Memorandum submitted by Land Network International
Ltd (Bio 02)
1. SCOPE FOR
BIOFUELS TO
CONTRIBUTE TO
TACKLING CLIMATE
CHANGE
Some years ago I put a figure as follows to
Prof Lynne Frostick who is the Head of The Centre for Waste and
Pollution Research (it still exists but they have changed its
name recently); I thought that there was possible 100 millions
tonnes a year in the UK which had been collected and put down
holes (which means the money is spent) which could come into agriculture.
Her response was "I think you will find it is a little more
than that". Whatever that figure is, I did a rough calculation
based on the 100 million tonnes per annum and thought that it
would probably, if it were incinerated, produce 75 million tonnes
of carbon dioxide per annum (which is roughly equivalent to 10%
of the Kyoto Protocol estimate of total UK production). All forms
of incineration, including EfW plants, would produce that carbon
dioxide. However, if that material is used, via composting, as
fertiliser and a substitute for what farmers purchase a mineral
fertiliser, then that material would go into the land and we could
lock up the carbon. Generally speaking, in basic principle, biofuel
production is carbon neutral; carbon dioxide is taken out of the
air by plants (at the beginning of the process) combined with
water in the plant (which uses energy from the sun to drive the
process) and we eventually produce a fuel which is finally burnt,
so pushing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. So, the process
is front-end driven which is a bonus. However, people argue that
there is a carbon cost in the logistics of planting the crop and
harvesting it. This is quite true. However, it is well to remember
that a hectare of land will produce, in a good year, about two
tonnes of oil seed rape seed per harvest. However, the oil used
(which is burnt and pushes Carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere,
will only be, even after two pressings, about 42% of the seed
weight. On top of this the crop will produce something in the
region of four to seven tonnes of dry matter per hectare above
the ground and about the same again below the ground. If the crop
wastes are incorporated into the soil and direct drilling is used,
then there will be an accumulation of Carbon molecules in the
soil and a build up. With appropriate cultivation techniques,
probably not more than about 10% of that Carbon will be oxidised
to Carbon dioxide every year. There are low emissions of some
other gases including Nitrous Oxide which are also greenhouse
gases. Nevertheless, using this technique there would be a major
contribution to reduction of greenhouse gas volume.
Also see appendices.
2. COST EFFECTIVENESS
OF BIOMASS
AND BIOFUELS
While "biomass" has a place, it depends
what is meant by the word and how it is handled. If a crop is
grown especially for the purpose, for example Willow or Miscanthus,
then that crop will, when standing in the field before harvest,
have probably 70-95% water in it. That water has to be handled
and removed. If the material is stacked to dry out, then it has
to be double handled. It is a fact that although this process
has been tried in many parts of the world, and tried successfully,
it has never become really large-scale activity.
Biofuels to produce liquid fuels that can be
used in vehicles and central heating systems, appear to be more
attractive. However, there are two difficulties. Firstly, under
current economics because of the tax that has to be paid at the
pump for vehicle users, biofuel production is not attractive in
the UK. The commercial economics, however, do stack up to produce
oil seed rape in the UK and ship it to Germany where it is pressed
and turned into biodiesel and sold at the pumps. Secondly, the
environmental energy equations are not at all attractive if the
crop is produced using mineral fertiliser. The production of mineral
nitrogen fertiliser is very energy expensive. (See also in appendices.)
However, this equation is changed dramatically and to significant
advantage if the Nitrogen fertiliser required to grow the crop
comes from wastes that are applied to the land by composting or
direct spreading, preferably with proximity logistics planned
and used. From any point of view, crops to biofuels are superficially
exciting but, in reality, not really very attractive. Waste to
crops to biofuels is dramatically different and very positive.
3. CARBON SAVINGS
FROM BIOFUELS
This has been largely talked about in Paragraph
2 above and in the appendices. We also have a project running
with Lincolnshire County Council that would be looking to put
figures on these equations.
4. SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTION OF
BIOFUELS ON
FARMS
Covered under item 3 above.
5. IMPACT OF
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Government at EU and UK level can and will affect
bioenergy production by providing changes in taxation of vehicle
fuels to support biofuels, extended capital allowances on investment
in biofuel plants, grants via WRAP and other bodies, manipulation
of Cross Compliance on farms and so on. However, government appears
to find it very difficult to understand one thing that is much
more important than all these things put together. Environmental
regulation, like all regulation, has two functions. Firstly, it
is to police the bad guys. That is necessary and fundamental in
all societies. Secondly, it is to enable the good guys. "Enable"
depends on regulations which are common sense-based, and sound
practical technology and implemented by a personnel structure
which makes decisions rapid. It is worth repeating this; common
sense, technology and speed. The logic is quite simple; if it
is economic and sustainable, business will go and borrow the money
and do the job. It doesn't need incentives. All incentives do
is make it easier but common sense, technology and speed will
deliver. What we don't want is inhibition.
6. FINANCIAL
AND POLICY
SUPPORT
The UK, like all developed economies is very
heavily dependent on the manufacture and use of motor vehicles.
They happen to run on liquid fuel. Therefore, switching to biofuels
would be a very rapid way of affecting that economy and greenhouse
gas production. The UK suffers from lack of tax incentive for
the users to switch to biofuels and over-regulation by bureaucracies
that cannot make decisions quickly.
7. LAND USE
In the short run, oil seed rape is likely to
be the crop used for diesel production and wheat for bioethanol
production. Both of these are in widespread cropping already.
There are other crops which may or may not be so attractive but
could certainly be used. It could be arranged that there would
be an increase in crop diversity by moving into biofuel productions.
However, there is a more important matter which is only seen if
the biofuels come from crops which are grown from waste. One of
the effects of using compost on land, is that invertebrate populations
rocket. This means that bird populations and diversity rise very
noticeably. This has a knock-on effect on all biodiversity. So,
provided the crops are grown from waste, there are some obvious
advantages. These extend right across the rural environment. Proximity
principle handling of locally produced wastes, can and does decrease
tonne truck miles by between 65 and 85% compared with centralised
processing.
8. LAND USE
Import of anything has two significant disadvantages.
Firstly, transport logistics not only cost money, they cost in
energy use. Secondly, there is always the question of supply security,
balance of payment and UK jobs. Home production, totally within
the UK environment, is apparently much more attractive. It becomes
really attractive, and dramatically so, provided waste is used
to produce the crops for the biofuel production. It could also
be used to eliminate Set Aside, which is a criminal obscenity.
9. WHAT MORE
COULD BE
DONE IN
AGRICULTURE?
The answer here is really quite simple. What
regulation has not done is recognise and harness the enormous
amount of knowledge and sense of responsibility in the majority
of farmers. One simple way of dramatically accelerating safe recycling
to land would be to use a "driving licence" approach.
This might involve allowing permissions to be very much more easily
obtained within an agreed and simple framework. Then, if there
was a breach of regulations, there would be 3-points on the "licence".
If there were a level of pollution as a result, and these could
be graded with a series of numbers of points, then getting to
a total of 12-points would mean that the right to accept materials
for recycling would stop instantly for a prescribed length of
time. There has also been a principle of "polluter pays".
There might also be a similar principle of "abuse loses privilege".
It's a useful tool in motoring and our Environment Agency could
easily apply spot-checks to make this work in recycling to land.
Recycling high-volume, low-value waste can only logically and
economically and sustainably be done to farm and forestry land.
We need simpler, more enabling regulation with decisions that
can be made rapidly by regulators. We also need composting standards
which are related to use. It might well be that different waste
could be taken to land used for biofuel production than for food
production. It would not be difficult to define this sensibly
with a technology-based programme. Within this framework, there
is no particular reason to separate agricultural waste from waste
from outside of agriculture; they are all potentially useful as
fertilisers.
