Memorandum submitted by Energy for Sustainable
Development (ESD) Ltd (Bio 05)
1. You ask for evidence on a number of points.
As an active developer of energy crop projects for a number of
years Energy for Sustainable Development (ESD) Ltd has a specific
view on many of these points.
2. The basis of this view is that biomass
allows us to harvest, and use, atmospheric CO2 as a
sustainable form of carbon energy in preference to mining fossil
reserves. On a large scale it is part of a national carbon/CO2
solution, as well as a local "stored sunlight" renewable
energy option.
3. Nature does part of this for us work
through "free" photosynthesis, but we have to do the
rest as biomass is not a very amenable fuel. This makes biomass
expensive, and it has been easier to live cheaply on the planets'
energy "capital". This is not sustainable as:
— fossil resources are finite;
— using the atmosphere as a CO2
sink is risky; and
— we should be learning to live within
our means.
4. In the UK none of these arguments is
particularly compelling:
— we have (had) plenty of coal, oil
and gas;
— we may benefit from global warming
(if the sea does not rise too much); and
— we are dedicated consumers, and need
growth to drive the service economy.
5. To comply with out Kyoto commitments,
and to have more sustainable development, we should be thinking
about changes to the nature of our enterprise economy—and
in particular the role of farming, and the way we use land.
6. Without CAP subsidies, food production
in the UK could have declined rapidly, possibly even disappeared,
and we might have returned to the high levels of pre-industrial
forest cover normal in a temperate zone climate. In a carbon constrained
world this additional carbon sink would have been welcome, and
this may still happen if we can find an income for the land owner/land
user while this sequestration is going on. Public subsidy has
been the traditional answer, but it does not always stretch far
enough.
7. The high quality fuel withdrawn from
this new sink would be "carbon neutral". However, tree
growth rates are low, income is slow to arrive, and clear fell
is not appreciated by the public. The alternative could be faster
growing standing crops producing a lower quality fuel, earlier
income and more sympathetic harvesting. If the revenue streams,
currently generated and traded amongst the large energy users,
filter down to the growers then this type of carbon farming/CO2
recycling becomes practical.
8. The growers will face competition for
this money. We expect to see the emergence of technologies enabling
the economic long range import of low carbon biomass fuels. The
palm oil industry in Malaysia is seeing this now as the transport
sector of the international energy market is, without any carbon
credits, willing to pay more than the food industry for raw vegetable
oil to make biodiesel. Other road fuel products, bioethanol, and
pyrolytic bio-oil, will not be far behind biodiesel.
9. The arrival of this purchasing power
is going to have an interesting effect on land use patterns etc
both here, and in developing countries. The environmental and
economic exploitation that has been seen around the charcoal fuelled
cities in tropical climates could be about to go global.
10. For the UK we would like to ensure that:
— this new demand for a cultivated
carbon crop is met sustainably;
— that a significant part the crop
value is passed through to the land user; and
— that the land owner benefits.
11. The alternative could be contract farming
(land mining, in effect) by large corporate entities with genetically
enhanced crops eg soya in S America, in a way that is embarrassing
even for the old Plantation companies.
12. In our view sustainability would be
encouraged if the land owner could acquire the capital to come
part way (or all the way) up the value chain to supply the energy
market directly. The decisions that are then made about land use,
both here and in developing countries, would be more supportive
of the rural inhabitants, the land users, and the local ecology.
13. The carbon emission values equivalent
to £20/ton of biomass generated within the EUETS could be
used to replace the CAP subsidy and make low input, long output
woody energy crops such as willow, miscanthus etc viable without
public subsidy. If too much of this revenue is attracted across
to high input, short output crops like cereals and oil seeds,
that can be easily imported, then the opportunity to optimise
domestic carbon savings for a low CO2 future from changes
in land use could be lost.
14. From this perspective:
I. The "real" scope: 1m
ha producing 4mtoe—2.5% of current primary energy needs.
4% if we can get national fuel requirements down to 100mtoe/yr.
II. Cost effective: Field biomass
costs £40/odt without any subsidy. It could be delivered
at less than £100/odt—£20/MWh, which is the current
price of domestic gas, and less than the price of heating oil.
It is the cheapest renewable fuel.
III. Carbon savings: Carbon farming
with low input crops has an energy ratio >20:1 making it virtually
carbon neutral. Sequestering and re-using atmospheric CO2
on 1m ha could save 2.5mtC/yr if it replaces gas, more if it replaces
oil and coal.
IV. Sustainability: The focus must
be on the carbon saving achieved, not the "renewable energy"
produced. Standing, low input woody crops in preference to intensive
arable crops.
V. Impact of Government actions:
The key to progress is Government action to release land for carbon
farming and wind farming by adjusting land use policies.
VI. Support needed : Biomass requires
a stable, long term investment climate to attract the capital
needed for the new infrastructure. 50% of this needs to come from
individual consumers (via the RO), or the Treasury (as capital
grants) where the carbon avoidance costs are reasonable (<£70/tC).
VII. Impacts: the 1m ha should be
reasonably distributed, and will then contribute to biodiversity
and sit comfortably alongside food farming.
VIII. Comparative advantage: we
will also import low carbon biomass. Eventually domestic carbon
farming will need to be limited to protect food production.
IX. By-products: there needs to
be more creative investment in the supply chain. This will come
as new harvesting/processing technologies are developed by the
Finns, Swedes and others with a more serious approach to biomass.
X. Lessons learnt: we do not need
bioenergy—we do not have enough non-food land to make a
real difference. However, in proportion to what we have, we do
need to be serious about carbon farming and sustainability. Other
countries show that Government action must be firm and committed.
An RO to 2027 is not enough. An RTFO that does not have permanent
tax breaks, is not enough.
15. The Treasury must think beyond the £
as a petro-currrency. Stripped of fossil fuel resources the UK
needs to become a low energy, low carbon economy quite quickly,
and for this to happen we need to go carbon farming, as well as
wind farming.
Energy for Sustainable Development (ESD) Ltd
January 2006
| 
