These documents illustrate various perspectives in the debate about climate change and GHGs. Some are high level, data-intensive documents, others are more of the nature of informed but outspoken opinions. (Some I am quite empathetic to, others not so.)
Sustainable and optimal use of biomass for energy in the EU beyond 2020
European Commission > Energy > Studies “This study provides an analysis of biomass supply potentials for energy use in the EU, projections of EU bioenergy demand post-2020, and an impact assessment of possible EU policy options for bioenergy sustainability post-2020, with a focus on biomass for heat and power.”
– Final Report May 2017 (198 pages)
– Annexes May 2017 (403 pages)
Third Generation Biofuels – Implications for Wood-Derived Fuels
Dovetail Partners Inc. Feb 2018. Good review of First to Fourth Generation Biofuels. “In this report we discuss the essential differences between first, second, and third generation biofuels, examine progress toward development of third generation fuels, and consider potential impacts of new generation biofuel development on future prospects for lignocellulosic biomassto-liquid fuels production. We also briefly explore what are referred to as fourth generation biofuels.
What Is a Sustainable Level of Timber Consumption in the EU: Toward Global and EU Benchmarks for Sustainable Forest Use
Meghan O’Brien and Stefan Bringezu 2017. Sustainability 9, 812 “Renewable energy targets in the European Union (EU) have raised the demand for timber and are expected to increase dependence on imports. However, EU timber consumption levels are already disproportionally high compared to the rest of the world. The question is, how much timber is available for the EU to sustainably harvest and import, in particular considering sustainable forest management practices, a safe operating space for land-system change, and the global distribution of “common good” resources. This article approaches this question…”
Vaclav Smil’s Reality Checks
Meet Vaclav Smil, the man who has quietly shaped how the world thinks about energy
By Paul Voosen, in www.sciencemag.org/news (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Mar 21, 2018.
“Throughout his career, Smil, perhaps the world’s foremost thinker on energy of all kinds, has sought clarity. From his home office near the University of Manitoba (UM) in Winnipeg, Canada, the 74-year-old academic has churned out dozens of books over the past 4 decades. They work through a host of topics, including China’s environmental problems and Japan’s dietary transition from plants to meat. The prose is dry, and they rarely sell more than a few thousand copies. But that has not prevented some of the books—particularly those exploring how societies have transitioned from relying on one source of energy, such as wood, to another, such as coal—from profoundly influencing generations of scientists, policymakers, executives, and philanthropists. One ardent fan, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates in Redmond, Washington, claims to have read nearly all of Smil’s work. “I wait for new Smil books,” Gates wrote last December, “the way some people wait for the next Star Wars movie.””
Global Energy: The Latest Infatuations
by Vaclav Smil,2011 American Scientist, Volume 99, 212-219.
A reality check, e.g.: “…in order to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gatheringcompression-transportation-storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build. Technically possible—but not within a timeframe that would prevent CO2 from rising above 450 ppm. And remember not only that this would contain just 20 percent of today’s CO2 emissions but also this crucial difference: The oil industry has invested in its enormous infrastructure in order to make a profit, to sell its product on an energy-hungry market (at around $100 per barrel and 7.2 barrels per tonne that comes to about $700 per tonne) — but (one way or another) the taxpayers of rich countries would have to pay for huge capital costs and significant operating burdens of any massive CCS [carbon capture and sequestration].”
Takeaways from “Energy Myths and Realities: bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate” by Vaclav Smil (or view Another Version, more web readable)
Blog post by Kelsey Breseman in Frankly Speaking, Oct 4, 2016. View also Bill Gates’ take on the book “I recommend this book to everyone who spends time working on energy issues, not to cheer them up but to help them have a stronger framework for evaluating energy promises. Smil is able to prove that even if we do our best and innovation is amazing, real change will still take at least 20 years. To me, the long lead times and uncertainties involved in bringing new sources of energy online underscore the importance of pursuing many different paths.”. View also Vaclav Smil’s description of his book. (The book was published in 2010 by AEI Press, Washington, D.C., 232 pages.)
