Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 15, Nos 4/5, pp.

357±367, 1998
# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0961-9534(98)00030-0 0961-9534/98 $ - see front matter

WILL BIOMASS BE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

FUEL OF THE FUTURE?
D. O. HALL and J. I. SCRASE
Division of Life Sciences, King's College London, Campden Hill Rd, London W8 7AH, U.K.

AbstractÐMany in¯uential organisations foresee biomass playing a key role in a future, more sustain-
able, global energy supply matrix. Countries such as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, India,
the USA and the UK are actively encouraging the use of biomass for energy, and pushing forward the
development of the necessary knowledge and technology for modern biomass energy systems. There is
a growing consensus that renewable energy must progressively displace the use of fossil fuels, with fears
of global climate change adding urgency to this need. Among the available types of renewable energy
biomass is unique in its ability to provide solid, liquid and gaseous fuels which can be stored and trans-
ported. The potential resource for bioenergy is large, especially in forest-rich nations, in richer countries
where there is a surplus of agricultural land, and in many low latitude countries where high biomass
yields are possible. Therefore we expect biomass to be an important fuel of the future, but this cannot
be taken for granted. The systems adopted must demonstrate clear environmental and social bene®ts
relative to alternatives if the potential is to be realised. These bene®ts are not inherent to biomass
energy, but depend on site- and fuel cycle-speci®c factors. Life-cycle analysis and evaluation of external
costs are important means for assessing the social and environmental pros and cons of bioenergy sys-
tems. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

KeywordsÐBiomass energy, environment, scenario, life cycle analysis, external costs.

1. INTRODUCTION Nonetheless the transition to renewable energy

supply and greater eciency in the use of
The world derives a ®fth of its energy from
energy has never been more urgent, due to the
renewable resources: 13±14% from biomass
threat of global climate change caused largely
and 6% from hydro. For three quarters of the
by the burning of fossil fuels. The agreement
world's population, who live in developing
at Kyoto in December 1997 signals political
countries, it is the most important source of acceptance among the industrialised (Annex 1)
energy. In the world's poorest countries up to countries that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
90% of all energy is supplied by biomass, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be
whilst the highest rate of biomass use in devel- reduced. The signatories are committed to
oped countries is 16±18% in Sweden and reducing their aggregate emissions of green-
Finland respectively.1 These statistics explain house gases to at least 5% below 1990 levels
why biomass is perceived by many as a fuel of before 2012. Renewable energy, and in par-
the past, which will be left behind as countries ticular biomass, has a vital role to play in cli-
develop economically and their technological mate stabilisation. Another major reason why
base matures. This perception, however, is the use of biomass for energy will increase is
contrary to the predictions of in¯uential the growth in energy demand in developing
bodies such as the World Energy Council countries, where a€ordable alternatives are
(WEC), the U.N. Commission on often unavailable. Nonetheless, widespread
Environment and Development (UNCED), acceptance and commitment to modernisation
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate and expansion of the biomass industry is beset
Change (IPCC), Greenpeace and Shell with problems.
International, all of whom predict an expan-
sion rather than decline in global use of bio- 2. PERCEPTIONS AND PROBLEMS
mass for energy in the next century.
The depletion of fossil fuels has temporarily Biomass is often perceived as a low status
ceased to be a de®ning issue in global energy fuel, associated with poverty and the past.
security, with the discovery of new oil and gas This is re¯ected in the poor quality of ocial
reserves, and the large existing coal resources. statistics relating to biomass energy use,
357
358 D. O. HALL