10. LEARNING
FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES' EXPERIENCE
The UK is somewhere near the bottom of biofuel
league tables of any developed country in the world. There are
two factors in this. Firstly, the price at the pump affects what
consumers buy. This is a very price-sensitive situation. Government
taxation overseas does affect this particular factor. Secondly,
the UK really does "gold-plate" regulation to the point
of significantly reducing activities.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is little doubt that there is a
major opportunity here and also that is could easily be mishandled.
2. The opportunity could be very large,
have a significant effect on the total UK and rural economies,
and would be in public relations terms very attractive to the
British people in general and government in particular.
3. Price at the pump really matters and
this necessarily implies some government thinking on fuel taxation.
4. The Environmental arguments are dramatically
more attractive if recycling waste to land to produce the crops
to produce the biofuels is the route that is encouraged and developed.
5. The advantage will only come if regulation
governing these activities is based on common sense, practical
technology and speed in decision making.
Land Network International Ltd
January 2006
APPENDIX I
A Paper on "closed loop" sustainable
fuel production
BIO-FUELS
FROM WASTE
1. Bio-fuels from crops are certainly emotionally
attractive as a "sustainable" fuel. The problem is that
the environmental energy equations really do not stack up. However,
that analysis is, as they say, strictly for the birds. Put waste
instead of mineral fertiliser and the energy equations are dramatically
different and compellingly attractive. We have to go down this
route. However, to retain the advantage, there is a condition.
2. The technology to produce fuels from
crops is certainly there. Some of it needs further development
but there is no question that it can be done, producing bio-ethanol
(substantial capital and running cost), bio-diesel (much more
attractive), and bio-heating oils (most attractive). What crops
do is harvest sunlight. The green material (chlorophyll) in leaves
allows the crop to use the energy in sunlight to take carbon dioxide
from the air and water through its roots to make sugars and oils.
Those large carbon molecules can be used to make fuels. The process
also takes carbon dioxide (one of the greenhouse gasses) out of
the air. Sounds good and it does work. See Fig 1.
3. The problem with just crops-to-fuel is
two-fold. Firstly, centralised processing of harvested crop products
does lead to much trucking and the whole supply chain/process-logistics
get complicated and expensive in energy. The second, and more
dismissive, is that crops are conventionally grown with mineral
fertiliser and the environmental energy equations are catastrophic.
Firstly, the logistics of worldwide fertiliser manufacture and
distribution were built in an era of low energy and transport
costs. Secondly, and here is the fatal blow, mineral nitrogen
fertiliser is made by passing air through an enormous electric
arc which creates the temperature necessary to fuse the nitrogen
in the air with the oxygen, thus making nitrogen oxides. So, the
process is energy-based. In the world as it is, that electricity
will almost certainly have been generated using fossilised fuel,
probably oil or gas. Therefore, it would have been easier, and
environmentally more attractive, to put the oil in the engine
in the first place and not bother with going through the crop
route. The fact is that, however it is looked at, this route is
really not very attractive. See Fig 2.
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE
4. It is not very difficult to see that
if the crop is grown, not with "artificial" manufactured
nitrogen, but with nitrogen from "waste", then the environmental
energy equations become fundamentally different. They are attractive
both in theory and in practice. We now have the classic problem-solving
framework. Take a problem and find its mirror image and put them
together. Just as in astrophysics we can contemplate taking a
super nova and putting it with a black hole to get nothing, we
can now take the quest for truly sustainable fuel and the need
to "dispose" of "waste" and get the answer
we are looking for. The links which solve the problem are a crop
with a green leaf to harvest sunlight plus the technology to take
plant oils and make fuels for engines and heating.
However, it is not quite as easy as that.
