tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/bioenergy-2608/articlesBioenergy – The Conversation2024-02-26T13:09:08Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2228412024-02-26T13:09:08Z2024-02-26T13:09:08ZDitching meat could release vital land to produce energy and remove carbon from the atmosphere – new study<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577319/original/file-20240222-18-kxgnpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4985%2C2844&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">danymages / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A radical reduction in the amount of meat, dairy and other products sourced from animals is possible in the coming decades, as people turn to an increasing variety of alternatives. This would unlock vast amounts of land currently used to rear animals and to grow crops that feed them. </p>
<p>We recently published <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.12.016">research</a> that considered what might happen if demand for animal products really did decrease and the newly released agricultural land was instead used to grow crops for renewable energy and carbon removal. In short, we found the potential benefits are huge.</p>
<p>Replacing animal-sourced products at a large scale may seem unthinkable at present. But new alternatives, such as plant-based mock meat or lab-grown meat, could closely match the real thing in taste and texture. With time, they may even beat them in <a href="https://web-assets.bcg.com/a0/28/4295860343c6a2a5b9f4e3436114/bcg-food-for-thought-the-protein-transformation-mar-2021.pdf">costs</a>. </p>
<p>For now, replacing animal-sourced products often means paying a premium and sacrificing taste. It is niche groups concerned about their health, the environment, or animal welfare who are willing to pay. But in the future, a similar experience at a lower cost may make these alternatives go mainstream. </p>
<h2>Unlocking the potential of an old climate friend and foe</h2>
<p>All this would free up huge amounts of land and water, since there would be less need for fields full of cows, chickens or pigs, or for crops grown to feed them. In our research, we estimated that fully replacing animal-sourced products would release more than 60% of the world’s agricultural land. Other researchers think <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4">as much as 75%</a> might be released.</p>
<p>While a full replacement is unlikely, <a href="https://www.kearney.com/industry/consumer-retail/article/-/insights/when-consumers-go-vegan-how-much-meat-will-be-left-on-the-table-for-agribusiness">studies</a> by <a href="https://esginvesting-cdn-1.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/13134738/CSRI-sustainable-food-final.pdf">various</a> <a href="https://www.ey.com/en_us/food-system-reimagined/protein-reimagined-challenges-and-opportunities-in-the-alternative-meat-industry">consultancies</a> suggest a more modest amount of meat might be phased out, perhaps 10%-30% by 2030 or 30%-70% by 2050. But even these would free up extensive agricultural areas.</p>
<p>What would we do with all that land? Simply leaving it alone might be the most sensible solution in many cases. This way, the land can gradually return to its natural state, storing carbon, regulating the climate and providing habitat for wild animals.</p>
<p>But we could also use that land to produce energy while removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, through a process known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (Beccs). </p>
<h2>Beccs has gone in and out of fashion</h2>
<p>Bioenergy crops, grown on newly freed agricultural land, would capture CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it as carbon (plants and animals are mostly made of water and carbon). The crops would be used as fuel to produce energy, which would turn the carbon back into CO₂. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Field with pylons in background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577591/original/file-20240223-22-jlw34u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fields for livestock and their food could instead grow bioenergy crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/green-grass-field-under-white-clouds-during-daytime-FEKIdohn3lA">Angela Lo / unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, instead of simply releasing it back to the atmosphere (as conventional bioenergy systems do today), the CO₂ would be captured and permanently stored deep underground. This way, the system would generate a net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere in many cases.</p>
<p>After Beccs was first proposed over two decades ago, many scientists embraced the idea and included it in plans to address climate change. In recent years, however, they have increasingly advised against it. </p>
<p>These scientists say that growing more crops would mean <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05340-z">converting more forests</a> and other natural ecosystems into agricultural land, while the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720303661">water used to irrigate the crops</a> would mean less left for people and ecosystems. And they point out that competition for agricultural land with food crops could threaten food security. </p>
<h2>Beccs could overcome its main challenges</h2>
<p>In our research, we have estimated how a move away from animal-sourced products could help overcome those challenges and unlock substantial potential for Beccs. By using agricultural land that is no longer needed, Beccs would avoid any need for agricultural expansion or water stress, and it would mean enough food could still be produced for everyone. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing energy crops could replace animal agriculture across much of eastern North America, Central and South America, sub-Sarahan Africa, Europe, southern Russia, India, south-east Asia, eastern China, and south-western and south-eastern Australia." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577330/original/file-20240222-18-vtfok5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The authors estimate that Beccs could replace animal agriculture across much of the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(23)00600-0.pdf">Rueda et al (2024) / One Earth</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If 50% of animal products were replaced by 2050, that could release enough land for Beccs to generate as much electricity as coal power does today (about a third of the global total), while removing almost the same amount of carbon as coal currently emits. Alternatively, Beccs could produce around half the projected global hydrogen demand in 2050, with a similar amount of “negative emissions”. </p>
<p>We estimated these negative emissions by adding up how much carbon Beccs would take from the atmosphere and store underground, minus the emissions from growing the bioenergy crops and converting them into energy. And we then deducted the carbon that would have been stored by regrowing plants if we left the released agricultural land alone and did nothing.</p>
<p>We also found that many countries, including the biggest polluters, could store all the captured CO₂ deep underground within their territories. </p>
<p>All this sounds highly attractive. However, we cannot take for granted that the potential of Beccs will actually be harnessed. </p>
<p>Its sustainability challenges might be tackled by people eating less meat, but various technical, social, and political challenges may still hinder its adoption. We also still don’t know exactly how plant-based and cultivated meats will be adopted and what their impact will be.</p>
<p>The good news is that the plant-based alternatives that are currently available already offer a more certain potential to release vast land and water in the short term. It is up to nations and individuals to make the most of it.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222841/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>‘Beccs’ faces lots of problems. A global switch away from meat could help address them.Oscar Rueda, Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden UniversityLaura Scherer, Assistant Professor, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1995292023-02-14T17:39:46Z2023-02-14T17:39:46ZGlobal inequality must fall to maintain a safe climate and achieve a decent standard of living for all – it’s a huge challenge<p>Energy consumption is essential for human wellbeing, but there is enormous inequality in energy use worldwide. The top 10% of global energy consumers use roughly 30 times more energy than the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8">bottom 10%</a>. </p>
<p>Our energy use also drives climate change. So to maintain a safe climate, we may have to use less energy in the future. Achieving this while ensuring that everyone enjoys a decent standard of living may require drastic reductions in global energy inequality. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00004-9/fulltext">recent study</a>, we modelled how much energy inequality would have to reduce to secure human wellbeing and climate safety. We found that the gap in energy consumption between the world’s lowest and highest energy consumers would have to reduce eight-fold by 2050. </p>
<p>But if current energy inequalities remain, more than 4 billion people in the <a href="https://eciu.net/insights/2015/north-south-divide-more-complex-than-it-looks">global south</a> and over 100 million in the global north will be unable to enjoy a decent standard of living by 2050. The global south refers to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America while the global north consists of countries typically thought of as the “developed” western world, with the inclusion of richer Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A map of the world split by geographic region." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509718/original/file-20230213-27-352u9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Global north (in blue) includes mainly countries in the northern hemisphere and some in the southern hemisphere. The global south (in red) includes many countries in the southern hemisphere and some in the northern hemisphere.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Kingj123/Gendered Lives</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Low energy, decent living</h2>
<p>Most climate scenarios that limit global warming to safe levels do not assume that energy consumption will reduce. They instead rely on the use of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0119-8">negative emissions technologies</a> such as biomass combustion with carbon capture or direct air capture. </p>
<p>But these technologies are <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2392">unproven</a> at scale and could conflict with wildlife and food production. <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e3b/meta">Research</a> suggests that large-scale bioenergy production could substantially increase rates of deforestation and food prices. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/raze-paradise-to-put-in-a-biofuel-crop-no-there-are-far-better-ways-to-tackle-climate-change-162800">Raze paradise to put in a biofuel crop? No, there are far better ways to tackle climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Climate scientists have responded by exploring other scenarios to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01057-y">reduce energy demand</a>. </p>
<p>The most prominent is the global <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0172-6">low energy demand</a> scenario. This scenario suggests a 40% reduction in energy use can be achieved by 2050 through several structural changes to energy systems. These include energy efficiency improvements coupled with reducing travel or using fewer carbon intensive materials like steel. In this case, living standards would be raised in the global south and maintained in the global north.</p>
<p>Based on theories of human needs, other research measures <a href="https://decentlivingenergy.org/dls.html">“decent living energy”</a>. This is the minimum energy required for the material conditions needed to provide <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0">decent living standards</a>.</p>
<p>The amount of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0497-9">energy needed</a> to provide these things is then calculated using data on the efficiency of available technologies. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512">Research</a> that we co-authored in 2020 estimates decent living energy to be about <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512">15 gigajoules</a> annually for each person. This is just <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32729-8">one-tenth</a> of the average American’s annual energy consumption.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man driving a car at rush hour." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509772/original/file-20230213-27-e47wib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Decent living energy is a measurement of the minimum amount of energy required for human wellbeing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/driving-car-rush-hour-237097129">ambrozinio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Good news - with a catch</h2>
<p>We combined these two lines of research with data on global energy inequality to explore the issues crucial to sustainable development. </p>
<p>Low energy demand research suggests that a sustainable level of global energy demand is well above the 15 gigajoules each person requires. This is good news but it does not guarantee everyone access to decent living energy. After all, enough food is produced to feed the world’s population, yet people still go hungry. </p>
<p>Average numbers for energy use do not apply to all people. If energy inequality remains and global energy demand follows the low energy demand scenario, then billions of people would remain below the energy threshold required for a decent standard of living.</p>
<p>But the decent living energy threshold is a hard constraint that no one should fall below. Given this constraint and the need for a safe climate, energy inequality must fall - and do so drastically.</p>
<h2>Unprecedented change</h2>
<p>The size of this challenge becomes clear when we consider the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z">close relationship</a> between energy and income inequality. For example, the top 1% of the world’s population has been responsible for 23% of global emissions since 1990. So to reduce global energy inequality by the amount we suggest is required will demand that income inequality falls to levels currently seen in more equal European countries such as <a href="https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p99p100_z/US;WO;NO/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/4.006/30/curve/false/country">Norway</a>, with its generous welfare system.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A graph comparing rates of income inequality between the world, USA and Norway." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509771/original/file-20230213-713-np5o2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Income inequality needs to fall to levels seen in equal European countries like Norway.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://wid.world/share/#0/countriestimeseries/sptinc_p90p100_z/WO;NO;US/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/20.967000000000002/80/curve/false/country">World Inequality Database</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The rate at which income inequality would need to reduce to maintain decent living standards in a safe climate would <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00004-9/fulltext#figures">exceed</a> rates seen in the so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion">“golden age of capitalism”</a>, after the second world war. During this period (1950–1975), the share of income captured by the top 1% of earners in the US fell from <a href="https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p99p100_z/US;WO/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/9.571/30/curve/false/country">17% to 10%</a>. But changes to income inequality that are caused by major economic shocks can be unpredictable and uncontrollable. </p>
<p>On average, the level of global income inequality seen during the past 150 years of capitalism has remained persistently high. Inequality has slightly reduced <a href="https://wir2022.wid.world/">between countries</a>, but inequality within them has grown. Income in fast-growing countries such as China is catching up with western Europe. But income inequality, particularly in wealthy countries, has <a href="https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p90p100_z/US;DE;GB/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/26.651999999999997/60/curve/false/country">widened</a>. In 2021, the top 10% of earners in the USA received 45.6% of national income, compared to 33.5% in 1970.</p>
<p>This leaves us sceptical that climate collapse can be prevented and social deprivation can be reduced without transforming the economic system. But we can’t rule it out.</p>
<p>Perhaps the economy will change in a way that allows the world’s rich to remain so but also use less energy. This would make room for low energy consumers to increase their consumption. The world’s energy supply may also be increased more sustainably in the future, allowing consumption at the bottom to rise despite persisting energy inequality. </p>
<p>Or perhaps the reductions in inequality that may be needed will be achieved through economic transformation towards a system that doesn’t need to keep growing unsustainably as a way of mitigating against inequality. </p>
<p>Whatever the answer, business as usual won’t do.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Millward-Hopkins received funding from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions, and the Living Well Within Limits project via the Leverhulme Trust. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yannick Oswald's contribution was supported by the Living Well Within Limits project via a Leverhulme Trust Research Leadership Award (RL2016–048).</span></em></p>Energy inequality will have to reduce substantially by 2050 to maintain a safe climate and decent living standards for all.Joel Millward-Hopkins, Postdoctoral Researcher in Sustainability, University of LeedsYannick Oswald, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1827602022-05-16T19:59:26Z2022-05-16T19:59:26ZHow NZ could become a world leader in decarbonisation using forestry and geothermal technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462620/original/file-20220512-21-bzoz4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5973%2C3970&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Energy is the double-edged sword at the root of the climate crisis. Cheap energy has improved lives and underpinned massive economic growth. But because most of it comes from burning hydrocarbon fuels, we’re now left with a legacy of high atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) and an emissions-intensive economy. </p>
<p>But what if we could flip the energy-emissions relationship on its head? We would need a technology that both generates electricity <em>and</em> removes CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere. </p>
<p>The good news is this technology already exists. What’s more, New Zealand is perfectly positioned to do this “decarbonisation” cheaper than anywhere else on the planet. </p>
<p>And the timing couldn’t be better, with the government’s first <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/publications/aotearoa-new-zealands-first-emissions-reduction-plan/">Emissions Reduction Plan</a> (released yesterday) calling for bold projects and innovative solutions.</p>
<p>We research how to burn forestry waste for electricity while simultaneously capturing the emissions and trapping them in geothermal fields. Since forests remove CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere as they grow, this process is emissions negative. </p>
<p>This also means a carbon “tax” can be turned into a revenue. With New Zealand’s CO<sub>2</sub> price at an all-time high of <a href="https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/114099/nzu-investors-are-now-driving-price-carbon-they-play-market">NZ$80 per tonne</a>, and overseas companies announcing <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/stripe-s-climate-fund-shows-shift-in-carbon-removal">billion-dollar funds</a> to purchase offsets, now is time for cross-industry collaboration to make New Zealand a world leader in decarbonisation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463156/original/file-20220516-65038-rta54a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wairakei geothermal power station with its existing pipelines, wells and steam turbines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage</h2>
<p>Artificial carbon sinks are engineered systems that permanently remove CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) achieves this by trapping the CO<sub>2</sub> from burned organic matter – trees, biowaste – deep underground. An added bonus is that the energy released during combustion can be used as a substitute for hydrocarbon-based energy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-nz-gets-serious-about-climate-change-can-electricity-replace-fossil-fuels-in-time-155123">As NZ gets serious about climate change, can electricity replace fossil fuels in time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/">has said</a> climate mitigation pathways must include significant amounts of BECCS to limit global warming to 1.5°C. However, the technology is still new, with <a href="https://biomarketinsights.com/swedish-beccs-project-included-in-e1-1bn-eu-grants/">only a few</a> <a href="https://bellona.org/news/ccs/2022-03-oslo-leading-by-example-worlds-first-co2-capture-and-storage-on-waste-incinerator-to-become-reality-in-2026">plants</a> around the world currently operating at scale. </p>
<p>Cost is a major barrier. New projects need expensive pipelines to move the CO<sub>2</sub>, and deep injection wells to store it underground. Because CO<sub>2</sub> is more buoyant than water, there are also concerns that any gas stored underground might leak out over time. </p>
<p>This is where geothermal fields can help. </p>
<h2>Geothermal systems for BECCS</h2>
<p>Geothermal is a reliable source of energy in New Zealand, supplying almost 20% of our electricity. We use deep wells to tap into underground reservoirs of hot water, which then passes through a network of pipes to a steam turbine that generates electricity. </p>
<p>Afterwards, the water is pumped back underground, which prevents the reservoir from “drying out”. New Zealand companies are world leaders at managing geothermal resources, and some are even <a href="https://contact.co.nz/-/media/contact/mediacentre/2021/contact-energy-submission-to-climate-change-commission-march-2021.ashx?la=en">experimenting with reinjecting</a> the small amounts of CO<sub>2</sub> that come up with the geothermal water. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463223/original/file-20220516-14-cm7an2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A geothermal BECCS system showing how wood and water can be converted into electricity and negative CO2 emissions. Except for (3), all the infrastructure already exists.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Herein lies the opportunity. Geothermal systems already have the infrastructure needed for a successful BECCS project: pipelines, injection wells and turbines. We just need to figure out how to marry these two renewable technologies.</p>
<p>We propose that by burning forestry waste we can supercharge the geothermal water to higher temperatures, producing even more renewable power. Then, CO<sub>2</sub> from the biomass combustion can be dissolved into the geothermal water – like a soda stream – before it is injected back underground. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-how-new-zealand-could-reduce-emissions-faster-and-rely-less-on-offsets-to-reach-net-zero-180658">IPCC report: how New Zealand could reduce emissions faster and rely less on offsets to reach net zero</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Projects in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610218301462">Iceland</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217321082">France</a> have shown that dissolving CO<sub>2</sub> in geothermal water is better than injecting it directly. It cuts the cost of new infrastructure (liquid CO<sub>2</sub> compression is expensive) and means reinjection wells built for normal geothermal operation can continue to be used. </p>
<p>Unlike pure CO<sub>2</sub> that is less dense than water and tends to rise, the reinjected carbonated water is about 2% heavier and will sink. As long as equal amounts of geothermal water are produced and reinjected, the CO<sub>2</sub> will stay safely dissolved, where it can slowly turn into rocks and be permanently trapped.</p>
<h2>How do the numbers stack up?</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4091223">initial modelling</a> shows that geothermal BECCS could have negative emissions in the order of -200 to -700 grams of CO<sub>2</sub> per kilowatt hour of electricity (gCO2/kWh). Compared to about 400 gCO₂/kWh of positive emissions from a natural gas power plant, this is a dramatic reversal of the energy-emissions trade-off. </p>
<p>Applied to a geothermal system the size of Wairakei (160 megawatts), a single geothermal BECCS system could lock away one million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> each year. This is equivalent to taking two hundred thousand cars off the road and, at current prices, would net tens of millions of dollars in carbon offsets. </p>
<p>These could be traded via the Emissions Trading Scheme to buy valuable time for industries that have been slow to decarbonise, such as agriculture or cement, to get down to net zero.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462615/original/file-20220512-13-9ewls2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fuel for the future: forestry waste is an untapped and valuable resource.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even better, most of New Zealand’s geothermal fields are located near large forests with expansive forestry operations. Estimates put our forestry waste generation at around <a href="https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/41824/direct">three million cubic meters</a> each year. Rather than leaving it to rot, this could be turned into a valuable resource for geothermal BECCS and a decarbonising New Zealand. </p>
<h2>We can start doing this now</h2>
<p>According to the IPCC it is “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60984663#:%7E:text=Science-,Climate%20change%3A%20IPCC%20scientists%20say%20it%27s%20%27now,or%20never%27%20to%20limit%20warming&text=UN%20scientists%20have%20unveiled%20a,carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)%20emissions">now or never</a>” for countries to dramatically decarbonise their economies. Geothermal BECCS is a promising tool but, as with all new technologies, there is a <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-oconnor/what-is-the-learning-curve/">learning curve</a>. </p>
<p>Teething problems have to be worked through as costs are brought down and production is scaled. New Zealand has a chance to get on that curve now. And the whole world will benefit if we do.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-this-decade-is-critical-for-adapting-to-inevitable-climate-change-impacts-and-rising-costs-177724">IPCC report: this decade is critical for adapting to inevitable climate change impacts and rising costs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The success of geothermal BECCS will turn on new partnerships between New Zealand’s geothermal generators, manufacturers and the forestry sector. Forestry owners can help transition wood waste into a valuable resource and drive down gate costs. </p>
<p>Most importantly, geothermal operators can leverage their vast injection well inventories and detailed understanding of the underground to permanently lock up atmospheric carbon. </p>
<p>With the government <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/128581866/government-sets-stricter-carbon-budgets-after-stuff-unearths-error">tightening emissions budgets</a> and investing billions in a <a href="https://budget.govt.nz/budget/2022/bps/budget-allowances-cerf.htm">Climate Emergency Response Fund</a>, now is the perfect time to make geothermal BECCS work for Aotearoa New Zealand.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182760/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Dempsey receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (Empowering Geothermal).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nothing to disclose. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Peer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our research shows NZ’s potential to burn forestry waste and capture the emissions in geothermal wells. But we’ll need new partnerships between power generators, manufacturers and the forestry sector.David Dempsey, Senior lecturer, University of CanterburyKaran Titus, PhD Student, University of CanterburyRebecca Peer, Lecturer, University of CanterburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1722352021-11-22T04:56:14Z2021-11-22T04:56:14ZAt long last, Australia has a bioenergy roadmap – and its findings are startling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433050/original/file-20211122-21-1xdia97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C18%2C5997%2C3989&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Using organic waste to make energy – think sewage, animal and crop residues, and leftover wood – has finally been put under the spotlight with last week’s release of Australia’s first <a href="https://arena.gov.au/assets/2021/11/australia-bioenergy-roadmap-report.pdf">Bioenergy Roadmap</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/bioenergy/">Bioenergy</a> is a versatile form of renewable energy which produces heat, electricity, transport fuels, chemicals, and by-products like organic fertiliser. It’s a promising way to bring Australia’s emissions down, while re-purposing waste that would otherwise go to landfill.</p>
<p>The roadmap predicts that by the 2030s, the sector could boost Australia’s annual GDP by around A$10 billion, create 26,200 jobs, reduce emissions by about 9%, divert an extra 6% of waste from landfill, and enhance fuel security.</p>
<p>Still, bioenergy is complex and poorly understood. We were part of the roadmap review reference group, and believe it has a bright future, as the key to successful bioenergy projects is to match the right fuel source with the right technology. </p>
<h2>Bioenergy state of play in Australia</h2>
<p>Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor commissioned the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to <a href="https://arena.gov.au/news/arena-to-develop-roadmap-to-boost-bioenergy-opportunities-in-australia/">develop the roadmap</a> and, on Friday, announced $33.5 million in funding to implement it. This is on top of <a href="https://arena.gov.au/projects/?project-value-start=0&project-value-end=200000000&technology=bioenergy">more than $118 million</a> already provided by the federal government to help fund bioenergy projects.</p>
<p>This funding has been a long time coming, as the sector has <a href="https://theconversation.com/bioenergy-australias-forgotten-renewable-energy-source-so-far-28277">struggled to get the same attention</a> from policymakers as other forms of renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydro. </p>
<p>In 2020, bioenergy represented only <a href="https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2021.pdf">5% of Australia’s</a> renewable electricity <em>generation</em>, putting Australia at the <a href="https://cdn.revolutionise.com.au/news/vabsvwo5pa8jnsgs.pdf">bottom quartile of OECD countries</a> when it comes to bioenergy as a share of total energy supply. And yet, bioenergy is responsible for nearly <a href="https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australian%20Energy%20Statistics%202021%20Energy%20Update%20Report.pdf">50% of Australia’s current renewable energy</a> <em>consumption</em>. </p>
<p>But the sector has started gaining traction. <a href="https://cdn.revolutionise.com.au/news/vabsvwo5pa8jnsgs.pdf">In 2018, Australia had 222</a> operating bioenergy plants and an additional 55 projects under construction or at the feasibility stage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bioenergy-australias-forgotten-renewable-energy-source-so-far-28277">Bioenergy: Australia's forgotten renewable energy source (so far)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://arena.gov.au/projects/logan-city-biosolids-gasification-project">One example</a> is a new project in Logan City Council in Queensland. Each year, Logan City produces 34,000 tonnes of biosolids (treated sewage sludge). </p>
<p>A technology called gasification is significantly reducing the need to dispose of these biosolids, and will save about $500,000 in operating costs. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353208070_An_investigation_into_the_mobility_of_heavy_metals_in_soils_amended_with_biosolids-derived_biochar">Research is also underway</a> to see how the by-product of this treatment can be sold as a soil conditioner for agriculture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432973/original/file-20211121-21-1v5o50t.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gasifier developer Pyrocal is a project partner of the Logan City Biosolids Project.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pyrocal</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>So why is it good for the environment?</h2>