although this is now improving. Wider accep- 2.3. Biomass energy requires too much land
tance of biomass for energy is still restrained If biomass is to become a major fuel then
by many misconceptions, though the real pro- energy cropping would have to become a sig-
blems should not be denied. Foremost among ni®cant land use category, but there is no
these is the ®nancial cost of bioenergy com- reason why this should be at the expense of
pared to fossil fuels, the latter being subsidised food production or other existing land uses. In
in many ways. The other problems discussed principle the world could produce over 80%
below are largely misconceptions or amenable of its energy needs from plantations and a
to solution. further 10% from residues, while still produ-
2.1. Biomass burning is bad for health cing enough food.4 Some critics counter that
the availability of this land depends on inten-
Biomass is the fuel most closely associated sive agriculture, at a time when we should be
with energy-related health problems in devel- moving towards low input agriculture and
oping countries, as it is often the cheapest or land use extensi®cation. However, in the EU
only fuel available. Burning any solid fuel has 12 there are currently 138 Mha of arable or
some negative impacts on health, particularly grassland, and by 2005 19 Mha could become
when burned in household cooking/heating available for non-food use assuming that pro-
stoves where there is little or no ventilation. duction continues to rise by 1 to 1.5% per
Exposure to particulates from biomass or coal year (compared to a 2% average between 1973
burning causes respiratory infections in chil- and 1990) and food demand grows by 0.5%
dren, and carbon monoxide is implicated in per year.5 Friends of the Earth Holland6 pre-
problems in pregnancy. Coal and biomass are dict that after 2010 over 42 Mha of land could
also suspected of causing cancer, where ex- be available for energy production in a
posure rates are high.2 Where coal is burned `Sustainable Europe' (10% of land area is for
domestically for heating and cooking the same protected nature, organic farming reduces
health problems are found with the additional food yields by 10% from projected levels and
problems caused by sulphur and trace metals. animal feeds are no longer imported).
All carbonaceous fuels cause releases of nitro- Land requirements will depend on energy
gen oxides. The health problems associated crop yields and the eciency of conversion.
with residential cooking and heating should be Assuming a 45% conversion eciency to elec-
associated with the way these services are pro- tricity and yields of 10 odt/(ha yr), a 20 MW
vided rather than the fuel used. Centralised electricity facility (sucient for 4000 house-
provision of electricity and heat on a local holds in OECD countries today) would
scale from biomass greatly reduces exposure require the use of 10% of the land area in a
to pollutants, increases the eciency of fuel 14 km radius of the facility.7 In low latitude
use and can be economically viable in develop- countries biomass yields can be considerably
ing countries.3 higher than this, and given lower energy
2.2. Biomass fuels are inconvenient demand per household, even more households
could be supplied with such a facility. Table 1
Biomass fuels are bulky and may have a presents estimates of short-rotation plantation
high water content. Fuel quality may be wood yields in semi-arid and sub-humid con-
unpredictable, and physical handling of the ditions, under various management options.
material can be challenging. These character- The land type assumed is degraded forest land
istics drive up the cost of bioenergy, as ad- or non-arable agricultural land. Genetic
ditional labour and equipment is required for improvement refers to a programme of clonal
fuel transport, handling, storage and proces- selection and matching species and clones to
sing compared to fossil fuels. Many of these sites, though biotechnology may have a role in
issues are becoming less salient as the technol- future.
ogy for bioenergy conversion improves (e.g.
¯uidised bed combustion allows more diverse
fuel characteristics). Also technologies for bio- 2.4. The energy balance is not positive
mass fuel upgrading (into pellets or briquettes It has been repeatedly shown that for
for example) are advancing, and development woody biomass energy output is 10 to 30
of dedicated energy crops will also improve times greater than the energy input necessary
fuel standardisation. for fuel production and transport.9±11 In
 Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future 359

