Biomass is a controversial concept. When it comes to biomass for insulation material, building blocks or plastics, everyone is in favor. Whether we use it for energy in the form of fuel, heat or electricity is open to discussion.
There is always something going on with the organic residual flows from agriculture and food processing intended for energy. At the time of this writing, a study is underway in the Northern Netherlands into contaminated digestate, the residual product from fermentation. In addition, the media regularly reports on odor nuisance and environmental effects of biomass power plants and there is a fear that manure as a raw material will hinder the decline of the livestock population.
Well.
I can now write something about the high requirements that the use of organic residual flows for energy must meet, about CO2balance that is checked in order to be able to call it sustainable at all, about the planned growth spurt of green gas in balance with shrinking livestock and all measures that should prevent nuisance to the environment, but I do not do that. I can even discuss nitrogen fixation and the prevention of methane emissions with digestion plants, but these are not the points I want to discuss here.
What concerns me is the position of bioenergy in the energy system. Now and in the future.
Take heat. Heat pumps are available for the built environment and gas can be replaced by electricity or - in the future - green hydrogen. However, this is not possible everywhere, nor is it available or affordable for everyone. Mixing green gas into the gas system provides an easy and cheap way of sustainability for many households. It is not without reason that our government wants to add 20% green gas to the gas network and that Europe is talking about the production of 35 billion cubic meters of green gas to be independent of Russia.
Then electricity. Solar and wind energy are growing rapidly, we can be proud of that. But when there is sufficient production compared to demand (and that will take some time), the wind will not always blow and there will be periods when the sun does not shine. There is something to accommodate that baseload required, supplied by power stations that can be quickly switched on and off. We are rightly phasing out coal and gas-fired power stations that caused this. But what is the alternative? To meet the enormous demand, this is nuclear energy or green energy from biomass. Perhaps both.
Finally, fuel: Electrification of heavy transport is in its infancy and is not yet an option for air traffic and shipping. Attempts are being made to use captured CO2 to make synthetic fuel, but that is only available on a sparse basis for the time being. Liquefied natural gas is already a more sustainable solution, but blending it with biofuel is currently the only non-fossil option.
What I'm saying is: Well-controlled use of biomass for energy directly leads to less CO2emissions for parts of the energy system for which there is no cleaner alternative. Moreover, it makes the energy transition affordable and accessible to everyone. Not unimportant in the light of 'security of existence'. Instead of looking away from it, we should make an effort to use organic residual flows responsibly, safely and sustainably. In my opinion, that is what the political and social debate should be about. Let's start doing that today!
About the author
Marieke van der Werf
Aconsultant in the field of energy and circular economy
Marieke van der Werf is an advisor at the intersection of sustainability and politics. After her membership of the Chamber, she joined Bureau Publyon, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications as a partner. Marieke has specialized in energy and the circular economy and advises, among others, the Green Gas Platform. She is also chair of the CCU Alliance and initiator of the Negative Emissions Task Force, where biogenic CO2 plays an important role. In addition to her consultancy work, Marieke fulfills supervisory roles at, among others, the Frisian Energy Fund and Spaarnelanden BV.