<p>Using biomass as an energy source instead of fossil fuels can reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. Bioenergy can be emissions-neutral, especially when wastes are used as a fuel source. This is because:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>it captures methane when organic waste breaks down. This methane would otherwise have been released to the atmosphere</p></li>
<li><p>it’s used in place of fossil fuels, displacing those CO₂ emissions.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For example, <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-just-hot-air-turning-sydneys-wastewater-into-green-gas-could-be-a-climate-boon-150672">the recent biomethane trial</a> at Sydney Waters Malabar plant captures methane from sewage sludge, to replace fossil natural gas in the gas network.</p>
<p>What’s more, a strong bioenergy industry can help support Australian farmers looking for the benefits of running a carbon-neutral operation, and boost economic growth in regional areas.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-just-hot-air-turning-sydneys-wastewater-into-green-gas-could-be-a-climate-boon-150672">Not just hot air: turning Sydney's wastewater into green gas could be a climate boon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Bioenergy can also have <a href="https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BIOENERGY-AND-SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT-final-20170215.pdf">negative impacts</a> if not developed properly. As we’ve seen in international projects, the biggest concern is inappropriate changes to land use to supply biomass. This could, for example, lead to greater deforestation in order to supply wood.</p>
<p>However, bioenergy technologies are neither good nor bad per se. Avoiding unintended risks depends on appropriate governance. A good example is the <a href="https://www.iscc-system.org/">International Sustainability and Carbon Certification Scheme</a>, which aims to ensure bioenergy companies are transparent and uphold ethical values.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433055/original/file-20211122-19-1vnrzxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Avoiding risks in bioenergy depends on good governance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Critics have recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/19/a-farce-experts-dismiss-government-claims-a-controversial-and-unproven-technology-will-cut-emissions-by-15">voiced their concern</a> about the federal government’s claim that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, also known as BECCS, will cut emissions by 15% by 2050. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.iea.org/articles/unlocking-the-potential-of-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-utilisation-or-storage-beccus">The International Energy Agency</a> has identified BECCS as a technology with the potential to be truly carbon negative, which means it can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while producing energy for consumption.</p>
<p>But the Bioenergy Roadmap did not focus on BECCS. Instead, it gave an expansive overview of all bioenergy technologies in the short to medium term, outlining where bioenergy can complement other low emissions technologies, and create opportunities for industry and governments to drive commercial growth.</p>
<h2>A snapshot of the roadmap</h2>
<p>The roadmap was developed following extensive <a href="https://arena.gov.au/knowledge-innovation/bioenergy-roadmap/#make-a-submission">consultation</a> with industry, researchers and the public. It identified major opportunities for Australia in four key areas. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433052/original/file-20211122-13-1e1fz24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s notoriously hard to reduce emissions from aviation. Biofuel could offer a solution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ashim d Silva/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, in hard-to-abate sectors. This includes generating renewable heat for the manufacturing industry, fuel for sustainable aviation, and renewable gas (biomethane) to displace fossil natural gas in the grid. For example, sustainable aviation biofuels are the only low-emissions alternatives to traditional, high-emitting jet fuel, that are available in the short to medium term. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jet-fuel-from-sugarcane-its-not-a-flight-of-fancy-84493">Jet fuel from sugarcane? It's not a flight of fancy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, to complement other markets. In road transport, for example, biofuels can offer other low-emissions alternatives such as hydrogen and electric vehicles, and, in particular, can replace diesel in long-haul transport. In the grid, bioelectricity generation can support greater penetration of renewable energy such as solar and wind. </p>
<p>Third, in developing our understanding of our vast bioenergy resources across agriculture, forestry, and organic waste. We need further research and innovation to turn Australia’s theoretical bioenergy resource potential – which is massive in every state – into a reality.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432974/original/file-20211121-13-1gmnguh.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Breakdown of Australia’s theoretical resource potential in petajoules per annum (PJ)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bioenergy Roadmap/ARENA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And finally, increasing collaboration between industry, state and federal governments. For example, developing industry guidelines and standards can help produce reliable results. This in turn helps commercialise mature technologies that are new to Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-biomethane-can-help-turn-gas-into-a-renewable-energy-source-103912">How biomethane can help turn gas into a renewable energy source</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernadette McCabe receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Rural R & D for Profit program, the Fight Food Waste CRC and the Queensland Government. She is Australia's National Team Leader for the International Energy Agency Task 37 Energy from Biogas since 2014. Bernadette was a Director on the Board of Bioenergy Australia (2017-2019) and is a current member of this organisation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Since 2016, Ian O'Hara has been appointed by the Queensland Government as the Queensland Biofutures Industry Envoy to assist in supporting the growth of the Biofutures industry sector in Queensland. His research receives funding from several sources including the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Meat and Livestock Australia, Sugar Research Australia and partners. He has and continues to receive research funding from ARENA for bioenergy related projects. He was previously a director of Bioenergy Australia (2017-2019), and is on the International Advisory Council of the Global Bioeconomy Summit and a Senior Editor of EFB Bioeconomy Journal.</span></em></p>The roadmap predicts that by the 2030s, the sector could boost Australia’s annual GDP by around A$10 billion, create 26,200 jobs and reduce emissions by about 9%.Bernadette McCabe, Professor and Principal Scientist, University of Southern QueenslandIan O'Hara, Professor, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1691752021-10-13T11:57:00Z2021-10-13T11:57:00ZA global carbon removal industry is coming – experts explain the problems it must overcome<p>Each of its carbon-sucking units is the size of a shipping container, yet the world’s largest direct air capture machine – <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8a942e30-0428-4567-8a6c-dc704ba3460a">the Orca plant in Iceland</a> – only captures and stores about 4,000 tonnes of CO₂ a year. That’s about <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/carbon-capture-storage-expensive-climate-change-2021-9?r=US&IR=T">three seconds’ worth</a> of global emissions.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/a-global-carbon-removal-industry-is-coming-experts-explain-the-problems-it-must-overcome-169175&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<p>Still, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf">reports</a> that technologies that remove CO₂ from the air like this will be needed alongside deep cuts in emissions to reduce global warming. In fact, climate scientists modelling <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">pathways for stabilising warming at 1.5°C</a> (the goal of the Paris agreement) assume that a carbon removal industry based around one method may need to be around 40% the size of the current <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png">fossil fuel industry</a>.</p>
<p>There are several ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. One is called bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or Beccs. Here, vast acres of fast-growing plants are grown and then harvested and burned to generate electricity or make biofuel for vehicles. Beccs can even use waste from farms or timber plantations. The carbon normally released during the burning or fermentation stage is instead captured and pumped underground in old oil and gas wells or deep rock formations called saline aquifers. These storage sites can be beneath land (which is common in the US) or the seabed. There are over 20 years of experience in storing CO₂ under the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217317174">Norwegian North Sea</a>, for instance.</p>
<p>Attempts to calculate how much carbon removal is possible often address how much it will cost, or how much carbon can realistically be extracted from the atmosphere. This can be done by assessing the land area available to produce biomass crops, or the size of underground reservoirs for storing the gas.</p>
<p>But what scientists often overlook when predicting the future capacity of these technologies is how society will need to change to accommodate them. For instance, what will a sudden change to how land is used mean for communities and livelihoods? How can increasing demand for land to grow food or restore habitat be reconciled with the need to produce lots of biomass for Beccs? And who should even be able to make these decisions for them to be considered fair and ethical?</p>
<p>If world leaders at the UN climate summit in Glasgow fail to address these questions, they run the risk of making overly optimistic judgments about how much CO₂ it’s possible to remove. If it transpires that the international community cannot rely on these technologies as much as climate modelling suggests we need to, then society will need to decarbonise even faster to prevent catastrophic climate change.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368">Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Social and political issues matter</h2>
<p>There is only one demonstration <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217321215">Beccs project</a> operating in the world today, in Illinois, USA. Alongside other researchers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102073">we talked to experts</a> working in sectors like forestry and energy to understand what’s needed to bring this new industry to life. </p>
<p>These experts are aware of large-scale bioenergy projects, such as those cultivating sugar cane ethanol in Brazil, which have deprived local people of land and destroyed native habitat. Many of them worry that a global Beccs industry that developed from these practices would exacerbate inequality by, for example, reducing access to food and ultimately fail to remove carbon from the atmosphere by actually increasing deforestation. The UK’s largest power plant for generating energy from biomass, Drax, mostly imports wood chips from North America, while UK farmers grow grass for use in a handful of smaller-scale power plants. But as the UK develops a Beccs industry, rising demand for bioenergy could mean the cheapest and most exploitative sources win out.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A road bisects a sugar cane crop with a refinery in the distance." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425923/original/file-20211012-17-1dji8cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sugar cane grown for ethanol production in Brazil.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sugar-cane-industry-627434789">Mailsonpignata/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The experts were also unsure about whether there is even enough free land to accommodate expanding bioenergy crops. Many voiced concerns about the consequences for the rights of people living in and working on land that is earmarked for Beccs.</p>
<p>Some experts doubted there was sufficient political support – capable of transcending short-term electoral cycles – to pull off the necessary innovation to build carbon capture and storage capacity in the UK. This technology is needed not just for Beccs, but to decarbonise heavy industry, including steel manufacturing and chemicals.</p>
<p>We found that these social and political obstacles were rarely represented, if at all, in models of the global potential for carbon removal. Of course, some of these things can’t be modelled. Models aren’t usually designed to incorporate the nuances of decision-making at national, regional and local levels, or the importance of cultural and spiritual values that people endow landscapes. </p>
<p>World leaders need a more complete picture of the complexity we know exists in the real world before embarking on the construction of a global carbon removal industry. Making this happen is as much a question of who pays to remove the carbon and who has a say in how the land is managed, as details about technology. If the political and social limitations are not better understood, then it is hard to imagine how these carbon removal pipe dreams will get off the ground.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="COP26: the world's biggest climate talks" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424739/original/file-20211005-17-cgrf2z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.</strong>
<br><em>Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. <a href="https://page.theconversation.com/cop26-glasgow-2021-climate-change-summit/"><strong>More.</strong></a></em> </p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johanna Forster receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Naomi Vaughan receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). </span></em></p>Removing carbon from the atmosphere is as much a social problem as a technical one.Johanna Forster, Lecturer in Environment and International Development, University of East AngliaNaomi Vaughan, Senior Lecturer in Climate Change, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1621322021-06-09T14:53:22Z2021-06-09T14:53:22ZFive ways ‘green’ carbon policies damage forests – and how we can fix the problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405440/original/file-20210609-14721-1dh5r3v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C2%2C1976%2C1113&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Forests are not just carbon 'warehouses' they are extraordinary ecosystems supporting a diverse range of birds, animals and plants.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jessica Vian</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Off-setting our carbon footprint is a way for many of us to feel we are doing our bit to save the planet from the ongoing climate emergency. Tree planting schemes have become a popular way to do this. At corporate level, big companies do the same kind of thing to offset the environmental damage they cause, often by signing up to green policies that are committed to reforesting the planet. But in many cases this is perceived as “<a href="https://theconversation.com/greenwashing-corporate-tree-planting-generates-goodwill-but-may-sometimes-harm-the-planet-103457">greenwashing</a>” – where corporations are simply adopting a veneer of environmental responsibility.</p>
<p>Since climate change science <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-clarify-starting-point-for-human-caused-climate-change">first emerged in the 19th century</a>, no other ecosystem has received more political attention globally than forests, thanks to their capacity to absorb CO² from the atmosphere.</p>
<p>The trouble is, the focus of this attention is on carbon, not forests. Carbon has overshadowed forests in climate policies, leading to practices that appear to be “green” while harming forest ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. </p>
<p>It might be difficult to see how tree-planting and conservation could cause any harm. But when driven by the wrong motivations they can deplete ecosystems, threaten biodiversity, displace communities and delay direct action to cut carbon emissions.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EXkbdELr4EQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Here are five ways carbon-centric policies have actually helped to damage the world’s forests.</p>
<h2>1. The carbon market</h2>
<p>Carbon trading was created as a last resort to deal with unsuccessful attempts to reduce emissions. It allows polluters to buy carbon “credits” from avoided, reduced or offset emissions elsewhere to compensate for their overshoot. But in reality, this practice has become standard procedure for many businesses to avoid efforts to curb their carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The carbon credit supply sector has been compromised by <a href="https://www.eco-business.com/news/carbon-credits-how-to-tell-if-theyre-the-real-deal-or-not/">vague accounting methods</a>, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/dcdefef6-f350-11db-9845-000b5df10621">irregular credit certification</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/double-counting-of-emissions-cuts-may-undermine-paris-climate-deal-125019">double counting schemes</a>. Which means the strategy has not only failed to reduce concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere, but actually made legal pollution a reality, undermining the need for change. </p>
<h2>2. Conservation that excludes</h2>
<p>Preserving <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/what-is-a-carbon-sink/">carbon sinks</a> – anything that absorbs more CO₂ than it emits – by preventing deforestation is crucial. However, the <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/how-conservation-is-shaped-by-settler-colonialism/">model of conservation developed in the colonial era</a>, influenced by the idea of a “pristine” nature, has historically marginalised indigenous and local communities.</p>
<p>Since the carbon market was established, carbon has been added to the list of commodities that promote the displacement of traditional communities and limit their access to forests. For instance, the <a href="https://www.un-redd.org/">UN programme</a> for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) has, in some cases, <a href="https://www.forestpeoples.org/en/topics/redd-and-related-initiatives/news/2012/10/return-fortress-conservation-redd-and-green-land-gr">failed to protect indigenous communities</a> from new forms of land-grabbing by states and businesses. </p>
<h2>3. Tree-planting schemes</h2>
<p>Afforestation – which creates new forests – and reforestation (AR) schemes have gained momentum for being a nature-based way of removing CO² from the atmosphere. However, <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-tree-planting-actually-damages-ecosystems-120786">not all ecosystems benefit</a> from tree-planting. What’s more, many AR schemes have been combined with commercial interests, even though natural forests store more carbon than plantations whose trees are <a href="https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/01/03/biodiverse-forests-carbon-capture/">harvested regularly</a>. Plus natural forests tend to yield more social and environmental benefits.</p>
<p>According to the UN’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en">Food and Agricultural Organisation</a>, 45% of planted forests globally are composed mainly of one or two tree species for commercial purposes. The same trend is observed in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-scandal-of-calling-plantations-forest-restoration-is-putting-climate-targets-at-risk-114858">Bonn Challenge pledges</a>, a global climate change mission to restore 350 million hectares of forest by 2030.</p>
<p>The lack of distinction between native forests and commercial plantations may conceal the decline of the former and advance of the latter, which threatens biodiversity. Besides, large-scale plantations can disrupt the soil’s fertility and drain rivers and lakes because of their enormous <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5756/1944">water consumption</a>. </p>
<h2>4. Biofuel’s carbon neutrality</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.fern.org/publications-insight/what-is-bioenergy-2106/">Bioenergy</a> is produced from organic materials known as biomass and has been promoted as a carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels. However, its neutrality is strongly contested. In fact, under certain circumstances biofuels can <a href="https://theconversation.com/biofuels-turn-out-to-be-a-climate-mistake-heres-why-64463">increase rather than reduce CO₂ emissions</a>.</p>
<p>Expansion of bioenergy crops (such as soy and palm oil) are a growing driver of deforestation worldwide. Likewise, the increasing use of wood as fuel has contributed to loss of forests and driven demand for plantations. The FAO points out that wood pellet production for <a href="https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/">power stations</a> has rocketed in recent years, mainly due to the demand from <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/I7034EN/i7034en.pdf">bioenergy targets set by the European Commission</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A oil palm plantation showing endless identical rows of palms." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C11%2C3962%2C2217&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405361/original/file-20210609-14808-13u6gsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A palm oil plantation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/oil-palm-tree-plantation-1099665452">Apiguide/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage</h2>
<p>Most scenarios recently produced by the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/about/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> rely almost entirely on the use of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLsH84dlV1Y">bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)</a>. Yet estimates of the carbon benefits of BECCS vary widely, there are <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/115007/meta">concerns about its safety</a>, and its feasibility on a large scale is still unproven, expensive and energy intensive. BECCS also requires a massive production of biomass (either trees or crops), which increases pressure on land and water demand and poses risks for food production, biodiversity and land ownership rights.</p>
<h2>What we need to do now</h2>
<p>While reducing CO₂ concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere is imperative, looking at the world’s current environmental emergency from a narrow, carbon-centric view cannot promote the transition to a truly sustainable and just future. Forests are not carbon warehouses. Besides a capacity for carbon storage, they provide essential ecosystem services to all life on Earth. Those include the regulation of the water cycle, soil formation and protection against erosion, air purification and temperature regulation, pollination, and pest control. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/greening-the-planet-we-cant-just-plant-trees-we-have-to-restore-forests-156910">Greening the planet: we can't just plant trees, we have to restore forests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Around 80% of the world’s terrestrial fauna and flora inhabit and produce our forests. These woodlands are also rich in human culture, and home to most of the world’s remaining indigenous tribes. Instead of promoting business-friendly offsetting juggles, states must recognise the tenure rights of indigenous and local communities to protect and restore forests while focusing on actively restructuring the economic system.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A natural forest, with sunlight streaming through the leaves." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405363/original/file-20210609-14594-1axmta3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Natural forests are better for the environment than plantations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/forest-sunbeams-morning-panorama-1919997713">Kostya Zatulin/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We need to see beyond the carbon smokescreen to understand that the planetary emergency we face is about more than climate change. It is about <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.short">mass extinction</a>, <a href="http://www.livrosabertos.sibi.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/book/352">agrochemical</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ocean-is-swimming-in-plastic-and-its-getting-worse-we-need-connected-global-policies-now-146380">plastic</a> pollution, <a href="https://gcils.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GCILS-WP-2-Chadwick.pdf">human rights</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-inequality-is-25-higher-than-it-would-have-been-in-a-climate-stable-world-115937">global inequality</a> and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964">obsession-with-growth trap</a>. To protect the world’s forests and ourselves, we need <a href="https://monthlyreview.org/2019/11/01/on-fire-this-time/">system change</a>, not a mere carbon fix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162132/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Enara Vian receives funding from the University of Strathclyde for her doctoral studies. She is also a member of the UCU trade union.</span></em></p>Carbon has overshadowed forests in climate policies, leading to practices that appear green but actually harm forests.Jessica Enara Vian, PhD Candidate in Work, Employment And Organisation, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567282021-04-01T11:22:56Z2021-04-01T11:22:56ZMove over, corn and soybeans: The next biofuel source could be giant sea kelp<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390658/original/file-20210319-13-12skp4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C24%2C5455%2C3612&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Giant kelp (_Macrocystis pyrifera_) is a potential energy crop.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/NgRKXR">Linking Tourism & Conservation/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Giant kelp, the world’s <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/giant-kelp.htm">largest species of marine algae</a>, is an attractive source for making biofuels. In a recent study, we tested a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110747">novel strategy for growing kelp</a> that could make it possible to produce it continuously on a large scale. The key idea is moving kelp stocks daily up to near-surface waters for sunlight and down to darker waters for nutrients. </p>
<p>Unlike today’s energy crops, such as corn and soybeans, growing kelp doesn’t require land, fresh water or fertilizer. And giant kelp can grow over a foot per day under ideal conditions.</p>
<p>Kelp typically grows in shallow zones near the coast, and thrives only where sunlight and nutrients are both plentiful. There’s the challenge: The ocean’s sunlit layer extends down <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html">about 665 feet (200 meters) or less below the surface</a>, but this zone often doesn’t contain enough nutrients to support kelp growth. </p>
<p>Much of the open ocean surface is nutrient-poor year-round. In coastal areas, <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/03coastal4.html#:%7E:text=Seasonal%20upwelling%20and%20downwelling%20also,in%20upwelling%20along%20the%20coast.">upwelling</a> – deep water rising to the surface, bringing nutrients – is seasonal. Deeper waters, on the other hand, are rich in nutrients but lack sunlight. </p>
<p>Our study demonstrated that kelp withstood daily changes in water pressure as we cycled it between depths of 30 feet (9 meters) and 262 feet (80 meters). Our cultivated kelp acquired enough nutrients from the deeper, dark environment to generate four times more growth than kelp that we transplanted to a native coastal kelp habitat.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IBsxRQt2tPE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“Farming” kelp in the ocean could produce abundant material for making sustainable biofuel.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Making biofuels from terrestrial crops such as corn and soybeans competes with other uses for farmland and fresh water. Using <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/03/f61/Chapter%205.pdf">plants from the ocean</a> can be more sustainable, efficient and scalable.</p>
<p>Marine biomass can be converted into different forms of energy, including ethanol, to replace the corn-derived additive that currently is <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=27&t=10">blended into gasoline in the U.S.</a> Perhaps the most appealing end-product is bio-crude – <a href="https://greenchemicalsblog.com/2018/06/27/study-bio-crude-potential-in-the-usa/">oil derived from organic materials</a>. Bio-crude is produced through a process called hydrothermal liquefaction, which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0QZJ0rea0">uses temperature and pressure</a> to convert materials like algae into oils.</p>
<p>These oils can be processed in existing refineries into bio-based fuels for trucks and planes. It’s not practical yet to run these long-distance transportation modes on electricity because they would <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arent-there-electric-airplanes-yet-103955">require enormous batteries</a>. </p>
<p>By our calculations, producing enough kelp to power the entire U.S. transportation sector would require using just a small fraction of <a href="https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_map.pdf">the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone</a> – the ocean area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. </p>
<h2>How we do our work</h2>
<p>Our work is a collaboration between the <a href="https://dornsife.usc.edu/wrigley">USC Wrigley Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.marinebiomass.com/">Marine BioEnergy Inc.</a>, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/programs/mariner">MARINER (Macroalgae Research Inspiring Novel Energy Resources)</a> program. The research team includes biologists, oceanographers and engineers, working with scuba divers, vessel operators, research technicians and students.</p>
<p>We tested kelp’s biological response to depth cycling by attaching it to an open ocean structure we call the “kelp elevator,” designed by the team’s engineers. The elevator is anchored near the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center on California’s Catalina Island. A solar-powered winch raises and lowers it daily to cycle the kelp between deep and shallow water.</p>
<p>We depth-cycled 35 juvenile kelp plants for three months and planted a second set at a nearby healthy kelp bed for comparison. To our knowledge, this was the first attempt to study the biological effects of physical depth cycling on kelp. Prior studies focused on artificially <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Techno-Economic%20Feasibility%20Analysis%20of%20Offshore%20Seaweed%20Farming%20for%20Bioenergy%20and%20Biobased%20Products-2008.pdf">pumping deep nutrient-rich water to the surface</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Scuba diver next to structure in open ocean water with kelp attached to it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389654/original/file-20210315-15-v092p8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A diver at the ‘kelp elevator.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maurice Roper</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>Our results suggest that depth cycling is a biologically viable cultivation strategy. Now we want to analyze factors that can increase yields, including timing, water depth and kelp genetics.</p>
<p>Many unknowns need further study, including processes for permitting and regulating kelp farms, and the possibility that raising kelp on a large scale could have unintended ecological consequences. But we believe marine biomass energy has great potential to help meet 21st-century sustainability challenges.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Diane Kim owns shares in Holdfast Aquaculture LLC, which works on aquaculture for food, primarily focusing on mussels and oysters in Southern California. The company does not work on bioenergy.
