Academic Director - Energy Academy Europe Biobased Economy; an integral vision. Biofuelnet – Advanced Biofuels Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 7th July 2016. Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij Academic Director - Energy Academy Europe Distinguished Professor Energy System Analysis – University of Groningen

1. Biobased economy in a climate friendly future (keeping 2 oC GMT in sight…) 300 EJ deployment 2nd half of this century needed Bio-CCS (negative emissions) now paramount (e.g. in advanced biorefining). Especially for advanced biofuels and biomaterials (ratio some 10 – 5 : 1, comparable to oil use today). Leads to substantial moderation of mitigation costs (vs. no BBE). Many BBE options can become competitive vs. fossil reference on medium term.

Energy demand, GHG emissions and climate change…

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

Biobased chemicals; not covered in current global scenario’s (to date…)! Energy demand for major Chemicals towards 2100 with and without Biomass deployment HVC’s, including recycling [Daioglou et al., Energy & Env. Sc., 2014]

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

2. Biomass resource potentials (sustainable) Suffice for 300 EJ (some 80 EJ residues, 20 EJ organic wastes, 150 EJ from 500 Mha better quality land and some 50 EJ from 500 Mha degraded lands. Provided agriculture modernizes fast enough to absorb growing food demand on less land. Yield gaps in livestock and cropping sufficient to do so (some 10% of arable & pasture lands, 5,000 Mha, needed). Can also be done fast enough in coming 3-4 decades. Can provide major synergies in improved resource efficiency (land, water, nutrients) and increased carbon stocks. Major addition economic value in rural areas and marginal lands (300 EJ equals several trillion U$/yr).

But, BBE faces key bottlenecks… Negative perception on biomass use for energy (and materials) in key markets (including EC; RED now EXCLUDES 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.

Potential land-use pattern changes (integral update finalized now) [Hoogwijk, Faaij et al., 2006]

2050 Bioenergy Potentials & Deployment Levels 2008 Global Energy Total Chapter 2 Possible Deployment Levels 2011 IPCC Review* Land Use 3 and 5 million km 2 Chapter 10 Modelled Deployment Levels for CO2 Concentration Targets Past Literature Range of Technical Potentials 0-1500 EJ Global Primary Energy Supply, EJ/y 2008 Global Biomass Energy 2050 Global Energy AR4, 2007 2050 Global Biomass AR4, 2007 <440 ppm 440-600 ppm Technical Potential 2050 Projections Minimum median 75th Maximum 100 300 150 190 80 265 Technical Potential Based on 2008 Model and Literature Assessment 118 20 25 25th Percentile 2000 Total Biomass Harvest for Food/Fodder/Fiber as Energy Content Used roughly 70-108 for 25th percentile, 118-154 for median, and 150-190 for 75th percentile. Added minima (20 and 25) and maxima 265-300 EJ for the biomass scenarios given in total primary energy (biofuels too). [IPCC-SRREN, 2011] 10 10

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

Further investigations yield gaps 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.g Camelina). [Gerssen-Gondelach, et al., Food & Energy Security, 2015]

Potential biomass production on saline soils. [Wicke et al, Energy & Environmental Science, 2011] 13 13 13

Example: Corn ethanol Results from PE & CGE models The main improvements in the modeling relate to updates in the global economic database used in GTAP (from 2001 to 2006), inclusion of pastureland as an option for conversion to bioenergy production, treatment of animal feed co-products, crop yields (both for agricultural crops and bioenergy crops) on existing agricultural land and newly converted land, and the fraction of carbon that is stored for a longer period in wood products (Tyner, 2010). Searchinger vs. GTAP: only forest conversion, not pastures; CARD model - partial equilibrium model; lower spatial resolution [Wicke et al., Biofuels, 2012] 14

Key factors biomass potentials [Dornburg et al., Energy & Environmental Science 2010]

3. Impacts of biomass production vs 3. Impacts of biomass production vs. governance of land use and production chains/systems. Environmental and socio-economic impacts depend on crops X land type, spatial planning and organisation (e.g. smallholder vs. plantation) …implying also that impacts can be steered. More efficient agriculture and livestock = smaller footprint for food, lower GHG emissions, water use, better nutrient utilization (per unit of output) and increased carbon stocks. Perennials on surplus (& degraded) land; positive impact on biodiversity, erosion, soil formation and C-stock build up. In total synergy; also desired as adaptation to climate change.

Contrast: Modeling for iLUC factors is only half the science we need; reactive instead of pro-active concept. ‘’old’’ Biofuel policies also half the policy we need; mandates without proper preconditions, resulting in CONFLICTS Versus Interlinked agricultural& biobased economy policies (agri, clima, energy…). Investigate (and implement) Integral land use strategies (agriculture, BBE, nature, rural development) to achieve SYNERGIES

General approach iLUC mitigation From economic models Baseline: developments in food, feed and fibres Biomass target: the amount required to meet targets such as RED. [Brinkman, et al. , 2015] 18

General approach [Brinkman, et al. , 2015] 19

Regional assessment Each region has its own target. If all reach the target without displacing production ILUC can be avoided. Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region … 20

[Gerssen-Gondelach et al., 2016, forthcoming] 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., 2016, forthcoming]

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]

4. 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 gradual development of (biomass) markets, infrastructure and technologies; intersectoral approaches.

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

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]

Developments in yields and inputs Source: FAOSTAT and own calculations Developments in yields and inputs [De Wit et al, RSER 2011]

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

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

Crop specific supply curves Feedstock potentials Produced on 65 Mha arable and 24 Mha on pastures (grass and wood) Significant difference between ‘1st and 2nd generation crops’ Supply potentials high compared to demand 2010 (0,78 EJ/yr) and 2020 (1,48 EJ/yr) 1st generation 2nd generation 1 EJ (ExaJoule) = 24 Mtoe [Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

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

Argentina; example full impact analysis Different scenario’s for land-use and agricultural management Compares soybean (biodiesel) to switchgrass (pellets) Focus on more marginal area in one province (La Pampa) Follows main principles of Cramer framework [Van Dam et al., RSER, 2009]

Switchgrass bioenergy chain Soybean bioenergy chain relative sustainability performance switchgrass and soybean bioenergy chain Switchgrass bioenergy chain Soybean bioenergy chain Principles CUR A B C S mS Reference land- use D G Soil carbon balance ++ + -- - GHG balance Land-use change - Change in land-use ≈0+ ≈0- - Rise land prices - Rise food prices ≈ 0 Biodiversity Soil quality and quantity Soil erosion Soil nutrients ≈++ ≈+ ≈0/- ≈-- ≈0 ≈- Water quality and quantity - Water quality - Water quantity ≈ 0+ ≈ 0- Air quality Local prosperity Social well-being [Van Dam et al., RSER 2009]