Europe and the USA the issue is less clear cut similar in magnitude, which thus raises the
for liquid fuels from biomass, where a positive market value of land and thus increases the
net energy balance requires careful manage- cost of competing land uses such as energy
ment at the production stage, and the use of crops. A hidden subsidy is additionally made
by-products such as straw to supplement to the fossil fuel sector in the form of costs
energy output.12,13 In low latitude countries borne by third parties in terms of health, mili-
sugar cane for ethanol has high net energy tary operations, environmental damage and
yields. Technologies for converting wood to global warming. Under current market struc-
ethanol and methanol promise to improve the tures modern biomass energy is comparatively
energy balance and overall environmental pro- expensive, but this is by no means the natural
®le of liquid biofuels. outcome of the operation of a free market.
These real (and perceived) problems will
2.5. Biomass energy is expensive continue to limit the market penetration of
Coal is traded internationally for approxi- modern bioenergy. Energy market liberalisa-
mately $1.8 GJÿ1.14 Some wood residues, and tion may promote small scale power gener-
plantation wood in low latitude countries can ation18 including biomass. However, in the
be procured at this level, but currently wood USA the real prices of coal, oil and gas have
fuel typically costs 2 to 3 times as much as fallen by 45%, 70% and 44% respectively
coal in Europe or the USA. In Sweden the between 1980 and 1994.19 It appears that if
price of wood fuel fell by 50% in real terms biomass is to become a major fuel of the
between 1984 and 1994, to $4 GJÿ1, despite a future then cost reductions must be a priority,
rapid increase in demand.15 At this price wood but concerns for the environment in the con-
fuel is competitive with fossil fuels in Sweden text of growing world population and energy
because of a tax regime which favours renew- demand are more likely to be the driving
able energy, largely through a CO2 tax on fos- force.
sil fuels.
The cost problem is compounded by low
3. HOW ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY IS
conversion eciencies, which relate to the BIOMASS ENERGY?
small scale of most biomass energy facilities.
Both problems are being tackled progressively, In general the renewable forms of energy
with the development of dedicated biomass are considered `green' because they cause little
feedstocks and forest fuel industries, and the depletion of the Earth's resources, and because
development of more ecient power stations wind, solar and wave energy cause zero air
based on gasi®cation and combined heat and emissions during power generation. Biomass
power generation.16 energy is renewable, but shares many charac-
The international price of fossil fuels is in teristics with fossil fuels. Biofuels can be trans-
many cases kept arti®cially low by government ported and stored, and allow for heat and
subsidies aimed at protecting domestic fuel power generation on demand, which is essen-
security and/or regional employment. For tial in an energy mix with a high dependence
example Germany and the UK together subsi- on intermittent sources such as wind. These
dise their coal industries by over $8 billion similarities account for the major role biomass
annually. The USA, Canada, Australia and is expected to play in future energy scenarios.
Japan also subsidise fossil fuel production Also in common with fossil fuels, the environ-
heavily. Adding subsidies to nuclear energy mental impacts, including air emissions, are
brings the total global energy subsidy to $235± signi®cant at the conversion stage.
350 billion annually.17 The Kyoto Protocol The threat of signi®cant climate change has
calls for abolishing the fossil fuel subsidies in added urgency to the need for commitments
the signatory nations (Article 2.1(a)(v), to non-fossil and low-carbon approaches to
``Progressive reduction or phasing out of mar- meeting our energy needs. Fossil energy is
ket imperfections, ®scal incentives, tax and often rejected on environmental grounds, and
duty exemptions and subsidies in all green- therefore it is essential that we assess the en-
house gas emitting sectors that run counter to vironmental pro®le of the technologies which
the objectives of the Convention and apply we propose should displace it. Various meth-
market instruments''. In OECD countries odologies have emerged which can be used to
annual price support to food producers are assess the relative environmental merits of
360 D. O. HALL

