Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 110, November 2017, Pages 434-446
Energy Policy

Does the world have low-carbon bioenergy potential from the dedicated use of land?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Large estimates of bioenergy potential repeatedly err by counting benefits of using land but not costs.

  • On 73% of global land, PV produces at least 100 times more useable energy per hectare.

  • PV plus carbon sequestration would generally produce 100 times more mitigation and same energy.

  • BECCS can only provide additional CCS benefits once all fossil fuel emissions are eliminated.

  • Large IAM energy crop estimates are based on idealized global land scenarios not true projections.

Abstract

While some studies find no room for the dedicated use of land for bioenergy because of growing food needs, other studies estimate large bioenergy potentials, even at levels greater than total existing human plant harvest. Analyzing this second category of studies, we find they have in various ways counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but ignored the costs. Basic carbon opportunity cost calculations per hectare explain why alternative uses of any available land are likely to do more to hold down climate change. Because we find that solar power can provide at least 100 times more useable energy per hectare on three quarters of the world's land, any “surplus” land could also provide the same energy and mitigate climate ~ 100 times more if 1% were devoted to solar and the rest to carbon storage. Review of large bioenergy potential estimates from recent IAMs shows that they depend on many contingencies for carbon benefits, can impose many biodiversity and food costs, and are more predictions of what bioenergy might be in idealized than plausible, future scenarios. At least at this time, policy should not support bioenergy from energy crops and other dedicated uses of land.

Introduction

Estimates of potential low or zero carbon bioenergy can be 500 EJ or higher even as authors assume bioenergy will not displace food or wood products (Chum et al., 2011, Creutzig et al., 2015). Dedicated energy crops provide the largest estimated sources, with some estimates also based on harvesting wood from forests. We call these sources bioenergy from “dedicated use of land” because they require the dedication of some or all the productive capacity of land even if some harvested wood, crop or biofuel by-products continue to serve other uses.

These large estimates of bioenergy from such dedicated uses of land raise attention because of their competition for land and biomass:

  • One, all the world's harvested biomass in 2000 had a gross energy content of about 230 EJ, including all harvested crops, crop residues, wood, and forages consumed by livestock (Chum et al., 2011, Haberl et al., 2012, Haberl et al., 2007). These bioenergy estimates are therefore claiming that bioenergy is both low or no carbon and sustainable at levels that would double or triple total human plant harvest.

  • Two, land use changes necessary to supply current biomass harvests (and its 230 EJ of energy) have contributed around one third of the world's cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750 (Le Quéré et al., 2016). Nearly all strategies for stabilizing the climate at acceptable temperatures assume a rapid phase out of deforestation, and many assume increases in forest cover by 2050 (IPCC, 2014), in effect providing no room for additional depletion of land-based carbon stocks.

  • Three, virtually all analyses project increases in demand for crops, milk, and meat on the order of 60–100%, plus increases in urban areas, and in the demand for wood products (Searchinger et al., 2013, Valin et al., 2014). Because of these projected increases in food demand, even with little or no increase in bioenergy, the vast majority of models estimate expansion of agricultural land by 2050, including several by more than half a billion hectares (Bajželj et al., 2014, Schmitz et al., 2014, Tilman and Clark, 2014).

Given this land use competition, as Bajželj et al. (2014) wrote pithily, “unless food demand patterns change significantly, there seems to be little spare land for bioenergy developments without a reduction of food availability” or, we add, without adverse effects on climate from losses of terrestrial carbon. What then explains the estimates of large, low carbon, bioenergy potential from dedicated uses of land?

This paper seeks to explain these different viewpoints by exploring where and how the optimistic bioenergy estimates find the land or biomass for bioenergy and their claimed sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits. We start by exploring the basic principles of biomass accounting and why biomass is not inherently carbon neutral. The benefit of bioenergy from dedicated use of land is the reduced emissions of fossil fuels, but the cost is not using that land to produce other plant outputs, including food and carbon storage. Proper accounting must examine net effects. Using basic opportunity cost calculations, we show why bioenergy even under highly favorable assumptions is unlikely to produce net climate benefits.

With this background, we explore the estimates of large bioenergy potential or GHG benefits from biophysical mapping, and economic models and show how they count the benefits of using land or biomass for bioenergy but not the costs. In effect, they double-count land or biomass as available for bioenergy even as the analyses assume they also continue to serve existing uses. Some integrated assessment models (IAMs) do not double-count in the same way, but we find that their bioenergy benefits are contingent on a variety of optimistic and uncertain assumptions. They provide not plausible bioenergy estimates, but idealized thought experiments if governments took many implausible actions to maximize global land use outputs.

Section snippets

In general

Burning biomass releases carbon, and must release at least some more carbon than burning fossil fuels because of the lower energy per gram of carbon in biomass (IPCC, 2006). Regardless, typical lifecycle and other GHG analyses of bioenergy (Argonne National Laboratory, 2016), start with the assumption that biomass itself is an inherently “carbon neutral” fuel (Searchinger et al., 2009, Searchinger et al., 2015a). These analyses will typically count the emissions from trace greenhouse gases (N2O

Direct cost-benefit calculations for bioenergy

Direct comparisons of GHG benefits in using a hectare of land for bioenergy and its alternatives show the likely net costs of using land for bioenergy when properly factoring in land opportunity costs, including the enormous advantages of solar energy.

