The UK Government’s new Biomass Strategy outlines the role that bio-resources can play in reaching net-zero while improving energy security. They are already supplying over 11% of UK electricity as well as heat energy and some transport fuels and the report says the prospects look good. For example, biomethane will ‘continue to play an important role in optimising the path to net zero and increasing energy security; it can support decarbonising a number of sectors such as heat, transport and power, and the anaerobic digestion (AD) process is recognised as a recycling activity, creating a more circular economy.’
However, expansion will involve some challenges, not least in terms of regulatory needs, with consistency in sustainability criteria across the bioeconomy being seen as crucial. In a forward, Energy and Net zero Minister Graham Stuart said that ‘one of the most significant challenges is securing a sustainable supply of biomass, both from within the UK and from imports. We are committed to maintaining a strict approach to biomass sustainability and are planning to consult on a sustainability framework to support this approach. Another challenge is the scaling up of domestic biomass supply, without compromising food security. That’s why the government has awarded £36m to projects across two phases of the Biomass Feedstocks Innovation Programme, funding innovative ideas that address barriers to domestic production.’
A perhaps even more substantial challenge will be faced if, as planned, biomass use is significantly ramped up in order to boost carbon removal via the use of Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The biomass strategy report reiterates the existing Government ambition to deliver 5Mt of carbon removals annually by 2030, potentially increasing to 23Mt by 2035 and 81Mt by 2050, with BECCS being seen as a major green-house gas removal (GGR) option. The new report says that BECCS ‘will be a major route for delivering engineered GGRs, as it combines the use of biomass to provide low carbon energy and products with carbon capture and storage.’ Indeed, since it says ‘negative emissions are key for delivering net zero, we expect biomass use in BECCS to increase in the future as these new technologies deploy over time. Almost all biomass uses could deploy some level of BECCS if optimally sited or used at an appropriate scale.’
That sounds pretty dramatic, especially since, as the report admits, ‘BECCS is not currently operating at scale in the UK’. But it says ‘the technology is operating elsewhere globally in demonstration plants and at commercial scale’. And it looks at the UK options for deployment of BECCS in a parallel report, which says that ‘well regulated’ BECCS can achieve its objective ‘to deliver negative emissions and ensure positive outcomes for people, the environment, and the climate’.
Well that’s debatable. Certainly progress has been slow. As Edie reported ‘In the UK Drax is one of the biggest supporters of BECCS, but has recently paused its £2bn investment scheme in a BECC scheme at its power plant in North Yorkshire, stating that it needs a “firm” offer of support from the Government before proceeding.’ However, with this report, that now looks like that might be forthcoming, although Edie notes that ‘groups like Ember & Cut Carbon Not Forests have pointed to research suggesting that BECCS cannot capture the emissions associated with the international wood pellet supply chain. Other opponents of BECCS on these grounds include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth & the Wildlife Trusts’.
Well yes, and most of them would also no doubt object to BECCS generally, on wider ecological grounds. Can and should we really try to offset fossil emissions by burning biomass and then storing CO2 somewhere underground? Even if we accept the idea in principle, there will be limits. In terms of the resource, there will be national land use limits and constraints on imported biomass, which, in the report’s ‘restricted’ scenario, cuts biomass energy availability by around half of that in its ‘ambitious’ scenario. In terms of technology, the biomass strategy includes a note of caution about the choice of Greenhouse Gas removal technology : ‘a diverse mix of GGR technologies will be required to meet our targets, reduce reliance on any single technology, and deliver a resilient negative emissions market that can support decarbonisation at the lowest cost while maximising the benefits to the UK economy.’ Given that we still don’t know what’s going to happen in relation to the wider energy market, is it wise to rely of an approach in which ,‘biomass use is scaled up considerably from today’s level, largely as a result of BECCS development, particularly hydrogen BECCS’?
Clearly, though, while the details are yet to be confirmed, the government thinks that the delivery of negative emissions is ‘essential for net zero and should be prioritised’, with BECCS to the fore. However, it also thinks biomass could have ‘a complementary role to play in producing biomethane and providing other low carbon fuels for those transport modes and rural off-gas grid properties with limited alternatives’. In addition, it says that ‘sustainable biomass will be increasingly important for manufacturing materials and chemicals, drawing on infrastructure such as bio-refineries’, with carbon capture and utilisation and storage (CCUS) integrated with the production process.
Overall, while some unabated biomass use will continue, since burning it produces carbon dioxide, that will be phased out. For example, it says ‘biomass electricity and CHP without carbon capture is recognised as an important contributor to the electricity system, but we do not anticipate government support for deployment of any new, large scale biomass plants without CCS’. So in the medium term, the government wants to ‘transition away from unabated uses of biomass’ where possible to uses such BECCS, which it sees as ‘critical to meeting net zero’. Although it says that biomass use in the long term ‘is difficult to predict with precision owing to wide-ranging uncertainties and evidence gaps’, it reports that ‘current modelling implies that uses that are combined with BECCS will contribute the most towards net zero. Biomass could also have some role in hard-to-decarbonise sectors that cannot deploy BECCS.’
Well, while some new uses for biomass may well be found and AD from bio-wastes is generally fine, we shall have to wait and see if BECCS and other types of biomass use can cut carbon on a wide scale without undermining the eco-system and the planets already threatened natural carbon sinks. As the report recognises, there are land use and biodiversity constraints to biomass growing, as well as to CCS and CCUS. But it thinks that can be dealt with by careful regulation and consistently applied sustainability rules. That sounds a bit optimistic given the state of UK environmental protection politics at present….
Comments
Post a Comment