Published : Jul 03,
2013
Using biomass for energy is an important
part of the renewable energy mix. However,
bioenergy production should follow EU resource
efficiency principles, according to a new
report from the European Environment Agency
(EEA). This means extracting more energy
from the same material input, and avoiding
negative environmental effects potentially
caused by bioenergy production.
Forest biomass and productive
land are limited resources, and part of
Europe’s ‘natural capital’. So it is essential
that we consider how we can use existing
resources efficiently before we impose additional
demands on land for energy production.
Hans Bruyninckx, EEA
Executive Director
‘Bioenergy’ refers to
energy uses of any kind of biomass, whether
for heating, power generation or transport.
The report, ‘EU bioenergy from a resource
efficiency perspective’, primarily looks
at the potential for energy from agricultural
land, although it includes forest and waste
biomass in the overall analysis.
In 2010 bioenergy was
the source of approximately 7.5 % of energy
used in the EU. This is foreseen to rise
to around 10 % by 2020, or approximately
half of the projected renewable energy output,
according to EU Member States’ National
Renewable Energy Plans.
Bioenergy should be
produced in line with EU objectives to use
resources more efficiently, the report says.
This means reducing the land and other resources
needed to produce each unit of bioenergy
and avoiding environmental harm from bioenergy
production. According to the EEA analysis,
the most efficient energy use of biomass
is for heating and electricity as well as
advanced biofuels, also called ‘second generation’
biofuels. First generation transport biofuels,
for example, biodiesel based on oilseed
rape or ethanol from wheat, are shown to
be a far less efficient use of resources.
Building on previous
analysis, the report shows that the current
energy crop mix is not favourable to the
environment. The report recommends a broader
mix of crops to reduce environmental impacts.
Specifically, this should include perennial
crops, which are not harvested annually
– for example energy grasses or short rotation
willow plantations. This would enhance,
rather than harm, ‘ecosystem services’ provided
by farmland – such as flood prevention and
water filtration.
Bioenergy is often considered
‘carbon neutral’, as the carbon dioxide
released in combustion is assumed to be
compensated by the CO2 absorbed during plant
growth. However, as shown in this report,
indirect land use change can negate any
greenhouse gas savings from biofuel production
based on energy crops. This is due to the
displacement of crop production onto previously
unused land, which can lead to the conversion
of forests and savannah to agriculture.
Such land use change harms biodiversity
and increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Hans Bruyninckx, EEA
Executive Director, said: “Bioenergy is
an important component of our renewable
energy mix, helping to ensure a stable energy
supply. But this study highlights the fact
that forest biomass and productive land
are limited resources, and part of Europe’s
‘natural capital’. So it is essential that
we consider how we can use existing resources
efficiently before we impose additional
demands on land for energy production.”
Bioenergy in 2020 –
exploring different options
The report develops
three different ‘storylines’ with varying
technological, economic and policy assumptions.
This helps explore different future options,
illustrating which bioenergy types are most
resource-efficient and which have the lowest
environmental impact. The main conclusions
of this analysis are below:
The EEA has revised
its estimate of potential bioenergy production
in the EU first published in 2006, reducing
the estimate by approximately 40 %. The
estimate was revised due to changes in scientific
understanding, the changed EU policy framework
and accounting for economic factors.
Different biomass-to-energy conversion technologies
vary significantly in their efficiency.
For example, generating electricity by burning
pure biomass is only approximately 30-35
% efficient, while burning the same material
to produce heat is usually more than 85
% efficient. In general, using bioenergy
for heat and power is a considerably more
efficient way of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, compared to using bioenergy for
transport fuel.
Different energy cropping systems can vary
hugely in their productivity, as well as
in environmental impacts. High-yielding
systems with efficient conversion can deliver
more than 20 times more energy compared
to low-yielding inefficient systems using
the same land area.
Current EU bioenergy policy only partially
accounts for potentially adverse environmental
effects connected to direct land-use effects,
including changes in land management. Additional
policies could help reduce these environmental
impacts, particularly regarding water resources
and farmland biodiversity.
The countries with the largest estimated
agricultural bioenergy potential in 2020
are France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland
and Romania, the report says.
Extensively using mature trees for energy
purposes may have a negative effect on the
climate, due to the long time it takes for
the trees to regrow and re-capture the CO2
that is released when wood is used for energy.
This ‘carbon debt’ does not arise if bioenergy
uses other forest biomass instead, for example
branches left over from forest harvesting
by-products or waste products from timber
and paper production.
Using organic waste and agricultural or
forestry residues as feedstock is more resource
efficient than many other types of feedstock,
as it does not add pressure on land and
water resources and offers very high greenhouse
gas savings.
+ More
Urban sprawl eating
into wildlife habitats in Europe
Published : Jul 10,
2013
As cities expand into the countryside, the
habitats of many animals and plants are
reduced. Roads, railways, car parks and
buildings also split up habitats, dividing
wildlife populations into increasingly smaller
groups.
Our high-consumption
lifestyles are putting more pressure on
the land. But beyond the proportion of land
we are covering with concrete, there is
another important effect – roads and other
infrastructure are carving valuable habitats
into increasingly smaller fragments, with
serious consequences for some of Europe’s
most endangered species.
EEA Executive Director
Hans Bruyninckx
Land is a limited resource,
and in Europe we are using more and more
previously wild areas for agriculture, forestry,
roads and settlements, according to Earth
satellite observations of land cover from
11000 to 2006. Some of these data only became
available recently and are detailed in a
new land cover assessment published by the
European Environment Agency (EEA). Although
current trends may differ due to the changing
economic situation in much of Europe, the
data tells an interesting story about Europe’s
changing landscape.
Roads, buildings and
other artificial surfaces are spreading
in Europe, and almost half of this spread
was on to farmland between 2000 and 2006.
To a lesser extent, these
areas also encroached on forests, semi-natural
and natural areas. Almost half of these
surfaces were new residential areas, services
and recreation facilities.
However, urban sprawl
seemed to be slowing according to the data.
Artificial land cover, such as roads and
buildings, increased 2.3 % per year between
11000 and 2000, but this rate fell to 1.5
% between 2000 and 2006.
While only 4 % of Europe’s
land is covered by artificial surfaces,
according to the data, this seems to be
the only type of land cover which is increasing
significantly in Europe. Forested areas
cover 34 % of Europe. Grassland and other
semi-natural vegetation makes up just 8
% of Europe’s surface, while bare soils
and wetlands cover 6 % and 2 % respectively.
Approximately 43 % of
land is covered by agricultural areas, of
which the most common types are non-irrigated
arable land (50 %) and pasture (16 %). Both
these types increased since 11000, according
to the most recent data.
The fastest land use
change happened in Portugal, Ireland, Hungary,
Finland and Sweden. In contrast, the most
stable landscape structure is found in mountainous
areas such as the Alps, the Pyrenees, the
Romanian part of the Carpathians and in
the Scandinavian mountains (Norway). Most
conversions to forest occurred in Finland
and Norway, while most agricultural land
conversions took place in Spain.
“Our high-consumption
lifestyles are putting more pressure on
the land,” EEA Executive Director Hans Bruyninckx
said. “But beyond the proportion of land
we are covering with concrete, there is
another important effect – roads and other
infrastructure are carving valuable habitats
into increasingly smaller fragments, with
serious consequences for some of Europe’s
most endangered species.”
Alongside the analysis,
the EEA presents more information on land
use changes in different European countries
in its land take indicator.
A new Corine Land Cover
dataset is expected to be available in 2014.
It will provide information on land cover
change in the period 2006-2012.
