1 / 23

Biobased Economy als Motor van Duurzame Ontwikkeling .

Biobased Economy als Motor van Duurzame Ontwikkeling . Springtij ; Energie & Klimaatjury – Terschelling 21 September , 2017. Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij Academic Director - Energy Academy Europe Distinguished Professor Energy System Analysis – University of Groningen.

jramos
Download Presentation

Biobased Economy als Motor van Duurzame Ontwikkeling .

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biobased Economy als Motor van Duurzame Ontwikkeling. Springtij; Energie & Klimaatjury – Terschelling21 September, 2017 • Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij • Academic Director - Energy Academy Europe • Distinguished Professor Energy System Analysis – University of Groningen

  2. IPCC: Energy demand, GHG emissions and climate change…

  3. Energy system transformation… [GEA/van Vuuren et al CoSust, 2012]

  4. Global biomass deployment in relation to GHG mitigation (IPCC AR 5, 2014)

  5. Advancing markets…pushed by technological progress and pulled by high/volatile oil prices Advanced biofuels…(strong economic perspective) Biorefining, biochemicals, biomaterials… Aviation and shipping… [IEA Biofuels Roadmap]

  6. But, BBE faces key hurdles… • Negative perception on biomass use for energy (and materials) in key markets (including EC; RED to EXCLUDE iLUC mitigation…). • Policy arena is divided and fails to combine key priorities (agri, energy, climate, development). • Uncertain investment climate stalls essential technological learning of advanced BBE-options. • Too limited attention for synergy between sustainable agriculture, forestry, land use and biomass production.

  7. Bioenergy potentials [2050] (colors based on expert opinion). (IPCC – AR5 WGIII, 2014)

  8. Different scenario’s for: Energy, land use, agriculture… Scenarios • SSP1: Optimistic world (low challenges to mitigation and adaptation) • SSP2: Middle of the road • SSP3: Pessimistic world (high challenges to mitigation and adaptation) (O’Neill et al., 2014) Vassilis Daioglou - The role of biomass in climate change mitigation

  9. Supply Energy crops potentialfuture supply of modern biomass from residues and energycropsaccounting for the drivers and constraints in a spatiallyexplicitmanner (IMAGE) SSP1: Lots of natural lands are protected High abandonement of productive lands Vassilis Daioglou - The role of biomass in climate change mitigation

  10. Supply Energy crops SSP3:Expansion of land for food Low protection of natural lands Vassilis Daioglou - The role of biomass in climate change mitigation

  11. SupplyCurves 2100 Residue supply-curves consistent Availability of high quality lands in SSP1 leads to extremely high and low cost availability of biomass Vassilis Daioglou - The role of biomass in climate change mitigation

  12. EmissionsIntegrated overallgreenhousegasimpact of biomass deployment for bioenergy and biochemicals, taking the potential dynamics of future land use and the energy system intoaccount SSP3 SSP2 SSP1 Base Mitig Base Mitig Base Mitig • Availability of high quality lands for biomass and protection of carbon stocks in SSP1 leads to high biomass deploymend and land based mitigation! • InSSP2, about 10% of mitigation is due to biomass use, largest contribution from BECCS • Higher in SSP1 (lower LUC, better bioenergy technologies) • Lower in SSP3 Vassilis Daioglou - The role of biomass in climate change mitigation

  13. Furtherinvestigationsyieldgaps… Livestock footprint per unit of meat of milk may Improve a factor 2-20+ depending on setting Key options such as intercropping, agro- forestry and multiple harvests poorly included (e.gCamelina). [Gerssen-Gondelach, et al., Food & Energy Security, 2015]

  14. Potential biomass production on saline soils. [Wicke et al, Energy & Environmental Science, 2011]

  15. Yield projections Europe Observed yield CEEC and WEC Linear extrapolation of historic trends Widening yield gap Applied scenarios Low, baseline and high [Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

  16. Results - spatial production potential Arable land available for dedicated bio-energy crops divided by the total land [Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

  17. Results - spatial cost distribution Production cost (€ GJ-1) for Grassy crops [Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

  18. Total energy potential under three different crop schemes. ‘Low yieldingcrops’: all arable land availableplantedwithoilcrops. ‘High yieldingcrops’: all available land plantedwithgrasscrops. [Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

  19. Example: GHG balance of combined agricultural intensification + bioenergy production in Europe + Ukraine [Wit et al., BioFPR, 2014]

  20. Full impact analysis Total and net annual GHG emissions for 2010 and the baseline and ILUC mitigation scenarios in 2020. Emissions from the miscanthus-ethanol value chain. The equilibrium time for soil carbon stock changes is 20 years.ILUC prevention scenarios: L, low; M, medium; H, high. Intensification pathways: CI, conventional intensification; II, intermediate sustainable intensification; SI, sustainable intensification. [Gerssen-Gondelach et al., GCB Bioenergy, 2016]

  21. [IPCC-SRREN, 2011]

  22. Summary • BBE deployment ~300 EJ required post 2050 (mix of advanced fuels, power, heat, biomaterials + bio-CCS) for essential GHG mitigation effort (BBE may take up to 40%). • Potentials (technical, economic, sustainable) suffice when combined with modernization of agriculture and good land management. • Realize the synergies with more resilient food production, more efficient use of natural resources, increased carbon stocks. • …and rural development + (shift of fossil fuel expenditures to rural areas can amount several trillion U$/yr). • Logical and efficient pathways and gradualdevelopment of (biomass) markets, infrastructure and technologies; intersectoral approaches.

  23. No time to waste (to cite Greenpeace) &Thank you very much for your attention A.P.C.Faaij@RUG.nl / Andre.Faaij@energyacademy.org sciencedirect/scopus/google scholar www.rug.nl www.energyacademy.org

More Related