In previous posts I discussed the size of the challenge and messed up cost comparisons WGIII provides. Here I provide few observations on how WGIII deals with bioenergy. The 2007 assessment report as well as the 2011 renewables report were largely uncritical of bioenergy/biofuels, but now some warnings have been added to 5th assessment report. But still… These warnings are largely to be found only in the actual report while the summary for policy makers creates, in my opinion, more positive image.
“Bioenergy can play a critical role for mitigation, but there are issues to consider, such as the sustainability of practices and the efficiency of bioenergy systems (robust evidence, medium agreement) [11.4.4, Box 11.5, 11.13.6, 11.13.7]. Barriers to large‐scale deployment of bioenergy include concerns about GHG emissions from land, food security, water resources, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. The scientific debate about the overall climate impact related to landuse competition effects of specific bioenergy pathways remains unresolved (robust evidence, high agreement)” WGIII Summary for policy makers
Notice how this is phrased. It starts by saying bioenergy can play a critical role (robust evidence, medium agreement) and then ends by saying that we do not actually know what climate impacts are (robust evidence, high agreement). In my opinion, caution should be emphasized here since were are dealing with issues with very large ecological and social consequences. Summary for policy makers also seems to discuss, in practice non-existent, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as some independent technology while in the real report it is quite clearly mentioned in the context of geoengineering (quite rightly of course).
Here and there the report seems very confused about bioenergy and especially serious ecological or social damage assessment is largely missing. For example, in chapter 6 (table 6.7) only water use is mentioned as an adverse effect of bioenergy! Sometimes existence some risks are mentioned, but not in such a way as to identify what action in particular is risky and how it relates to current bioenergy practices. This gives me a feeling of CMA (cover my ass) type of activity. Without actually saying clearly what types of bioenergy schemes are counterproductive, what use is this? WGIII doesn’t say that US corn ethanol scheme would be stupid, or that maybe German biodiesel production is not the brightest of ideas, or that perhaps forestry practices in Scandinavia might leave something to be desired from climate and biodiversity perspective.
Or what do you think about this?
“Bioenergy can be deployed as solid, liquid and gaseous fuels to provide transport, electricity, and heat for a wide range of uses, including cooking, and depending on how and where implemented, can lead to either beneficial or undesirable consequences for climate change mitigation (robust evidence, high agreement)…Scientific debate about the marginal emissions of most bioenergy pathways, in particular around land‐mediated equilibrium effects (such as indirect landuse change), remains unresolved (robust evidence, high agreement)” WGIII Chapter 11
So basically they say that either bioenergy is a good idea or a bad idea and are happy to announce robust agreement on this. Then later on page 27 of Chapter 11 they say ” This assessment agrees on a technical bioenergy potential of around 100 EJ, and possibly 300 EJ and higher.” What am I supposed to learn from this? If IPCC is seriously proposing 300EJ they are irresponsibly deluded. In fact, the Figure 11.20 seems to suggest that there is high agreement only about the roughly 100EJ amount (technical potential). So why are those higher numbers so casually thrown around elsewhere in the report?
Between the lines you might perhaps be able to read something. WGIII mentions several times how bioenergy schemes on degraded lands could have multiple positive impacts, but what fraction of current bioenergy schemes fall into this category? If I guess that approximately 0%, am I wrong? WGIII doesn’t tell. Reading the report I get a feeling that unsustainable bioenergy practices would only be some speculative risks in the future rather than standard operating practice of most bioenergy schemes today. Since no bad practices are identified, everyone can declare unsustainable practices are things done by others. The effect can be de facto promotion of those unsustainable practices today by creating a narrative for sustainable practices in the future. Furthermore, the bioenergy scenarios WGIII presents as mitigation tools seem to be on such a massive scale that I do not believe degraded lands, waste streams etc. can ever provide more than than a very small fraction of the required biomass. See for example Fig 6.20 (below) from Chapter 6.