Research described in this article was funded in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ignacio Navarrete receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy for work described in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Dutton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Making biofuels from crops grown on land poses trade-offs between food and fuel. A new study looks offshore.Diane Kim, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and Senior Scientist, USC Wrigley Institute, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesIgnacio Navarrete, Postdoctoral Scholar and Research Associate, USC Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesJessica Dutton, Associate Director for Research, Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies / Adjunct Assistant Professor (Research), Environmental Studies Program, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1513822021-01-12T19:09:37Z2021-01-12T19:09:37ZNet-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative … confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375826/original/file-20201218-15-1dm49fw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C4000%2C3149&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Countries around the world are <a href="https://eciu.net/netzerotracker">taking steps</a> to tackle climate change and become net-zero emitters of carbon dioxide (CO₂) by 2050. Most recently, Joe Biden’s presidential election win means the US is the latest nation to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/08/joe-bidens-move-to-net-zero-emissions-will-leave-australia-in-the-coal-dust">adopt the goal</a>. </p>
<p>So what does net-zero mean? Completely eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions? Not necessarily. The “net” part of net-zero means we can still emit CO₂, as long as we offset (or remove) those emissions from the atmosphere by the same amount in other places. </p>
<p>You might have heard a lot of talk about “going net-zero” in the media lately. <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-just-stunned-the-world-with-its-step-up-on-climate-action-and-the-implications-for-australia-may-be-huge-147268">China</a> recently announced it intends to achieve the goal by 2060. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-energy-idUSKCN1TS30B">France</a>, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law">United Kingdom</a> and <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/emissions-reduction-targets/about-our-emissions">New Zealand</a> will go net-zero by 2050. In Australia, all states and territories have a <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/nt-puts-australia-on-track-for-net-zero-climate-target/">net-zero strategy</a> and the federal government is under pressure to make a national commitment.</p>
<p>You might also have heard references to “zero emissions”, “low emissions” and going “carbon-neutral” So let’s get clear on what all these terms mean in practice.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Loy Yang power station at night" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375827/original/file-20201218-23-1cpcps5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many of Australia’s peers have adopted net-zero emissions targets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Getting to grips with net-zero</h2>
<p>It’s not just countries that can produce net-zero emissions. The term can also apply to a state, city, company or even a single building.</p>
<p>Under a net-zero scenario, emissions are still being generated but they’re offset by the same amount elsewhere. Examples of offset activities include planting trees to absorb CO₂ or using other natural ecosystems to increase carbon stored in the biosphere. </p>
<p>The term “carbon-neutral” is sometimes used instead of net-zero, and they broadly mean the same thing. There are also two specific categories of carbon-neutral technologies that are relevant here:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a process that generates CO₂ in a short-term cycle which does not add to global warming. An example of this is <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/bioenergy/">bioenergy</a>, where CO₂ is initially absorbed by organic material, then released on conversion to energy. Overall, emissions are stable and there is no net increase in CO₂.</p></li>
<li><p>a process that generates CO₂ but captures and sequesters (stores) it, rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. An example of this is a coal-fired power plant fitted with carbon capture and storage technology.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Sugar cane in front of electricity infrastructure" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375828/original/file-20201218-15-aoz9od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bioenergy is a carbon-neutral technology.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Don’t get confused with these terms</h2>
<p>To understand the term “net-zero emissions”, we must also understand what it is not. It should not be confused with the following related, but separate, concepts: </p>
<p><strong>Zero emissions:</strong> this refers to a process where no CO₂ is released at all. In fact, in our current global mining and manufacturing system, no technology produces zero emissions.</p>
<p>Technologies such as solar panels and wind energy are often said to be zero-emissions but technically, they’re not. They have what are known as “embedded emissions” – those created in manufacturing the technology. However wind and solar produce no <em>ongoing</em> emissions after installation, unlike fossil fuel energy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/china-just-stunned-the-world-with-its-step-up-on-climate-action-and-the-implications-for-australia-may-be-huge-147268">China just stunned the world with its step-up on climate action – and the implications for Australia may be huge</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Carbon-negative:</strong> This means removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, or sequestering more CO₂ than is emitted. This might include a bioenergy process with carbon capture and storage.</p>
<p><strong>Low emissions:</strong> Generating greenhouse gases at a lower rate than business as usual. Examples include switching from coal-fired to gas-fired power to generate the same amount of electricity, but with fewer emissions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Wind farm in Western Australia" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375829/original/file-20201218-17-1vne4q0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind energy produces no ongoing CO2 emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>OK, back to net-zero</h2>
<p>There are a few key ways to move to net-zero emissions, which are reflected in most national plans:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>drastically reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the energy sector (including transport)</p></li>
<li><p>improve efficiency and/or develop new technology in other sectors generating emissions but unable to easily reduce them, such as manufacturing and agriculture</p></li>
<li><p>invest in bio-sequestration (also known as reforestation or tree-planting) and carbon-negative technologies to offset any continuing or unavoidable emissions.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>No technology or quantity of trees planted could offset the emissions currently generated globally. That’s why nearly every net-zero plan includes first reducing, and eventually replacing, fossil fuels. Fossil fuels could be used to achieve net-zero with offsets or carbon capture and storage, but in many cases this is not actually the most cost-effective or practical pathway to net-zero.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-to-suck-co-out-of-the-atmosphere-here-are-7-ways-to-do-it-144941">The Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Achieving only the first two points would not take the world to net-zero. Carbon-negative approaches – removing CO₂ from the atmosphere – will <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/">also be needed</a>. </p>
<p>Most national plans achieve this through land management techniques such as reforestation. However the amount of CO₂ offset through natural carbon-negative solutions can be difficult to measure. Additionally the long-term delivery of the carbon offsets cannot always be guaranteed – for example, a replanted forest may die or be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/21/summers-bushfires-released-more-carbon-dioxide-than-australia-does-in-a-year#:%7E:text=Australia's%20devastating%20bushfire%20season%20is,according%20to%20a%20government%20estimate.&text=It%20is%20estimated%2096%25%20of,absorbed%20in%20regrowth%20by%202019">burnt in a bushfire</a> releasing CO₂ back to the atmosphere.</p>
<p>Other more engineered solutions can also remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. They include the use of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10643389.2010.507980">biochar</a> – a charcoal-like material added to soil. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-to-suck-co-out-of-the-atmosphere-here-are-7-ways-to-do-it-144941">promotes microbial activity</a> and soil clumps which prevents organic plant matter breaking down and releasing carbon. But this method is still <a href="https://theconversation.com/dishing-the-dirt-australias-move-to-store-carbon-in-soil-is-a-problem-for-tackling-climate-change-141656">not perfect</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A handful of biochar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biochar helps boost soil carbon stores.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>CO₂: problem or opportunity?</h2>
<p>Global progress on emissions reduction has been so slow that simply cutting emissions <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/">won’t avert</a> a climate catastrophe. </p>
<p>Even if the world manages to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, we may still blow our “carbon budget” – the amount of CO₂ that can be emitted if Earth’s temperature rise is to stay below <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">1.5°C this century</a>. So we must find ways to first eliminate emissions, then remove existing CO₂.</p>
<p>It is foreseeable Earth will one day rely on carbon-negative technologies that draw CO₂ from the air and stabilise it in useful products. For example, direct air carbon capture and storage (which is still under development) could one day <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-to-suck-co-out-of-the-atmosphere-here-are-7-ways-to-do-it-144941">remove CO₂</a> and use it in products such as building materials and plastics.</p>
<p>Such a process would treat CO₂ as a valuable input material – turning Earth’s biggest problem into an opportunity for innovation.</p>
<p>The move towards net-zero is crucial to avoid a climate catastrophe. And the time to move is not tomorrow or “by 2050” – it’s now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151382/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Allen receives funding from the Australian Research Council investigating carbon negative technology development. </span></em></p>Zero emission? Carbon neutral? Carbon negative? What does it mean to achieve ‘net-zero’ emissions?Jessica Allen, Senior Lecturer and DECRA Fellow, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1518062020-12-10T20:18:24Z2020-12-10T20:18:24ZThe Paris Agreement at 5: Time’s running out. How to get the world back on track to meet its climate goals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374241/original/file-20201210-16-tgmvuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=86%2C68%2C5570%2C3699&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Paris Agreement on climate change, signed on Dec. 12, 2015, by almost 200 states, was hailed as the turning point to keep global warming in check. Progress, however, has been insufficient.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(UNclimate change/flickr)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>COVID-19 has dramatically changed how we live our lives, reducing air travel and automobile use. But <a href="https://aboutyourmag.info/2020/11/19/bloombergnef-study-rebound-next-year-wont-completely-offset-this-years-9-percent-decline-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-about-your-online-magazine/">even these significant socio-economic changes are not the long-term changes needed to address climate change</a>. We are still set to overshoot Paris Agreement target to keep the global temperature rise this century to below 2C and to pursue a limit of 1.5C.</p>
<p>Bigger lifestyle, technology and land-use changes must be adopted if we are to meet the target. And while the technology exists, the imagination necessary to achieve success may be lacking.</p>
<p>Five years ago, the Paris Agreement united countries around the world, each <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs">making individual pledges, called Nationally Determined Contributions</a>, to lower carbon emissions. But these pledges haven’t been enough.</p>
<p>As a researcher studying climate change, energy and sustainability policy, solving the complex problem of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions keeps me up at night. </p>
<h2>Addressing climate change is urgent</h2>
<p>“The window of opportunity, the period when significant change can be made, for limiting climate change within tolerable boundaries is rapidly narrowing,” the authors of the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/">IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land</a> wrote in 2019. </p>
<p>The world’s remaining carbon budget — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be released and keep the world below its 2C threshold — could be depleted by 2028 unless thoughtful decarbonization of the economy occurs with post-COVID-19 recovery. </p>
<p>At this point, if the world does not begin to reduce the amount of carbon being released into our atmosphere, we will likely be unable to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. This means in five years we must be close to achieving net-zero carbon emissions. </p>
<p>It is clear urgent action is required — a combination of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/">new technology (clean and renewable), energy efficiency and societal change</a>. Stated policies only get us part way there, and <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020/achieving-net-zero-emissions-by-2050">more measures are required</a>, including valuing nature’s contribution to people, rainwater harvesting, ensuring conservation easements, afforestation and reforestation, and protecting soils and wetlands.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374228/original/file-20201210-13-1rr7hoc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New technologies will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep global temperature rise to 1.5C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00010">(Beuttler C, Charles L and Wurzbacher J , 2019. The Role of Direct Air Capture in Mitigation of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Front. Clim. 1:10.)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The majority of climate change scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement rely on technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or prevent it from being emitted. </p>
<p>Planting trees, using biochar (a charcoal-like substance) to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.02051">store carbon in agricultural soils</a>, <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/direct-co2-capture-machines-could-use-quarter-global-energy-in-2100">capturing carbon directly from the atmosphere</a>, burning organic materials such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12381">switchgrass or loblolly pine to produce energy</a> and <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/combining-bioenergy-with-ccs">capturing the carbon emissions</a>, and other negative emission technologies can help keep the carbon budget in check. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8">Carbon dioxide removal also occurs with agricultural best management practices</a> that increase soil organic carbon content, reduce soil erosion, salinization and compaction.</p>
<h2>All hands on deck — policy mixes are important</h2>
<p>There is no one single policy solution to climate change. Instead we need a system or suite of policy portfolios. Economists prefer a carbon tax for its economic efficiency and because it is technology neutral and allows producers and consumers to make choices. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-puts-health-at-risk-and-economists-have-the-right-prescription-118797">Climate change puts health at risk and economists have the right prescription</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But markets are not always efficient and oftentimes new technology and innovation requires a different impetus. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806504115">Carbon dioxide pipelines</a>, infrastructure for electric or hydrogen vehicles and geothermal heating require government leadership. </p>
<p>Green financing, targeted tax credits (such as 45Q, <a href="https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/45Q-tax-credit-s-luring/98/i8">a U.S. tax credit that encourages carbon dioxide capture</a>), greater efficiencies in infrastructure, buildings and homes, and nature-based solutions, such as constructed wetlands, rainwater harvesting and protecting grass and grazing lands are all important measures to be advanced through incentives or regulation.</p>
<p>A key remaining question is how governments can make the best climate decisions in the face of increasingly legally binding commitments. Rigid provincial, territorial and sectoral targets give rise to burden-sharing decisions as certain sectors are exempted from regulating carbon emissions or businesses move to less rigid jurisdictions resulting in carbon “leaking” from one jurisdiction to another. </p>
<p><a href="https://climatechoices.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CICC-climate-accountability-framework-FINAL.pdf">Climate accountability frameworks</a>, such as those legislated in Manitoba, British Columbia, New Zealand and the U.K., break long-term targets into interim milestones and hold governments to account. President-elect Joe Biden’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/11/07/biden-climate-change-monuments/">planned changes to U.S. climate policy, including rejoining the Paris Agreement</a>, will address some of these issues and bodes well for Canada’s advancing climate policy.</p>
<h2>Change is happening</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Fostering_Effective_Energy_Transition_2020_Edition.pdf">World Economic Forum has created an Energy Transition Index</a> to help policy-makers and businesses plot a course for a successful energy transition. Several countries such as Sweden, the U.K. and France have done well at reducing energy subsidies, achieving gains in energy intensity of GDP, and increasing the level of political commitment to pursuing aggressive energy transition and climate change targets. But Canada’s score has worsened between 2015 to 2020. </p>
<p>Governments are increasingly recognizing the need to embrace laws and policies with targets of net zero emissions by 2030 or 2050. Many countries, including Sweden, the U.K. and Hungary, <a href="https://eciu.net/netzerotracker">have declared ambitious net-zero emissions goals</a> — Suriname and Bhutan have already achieved these goals. Others are considering them. In all, 77 countries, 10 regions and more than 100 cities announced their commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/news/77-countries-100-cities-commit-to-net-zero-carbon-emissions-by-2050-at-climate-summit/">the momentum continues to build</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1178631589754015752"}"></div></p>
<p>Business is changing. Planning for the financial quarter or year end has become obsolete. As airlines realized during COVID-19, governments and funders are reticent to bail out an industry whose massive profits over the years have been paid to shareholders and used to buy back stocks, thereby making the companies less resilient. Business is now considering the long term.</p>
<p>A large number of global organizations have also declared carbon neutral targets, especially those with end-consumer-facing business models (including Amazon, Google, Apple, Cenovus Energy, TELUS and Maple Leaf Foods). Our youth recognize the intergenerational injustice of worsening future climate change impacts include storms, fires, droughts and floods. <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/fostering-effective-energy-transition-2020">Seventy per cent of young people consider the speed of energy transition to be either stagnant or too slow</a>, and they are willing to pay for it and accept the lifestyle changes required.</p>
<p>The Paris Agreement unified the world in setting a target of limiting global warming. The door is closing on achieving this target. The next five years are the years for ensuring through meaningful policy and action that this target is achieved!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margot Hurlbert receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Canada Research Chairs Programme, the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear innovation at the University of Saskatchewan, and the Candu Owners Group Inc. Margot is a Professor at the University of Regina, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy and a Canada Research Chair in Climate Change, Energy and Sustainability Policy</span></em></p>The Paris Agreement set countries on a path to limit global warming. Five years on, some progress has been made, but not enough. Decarbonizing the economy will take leadership and imagination.Margot Hurlbert, Canada Research Chair, Climate Change, Energy and Sustainability, University of ReginaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1499332020-12-02T03:26:56Z2020-12-02T03:26:56ZThis is how microorganisms can produce renewable energy for us<p>We can generate electricity from microorganisms as an alternative to the usual power from water, wind, solar or steam. </p>
<p><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.1911.0073">Scientists</a> have been studying the ability of <a href="https://biologydictionary.net/microorganism/">microorganisms</a> – the smallest living things on Earth – to produce energy other than for their natural activities for more than a century. This transformation is what scientists call a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-009-2357-1">bioelectrochemical system</a>. </p>
<p>This article shows how microorganisms, such as bacteria, can produce electricity and so potentially be a source of renewable energy. </p>
<h2>Electricity from microorganisms</h2>
<p><a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0605016">Microbial fuel cell</a> (MFC) is one form of bioelectrochemical systems. </p>
<p>This system generally has one anode chamber (negative electrode) and one cathode chamber (positive electrode). MFC works in a similar way to batteries. </p>
<p>Microorganisms decompose organic or inorganic matters (or substrates) in the anode chamber to produce electrons. These electrons flow from anode to cathode via an external circuit made of conductive materials, such as copper-based wires, to generate electricity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372251/original/file-20201201-20-of3p69.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">General principles of Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) (Source: research publication by Professor Bruce Ernest Logan et al from Pennsylvania State University in 2006)</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Renewable energy potential</h2>
<p>MFC researchers are focusing on how to produce renewable energy and manage waste on a large and <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/microbial-fuel-cells-mfcs-markets-to-2026-huge-demand-from-wastewater-treatment-applications-300904487.html">commercial</a> scale in several countries.</p>
<p>Examples range from <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852415008123?via%3Dihub">processing waste from a beer factory in Harbin</a>, China, to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261920311776">lake water processing in Icapuí</a>, Brazil.</p>
<p>In both cases, MFC systems manage to generate electricity without additional power supplies. This will, of course, reduce the bills. </p>
<p>So far, companies known for applying MFC technology at a commercial scale are EcoVolt by <a href="https://cambrianinnovation.com/products/">Cambrian Innocation</a>, VIVA MFC by <a href="https://www.microrganictech.com/viva">MICROrganic Technologies</a> in the US, <a href="http://prongineer.com/recover-energy/microbial-fuel-cell">Prongineer</a> in Canada, and Plant-e in the Netherlands, which integrates MFC with plants in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pC9NLWlDQU">Plant Microbial Fuel Cells</a> (PMFCs).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4pC9NLWlDQU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In addition, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/cct/office/cif/2011-winners/hogan-flynn">NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)</a> has adopted MFC technology since 2006. </p>
<p>In 2011, <a href="https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2019/ee_1.html">NASA</a> collaborated with Cambrian Innovation to develop MFC that converts carbon dioxide from the air inside the spaceship into oxygen, water and methane. </p>
<p>Despite these improvements, we still need further research to improve MFC’s efficiency and productivity, especially on a commercial scale. </p>
<h2>The right type of microorganism</h2>
<p>Deciding on the types of microorganism to generate the energy is an influential factor. </p>
<p>To date, the groups of microorganisms that demonstrate the ability to transfer electrons from their cells to the electrodes – called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2113">exoelectrogens</a> – are in particular <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00044/full"><em>Geobacter</em> and <em>Shewnella</em></a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19487117/"><em>Geobacter sulfurreducens</em> KN400</a> can generate up to 3.9 Watts of electricity per square metre (W/m²) of anode area. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28110139/"><em>Shewanella putrefaciens</em></a> produces up to 4.4 W/m².</p>
<p>For its spaceship, NASA generates energy from <a href="https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2019/ee_1.html"><em>Shewanella oneidensis</em> bacteria</a>. </p>
<p>Other microorganisms such as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0173-x?platform=hootsuite"><em>Rhodopseudomonas palustris</em> DX1, <em>Candida melibiosica</em>, <em>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</em> and even <em>Escherichia coli</em> DH5α</a> also demonstrate exoelectrogenic capabilities. </p>
<p>Research by Krishna Katuri, of the National University of Ireland Galway, and his colleagues from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, found a new exoelectrogenic microorganism, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135420308204"><em>Desulfuromonas acetexigens</em></a>.</p>
<p>Exoelectrogens can be obtained from various <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135420308204">environments</a>, such as waste water, compost, manure, dirt, river or lake sediments, swamps and marine ecosystems.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169955">researchers from University of Buenos Aires</a> found <em>Dietzia sp.</em> RNV-4 in river sediment from the Río de la Plata in Argentina.</p>
<h2>Potential for Indonesia</h2>
<p>Indonesia is a nation with one of the world’s highest <a href="https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=id">levels of biodiversity</a>, including microorganisms.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, only <a href="https://litbang.kemendagri.go.id/website/riset-mikrobia-perlu-didorong/">10% of microorganisms</a> from Indonesia have been identified; <a href="https://suaramerdekasolo.com/2019/08/29/keanekaragaman-mikroorganisme-belum-memperoleh-perhatian/">their full potential</a> remains untapped. </p>
