What will the energy supply in the Netherlands look like in 2050? Is there still room for biomass, especially as a heat source, or are alternatives available? A lot can happen (or not) in three decades, so it's still a waste of money. In the short term, however, our country will desperately need biomass to achieve its CO2 reduction targets.
To hit hard targets. With the signing of the Paris Agreement, our country has committed itself to reducing CO2 emissions by 2030 and 2050 percent respectively in 49 and 95 (compared to 1990). If all signatories (including the US) adhere to this, global warming will remain below two degrees - preferably one and a half degrees. This is a scenario, according to the IPCC, in which the consequences of warming remain within limits.
To achieve these targets, countries will have to switch to low-carbon or renewable energy and continue to accelerate the phasing out of fossil energy or continue to use it without CO2 emissions.
The Netherlands, which traditionally relies heavily on natural gas and oil, apparently has more difficulty with this than other countries at this time. Various measurements (Eurostat, PBL) show that 'we' use the lowest percentage of sustainable energy in the EU. In 2018 this was still 7,4 percent: it is now approaching 10 percent.
Big shovel
In the short term, i.e. at the end of this year, the Netherlands will not achieve the target of 14 percent agreed in the Energy Agreement. Well, according to the PBL, the Netherlands has made up some of the backlog and can still achieve the interim target of 2023 percent in 16, according to Michiel Hekkenberg, researcher at the PBL.
“A large number of wind farms are expected to be connected to the grid this year (2020, ed.). Many projects have been approved in recent years. If there are no setbacks, we will achieve the target of 16 percent in 2023,” says Hekkenberg. Several wind farms will also be connected in 2021.
The Netherlands will have to make significant progress in this regard until 2030. The European Commission has indicated that the percentage should be 26 percent (the Netherlands itself has set the bar slightly higher, at 27 percent). Based on the PBL's KEV2019, this is feasible: the share of renewable energy will be 2030 to 30 percent in 32, including the measures of the more recent Climate Agreement. The contribution of 27 percent will therefore be amply achieved.
“If you were to eliminate biomass, the Netherlands would fall from 14 to 6 percent sustainable energy. It goes without saying that the CO2 reduction target will become unattainable in 2030.” – Martin Junginger
Biomass desperately needed
The key question now is: will we achieve the above objectives with or without biomass? This question is relevant given the discussion surrounding the use of mainly woody biomass, i.e. the combustion of this biomass in coal-fired power stations, bioheating stations and CHP installations.
“Without biomass we will not achieve the 2030 target,” says Martin Junginger, Professor at the Copernicus Institute (Utrecht University). If you were to eliminate biomass, the Netherlands would fall from 14 to 6 percent sustainable energy. It goes without saying that the CO2 reduction target will become unattainable in 2030.”
This conclusion is shared by other parties, such as the NVDE (Dutch Sustainable Energy Association, the Bioeconomy Platform) and the PBL. In the Netherlands, biomass accounts for approximately 60 percent of renewable energy (electricity, heat and transport fuels). Biomass now has a multitude of forms and processes with which energy can be recovered. The graph on page 10 (CBS, 2020) lists the different forms and their energy share. It shows, among other things, that woody biomass has a relatively small share as co-firing. Once accounting for more than a third of the renewable mix, it declined, only to flourish again in 2018 (thanks to government subsidies until 2027).
Nuance
Considering the fierceness with which the discussion about woody biomass has been and continues to be conducted, this relatively small share is surprising. Especially since the majority of this biomass comes from the Netherlands. In the period 2014 to 2018, the Netherlands was able to fully provide for itself, according to Statistics Netherlands, also because co-firing fell sharply (see the graph opposite). The Netherlands is now an importer of wood pellets (source: CE, 2020), but at the same time the Netherlands also exports woody biomass.
However, the PBE arrives at (slightly) different figures. In 2017, 82 percent of the woody biomass (residuals from forest management, industry and used wood) came from the Netherlands. Imports mainly came from Germany and Belgium, with only a small part (0,5 percent) from overseas.
