• Energy Research

Significance Understanding the relationship between the global electric power sector and biodiversity is central to identifying sustainable pathways to decarbonization. This study examines the relationship between the global electric power sector and threats to biodiversity. The biodiversity footprint of the electric power sector is primarily within the territory where demand for power resides, although substantial regional differences exist. The relationship between supply technologies and threats to biodiversity indicates that a shift to some nonfossil sources could reduce pressures on biodiversity, although there is uncertainty in how threats will scale given current deployment levels of nonfossil sources. The strong territorial link between electric power demand and biodiversity threat provides clear routes for governments to effectively manage biodiversity impacts of electric power transitions.

© 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.

Significance Conservation scientists warn of the threat to area-based conservation posed by renewable energy infrastructure. Here, we show that the current and near-term overlap of the two land uses need not be as severe as previously suggested. This is important, as global efforts to decarbonize energy systems are central to mitigating against climate change and the strong negative impacts of projected climate change on biodiversity.

Scenario development is widely used to support the formation of energy policy, but many energy scenarios consider\ud environmental interactions only in terms of climate change. We suggest that efforts to develop more holistic\ud energy pathways, going beyond post hoc analysis of environmental and social implications, can usefully draw on\ud environmental scenarios. A detailed content analysis of UK energy and environmental scenarios was therefore\ud undertaken, with energy scenarios selected on the basis that they were recent, had a direct link to energy policy,\ud and covered a range of scenario types. The energy scenarios rarely considered societal drivers beyond decarbonisation\ud and focused on quantifiable parameters such as GDP, while the environmental scenarios provided a richer\ud narrative on human behaviour and social change. As socio-economic issues remain fundamental to the success of\ud energy policies, this is a key area which should be better addressed within energy scenarios. The environmental\ud impacts of energy scenarios were rarely considered, but could have a significant bearing on the likelihood of\ud pathway outcomes being realised. Fuller evaluation of the environmental interactions of energy systems is therefore\ud required. Although the analysis focuses on the UK, some international scenarios show similar limitations,\ud suggesting that the conclusions are more widely applicable.