energy options, such as life-cycle analysis through production and utilisation phases
(LCA) and the estimation of external costs. right up to disposal are compared with those
These have yielded valuable information, dis- of fossil fuels''.20 This large German study
cussed below, but three major caveats must be considered 3 types of bioenergy crops for solid
borne in mind when attempting to assess the fuels (short-rotation trees, whole cereals and
environmental pro®le of biomass energy. grasses), 3 types of residues for solid fuels
(straw, wood and grass), liquid fuels from
(a) Biomass energy is diverse and its impacts
rape seed (rapeseed oil and rape methyl ester),
are site (and management) speci®c. The
and potatoes, sugar beet and wheat for etha-
raw materials can be purpose grown or
by-products, woody or herbaceous, sugar nol. A fuel cycle was de®ned for each, allow-
crops or dung. They can be treated to pro- ing for high and low input management
duce solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. These systems where energy crops are grown. The
in turn can be used in various ways for fuel cycles are then assessed relative to the
heat and power or transport. Di€erent production of an equal amount of useful
approaches will be appropriate for di€er- energy from a fossil fuel substitute. Solid bio-
ent localities. Given this diversity no mass fuels displace heat generation with light
single, composite ®gure or indicator can fuel oil (or heat and power, in the case of
express the environmental impacts of bio- grasses), rape seed oil displaces diesel, and
mass energy in general. ethanol displaces gasoline. Where energy crops
(b) The development of modern biomass are grown it is assumed that the land would
energy systems is at a relatively early otherwise be managed under rotational or per-
stage. Much of the R&D in the biomass manent set-aside (fallow).
energy ®eld focuses on the development of All energy inputs and air emissions were cal-
fuel supply and conversion routes which culated across the fuel cycles, including the
minimise environmental impacts, such as production of fertilisers and the use of agricul-
low input/high yield woody crop technol- tural machinery. The results show that all the
ogy, and ecient power generation using selected bioenergy systems created net energy.
gasi®cation. Where a technology is some The highest gains were for miscanthus, wood
way o€ maturity it can be misleading to chips and whole winter wheat, which provided
predict its environmental pro®le. a net energy gain of over 150 GJ/(ha yr). By
(c) Any attempt to arrive at a composite indi- comparison the liquid fuels provide about
cator of environmental performance, even 20% of this energy yield per hectare. The resi-
for the purpose of ranking di€erent dues also score poorly on this scale, but this is
options, involves subjective and speculative somewhat misleading since the primary use of
considerations regarding environmental the hectare in question never was to produce
impacts. The relative weight given to acidi- energy but some other primary crop such as
®cation, global warming or soil erosion timber or wheat.
will depend on an analyst's education, lo- Emissions of 14 air pollutants were calcu-
cality and preferences, and may change lated across the biomass and reference fuel
over time. When discussing environmental cycles, and the di€erence presented as net
impacts in other countries one should hesi- increases or decreases under the biomass
tate to put priority on issues held to be im- option. In terms of global warming CO2
portant from one view point, when they equivalents were calculated from CO2, CH4
may be eclipsed by other issues in another and N2O emissions. The results correlate clo-
country. sely with net energy yield per hectare, with
miscanthus, wood chips (from short rotation
poplar) and whole winter wheat saving emis-
sions of 10±11,000 kg/(ha yr) of CO2 equival-
4. LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS ent emissions. Per GJ of energy saved all
bioenergy carriers prevented the release of ap-
LCA aims to assess impacts on the environ- proximately 70 kg CO2 equivalent.
ment and human health on a `cradle to grave' In terms of ozone depletion all the biomass
basis. Four LCA studies of biomass are dis- systems are more destructive than the refer-
cussed here. ``The entire life cycles of the bioe- ence systems, due to higher emissions of N2O
nergy carriers from raw material cultivation, in combustion and cultivation. Again solid
 Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future 361

