Global bioenergy resources

Journal name:
Nature Climate Change
Volume:
4,
Pages:
99–105
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nclimate2097
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

Using biomass to provide energy services is a strategically important option for increasing the global uptake of renewable energy. Yet the practicalities of accelerating deployment are mired in controversy over the potential resource conflicts that might occur, particularly over land, water and biodiversity conservation. This calls into question whether policies to promote bioenergy are justified. Here we examine the assumptions on which global bioenergy resource estimates are predicated. We find that there is a disjunct between the evidence that global bioenergy studies can provide and policymakers' desire for estimates that can straightforwardly guide policy targets. We highlight the need for bottom-up assessments informed by empirical studies, experimentation and cross-disciplinary learning to better inform the policy debate.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Estimates for the contribution of energy crops, wastes and forest biomass to future energy supply.
    Figure 1: Estimates for the contribution of energy crops, wastes and forest biomass to future energy supply.

    Vertical lines show the range of estimates for each resource category and diamonds indicate the results of individual studies (estimates include unconstrained values). Surplus agricultural land includes good quality land released from food production because yield growth exceeds demand (also called abandoned land in some studies). Rest land includes savannah, extensive grassland and shrubland. Degraded land may also be defined as low productivity or marginal land. Land categories cannot be considered fully mutually exclusive. Waste includes dung, municipal and industrial waste. Forestry describes harvest of a fraction of the global annual forest growth increment, and is a highly aggregate category defined by the FAO as areas spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees taller than 5 m. Some studies make further distinctions between primary forests and plantations.

  2. Essential preconditions for increasing levels of biomass production.
    Figure 2: Essential preconditions for increasing levels of biomass production.

    In each band the minimum essential assumptions that must be included in global biomass models to achieve the given range of biomass potential are indicated. 'All residues' includes: wastes (dung, municipal and industrial), agricultural residues and forestry residues. Indicated global net primary productivity is aboveground terrestrial productivity only. Figure reproduced with permission from ref. 13, © 2011 Raphael Slade.

  3. The range of yield and land area estimates included in global energy crop scenarios.
    Figure 3: The range of yield and land area estimates included in global energy crop scenarios.

    Diamonds indicate estimates taken from individual studies. Dashed lines show how energy crop potential would vary with planted area, assuming a constant yield between 5–15 odt ha−1.

