Renewable jet fuel supply scenarios in the European Union in 2021–2030 in the context of proposed biofuel policy and competing biomass demand

This study presents supply scenarios of nonfood renewable jet fuel (RJF) in the European Union (EU) toward 2030, based on the anticipated regulatory context, availability of biomass and conversion technologies, and competing biomass demand from other sectors (i.e., transport, heat, power, and chemicals). A cost optimization model was used to identify preconditions for increased RJF production and the associated emission reductions, costs, and impact on competing sectors. Model scenarios show nonfood RJF supply could increase from 1 PJ in 2021 to 165–261 PJ/year (3.8–6.1 million tonne (Mt)/year) by 2030, provided advanced biofuel technologies are developed and adequate (policy) incentives are present. This supply corresponds to 6%–9% of jet fuel consumption and 28%–41% of total nonfood biofuel consumption in the EU. These results are driven by proposed policy incentives and a relatively high fossil jet fuel price compared to other fossil fuels. RJF reduces aviation‐related combustion emission by 12–19 Mt/year CO₂‐eq by 2030, offsetting 53%–84% of projected emission growth of the sector in the EU relative to 2020. Increased RJF supply mainly affects nonfood biofuel use in road transport, which remained relatively constant during 2021–2030. The cost differential of RJF relative to fossil jet fuel declines from 40 €/GJ (1,740 €/t) in 2021 to 7–13 €/GJ (280–540 €/t) in 2030, because of the introduction of advanced biofuel technologies, technological learning, increased fossil jet fuel prices, and reduced feedstock costs. The cumulative additional costs of RJF equal €7.7–11 billion over 2021–2030 or €1.0–1.4 per departing passenger (intra‐EU) when allocated to the aviation sector. By 2030, 109–213 PJ/year (2.5–4.9 Mt/year) RJF is produced from lignocellulosic biomass using technologies which are currently not yet commercialized. Hence, (policy) mechanisms that expedite technology development are cardinal to the feasibility and affordability of increasing RJF production.     

Energy crops: current status and future prospects

Energy crops currently contribute a relatively small proportion to the total energy produced from biomass each year, but the proportion is set to grow over the next few decades. This paper reviews the current status of energy crops and their conversion technologies, assesses their potential to contribute to global energy demand and climate mitigation over the next few decades, and examines the future prospects. Previous estimates have suggested a technical potential for energy crops of～400 EJ yr^?1 by 2050. In a new analysis based on energy crop areas for each of the IPCC SRES scenarios in 2025 (as projected by the IMAGE 2.2 integrated assessment model), more conservative dry matter and energy yield estimates and an assessment of the impact on non‐CO₂ greenhouse gases were used to estimate the realistically achievable potential for energy crops by 2025 to be between 2 and 22 EJ yr^?1, which will offset～100–2070 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1. These results suggest that additional production of energy crops alone is not sufficient to reduce emissions to meet a 550 μmol mol^?1 atmospheric CO₂ stabilization trajectory, but is sufficient to form an important component in a portfolio of climate mitigation measures, as well as to provide a significant sustainable energy resource to displace fossil fuel resources. Realizing the potential of energy crops will necessitate optimizing the dry matter and energy yield of these crops per area of land through the latest biotechnological routes, with or without the need for genetic modification. In future, the co‐benefits of bioenergy production will need to be optimized and methods will need to be developed to extract and refine high‐value products from the feedstock before it is used for energy production.     

Biorefinery for combined production of jet fuel and ethanol from lipid‐producing sugarcane: a techno‐economic evaluation