5. Take fig 3. All the advantages of crops
to fuel are there but the main disadvantage of nitrogen fertiliser
from fossilised fuel is replaced by nitrogen from waste. As the
crop still takes carbon dioxide out of the air, this looks like
the ultimate in sustainability. It basically is but mankind is
in danger of making it difficult and introducing risks and losses.
Consider the two obvious routes to production.
6. Firstly, bioethanol is relatively easy
to produce from harvested crop products when the process is carried
out in large, centralised factories. The large operation is at
the centre of Western commercial thinking. Larger operations can
be "efficient", use the latest technology, make a lot
of money for a small group of people who can afford to take the
risk, can be bought and sold by big business, are controllable
by regulators and taxable by government, etc, etc.
7. Now consider small local operations where
the waste at the base of the process is collected and used on
a proximity basis. The national farmers' consortium, Land Network,
has experience of decentralised operation of recycling waste to
land. Their experience is that local operation reduces tonne-truck
miles by between 65 and 85% compared with centralised operation.
Now expand that into crop product processing and fuel use. The
truth is that Western society has grown its industry, its housing-to-work
structures, and its social attitudes on the motorcar and trucks
but now things are different. There is a fundamental energy equation
difference between centralised and proximity operation.
8. Forget, for a moment, the political correctness
of Local Agenda 21 and the lip service paid to Proximity Principle
operation. The truth is that small-scale operation necessarily
means lower risk. If something goes wrong on a small-scale operation,
then it is a small problem which is easier to police, control
and correct. Secondly, with small-scale operation where the operator
owns and lives on the site, there is a direct link between operation
and responsibility. The fact is that on-farm composting and processing
for local use is dramatically more attractive, from an environmental
energy point of view, than centralised operation.
BONUSES
9. Looking back at Figs 1, 2 and 3, the
basic logic is compelling. However, there is a bonus which the
Figures also show. All of the carbon in the fuel produced from
the crop comes from carbon dioxide in the air. The crop harvests
the sunlight. The "waste" which is used as a fertiliser
not only contains nitrogen, it is made up of large organic molecules
based on carbon. In conversations with Professor Lynne Frostick,
Head of the Waste and Pollution Research Centre, University of
Hull, a figure of 100 million tonnes per annum of waste which
could go to land, currently collected and put to landfill (which
means that most of the cost is incurred) was, she thought, an
underestimate. At that figure, the value in plant nutrients is
somewhere in the region of equivalent to 60 to 100% of the value
of mineral fertilisers used by farmers and mainly imported. That
value approaches £1 billion per annum. The nitrogen fertiliser
in that total is worth around £500 million and at least £200
millions worth goes straight into the groundwater when it rains.
Waste to compost to farmland eliminates, repeat eliminates,
nitrate pollution from this way of farming. (See other references
provided.)
10. There is one more bonus and it is of
global significance. That 100 million tonnes of "waste"
would, if incinerated, produce probably somewhere around 75 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum—equivalent to 10% of
the Kyoto Protocol estimate of UK total production of that green
house gas. Recycle that "waste" to land and move to
direct drilling will lock up probably 90% of the carbon.
11. The fact is that recycling "wastes"
to land, locking up the carbon, using the nitrogen in the compost
to grow crops for bio-fuel production does make sense. Moving
in the direction of "going organic" using wastes, preferably
on a proximity basis, means that not only the farm goes organic,
fuel production does too.
GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE
12. What all of this logic leads to is a
conclusion of global significance. The logic of Fig 3 is compelling.
For any particular "developed" country, the waste its
society produces of the type which could go to land, would, if
incinerated, produce usually many million tonnes of carbon dioxide
per annum. However, recycle that "waste" to land and
move to zero tillage, which will lock up probably 90 % of the
carbon, use that soil for bio-fuel production and there will be
a significant, national, net reduction in carbon dioxide production.
13. Do the figures stack up? Well, yes they
do. The figures are the subject of a second paper by Bill Butterworth.