<p>With better collaboration and co-operation between academics, researchers and industries, microorganisms could be managed as a renewable energy source for Indonesia. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=222&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362500/original/file-20201008-24-1jvu8kd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">24 units of Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) composing EcoBot-IV (left) and Samsung GT-E2121B cell-phone charging by the MFCs (right) (Source: research publication by Professor Ioannis Andrea Ieropoulous et al from Bristol BioEnergy Centre in 2013)</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recently, bioelectrochemical research has started in Indonesia, such as <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/277/1/012008/pdf">water waste processing of a tofu factory</a>, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/366/1/012034/pdf">food waste processing</a>, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567036.2019.1668085">waste water processing of the tapioca industry</a>, and PMFC to generate electricity from <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/21/4647">rice fields in West Kalimantan</a>. However, these studies have yet to be reproduced on a larger scale. </p>
<p>From what we have seen in the studies and applications of microorganisms as a source of alternative energy in other countries, Indonesia should be able to develop their potential. </p>
<p>This development will, of course, require support and collaboration from all stakeholders – academics, researchers, industries and governments.</p>
<p>Once it is successfully developed, this technology would be able to solve the country’s electricity supply problem, leaving fossil fuels behind. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Ignatius Raditya Nugraha translated the article from Bahasa Indonesia.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renna Eliana Warjoto receives research funding on bioelectrochemistry from Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia in 2020. </span></em></p>Research by author and her students about palm oil waste water processing using Microbial Fuel Cells at the Faculty of Biotechnology, Atma Jaya Catholic University of IndonesiaRenna Eliana Warjoto, Lecturer at Faculty of Biotechnology, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1449412020-09-20T19:43:45Z2020-09-20T19:43:45ZThe Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358757/original/file-20200918-22-1frm1pp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5265%2C3504&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is on Tuesday <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/17/coalition-to-divert-renewable-energy-funding-away-from-wind-and-solar">expected to</a> <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speaker/2020/719-angus-taylor">outline</a> the Morrison government’s first Low Emissions Technology Statement, plotting Australia’s way forward on climate action. It’s <a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/climate-change/technology-investment-roadmap/supporting_documents/technologyinvestmentroadmapdiscussionpaper.pdf">likely</a> to include “negative emissions” technologies, which remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air.</p>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/">says</a> negative emissions technologies will be needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C. In other words, just cutting emissions is not enough – we must also take existing greenhouse gases from the air.</p>
<p>Last week, the government broadened the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It flagged negative emissions technologies, such as soil carbon, as one avenue for investment. </p>
<p>Some negative emissions ventures are operating in Australia at a small scale, including <a href="https://www.resourcesandgeoscience.nsw.gov.au/investors/coal-innovation-nsw/research-projects/alternative-storage-of-captured-carbon-dioxide">carbon capture</a>, <a href="https://www.greeningaustralia.org.au">reforestation</a> and <a href="https://www.cefc.com.au/case-studies/biotech-start-up-aims-to-lift-soil-organic-carbon-and-boost-farm-productivity/">soil carbon management</a>. Here, we examine seven ways to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, including their pros and cons.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing seven negative emissions technologies." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Graphic showing seven negative emissions technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anders Claassens</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Managing soil carbon</h2>
<p>Up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14054">150 billion tonnes</a> of soil carbon has been lost globally since farming began to replace natural forests and grasslands. Improved land management could store or “sequester” up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">nine billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ each year. It could also improve <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14054">soil health</a>.</p>
<p>Soil carbon can be built through methods such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>“<a href="https://www.vicnotill.com.au/regenerative-farming/no-till-farming-systems">no-till</a>” farming, using techniques that don’t disturb soil</li>
<li>planting <a href="https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/agronj2016.12.0735">cover crops</a>, which protect soil between normal cropping periods </li>
<li>grazing livestock on <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR08104">perennial pastures</a>, which last longer than annual plants</li>
<li>applying lime to encourage plant growth</li>
<li>using compost and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-018-9934-6">manure</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s important to remember though, that carbon can be hard to store in soils for long periods. This is because microbes consume organic matter, which releases carbon back to the atmosphere. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Tilled fields" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Intensive farming has led to global loss of soil carbon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Biochar</h2>
<p>Biochar is a charcoal-like material produced from organic matter such as green waste or straw. It is added to soil to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3276">boost carbon stores</a>, by promoting <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2016187/">microbial activity</a> and <a href="https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealth/?page_id=404#:%7E:text=Aggregation%20%E2%80%93%20Arrangement%20of%20primary%20soil,matter%20and%20through%20particle%20associations.&text=Each%20aggregate%20is%20made%20up,organic%20matter%20between%20soil%20particles.">aggregation</a> (soil clumps) which prevents organic plant matter breaking down and releasing carbon.</p>
<p>Biochar has been used by <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140000193">indigenous people in the Amazon</a> to increase food production. More than 14,000 biochar studies have been published since 2005. This includes <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR10009">work by Australian researchers</a> showing how biochar reacts with soil minerals, microbes and plants to improve soil and stimulate plant growth.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/earth-may-temporarily-pass-dangerous-1-5-warming-limit-by-2024-major-new-report-says-145450">Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On average, biochar increases crop yields by about <a href="https://europepmc.org/article/med/32019022">16%</a> and halves emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. The production of biochar releases gases that can generate renewable heat and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618313544?via%3Dihub">electricity</a>. Research suggests that globally, biochar could store <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1053?page=20">up to 4.6 billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ each year.</p>
<p>However its potential depends on the availability of organic material and land on which to grow it. Also, the type of biochar used must be suitable for the site, or crop yields may fall.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A handful of biochar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Added to soil, biochar increases carbon stores.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Reforestation</h2>
<p>Planting trees is the simplest way to take CO₂ from the atmosphere. Reforestation is limited only by land availability and environmental constraints to growth. </p>
<p>Reforestation could sequester up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">ten billion tonnes a year</a> of CO₂. However, carbon sequestered through reforestation is vulnerable to loss. For example, last summer’s devastating bushfires released around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/21/summers-bushfires-released-more-carbon-dioxide-than-australia-does-in-a-year#:%7E:text=Australia's%20devastating%20bushfire%20season%20is,according%20to%20a%20government%20estimate.&text=It%20is%20estimated%2096%25%20of,absorbed%20in%20regrowth%20by%202019">830 million tonnes</a> CO₂. </p>
<h2>4. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)</h2>
<p>Plant material can be burned for energy – known as bioenergy. In a BECCS system, the resulting CO₂ is captured and stored deep underground.</p>
<p>Currently, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is only viable at large scale, and opportunities for storage are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261916317482">limited</a>. Only a few CCS facilities operate <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BECCS-Perspective_FINAL_PDF.pdf">internationally</a>. </p>
<p>BECCS has the potential to sequester <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">11 billion tonnes</a> annually. But this is limited by availability of material to burn – which in theory could come from forestry and crop waste, and purpose-grown plants. </p>
<p>The large-scale deployment of CCS will also have to <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/ko/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c7ee02342a">overcome</a> barriers such as high costs, challenges in dealing with leaks, and determining who takes long-term responsibility for the stored carbon. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A bioenergy facility" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bioenergy has big potential but is limited by the amount of material available to burn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. Enhanced weathering of rocks</h2>
<p>Silicate rocks naturally capture and store CO₂ from the atmosphere when they weather due to rain and other natural processes. This capturing can be accelerated through “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y">enhanced weathering</a>” – crushing rock and spreading it on land.</p>
<p>The preferred rock type for this method is basalt – nutrient-rich and abundant in Australia and elsewhere. A recent <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">study</a> estimated enhanced weathering could store up to four billion tonnes of CO₂ globally each year.</p>
<p>However low rainfall in many parts of Australia limits the rate of carbon capture via basalt weathering. </p>
<h2>6. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS)</h2>
<p>Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) uses chemicals that bond to ambient air to remove CO₂. After capture, the CO₂ can be injected underground or used in products such as building materials and plastics.</p>
<p>DACCS is in early stages of commercialisation, with <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture">few plants</a> operating globally. In theory, its potential is unlimited. However major barriers include high costs, and the large amount of energy needed to operate large fans required in the process.</p>
<h2>7. Ocean fertilisation and alkalinisation</h2>
<p>The ocean absorbs around <a href="https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/carbonbudget/Infographic_Emissions2019.jpg">nine billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ from the air each year.</p>
<p>The uptake can be enhanced by fertilisation – adding iron to stimulate growth of marine algae, similar to reforestation on land. The ocean can also take up more CO₂ if we add alkaline materials, such as silicate minerals or lime.</p>
<p>However ocean fertilisation is seen as a <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf">risk to marine life</a>, and will be challenging to regulate in international waters.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Liddell coal-fired power station" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Negative emissions technologies will be needed to address climate change, but deep emissions reductions are the highest priority.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Himbrechts/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Looking ahead to a zero-carbon world</h2>
<p>The foreshadowed government investment in negative emissions technologies is a positive step, and will help to overcome some of the challenges we’ve described. Each of the technologies we outlined has the potential to help mitigate climate change, and some offer additional benefits.</p>
<p>But all have limitations, and alone they will not solve the climate crisis. Deep emissions reduction across the economy will also be required.</p>
<p><em>Correction: a previous version of this article said biochar could store up to 4.6 million tonnes of CO₂ each year. The correct figure is 4.6 billion tonnes.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-dose-of-reality-morrison-governments-new-1-9-billion-techno-fix-for-climate-change-is-a-small-step-146341">'A dose of reality': Morrison government's new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annette Cowie is Principal Research Scientist in the NSW Department of Primary Industries, Climate Branch. She receives funding from the International Energy Agency Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Program. Annette is an adviser to the Australia New Zealand Biochar Industry Group.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Han Weng is a member of Soil Science Australia. He is a researcher at the University of Queensland. His current project on soil carbon is funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lukas Van Zwieten is a Senior Principal Research Scientist in the Soil and Water Research Unit with the NSW Department of Primary Industries. He is also Director of Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute and a Program Leader with the Soil CRC. He is an Adjunct Professor at Southern Cross University and the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University. He receives external funding from the Soil CRC, Sugar Research Australia, GRDC and CRDC. He is on the Science Committee for the International Biochar Initiative. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Joseph is a member of the Australian New Zealand Biochar Industries Group. The Universities where I work have received grants from both state and federal governments and from companies for the development and testing of biochars.
I also assist companies and farmers develop fit for purpose biochars and equipment to make this biochars</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wolfram Buss is a researcher at the Australian National University. Parts of his work is funded by SoilCQuest, a non-for profit organisation. He also holds visiting fellowships at the University of Edinburgh (UK) and the University of Hohenheim (Germany).</span></em></p>Energy Minister Angus Taylor is this week expected to release the government’s first Low Emissions Technology Statement. It’s likely to include ways to remove CO₂ from the air – but do they work?Annette Cowie, Adjunct Professor, University of New EnglandHan Weng, Research academic, The University of QueenslandLukas Van Zwieten, Adjunct Professor, Southern Cross UniversityStephen Joseph, Visiting Professor, School of Material Science and Engineering, UNSW SydneyWolfram Buss, Postdoctoral fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1219232019-11-12T11:51:33Z2019-11-12T11:51:33ZShould Ireland fuel its power stations with wood shipped from Australia?<p>In Ireland, there has recently been some controversy over a proposal to transition a number of the country’s dirtiest power stations away from burning peat bogs, which emits even more carbon than coal. Instead, the plan is to <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0713/1061917-bord-na-mona/">burn “biomass”</a> – that is, wood. However, because Ireland has relatively little forestry, there is not enough wood available to meet demand. That’s why Bord na Mona, a semi-state body that manages several peat burning power plants, proposed to source the wood <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0713/1061843-bord-na-mona-jobs/">from Australia</a>. </p>
<p>This angered conservation groups, who pointed to the very high carbon footprint of hauling timber all the way from the other side of the world, just to burn it for electricity. And over the summer Irish planning authorities <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/esb-power-station-plans-refused-4736527-Jul2019/">refused permission</a> for one peat-burning power plant in County Offaly to be converted to biomass, putting the plans on hold.</p>
<p>Burning Australian wood in Ireland does indeed sound daft, at first. But the true carbon footprint isn’t always as straightforward as it would seem at first glance (just look at how, for example, cutting plastic packaging can sometimes lead <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-plastic-packaging-is-necessary-to-prevent-food-waste-and-protect-the-environment-117479">to more food spoiling</a> and thus higher carbon emissions, or how <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17027990">cotton or paper bags can sometimes work out worse than a plastic bag</a>). Therefore, since Bord Na Mona has been <a href="https://greennews.ie/bnam-refuses-release-biomass-docs/">slow to release details</a> on the potential carbon emissions, I thought it would be useful to try and estimate them myself.</p>
<p>First I want to clear up one thing: burning trees doesn’t necessarily count as emissions. Though trees are made of carbon, if at least one is planted for every one cut down then the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere should remain roughly neutral. </p>
<p>There are many other sources of <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-power-stations-are-burning-wood-from-us-forests-to-meet-renewables-targets-54969">carbon emissions related to forestry</a> though, including land use changes, forest management or processing of the wood after harvest. But in this particular case, the main source of carbon emissions would be transport. </p>
<h2>Calculating the footprint</h2>
<p>To make the calculations simple, let’s assume a shipment of exactly 1,000 tonnes of logs from Australia to Ireland, a distance of about 21,000km by sea. We’ll also assume another 500km by lorry to and from the port. The <a href="https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf">carbon footprint of a cargo ship</a> depends on the type of ship, fuel used, route, speed, and so on, but for a bulk carrier it works out to about <a href="http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions">8 grams of CO₂ per km per tonne of cargo</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297390/original/file-20191016-98670-e72104.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Carbon emissions by transport method.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">International Chamber of Shipping, https://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/co2</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For trucks it varies between <a href="https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-vehicle-efficiency-and-emissions-standards#Table1">40 to 90 grams</a>, but 55 grams per km per tonne would be a reasonable estimate. Do the maths and that works out at 168 tonnes of CO₂ emitted by the ship, and 27.5 tonnes by truck, giving a combined total of 195.5 tonnes of CO₂.</p>
<p>Whether these emissions are worthwhile depends on how much energy the timber contains, and that depends on the type of wood and its <a href="http://woodenergy.ie/woodfuelsstovesandboilers/#moisturecontent">moisture content</a> (wood absorbs water, making it heavier and less energy dense). A fast growing and moderately wet hardwood such as eucalyptus has an energy content of <a href="https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-resources/fuel/woodfuel-production-and-supply/woodfuel-processing/drying-biomass/effect-of-moisture-content/">3,500 kilowatt hours per tonne</a>. We then have to assume the power plant will lose around 70% of all that energy (mostly as <a href="https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/">heat</a>) when burning it to make electricity. </p>
<p>What this means is 1,000 tonnes of eucalyptus will yield around 1.05m kilowatt hours of electricity (the full calculation is at the end of the article). And when you take the total carbon emitted in transporting those logs to Ireland, and divide it by that total electricity generated, you get a carbon footprint of 186 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt hour. </p>
<p>It is worth emphasising that there is considerable sensitivity in these estimates. If any of the key variables change – if the distance to port increases, if we use a different type of wood with less moisture, and so on – it can have a big impact.</p>
<p>By comparison, the carbon footprint of importing biomass from North America to the UK has been estimated at <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/investigation-does-the-uks-biomass-burning-help-solve-climate-change">122 gCO₂/kWh</a>. One 2014 study found that a more conventional biomass operation using locally sourced timber would have a footprint of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259513614_Assessing_the_lifecycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_solar_PV_and_wind_energy_A_critical_meta-survey">30 gCO₂/kWh</a>, compared to 34 gCO₂/kWh for wind and 50 gCO₂/kWh for solar.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297392/original/file-20191016-98674-1gnni9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=688&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The carbon footprint of electricity from selected sources.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nugent & Sovacool, 2014</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>(Almost) anything is better than peat</h2>
<p>So hauling biomass such a long distance doesn’t look like a great idea. However, the carbon footprint of peat is at least <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/6376/pdf">1,100 gCO₂/kWh</a>, nearly five times higher, and <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/6376/pdf">coal is very similar</a>. And even these figures ignore the enormous <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mary-robinson-demands-urgent-end-to-peat-harvesting-jfbgr327x">environmental destruction</a> that comes from peat extraction or coal mining.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299538/original/file-20191030-17908-3unpki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An industrial peat harvester.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1242474">James T M Towill</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So the critics certainly have a point – bringing wood from Australia is indeed considerably worse than any other renewable option. But it’s still better than burning peat and destroying more of Ireland’s diminishing bog lands. Yes, the country could develop other <a href="https://www.need.org/Files/curriculum/Energy%20At%20A%20Glance/BiomassAtAGlance_11x17.pdf">sources of biomass</a> such as agricultural or municipal waste, or fast-growing crops like willow or hemp. But factories take time to build and trees or crops take time to grow, and nobody is going to develop such resources if demand for the fuel simply isn’t there.</p>
<p>This is the reality of sustainability: we are often faced with trade offs between least worst options. In fact, Ireland will soon face an even bigger decision. Moneypoint, a coal burning power station and the country’s single largest source of carbon emissions, will hit the end of its service life <a href="https://clarechampion.ie/government-urged-to-reveal-moneypoint-plan/">in 2025</a> and there is a big question mark about what’s going to replace it.</p>
<p>Ultimately, there is no perfect solution to climate change. If there was, we’d have already implemented it. Options need to be carefully evaluated, for the devil is truly in the detail and small tweaks to a process can potentially lead to big changes in carbon emissions. This also shows the importance of long-term planning. After all, had the unsustainable nature of peat burning been acknowledged decades ago, we’d not be in this situation.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The full calculation:</em></p>
<p><em>Total generated from 1,000 tonnes of eucalyptus logs: 1,000 tonnes x 3,500 kilowatt hours per tonne = 3,500,000 kwh x 0.3 (because the other 70% is lost and not converted to electricity) = 1,050,000 kwh</em></p>
<p><em>Transport emissions: 195.5 tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> are emitted in transporting 1,000 tonnes of logs from Australia to Ireland, or 195,500,000 grams.</em></p>
<p><em>Divide the carbon emissions by the generated electricity to get a carbon footprint of 186 gCO2/kWh (195,500,000 / 1,050,000 = 186)</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121923/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan Ryan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ireland needs to stop burning peat, and wood from down under presents a surprising sustainability dilemma.Dylan Ryan, Lecturer in Mechanical & Energy Engineering, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1108712019-02-26T19:43:35Z2019-02-26T19:43:35ZNewly discovered cold-tolerant plants from Siberia could promote clean bioenergy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/256970/original/file-20190204-193217-1p5l13t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A stand of _Miscanthus_ x _giganteus_ at the University of Illinois's Energy Farm. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Stauffer/University of Illinois</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate change is an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.17e3f0e494fa">urgent threat</a> to societies around the world, driven by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels such as oil. One of the most effective ways to curb emissions is to replace these energy sources with others that are carbon neutral or even carbon negative – that is, technologies that remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they put in.</p>
<p>Bioenergy, or energy derived from organic matter, usually plants, is an attractive option. The U.S. already derives <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation">5 percent</a> of transportation fuel from bioenergy, mostly corn. Even <a href="https://theconversation.com/jet-fuel-from-sugarcane-its-not-a-flight-of-fancy-84493">jet fuel</a> could be produced from specially engineered crops, potentially balancing out <a href="https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/06/08/the-skys-the-limit">3 percent</a> of the world’s human-made emissions. </p>
