Those darn PBL types. The most recent exploration into a climate-neutral society in 2050, by our very own Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, is once again a fine piece of research. A solid and consistent calculation model, fed with technical and economic figures from over 150 clean technologies, the results of which are interpreted with nuance and expertise: fortunate is the country to have such an energy and climate agency. And yet: in my opinion, we must be careful not to base overly 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, substantial quantities of bio-based raw materials and fossil CO2 (in combination with green hydrogen) are needed to meet demand. Partly as a result of this, the model results (with optimization for the lowest costs) are consistent with the SER advisory report ' Biomass in Balance' from 2020: primarily use bio-based raw materials for high-value applications in the chemical industry and fuel production (wood as a building material was not extensively examined in the PBL exploration). Use for energy should remain limited to flexible applications, such as peak load units for heat networks. So it is good that this SER advisory report is substantiated by this research. Right?
Well, a few things do bother me. First and foremost, the continued strong role of chemicals and fuel production in the Netherlands. That is an initial assumption in the study, which can be substantiated, for example, by the analysis of the Sustainable Industry Lab (SIL) regarding the future of our industry. That analysis concludes that 'fuels and chemicals' in particular are well-positioned to remain here. At the same time: the nearly 700 PJ of energy for domestic transport and bunker fuels in the PBL scenarios seems higher than the indicative 'halving of current production' mentioned by SIL. 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, then, is that with nuclear energy we have the relative luxury that preparations will consist primarily of paperwork for years to come. That doesn't cost the earth. Whereas companies with a coal-biomass plant face the choice within a few years of whether to redevelop it into a flexible biomass unit (with CCS) or to dismantle it. In the latter case, the opportunity to reduce CO2 is lost , while our emissions must come down as quickly as possible. Even if those plants no longer fit the picture for 2050: in the short term, such installations can produce the clean electricity that nuclear energy does not yet provide, using bio-raw materials that advanced biofuels and chemicals do not yet require on that scale. In short: temporarily burning sustainable biomass is, in the short term, at least as productive as filling paper with writing about nuclear energy. Don't throw away your old shoes before the new ones fit comfortably.
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.
