ETI Bioenergy Programme – Domestic Resources Hannah Evans, Bioenergy Strategy Manager
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP The information in this document is the property of Energy Technologies Institute LLP and may not be copied or communicated to a third party, or used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied without the express written consent of Energy Technologies Institute LLP. ©2017 Energy Technologies LLP - Subject to tonotes page 1Institute LLP, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information, This information is given in good faith basedInstitute upon the latest information available Energy on Technologies which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Energy Technologies Institute LLP or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.
What is the ETI?
• Public-private partnership
ETI members
• Set up to identify and accelerate the development and demonstration of an integrated set of low carbon technologies
ETI programme associate
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2
System analysis
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
3
A route to meeting - 80% CO2 for the UK Power now, heat next, transport gradual – cost optimal CCS commercialised, renewables & nuclear deployed
MtCO2
Heat (buildings) reducing as gas boilers swap to electric, H2, District heating Negative emissions through bioenergy + CCS
500
Power almost zero carbon
400
Heat almost zero carbon, transport remains 300
200
-80% target (net)
100
Intl Aviation & Shipping Transport Sector Buildings Sector Power Sector Other conversion Industry Sector Other CO2 Biogenic credits
0
Bio credits, including “negative emissions” -100 ©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Chart data from case v42
4
ETI’s ‘ESME’ model indicates an important role for bioenergy and CCS in the UK Additional cost of delivering 2050 -80% CO2 energy system NPV £ bn 2010-2050
Chart data from case dc14 ©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
5
Bioenergy Programme - Key Questions
How much negative emissions could be realised through bioenergy deployment in the UK?
What would be the best ways to use this bioenergy in the future UK energy system?
What are the right combinations of feedstock, preprocessing, and conversion technologies?
Enabling policy, regulatory and market frameworks. Understanding public perception
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
6
Bioenergy Programme Public Perceptions of Bioenergy Phase 1 Waste Gasification
2010
2008
2009
2012
2011
2014
2013
2016
2015
2017
Energy from Waste (DE) Phase 2 Waste Gasification
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
7
The Bioenergy Value Chain Modelling (BVCM) Project Problem definition:
What is the most effective way of delivering a particular bioenergy outcome in the UK, taking into account the available biomass resources, the geography of the UK, time, technology options and logistics networks? Development of a comprehensive and flexible toolkit for whole system biomass value chain analysis and optimisation
Project commissioned:
- Pathways optimised based on: minimum cost, minimum GHG emissions, ‘maximum profit’ (inclusion of GHG substitution credits) or a combination - Can include GHG targets and energy target ranges - 93 ‘Resources’ and 69 distinct ‘Technologies’ at different scales and with multiple feedstocks - UK production factors (land constraints; yields); imports; logistics - 157 cells (50km x 50km); 5 decades and 4 seasons
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
8
BVCM enables the bioenergy sector to be modelled under different conditions
Key insights from modelling the bioenergy sector under different scenarios out to 2050: • Gasification technology is a key bioenergy enabler and resilient to a number of different scenarios • Planting around 1.4 Mha of second generation bioenergy crops would make a significant contribution to the sector. • Deployment of BECCS makes a significant difference to the bioenergy sector: • With CCS, BECCS technologies dominate, clustered around key coastal hubs • Without CCS, more heat and biomethane are produced and the sector is more spatially distributed
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
9
Biomass Feedstocks
• Numerous bioenergy value chains can deliver genuine carbon savings across all key vectors of power, heat, liquid and gaseous fuels
• With increases in total land productivity and reductions in waste, up to 1.4 Mha of suitable land could be made available for bioenergy crops by the 2050s
• Investment is needed in production of plant breeding materials, planting and harvesting equipment and skills development • The majority of job opportunities will be seasonal but complimentary to other farming activities ©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Biomass Feedstocks – Case studies Aim: To produce three positive case studies of farms growing Willow and Miscanthus showing the impacts the crop has had on farm economics, food production and biodiversity
Key findings: All three case studies demonstrate that planting energy crops can increase the profitability of the land When optimising the use of land across the farm, impacts on food production can be minimised. In the two Miscanthus case studies, food impacts were minimised by targeting poor yielding land or intensifying production elsewhere on the farm. In the SRC Willow case study the crop was planted on surplus land The farmers in these case studies chose to grow energy crops for a variety of reasons— making better use of difficult or underutilised land, diversifying income and reducing workload. In addition, all farmers cited the importance of obtaining secure fixed term contracts with buyers in their decision making.