<p>Because the world population and its demand for food continues to rise, there might not be enough conventional farmland to grow crops for both <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5938/270?ijkey=5f656fc6a821eea3b65e44a105a09806aa453af6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha">food and bioenergy</a>. One solution is to grow bioenergy crops on <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/eaal2324">marginal land</a>, which isn’t good enough to grow food. The logical conundrum: If this soil isn’t good, how can we grow anything on it that is reasonably productive?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257504/original/file-20190206-174880-1yfj9lr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Erik Sacks in front of a 11.5-foot-tall stand of <em>Miscanthus x giganteus</em> at the University of Illinois’s Energy Farm. This stand is dormant in the winter, but it will put out green leaves again in the spring.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin/University of Illinois</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><em>Miscanthus</em>, the candidate bioenergy crop</h2>
<p>That is where <a href="https://articles.extension.org/pages/26625/miscanthus-miscanthus-x-giganteus-for-biofuel-production"><em>Miscanthus</em> x <em>giganteus</em></a> comes in. This species, also known as elephant grass, is incredibly productive – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.139162">59 percent more productive than corn</a> in the midwestern U.S. It grows well on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12567">marginal soils</a> with minimal fertilization. <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> is a perennial, meaning it stores nutrients in underground stems called rhizomes and uses them to regrow from one year to the next. These rhizomes, along with the plant’s roots, store atmospheric carbon dioxide underground and keep soil in place, preventing carbon dioxide <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-unep-soil/soil-erosion-increasing-global-warming-threat-unep-idUSTRE81C13J20120213">loss from erosion</a>. <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> may be able to sustain significant bioenergy production to replace fossil fuels, while being grown on marginal lands that do not compete with food crops.</p>
<p><em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> is a naturally occurring hybrid: Despite performing well in experimental trials, it was never designed to be a bioenergy crop. It is produced by crossing the Asian grasses <em>Miscanthus sacchariflorus</em> and <em>Miscanthus sinensis</em>, popular ornamental plants whose flowers form beautiful feathery plumes. <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> is sterile, and can propagate only clonally – that is, instead of seeds, a rhizome from a <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> plant can grow into a new, genetically identical plant. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12166">single clone</a> of this hybrid, now called “Illinois,” has been the focus of most trials of <em>Miscanthus</em> as a bioenergy crop in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00565.x">Europe</a> and the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01662.x">U.S</a>.</p>
<p>The incredible <a href="http://biogeochemistry.nres.illinois.edu/Biogeochem_lab/pdfs/Heaton%20et%20al.%202010%20Adv.%20Bot.%20Res.pdf">productivity and resilience</a> of the “Illinois” clone, especially since the first U.S. agronomic trials at the University of Illinois in 2000, propelled <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> to prominence as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12566">leading-candidate bioenergy crop</a>. Yet the “Illinois” clone was produced by accident. What if parent species <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> and <em>M. sinensis</em>, growing in the wild in Asia, had even greater resilience, that could be used by plant scientists to breed <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> hybrids that perform even better than “Illinois”? </p>
<h2><em>Miscanthus</em>, mosquitoes and more cold tolerance</h2>
<p><a href="https://lab.igb.illinois.edu/leakey/charles-pignon">I am a plant physiologist</a> at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. My job involves understanding how plants work in order to develop improved crops that can mitigate climate change, in this case by developing improved hybrids of <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> for bioenergy production. I teamed up with Professor <a href="https://cropsciences.illinois.edu/people/profile/esacks">Erik Sacks</a> to study some of the plants he had recently collected during a trip to the eastern reaches of Siberia.</p>
<p>In the summer of 2016, Sacks’s team of <a href="https://www.clairebenjamin.net/single-post/2017/03/04/Erik-Sacks-goes-to-Russia">fearless plant scientists</a>, guided by two adventure ecotourism guides turned amateur botanists, braved the flooding and mosquitoes of eastern Siberia to gather one of the world’s largest <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw137">collections of <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> plants</a>. The team was interested in collecting plants that could withstand cold better than <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois,” which struggles to photosynthesize, a process where plants use sunlight to capture carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into biomass, when temperatures drop below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. </p>
<p>Eastern Siberia is the coldest part of the world where <em>Miscanthus</em> grows. One species, <em>M. sacchariflorus</em>, was found growing in areas with a minimum October temperature as low as 26°F, compared to 41°F in central Illinois. Most of the region where plants were collected had a continental climate, with severe winters and big temperature swings in the spring and autumn, suggesting these plants can thrive under a wide range of temperatures. </p>
<p>With this diverse Siberian collection, containing 181 accessions, or groups of genetically related plants, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/idan-spitz-16068112/">Idan Spitz</a> and I, plant physiologists from <a href="https://www-app2.igb.illinois.edu/long/">Professor Stephen Long’s lab</a>, decided to look for <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> with exceptional tolerance of photosynthesis to cold conditions. These cold-tolerant specimens could then be brought back to the U.S. and used to breed more cold-tolerant, and therefore more productive, <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/256971/original/file-20190204-193192-lnge4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Erik Sacks stands among <em>Miscanthus sacchariflorus</em> in eastern Siberia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Erik Sacks</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>From many, three</h2>
<p>We filtered 181 genetically distinct accessions from Siberia down to a handful displaying <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12599">the greatest photosynthetic cold tolerance</a>. To identify the best cold-adapted plants, the entire collection was grown in an outdoor field at Aarhus University, Denmark. <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois” was grown alongside as a control. During a cold spell, when temperatures dropped below 54°F, we measured leaf fluorescence on individual plants to identify those that were the least stressed by these low temperatures. Fluorescence is a minuscule amount of light emitted by key leaf components and can be measured to detect when the leaf has sustained damage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257092/original/file-20190204-193223-1xy6eu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A leaf of <em>Miscanthus</em> is placed in the chamber of an instrument that measures photosynthesis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Don Hamerman</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We brought the most promising <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> plants to the University of Illinois to grow along with <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois” in an indoor environment with precisely controlled light, temperature and humidity. In two successive experiments, we regularly monitored photosynthesis as plants were exposed to severe chilling at 50°F for two weeks. We then raised the temperature to test how well they could recover. Our team measured photosynthesis by tracking absorption of carbon dioxide into the leaf from the surrounding air.</p>
<p>Although photosynthesis slowed in all <em>Miscanthus</em> plants during chilling, we were excited to discover three genetically unique <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> specimens that sustained much better activity during the cold than <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois.” The first one maintained photosynthetic rates double that of <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois”; the second quickly recovered photosynthesis when temperatures were increased, a useful ability that could maximize photosynthesis during intermittent warm periods in the early spring. The third stabilized photosynthesis during chilling; in contrast photosynthesis in the “Illinois” clone dropped steadily during the two weeks. </p>
<p>In the <em>Miscanthus</em> plants studied here, improved photosynthesis during chilling was supported by the ability to maintain activity of photosynthetic enzymes that are essential for absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but slow down when temperatures drop. <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois” adapts to cold by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4085969/">producing more of these enzymes</a> to counteract chilling. The new <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> plants we discovered in Siberia may be even better at turning up production of these enzymes at low temperature.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>Identifying these useful traits is just the first step. Next, scientists at the University of Illinois will use these three genetically unique accessions to breed new hybrids of <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> that perform better in the cold. By breeding <em>Miscanthus</em> with improved photosynthesis during the chill of early spring and late autumn, we can develop new hybrids that yield even more than <em>M.</em> x <em>giganteus</em> “Illinois.” </p>
<p>In addition, <em>Miscanthus</em> is a close relative of sugarcane, so Sacks is breeding the Siberian <em>M. sacchariflorus</em> specimens with sugarcane to develop energycane cultivars that can be grown farther north than current commercial sugarcane in the U.S.; currently sugarcane production is limited to southern parts of Florida, Louisiana and Texas. The goal is to create new bioenergy crops that can withstand cold temperatures to produce more biomass, and ultimately, more bioenergy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Pignon is affiliated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.</span></em></p>In the eastern reaches of Siberia, scientists discovered plants with exceptional cold tolerance that could be the key to sustainable bioenergy production.Charles Pignon, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/967012018-11-21T11:50:33Z2018-11-21T11:50:33ZThe government aims to boost ethanol without evidence that it saves money or helps the environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246308/original/file-20181119-76144-1y56c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A fan of fuel blends that contain as much as 85 percent ethanol.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Farm-Scene-E85-Outlook-Minneapolis/114b1a11cbfb4a59acd7ffbb0164a5c1/5/0">AP Photo/Jim Mone</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/10/656079682/trump-orders-epa-to-lift-regulations-on-ethanol">promised his supporters in Iowa</a> that the federal government will take a step that may increase corn ethanol sales. </p>
<p>This plant-derived fuel, which comprises about <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=27&t=10">10 percent of the 143 billion gallons</a> of gasoline Americans buy each year, is a kind of alcohol made from corn. The industry first emerged in 1980s with government support, after interest in making the country less reliant on imported oil surged in the 1970s. It later acquired a second purpose: lowering greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>I have <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7qNwVHkAAAAJ&hl=en'">spent the last 24 years studying alternative fuels</a> and fuel blends. Based on my research, and as a consumer, I can say that increasing the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline creates problems with older engines and potentially increases air pollution due to increased fuel evaporation while doing little to curb climate change.</p>
<p><iframe id="A7ube" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/A7ube/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>E10 and E15</h2>
<p>Americans have been mixing ethanol and gasoline since Henry Ford touted the potential of biofuels. <a href="https://www.fuelfreedom.org/tag/model-t/">His Model T</a> could run on gasoline or ethanol or a combination.</p>
<p>But ethanol use only took off in the 1970s following the energy crisis. Its use expanded greatly during George W. Bush’s administration, with the advent of the <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html">Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005</a>. This federal program mandated that increasing amounts of renewable fuels be mixed with gasoline and diesel. The program has set a target for the domestic consumption of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard">15 billion gallons of corn ethanol</a> since 2015.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5qDYoEupI28?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ford made its first flex-fuel car a century ago.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most engines can safely run on a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent corn ethanol, the standard formulation known as E10 that is available at most American gas stations. E15 is a blend containing 15 percent ethanol. This blend is not available in every state.</p>
<p>And where E15 is sold, it isn’t currently available year-round.</p>
<p>That’s because the additional 5 percent of ethanol, combined with summer heat, would increase the <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b00366?journalCode=enfue">tendency of blended fuels to evaporate</a> The evaporated emissions from fuels can contribute to the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution/">formation of ozone</a>, a major component of smog. In hotter weather, <a href="https://www.livescience.com/58117-does-gasoline-go-bad.html">ethanol can exacerbate pollution problems</a> in cities. Trump’s proposal would eliminate the existing summer ban on E15 sales.</p>
<p><iframe id="PV7X6" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PV7X6/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Removing the ban would probably boost ethanol sales, aiding farmers who grow the corn used to make the roughly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php#renewable">16 billion gallons</a> of it the U.S. produced in 2017, including exports, and the ethanol industry overall.</p>
<p>Because a higher percentage of ethanol means a lower percentage of petroleum, using more ethanol hurts petroleum refiners. It would also pose a logistical challenge. Ethanol cannot go into oil or gas pipelines because it <a href="https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/Ethanol.htm">absorbs excess water and impurities</a> within pipelines. That means <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html">rail cars and tanker trucks</a> transport all ethanol. </p>
<p>Although ethanol proponents say its use cuts carbon emissions, the evidence is mixed.</p>
<p>The government has determined that corn ethanol is much <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html">less effective than other biofuels</a> at reducing carbon emissions, producing only 1.5 to 2.1 units of energy for every unit used to produce it. This is much less efficient than biodiesel made from soybean oil, which produces <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.269.7061">5.5 units</a> of renewable energy for every unit consumed in production.</p>
<p>The ethanol Brazilians make from sugarcane residues does a much better job of shrinking that country’s carbon footprint. Converting sugarcane wastes into ethanol produces more than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1448">9.4 units of energy</a> for every unit that producing this fuel consumes.</p>
<h2>Flawed arguments</h2>
<p>One of the original goals behind mandating ethanol blends was to reduce oil imports. While corn ethanol does directly displace gasoline consumption, other efforts to reduce oil imports have had far more impact.</p>
<p>The share of oil the U.S. imports has fallen in recent years, but that decline is largely due to a domestic production boom brought on by hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, horizontal drilling and other <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20892">technological advances</a>. Increased domestic output has <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=a">displaced 54.5 billion gallons of imported oil</a>
annually – more than three times the roughly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php#renewable">15 billion gallons</a> of oil per year ethanol is displacing. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.biodiesel.org/production/production-statistics">Biodiesel and renewable diesel</a>, made from vegetable oils and animal fats, are displacing another nearly 3 billion gallons of diesel derived from petroleum per year.</p>
<p><iframe id="IWVkE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IWVkE/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>A <a href="https://vimeo.com/253081178">TV commercial</a> I’ve seen during football games touted two other flawed arguments in favor of increasing corn ethanol production: that E15 will mean “cleaner air” at a “lower cost.” </p>
<p>The problem is that blending ethanol with other fuels <a href="https://www.concawe.eu/publication/report-no-1313/">lowers their energy content</a>, slightly decreasing fuel economy. It may cost a bit less to fill up your tank but based on my calculations the decrease in miles per gallon that E15 would yield will mean it makes no difference on your wallet.</p>
<p>Likewise, the claim that E15 leads to cleaner air is not justifiable.</p>
<p>For one thing, all vehicles made since 1975 have <a href="https://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter.htm">catalytic converters</a> that remove unburned hydrocarbons and other airborne pollutants. For another, the Energy Department has not detected any across-the-board reduction in tailpipe emissions associated with ethanol use. Instead, it has observed that using more ethanol may slightly increase the <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html">tailpipe emissions of aldehydes</a>, which are <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=216&tid=39">respiratory irritants</a>.</p>
<h2>Old cars and chainsaws</h2>
<p>All cars since model year 2001 can operate safely on E15, but not older cars. Vehicles manufactured before 2001 could suffer fuel system or engine damage if they’re run on E15. The government requires the labeling of all E15 fuel pumps to prevent accidental use for this reason.</p>
<p>A bipartisan bill is pending in Congress that would take this notification further by making the labels bigger and mandating that they <a href="https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2018/21/federal-bill-introduced-to-require-larger-fuel-pump-warning-labels-for-e15">warn consumers</a> to check their owners’ manuals.</p>
<p>Another problem is that concentrations of ethanol in excess of 10 percent <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.2172/949053">can hurt non-automotive engines</a>, the Energy Department has found. These include, for example, the motors in lawn and garden equipment, motorcycles and <a href="https://www.boats.com/how-to/the-outboard-expert-ethanol-fuel-and-e15-update/">speedboats</a>.</p>
<p>Smaller engines lack computer controls able to adjust to operation on ethanol blends. If, say, the chain on your chainsaw engages without you intending it to, you could be in real danger. This malfunctioning can potentially cause <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222526">accidents in which people lose fingers or even limbs</a>.</p>
<p>Even once manufacturers redesign their weed-whacker and chainsaw engines to become compatible with higher ethanol blends, consumers who own older equipment would remain at risk of having them break down due to changes in fuel composition if E15 becomes the norm at filling stations.</p>
<p>People who own lawn and garden equipment and speedboats would have to go out of their way to avoid this problem by buying “<a href="https://www.pure-gas.org/about">pure gasoline</a>.”</p>
<p>In short, year-round sales of E15 probably aren’t going to do much to reduce oil imports or trim the nation’s carbon footprint. It would take more ambitious and strategic energy policies to achieve those worthwhile goals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>André Boehman serves on the Technical Advisory Board for Oberon Fuels (San Diego, CA). Prof. Boehman has received research funding from the US Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, US EPA, US Army TARDEC and other federal agencies, various state organizations and many industrial partners. </span></em></p>Vehicles made before 2001 could suffer fuel system or engine damage if they’re run on E15.André Boehman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering; Director, W.E. Lay Automotive Laboratory, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1050412018-10-19T01:26:17Z2018-10-19T01:26:17ZBioenergy carbon capture: climate snake oil or the 1.5-degree panacea?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241177/original/file-20181018-41122-1eburnl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=661%2C561%2C5520%2C4341&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Sequestration, known as BECCS, is one of the technologies we may need to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the release of the latest <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">special report</a> by the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, it’s time we talk frankly about <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology">Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Sequestration</a>, known as BECCS. It is one of the key technologies many models say we will need to limit warming to 1.5°C. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uns-1-5-c-special-climate-report-at-a-glance-104547">The UN's 1.5°C special climate report at a glance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>BECCS involves growing plants which remove carbon dioxide as they grow and are then burned in power stations to produce electricity. The resulting carbon dioxide from this combustion is captured and stored underground. The result is carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. </p>
<p>It is the not-so-high-tech wonder many are waiting for, but it comes at a high price. It also risks <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2017.1413322">delaying policies</a> that actually reduce emissions in the first place. </p>
<h2>Mapping the future, now</h2>
<p>According to models, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182">BECCS is the technology we are banking on</a> to fix our climate disruption and safeguard our future. The models have doubled down on BECCS, but it is an unproven solution on a large scale - and one that has significant and damaging side effects. </p>
<p>There are three choices on the table (we will likely see a mix of at least two): </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Equitable sustainability</strong> Massive amounts of low-carbon energy (solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles), huge improvements in energy efficiency, a revolution of the food systems and a transition of society towards lower growth, both in population and economy.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Hypothetical backstop</strong> Continue down the road we are on, and hope to “overcorrect” the problem in the future by sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. A lack of political will and intense lobbying has meant what was once a <a href="http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/%7Ermclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf">fairly manageable problem</a> has become an exercise in inventing heroic backstops. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Cowboy optimism</strong> Engineer the planet (even further) to ease the impacts of climate disruption, but not the underlying causes themselves. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The first choice means we change ourselves and alter the way we do things. The second means we continue polluting as we do now, and hope to clean up later. This option is a bit like the <a href="https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/">plastic clean-up trial currently underway</a> in the Pacific. </p>
<p>Choice three means we simply paper over the cracks, perhaps saving some aspects of human civilisation but pushing large parts of nature to extinction. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that in any scenario, <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PP-climate-finance-fund-Romani-Stern.pdf">massive investment by richer countries on behalf of poorer countries will be necessary</a>. This is already a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/world/asia/green-climate-fund-global-warming.html">significant problem</a>).</p>
<p>Given the delay, the majority of 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios run by models have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217319410">doubled down on the second choice</a>. But this lessens the need for unprecedented changes today. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-un-report-outlines-urgent-transformational-change-needed-to-hold-global-warming-to-1-5-c-103237">New UN report outlines 'urgent, transformational' change needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The reliance is so heavy that, on average, current models for meeting 2°C suggest we will be using BECCS and afforestation to mop up total, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182">annual global emissions by around 2070</a> (or 2055 for 1.5°C). This results in a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06695-5">massive growth in BECCS power plants</a> through this period, from three today to 700 by 2030, and 16,000 by 2060. </p>
<h2>Bonfire of the BECCS</h2>
<p>But large-scale BECCS is a monumentally tricky idea. BECCS aims to fix one thing – climate disruption – but makes many other things worse.</p>
<p>BECCS on an industrial scale needs many resources. Plants need land, water and fertilisers (sometimes) to grow, and infrastructure to get low-density plant matter from one place to another. We already <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/551033d">struggle to do this sustainably</a>.</p>
<p>Related to this, it is reasonable to think that BECCS will increase food prices. We have to produce <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf">70% extra food by 2050</a> to just keep up with population and food demand increases. Can we do this while using vast tracts of land for BECCS production? Perhaps only if we have a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/114/51/13412">big change in dietary habits</a> which frees up land? </p>
<p>While BECCS will provide some electricity, you don’t get much bang for your buck - it has the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305512">lowest power density of any other type of energy</a>.</p>
<p>BECCS make use of thermal power plants so inherit many problems related to running them. Power plants are heat engines and need water for cooling.