References

  1. Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (IEA, 2010).
  2. Sims, R. H. et al. in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R. & Meyer, L. A.) Ch. 4 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
  3. Chum, H. et al. in Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
  4. World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2012).
  5. Hunt, S. & Drigo, R. A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8+5 Countries (FAO, 2007).
  6. Faaij, A. P. C. Bio-energy in Europe: Changing technology choices. Energy Policy 34, 322342 (2006).
  7. Searchinger, T. et al. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 12381240 (2008).
  8. Eide, A. The Right to Food and the Impact of Liquid Biofuels (Agrofuels) (FAO, 2008).
  9. Agostini, A., Giuntoli, J. & Boulamanti, A. Carbon Accounting of Forest Bioenergy — Conclusions and Recommendations from a Critical Literature Review (European Commission JRC, 2013).
  10. Creutzig, F. et al. Reconciling top down and bottom-up modellling on future bioenergy deployment. Nature Clim. Change 2, 320327 (2012).
  11. Lynd, L. R. et al. A global conversation about energy from biomass: The continental conventions of the global sustainable bioenergy project. Interface Focus 1, 271279 (2011).
  12. Sorrell, S. Improving the evidence base for energy policy: The role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy 35, 18581871 (2007).
    Examines how systematic review methods can be applied to energy policy and can improve the quality of evidence provided to policymakers.
  13. Slade, R., Saunders, R., Gross, R. & Bauen, A. Energy from Biomass: The Size of the Global Resource (Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology & UK Energy Research Centre, 2011).
  14. Thrän, D., Seidenberger, T., Zeddies, J. & Offermann, R. Global biomass potentials — Resources, drivers and scenario results. Energy Sustain. Dev. 14, 200205 (2010).
  15. Berndes, G., Hoogwijn, M. & van den Broek, R. The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: A review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 128 (2003).
  16. Lysen, E. et al. Biomass Assessment: Assessment of Global Biomass Potentials and their Links to Food, Water, Biodiversity, Energy Demand and Economy (MNP, 2008).
  17. Cannell, M. G. R. Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: Theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass Bioenergy 24, 97116 (2003).
  18. Bauen, A., Woods, J. & Hailes, R. Bioelectricity Vision: Achieving 15% of Electricity from Biomass in OECD Countries by 2020 (E4tech Limited, 2004).
  19. Beringer, T., Lucht, W. & Schaphoff, S. Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Bioenergy 3, 299312 (2011).
  20. De Vries, B. J. M., van Vuuren, D. P. & Hoogwijk, M. M. Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: An integrated approach. Energy Policy 35, 25902610 (2007).
  21. Erb, K-H. et al. Eating the Planet: Feeding and Fuelling the World Sustainably, Fairly and Humanely — A Scoping Study (Institute of Social Ecology & PIK Potsdam, 2009).
  22. Field, C. B., Campbell, J. E. & Lobell, D. B. Biomass energy: The scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 6572 (2008).
  23. Fischer, G. & Schrattenholzer, L. Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass Bioenergy 20, 151159 (2001).
  24. Haberl, H., Beringer, T., Bhattacharya, S. C., Erb, K-H. & Hoogwijk, M. The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 2, 394403 (2010).
  25. Hall, D. O., Rosillo-Calle, F., Williams, R. H. & Woods, J. in Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity (eds Johansson, T. B. et al.) 593651 (Island, 1993).
  26. Hoogwijk, M. On the Global and Regional Potential of Renewable Energy Sources (RIVM, 2004).
  27. Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A. & Eickhout, B. Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 29, 225257 (2005).
    Archetypal and highly influential global biomass potential study using the IMAGE integrated assessment model.
  28. Hoogwijk, M. et al. Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25, 119133 (2003).
  29. World Energy Outlook 2008 (IEA, 2008).
  30. Johansson, T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N. & Williams, R. H. in Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity (eds Johansson, T. B. et al.) 593651 (Island, 1993).
  31. Moreira, J. R. Global biomass energy potential. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 11, 313342 (2006).
  32. Agricultural Outlook 2010–2019 (FAO, 2010).
  33. Rokityanskiy, D. et al. Geographically explicit global modelling of land-use change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74, 10571082 (2007).
  34. Sims, R., Hastings, A. & Schlamadinger, B. Energy crops: Current status and future prospects. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 20542076 (2006).
  35. Smeets, E., Faaij, A., Lewandowski, I. & Turkenburg, W. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progr. Energy Combust. Sci. 33, 56106 (2007).
  36. World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability Ch. 5 (UNDP, 2000).
  37. Wolf, J., Bindraban, P. S., Luijten, J. C. & Vleeshouwers, L. M. Exploratory study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global production of bioenergy. Agr. Syst. 76, 841861 (2003).
  38. Schubert, R. et al. Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use (A Report for the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (Earthscan, 2009).
    An integrated vision of how sustainable bioenergy might be implemented globally and risks minimized.
  39. Yamamoto, H., Fujino, J. & Yamaji, K. Evaluation of bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-and-energy model. Biomass Bioenergy 21, 185203 (2001).