In scenarios roughly consistent with 2℃ goal (blue dots) we are supposed to get around 300 EJ of primary energy from bioenergy and most of it equipped with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). What does this mean? Well first of all, it might mean no climate benefits, since WGIII had an agreement that this is not understood. Only ecological and social damage seems guaranteed. Second, the primary productivity of terrestrial biosphere is apparently around 56.4 Gt C/yr which means that 300EJ would amount to around 20% of all primary productivity of the continents. This is not just geoengineering. It is geoengineering on steroids. Given that one of the main drivers of extinctions is the ever increasing share of primary productivity appropriated by Homo Sapiens the idea that this extra diversion might even have some biodiversity benefits (speculated about in Chapter 6) is preposterous. In chapter 6 WGIII also gives results with different amounts of negative emissions — either more than 20Gt CO2/year or less. That 20Gt is roughly consistent with the ridiculously large bioenergy production equipped with CCS. Having presented such idiocy as a possible solution WGIII says later in Chapter 11:
“Full GHG impacts, including those from feedbacks (e.g., iLUC) or leakage, are often difficult to determine (Searchinger et al., 2008). Feedbacks between GHG reduction and other important objectives such as provision of livelihoods and sufficient food or the maintenance of ecosystem services and biodiversity are not completely understood.”
Again, where is the precautionary principle when you actually need it? But let us get crazy and start thinking where we could produce that 300EJ. It amount to perhaps 10 Gt/year of carbon from the biosphere. Given that in most places where people live, they already appropriate outrageously large amount of primary productivity (see figure), we should head somewhere where our footprint isn’t quite so large.
If I have a look at the world map with primary productivity shown as well (see figure), it seems that most obvious choices are either northern wastelands, Amazon, or central Africa. Since things don’t grow that well in Siberia and there is hardly anyone there to do the work, we would be left with the unenviable task of terraforming rainforests into energy plantations. How much area would we need? With around 1kg C/m2 combined area of the Amazon rainforest and Congolian rainforest would not be quite enough. With synthetic fertilizers, irrigation etc. we could boost this, but how much energy does it take and where does the water come from? If you want to use degraded land, we will need more space since that land is presumably called degraded for a reason.
Many bioenergy schemes have a low energy return on energy invested (EROEI). In other words we spend a lot of energy in producing bioenergy compared to the amount of useful energy when the fuel is consumed. I was not entirely surprised to notice that the term EROEI did not seem to appear in the report. It is usually brushed aside since dealing seriously with it might rock the boat.
When it comes to bioenergy it must be kept in mind that large financial interests are at stake. Fossil fuel producers have not been too happy with climate science and we can rest assured that countries relying heavily on bioenergy and related schemes will not be happy if impacts of bioenergy are seriously evaluated. When WGIII report was released a high official from Finnish Ministry of employment and the economy declared that Finland can only reach 80-95% emissions reduction goal if bioenergy is counted as climate neutral. Notice that it is not a question if it really IS climate neutral, just that on paper it must be counted as such. I am certain that similar political pressures exist in many other countries on this issue. Also among environists (“enviromentalist without the mental part” Tom Blees) there has been a proliferation of renewables only energy “plans”. Most of them rely heavily on bioenergy and on assuming its beneficial climate impacts. These groups are unlikely to acknowledge easily that they got it wrong. If they do so they might have to rethink the role of nuclear power. However, opposing nuclear power is an identity issue for many environist and they will find it easier to live in denial about environmental and social impacts of bioenergy.
Update 17.5.2015: Some quotations above didn’t make it to the final report. When writing this post I was reading the Final Draft. I thank Glen Peters (@Peters_Glen) for pointing this out.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
29/04/2014 at 8:57 PM
Proteos
Another thing that can be done is improving the productivity of crops or trees per unit area. This is the path that was chosen in the 20th century, albeit with heavy use of fossil fuels through fertilizers and the like. I think it would be hard to avoid accelerating the carbon cycle if we want to phase out fossil fuels.
Yet, it is true that the 300EJ target seems very remote, the more so because it is “modern biomass”: what makes biomass “modern”? What we can infer is that it comes on top of “ancient” biomass. The CCS stuff sounds just ridiculous today: we might as well step the production of furniture or burry trees outright, that would probably be cheaper. Some scenarios are just pipe dreams: how can one contemplate 50% of biomass energy fitted with CCS by 2030 when no project of CCS seems to have started for coal power, for which the case is clear?
The reliance on biomass among environmentalists is indeed widespread. In France, many greens now often quote the ‘negawatt’ plan, which relies massively on biomass to the point it is utterly unrealistic. It is however the price to pay to avoid nuclear power (for which they bend over themselves to phase out before fossil fuels…). What is even more ludicrous is that they say all this biomass must come from ‘sustainable’ practices, especially organic methods of production.
