The chemical industry cannot do without carbon. It is found in virtually everything the sector produces: plastics and coatings, adhesives and solvents, fibers, cleaning products, and medicines. Currently, that carbon comes largely from oil, gas, and coal. Therefore, anyone wishing to make the chemical industry more sustainable cannot stop at energy. The sector also needs other raw materials. Not carbon-free, but free from fossil carbon.
That message was given a striking platform earlier this year. In an editorial article under the title Defossilize our chemical world The scientific journal Nature wrote that climate neutrality is not the same as a carbon-free economy. Carbon remains necessary for fuels, materials, and everyday products. The real question is where that carbon comes from. In this regard, Nature points to the reuse of CO2 and biomass as important routes.
Green chemistry requires alternative carbon sources
For electricity, the alternatives are obvious. Power also comes from solar, wind, water, or nuclear energy. In the chemical industry, it is more difficult, because there, carbon is not an energy carrier but a building block. A plastic, a coating, or a detergent without carbon is, in most cases, not a realistic end goal.
The challenge is therefore different. Not removing the carbon, but its fossil origin. Experts call this defossilization: oil, gas, and coal disappear as the basis for chemistry, while the carbon itself remains necessary.
How much sustainable biomass is there actually?
Following the Nature article, the trade journal Renewable Carbon News pointed out in late May an extensive modeling study by the German nova-Institute. That study was commissioned by the Renewable Carbon Initiative and the Bio-based Industries Consortium, together with academic partners. The underlying question is easy to ask and difficult to answer: is there enough sustainably available biomass to cover part of the carbon demand of the chemical and related materials industries in 2050?
What makes the study unique is that it does not look solely at chemistry. It also takes into account the demand for food, animal feed, bioenergy, and biofuels, including the growing needs of aviation and shipping. This is by no means a luxury, as the same raw materials are claimed by multiple sectors: agricultural crops, woody streams, residual streams from the food industry, forestry residues, and organic waste. To map this competition, nova combines a global agricultural model (CAPRI) and a forestry model (TiMBA) with scenario analysis.
Biomass helps, but does not solve everything
The outcome is nuanced. In a moderate scenario that Nova calls “green high-tech,” with higher yields, more efficient land use, and technological advancements in agriculture and forestry, biomass could supply approximately 20 to 30 percent of the carbon demand of the chemical and materials sector around 2050, according to the study. By comparison, in 2023 that share stood at 5,5 percent in the EU and 10 percent globally.
That is a significant contribution, but the figure also shows the limit. Biomass cannot fully replace fossil carbon. The available quantity is too small for that, and there are too many other uses. Food and animal feed take precedence, and the demand for sustainable fuels for sectors that are difficult to electrify, such as aviation and shipping, places additional pressure on available bio-raw materials. According to Nova, only the most efficient, technology-driven scenarios achieve the required supply. In the more conservative variants, it falls short.
Residual streams are not free either.
In the Dutch debate, the term residual streams is frequently mentioned, and that is understandable. Residuals from agriculture, forestry, the food industry, and waste processing compete less directly with food production than specially cultivated crops. Nevertheless, they are not available in unlimited quantities. Straw is often necessary for soil quality. Woody residues are also used for paper, board materials, energy, or soil. Organic residual streams end up in animal feed, composting, or anaerobic digestion.
This shifts the demand. It is not just about the quantity of biomass, but primarily about where it has the most value. For the chemical industry, this could lie in applications where carbon is locked up in materials for long periods, or in building blocks for which hardly any alternatives exist.
From energy debate to raw materials debate
In the Netherlands, this trade-off converges in the ports, chemical clusters, and agriculture. Refineries, plastics factories, waste processors, and producers of bio-based raw materials are all seeking ways to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. As a result, interest in the same sources is growing: residual streams, woody streams, recycled carbon, and captured CO2.
That makes the choice complicated, because biomass can be used for green gas, heat, biofuels, building materials, chemical raw materials, or the soil. Not every route yields the same climate benefits or economic value.
The common thread in both the Nature article and the Nova study is therefore that a fossil-free chemistry must rely on a combination. Recycling can limit the demand for new carbon, captured CO2 can serve as a feedstock in some processes, and biomass provides renewable carbon. According to Nova, a fully defossilized chemistry will run on a mix of these three by 2050, because total carbon demand is expected to more than double by then.
That is precisely why the view on biomass in the Netherlands is often different from that in the energy debate. In the energy sector, the discussion revolves around heat, electricity, or fuel. In chemistry, it concerns the carbon in the product itself. Consequently, the question is less black and white. It is not whether biomass is good or bad, but rather for which application it yields the most benefit, with minimal impact on land, nature, and food production.
Biomassafeiten.nl previously wrote about the same report by BIC, RCI, and nova-Institute, primarily focusing on the question of whether there would be enough biomass for the chemical industry towards 2050. The attention in Nature and the new interpretation by Renewable Carbon show that the subject is being viewed more broadly. Biomass is increasingly regarded as one component of a larger raw materials strategy for green chemistry. The industry cannot do without carbon. However, in the future, that carbon will no longer necessarily have to come from oil, gas, or coal.
Source reference:
- Nature, Defossilize our chemical world
- Renewable Carbon News, Important Study from nova-Institute Recognized by Nature Magazine
- BIC and Renewable Carbon Initiative, Is there enough biomass to defossilize the chemicals and derived materials sector by 2050?
- Previous article on Biomassafeiten.nl, BIC investigates potential of biomass for chemical sector in 2050
Photo: Marian, Adobe Stock