  40. Yamamoto, H., Yamaji, K. & Fujino, J. Evaluation of bioenergy resources with a global land use and energy model formulated with SD technique. Appl. Energy 63, 101113 (1999).
  41. Yamamoto, H., Yamaji, K. & Fujino, J. Scenario analysis of bioenergy resources and CO2 emissions with a global land use and energy model. Appl. Energy 66, 325337 (2000).
  42. Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1294212947 (2007).
  43. Smith, K., Zhao, M. & Running, S. Global bioenergy capacity as constrained by observed biospheric productivity rates. BioScience 62, 911922 (2012).
    Describes how satellite-derived global net primary productivity data places a constraint on plausible bioenergy potential estimates.
  44. Johnston, M., Foley, J. A., Holloway, T., Kucharik, C. & Monfreda, C. Resetting global expectations from agricultural biofuels. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 014004 (2009).
  45. Haberl, H. et al. Bioenergy: how much can we expect for 2050? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 031004 (2013).
  46. Running, S. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 14581459 (2012).
  47. Cassman, K. G. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: Yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 59525959 (1999).
  48. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 — An FAO Perspective (ed. Bruinsma, J.) Ch. 4 (Earthscan, 2003)
  49. Alexandratos, N. et al. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050. Interim Report — Prospects for Food, Nutrition, Agriculture and Major Commodity Groups (FAO, 2006)
  50. Fischer, R. A., Byerlee, D. & Edmeades, G. O. in FAO Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050, Rome (24–26 June, 2009) (FAO, 2009); http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ak542e/ak542e00.htm
  51. Foresight: The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability Final Project Report (The Government Office for Science, 2011).
  52. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812818 (2010).
  53. Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Ober, E. S. Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 28352851 (2010).
  54. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture (The Royal Society, 2009).
  55. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Synthesis Report (Island, 2009).
  56. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337342 (2011).
    Explores how the needs to increase global food production can be reconciled with shrinking agriculture's environmental footprint.
  57. Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/ 2050 — The 2012 Revision (FAO, 2012).
  58. Smil, V. in Yields of Farmed Species: Constraints and Opportunities in the 21st Century (eds Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Wiseman, J.) 114 (Nottingham Univ. Press, 2005).
  59. Tilman, D. et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281284 (2001).
  60. Rudel, T. K. et al. Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 2067520680 (2009).
  61. Ewers, R., Scharlemann, J., Balmford, A. & Green, R. Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Glob. Change Biol. 15, 17161726 (2009).
    Shows that the relationship between crop intensification and land sparing is weak.
  62. Villoria, N., Golub, A., Byerlee, D. & Stevenson, J. Will yield improvements on the forest frontier reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A global analysis of oil palm. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 95, 13011308 (2013).
  63. Coping with Water Scarcity: Challenge of the Twenty-first Century (United Nations, 2007).
  64. Berndes, G. Bioenergy and water: The implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Glob. Environ. Change 12, 253271 (2002).
  65. Legg, B. J. in Yields of Farmed Species: Constraints and Opportunities in the 21st Century (eds Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Wiseman, J.) 3150 (Nottingham Univ. Press, 2005).
  66. Sylvester-Bradley, R., Foulkes, J. & Reynolds, M. in Yields of Farmed Species: Constraints and Opportunities in the 21st Century (eds Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Wiseman, J) 233260 (Nottingham Univ. Press, 2005).
  67. Berndes, G. Water Demand for Global Bioenergy Production: Trends, Risks and Opportunities (WBGU, 2008).
  68. Dale, B. E., Bals, B. D., Kim, S. & Eranki, P. Biofuels done right: Land efficient animal feeds enable large environmental and energy benefits. Envrion. Sci. Tech. 44, 83858389 (2010).
  69. Ariza-Montobbio, P., Lele, S., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. The political ecology of Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India. J Peasant Stud. 37, 875897 (2010).
    Highlights the risks and complexities of putting bioenergy policy into practice.
  70. Wicke, B. et al. The global technical and economic potential of bioenergy from salt-affected soils. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 26692681 (2011).
  71. Wicke, B., Smeets, E., Watson, H. & Faaij, A. The current bioenergy production potential of semi-arid and arid regions in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 7, 27732786 (2011).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Energy Policy & Technology, Imperial College London, 14 Princes Gardens, South Kensington, London SW7 1NA, UK

    • Raphael Slade,
    • Ausilio Bauen &
    • Robert Gross

Contributions

R.S. Designed and planned the work, undertook the analysis and wrote the manuscript. A.B. and R.G. contributed to the design, drafting and review.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Tables S1–S4 (481 KB)

    Summary of global biomass potential estimates less than 100EJ

Additional data