30/04/2014 at 6:28 AM
Jani-Petri Martikainen
I was also contemplating the “Ikea option”. It seems much easier to stash trees away and try to make them decompose slowly than to capture and store CO2. For the latter you need also the correct geology on top of everything else. As far as I understand, for negative emissions it should be necessary to have rate of decomposition slower than the growth rate. There will be some upper limit when the pile of trees is high enough, but maybe by that time we can shoot the trees into space with nuclear powered rockets. That would be a nice wtf experience for aliens.
It is amazing how ahistorical the discussions tend to be. People don’t seem to know that there was a reason why we moved to fossil fuels from bioenergy in the first place. I suspect I live in pretty much most forested country in the world with sparse population. Still our primary energy consumption is higher than all the primary productivity by a factor of 2 or so.
WWF had “all renewables” report made by Ecofys that relied heavily on biofuels. Funnily enough the report called for 250 million ha of biofuel plantations while saying that at this moment they do not know where this land is or how is it being used. Ecofys also made another report on “sustainable” biofuels in EU and to me it seemed that the potential there was drastically lower (few percentage points of EU consumption) than what they were calling for in WWF report. I guess consultants deliver what the customer wants.
19/05/2014 at 2:24 PM
Esa Vakkilainen
I’d like to see facts not opinions. When one criticizes reports then facts are needed. Any technology choise includes bad and good things. If we want only good things then we can only remain static and bear the consequences. Combatting climate change means “change”.
Most of the forest destruction is caused by agriculture and building. I fail to see calls to stop growing rice, wheat and maize. I fail to see calls to stop making babies.
Look e.g. Veracel and its plantations. Most of the plantations were done on degraded land that could not anymore be used to grow cattle. Read also the various sites listing the “environmental crimes” committed like single tree type growth and not listening to those that wanted to retake that land for agriculture.
It is a fact that IPPC does not agree with many environmental groups who state that any change in land use is always negative. But is that really the way we want the world to be; No change – ever!
19/05/2014 at 2:47 PM
Jani-Petri Martikainen
For food production there is no option. Humans run on food. However, for (other) energy production options exists. I would say it is bizarre to set food, babies, and bioenergy next to each other and suggest that choice as to priorities wouldn’t be obvious. I am not actually aware of ecosystems which would have become richer as a result of humans diverting productivity to our needs. Typically it results in us optimizing things in such a way that whatever species we prefer are promoted and other driven away. If one actually uses degraded land that has no other useful uses, case can perhaps be made for bioenergy, but these are a minority of all operations. Change can be for the good, but then it should be justified as such. Having maize plantations for biofuels is an improvement why? Or diverting bulk of primary productivity to people is an improvement why? IPCC says there are large uncertainties in the climate impacts for bioenergy and therefore it is irresponsible to promote it as “a solution”. Ecological damage is real and in many places bioenergy schemes compete with land that could also be used for food production or left to nature.
19/05/2014 at 2:56 PM
Esa Vakkilainen
Have you looked at Veracell plantations as I asked. Please comment whether that was good or bad and why?
So you say that burning Indonesian forests and draining swamps for oil palm is good because it is food. What about coffee? Can we do whatever we please for coffee? What about bamboo? Can we do whatever we please for bamboo plantations? (You can go to local market and buy bamboo shoots for food!) To say that anything done for food production is good is as absurd as saying that everything done for energy production is good.
19/05/2014 at 3:18 PM
Jani-Petri Martikainen
No I haven’t and you didn’t provide a link as to that affect. I can well imagine that planting eucalyptus in Brazil can be a better option that doing the same with Finnish forestry practices in the north. However, I think it is important to look at the bigger picture. Are for example finish forests ecologically more valuable today than they were 200 years ago? I don’t think so. Sometimes screwing nature might be necessary and too hard to avoid politically, but one should not pretend that trade-offs do not exist. From a climate perspective using wood as a construction material might be a good idea (as long as ecological damage remains limited), but bioenergy is often a far more dubious proposition.
I also didn’t say anywhere that draining swamps for food palm oil is good, but it is certainly better than doing the same for biofuel palm oil. (Let next strawman please step forward.) We should be aiming at minimizing our impacts and it is far more easy (and ethically defensible) to avoid things like bioenergy for which options exists than cutting on food. Out of curiosity, what vegetable oil should people in south east Asia use? Which one has the lowest impact?
15/04/2015 at 6:53 PM
Extinction level mitigation scenarios | PassiiviIdentiteetti
[…] into the future. Earlier I wrote about my adventures among the IPCC mitigation scenarios (see also this). I focused on the way modellers dealt with nuclear power, but I was also tempted to highlight the […]