Global estimates of bioenergy potential based on biophysical categories

Many scientific bodies have now pointed out that biomass is not automatically carbon neutral, including the Science Advisory Board of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Swackhamer and Khanna, 2011), the Science Committee of the European Environmental Agency (European Environment Agency Scientific Committee, 2011), and the authors of the most recent Working Group III bioenergy appendix of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Creutzig et al., 2015). Yet this last group

Favorable modeling of indirect land use change (ILUC)

In addition to showing the carbon costs per hectare of land, Table 1 also shows the land use opportunity cost per MJ of fuel of directing different kinds of land to bioenergy use. In the case of maize ethanol, for example, it shows that even preventing any theoretically surplus temperate cropland from growing forests imposes a cost equal to 82 g/MJ, far more than enough to cancel out the benefits of displacing fossil emissions. When farmers merely divert crops from existing cropland, governments

Bioenergy potentials estimated by some long-run integrated assessment energy models

IAMs and energy models can provide another group of projections of increased bioenergy at least by 2100. In one recent model comparison of 15 separate models, bioenergy ranged from negligible up to 330 EJ in a 450 ppm mitigation scenario depending on the model (Rose et al., 2014). What do these high bioenergy estimates signify about the land use trade-off implicit in bioenergy from dedicated use of land?

A first answer is that most of the 15 models involved in this inter-comparison treat land as

Conclusions and recommendations

The general lessons from this analysis are that the carbon costs of dedicating land to bioenergy will exceed the benefits. Alternative analyses in a variety of ways have been counting the benefits of using land or biomass without counting the costs. They therefore also do not plausibly contradict that many analyses that the world lacks land to dedicate to bioenergy.

Models that rely on demand- and price-induced yield gains do not make this error but they lack significant evidence and ignore much

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the David & Lucille Packard Foundation and the World Resources Institute for financial support.

References (104)

  • H. Haberl et al.

    Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy

    Energy Policy

    (2012)
  • M. Hoogwijk et al.

    Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2005)
  • M.Z. Jacobson et al.

    Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials

    Energy Policy

    (2011)
  • D.Y.C. Leung et al.

    An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2014)
  • S.Y. Searle et al.

    Will energy crop yields meet expectations?

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2014)
  • E. Smeets et al.

    A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050

    Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.

    (2007)
  • D.P. van Vuuren et al.

    Future bio-energy potential under various natural constraints

    Energy Policy

    (2009)
  • K.L. Abt et al.

    Effect of bioenergy demands and supply response on markets, carbon, and land use

    For. Sci.

    (2012)
  • AEBIOM, BC Bioenergy Network, USIPA, WPAC, 2013. Forest Sustainability and Carbon Balance of EU Importation of North...
  • T.M. Aide et al.

    Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the caribbean (2001–2010)

    Biotropica

    (2013)
  • Allen, B., Kretschmer, B., Baldock, D., Menadue, H., Nanni, S., Tucker, G., 2014. Space for Energy Crops–assessing the...
  • Antweiler, P., Wei, L., Liu, Y., 2012. Ecological rehabilitation in China: achievements of key forestry initiatives....
  • Argonne National Laboratory, 2016. The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation Model....
  • K.G. Austin et al.

    Reconciling oil palm expansion and climate change mitigation in Kalimantan, Indonesia

    PLoS One

    (2015)
  • B. Bajželj et al.

    Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation

    Nat. Clim. Change

    (2014)
  • A. Bauen et al.

    Bioenergy – a sustainable and reliable energy source: a review of status and prospects

    IEA Bioenergy ExCO

    (2009)
  • G. Berhongaray et al.

    Soil carbon and belowground carbon balance of a short-rotation coppice: assessments from three different approaches

    GCB Bioenergy

    (2016)
  • S. Berry

    Biofuels Policy and the Empirical Inputs to GTAP Models (Report to the California Air Resources Board.)

    (2011)
  • S. Berry et al.

    Technical Report for the ICCT: Empirical Evidence on Crop Yield Elasticities

    (2011)
  • D.N. Bird et al.

    Zero, one, or in between: evaluation of alternative national and entity-level accounting for bioenergy

    GCB Bioenergy

    (2012)
  • Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Carranza, D., Alano, M.L., 2011. The fundamentally flawed ‘marginal lands' narrative:...
  • T. Buchholz et al.

    Forest Biomass and Bioenergy: Opportunities and Constraints in the Northeastern United States

    (2011)
  • X. Cai et al.

    Land availability for biofuel production

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2011)
  • J.E. Campbell et al.

    The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2008)
  • S. de Cara et al.

    Land-Use Change and Environmental Consequences of Biofuels: A Quantitative Review of the Literature

    (2012)
  • H. Chum et al.

    Bioenergy

  • F. Creutzig et al.

    Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

    GCB Bioenergy

    (2015)
  • S.C. Davis et al.

    Harvesting carbon from Eastern US Forests: opportunities and impacts of an expanding bioenergy industry

    Forests

    (2012)
  • J. Dumortier et al.

    Sensitivity of carbon emission estimates from indirect land-use change

    Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy

    (2011)
  • E4tech, 2010. A Causal Descriptive Approach to Modelling the Ghg Emissions Associated with the Indirect Land Use...
  • ECOFYS, IIASA, E4tech, 2015. The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU. Quantification of Area and...
  • EPA, 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact...
  • European Environment Agency Scientific Committee, 2011. Opinion of the EEA Scientific Committee on Greenhouse Gas...
  • European Union, 2009. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the...
  • FAO, 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 – How are the World’s Forests...
  • FAOSTAT, 2016. FAOSTAT. URL 〈http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E〉 (Accessed 22 August...
  • J. Fargione et al.

    Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt

    Science

    (2008)
  • C.S. Galik et al.

    Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States

    GCB Bioenergy

    (2016)
  • I. Gelfand et al.

    Carbon debt of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands converted to bioenergy production

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

    (2011)
  • I. Gelfand et al.

    Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest

    Nature

    (2013)
  • Cited by (60)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This article is part of a Virtual Special Issue entitled 'Scaling Up Biofuels? A Critical Look at Expectations, Performance and Governance'.

    View full text