We already have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017114">problems with water cooling</a>, and it is getting worse with climate change. </p>
<p>Finally, BECCS power plants will produce <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/10/3856">ash</a>, which is a “better” version than the ash from coal plants (it doesn’t take much), but will still need attention.</p>
<h2>The role of Integrated Assessment Models</h2>
<p>The origin story for BECCS has been <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology">told elsewhere</a>, but how did we end up in a situation where the large majority of models point to this one problematic solution? These models are called Integrated Assessment Models, and come in two main varieties: simple and complex. </p>
<p>The complex ones are mostly used for investigating technology choices. The simple ones are often used to explore what the cost of carbon could be. This year’s Nobel Prize winner in economics, Bill Nordhaus, works <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/business/economic-science-nobel-prize.html">with these simple models</a>.</p>
<p>The overall weaknesses of these models have been covered in <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/fattaileduncertaintyeconomics.pdf">compelling</a> and <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w19244">entertaining</a> ways. Given the depth of the complex models, it is difficult to be sure why BECCS dominates. Most would agree that there are three likely possibilities.</p>
<p>First, these models discount future benefits and costs to a large extent. That is, they assume that future benefits and costs are much less in the future than they are today. The default rate at which models discount is 5% per year, meaning that to avoid $100 of climate damage in 2100 is only worth $3 to us today. Many have argued that this is <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/economics-current-climate-models-are-grossly-misleading-1.19416">much too high, ethically inappropriate, and misleading</a>. </p>
<p>I know of only <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0714-7">one study</a> which performs a sensitivity analysis using so-called discount rates. It finds that carbon dioxide removal is significantly reduced with lower discount rates. </p>
<p>Second, these models are very sensitive to prices and since a very low price for BECCS is assumed, this is the technology that dominates. The problem is that <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/47/13260">we don’t actually know what these prices might be</a>, especially on a large scale. </p>
<p>Third, these models have a difficult job estimating the damage from climate change. The risk from emitting now and paying later is fat-tailed – there is a non-negligible increased risk of catastrophe even if we do manage to implement choice two at a large scale. </p>
<h2>Taking off the BECCS blinders</h2>
<p>Are there technologies other than BECCS? If we must hypothesise backstop technologies, then direct air capture is a possibility. As the name implies, it <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/25132/chapter/1">sucks carbon directly from the air</a>. </p>
<p>Although it doesn’t generate energy in the process (in fact it uses large amounts of energy), it doesn’t have as many of the problems faced by BECCS. A possible future consists of solar-powered direct air capture in the Middle Eastern desert pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and pumping it underground into reservoirs from which oil was once pumped. This is speculative though, <a href="https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf">comes with it’s own big problems</a>, and as yet doesn’t feature much in modelling efforts due to its high cost (though they are <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air">coming down quickly</a> though).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-is-clear-we-have-to-start-creating-our-low-carbon-future-today-104774">The science is clear: we have to start creating our low-carbon future today</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Fortunately, there are an increasing number of studies which take a non-backstop approach. These still use integrated assessment modelling, but investigate other options, like very <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0172-6">low-energy demand scenarios</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0119-8">large-scale behaviour change</a> (for example to plant-based diets) which reduce other, non-CO₂ gases quickly. </p>
<p>There is nothing to be lost by committing to the first choice as fast as possible. In fact, many of the important solutions are better for our health too (such as using bikes instead of cars, plant-based diets, and insulating houses). And if we end up needing BECCS, then so be it, but the earlier we start moving to low-carbon economies, the more potential catastrophes we avoid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105041/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Behrens does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Delays on climate action to reduce emissions means that we may have to consider technologies that strip carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But that will come at a cost.Paul Behrens, Assistant Professor of Energy and Environmental Change, Leiden UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/957272018-05-08T10:43:53Z2018-05-08T10:43:53ZThe EPA says burning wood to generate power is ‘carbon-neutral.’ Is that true?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217826/original/file-20180506-166877-1gprizs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enviva's wood pellet plant in Ahoskie, NC. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt recently told a group of forestry executives and students that from now on the U.S. government would consider burning wood to generate electricity, commonly <a href="http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/biomass.html/">known as forest</a> or <a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/whatis.shtml">woody biomass</a>, to be “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-promotes-environmental-stewardship-forestry-leaders-and-students">carbon neutral</a>.”</p>
<p>The executives, who had gathered at an Earth Day celebration in Georgia, greeted the news <a href="http://gfagrow.org/georgia-forestry-association-applauds-epa-administrator-for-recognizing-carbon-benefits-of-woody-biomass/">with enthusiasm</a>. But I did not. </p>
<p>Biomass does not introduce new carbon into the system, as its supporters point out. Yet it does <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions">transfer carbon from forests to the atmosphere</a>, where it traps heat and contributes to climate change.</p>
<p>As a scientist and the <a href="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Resilience/Team/Moomaw">coordinating lead author of the</a> <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/drafts/SRREN-FOD-Ch01.pdf">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on renewable energy</a>, I have concluded from extensive scientific studies that converting forests into fuel is not carbon neutral. I have also been working with many other scientists to <a href="http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/LetterFromScientistsToEuParliament_ForestBiomass_January_2018.pdf">inform governments</a> about the potential for forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the climate perils of burning wood and forestry waste at an industrial scale for electric power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wood pellets like this one are burned to generate heat or power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Forests-As-Fuel/1a43a15375db4f858dd620941fa29ee1/1/0">AP Photo/John Flesher</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Turning forests into fuel</h2>
<p>Energy can be renewable. Or sustainable. Or carbon neutral. Or some combination. These terms are often used interchangeably, but they mean quite different things. Wind power and solar energy clearly have all three attributes. What about bioenergy – the heat released from burning wood and other plants?</p>
<p>Trees can eventually grow to replace those that were felled to produce wood pellets that are burned to produce electricity. That makes biomass very slowly renewable, if the replacement trees actually do grow enough to absorb all the carbon dioxide previously discharged.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/our-forests-arent-fuel">Environmentalists generally oppose forest biomass</a> because it contributes to climate change while disrupting important ecosystems and the biodiversity they support. They also object to this source of energy because it appears that burning biomass <a href="http://fern.org/report/biomassandhealth">releases pollutants that endanger public health</a>. </p>
<p>The scientists who <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280076738_IPCC_AR5_WG3_Chapter_11_Agriculture_Forestry_and_Other_Land_Use_AFOLU">study climate change</a>, the global carbon cycle and forest ecology tend to <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6382/1328?rss=1">reject the notion of biomass carbon neutrality</a>. Some forest economists and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2286237">forestry scientists</a>, however, support the notion of carbon neutrality, depending on the circumstances.</p>
<h2>Carbon accounting</h2>
<p>To settle this debate, many of my colleagues and I believe it is essential to accurately account for all the emissions from burning wood for electric power. This is more than an academic exercise as biomass already produces significant emissions and industry observers foresee a nearly <a href="https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/How2GuideforBioenergyRoadmapDevelopmentandImplementation.pdf">seven-fold increase in its use by 2050</a> from 2013 levels.</p>
<p>Forests can, at least theoretically, be managed sustainably as long as annual harvesting doesn’t exceed annual growth rates. Suppliers claim to use <a href="http://www.envivabiomass.com/sustainability/track-and-trace/enviva-responsible-wood-supply-program/">residues from timber harvesting, thinnings – trees growing too close to other trees to thrive – and sawdust</a> for this purpose. However, <a href="http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/">large-scale biomass has led to clear-cutting and the harvesting of whole trees</a>. </p>
<p>Also, experts see the carbon neutrality of forest biomass differently depending on the time frames they consider, and on their assumptions regarding the likelihood that saplings planted to replace burned trees grow sufficiently to offset all of the associated carbon emissions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trees at the Georgia Biomass pellet facility in Waycross.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carbon neutrality supporters</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/bioenergy-basics">Bioenergy supporters</a> say it’s possible for replacement trees to eventually remove all the carbon emitted through biomass from the atmosphere.</p>
<p>But this would require growing trees and forests that are bigger than the ones already harvested and burned for fuel. In addition to the emissions from combustion, carbon is released from forest soils when trees are felled. And it takes <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-urgency-of-curbing-pollution-from-ships-explained-94797">large amounts of energy to prepare wood pellets and transport them</a> to where they are burned.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6gaftYQ_56Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The UK’s Drax power station is among the largest to shift from coal to wood.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some bioenergy advocates claim that the carbon dioxide emitted when utilities and industry burn wood for energy is removed instantaneously by other growing trees located elsewhere. As long as forests globally are removing more carbon dioxide than is being released from harvesting and burning them, they assert that bioenergy is carbon neutral until combustion emissions exceed the removal rate by live trees.</p>
<p>However, there do not appear to be any quantitative studies to support this concept.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are rapidly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/carbon-cycle-diagram-doe-numbers">Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Biomass critics</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/pruitt-forests-burning-energy.html">scientists and other energy experts</a> who argue that burning wood isn’t carbon-neutral – <a href="https://www.theclimategroup.org/person/bill-moomaw">including me</a> – point out that bioenergy releases as much or <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280076738_IPCC_AR5_WG3_Chapter_11_Agriculture_Forestry_and_Other_Land_Use_AFOLU">more carbon dioxide per unit of thermal energy than coal or natural gas</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="Hos2s" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Hos2s/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>People are adding nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as natural systems can remove every year. If <a href="https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/carbon-cycle-diagram-doe-numbers">forests and soils</a> were not continuously doing their job of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, concentrations would grow annually by 75 percent more than they do.</p>
<p>Like most bioenergy critics, I point out that this debate hinges on the choice of baselines for how and when one measures the net carbon impact of biomass emissions. Put another way, you can’t count trees – and the carbon they would remove – before they grow. </p>
<p>And if the utilities now using biomass were to deploy solar energy instead, more carbon would remain stored in forests and less would be released into the atmosphere.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An area in North Carolina, after trees were harvested to produce wood pellets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Growing trees takes time</h2>
<p>Then there is the issue of time. Wood burns within minutes, releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But studies have determined that <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/meta">it takes about a century to remove the previously emitted carbon dioxide</a> even if typical forest trees are replaced.</p>
<p>Many bioenergy advocates acknowledge that fact. They argue that a 100-year span is a reasonable time frame for achieving carbon neutrality, but <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558952/">over the following 50 years, some tree species can double in size</a> to store twice as much carbon. Furthermore, according to scientific consensus, the world must begin reducing emissions by 2020 to meet the <a href="http://sciencenordic.com/can-we-really-limit-global-warming-%E2%80%9Cwell-below%E2%80%9D-two-degrees-centigrade">Paris climate agreement’s</a> goals to stave off disastrous global warming. </p>
<p>But waiting for full-replacement forest growth is a best-case scenario. The <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-015-0747-4">forestry industry</a> usually harvests trees for timber, pulp and other products before they grow to their full potential. And there is no assurance that saplings planted to replace trees cut for biomass will grow enough to meet carbon removal goals before being lost to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19697">fire, pests, drought or wind</a> – or that the land where they are planted won’t be converted to <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/deforestation/deforestation_causes/forest_conversion/">agriculture, housing, office parks or parking lots</a>.</p>
<p>Even using forest residues from harvesting, and thinnings from forest management <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/13/1720064115">aren’t carbon-neutral</a>. Only expanding forests and lengthening times between harvests reduce emissions.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The author and tree expert Robert Leverett walking among 150-year-old trees in Connecticut’s McLean Wildlife Refuge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Connor Hogan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Besides, the consequences of a changed climate, such as flooded coastal cities, irreversibly melted glaciers and sea ice, species extinction and more severe weather events like hurricanes is what really matters – not net carbon emissions. <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/02/13/11-takeaways-draft-un-report-1-5c-global-warming-limit/">Eventual carbon neutrality does not assure climate neutrality</a>. And even if tree regrowth were to counteract the carbon released through biomass, it would take decades. But the world needs to stall emissions growth now. </p>
<p>And of course if that wood had not been burned, the vast majority of those surviving trees would have removed and stored <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/13/1720064115">carbon dioxide emitted from burning coal</a> and other fossil fuels.</p>
<h2>Government support</h2>
<p>Yet many governments are making forest biomass a mainstay of their renewable energy policies, especially in the European Union – which declared all forms of <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/">bioenergy to be carbon-neutral</a> in 2009. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.edie.net/news/10/Biomass--carbon-neutrality--debate-continues-to-divide-opinions/">U.K. is replacing all of its coal-fired power plants</a> with new facilities that burn wood pellets that are <a href="http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news/biomass-report/">largely imported from southern states</a> like North Carolina and Mississippi. </p>
<p><iframe id="Qf3BY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Qf3BY/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Producing electricity by burning wood now <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/">costs more than wind or solar power</a>, making biomass <a href="http://econofact.org/can-u-s-and-u-k-forest-bioenergy-subsidies-have-adverse-climate-consequences">only economically viable with large subsidies</a>. It takes a significant <a href="https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/our-work/forests-climate/">environmental toll on local land, water and biodiversity</a> while generating as much <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2">air pollution</a> as coal, or even more, for some pollutants.</p>
<p>The evidence demonstrates that burning biomass worsens climate change. By contrast, protecting and restoring forests increases the removal and long-term storage of carbon from the atmosphere, a highly effective means for slowing global warming.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Moomaw receives funding from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. He is affiliated with Woods Hole Research Center (Board Chair), The Climate Group (Board Chair North America), The Nature Conservancy. (Board member Massachusetts chapter) </span></em></p>Deriving fuel from trees costs more than wind and solar power and it emits more carbon than coal. There are many heated debates about this kind of energy, known as forest or woody biomass.William Moomaw, Professor Emeritus of International Environmental Policy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811342017-07-18T15:14:25Z2017-07-18T15:14:25ZInaction on climate change risks leaving future generations $530 trillion in debt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178553/original/file-20170718-21748-1w9f5te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">24Novembers / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>By continuing to delay significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we risk handing young people alive today a bill of up to US$535 trillion. This would be the cost of the “negative emissions” technologies required to remove CO₂ from the air in order to avoid dangerous climate change. </p>
<p>These are the main findings of new research published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-577-2017">Earth System Dynamics</a>, conducted by an international team led by US climate scientist James Hansen, previously the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-agreement-23382">Paris Agreement</a> in 2015 saw the international community agree to limit warming to within 2°C. The Hansen team argue that the much safer approach is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ from the current annual average of more than 400ppm (parts per million) back to 1980s levels of 350ppm. This is a moderately more ambitious goal than the aspiration announced in Paris to further attempt to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C. Many climate scientists and policymakers believe that either the 2°C or 1.5°C limits will <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-emissions-cuts-arent-enough-well-have-to-put-carbon-back-in-the-ground-52175">only be possible with negative emissions</a> because the international community will be unable to make the required reductions in time. </p>
<h2>Putting carbon back in the ground</h2>
<p>The most promising negative emissions technology is BECCS – <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology">bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration</a>. It involves growing crops which are then burnt in power stations to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide produced is captured from the power station chimneys, compressed, and piped deep down into the Earth’s crust where it will be stored for many thousands of years. This scheme would allow us to both generate electricity and reduce the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178662/original/file-20170718-12568-sbmvws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Other energy sources are at best carbon-neutral, but BECCS removes more than it emits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_flow.jpg">Elrapto</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>BECCS has <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2392.html">important limits</a>, such as the sheer amount of land, water and fertiliser required to satisfy our energy demand. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn’t exist at anything like the scale required of it. Thus far only small <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/10/the-quest-to-capture-and-store-carbon-and-slow-climate-change-just-reached-a-new-milestone/?utm_term=.417c3c3d83d1">pilot projects</a> have demonstrated its feasibility. <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change">Other negative emissions approaches</a> involve <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html">fertilising the ocean</a> to increase photosynthesis, or <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air">direct air capture</a> which sucks CO₂ out of the air and converts it into plastics or other products. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178664/original/file-20170718-10334-caaytf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ethanol production plant in South Dakota, US. We’ll need many more of these – equipped with carbon capture tech – to have an impact on global emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jim Parkin / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Hansen team estimate how much it will cost to extract excess CO₂ with BECCS. They conclude that it would be possible to move back to 350ppm mainly with reforestation and improving soils, leaving around 50 billion tonnes of CO₂ to be mopped up with negative emissions technologies (the plants grown for BECCS take in the CO₂, which is then sequestered when burned). </p>
<p>But that’s only if we make significant reductions in rates of emissions right now. If we delay, then future generations would need to extract over ten times more CO₂ beyond the end of this century.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=205&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=205&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=205&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178558/original/file-20170718-21756-rtjq9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scenarios for future carbon dioxide emissions and extraction.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They estimate costs between US$150-350 for each tonne of carbon removed via negative emissions technologies. If global emissions are reduced by 6% each year – a very challenging but not impossible scenario – then bringing CO₂ concentrations back to 350ppm would cost US$8-18.5 trillion, spread over 80 years at US$100-230 billion a year. </p>
<p>If emissions remain flat or increase at 2% a year, then total cost balloons to at least US$89 trillion and potentially as much as US$535 trillion. That’s US$1.1 to US$6.7 trillion every year for eight decades. </p>
<p>To give these numbers some context, the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget">entire US federal budget</a> is about US$4 trillion, while annual spending by all countries on <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/global-defence-spending-western-budgets-shrink-444319">military and defence</a> is US$1.7 trillion.</p>
<h2>A climate balancing act</h2>
<p>Humans have pumped over <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf">1.5 trillion tonnes</a> of CO₂ into the atmosphere since 1750. It is not just the amount, but the rate at which this CO₂ has been added. The oceans can absorb extra CO₂ but not fast enough to remove all human inputs and so it has been <a href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html">progressively building up in the atmosphere</a>. This extra CO₂ traps more heat than would otherwise escape out into space. More energy is therefore entering the climate system than leaving it. </p>
<p>Over decades and centuries the climate will move back into balance with the same amount of energy leaving as entering. But this will be at a higher temperature with among other things less ice, higher sea levels, more heatwaves, and more floods. The last time the Earth’s climate experienced such an energy imbalance was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-last-time-earth-was-this-hot-hippos-lived-in-britain-thats-130-000-years-ago-53398">Eemian interglacial period</a> some 115,000 years ago. At that time global sea levels were six to nine metres higher than today. </p>
<p>The Hansen team argues that even maintaining the current energy imbalance risks locking in several metres of sea level rise. That is because slow processes such as melting ice sheets still haven’t “caught up”. The longer the climate is held out of balance, the greater their effect will be.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178676/original/file-20170718-10283-1ed7x1m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate change isn’t instant. Even if carbon emissions ceased today, ice caps would keep melting for decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bernhard Staehli / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One argument against making drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions is that it will harm economies as our industries are still largely fossil fuelled. Responding to climate change needs to balance the desire to continue to grow economies today with avoiding disastrous climate change or prohibitively expensive remedies tomorrow. </p>
<p>Whatever assumptions you make about economic growth, or however much you discount future costs, it’s unimaginable that US$535 trillion could be afforded. While these costs will be spread over 80 years, this will also be a period in which the global population will increase from seven billion to perhaps <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-the-earth-feed-11-billion-people-four-reasons-to-fear-a-malthusian-future-43347">11 billion and beyond</a>. Humanity will need to grow enough crops to feed these billions while fuelling BECCS schemes at a time when climate change will already be impacting food production. There are also no guarantees that BECCS or any other negative emission technologies will actually work. If they fail then large amounts of CO₂ could be released very rapidly with disastrous consequences.</p>
<p>By delaying significant carbon emission reductions we risk handing both an impossible financial and technological burden to future generations. Our children and grandchildren may be unable to understand how we negotiated such an arrangement on their behalf.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81134/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Dyke is as an editor of the EGU journal Earth System Dynamics. He served as the handling editor for the Hansen et al manuscript discussed in this article</span></em></p>New research calculates the huge cost of ‘negative emissions’ technologies that will be required to avoid dangerous climate change.James Dyke, Lecturer in Sustainability Science, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/520432016-01-08T04:19:11Z2016-01-08T04:19:11ZHow a project with good aims delivered bitter outcomes in Sierra Leone<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106865/original/image-20151222-27854-1lddyro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An excavator clears land for a palm oil plantation in southern Sierra Leone for a Lichtenstein-based a company. Such projects are criticised by some as 'land grabs'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Simon Akam </span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://africalandgrab.com/">Reports</a> about land-grabs in Africa often attack the corporations that stand to profit from such projects. But little is said of the international development banks that fund the projects.</p>
<p>Development banks are supposed to ensure adherence to <a href="http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTSITETOOLS/0,,contentMDK:20749693%7EpagePK:98400%7EpiPK:98424%7EtheSitePK:95474,00.html">human rights</a> in the projects they fund, because human rights protection is central to sustainable development. Instead, their practices provide fertile ground for <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16517&LangID=E">violations</a> by encouraging companies to cut costs and maximise profits, impoverishing local communities in the process. </p>
<p>Over the past three years I have been <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14754835.2015.1032219">studying</a> the local experiences of a large bioenergy project in rural Sierra Leone. </p>
<p>This project leased 40,000 hectares of land and relocated the farms of thousands of people to grow sugar cane and export ethanol to Europe. The project is primarily owned and managed by a private corporation, but is funded by a consortium of development banks and bilateral development organisations in Europe. The funding exceeds €250 million.</p>
<p>My findings indicate that the project has had a number of negative effects on local communities. These include restructuring of local power dynamics, the marginalisation of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14754835.2015.1032219">women</a> and increased economic inequality.</p>
<h2>Negative outcomes</h2>
<p>Women in the surrounding communities have very little ability to accept or reject the project. They also have no direct access to economic benefits, such as land lease payments and employment opportunities.</p>
<p>The project has also disrupted traditional networks of authority between chiefs and local people, creating new forms of disempowerment and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12102/abstract">dependency</a>. </p>
<p>For example, it has promoted and enforced the use of new forms of knowledge based on formal legal procedures to which local people have little access. These privilege and protect the corporation and the few local elites with the resources to afford formal mechanisms of justice.</p>
<p>What’s more, the project has promoted <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2015.1044960">economic inequality</a>. This is in direct contradiction to the basic claims of its proponents. In the locally dominant patron-client system, senior men appropriate most of the economic benefits, and progressively smaller portions are allocated to those on lower levels of the local hierarchy. </p>
<p>As a result, all women, most young men, and families other than the direct descendants of the village elites receive minimal or no economic benefits. This is despite the fact that everyone in the surrounding communities has had their livelihoods significantly disrupted by the bioenergy project.</p>
<p>These problems are echoed in findings from dozens of <a href="https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22land+Grab%22+Africa+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5">other studies</a> conducted around the world over the past five years.</p>
<p>Where does responsibility lie? </p>
<h2>Profit before people</h2>
<p>The usual response is to blame those most likely to benefit economically from such projects – the corporations. This seems like the obvious answer, but it is also too simplistic.</p>
<p>In the case I have been studying it became clear, for example, that those leading and working for the company generally had good intentions. They often believed that their project would have a positive influence on local communities and would help develop Sierra Leone. </p>
<p>They argued that the money they invested in employment and land lease payments would provide financial security for local communities. They were distressed by Western journalists, human rights advocates and researchers who argued otherwise.</p>
<p>But when the negative effects of the project were described to them, senior company officials on the ground regularly defended their policies and practices. They made the point that their primary responsibility was not to the communities, but to their funders: the international development banks.</p>
<p>The corporations argued that they were under enormous pressure to make the project profitable as soon as possible. They also wanted to start repaying the loans from the banks on schedule so that they could earn the reductions in interest rates they had been promised if the project met the targets.</p>
<p>To achieve the targets, concerns about women’s empowerment, restructuring of customary power relations, or economic inequality were de-prioritised. They were seen as something to be addressed only after the project was economically viable.</p>
<p>The staff required to meet the initial targets were engineers, agriculturalists and farmers. Gender specialists, anthropologists, sociologists, or human rights advocates were unnecessary. There was no incentive, in essence, to prioritise those concerns or to spend scarce resources on such skills.</p>
<p>For all their rhetoric about the positive impact the project would have on sustainable human development, the development banks and bilateral funders’ funding mechanisms did not incorporate incentives to achieve such outcomes. </p>
<p>As a result, the company was motivated to maximise profit and ensure financial viability. Companies, by their nature, will prioritise only what they are required to prioritise and pursue objectives that will reap them financial rewards.</p>
<p>We must, therefore, demand more of the development banks. Why do they prioritise only the profitability of the projects they fund? </p>
<p>Why not build in their funding mechanisms means to reward positive socioeconomic impacts, including women’s empowerment, economic equality, or political inclusion?</p>
<p>The banks have both the responsibility and the power to change the way the contemporary land rush affects communities. They have it in their power to avoid the negative socioeconomic effects and ensure projects are implemented in a way that respects people’s human rights. It is time we demanded it of them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52043/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gearoid Millar received funding for this study from Radboud University Nijmegen and the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland. </span></em></p>International development banks are supposed to ensure adherence to human rights in the projects they fund. Instead, their practices provide fertile ground for human rights abuses.Gearoid Millar, Lecturer in the Institute of Conflict, Transition, and Peace Research, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/469212015-09-16T10:07:47Z2015-09-16T10:07:47ZDoes bioenergy have a green energy future in the US?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94721/original/image-20150914-31151-dvd13p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An ancient form of energy: a wood pellet manufacturing facility in upstate New York.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thewildcenter/5146818998/in/photolist-8QNMYA-8QKG3Z-97hRih-eau86G-6hRPEu-eV9D4S-2ggagZ-dUpDgu-dUj2rT-8QKEik-8QKENB-8QNKdE-8QNLLu-8QKJbZ-8xdnJs-dUj2F8-icpUa9-bLA5JF-78xJ7m-78xHnq-8P5n5W-8P2fPP-s863fU-78xFW5-aDQb8Q-5TrZqf-gLxucS-7jdYmi-cKnmQY-9o1ezK-rCrdQ5-75bV4r-n933g-fPwazb-fPwa7G-fPw9Eu-9wfbAb-fPeKzV-fPeK2p-fPeHNv-fPw6EA-fPeGGa-fPeEq4-fPeENg-fPwcsU-fPeE3r-fPeF92-fPweXG-fPwb3J-fPeCyK">thewildcenter/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bio-derived sources of energy – wood, grass, dung and alcohol – have a rich history, yet have failed to command the “buzz” of solar, wind or even geothermal in public discussions regarding renewable energy. </p>
<p>Even worse, for some, “bio” conjures images of clear-cutting forests, <a href="https://theconversation.com/forecasting-dead-zones-and-toxic-algae-in-us-waterways-a-bad-year-for-lake-erie-43747">dead zones</a> in our waterways, “food-versus-fuel” or additional carbon emissions – the opposite of sustainable development.</p>
<p>In reality, bio-based energy has the largest market presence, involves the most stakeholders and currently has the greatest economic impact of any renewable energy industry sector. </p>
<p>If societies expect to effectively mitigate climate change, engaging the broadest possible swath of renewable energy sources is required. As an energy development professor and energy specialist for the University of Wisconsin, I’ve come to believe that including people whose economic interest is connected to the biologic productivity of the land – such as landowners, loggers and farmers – is a critical component to any climate strategy. </p>
<h2>Steering away from the iceberg</h2>
<p>Biomass energy has been with humanity forever. It is abundant, renewable, and able to produce energy on demand. </p>
<p>Globally, biomass energy dwarfs all other renewable sources. According to the <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf">International Energy Agency</a>, biomass (including wastes) provided 10% of the fuel for energy production globally in 2012. In contrast, hydro and all other renewable sources made up 3.4% of global production. Within <a href="http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm">countries</a> of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the biomass fuel share drops to 5.3% and all other renewable increases to 4% in 2013. Biomass is used for generating grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste as well as heat/steam in industry, space heating and to produce liquid fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.</p>
<p>Bio-derived fuels represented 2,068 trillion BTU (British thermal units, a unit of energy) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm">last year</a>, and 2,214 trillion BTU came from wood for power and steam.