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Thank you for listening
21st – 22nd November County Hall, London ETI Publications: http://www.eti.co.uk/library Public Perceptions 2017 – Published October
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Join us at our event
10 Years of Innovation A showcase of a decade of research
County Hall, London 21st and 22nd November Register online at - www.eti.co.uk/10Years
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Registered Office Energy Technologies Institute Holywell Building Holywell Park Loughborough LE11 3UZ
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
For all general enquiries telephone the ETI on 01509 202020
For the latest ETI news and announcements email
[email protected]
For more information about the ETI visit www.eti.co.uk
The ETI can also be followed on Twitter @the_ETI
BACKUP - ELUM
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Ecosystem and Land Use Modelling and Soil GHG Flux Trial (ELUM) Project ELUM: evidence-based model for assessing soil carbon and GHG fluxes arising from dLUC to bioenergy crops in the UK
CVEG CSOC +
dLUC emissions
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ELUM – the spatial picture of CSOC Transitions from arable land (including temporary grassland) to second generation biomass feedstocks result in soil carbon sequestration.
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ELUM – the spatial picture of CSOC Transitions from permanent grassland are more complex – there are areas of the UK where transitions (generally to Short Rotation Forestry) result in soil carbon sequestration but often the transition will result in some soil carbon loss.
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
However, SOC change has to be viewed in the context of whole chain emissions
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
dLUC emissions in bio-electricity chains • dLUC emissions can be material, but are of second order importance in chains with CCS • In grassland transitions, SOC change is somewhat offset by increased above ground biomass. • Existing sustainability criteria prevent the most damaging land use transitions ©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
BECCS can deliver genuine greenhouse gas emission savings
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
•
Combined findings from Ecosystem Land Use Modelling (ELUM) project and Bioenergy Value Chain Model (BVCM) to calculate net emissions across value chain
•
Found that numerous bioenergy value chains can deliver genuine carbon savings across all key vectors of power, heat, liquid and gaseous fuels
•
From a long term low carbon perspective, Bioenergy with CCS is a game changer, since most value chains, when using UK-grown bioenergy crops would deliver significant negative emissions
BACKUP - BECCS
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Significant advances have been made in derisking BECCS deployment •
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Over the last 10 years advances have been made in: •
The costs, efficiencies and challenges of biomass-fed combustion with carbon capture
•
Evidencing that BECCS value chains can deliver genuine sizeable negative emissions
•
Understanding the potential availability and sustainability of feedstocks relevant to the UK
•
Identifying and assessing high capacity, low cost, low risk stores for CO2 around the UK and the infrastructure required to connect them
•
The UK is well-placed to exploit the benefits of BECCS, given the vast storage opportunities offshore, our experience in bioenergy deployments and our strength in bioenergy and CCS research and development
•
BECCS deployment is achievable by 2030, since all major components of a BECCS system have now been demonstrated or ‘proven’ individually – significantly de-risking the full-system deployment.
Biomass Feedstock Requirements
(ETI, 2016) The evidence for deploying Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK: http://www.eti.co.uk/insights/the-evidence-for-
deploying-bioenergy-with-ccs-beccs-in-the-uk ©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
UK CO2 stores
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
BACK UP – Farm Case Studies
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Farm Case Studies
Brackenthwaite Farm
Friars Farm
Abbey Farm
Farmer
Terry Dixon
David and Chris Sargent
Bill Lewis
Location
Cumbria
Norfolk
Norfolk
Size of Farm (ha)
323
734
473
Crop Planted
SRC Willow
Miscanthus
Miscanthus
Area (ha)
29.5
18.4
30.0
Year planted
2015
2010 & 2011
2013 & 2015
Previous land use
Dairy (surplus)
Arable
Sheep
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Farm Case Studies – Friars Farm •
The farm had economically marginal land which delivered low arable yields due to poor soils and rabbit problems
•
The Sargent’s choose to plant fields with Miscanthus (Terravesta contract) to try and generate a reliable income from marginal fields
•
5-yr index-linked contract with Terravesta. The farmer is responsible for planting, harvesting, baling and loading the crops. Terravesta arrange for haulage and provide advice on establishment and management
•
Over a 23-yr period, Miscanthus is expected to increase the equivalent annual net margin of the land by £403/ha/yr, generating a profit from land which was previously making a loss (before BPS)
•
Establishment costs were £2,153/ha. Payback period is expected to be 7yrs
•
Food production impacts have been minimised by siting the crop on the poorest performing arable land
•
Qualitative evidence that the Miscanthus has encouraged on-farm wildlife
Friars Farm Farmer
David and Chris Sargent
Location
Norfolk
Size of Farm (ha)
734
Crop Planted
Miscanthus
Area (ha)
18.4
Year planted
2010 & 2011
Previous land use
Arable
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Farm Case Studies
Abbey Farm Farmer
Bill Lewis
Location
Norfolk
Size of Farm (ha)
473
Crop Planted
Miscanthus
Area (ha)
30.0
Year planted
2013 & 2015
Previous land use
Sheep
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
•
Bill was looking for opportunities to improve on-farm efficiency and reduce overall workload
•
Choose to plant 30ha of low lying grassland (prone to flooding) with Miscanthus (Terravesta contract) whilst intensifying sheep production elsewhere on the farm
•
Moved from a 600-strong flock (breeding ewes) on 90ha to a 500-strong flock on 60ha.