Replacing fossil fuels with an economically viable green alternative at scale has proved most challenging in the aviation sector. Recently sugarcane, the most productive crop on the planet, has been engineered to accumulate lipids. This opens the way for production of far more industrial vegetable oil per acre than previously possible. This study performs techno‐economic feasibility analysis of jet fuel production from this new cost efficient and high yield feedstock. A comprehensive process model for biorefinery producing hydrotreated jet fuel (from lipids) and ethanol (from sugars), with 1 600 000 MT yr^?1 lipid‐cane processing capacity, was developed in SuperPro Designer. Considering lipid‐cane development is continuing for higher oil concentrations, analysis was performed with lipid‐cane containing 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% lipids. Capital investments for the biorefinery ranged from 238.1 to 351.2 million USD, with jet fuel capacities of 12.6–50.5 million liters (correspondingly ethanol production of nil to 102.6 million liters). The production cost of jet fuel for different scenarios was estimated Replacing fossil fuels with an economically viable green alternative at scale has proved most challenging in the aviation sector. Recently sugarcane, the most productive crop on the planet, has been engineered to accumulate lipids. This opens the way for production of far more industrial vegetable oil per acre than previously possible. This study performs techno‐economic feasibility analysis of jet fuel production from this new cost efficient and high yield feedstock. A comprehensive process model for biorefinery producing hydrotreated jet fuel (from lipids) and ethanol (from sugars), with 1 600 000 MT yr^?1 lipid‐cane processing capacity, was developed in SuperPro Designer. Considering lipid‐cane development is continuing for higher oil concentrations, analysis was performed with lipid‐cane containing 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% lipids. Capital investments for the biorefinery ranged from 238.1 to 351.2 million USD, with jet fuel capacities of 12.6–50.5 million liters (correspondingly ethanol production of nil to 102.6 million liters). The production cost of jet fuel for different scenarios was estimated $0.73 to $1.79 per liter ($2.74 to $6.76 per gal) of jet fuel. In all cases, the cost of raw materials accounted for more than 70% of total operational cost. Biorefinery was observed self‐sustainable for steam and electricity requirement, because of in‐house steam and electricity generation from burning of bagasse. Minimum fuel selling prices with a 10% discount rate for 20% lipid case was estimated $1.40/L ($5.31/gal), which was lower than most of the reported prices of renewable jet fuel produced from other oil crops and algae. Along with lower production costs, lipid‐cane could produce as high as 16 times the jet fuel (6307 L ha^?1) per unit land than that of other oil crops and do so using low‐value land unsuited to most other crops, while being highly water and nitrogen use efficient.     

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C₄ grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad . Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (C_eq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg C_eq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.     

Economic and environmental performance of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production

Environmental issues surrounding conventional annual biogas crops have led to growing interest in alternative crops, such as miscanthus. In addition to the better environmental performance, miscanthus can be grown on marginal land where no competition with feed and food crops is anticipated. On marginal land however, biomass yields are significantly lower than on good agricultural land. This raises the question of the economic and environmental sustainability of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production. This study assessed the environmental and economic performance of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production by conducting a Life‐Cycle Assessment and complementary Life‐Cycle Cost analysis. The functional unit chosen was 1 GJ of electricity (GJ_el.). The substitution of a fossil reference was included using a system expansion approach. Electricity generated by the combustion of miscanthus‐based biogas in a combined heat and power has considerably lower impacts on the environment than the fossil reference in most of the categories assessed. In the impact category “climate change”, the substitution of the marginal German electricity mix leads to a carbon mitigation potential of 256 kg CO₂e/GJ_el.. At 45.12 €/GJ_el., the costs of miscanthus‐based biogas generation and utilization are considerably lower than those of maize (61.30 €/GJ_el.). The results of this study clearly show that it can make economic and environmental sense to cultivate miscanthus on marginal land as a substrate for biogas production. The economic sustainability is however limited by the biomass yield. By contrast, there are no clear thresholds limiting the environmental performance. The decision needs to be made on a case‐by‐case basis depending on site‐specific conditions such as local biodiversity.     

Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints

We estimate the global bioenergy potential from dedicated biomass plantations in the 21st century under a range of sustainability requirements to safeguard food production, biodiversity and terrestrial carbon storage. We use a process‐based model of the land biosphere to simulate rainfed and irrigated biomass yields driven by data from different climate models and combine these simulations with a scenario‐based assessment of future land availability for energy crops. The resulting spatial patterns of large‐scale lignocellulosic energy crop cultivation are then investigated with regard to their impacts on land and water resources. Calculated bioenergy potentials are in the lower range of previous assessments but the combination of all biomass sources may still provide between 130 and 270 EJ yr^?1 in 2050, equivalent to 15–25% of the World's future energy demand. Energy crops account for 20–60% of the total potential depending on land availability and share of irrigated area. However, a full exploitation of these potentials will further increase the pressure on natural ecosystems with a doubling of current land use change and irrigation water demand. Despite the consideration of sustainability constraints on future agricultural expansion the large‐scale cultivation of energy crops is a threat to many areas that have already been fragmented and degraded, are rich in biodiversity and provide habitat for many endangered and endemic species.     

Spatiotemporal land use modelling to assess land availability for energy crops – illustrated for Mozambique

A method and tool have been developed to assess future developments in land availability for bioenergy crops in a spatially explicit way, while taking into account both the developments in other land use functions, such as land for food, livestock and material production, and the uncertainties in the key determinant factors of land use change (LUC). This spatiotemporal LUC model is demonstrated with a case study on the developments in the land availability for bioenergy crops in Mozambique in the timeframe 2005–2030. The developments in the main drivers for agricultural land use, demand for food, animal products and materials were assessed, based on the projected developments in population, diet, GDP and self‐sufficiency ratio. Two scenarios were developed: a business‐as‐usual (BAU) scenario and a progressive scenario. Land allocation was based on land use class‐specific sets of suitability factors. The LUC dynamics were mapped on a 1 km² grid level for each individual year up to 2030. In the BAU scenario, 7.7 Mha and in the progressive scenario 16.4 Mha could become available for bioenergy crop production in 2030. Based on the Monte Carlo analysis, a 95% confidence interval of the amount of land available and the spatially explicit probability of available land was found. The bottom‐up approach, the number of dynamic land uses, the diverse portfolio of LUC drivers and suitability factors, and the possibility to model uncertainty mean that this model is a step forward in modelling land availability for bioenergy potentials.     

Land suitability for energy crops under scenarios of climate change and land‐use

Bioenergy is expected to play a critical role in climate change mitigation. Most integrated assessment models assume an expansion of agricultural land for cultivation of energy crops. This study examines the suitability of land for growing a range of energy crops on areas that are not required for food production, accounting for climate change impacts and conservation requirements. A global fuzzy logic model is employed to ascertain the suitable cropping areas for a number of sugar, starch and oil crops, energy grasses and short rotation tree species that could be grown specifically for energy. Two climate change scenarios are modelled (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5), along with two scenarios representing the land which cannot be used for energy crops due to forest and biodiversity conservation, food agriculture and urban areas. Results indicate that 40% of the global area currently suitable for energy crops overlaps with food land and 31% overlaps with forested or protected areas, highlighting hotspots of potential land competition risks. Approximately 18.8 million km² is suitable for energy crops, to some degree, and does not overlap with protected, forested, urban or food agricultural land. Under the climate change scenario RCP8.5, this increases to 19.6 million km² by the end of the century. Broadly, climate change is projected to decrease suitable areas in southern regions and increase them in northern regions, most notably for grass crops in Russia and China, indicating that potential production areas will shift northwards which could potentially affect domestic use and trade of biomass significantly. The majority of the land which becomes suitable is in current grasslands and is just marginally or moderately suitable. This study therefore highlights the vital importance of further studies examining the carbon and ecosystem balance of this potential land‐use change, energy crop yields in sub‐optimal soil and climatic conditions and potential impacts on livelihoods.     

Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been proposed as a potential climate mitigation strategy raising concerns over trade‐offs with existing ecosystem services. We evaluate the feasibility of BECCS in the Upper Missouri River Basin (UMRB), a landscape with diverse land use, ownership, and bioenergy potential. We develop land‐use change scenarios and a switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) crop functional type to use in a land‐surface model to simulate second‐generation bioenergy production. By the end of this century, average annual switchgrass production over the UMRB ranges from 60 to 210 Tg dry mass/year and is dependent on the Representative Concentration Pathway for greenhouse gas emissions and on land‐use change assumptions. Under our simple phase‐in assumptions this results in a cumulative total production of 2,000–6,000 Tg C over the study period with the upper estimates only possible in the absence of climate change. Switchgrass yields decreased as average CO₂ concentrations and temperatures increased, suggesting the effect of elevated atmospheric CO₂ was small because of its C4 photosynthetic pathway. By the end of the 21st century, the potential energy stored annually in harvested switchgrass averaged between 1 and 4 EJ/year assuming perfect conversion efficiency, or an annual electrical generation capacity of 7,000–28,000 MW assuming current bioenergy efficiency rates. Trade‐offs between bioenergy and ecosystem services were identified, including cumulative direct losses of 1,000–2,600 Tg C stored in natural ecosystems from land‐use change by 2090. Total cumulative losses of ecosystem carbon stocks were higher than the potential ~300 Tg C in fossil fuel emissions from the single largest power plant in the region over the same time period, and equivalent to potential carbon removal from the atmosphere from using biofuels grown in the same region. Numerous trade‐offs from BECCS expansion in the UMRB must be balanced against the potential benefits of a carbon‐negative energy system.     

Modeled spatial assessment of biomass productivity and technical potential of Miscanthus × giganteus,Panicum virgatum L., and Jatropha on marginal land in China

This article identifies marginal land technically available for the production of energy crops in China, compares three models of yield prediction for Miscanthus × giganteus, Panicum virgatum L. (switchgrass), and Jatropha, and estimates their spatially specific yields and technical potential for 2017. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of land use maps estimated that 185 Mha of marginal land was technically available for energy crops in China without using areas currently used for food production. Modeled yields were projected for Miscanthus × giganteus, a GIS‐based Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model for switchgrass and Global Agro‐Ecological Zone model for Jatropha. GIS analysis and MiscanFor estimated more than 120 Mha marginal land was technically available for Miscanthus with a total potential of 1,761 dry weight metric million tonne (DW Mt)/year. A total of 284 DW Mt/year of switchgrass could be obtained from 30 Mha marginal land, with an average yield of 9.5 DW t ha^?1 year^?1. More than 35 Mha marginal land was technically available for Jatropha, delivering 9.7 Mt/year of Jatropha seed. The total technical potential from available marginal land was calculated as 31.7 EJ/year for Miscanthus, 5.1 EJ/year for switchgrass, and 0.13 EJ/year for Jatropha. A total technical bioenergy potential of 34.4 EJ/year was calculated by identifying best suited crop for each 1 km² grid cell based on the highest energy value among the three crops. The results indicate that the technical potential per hectare of Jatropha is unable to compete with that of the other two crops in each grid cell. This modeling study provides planners with spatial overviews that demonstrate the potential of these crops and where biomass production could be potentially distributed in China which needs field trials to test model assumptions and build experience necessary to translate into practicality.     

A spatial assessment of potential biomass for bioenergy in Australia in 2010, and possible expansion by 2030 and 2050

This paper provides spatial estimates of potentially available biomass for bioenergy in Australia in 2010, 2030 and 2050 (under clearly stated assumptions) for the following biomass sources: crop stubble, native grasses, pulpwood and residues (created either during forest harvesting or wood processing) from plantations and native forests, bagasse, organic municipal solid waste and new short‐rotation tree crops. For each biomass type, we estimated annual potential availability at the finest scale possible with readily accessible data, and then aggregated to make estimates for each of 60 Statistical Divisions (administrative areas) across Australia. The potentially available lignocellulosic biomass is estimated at approximately 80 Mt per year, with the major contributors of crop stubble (27.7 Mt per year), grasses (19.7 Mt per year) and forest plantations (10.9 Mt per year). Over the next 20–40 years, total potentially available biomass could increase to 100–115 Mt per year, with new plantings of short‐rotation trees being the major source of the increase (14.7 Mt per year by 2030 and 29.3 Mt per year by 2050). We exclude oilseeds, algae and ‘regrowth’, that is woody vegetation naturally regenerating on previously cleared land, which may be important in several regions of Australia (Australian Forestry 77 , 2014, 1; Global Change Biology Bioenergy 7 , 2015, 497). We briefly discuss some of the challenges to providing a reliable and sustainable supply of the large amounts of biomass required to build a bioenergy industry of significant scale. More detailed regional analyses, including of the costs of delivered biomass, logistics and economics of harvest, transport and storage, competing markets for biomass and a full assessment of the sustainability of production are needed to underpin investment in specific conversion facilities (e.g. Opportunities for forest bioenergy: An assessment of the environmental and economic opportunities and constraints associated with bioenergy production from biomass resources in two prospective regions of Australia, 2011a).     