In contrast, solar (427) + wind (1,734) + geothermal (222) combined produced 2,383 trillion BTU in 2014!</p>
<p>I acknowledge that biomass’ dominance is likely to wane, particularly as the costs of installing wind, solar and geothermal continue to drop. These platforms benefit from low operational costs and widespread public support. If a transition from a fossil hydrocarbon-fueled economy is to occur, the continued expansion of these platforms, and others, is necessary.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94722/original/image-20150914-23631-q84v3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ethanol plant in Iowa: energy from plant residue, apart from corn kernels, can be used to create heat and steam to run refineries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/photolibrarian/15550847133/in/album-72157641084367753/">photolibrarian/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet, technology advances alone are insufficient to mitigate continued man-made climate change. Many people are needed, too – people whose economic well-being, livelihood, aspirations and independence is tied to the energy transformation away from fossil fuels. The larger the population directly benefiting from this transition, the faster and more effectively it happens. </p>
<p>Will biomass be without so-called externalities – emissions, erosion, surface water degradation and other direct/indirect collateral impacts? Nope. Externalities will occur, as with all industrial activities.</p>
<p>Yet demanding an energy source without any negative side effects at this stage of the transition is the wrong, perhaps catastrophically wrong, pursuit. I believe that the largest possible tent, with the most people and largest economic footprint tied to this transition, is necessary. We can optimize the performance of our renewable energy sources once we’ve “maneuvered the bow away from the iceberg.”</p>
<h2>Forks in the road</h2>
<p>This discussion of bioenergy’s role comes at a critical time. December’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/paris-2015-climate-summit">Paris Climate Conference</a> is, conceivably, the most crucial gathering of our time. But in front of the US are two monumental forks in the road regarding the transition away from fossil fuels: the recently announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP), which restricts carbon emissions from power plants, and the often contentious Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a federal mandate to produce liquid fuel from biomass. </p>
<p>If these game-changing policies do not cement a long-term role for biomass, including biofuels and wood-burning in existing coal power plants, then we no longer have a “broad tent” strategy of including a wide array of energy sources. And if the tent shrinks, that implies less leverage in Paris. The lower the economic footprint benefiting from the energy transition, the smaller the political strength to negotiate for global-wide changes.</p>
<p>The US Environmental Protection Agency is the epicenter of both policies. Well-intentioned, but naïve, advocates have opposed some types of wood-fueled power, including a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/epa-biomass-climate-carbon_n_6664784.html">group of 78 scientists</a> that have expressed concern over the role of biomass in the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/powerplants/cleanplan/">Clean Power Plan</a>. These voices seek to severely restrict biomass as a fueling option for electrical generation under the CPP. </p>
<p>In contrast, on June 30 2015, 46 US senators signed a letter to the EPA endorsing the treatment of forest biomass as carbon-neutral fuel and, by extension, eligible to be utilized as acceptable fuel for utilities to comply with the <a href="http://epa.gov/airquality/cpp/fs-cpp-preview.pdf">carbon rules in the CPP</a>. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists has offered a “qualified” <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energ**y/how-biomass-energy-works.html#.Vdc9FZdBkoM">endorsement</a> of biomass-based power.</p>
<p>It is a challenge to define sustainable practices for biomass because consensus on this issue is not easily obtainable, if possible. Tight restrictions, even if optimized in terms of carbon neutrality, prompt inertia, dispute and litigation. </p>
<p>The decade-long debate over <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011-june/biofuels-and-land-use-change.aspx#.VfdRa51Viko">indirect land use costs of grain-based biofuels</a> is a prime example. In theory, increased demand for biomass may prompt some land use abuses, which could lead to deforestation and soil damage, but the cost of excluding biomass is time and momentum – neither of which climate scientists seem to think we have in surplus.</p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan should adopt a broad acceptance of biomass options. Monitoring and compliance systems should use already established sustainable forestry and agricultural conservation standards. </p>
<h2>Pushing harder on transportation fuels</h2>
<p>The Renewable Fuel Standard, the centerpiece of the George W Bush administration’s biofuel policy, calls for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022. These were optimistic targets in 2007-09 when the policy was formulated. The slow development of technology platforms, high costs and historically low fossil hydrocarbon prices have many questioning the wisdom of this mandate. That questioning is understandable, even to me – a renewables veteran for 32 years. What isn’t clear is the likely outcome of lowering our expectations for transportation biofuels.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94723/original/image-20150914-4695-1cv8wn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sorghum is being studied as an alternative to corn for making fuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/7209863456/in/photolist-bZ7rdC-q7KmLn-bAxf9p-pGba52-7CeFG8-dzE9o1-6L3uQs-9NfqyZ-8Ua7Lb-7YEEaU-6L23zX-8U73wc-8Ua7Kq-8U73u8-8U73te-6L23R6-9ZakZE-6L3uQh-6L6dv7-8Ua7Fd-5hAJaK-3gL3FG-6L313q-6L3uQo-6yW9AE-hS5sPk-nuWkWy-bZ7vxG-6VcZMW-3gPV49-3gKxcF-3gPV1G-7frkZf-8vkk4k-8vonYy-6X3dfb-9RoakF-7ypHeJ-2USE8G-6msNau-cF9Bsu-bAxfyt-b8AmSV-b8AmDZ-mJuyP-efHC4-8DqqR5-3gL8NA-3gLbhb-3gFFVK">Department of Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The essence of the RFS is to provide policy certainty to stakeholders developing alternatives to fossil hydrocarbon-based products. Without policy certainty means fewer investment funds, fewer stakeholders with ties to the energy transition, and result is: more dependence on fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Without stable biofuel policy, the development of biochemicals, advanced bioproducts and improved transportation fuels with a lower carbon footprint and better energy density is in doubt. A reversal in policy would mean that significant public/private investment into these platforms and supply systems may be squandered.</p>
<p>Is the RFS optimal? Free of externalities? Absolutely not! Still, the RFS should be reaffirmed and supported, including the allowance of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol and the eventual expansion of the “blend-wall” to go from 10% ethanol mix in gasoline now to 15% in your neighborhood fuel station.</p>
<h2>Policy perfection versus ‘good-enough’</h2>
<p>Will permitting utilities to use biomass as part of their regulatory compliance allow some coal plants to survive? Yes. Will some wood fuel originate from whole trees, rather than residue from logging, and will some of those whole trees come from clear-cutting operations? Yup. Is the pursuit of the “perfect” worth dispelling the value of the “good?” In my opinion, a loud and resounding NO!</p>
<p>The more important question is: can the transition away from a near total fossil carbon-based economy be achieved within the time necessary to mitigate climate change? Climate change that threatens existing and following generations cannot be addressed without the enthusiastic participation of loggers, farmers and industrialists. A mass movement is needed, not a laser-guided approach that favors some renewable energy sources over others.</p>
<p>I recognize there are concerns over potential environmental problems from biomass industries. These issues should be monitored and policies adjusted as warranted. Nevertheless, my experience suggests that people closest to the land, such as loggers and farmers, tend to care most for it. We must place trust and faith in those land stewards, as compared with second-guessing their intentions and willingness to contribute to a solution. </p>
<p>Excluding biomass, even in those cases that may lead to more intensive, short-term use of the land, is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite yourself. It’s picking the wrong fight for the wrong reasons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46921/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Baye sometimes advises firms that may benefit from the argument presented in this article.</span></em></p>The future of two key energy policies – the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Renewable Fuel Standard – will decide whether bioenergy will continue to grow in US or not.Tim Baye, Professor of Business Development and State Energy Specialist, University of Wisconsin Colleges and the University of Wisconsin-ExtensionLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/447002015-07-16T19:30:11Z2015-07-16T19:30:11ZBioenergy: making money, and clean energy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88663/original/image-20150716-5111-2cdo6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A biogas plant in Queensland. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NH Foods Oakey Beef Exports</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-clean-energy-finance-corporation-is-meant-to-back-winners-not-minnows-44593">draft direction</a> this week to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in “emerging” clean energy over mature sources such as wind and rooftop solar has added yet more uncertainty to the renewable sector in Australia. </p>
<p><a href="http://arena.gov.au/about-renewable-energy/bioenergy/">Bioenergy</a> (renewable energy derived from plants or animals) is one such emerging technology. It currently makes up <a href="http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/reports/clean-energy-australia-report.html">7.9%</a> of total clean energy generation, or about 1%, of Australia’s total energy generation.</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/action/printArticle?id=998193936">media reports</a> to date it remains unclear whether technologies included under the bioenergy banner will be included in the investment mandate for “new and emerging technology”. </p>
<p>So what are the prospects for bioenergy? </p>
<h2>Bioenergy’s popularity on the rise</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/reports/clean-energy-australia-report.html">Clean Energy Council</a> ranks bioenergy as Australia’s fourth-largest generator of renewables energy behind hydro, wind and solar. </p>
<p>Clearly bioenergy is getting bigger. As of September 2014 renewable energy projects in the CEFC pipeline are headed by bioenergy at 38%, well ahead of solar photovoltaics at 27% in second place. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88453/original/image-20150715-21728-8rp7df.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The CEFC’s pipeline of projects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/investments/our-pipeline.aspx</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At a <a href="http://www.bioenergyaustralia.org/">Bioenergy Australia</a> business breakfast last month, the CEFC said it was considering A$800 million in investment in bioenergy to accelerate A$3 billion in projects.</p>
<p>While bioenergy is common and hugely popular in other parts of the world including Germany, the United States and China, it remains a relatively new technology in Australia.</p>
<p>Despite its relatively small scale, bioenergy has a nationwide footprint, with <a href="http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/bioenergy.html">139 plants</a> across Australia in operation as of late 2014.</p>
<h2>Sector attracts private, government investment</h2>
<p>One of the key questions for financing clean energy is the return on investment. The CEFC’s contracted investments are currently expected to earn a portfolio weighted average yield of <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/media/releases-and-announcements/files/cefc-has-helped-accelerate-$35b-in-total-investment-towards-a-competitive-clean-energy-economy.aspx">around 6%</a> across their lifetime. How does bioenergy stack up?</p>
<p>The CEFC has <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/media/76571/cefc-quarterly-report-june-2014.pdf">forecast</a> a 8.9% rate of return over six years for one New South Wales investment, while a Western Australian project is expected to return 8.2% over 10 years.</p>
<p>This figure relates to the debt component of the transaction and CEFC assumes the return on equity will be higher, giving a higher weighted average total return on the project.</p>
<p>While some of these bioenergy projects have been wholly funded by the businesses themselves, many have attracted funding from state and or federal government.</p>
<p>This funding has been granted because governments see the wisdom in underpinning investment in key businesses, some of which employ hundreds of people.</p>
<p>It has also come about because local, state and federal governments are concerned about the pressures of a growing population, waste accumulation and odour from landfill and industry.</p>
<h2>Technologies active in alleviating waste problems</h2>
<p>Bioenergy technologies such as biogas can be incorporated into existing operations to provide elegant solutions to turn waste into power, heat and other valuable by products such as fertiliser.</p>
<p>These technologies can be introduced in “closed-loop” systems and operate regardless of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. The figure below shows the principles of a closed “carbon-loop” system.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88455/original/image-20150715-21743-u0pg92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The closed ‘carbon loop’ for bioenergy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy-consumers/sustainable-energy/bioenergy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With CEFC funding of up to 50% in some cases, bioenergy is now in use in sectors which include meat processing at plants like <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/media/76497/cefc-pdf-factsheet-bindaree_lr.pdf">Bindaree Beef</a> at Inverell, piggeries, egg production and the garden products industry.</p>
<p>Australian bioenergy sources feedstocks from a number of sectors, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>agricultural-related wastes like sugarcane residue (bagasse) and manure </p></li>
<li><p>municipal wastes including sewage and landfill </p></li>
<li><p>energy crops such as sorghum used to produce ethanol.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Bioenergy has the ability to literally swallow waste created by humans in municipalities, animals in intensive livestock operations, and crop production.</p>
<p>Outside the square is the biggest and longest-running user of bioenergy in Australia, the sugarcane industry.</p>
<p>For decades, selected mills in Queensland and NSW have been burning bagasse, the woody pulp left after sugar has been extracted from cane, to generate heat and electricity for use in in sugar processing, and selling surplus electricity to the grid.</p>
<p>The massive <a href="http://i-fed.com.au/project/">Integrated Food and Energy Developments</a> project proposed for North Queensland includes sugarcane production incorporating steam and electricity production from bagasse. This could be a prime candidate for CEFC funding.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernadette McCabe is a member of Bioenergy Australia and is Australia's National Team Leader for the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Bioenergy Task 37: Energy from Biogas.</span></em></p>The government has issued a draft direction to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in “emerging” clean energy such as bioenergy. But what are the prospects for bioenergy?Bernadette McCabe, Associate Professor and Vice Chancellor's Senior Research Fellow, University of Southern QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437862015-06-25T06:32:04Z2015-06-25T06:32:04ZBurning wood: an opportunity for renewable power and heat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86336/original/image-20150625-19262-11e8y49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Biomass will help meet Australia's renewable energy target.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Cootes</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Burning some wood waste from native forests will be counted as renewable energy under <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About/Pages/News%20and%20updates/NewsItem.aspx?ListId=19b4efbb-6f5d-4637-94c4-121c1f96fcfe&ItemId=146">revisions to the Renewable Energy Target</a> (RET) passed this week. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/media-release/shameful-backward-step-clean-energy-and-forests">Environmental groups</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/greens-accuse-government-of-creating-27dead-koala-certificates/6569594">the Greens</a> have criticised the move as possibly encouraging the logging of native forests. </p>
<p>Burning wood waste was included in the <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A00767">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act (2000)</a>. Under the <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2001B00053">Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001</a>, harvesting native forest just for energy generation was explicitly not eligible. <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02410">Until 2011</a> some wood waste from native forest harvesting was eligible. The latest revisions reinstate some native wood waste under the legislation with the restrictions that existed until 2011.</p>
<p>The RET legislates that, by 2020, 33,000 gigawatt hours of electricity must be generated by renewable energy. This <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/Scheme-participants-and-industry/Power-stations/Eligibility-criteria">includes</a> wind, solar, hydro, tidal and various bio-energy sources. The scheme works through the creation of certificates for energy generation, and the requirement for liable entities to purchase these certificates. </p>
<p>The latest revisions cut the RET from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh and make burning wood waste from some native forest harvesting eligible for certificates under tight restrictions. </p>
<p>However, as recognised in the relevant legislation and as shown by developments in Europe, burning wood waste from a variety of sustainable sources offers great potential as another source of renewable heat and electricity. </p>
<h2>How it works</h2>
<p>Sources of wood allowed under the RET include residues from plantation, timber-processing facilities, construction waste and some native forest residues. </p>
<p>The recently amended legislation clearly defines eligible feedstock for energy from native forest must be a residue resulting from an existing operation producing high-value timber products. </p>
<p>This legislation is similar to the regulatory regime dating back to 2000 and which applied until 2011. Despite this legislative support the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics reports that the annual <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-statistics.aspx">average energy from wood in the ten years before and after 2000</a> declined from 106.9 petajoules to 99.7 petajoules.</p>
<p>For a number of economic reasons large-scale electricity generation from woody biomass in Australia has not seen significant uptake. It’s useful to examine briefly woody biomass energy generation here and overseas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86243/original/image-20150624-31492-1g39yf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A community-scale woody biomass thermal energy system in Austria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The European story</h2>
<p>Woody biomass comprises the <a href="http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MAIN-REPORT-Bioenergy-a-sustainable-and-reliable-energy-source.-A-review-of-status-and-prospects.pdf">largest renewable portion of global primary energy</a>. </p>
<p>While wood energy makes a small contribution to Australia’s fossil-fuel-intensive energy supply, modern wood energy plants in Europe make a large contribution in countries with ambitious renewable energy and decarbonisation targets. These include Sweden, Finland, Germany and Austria. </p>
<p>Most woody biomass energy systems in Europe generate thermal energy. Thermal energy can be used for household, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes. European thermal systems can operate with very high efficiency at scales from household to supplying district heating systems and industrial steam for entire towns. </p>
<p>Both the authors have visited regional towns in Finland that are heated by wood in areas where temperatures may go as low as -35C. While Europe has extensive subsidies for renewable heat, there are no subsidies for woody biomass heat in Australia. </p>
<p>Smaller-scale thermal systems are becoming more common in Australia. Recent installations include the Beaufort Hospital near Ballarat, a public swimming pool and a number of commercial greenhouses. These community-scale systems use small quantities of wood in the range of hundreds to thousands of tonnes per year. </p>
<p>At this small scale, the wood can come from a variety of sustainable local sources. In addition to being a renewable energy, it can play an important role in regional development.</p>
<h2>Heat and power from wood</h2>
<p>Wood can be used to generate just electricity or heat and electricity in a combined heat and power plant. </p>
<p>Most electricity from wood is generated in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle">Steam Rankine Cycle</a> (SRC) plants (SRC is the technology used in most large-scale coal-fired power plants). These SRC systems are relatively inefficient at producing electricity compared to the energy stored in the wood.</p>
<p>This system efficiency can be greatly improved in a combined heat and power plant by making direct use of some of the heat generated. This further favours smaller installations tailored to a local need.</p>
<p>Large-scale SRC systems require hundreds of thousands of tonnes of wood per year. This would require expensive transportation over long distances and subjects plant operators to supply risk.</p>
<p>Smaller-scale SRC systems require less wood but are less efficient when not combined with heat production. SRC systems in Europe are commonly small-scale systems selling heat locally, which improves both the system efficiency and financial return.</p>
<p>The decentralised energy production possible with bio-energy provides significant local benefits of economic and energy resilience. If the east coast LNG export plants lead to the widely forecast <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-get-burnt-by-gas-price-rises-tips-for-homes-and-industry-28198">increases in the cost of gas</a>, woody biomass thermal systems will become increasingly cost-competitive.</p>
<h2>Does it have to come from forests?</h2>
<p>Even with the intensified deployment of bio-energy in Europe the material used for energy production is usually a residue of commercial operations to produce timber or fibre from wood. </p>
<p>Dedicated woodlots and short-rotation woody crops are also used to supplement European biomass supply in relatively small quantities. Some wood pellets used in Europe are manufactured from diseased or pest-affected trees in North America. </p>
<p>Other northern hemisphere sources of whole trees for energy such as otherwise non-commercial species are contentious and unlikely to be economically viable without large subsidies. Some commercial European energy generators have questioned this use on sustainability grounds. </p>
<p>Northern hemisphere experience suggests that woody biomass energy systems can make a significant contribution of low-cost, low-carbon energy using off-the-shelf, commercially available technology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43786/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Brown receives funding from Forest and Wood Products Australia and Australian forest industry companies. He is affiliated with Bioenergy Australia, IEA Bioenergy - Task 43 and the Institute of Foresters Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Coote in the past has done small consulting jobs in renewable energy. He may do more such work in the future. He is affiliated with the Institute of Foresters Australia and several farm forestry networks.</span></em></p>Burning some wood waste from native forests will be counted as renewable energy under revisions to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) passed this week.Mark Brown, Professor of Forestry Operations, University of the Sunshine CoastDavid Coote, PhD Candidate, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/282772014-09-26T03:51:05Z2014-09-26T03:51:05ZBioenergy: Australia’s forgotten renewable energy source (so far)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60002/original/gzbrvn2k-1411621449.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=19%2C25%2C4249%2C2805&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Electricity from wood? We have the power.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pixelbliss/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we think of renewable energy, it’s easy to picture spinning wind turbines or rooftop solar panels. But what about <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/bioenergy">bioenergy</a>?</p>
<p>While wind and solar are now well established – in South Australia wind now supplies <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-sets-50-renewable-energy-target-for-2025-2020%5D">33% of the state’s power generation</a>, while nationwide there are more than <a href="https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/ret-review-report-0">1.3 million roofs</a> now sporting solar panels – bioenergy has nowhere near the same reach or profile in Australia as it does in many other parts of the world. </p>
<p>Modern bioenergy is not simply about burning wood to provide heat, or using crop-based oils, sugars and starches for ethanol and biodiesel. The range of available biomass sources now includes municipal waste, forest slash, invasive weeds and cereal straw, and they are being used to make products like biogas, green electricity and jet fuel.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01115.x/full">CSIRO research</a> has previously shown that bioenergy could contribute substantially both to Australia’s electricity generation (up to 20% in 2030), and to its liquid fuel needs (30-40% by 2020). If used at this scale, emissions in both of these sectors would drop significantly.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57601/original/br82mt5w-1409193840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Possible contributions of bioenergy to Australia’s transport and electricity sectors in 2030. Click to enlarge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Farine et al.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Slow out of the blocks</h2>
<p>There are many reasons why bioenergy’s huge potential has not yet been realised: economics, sustainability concerns, logistics, the bewildering array of options, and investors’ wariness of new technologies. </p>