John Bouterse, board member on behalf of the PBE: “The discussion about biomass for energy deserves some nuance. The focus on woody biomass makes it seem as if the other forms (green gas, etc.) do not exist. That is why we have set up the Biomass Facts website together with other parties (Circular Biobased Delta, NVDE, Eneco, etc.) to add this nuance to the debate.”
Biomass in balance
The question is whether the website did not appear too late and that the match - at least in the Netherlands - has already been played. According to Bouterse, that is not the case at all. “Yes, we still suffer from negative reporting and images in the (social) media. The discussion is still based too much on emotion and attacks on the man. With the elections approaching, things will not get any calmer in the near future. Fortunately, Minister Wiebes is sticking to previously implemented policy (including subsidy for woody biomass as co-firing until 2027, ed.).”
“CCS – just like bioenergy – is a tricky subject, but it will be necessary to compensate for CO2 emissions from such power stations and natural emission sources (peat soils, etc.).” – Wim Turkenburg about the use of gas-fired power stations
Junginger is also optimistic about the near future. With the signing of the SER advice Biomass in Balance (2020), various parties, including civil society, have endorsed the use of (woody) biomass for energy. “The essence of the SER advice is that the future of biomass lies in high-quality applications, such as materials and chemistry. This also allows you to (partly) capture CO2. Biomass for energy applications should be phased out wherever possible. This requires alternatives such as geothermal energy, aquathermal energy and electrification (heat pumps, etc.).” The question is whether these alternatives have sufficient potential to be scaled up, see also the discussion surrounding the economic feasibility of heat pumps in older buildings.
Industrial heat
The authors of the SER advice conclude, among other things, that biomass can still be used for energetic applications for which no sustainable alternative is available. 'For example, biofuel is temporarily needed for heavy transport and aviation and shipping. Commercial electric aircraft and synthetic kerosene made from sustainable energy and CO2 do not exist yet.'
“There are also currently very limited alternatives to industrial heat (temperatures 200 degrees Celsius and higher),” says Junginger. “Dutch industry currently obtains 95 percent of its heat from fossil sources. In particular, high temperatures cannot be achieved with electrification. This is possible with biomass. You can also use biomass as a backup for electricity generated by the sun and wind when the sun is not shining, the wind is not blowing and the outside temperature requires extra input. The big advantage of biomass is that it is controllable. You can switch a biomass power plant on and off as needed. That is not possible with many other renewable energy sources.”
Challenge
However, the major challenge does not lie directly in making the electricity supply more sustainable. According to an estimate by the PBL, wind and sun will already produce three quarters of our electricity by 2030.
However, heat production is the largest CO2 emitter in the world and also in our country. Globally, heat accounts for half (source: IEA) of all energy consumption (and 40 percent of CO2 emissions), significantly more than electricity (20 percent) and transport (30 percent).
About 50 percent of the total heat is used for industrial processes (globally), to which Junginger referred. Another 47 percent is consumed in buildings for space and water heating and, to a lesser extent, for cooking. These proportions are different in the Netherlands (built environment (47 percent), industry (43 percent) and agriculture (10 percent).
As Junginger stated, the heat supply still relies heavily on fossil energy sources, especially natural gas. Although the share of fossil fuels is decreasing, as shown by the Heat Monitor 2019 (TNO), the road is still long and bumpy.
“The discussion about biomass for energy deserves some nuance. The focus on woody biomass makes it seem as if the other forms (green gas, etc.) do not exist.” – John Bouterse
Heat network Ede
As mentioned, low-temperature heat (for buildings) can be generated by sustainable electrical sources, for example for heat pumps, possibly assisted by biomass (for buildings that are not suitable for heat pumps in combination with insulation). “Currently, biomass, including woody biomass, is the only controllable renewable heat source for high-temperature heat,” says Olof van der Gaag, chairman of the NVDE. “That does not mean that this situation can change over the years. There are renewable alternatives, such as geothermal energy, or combination solutions in which multiple forms are combined, such as in Warmtenet Ede, where solar boilers, biomass and geothermal energy are used. Geothermal energy is still in its infancy in our country. Projects are now getting off the ground, mainly because the government subsidizes this through SDE++.”