How much heat can we grow in our cities? Modelling UK urban biofuel production potential

Biofuel provides a globally significant opportunity to reduce fossil fuel dependence; however, its sustainability can only be meaningfully explored for individual cases. It depends on multiple considerations including: life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, food versus fuel trade‐offs, biodiversity impacts of land use change and socio‐economic impacts of energy transitions. One solution that may address many of these issues is local production of biofuel on non‐agricultural land. Urban areas drive global change, for example, they are responsible for 70% of global energy use, but are largely ignored in their resource production potential; however, underused urban greenspaces could be utilized for biofuel production near the point of consumption. This could avoid food versus fuel land conflicts in agricultural land and long‐distance transport costs, provide ecosystem service benefits to urban dwellers and increase the sustainability and resilience of cities and towns. Here, we use a Geographic Information System to identify urban greenspaces suitable for biofuel production, using exclusion criteria, in 10 UK cities. We then model production potential of three different biofuels: Miscanthus grass, short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and SRC poplar, within the greenspaces identified and extrapolate up to a UK‐scale. We demonstrate that approximately 10% of urban greenspace (3% of built‐up land) is potentially suitable for biofuel production. We estimate the potential of this to meet energy demand through heat generation, electricity and combined heat and power (CHP) operations. Our findings show that, if fully utilized, urban biofuel production could meet nearly a fifth of demand for biomass in CHP systems in the United Kingdom's climate compatible energy scenarios by 2030, with potentially similar implications for other comparable countries and regions.     

Spatial distribution of usable biomass feedstock and technical bioenergy potential in China

Bioenergy will play an intimate and critical role in energy supply and carbon mitigation in the future. In recent years, “customizing the development of bioenergy to local conditions” and “prioritizing distributed utilization” have been the two key principles that have been released by the Chinese government to promote the national‐ and provincial‐level development of bioenergy. While many recognize the importance of bioenergy in achieving low‐carbon transition, little is known about the high‐resolution distribution of usable biomass feedstock and technical bioenergy potential in China, which brings about uncertainties and additional challenges for creating localized utilization plans. We propose a new assessment framework that integrates crop growth models, a land suitability assessment, and the geographic information systems to address these knowledge gaps. Distributions of 11 types of usable biomass feedstock and three kinds of technical bioenergy potential are mapped out through specific transformation technologies at 1 km resolution. At the national level, the final technical biogas potential is 1.91 EJ. The technical bioethanol potential (0.04–0.96 EJ) from the energy crop can supply 0.13–3.12 times the bioethanol demand for the consumption of E10 gasoline in 2015. The technical heat potential (1.06 EJ) can meet 20% of the demand for heating in all provinces (5.38 EJ). Most of the 2020 bioenergy goals can be achieved, excluding that for bioethanol, which will need to require more cellulosic ethanol from residues. At the provincial level, Henan and Inner Mongolia have the potential to develop clean heating alternatives via the substitution of agroforestry residues for coal. The results can provide a systematic analysis of the distribution of biomass feedstocks and technical bioenergy potential in China. With economic factors taken into consideration in further research, it can also support national and provincial governments in making bioenergy development plans in an effective and timely manner.     