<p>From one perspective, different renewable energies like wind, solar and bioenergy are in competition with each other and need to be compared on the basis of their economic, environmental and social implications. If the full suite of new energy technology is added to the equation, this comparison becomes even more complex. </p>
<p>Yet <a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/aemo-report-100-renewable-electricity-scenarios">recent research</a> has shown that rather than being competing alternatives, different renewable energy solutions could complement one another. One example is <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X14000057">hybrid bioenergy-solar systems</a>, in which the solar output is supported by biomass burning, making the energy generation process more efficient and reducing the need for the solar energy to be stored in order to smooth out supply. </p>
<p>On top of the uncertainty about all these possible permutations, there are also the usual business and investment concerns around new technology in new markets. Add them together and you start to see why progress can be slow without clear policy support. </p>
<p>In the transport sector, bioenergy could help reduce fossil fuel use in areas that, for logistical reasons, can’t embrace existing sustainable options such as electric vehicles. Aviation, agriculture, mining and shipping will all have to rely on liquid fuels in the <a href="http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Flagship/FuelForThoughtReport.aspx">short-to-medium term</a>, and biofuels could offer an alternative that has lower in carbon impacts and particulate pollution. </p>
<p>New technologies mean that these fuels can now be made from non-food sources such as wood and straw. These fuels are not complementary liquids like ethanol which can be used in “blends”; rather, they are functionally equivalent fuels which are indistinguishable from fossil counterparts. </p>
<p>These fuels can be used as straight replacements for diesel, petrol and even aviation fuel. The global aviation industry including such companies as <a href="http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/operations/alternative-fuels/">Airbus</a>, <a href="http://www.newairplane.com/environment/#/SustainableAviationBiofuel/SustainableBiofuel/">Boeing</a> and <a href="http://www.virginaustralia.com/au/en/about-us/sustainability/sustainable-aviation-biofuel/">Virgin Airlines</a> have been developing and trialling these fuels, and some of them already meet the <a href="http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/Powering-Transport/Sustainable-Aviation-Fuels-Road-Map.aspx">very high requirements</a> for performance and safety in aircraft.</p>
<h2>Biomass burning is big elsewhere</h2>
<p>In contrast to the limited recognition of bioenergy in Australia, biomass is playing a key role in meeting the European Union’s sustainable energy targets, and in providing energy independence to the US military in terms of both electricity and liquid fuels. </p>
<p>Bioenergy offers opportunities not just for improved fuel self-sufficiency and emissions reductions, but also offers regional benefits of jobs, small business opportunities, diversification of incomes and risk management for farmers, and landscape renewal through actively managing the woody resources needed to make the fuels. </p>
<p>The question for Australia is: how can we take advantage of these opportunities? The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target">Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme</a> creates a mandate for uptake of sustainable energy in the electricity sector, with its target of 41 gigawatt hours of power from renewable sources in 2020. </p>
<p>The RET has been very effective in stimulating rapid expansion of generating capacity, especially wind. But there has been little uptake of bioenergy, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/review-calls-for-renewable-energy-target-cuts-what-it-means-29787">current uncertainty</a> over the scheme’s future could reduce these prospects still further.</p>
<p>Australia needs to invest in demonstration and development of the most promising bioenergy options and their supply chains, to accelerate the learning curve and drive down costs. It is critical that the RET be maintained, as this provides the certainty to business that allows investment. Ideally the RET should also be accompanied by a comprehensive climate change policy that drives improvements in energy efficiency.</p>
<p>Should bioenergy (and other renewables) receive such support, or should they instead be expected to stand or fall on their own economic merits? Groups like the <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au">Climate Institute</a> have recently attempted to quantify the direct and indirect financial support that the very mature and established fossil energy industry continues to receive from the government. </p>
<p>In contrast, the emerging bioenergy industry does not receive the same level of support. For more than a decade, <a href="http://aphnew.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rb/2005-06/06rb15.pdf">government policies</a> have acted to reduce the limited financial resources available for this sector. </p>
<p>Improved support for research and development, and a more level playing field for renewable fuels in comparison with fossil fuels, would go a long way towards allowing Australia to join much of the rest of the world in benefiting from bioenergy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Brown receives funding from Australian plantation and forest management companies, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Australian Academy of Science and Bioenergy Australia. He is affiliated with Institute of Foresters Australia, International Journal of Forest Engineering, EU-FP7-Infres biomass supply chain mobilization, National Center for Future Forest Industries, Forest Industries Research Centre-USC and Forest Products Society Interantional Nominating Committee.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annette Cowie receives funding from IEA Bioenergy, United Nations Environment Program, Bioenergy Australia, the CFI Methodology Development Grants Program and the Filling the Research Gap program. She is affiliated with the Australian Soil Science Society, the Australian and New Zealand Biochar Researcher’s Network and the International Biochar Initiative.</span></em></p>When we think of renewable energy, it’s easy to picture spinning wind turbines or rooftop solar panels. But what about bioenergy? While wind and solar are now well established – in South Australia wind…Mark Brown, Professor of Forestry Operations, University of the Sunshine CoastAnnette Cowie, Principal Research Scientist, Climate, NSW DPILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/258742014-04-25T13:02:42Z2014-04-25T13:02:42ZDon’t write off biofuels yet, we will need them to get about in the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47033/original/qnhy4w57-1398357402.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fill 'er up... with biological burnt offerings.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biodiesel_3.jpg">Mejidori</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bioenergy and biofuels have an important role to play in lowering the use of carbon-intensive fossil fuels – a point underscored by the <a href="http://www.mitigation2014.org/">IPCC report</a> which confirmed the need for further research to improve such technology.</p>
<p>A key challenge is creating alternative transport fuels, which are currently overwhelmingly fossil-fuel dependent, and responsible for <a href="http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-3">25%</a> of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Of the renewable energy alternatives such as wind, tidal and solar power, it is only non-edible biomass (broadly, any biological matter derived from plants or other organisms) that can offer a low-cost, “drop-in” sustainable transport fuel.</p>
<p>Such a liquid biofuel with a high energy density would fit easily into the enormous global fuel distribution networks that already exist. Other renewables such as wind and solar, though well-suited to powering static homes and industry, would require significant breakthroughs in battery technology before they could compete with gasoline, diesel or liquid biofuels.</p>
<p>With transport and emissions growing, an alternative is needed, fast. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/26/biofuels-rubbish-eu-road-transport">Biofuels derived from waste</a> could replace 16%, or 37m tonnes, of oil used by road vehicles in the EU alone by 2030. But history has shown how introducing new and transformative technologies can be slow, especially when they seek to usurp the highly-embedded infrastructure of the status quo. </p>
<h2>New raw materials</h2>
<p>Each year India produces more than 200m tonnes of inedible agricultural waste such as rice and cotton stalks, unsuitable for either human consumption, animal fodder or bedding. Most is burned illegally to speed up the process of crop rotation. This releases huge quantities carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and wastes valuable hydrocarbons that could be put to use. Europe produces 900m tonnes of agricultural, forestry and food waste – all are rich in energy-filled sugars. </p>
<p>Which waste stream is used as a raw material feedstock for biofuels will differ from region to region, so a key challenge is to develop the technology that can process biomass with very diverse physical and chemical properties. For example, pine bark, switchgrass, corn husks, and starches. Putting this to use would bring substantial benefits to industry and the economy: instead of paying to burn and bury biomass waste, companies could sell it as the starting point of creating valuable gasoline, diesel and jet fuels.</p>
<p>At the European Bioenergy Research Institute (<a href="http://bioenergy-midlands.org/">EBRI</a>) we are working on the engineering necessary. Solutions include <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/thermochemical_conversion.html">thermochemical conversion</a>, for distributed power generation such as to small farms and telecommunications towers. Thermochemical processes, such as pyrolysis, use heat (rather than burning) to force a chemical reaction. This can be dramatically accelerated and steered by the use of catalysts to lower the barriers to chemical bond breaking.</p>
<p>At high temperatures, the chemical bonds between carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms in biomass break. The products include a solid, called <a href="http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar">biochar</a> (like charcoal, but not derived from coal), which is used as a soil enhancer or a solid heating fuel. It also produces a liquid that can be used as a biodiesel to power combustion engines, and a small amount of biogas that can be burned to sustain the pyrolysis heat reaction, introducing a degree of self-sufficiency that reduces the overall cost of the process.</p>
<p>Similar approaches pursued by private and state-funded businesses worldwide could deliver a double whammy of eliminating the carbon dioxide emissions from burning waste and at the same time yielding high energy density fuels. British Airways has this month <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/16/british-airways-green-fuel-plant-essex">committed to buy 50,000 tonnes</a> of aircraft jet fuel derived from biowaste to be manufactured at a plant in Thurrock, Essex, as part of its deal with sustainable fuel company <a href="http://www.solenafuels.com/">Solena</a>. And one of the biggest champions of biofuels is the US military, <a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/water/articles/department-energy-issues-draft-renewable-energy-and-efficient-energy-projects">currently offering US$4 billion</a> in loans to companies able to help commercialise and push forward the technology required.</p>
<h2>Modernising biofuels</h2>
<p>It’s important to end society’s dependence on the use of non-renewable, carbon-based fuels. But this cannot be done at the expense of food crops (using corn to create ethanol, for example) or land used for food crops, as was the case with so-called first generation biofuels. The pressure this has put on food security in some parts of the world has blackened biofuels’ reputation.</p>
<p>But it’s crucial not to throw the baby out with the bathwater: the IPCC report urges us to explore the potential of all alternative energy sources. Newer, second generation biofuels can use non-edible plants (such as grasses) that can grow on soils that cannot sustain food crops. Better yet, careful selection and processing of waste biomass can accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels – we cannot simply write off biofuels as a credible solution to the world’s future energy needs, as it has been by some. Bioenergy solutions are more practical, economic and immediate than many alternatives.</p>
<p>The authors of the IPCC report are absolutely right to highlight the urgent need to alter policy and investment strategies. Funding agencies, private industry and NGOs must work together to focus research and development efforts in bioenergy, and identify projects that will deliver rapid change, without compromising environmental and farming needs. The clock is ticking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Lee receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Karen Wilson receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Royal Society and is a Royal Society Industry Fellow.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Wilson receives funding from the EPSRC and from a Royal Society Industry Fellowship.
</span></em></p>Bioenergy and biofuels have an important role to play in lowering the use of carbon-intensive fossil fuels – a point underscored by the IPCC report which confirmed the need for further research to improve…Adam Lee, Professor of Sustainable Chemistry, Aston UniversityKaren Wilson, Professor of Catalysis and Research Director, Aston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254912014-04-14T06:10:57Z2014-04-14T06:10:57ZPeptide power: the science behind the 30-second phone charger<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46334/original/j2syf43y-1397453031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Frustrated by battery drain? A new superfast charger is still a couple of years off ... but it'll be more environmentally friendly than the toxic batteries we use today.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rpavich/13605581545">rpavich/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’re one of the thousands of <a href="http://forums.androidcentral.com/android-4-1-4-2-4-3-jelly-bean/310053-my-s4-battery-drains-too-fast.html">smartphone users</a> experiencing <a href="https://discussions.apple.com/message/24079637#24079637">battery drain</a>, you’d have been pleased to read that Tel Aviv-based start-up <a href="http://www.store-dot.com/">StoreDot</a> recently unveiled a prototype charger that <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/storedots-bio-organic-battery-tech-can-charge-from-flat-to-full-in-30-seconds/">fully charges</a> a Samsung Galaxy 4 battery in around 30 seconds. </p>
<p>The unit – demonstrated at Microsoft’s <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/07/charge-your-phone-in-30-seconds-an-israeli-firm-says-it-can/">Think Next</a> conference in Tel Aviv – is the size of a small brick, but the company hopes it can <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/07/charge-your-phone-in-30-seconds-an-israeli-firm-says-it-can/">produce and commercialise</a> a more compact model by the end of 2016.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9DhJZAhjbcI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">See for yourself here.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So what makes this prototype special – and how does it differ to what we use today? To get a good idea of its processes we need to look at it from a quantum perspective.</p>
<h2>Lots of quantum dots</h2>
<p>The new technology, which seems to be a brainchild of <a href="https://www.eng.tau.ac.il/%7Egilr/">Gil Rosenman</a> and colleagues at Tel Aviv University in Israel, is based on biological quantum dots.</p>
<p>A quantum dot is a tiny crystal that is typically made of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_materials">semiconductor material</a> such as <a href="http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gallium-arsenide-GaAs">gallium arsenide</a>, and is small enough (less than 10 nanometres) to exhibit <a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/95/11/10.1063/1.461258">quantum confinement effects</a> (which allow the electronic and optical properties of quantum dots to be controllably tuned).</p>
<p>The concept of using quantum dots for electronics is not new. In the past, electronic devices have focused on using inorganic quantum dots for transistor, solar cell, light emitting diode (LED) and diode laser technologies. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46326/original/jhbwpdv6-1397450493.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/emsl/4252247060">EMSL/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They are the building blocks of modern electronic devices, but these inorganic quantum dots are prepared using highly toxic components such as cadmium, zinc, sulphides and selenides.</p>
<p>Professor Rosenman’s group is working on bio-inspired self-assembly of biological, organic materials – peptides – to achieve the similar tasks as achieved by traditional inorganic semiconductors.</p>
<h2>Going organic</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/essendon-faces-a-doping-investigation-but-what-are-peptides-12042">Peptides</a> are short chains of amino acids that play different roles in our body. </p>
<p>In nature, the controlled self-assembly of peptides and proteins is critical for us to perform different tasks. If those processes are disturbed, they can lead to uncontrolled aggregation of peptides which can cause various disorders such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-alzheimers-disease-24662">Alzheimer’s disease</a>.</p>
<p>Over the past decade, knowledge gained from nature has enabled scientists to fine-tune the self-assembly of peptides in the laboratory, so peptides can now be artificially modified to self-assemble in different conditions, and function outside a biological organism. </p>
<p>This has led to new applications of peptides in areas such as bio-nanomedicine, bio-nanotechnology, electronics, optics and energy storage.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46323/original/6vm2tc3d-1397450048.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeshaheenphotography/8807354169/">Michael Shaheen/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>StoreDot seems to have manipulated the chemistry of such peptides. This has allowed controllable self-assembly of two peptide molecules into an organic quantum dot of only two nanometres in size. </p>
<p>Since biomimetic self-assembly processes are highly specific, this may lead to an organic quantum dot manufacturing process with high yield and fewer imperfections in the final product. </p>
<p>It is critical to maintain a narrow size range of quantum dots in the final product. This is because different sized quantum dots act differently, but the current manufacturing protocols for inorganic quantum dots tend to suffer from such challenges.</p>
<h2>Beyond chargers</h2>
<p>It is clear that different biological semiconductors can be created to perform a myriad of tasks relevant to electronic devices. These include quick charging batteries and <a href="http://www.store-dot.com/#!our-products/c8c8">visible light emission</a> for displays, on which StoreDot is currently concentrating. </p>
<p>It is not fully clear whether the rapid charging capacity shown by biological semiconductors makes use of the <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eachaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ferroelectricity.html">ferroelectricity</a> (spontaneous electric polarisation), <a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/piezo.html">piezoelectricity</a> (charge acquired through compression or distortion) and/or other properties of self-assembled peptides such as <a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140117/ncomms4109/full/ncomms4109.html">second harmonic generation</a> (where two photons “combine” to create new photons with twice the energy).</p>
<p>Overall, the proof-of-concept demonstration to speed up charging times of current electronic devices is clearly remarkable.</p>
<p>Based on the crystallinity of the peptide-based quantum dots, StoreDot claims that they are stable over multiple cycles of charging – but bio-molecules such as peptides are prone to degrade under standard operating conditions. </p>
<p>Only time will tell whether such bio-based electronic devices will pass the rigorous stability tests expected by consumers across a range of environmental conditions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vipul Bansal receives funding from Australian Research Council through its Discovery, Linkage, and Linkage Infrastructure and Equipment Grant schemes.</span></em></p>If you’re one of the thousands of smartphone users experiencing battery drain, you’d have been pleased to read that Tel Aviv-based start-up StoreDot recently unveiled a prototype charger that fully charges…Vipul Bansal, Associate Professor of Materials Chemistry and Nanobiotechnology and Leader of NanoBiotechnology Research Laboratory (NBRL), RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/250462014-04-01T05:11:51Z2014-04-01T05:11:51ZIPCC report: biofuels alone are unsustainable, but can still help combat climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45192/original/hysm2zz4-1396282102.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Deforestation must be balanced with biofuel demands.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mauroguanandi/2828170497/">mauroguanandi</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Biofuels have come under scrutiny in the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/">latest IPCC report</a>, which outlines some of the emergent risks associated with their production.</p>
<p>In principle, biofuels seem to be an ideal solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the risks of climate change. Most of the carbon released when the fuel is burned is absorbed by plants as they re-grow. If all went according to plan, the carbon cycle would be “closed” and there would be no (or very little) net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from biofuels.</p>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report still finds potential for biofuels to provide a low(ish) carbon solution to energy needs and, as a result, be part of the arsenal of strategies to reduce the risks of climate change. But the authors also draw on the past decade of research that shows the challenges ahead if biofuels are to meet this promise without worsening other global problems.</p>
<p>But it has been clear from the earliest IPCC reports that biofuels were never going to be a game changer. At best they were going to provide 10% of the world’s energy needs – in part because it would be impossible to produce sufficient crops for biofuel, given the need to use land for other purposes.</p>
<h2>Competing interests</h2>
<p>As is common in policy debates, a solution is put forward to solve one particular problem (climate change) and over time people with interests in solving other problems (food or water security) begin to notice potential downsides for the focus of their concerns. </p>
<p>Biofuels have followed this traditional path and, since the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-3-3.html">last Assessment Report</a>, it has been recognised that they cannot be understood as a solution outside of a more complex <a href="http://www.weforum.org/reports/water-security-water-energy-food-climate-nexus">energy-food-water-climate nexus</a>. They are interlinked in a way that land devoted to growing crops for biofuels might <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-first-fuel-second-is-the-uns-message-on-biofuels-15705">compete with food production</a>, lead to deforestation and also compete for increasingly limited water supplies.</p>
<p>A significant hitch in the biofuel strategy was identified in what has become known as the <a href="http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/Searchinger2008CroplandsIncreaseGreenhouse.pdf">Searchinger Report</a>. This focused on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on climate change if a rush to growing them caused farmers to convert forests and grasslands to crops for fuel. Depending on the farming method used, biofuels could be responsible for significant land use problems, such as releasing other greenhouse gases like nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Critiques followed, pointing out that crops might require significant amounts of water for irrigation in areas of the world already struggling with <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501204627.htm">water scarcity</a>. The assault on bioenergy continued with the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-02-04/food-vs-dot-fuel">food vs fuel debate</a>, in which it was claimed that wholesale movement towards biofuel production could nudge aside food production, driving up food costs and worsening food shortages in the poorest nations.</p>
<h2>Caution not abandon</h2>
<p>The latest IPCC report has taken these concerns on board and issued a cautionary note. The message is not that biofuels should be abandoned. There is still scope for them to contribute to a global low carbon energy policy, but if done poorly, biofuels could worsen both food and water problems, while simultaneously making climate change worse. </p>
<p>Whether a risk emerges depends critically on what is assumed about how land would be used if crops for energy were not planted. These counterfactuals are where most of the disagreements lie regarding the net effect of biofuels.</p>
<p>Each of the concerns surrounding biofuel production has a solution to ensure that the risks identified don’t appear in practice. As the authors recognise, however, putting these solutions in place makes biofuels a more complicated mitigation strategy than was thought in the last assessment report.</p>
<h2>Biofuel solutions</h2>
<p>Advanced biofuel production is being developed to solve many of the existing problems with them. Solutions include moving away from a reliance on food crops, sustainable forestry practises where the total amount of carbon stored in plants remains constant even as biomass is harvested and the development of drought-resistant feedstock, perhaps through bioengineering.</p>
<p>The lesson? It was a mistake to ever view biofuels outside the energy-food-water-climate nexus. Human aims always collide and so a balance must be found and policies harmonised so each of the aims is represented in how land is used.</p>
<p>And watch this space, because the UK’s <a href="http://www.supergen-bioenergy.net">Supergen Bioenergy Hub</a> at the University of Manchester, is addressing these issues and helping the world move toward solutions that will allow biofuels to play at least their limited role in solving the energy and climate change problems of tomorrow without worsening other pressing problems of food and water.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25046/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas Crawford-Brown receives funding from European Commission via the FP7 programme.</span></em></p>Biofuels have come under scrutiny in the latest IPCC report, which outlines some of the emergent risks associated with their production. In principle, biofuels seem to be an ideal solution to reducing…Douglas Crawford-Brown, Director, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.