fuels were preferable to liquid fuels by a factor LCA approaches have also been employed
of 3 to 6. Given its low sulphur content one to estimate the full fuel cycle emissions of
would expect biomass to prevent acidi®cation greenhouse gases from biomass and other elec-
(acid rain). However SO2 and NOx are tricity generating technologies. CO2 emissions
released by agricultural machinery, and large per GWh from coal were estimated at 1142 t,
amounts of NOx may be released during com- and 505±846 t for natural gas. This compares
bustion, depending on the conversion technol- to 66±107 t for biomass, 36 t for photovoltaics
ogy. Liquid biomass fuels generally cause and 3 t for wind.22 In the USA the National
more acidi®cation than diesel or gasoline per Renewable Energy Laboratory has carried out
GJ, whilst wood is neutral or has a small dis- an LCA study for biomass gasi®cation-com-
advantage relative to light fuel oil for heating. bined cycle power generation.23 Using dedi-
Rapeseed oil was the only bioenergy carrier cated wood energy crops the system generates
which caused less acidi®cation per GJ than its 16 units of energy for each unit of fossil
reference case, diesel. energy consumed. In their worst case scenario
The conclusions of the study20 are as fol- the energy ratio fell only to 11:1.
lows. Where biomass displaces fossil energy
systems this will conserve ®nite fossil energy 5. ESTIMATION OF EXTERNAL COSTS
resources and reduce the impact on the global
climate. In terms of non-GHG air emissions In economic theory an external cost is
the picture is less clear. Wood chips and win- de®ned as one imposed on a third party to a
ter wheat for heat, and miscanthus for CHP, transaction, and which is not taken into
have relatively good performances for these account by the party imposing the cost. For
emissions, whilst also generating signi®cant example, neither the customers nor the produ-
cers of coal-®red electricity in the UK are
energy and CO2 bene®ts. Liquid fuels gener-
penalised for the acid damage to Swedish for-
ally performed less well, but in terms of non-
ests. The cost is borne by the Swedish timber
GHG emissions rapeseed oil and RME came
industry and nature lovers. The argument is
out very favourably in this analysis.
that these external costs should be interna-
The Dutch Centre for Agriculture and
lised, i.e. the cost of damage should be
Environment (CLM)21 reached broadly similar
imposed on the party responsible through
conclusions to Kaltschmitt et al.20 in their
directives or market penalties. In this manner
LCA study. They considered 10 potential
market decisions would become more ecient
energy crops in 4 European regions (North because costs which may otherwise be ignored
Netherlands, Hessen, East Anglia and South (such as human health impacts) are brought
Portugal). For all crops and all regions the into the decision making process.
energy balances and greenhouse gas balances By expressing all external costs in monetary
were found to be favourable. In northern terms one can attempt to compare total
Europe maize and hemp were most favourable impacts for di€erent fuel cycles. The preferred
for net energy production, whereas in Portugal methodology shares many characteristics with
eucalyptus or other perennials are preferable. LCA, in that detailed fuel cycle de®nitions are
In all regions perennial crops are preferred in drawn up and all inputs and emissions from
terms of nutrient leaching, pesticide emissions the systems are calculated. The approaches
and soil erosion. Annual crops for liquid fuels diverge in that for an external cost to be esti-
(rape, sugar beet, winter wheat and sweet sor- mated one must be able to clearly identify a
ghum) scored poorly on all criteria relative to pathway to a ®nal impact or damage, and be
other energy crops and in Portugal ground able to put a monetary value on it. This
water depletion detracts from a generally good `damage function approach' thus depends on
pro®le for eucalyptus. In northern regions of dispersion modelling and the de®nition of
the EU all the energy crops and conversion dose-response relationships between causes
routes were found to be preferable to grass and e€ects. Often these relationships are di-
fallow on a weighted average of ecological cri- cult to estimate and may be very site speci®c.
teria. The overall conclusion is that energy Monetary valuation adds another hurdle, in
crops are preferable to fossil fuels for energy, that by their nature these damages do not
and annual or perennial crops for electricity have clear market prices. The commonest
and heat are preferable to liquid fuel routes. means of deciding on a value is through ask-
362 D. O. HALL

ing respondents their `willingness-to-pay' to ommendations of the biomass industry

