By Thijs ten Brinck
Wood, manure, whale oil and other biomass were once the primary energy sources for heat, light and food preparation. If we want to manage climate change effectively, should we go back to then?
Everyone is right, in their own way
Like all other energy sources, biomass has clear advantages and disadvantages. Just like coal, wind energy, hydropower, nuclear energy and all other energy sources, biomass is a controversial energy source.
Clear advantages of biomass: it is renewable and it burns even when there is no wind. Clear disadvantages: a lot of time and space are needed for growth and biomass for energy competes with biomass for food, building materials and nature.
Not just any controversial energy source
As an informed layman you can weigh up the above-mentioned pros and cons. But then you're not there yet. What distinguishes biomass from all other controversial energy sources is the large number of vague complaints that arise in addition to the clear advantages and disadvantages. Depending on how you reason, using biomass for energy is:
- CO2 positive or even worse for the climate than coal;
- Good for biodiversity or disastrous for flora and fauna;
- Bad for air quality or a measure against forest fires;
There are many forms of biomass: pruning residues, manure, sunflower oil, firewood, organic waste, pig fat, seaweed; There are many routes to collect this biomass: waste flows, cultivation, import, simply cutting down forests; And there are many options for using biomass: fire pit, combustion engine, coal-fired power plant, gasification into hydrogen, etc. https://www.youtube.com/embed/M_M0hf7ZtIc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy= 1&wmode=transparent
Therefore, everyone can reason through their own assumptions to the conclusion that suits them. As a result, not only laypeople but also specialists almost always talk past each other. And as a result, many protests, opinion pieces, debates, but also neutral opinions on biomass are not to be missed. Everyone is right. Nobody is any wiser.
Renewable does not automatically mean CO2 neutral
Back to basics, back to nature
If you cut down a tree today, in 30 to 50 years there may be a tree of the same size in the same spot. If you take a lump of coal from a coal mine today, it is almost certain that that lump of coal will not grow back within 50 years.
Both the tree and the lump of coal release CO2 when burned. If you do not cut down a tree and do use coal, the CO2 released can only be absorbed by a new tree in a different location. If you keep burning coal, at some point you will run out of space for additional trees.
At the time of combustion, the climate effect of biomass and coal is equally bad. The difference is that with biomass the opportunity there is a balance between CO2 emissions and CO2 absorption. This is emphatically an opportunity. The sustainability of biomass can easily be ruined by burning biomass structurally faster than biomass grows. In such a scenario, biomass consumption is at least as bad as the use of coal. Biomass is therefore not automatically sustainable.
It requires policy, effort and monitoring to monitor the balance between growth and consumption of biomass.
CO2 neutral is not automatically sustainable
If only I had a time machine
Biomass consumption in balance with growth is therefore truly CO2 neutral. Unfortunately, few trees were planted in the 70s and 80s with the intention of burning them CO2019 neutrally in 2.
However, a lot of forest has been planted with the intention of making paper, bookcases or matches. Not every branch is suitable for a bookcase and the demand for paper and matches is smaller today than perhaps thought in 1976. There is therefore actually residual wood available for CO2-neutral energy production. However, it is not much.
Fortunately, wood is just one of many forms of biomass. There is biomass with much shorter growth cycles, for example corn, sugar cane, palm oil and rapeseed. Energy from these biosources grows again within a year after consumption. The disadvantage of these fast-growing crops is that they only grow well on soil that is also suitable for food production.
The debate about the conflict between food and bioenergy production goes back further than the current controversy about wood burning. That debate was settled in favor of food production at the time: Biomass is only sustainable if it is grown on land that is not suitable for food production: wood, roadside grass, algae, seaweed; Or if it concerns inedible residual flows from food production: banana peels, manure, moldy bread, meat products contaminated with listeria, etc.
Flat purchasing subsidies do not help the transition
The growing world population cannot afford a food shortage because biomass has to burn. Subsidy providers cannot afford CO2 concentrations to rise because we burn inedible forms of biomass faster than they grow. Sustainable consumption of biomass clearly has limits.
Extra subsidy on wind and solar thanks to additional fuel subsidy?
In that respect, the current subsidies on biomass do not deserve any prize. Given the inherent scarcity, it makes no sense to heat swimming pools all year round with biomass, or to continuously supply coal-fired power stations with wood pellets.
De additional costs of biomass are primarily in the purchasing of the biomass, not so much in the combustion technology. The current subsidies on biomass use mainly cover the difference in fuel costs. Assuming that biomass indeed remains scarce, the difference in fuel costs is structural. Cost reductions and increases in scale, such as have been achieved with subsidies on wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars, are therefore unlikely for biomass. If the subsidy disappears, this application of biomass will almost certainly be over immediately.
In the current subsidy scheme (SDE+), the use of biomass also competes head-to-head with other renewable forms of heat and electricity production. Because coal-fired power stations (which co-fire wood pellets) thanks to the electricity subsidy for a lower price can offer, the additional heating subsidy reduces the average electricity market price. The SDE+ reimburses the difference between the market price and an agreed guaranteed price. Thanks to the additional fuel subsidy, the amount of subsidy paid to wind and solar parks will probably also increase. We shouldn't want that.
Subsidize biomass for what is not possible with wind and sun
Joel does not go along with public opinion
Given the scarcity, complexity and negative sentiment, it is politically attractive to write off biomass completely. That happens a lot. But that's too easy.
Those who actually take the climate challenge seriously recognize biomass as an almost indispensable part of a climate change challenge not too broad palette of solutions. Biomass has three crucial and hardly reproducible qualities:
1.Biomass is energy storage
In an energy system with a lot of wind and sun, storage is crucial. Biomass is energy storage. Naturally. We can also only burn the wood pellets that are now fed into coal-fired power stations every day when it is freezing to the point of cracking, in peak boilers for heating networks. Biogas that is now converted directly into electricity can be stored in salt cavities for electricity production when there is no wind. Subsidize biomass so that bioenergy is complementary to wind and sun.
2.Biomass is a raw material
In a prosperous economy that has to make do without oil and gas, sustainable hydrocarbons are crucial. From biomass we can produce packaging, clothing, the housing for your laptop, bulletproof vests and everything else that we now make from fossil raw materials. Homes, offices, wind turbines and bridges can also be built from biomass. Subsidize biomass so that our dependence on fossil raw materials and CO2-intensive cement and steel decreases.
3.Biomass is CO2 storage
Trees and plants that grow absorb CO2. Trees and plants that rot release CO2. As humans, we can harness this natural carbon cycle to extract CO2 from the air. The CO2 in trees from which we build a house is stored in that house. For as long as that house remains standing. Biomass that we burn with CO2 storage provides energy with negative CO2 emissions. Subsidize biomass to actively extract CO2 from the air.
Public opinion is really right that the current policy for biomass is not ideal. Recognize this, but also make it clear that (given legal certainty) it is important that the flat purchasing subsidies already granted continue until 2025. And promise better things for the future. Organize policy in such a way that biomass has the opportunity to be part of the final solution. Don't ruin the sentiment for biomass with populist buyers. Show leadership.
Let us make effective use of the biomass that is sustainably available.
Click here for the original article