Kramer's inaugural lecture: Kramer's inaugural lecture contains an outlook for 2050 in which it becomes clear that electrification (solar and wind) can cover a large part of the global energy supply. However, other energy sources are also needed.
Hydrogen
Van der Gaag has a negative answer to the question of whether hydrogen (as a heat source or transport fuel) can provide relief in the short term. “Green hydrogen, produced from sun and/or wind, is a controllable option. However, I do not see a large-scale application happening in the short term. There are a number of issues that still require attention, such as ways to make this economically competitive and to ensure that large amounts of clean electricity are available to make this.”
With these options, which are not an alternative in the short term, gas-fired power stations are coming back into the picture. In Germany, natural gas has even achieved the status of 'transitional fuel', with gas-fired power stations taking over the capacity of coal and lignite power stations, at least for this decade. Natural gas was also in the news again in our country. 'Why does the Netherlands have to get rid of gas while other countries are switching to it?' was a frequently heard statement on social media. “The question is whether the Netherlands should focus on natural gas,” says Junginger. “By phasing out Dutch gas, we are becoming more dependent on foreign gas, especially from Russia. This entails geopolitical risks and the GHG emissions from the transport of Russian gas are higher (due to leaking pipelines, among other things) than from Dutch gas or woody residual flows.”
Woody biomass does not necessarily have to come from forestry. Perhaps other residual flows can also be used for co-firing. For example, RWE has investigated whether sustainable electricity and heat can be produced with bagasse; a fibrous residual product that remains after sustainable cane sugar cultivation. (Photo: Amercentrale power plant in Geertruidenberg)
Role of CO2 capture and storage
Wim Turkenburg, former director of the Copernicus Institute and one of the authorities – national and international – in the field of energy and climate, sees a role for natural gas and biomass plants as a supplement to other renewable sources (particularly wind and sun). “The CO2 must then be captured and stored on earth, for example stored underground (CCS). CCS - just like bio-energy - is a sensitive topic in the environmental movement, but it will be necessary to compensate for CO2 emissions from such power stations and also from natural emission sources (peat soils, etc.). Ultimately, we will have to navigate towards negative emissions ourselves: removing more CO2 from the air every year than we emit.”
“Currently, biomass, including woody biomass, is the only controllable renewable heat source for high-temperature heat.” – Olof van der Gaag
Finally, nuclear energy. This subject has now returned to the political agenda. The media, including Lubach, have also highlighted nuclear energy as a serious option for our country in a future energy mix. A number of years ago, Turkenburg and his colleagues carried out a simulation study of the electricity supply of Western Europe in 2050, in which nuclear energy could initially account for a third of electricity production in 2050, in a macroeconomic sense. “In the meantime, solar and wind energy have fallen sharply in costs and this will continue. After a new calculation, nuclear energy turns out to be too expensive. In addition to solar cells and wind turbines, other techniques are economically more attractive. This concerns, for example, energy storage, biomass plants with CCS and also natural gas plants with CCS. Nuclear energy technology has only become more expensive in recent decades, which is the opposite of other forms of energy. Nuclear power stations will have to drop sharply in price if they want to become economically attractive. But if we ban the use of biomass, natural gas and CCS in energy supply, nuclear power stations will come into the picture again.”
Biomass, currently an option for energetic applications for which no sustainable alternative is available, such as biofuels for heavy transport and aviation and shipping. There are also currently very limited alternatives to industrial heat (temperatures 200 degrees Celsius and higher).
Finally…
In conclusion, there are objections to all forms of energy generation. If it is not the high costs, then it is the impact on the climate, people, animals and the environment. In our country, wind and solar energy installations take up valuable space and affect the living environment of people and animals. Nuclear energy is expensive and – depending on the technology – entails risks (see Fukushima, Harrisburg). Oil and gas, well, we wanted to get rid of that, right?
Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages, as is currently the case, no single energy source can meet the entire electricity and heat demand. Hard choices will also have to be made. “Currently the discussion mainly revolves around what is not possible or desirable,” says Van der Gaag. “That's fine, but there must be alternatives, as mentioned, especially for high-temperature heat energy. If not, we'll just keep going around in circles.”
Click here for the original article