Linking a farm model and a location optimization model for evaluating energetic and material straw valorization pathways—A case study in Baden‐Wuerttemberg

Diminishing fossil carbon resources, global warming, and increasing material and energy needs urge for the rapid development of a bioeconomy. Biomass feedstock from agro‐industrial value chains provides opportunities for energy and material production, potentially leading to competition with traditional food and feed production. Simulation and optimization models can support the evaluation of biomass value chains and identify bioeconomy development paths, potentials, opportunities, and risks. This study presents the linkage of a farm model (EFEM) and a techno‐economic location optimization model (BIOLOCATE) for evaluating the straw‐to‐energy and the innovative straw‐to‐chemical value chains in the German federal state of Baden‐Wuerttemberg taking into account the spatially distributed and price‐sensitive nature of straw supply. The general results reveal the basic trade‐off between economies of scale of the energy production plants and the biorefineries on the one hand and the feedstock supply costs on the other hand. The results of the farm model highlight the competition for land between traditional agricultural biomass utilization such as food and feed and innovative biomass‐to‐energy and biomass‐to‐chemical value chains. Additionally, farm‐modeling scenarios illustrate the effect of farm specialization and regional differences on straw supply for biomass value chains as well as the effect of high straw prices on crop choices. The technological modeling results show that straw combustion could cover approximately 2% of Baden‐Wuerttemberg's gross electricity consumption and approximately 35% of the district heating consumption. The lignocellulose biorefinery location and size are affected by the price sensitivity of the straw supply and are only profitable for high output prices of organosolv lignin. The location optimization results illustrate that economic and political framework conditions affect the regional distribution of biomass straw conversion plants, thus favoring decentralized value chain structures in contrast to technological economies of scale.     

Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture

Agricultural lands occupy 37% of the earth's land surface. Agriculture accounts for 52 and 84% of global anthropogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Agricultural soils may also act as a sink or source for CO2, but the net flux is small. Many agricultural practices can potentially mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the most prominent of which are improved cropland and grazing land management and restoration of degraded lands and cultivated organic soils. Lower, but still significant mitigation potential is provided by water and rice management, set-aside, land use change and agroforestry, livestock management and manure management. The global technical mitigation potential from agriculture (excluding fossil fuel offsets from biomass) by 2030, considering all gases, is estimated to be approximately 5500-6000Mt CO2-eq.yr-1, with economic potentials of approximately 1500-1600, 2500-2700 and 4000-4300Mt CO2-eq.yr-1 at carbon prices of up to 20, up to 50 and up to 100 US$ t CO2-eq.-1, respectively. In addition, GHG emissions could be reduced by substitution of fossil fuels for energy production by agricultural feedstocks (e.g. crop residues, dung and dedicated energy crops). The economic mitigation potential of biomass energy from agriculture is estimated to be 640, 2240 and 16 000Mt CO2-eq.yr-1 at 0-20, 0-50 and 0-100 US$ t CO2-eq.-1, respectively.     

Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies and societal transformation measures

Bioenergy plays an important role in low greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios. Among various possible sources of bioenergy, dedicated bio‐crops could contribute to most of the potential. However, large scale bio‐crop deployment raises sustainability concerns. Policies to alleviate the pressure of bio‐crops on the terrestrial environment can affect bioenergy potential and production costs. Here, we estimated the maximum bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies (biodiversity and soil protection) and societal transformation measures from demand and supply side (demand‐side policy includes sustainable diet; supply‐side policy includes advanced technology and trade openness for food) by using an integrated assessment modelling framework, which consists of a general equilibrium model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium) and a spatial land use allocation model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Platform for Land‐Use and Environmental Model). We found that the global advanced bioenergy potential under no policy was 245 EJ/year and that 192 EJ/year could be produced under US$5/GJ. These figures were 149 EJ/year and 110 EJ/year, respectively, under a full environmental policy. Biodiversity protection has a greater impact than soil protection due to its larger coverage and stronger implementation. Societal transformation measures effectively increase them to 186 EJ/year and 143 EJ/year, respectively, even under full environmental policies. These results imply that the large‐scale bioenergy deployment possibly needed for the climate target to limit the global mean temperature increase well below 2°C compared to the preindustrial level might face a trade‐off with environmental protection targets and that possible mitigation pathways in harmony with other environmental issues need to be explored.     

