Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs

AbstractThe paper describes an approach to landscape design that focuses on integrating bioenergy production with other components of environmental, social and economic systems. Landscape design as used here refers to a spatially explicit, collaborative plan for management of landscapes and supply chains. Landscape design can involve multiple scales and build on existing practices to reduce costs or enhance services. Appropriately applied to a specific context, landscape design can help people assess trade-offs when making choices about locations, types of feedstock, transport, refining and distribution of bioenergy products and services. The approach includes performance monitoring and reporting along the bioenergy supply chain. Examples of landscape design applied to bioenergy production systems are presented. Barriers to implementation of landscape design include high costs, the need to consider diverse land-management objectives from a wide array of stakeholders, up-front planning requirements, and the complexity and level of effort needed for successful stakeholder involvement. A landscape design process may be stymied by insufficient data or participation. An impetus for coordination is critical, and incentives may be required to engage landowners and the private sector. Hence devising and implementing landscape designs for more sustainable outcomes require clear communication of environmental, social, and economic opportunities and concerns

Grassland futures in Great Britain – Productivity assessment and scenarios for land use change opportunities

This is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).To optimise trade-offs provided by future changes in grassland use intensity, spatially and temporally explicit estimates of respective grassland productivities are required at the systems level. Here, we benchmark the potential national availability of grassland biomass, identify optimal strategies for its management, and investigate the relative importance of intensification over reversion (prioritising productivity versus environmental ecosystem services). Process-conservative meta-models for different grasslands were used to calculate the baseline dry matter yields (DMY; 1961–1990) at 1 km2 resolution for the whole UK. The effects of climate change, rising atmospheric [CO2] and technological progress on baseline DMYs were used to estimate future grassland productivities (up to 2050) for low and medium CO2 emission scenarios of UKCP09. UK benchmark productivities of 12.5, 8.7 and 2.8 t/ha on temporary, permanent and rough-grazing grassland, respectively, accounted for productivity gains by 2010. By 2050, productivities under medium emission scenario are predicted to increase to 15.5 and 9.8 t/ha on temporary and permanent grassland, respectively, but not on rough grassland. Based on surveyed grassland distributions for Great Britain in 2010 the annual availability of grassland biomass is likely to rise from 64 to 72 million tonnes by 2050. Assuming optimal N application could close existing productivity gaps of ca. 40% a range of management options could deliver additional 21 ∗ 106 tonnes of biomass available for bioenergy. Scenarios of changes in grassland use intensity demonstrated considerable scope for maintaining or further increasing grassland production and sparing some grassland for the provision of environmental ecosystem services.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Towards a sustainable biomass strategy: what we know and what we should know

