Those damn PBL people. The most recent exploration towards a climate-neutral society in 2050, from our very own Environmental Assessment Agency, is another excellent piece of research work. A sound and consistent calculation model, fed with technical and economic figures from more than 150 clean technologies, the results of which are interpreted with nuance and knowledge: fortunately the country has such a planning agency in the field of energy and climate. But still: I think we should be careful about basing too bold short-term decisions on this study.
First a few impressions from the study on bio-raw materials. For this purpose, all relevant applications have been broadly included in the analysis, which is new. Many studies in the past focused on Dutch energy use and did not, or only superficially, look at the enormous use of raw materials for our (currently still petro)chemicals and the production of bunker fuels for international shipping and aviation. By the way, I am of the opinion that there should be a little less flying.
This expansion is reflected in the results: assuming that the Netherlands largely maintains its international role in chemicals and bunker fuels, there are significant amounts of bio raw materials and fossil CO2 (in combination with green hydrogen) necessary to meet demand. Partly because of this, the model results (with optimization based on lowest costs) are consistent with the SER advice 'Biomass in balance' from 2020: use bio-raw materials primarily for high-quality applications in chemistry and fuel production (wood as a building material was not extensively examined in the PBL foresight). Energy use should be limited to flexible applications, such as peak load units for heating networks. So it's nice that the SER advice is supported by this research. However?
Well, there are a few things that tickle your fancy. Firstly, the continued strong role of chemicals and fuel production in the Netherlands. That is a starting assumption in the study, which can be substantiated, for example, with the analysis of the Sustainable Industry Lab (SIL) about the future of our industry. He concludes that 'fuels and chemicals' are in a good position to stay here. At the same time: The almost 700 PJ of energy for domestic transport and bunker fuels in the PBL scenarios appears to be higher than the indicative 'halving of current production' that SIL mentions. But that could also be a skewed interpretation on my part.
Secondly, you need to prioritize applications when there is scarcity. How many bio-based raw materials can the Netherlands count on? The principle of 'fair share' is not very easy to make concrete, but PBL rightly treats bio-raw materials for 'national' consumption in industry, traffic and elsewhere differently from the bio-raw materials used for bunker fuels and (export-oriented) chemicals. If we serve international sectors, we can also use international biomass for that, right? At the same time, there is a discrepancy here: while bunker fuels are used to a significant extent for intercontinental transport, PBL only considers the availability of bio raw materials within Europe. This makes it difficult to indicate how scarce those bio-raw materials really are.
For my third point, I must admit that I am getting older. In 2008 I did an EU project on the future role of sustainable biofuels in transport. It was called REFUEL. Even then it was clear that the large volume would have to come from advanced fuels from 'lignocellulosic' raw materials, i.e. woody material, straw and other biomass that people and animals do not eat. As if in a kind of 'then a miracle occurs', we estimated that there would be substantial growth in this type of production before 2015, via gasification techniques and enzymatic breakdown of cellulose into sugars. I took the picture from the final report (a “Roadmap”, of course) again. These are all sensible comments about the necessary developments throughout the chain. But in the meantime, these advanced biofuels are still not working. Is that because the question is not yet certain enough, or are we simply dealing with very difficult technologies here? To be honest, I have yet to see that we get those factories built on the scale (and at the costs) that PBL is calculating.
What does this mean for the interpretation of the PBL exploration? Well, within the scope and assumptions it remains an excellent study. But the fact remains that we still have major uncertainties towards 2050. This makes me somewhat reluctant to rule out techniques based on this study. In that respect, it is striking that the new cabinet has clearly chosen to continue with the preparations for new nuclear energy in the Netherlands, and at the same time seems to close the door on electricity from biomass in combination with CCS (BECCS). I would argue for both options that it is not a foregone conclusion that we will need them in the Netherlands; there are plenty of scenario studies that indicate that we can do without it. But given the size of the climate challenge and the uncertainties in the future, I think it is risky to rule out techniques now.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that with nuclear energy we have the relative luxury that the preparations will mainly consist of paperwork for years to come. That doesn't cost the world. While companies with a coal-biomass power plant will have to choose within a few years whether they will redevelop it into a flexible biomass unit (with CCS), or dismantle it. In the latter case, the opportunity to generate CO2 to be reduced, while our emissions must be reduced as quickly as possible. Even if those power stations no longer fit into the 2050 picture: in the short term, those types of installations can produce the clean power that nuclear energy does not yet provide, using the bio raw materials that advanced biofuels and chemicals do not yet need on that scale. In short: Temporarily burning sustainable biomass is at least as productive in the short term as filling up paper on nuclear energy. Don't throw away your old shoes until the new ones fit you well.
About the author
Marc Londo
Substantive Director NVDE
Marc Londo is substantive director of the NVDE, the Dutch Sustainable Energy Association. The NVDE represents ~1600 companies in the Netherlands that are jointly working towards 100% sustainable energy by 2050. Marc is responsible for the (scientific) substantiation of the NVDE's positions. He also works as a visiting researcher at the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University. He previously worked at ECN (now TNO) on various studies to support energy policy. He has a PhD in biomass and land use and is a graduated environmental chemist.