西北干旱区利用间套作促进能源植物的高产高效

在全球性能源紧缺和我国能源植物大规模种植困难等大背景下,优质、充足的原料供应已成为制约生物质能源产业发展的主要限制因素。在确保能源植物高效生产和克服"与粮争地、与人争粮"现实的同时,挖掘我国边际土壤高产高效生产能源植物的土地优势和增产潜力。通过筛选评价适宜西北干旱地区高抗逆的新型能源植物种类,开发应用能源植物与粮经作物间套作栽培技术,实现新型能源植物对逆境资源的高效利用和可持续规模化种植,提高能源植物的生产力和优化能源物种的区域配置,增加土地产值和农民收入,缓解能源紧缺,达到经济、生态和社会效益多赢,为我国能源和粮食安全提供技术支撑。     

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.     

Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production

The capacity for forests to aid in climate change mitigation efforts is substantial but will ultimately depend on their management. If forests remain unharvested, they can further mitigate the increases in atmospheric CO₂ that result from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. Alternatively, they can be harvested for bioenergy production and serve as a substitute for fossil fuels, though such a practice could reduce terrestrial C storage and thereby increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in the near‐term. Here, we used an ecosystem simulation model to ascertain the effectiveness of using forest bioenergy as a substitute for fossil fuels, drawing from a broad range of land‐use histories, harvesting regimes, ecosystem characteristics, and bioenergy conversion efficiencies. Results demonstrate that the times required for bioenergy substitutions to repay the C Debt incurred from biomass harvest are usually much shorter (< 100 years) than the time required for bioenergy production to substitute the amount of C that would be stored if the forest were left unharvested entirely, a point we refer to as C Sequestration Parity. The effectiveness of substituting woody bioenergy for fossil fuels is highly dependent on the factors that determine bioenergy conversion efficiency, such as the C emissions released during the harvest, transport, and firing of woody biomass. Consideration of the frequency and intensity of biomass harvests should also be given; performing total harvests (clear‐cutting) at high‐frequency may produce more bioenergy than less intensive harvesting regimes but may decrease C storage and thereby prolong the time required to achieve C Sequestration Parity.     

The role of bioenergy and biochemicals in CO2 mitigation through the energy system – a scenario analysis for the Netherlands

Bioenergy as well as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage are key options to embark on cost‐efficient trajectories that realize climate targets. Most studies have not yet assessed the influence on these trajectories of emerging bioeconomy sectors such as biochemicals and renewable jet fuels (RJFs). To support a systems transition, there is also need to demonstrate the impact on the energy system of technology development, biomass and fossil fuel prices. We aim to close this gap by assessing least‐cost pathways to 2030 for a number of scenarios applied to the energy system of the Netherlands, using a cost‐minimization model. The type and magnitude of biomass deployment are highly influenced by technology development, fossil fuel prices and ambitions to mitigate climate change. Across all scenarios, biomass consumption ranges between 180 and 760 PJ and national emissions between 82 and 178 Mt CO₂. High technology development leads to additional 100–270 PJ of biomass consumption and 8–20 Mt CO₂ emission reduction compared to low technology development counterparts. In high technology development scenarios, additional emission reduction is primarily achieved by bioenergy and carbon capture and storage. Traditional sectors, namely industrial biomass heat and biofuels, supply 61–87% of bioenergy, while wind turbines are the main supplier of renewable electricity. Low technology pathways show lower biochemical output by 50–75%, do not supply RJFs and do not utilize additional biomass compared to high technology development. In most scenarios the emission reduction targets for the Netherlands are not met, as additional reduction of 10–45 Mt CO₂ is needed. Stronger climate policy is required, especially in view of fluctuating fossil fuel prices, which are shown to be a key determinant of bioeconomy development. Nonetheless, high technology development is a no‐regrets option to realize deep emission reduction as it also ensures stable growth for the bioeconomy even under unfavourable conditions.