The paper reviews the current knowledge on the use of biomass for non-food purposes, critically discusses its environmental sustainability implications, and describes the needs for further research, thus enabling a more balanced policy approach. The life-cylce wide impacts of the use of biomass for energy and material purposes derived from either direct crop harvest or residuals indicate that biomass based substitutes have a different, not always superior environmental performance than comparable fossil based products. Cascading use, i.e. when biomass is used for material products first and the energy content is recovered from the end-of-life products, tends to provide a higher environmental benefit than primary use as fuel. Due to limited global land resources, non-food biomass may only substitute for a certain share of non-renewables. If the demand for non-food biomass, especially fuel crops and its derivates, continues to grow this will inevitably lead to an expansion of global arable land at the expense of natural ecosystems such as savannas and tropical rain forests. Whereas the current aspirations and incentives to increase the use of non-food biomass are intended to counteract climate change and environmental degradation, they are thus bound to a high risk of problem shifting and may even lead to a global deterioration of the environment. Although the balanced approach of the European Union's biomass strategy may be deemed a good principle, the concrete targets and implementation measures in the Union and countries like Germany should be revisited. Likewise, countries like Brazil and Indonesia may revisit their strategies to use their natural resources for export or domestic purposes. Further research is needed to optimize the use of biomass within and between regions. -- Der Beitrag wertet die vorliegenden Erkenntnisse über den Einsatz von Non-Food Biomasse aus. Er diskutiert kritisch die damit verbundenen ökologischen Nachhaltigkeitswirkungen und beschreibt die Forschungsaufgaben, die gelöst werden müssen, um einen ausgewogeneren Politikansatz zu ermöglichen. Die lebenszyklusweiten Umweltbelastungen des energetischen und stofflichen Einsatzes von Biomasse als Roh- oder Reststoffe zeigen, dass Biomasse basierte Produkte andere, nicht immer bessere Umweltauswirkungen aufweisen als fossil basierte. Eine kaskadenförmige Nutzung, bei der Biomasse zunächst materiell für Ge- und Verbrauchsprodukte eingesetzt wird, deren Energiegehalt am Ende ihrer Einsatzphase genutzt wird, ist tendenziell mit einer höheren Umweltentlastung verbunden als der primär energetische Einsatz. Auf Grund der begrenzten globalen Landflächen kann Non-Food Biomasse nur einen gewissen Anteil an nichterneuerbaren Ressourcen ersetzen. Wenn die Nachfrage nach Non-Food Biomasse und ihren Derivaten, speziell nach Biokraftstoffen, weiter ansteigt, wird dies zwangsläufig zu einer Ausdehnung der globalen Ackerfläche zu Lasten von natürlichen Ökosystemen wie Savannen und tropischen Regenwäldern führen. Wenngleich die gegenwärtigen Hoffnungen und Anreize zum verstärkten Einsatz von Non-Food Biomasse darauf abzielen, dem Klimawandel entgegenzuwirken und die Umweltsituation zu verbessern, sind sie daher mit einem großen Risiko verbunden, Probleme zu verlagern und die globale Umweltsituation sogar noch zu verschlechtern. Obwohl der ausgewogene Ansatz der Biomassestrategie der Europäischen Union als ein gutes Prinzip gelten kann, so sollten die konkreten Ziele und Umsetzungsmaßnahmen in der Union und in Ländern wie Deutschland überprüft werden. In gleicher Weise mögen Länder wie Brasilien und Indonesien ihre Strategie zur Nutzung ihrer natürlichen Ressourcen für den Export oder im Inland überprüfen. Weitere Forschungsarbeiten sind nötig, um den Einsatz von Biomasse innerhalb und zwischen den Regionen zu optimieren.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process industry: a review

Purpose : Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is a well-established analytical method to quantify environmental impacts, which has been mainly applied to products. However, recent literature would suggest that it has also the potential as an analysis and design tool for processes, and stresses that one of the biggest challenges of this decade in the field of process systems engineering (PSE) is the development of tools for environmental considerations. Method : This article attempts to give an overview of the integration of LCA methodology in the context of industrial ecology, and focuses on the use of this methodology for environmental considerations concerning process design and optimization. Results : The review identifies that LCA is often used as a multi-objective optimization of processes: practitioners use LCA to obtain the inventory and inject the results into the optimization model. It also shows that most of the LCA studies undertaken on process analysis consider the unit processes as black boxes and build the inventory analysis on fixed operating conditions. Conclusions : The article highlights the interest to better assimilate PSE tools with LCA methodology, in order to produce a more detailed analysis. This will allow optimizing the influence of process operating conditions on environmental impacts and including detailed environmental results into process industry

Developing a framework for the optimal deployment of negative emissions technologies

In delivering on the world’s climate goals, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is required in addition to deep mitigation efforts. As no carbon dioxide removal method stands out as an obvious winner, which, how, and how much of these technologies should be deployed to guarantee efficient, sustainable and permanent carbon dioxide removal remains a fundamental research challenge. One potential option, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is likely to play an important role. BECCS’s ability to sustainably remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is, however, controversial. Given the range of potential outcomes, it is crucial to understand how, if at all, this technology can be deployed in a way which minimises its cost and impact on natural resources and ecosystems, while maximising both carbon removal and energy production. In this dissertation, we explore the regional drivers of BECCS sustainability and cost, and provide insights into the where, when, and extent of environmentally sustainable and economically viable BECCS deployment. We conclude that the total quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide removal and energy production over the lifetime of a BECCS project, and the time required to start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will likely vary from project to project. This has profound implications for the policy frameworks required to incentivise and regulate the widespread deployment of BECCS technology. When optimising regional biomass supply chains, we find that a myopic focus on energy generation and carbon dioxide removal can result in negative consequences for the broader environment, which warrants consideration for all impacts when assessing the performance of a BECCS project. Finally, when exploring least-cost BECCS deployment pathways to meet global carbon dioxide removal targets, an important finding is that inter-regional cooperation and collaboration are central to sustainably and affordably meeting these targets, with important value creation opportunities for key providers of carbon dioxide removal.Open Acces