Are Biofuels an Effective and Viable Energy Strategy for Industrialized Societies? A Reasoned Overview of Potentials and Limits
Tiziano Gomiero. 2015. Sustainability 7; 8491-8521 (Full text available)
“In this paper, I analyze the constraints that limit biomass from becoming an alternative, sustainable and efficient energy source, at least in relation to the current metabolism of developed countries…For our industrial society to rely on “sustainable biofuels” for an important fraction of its energy, most of the agricultural and non-agricultural land would need to be used for crops, and at the same time a radical cut to our pattern of energy consumption would need to be implemented, whilst also achieving a significant population reduction.”
Re-Energizing Canada: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Future
Catherine Potvin et al, 2016. Sustainable Canada Dialogues (McGill University).
“Commissioned by Natural Resources Canada in Fall 2016Cover, Written by 72 scholars from all 10 provinces, Draws on data, peer-reviewed research and other relevant documents, Offers suggestions on how Canadian governments, companies and citizens can advance decarbonisation in a manner coherent with the Paris Agreement. After reviewing hundreds of articles and reports, and analysing much data, we are convinced more than ever that Canada has an opportunity to drive innovation and deliver benefits now and into the future by tapping our vast renewable energy potential and know-how to make the transition away from fossil-fuel-based energy systems.”
– Likely strongly related: Canada’s Low Carbon Economy Fund
– For one unflattering perspective on this study, view: Decarbonizing Canadian economy by 2050 a foolish academic exercise By Markham Hislop in theamericanenergynews.com/, May 27, 2017.
Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation
Göran Berndes et al. 2016. From Science to Policy 3. European Forest Institute. “This report provides insights into the current scientific debate on forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. It draws on the science literature to give a balanced and policy-relevant synthesis, from both an EU and global perspective.”
Canadian Forest Products: Contributing to Climate Change Solutions
Canadian Climate Forum Issue Paper / Fall 2015 “Forests have deep cultural, social and economic significance to Canadians and their importance is growing because the carbon they store mitigates climate change. At the same time they provide a sustainable supply of raw materials for products with lower carbon footprints than their alternatives, thus aiding the transition to a low-carbon economy. Exporting Canadian forest products to countries that do not have extensive forests can help reduce their national greenhouse gas emissions by displacing more energy intensive materials.
Environmental Research Letters 2018: Focus on The Role of Forests and Soils in Meeting Climate Change Mitigation Goals
Two papers in the first issue on this topic are very pertinent to biofuels and GHGs:
—Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy
John D Sterman et al. 2018 Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 1 “Bioenergy is booming as nations seek to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union declared biofuels to be carbon-neutral, triggering a surge in wood use. But do biofuels actually reduce emissions?…Assuming biofuels are carbon neutral may worsen irreversible impacts of climate change before benefits accrue. Instead, explicit dynamic models should be used to assess the climate impacts of biofuels.”
—Not carbon neutral: Assessing the net emissions impact of residues burned for bioenergy
Mary S Booth 2018. Environmental Research Letters Volume 13, Number 1. “…for ‘low carbon’ assumptions about residues to be reasonable, two conditions must be met: biomass must genuinely be material left over from some other process; and cumulative net emissions, the additional CO2 emitted by burning biomass compared to its alternative fate, must be low or negligible in a timeframe meaningful for climate mitigation.”
The potential of forest biomass as an energy supply for Canada
David Paré et al. 2011. The forestry Chronicle 87: 71-76. “The main objectives of this paper are to give some figures and perspectives on Canadian forest biomass supply with respect to Canada’s energy demand and to examine the potential of using this feedstock for reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions…The range of estimates listed here indicates that this source of energy is important but that it is still a fraction of our energy demands. The potential of using this biomass to reduce our GHG emissions is strongly dependent, among other factors, on the technological pathways that are used, with direct heat production and combined heat and power (CHP) ranking amongst the best options available. The relative scarcity of the resource behooves us to use it efficiently.”