Bioenergy & Waste News

Monday 24 August 2009

David Williams is chair of the biomass sub-group within the government's Renewables Advisory Board and chief executive of renewables firm Eco2

In a special article for NewEnergyFocus, David Williams, chair of the biomass sub-group within the government's Renewables Advisory Board, looks at the future prospects for biomass.

The European Commission recently announced the findings of a report it had commissioned into the development of sustainability criteria for biomass feedstocks. Reassuringly the results were overwhelmingly supportive, with 90% in favour of the introduction of some kind of scheme (see this newenergyfocus story).

The Commission plans to use this feedback as the basis for a formal proposal, which may apparently be tabled as early as December. Clearly the introduction of such a scheme can only be beneficial for the sector.

For some time now developers have been aware of the advantages that biomass projects hold over those of other renewable technologies. This is especially apparent in the case of onshore wind, perceived by many to be the most viable source of clean energy today.

Not only are the comparisons favourable in terms of the competition for and consenting of potential sites, biomass also offers far higher generation potential, up to four times according to some sources.

Noises coming from Government are also optimistic. The recent Renewable Energy Strategy envisages huge growth, with biomass expected to provide 30% of electricity and heat towards the UK's target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. The Government has also increased the ROCs for biomass to 1.5 to help facilitate the process.

A sliding scale

As the sector becomes more mature it is undoubtedly essential that general, over-arching sustainability criteria are introduced. They will provide developers and investors with greater clarity to work from and will also bring biomass into line with other industries, which already have numerous binding and voluntary codes of practice in place.

Equally however, it is not enough to simply categorise different feedstocks as ‘good' and ‘bad'. Left facing a ‘pass' or ‘fail' scenario developers will automatically move to the most cost-effective and highest yielding technologies, as they did with onshore wind when the ROCs system was first introduced.

Instead the scheme should be used as an opportunity to implement a sliding scale of environmental best practice. While the nuance of burning wood chip as against elephant grass may seem subtle, the effects can be radically different - we must take this opportunity to recognise that.

Provenance

Of course there are multiple considerations that will need to be discussed, perhaps the most pressing being the ‘food vs. fuel' debate. As witnessed in the biofuels sector, it is an issue that has the potential to permanently and fatally torpedo the entire industry.

It is essential that we make clear from the start that not all feedstocks are necessarily grown on land that would otherwise be used for food. Indeed some, such as straw or corn husks, come as a by-product of crops grown for food and would otherwise need to be alternatively disposed of or ploughed back in.

As a part of this we also need to review whether or not trees (and other crops) would have been felled regardless of end use and then whether and how quickly they will be replenished.

Sourcing

Equally pertinent are considerations around sourcing. The experiences of my own business, Eco2, give a good indication of the challenge here. We plan to build a 40MW plant in Lincolnshire. Our calculations suggest that we will need approximately 200,000 metric tonnes of straw per year to power it, enough bales laid end to end to stretch from the north of Scotland to the south coast of England.

When you consider that other schemes which have been mooted, propose to generate 30 times that, some 9GW, you realise the sheer volume of crops that will be required. We know from experience that it is possible to power a 40MW station using local resources, but there is no way that this can be the case for a development of that size.

Within this ‘whole-of-life' carbon impact is an important issue. Many producers ship in feedstocks from abroad, often wood which is frequently brought from as far away as Canada or Indonesia. Emissions given off in transportation need to be factored in to the criteria - they clearly will have an impact on what can be considered sustainable together with road movement either end.

One solution may be to ensure that Government subsidies across the European Union are all level, thereby helping to remove part of the additional commercial incentive for shipping feedstocks across the region.

The first step

It is definitely encouraging that the Commission has taken this first step and is pro-actively looking to lay down specific sustainability criteria.

However, as with all of these things, the devil lies in the detail. Along with the rest of the industry I'm looking forward with eager anticipation to reviewing the specific measures put forward. Hopefully they will lay the foundations for biomass to play a central role in Europe's energy future.