Last month, the US Department of Energy (DOE) updated its cornerstone study on the availability of sustainable biomass concluding “More than 1 billion tons of biomass production capacity is identified nationally, while meeting projected demands for food, feed, fiber, and exports.”
The report covers a range of possible feedstocks, not just woody biomass. At the higher end, availability reaches 1.5 billion tonnes per year, representing a three-fold increase in today’s production. The results are even more impressive when one bears in mind that these estimates are “…probably conservative.” In particular, figures do not include possible woody biomass feedstocks from removing the build-up of combustible debris in the forest to prevent catastrophic wildfires on the west coast, for example. In California alone, some estimates show these treatments could generate millions of tons of additional woody biomass per year.
The results do not compromise on high sustainability standards either. For woody biomass, the authors use sustainability limits in the modelling that reflect many of the principles included in the EU’s biomass sustainability criteria, such as ensuring growth exceeds harvest, exclusion of protected areas, protection of environmentally sensitive forestland and retention of residues. For those concerned about ‘over-sourcing’ the modelling is stringent: assuming harvests, including for conventional wood products, are one-third less than annual net forest growth, and less than 1% of total forest volumes.
These results underscore a need for the EU to update its assumptions on biomass availability. The modelling for their recent proposals for a 2040 emissions reduction target assumed a 9 EJ (approximately 529 million tons) limit. This is based on a European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) report, which cites a single non-peer reviewed study in support. This limit is at odds with other research, including a broad literature review of domestic availability commissioned by Bioenergy Europe and independent global analysis from the IEA, IPCC and PBL (which I’ve written about previously).
One of the numerous reasons the EU’s figure is so low is that it only evaluates available domestic biomass. The ESABCC’s rationale for doing so is to avoid “exporting environmental pressures.” This is a faulty assumption: not only must all biomass used in the EU meet their exacting EU sustainability criteria regardless of origin, but the DOE study demonstrates there is room for considerable growth in production while ensuring harvests stay well under net-growth.
Limiting modelling to 9 EJ, and excluding imports, could have serious ramifications for EU policy. Unrealistically low assumptions on biomass availability drive decision making towards unnecessary rationing, which inevitably results in picking winners. In and of itself, using resources where they provide the highest carbon saving appears a no regrets option, but artificially conservative estimates of availability could lead to over-rationing. As a result, sectors could be pushed onto higher cost climate mitigation pathways making the transition more expensive for taxpayers, consumers, and restraining industrial competitiveness.
The analysis that accompanied the 2040 proposal did underscore that future analyses may assume other supply levels of biomass, and member states such as the Netherlands have already indicated “an interest in a liquid market for sustainable carbon carriers [including bio-based resources] and in the possibility of purchasing carbon carriers from a broad group of countries” Here’s hoping more robust and open analysis is forthcoming because if nothing else, failure to make full use of renewable resources will make getting to net-zero even harder.
About the author
Andrew Georgiou
Director, Policy and Regulation Europe, Enviva
Andrew Georgiou is the Director of Policy and Regulation in Europe for Enviva, the world’s largest producer of industrial wood pellets. With almost 15 years of experience working in politics and public policy he leads Enviva’s engagement with policymakers across Europe. He sits on the Board of Bioenergy Europe and takes part in a number of working groups on a broad range of biomass policy issues affecting the EU and UK.
