Burning biomass for energy – it is the classic ‘low-value’ application. Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the world of bio-resources knows the mantra: use biomass as high-value as possible, for example as a raw material for chemicals, materials or biobased products. Energy production is considered a bottom line; an inefficient way to use a versatile, often difficult to obtain raw material. But is that still justified, now that technologies such as CCS and CCU are making their entrance?
Earlier this month, the Cabinet published the Carbon Removal Roadmap. A new policy track is being developed for the storage and application of short-cycle CO2, originating from biomass, among other things. In energy production, the biomass is converted into energy and CO₂. Because the material itself disappears in the process, we call it a low-value application. But what happens if - as the Roadmap outlines - we capture the released biogenic CO₂ and store it underground (CCS)? Then we suddenly have to deal with negative emissions - according to the IPCC necessary to achieve the climate goals. Does that make the application more valuable?
In any case, it raises the question of whether the functionality of the material is always the benchmark, or whether we should take the climate impact into account. Because CCS with biogenic CO₂ creates a climate gain that is difficult to match with other applications of biomass. No matter how high-quality.
And then there is CCU – the use of CO₂ from biomass for example for the production of sustainable plastics, synthetic fuels or mineralisation. The use of biogenic molecules as raw materials is necessary to realise a circular economy - in addition to recycling and biobased products. When combining bioenergy and CCU, low-value residual flows are converted into high-value raw materials. Again the question: is it sustainable to call this 'low-value'?
Of course, there is a caveat. Sustainable biomass is scarce and, in addition to food supply, alternative applications compete for the same raw material. The use of negative emissions or materials must therefore be strategic: reasoned, responsible and policy-based. As a start of the discussion, I propose to qualify the dogma of 'low value' for bio-energy, based on the climate and material value of biogenic CO2.
About the author
Marieke van der Werf
Advisor 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.