Fig 1. The basic equation of crops to
bio-fuels. It looks really attractive. The crop uses chlorophyll
to harvest sunlight. It is apparently actually sustainable.
LAND NETWORK Fig 1
Fig 2. Take the basic crops to bio-fuel
equation and add in where the energy to make the nitrogen fertiliser
comes from and the advantage evaporates. Very large amounts of
electrical energy are used to make nitrogen fertiliser. Further,
the generation of power is usually based on burning fossil fuels;
that produces more carbon dioxide.
LAND NETWORK Fig 2
Fig 3. Substitute "waste" for
manufactured nitrogen fertiliser by making compost on farms with
lower trucking distances and the real advantage and true sustainability
emerge.
LAND NETWORK Fig 3
APPENDIX II
ISSUES REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF COMPOSTED
MATERIALS FOR BIO-ENERGY CROPPING.
Dr John D. W. Adams Environmental
Technologies Centre for Industrial Collaboration University
of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX.
1. As a strategy to reduce the usage of
fossil fuels, there is increasing interest in renewable energies.
Energies from biological derived materials (bio-energy) are becoming
a credible option. Typically these materials are of plant origin
either collected at source (primary) or as a by-product/waste
from another processing industry/consumer (secondary/tertiary).
Broadly, the materials are treated either via thermal-chemical
conversion (combustion, gasification, pyrolysis) or biochemical
conversation (digestion, fermentation) or in the case of oil seeds,
direct extraction. After further modifications as necessary, these
processes create either energy (eg, electricity) or a (bio-) fuel
for energy (eg, biodiesel, bioethanol). In essence, all sources
of bio-energy are carbon neutral, since the carbon dioxide produced
is the same carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere during the
growing season of the plant. The European Union (EU), has set
targets that biomass derived energy should contribute almost 10%
of the total energy supply by 2010 (Commission of the European
Communities, 1997). Currently, about 1% of the total UK energy
supply is supplied by renewable energy, with biomass accounting
for about 60-70% (Faaij, 2006). While wastes play a major role,
the UK aims for larger scale use of energy crops on a longer term
as well (Faaij, 2006).
2. At the most fundamental level, crops
are specifically grown for the production of bio-energy. However,
there are doubts about the true environmental sustainability and
credibility of this approach. One major concern is the use of
inorganic nitrogen fertilisers during the crop production cycle.
Nitrogen is the major essential plant nutrient. Approximately
50% of the total nitrogen used in agriculture is produced industrially
using the Haber process. In this process nitrogen and hydrogen
gases are combined together to form ammonia. However, the process
is energy intensive. Thus, the true environmental cost and carbon
footprint of specific bio-energy crops needs to take account of
this when these fertilisers are used. However, replacing inorganic
nitrogen with organic materials (compost) may resolve this issue.
As a result of the Landfill Directive (see below), increasing
amounts of composted materials, which contain plant available
nitrogen, are currently being produced during the processing of
waste organic materials. Thus, by linking current issues in waste
management with energy policy, a more integrated answer can be
achieved to address the problems faced by both sectors.
3. The Landfill directive [1999/31/EC] requires
that the biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill be reduced
to 75% of 1995 levels by 2010, increasing to 50% by 2013 and 35%
by 2020. To meet the Landfill directive, depending on the final
definition of municipal biodegradable waste, anywhere between
eight to 53 million tonnes of waste will need to be diverted from
landfill by 2020 (The ENDS Report, April 1999). Failure to meet
these obligations could result in fines of upto £180 million
per year. Composting is seen a viable route for much of the organic
fraction. In the UK, the industry continues to grow. In 1998,
only 0.9 million tonnes of waste were actually composted in the
UK (Gilbert and Slater, 2000). This had increased to nearly two
million tonnes by 2003 (Davies, 2003).