•
10-yr index-linked contract with Terravesta. The farmer is responsible for planting, harvesting, baling and loading the crops. Terravesta arrange for haulage and provide advice on establishment and management.
•
Over a 23-yr period, Miscanthus is expected to increase the equivalent annual net margin of the land by £214/ha/yr.
•
Establishment costs were £2,151/ha. Payback period is expected to be 6 yrs
•
Food production impacts have been minimised by intensifying livestock management elsewhere
•
Qualitative evidence that the Miscanthus has encouraged on-farm wildlife
Farm Case Studies – Brackenthwaite Farm •
The farm had surplus land following a switch from organic to non-organic dairy farming
•
The Dixons wanted to diversify their income sources. They choose to plant Willow (under a contract with Iggesund) as the contract is expected to provide a good financial return
•
Iggesund offer 23-yr index-linked contracts. The farmer is responsible for land preparation, planting (by contractor), first year cut back and ongoing management. Iggesund arrange for harvesting and haulage.
•
Over a 23-yr period, planting SRC Willow is expected to increase equivalent annual net margin of the land by £185/ha/yr
•
Establishment costs were £1,739/ha. Payback period is expected to be 7yrs
Brackenthwaite Farm Farmer
Terry Dixon
Location
Cumbria
Size of Farm (ha)
323
Crop Planted
SRC Willow
Area (ha)
29.5
Year planted
2015
•
No direct food production impacts
Previous land use
Dairy (surplus)
•
Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out prior to planting
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Overview – Establishment Costs Brackenthwaite Farm
Friars Farm
Abbey Farm
Establishment Cost
£1,739/ha
£2,153/ha
£2,151/ha
% of which spent on purchasing cuttings/rhizomes and planting
66%
70%
85%
Brackenthwaite Farm
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
•
Land Preparation & herbicide before and during the planting year accounts for 23% of establishment costs
•
The EIA process accounts for 5% of establishment costs
•
2nd year establishment costs (gapping up and cutback) are 6% of establishment costs
Overview – Establishment Costs Brackenthwaite Farm
Friars Farm
Abbey Farm
Establishment Cost
£1,739/ha
£2,153/ha
£2,151/ha
% of which spent on purchasing cuttings/rhizomes and planting
66%
70%
85%
Friars Farm
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
•
Rabbit fencing was second most significant cost. 5 small fields all required fencing
•
Land preparation and herbicide = 10% of establishment costs
Overview – Establishment Costs Brackenthwaite Farm
Friars Farm
Abbey Farm
Establishment Cost
£1,739/ha
£2,153/ha
£2,151/ha
% of which spent on purchasing cuttings/rhizomes and planting
66%
70%
85%
Topping, £3
Ploughing and subsoiling, £55 Vegetation removal/cutting, £13
Rabbit fencing , £113
Rhizomes and planting costs, £1,825
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Total cost of herbicide, £138
Abbey Farm •
Most expensive cost of rhizomes and plantings of all case studies
•
Much lower rabbit fencing costs as only required on 15ha of land
•
Land preparation and herbicide = 10% of establishment costs
Total cost of trace elements, £5
BACK UP – Land Availability
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Planting 30kha/yr could mean UK feedstocks meet 7% energy demand in 2050 Land excluded (UKERC constraint masks)
Suitable grassland land
Suitable arable land
Amount required to be converted to 2G bioenergy crops
2015-2025
2025-2035
SHORT-TERM OPPORTUNITIES • Existing land under 1G bioenergy crops • Economically marginal land • 20% of cereal & OSR overproduction area • Permanent fallow uncropped arable land • Total 345kHa
2045-2055
LONGER-TERM OPPORTUNITIES • Up to 50% reduction in on-farm fruit & veg waste • Up to 50% reduction in fruit, veg and meat consumer waste • Further 20% cereal & OSR overproduction area • Improved utilisation grassland • White land (public land being sold off e.g. FC land harvested for energy) • Total 745-945kHa •
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2035-2045
Cumulative total 1-1.2Mha before impacting existing levels of UK food security
Identifying Available Land
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Identifying Available Land – Short Term Short term potential: 0.5 – 0.8 Mha Key barriers Land Types Existing Land under bioenergy production Cereal/OSR over production Uncropped arable land Key assumptions •
Land currently used for bioenergy production will continue to produce bioenergy feedstocks
•
The cereal surplus area was based on AHDB and Defra data from 2011-2015. The maximum area available for bioenergy was based on the average surplus area over 5yrs. The minimum was based on the lowest average surplus areas of the last 5yrs.
