microgeneration and the use of bioenergy for community and public sector projects. This should be linked to a joined-up policy and regulatory framework. A clear strategy for land management is also required, since many competing uses for land will emerge in the coming decades, including food production, nature conservation, carbon sequestration, urbanisation and other forms of renewable energy use. This finite resource must be managed effectively. In the long-term future, considerable excitement exists about the possibility of new bioscience technologies harnessed to improve photosynthetic gains for bioenergy, including the use of synthetic biology. It may be possible to produce the designer energy plant whose outputs would include high-quality chemical and liquid biofuels. Gasification of biomass also requires further technology development.

AbstractThis study presents a multi-objective optimisation model that is configured to account for a range of interrelated or conflicting questions with regard to the introduction of bioenergy systems. A spatial-temporal mixed integer linear programming model ETI-BVCM (Energy Technologies Institute – Bioenergy Value Chain Model) (ETI, 2015b; Newton-Cross, 2015; Samsatli et al., 2015) was adopted and extended to incorporate resource-competing systems and effects on ecosystem services brought about by the land-use transitions in response to increasing bioenergy penetration over five decades. The extended model functionality allows exploration of the effects of constraining ecosystem services impacts on other system-wide performance measures such as cost or greenhouse gas emissions. The users can therefore constrain the overall model by metric indicators which quantify the changes of ecosystem services due to land use transitions. The model provides a decision-making tool for optimal design of bioenergy value chains supporting an economically and land-use efficient and environmentally sustainable UK energy system while still delivering multiple ecosystem services.

Abstract Liquid fuels can be made by refining a range of biomass materials, including oil-rich and sugar-rich crops such as oil-seed rape and sugar beet, biomass that consists mainly of plant cell walls (second generation lignocellulosics), macro- and micro-alga, or material that would now be discarded as waste. This can include animal bi-products as well as waste wood and other resources. In the medium-term, plant cell (lignocellulosic) material is likely to be favoured as the feedstock for biorefineries because of its availability. The UK may make use of a number of these options because of its complex agricultural landscape. There are now a range of targets for biofuel use in the UK, although their environmental effects are disputed. The technology of refining these materials is well known. Possible outputs include biodiesel and bioethanol, both of which can be used as transport fuel. Other potential products include hydrogen, polymers and a wide range of value-added chemicals, making this technology important in a post-petrochemical world. Biorefineries could use cogeneration to produce electricity. The paper identifies a range of research and development priorities which must be met if this opportunity is to be exploited fully.

© 2016 The Authors. Meeting the world's energy demand is a major challenge for society over the coming century. To identify the most sustainable energy pathways to meet this demand, analysis of energy systems on which policy is based must move beyond the current primary focus on carbon to include a broad range of ecosystem services on which human well-being depends. Incorporation of a broad set of ecosystem services into the design of energy policy will differentiates between energy technology options to identify policy options that reconcile national and international obligations to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this paper we consider our current understanding of the implications of energy systems for ecosystem services and identify key elements of an assessment. Analysis must consider the full life cycle of energy systems, the territorial and international footprint, use a consistent ecosystem service framework that incorporates the value of both market and non-market goods, and consider the spatial and temporal dynamics of both the energy and environmental system. While significant methodological challenges exist, the approach we detail can provide the holistic view of energy and ecosystem services interactions required to inform the future of global energy policy.

Pathways to decarbonisation are commonly explored by government and industry through the use of energy system models. However, such models rarely consider where new energy infrastructure might be located. This is problematic as the spatial context of new renewable energy infrastructure will determine, in part, the environmental, social, and technical impacts of the energy transition. This paper presents the ADVENT-NEV model which brings together innovations in energy and natural capital modelling to identify the optimal locations of multiple renewable energy technologies at a national scale and high spatial resolution. Using Great Britain as a case study, the results show how the spatial distribution of renewable energy technologies changes when a natural capital approach is taken. In particular, the least-cost locations for onshore wind farms and bioenergy crops are highly influenced by the value of carbon sequestration, or emissions associated with their land use change. Siting using a natural capital approach produced appreciable ecosystem service benefits, such that the overall welfare gain to society was estimated at nearly £25 B. Overall, this paper demonstrates that understanding the geospatial context of the energy transition is essential to identifying which renewable energy pathways are consistent with decarbonisation and environmental objectives.

AbstractBioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) features heavily in the energy scenarios designed to meet the Paris Agreement targets, but the models used to generate these scenarios do not address environmental and social implications of BECCS at the regional scale. We integrate ecosystem service values into a land‐use optimization tool to determine the favourability of six potential UK locations for a 500 MW BECCS power plant operating on local biomass resources. Annually, each BECCS plant requires 2.33 Mt of biomass and generates 2.99 Mt CO2of negative emissions and 3.72 TWh of electricity. We make three important discoveries: (a) the impacts of BECCS on ecosystem services are spatially discrete, with the most favourable locations for UK BECCS identified at Drax and Easington, where net annual welfare values (from the basket of ecosystems services quantified) of £39 and £25 million were generated, respectively, with notably lower annual welfare values at Barrow (−£6 million) and Thames (£2 million); (b) larger BECCS deployment beyond 500 MW reduces net social welfare values, with a 1 GW BECCS plant at Drax generating a net annual welfare value of £19 million (a 50% decline compared with the 500 MW deployment), and a welfare loss at all other sites; (c) BECCS can be deployed to generate net welfare gains, but trade‐offs and co‐benefits between ecosystem services are highly site and context specific, and these landscape‐scale, site‐specific impacts should be central to future BECCS policy developments. For the United Kingdom, meeting the Paris Agreement targets through reliance on BECCS requires over 1 GW at each of the six locations considered here and is likely, therefore, to result in a significant welfare loss. This implies that an increased number of smaller BECCS deployments will be needed to ensure a win–win for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services.