4. Composting is particularly attractive
to the agricultural sector. Under exemptions from the Waste Management
Licensing Regulations 1994, composting without licensing may take
place where the waste is produced or where the compost is to be
used. Thus, the majority (83%) of on-farm composting operations
currently compost and dispose of waste under a waste management
license exemption (Davies, 2003). As a result, agricultural applications
represent the largest single outlet for composting activities.
Economically, this route appears attractive since the composter
collects a fee based on the amount received. The compost itself
is of benefit as an improver of soil fertility both physical characteristics
and nutritional value to crop growth. Since not all the carbon
is mineralised on application to the soil, the soil acts as a
carbon sink. Furthermore, the growth of an industrial crop, after
compost application, is likely to reduce the risk of pathogens,
hazardous to animal or human health, re-entering agricultural
systems. Whilst technologically advanced solutions exist, many
composting operations may be operated successful, if managed properly,
using equipment and infrastructures already present on most agricultural
farms.
5. The alternative to composting (accepting
that landfilling is not an acceptable option) is incineration.
Incineration of waste organic materials is as such a tertiary
source of bio-energy (see above). However, many organic wastes
have high moisture contents and are therefore not particularly
amenable to incineration. Incineration facilities have a high
capital investment cost. This results in incinerators being large
and centrally situated. This contributes to their major drawback
in that their perception socially, is low, particularly with local
residents (nimbyism) whose concerns centre around their potential
hazard to human health.
6. To comprehend the full impact of linking
these issues requires extensive study. Figure 1 addresses the
stages (and some alternatives) to how recycling of organic waste
to land for bio-energy production would be achieved. At each stage,
considerations regarding the issues of political, regulatory,
social, economic, energetic, and technological feasibility need
to be assessed to create a complete life cycle analysis. It is
unlikely that "one solution" exists. It is more likely
that the "overall solution" will be a series of individual
solutions that will involve a range of technologies dependant
on local and specific circumstances.
7. Research suggests that the potential
surplus land in the EU is capable of producing 20-40% of the energy
supply (WRR, 1992). Crops for biofuels is of obvious potential,
yet their uptake in the EU remains low. For example, although
the EU is the world leader in bio-diesel production, the current
contribution of all biofuels to total bio-energy production is
almost negligible (van Thuijl et al, 2003). EU production
of bio-ethanol, the other major biofuel, is less than 2% of total
global production. Even so, within each of these sectors significant
increases in production are being seen within the EU (Faaij, 2006).
8. In summary, the combination of composted
organic waste with the production of industrial crops intended
for energy shows immediate promise. Furthermore, the situation
is likely to become more attractive as energy demand (and cost)
increases, and political/legislative decisions favour both compost
production and renewable energy production.
REFERENCES
Commission of the European Communities, 1997.
White Paper for a community strategy and action plan: energy for
the future: renewable sources of energy.COM (97) 599, Brussels,
November 1997.
Davies, P (2003). The state of composting
in the UK 2001-02. The Composting Association, Wellingborough,
Northants. www.compost.org.uk
Faaij, A P C, 2006. Bio-energy in Europe:
changing technology choices. Energy Policy 34, 322-342.
Gilbert, E J and Slater, R A (2000). The
State of Composting 1998. The Composting Association, Wellingborough,
Northants.
van Thuijl, E, Roos, C J, Beurskens, L W M,
2003. An overview of biofuel technologies, markets and policies
in Europe. Energy Research Foundation of the Netherlands,
Report ECN-C—03-008, Petten, The Netherlands, January 2003,
pp.64.
WRR (Ed), 1992. Ground for Choices: Four
Perspectives for the Rural Areas in the European Community, Vol
42. Rapporten aan de regering, WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor
het Regeringsbeleid). Sdu uitgeverij, Den Haag.
Figure 1. Schematic showing the route
of organic waste to compost to energy. The input of compost replaces
the input of inorganic nitrogen at the application to land step.
The alternatives for disposal of organic waste (landfill and incineration)
are also shown.
|