•
The uncropped arable area only took account of long-term fallow land, not land considered to be rotational fallow
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Identifying Available Land – Medium Term Medium term potential: 0.2 – 0.4 Mha Key barriers Land Types Reduction in on-farm waste Improved utilisation of grass land Brownfield sites and white land
•
Crop (fruit and veg) utilisation could be increased if retailers relaxed their specifications. Currently around 30% of the area used to grow fruit and veg crops crops is wasted due to failure to meet specifications. Increasing crop utilisation by 5% points could spare >10kha
•
95% of grassland is managed as ‘set stocking’. 5% is assumed to be managed as rotational grazing. Increasing the amount of rotational grassland to 10% of current area and introducing paddock grazing on 3% of current area could ‘spare’ significant areas of land
•
Brownfield sites and white land present a smaller opportunity but appropriate sites could be used for bioenergy
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Identifying Available Land – Long Term Long term potential: 0.2 – 0.5 Mha Key barriers Land Types Reduction in consumer waste Improved utilisation of grass land Verges and embankments White land
•
A WRAP report (2012) identified that households threw away 4.2M tonnes of avoidable food waste each year
•
Reducing consumer food waste between 25 and 50% could spare 50kha- 100kha land in the UK. This excludes land associated with imported foods and land used to grow additional feed for livestock
•
Verges and embankments are a smaller opportunity but could be viable if local uses are identified
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Identifying Available Land – Summary •
ADAS identified 1.0 – 1.8Mha of land that could be spared for bioenergy production with minimal or no impact on food production
•
The biggest short term barrier is market conditions – as found in the case studies, farmers value the certainty of long term contracts when planting bioenergy crops and there are few companies currently offering such certainty
•
In the medium – long term, sparing land will require changes in management practice. The most significant would be a move towards rotational and paddock grazing on grassland and reductions in on-farm and consumer food waste
•
Bioenergy cropping may not be the obvious alternative use for the land identified in the report – land is in competition for additional food production, housing and other developments
•
Overall the report demonstrates that there are opportunities to grow the bioenergy sector without damaging UK food security. If the bioenergy sector were to grow steadily (30kha/yr) any impacts could be monitored and managed
•
Intention is not to publish findings as stand-alone document but to build into wider work on land availability and land use change.
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI analysis highlights gasification as a prominent, scenario resilient technology
Appraise (2009-11)
Select (2012-13)
EFW project
flexible
Define (2014-16)
WG Phase 1
efficient
affordable
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
scalable
Contract shaping
Execute (2017 +)
WG demo project
Small scale (town) waste gasification with syngas clean up is a potentially important technology with near term deployment opportunities
ETI analysis highlights gasification as a prominent, scenario resilient technology
Appraise (2009-11)
Select (2012-13)
EFW project
Define (2014-16)
Contract shaping
WG Phase 1
Execute (2017 +)
WG demo project
Competition – 3 designs
MRF
Gasifier
Syngas clean up
Power
FEED study and Business Plan Has to demonstrate high efficiency (net >25%) and availability (>80%)
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI analysis highlights gasification as a prominent, scenario resilient technology
Appraise (2009-11)
EFW project
Select (2012-13)
WG Phase 1
•
Commissioned a 1.5 MWe demonstration project
•
Joint investment with Syntech Bioenergy
•
Plant will incorporate syngas testing facility
•
Commissioning March 2018 – followed by feedstock testing
©2017 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Define (2014-16)
Contract shaping
Execute (2017 +)
WG demo project
