comment Bioenergy The Olympics fell short of its 20% target for renewable energy sources. Is this a sign of things to come for the 2020 target for the same amount?
Margaret Dunn Associate publisher
B
Time to piggyback the Olympic spirit
y all accounts the London 2012 Olympics was a resounding success. Proving endless critics wrong the UK’s transport system held up, the park was ready in time, security was tight and the opening ceremony was undoubtedly spectacular. But, only around 11% of the energy for the event came from renewable sources, a long way off from the targeted 20%. Plans to build a wind turbine at the Olympic Park were scrapped back in June 2010, and those taking a light-hearted view even implied that empty seats were a last ditch attempt to reduce the carbon emissions for spectators travelling to the event! Joking aside, the inclusion of biomass elements into the venue was a big step forward for the sector. The Energy Centre on the Olympic Park used a 3MW biomass boiler (alongside natural gas) to generate heat for the Aquatics Centre. It also had a combined heat and power plant (CHP) to capture the heat generated by electricity production, saving 1,000 tonnes a year of carbon emissions. The organisers weren’t able to go with their original plan for a biogas-fuelled Olympic torch however, due to the large amount of gas needed and the storage capacity that would be required.
Bioenergy Insight
Now, as the Olympics fade into a distant memory, the biomass industry needs to look towards the next 20% target. The EU aims to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Although much of this renewable energy will come from wind, biomass will still remain the most important source, accounting for over half of the total. Officially the EU is on track to meet the target, but whether or not it is really achievable largely depends on the outcome of the ongoing debate regarding binding sustainability criteria. As with the liquid biofuels sector, most industry experts agree that the biomass industry has to be ‘sustainable’. It is what counts as being sustainable that is the bone of contention. As an example, if you replace a growing forest with energy crops, this can actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, at least temporarily. This is because there’s a time lag between the carbon debt that is created when a tree is cut down, transported and combusted, and the carbon credit that occurs when a new tree has grown to absorb as much carbon as the old one. The ‘solution’, therefore could be to introduce EU-wide binding sustainability criteria for solid biomass, something that has been proposed and delayed over and over again.
Those against the introduction of the criteria argue that it will impede the industry’s ability to meet the 2020 target, and may also lead to a rise in imports from non-EU countries, where the sustainability risks are arguably even higher. Forest owners also oppose the idea. They argue that there are already several well-established regulations and instruments in place to safeguard the sustainable management of Europe’s forests. Their main worry is that an EUwide binding scheme would impose relatively high costs on small- and mediumsized forest owners. But the pressure from environmental groups is already on. In the US the EPA has conducted a public consultation on how to account for emissions from biomass burning, and the European Commission is expected to release a report later this year. This is likely to identify which sustainability programmes will have EU approval and address whether EU-wide binding sustainability criteria is really necessary for solid biomass. One indication that the EU is veering towards the introduction of this criteria is the recent approval of NTA 8080 sustainability certification scheme. Although designed to certify liquid biofuels, it is also applicable to solid and gaseous biomass,
indicating that future mandatory or voluntary European sustainability criteria may be on its way. The biofuels industry introduced its legally binding sustainability criteria back in 2009, but this was by no means the end of the debate. There are now 11 different voluntary certification schemes with the ability to certify for this minimum standard, and the discussions surrounding indirect land use change are far from over. One might ask why stop at sustainability criteria for biofuels and biomass? Are the social and environmental impacts of sugarcane production any different to those caused by ethanol? Does the expansion of palm oil plantations to export vegetable oil have different social and environmental impacts to using these crops to produce biodiesel? With so many variables it is an issue that everyone is very unlikely to ever completely agree on. But we need to keep trying. The Olympics proved all the critics wrong. Something once deemed a waste of time and money turned out to be a roaring success. Let’s hope that some of that positivity will rub off on the biomass sector. By taking some of that Olympic spirit regulators, forest owners, producers and environmentalists should be able to work together to hit the 2020 targets in the most ‘sustainable’ way possible. l
August 2012 • 3