avoid incurring such a cost. In fact the only guidelines discussed below.
types of external costs which have proven
readily amenable to this approach to valuation 5.1. Good practice guidelines
are the e€ects of air pollutants on human Considerable e€ort has gone into the devel-
health. opment of good practice guidelines for the use
Several studies have followed some variation of biomass for energy in the USA,26±28 UK29
on this damage function approach to the and Sweden,30 and work is under way to
valuation of the external costs of biomass fuel develop EU-wide guidelines. These guidelines
cycles. These vary in the breadth and quality recognise the central importance of site speci®c
of the assessments made. The choice of fuel factors, and the breadth of social and environ-
cycles is often very limited, and while many mental issues which should be taken into con-
impacts are usually discussed very few are sideration. The guidelines all concentrate on
actually monetised. The ongoing EU-JOULE short rotation coppice, and the US guidelines
BioCosts research programme24 aims to over- also consider perennial grasses and some resi-
come some of these shortcomings by assessing dues. In general residues, biogas and liquid
8 bioenergy systems in 6 EU countries under a fuels have not been subject to such detailed
common methodology, based on the ExternE recommendations. This bias re¯ects the antici-
approach.25 A full fuel cycle approach is being pated environmental bene®ts of woody and
used to analyse external costs in the categories perennial energy crops for solid fuels com-
of human health, global warming, impacts on pared to the other biomass options discussed
soil and water quality, biodiversity, and rural above. However, given that residues may
amenity value. Each case study is compared to remain more widely used than energy crops
for some time, guidelines are needed on when
a displaced fossil fuel reference technology. In
it is appropriate to use residues for energy,
addition economic and upstream impacts are
and how best to maximise the environmental
being assessed using the input-output model
advantages this may o€er.
`Emittentenstruktur', which calculates pollu-
A key message of these guidelines is that
tant emissions in upstream activities such as
site selection and crop selection must be made
manufacture of machinery. The model also
carefully, and the crop must be managed sensi-
estimates indirect employment e€ects.
tively. Land should be primarily agricultural,
A key ®nding to date is that monetary
and energy crops should never displace land
valuation of external costs is beset with pro- uses of high ecological value. Consideration
blems which currently limit its usefulness as a needs to be given to the landscape and visi-
decision-making tool. In many cases the physi- bility, soil type, water use, vehicle access,
cal emissions and likely impacts are well nature conservation, archaeology, pests and
understood, as in the case of global warming, diseases, and public access.29 Planning per-
but monetary valuation is too speculative to mission is not usually needed before energy
be meaningful. In other instances too little is crops can be grown, but something akin to an
known about the actual impacts themselves, as environmental assessment ought to be made
in the case of the impacts of bioenergy on the nonetheless. The guidelines also stress the im-
landscape or biodiversity (both of which portance of consulting local people at the
would be very dicult to monetise even given planning stage, and ongoing community invol-
some understanding of the impacts). Thus the vement in the development stages. Issues such
external costs calculated can only be a subset as changes to the landscape, increased trac
of the total external costs, and caution is movements or new employment opportunities
needed to ensure that other issues are not con- in rural areas may prove to be very signi®cant
sidered unimportant simply because they can- to local people.
not be expressed in money terms at present. Careful site selection can bring positive en-
External costs aim to measure people's prefer- vironmental bene®ts. If SRC is planted in
ences as consumers of a healthy environment, riparian (riverside) zones it can absorb lateral
whereas many feel that decisions should be ¯ows of nutrients from adjacent agriculture,
reached by a more democratic, consultative thus preventing water pollution. Energy crops
approach. The need for stakeholder consul- are generally more environmentally acceptable
tation and participation is one of the key rec- than intensive agriculture, since chemical
 Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future 363

inputs are lower and the soil undergoes less also provide the additional bene®ts of
disturbance and compaction. In terms of wild- enhanced carbon storage (e.g. switchgrass
life energy crops are sometimes considered grown on agricultural land can increase soil
similar to agricultural monocultures, though carbon levels, and woody crops can result in
di€erent species will be favoured. Given good both below and above ground carbon seques-
site selection, ®eld layout, species mixing and tration).
sensitive management practices SRC can be The relative merits of sequestration versus
bene®cial for birds, wild plants, soil organisms fossil fuel substitution are still debated.33,34
and other species. The ¯ow of carbon during the life cycle of the
There is no single best way to use biomass biomass should determine whether it is better
for energy, and the environmental acceptabil- left standing, used as fuel or used as long-lived
ity will depend on sensitive and well informed timber products. Where there are existing for-
approaches to new developments in each lo- ests in good condition there is general agree-
cation. It is clear that biomass for energy can ment that they should not be cut for fuel and
be environmentally friendly, and steps must be replanted. This principle also concurs with the
taken to ensure that it is, if biomass is to be guidelines for nature protection, i.e. that
accepted as an important fuel of the future. energy crops should never displace land uses
Perhaps the single greatest environmental ben- of high ecological value. Where a€orestation
e®t of biomass is that it can help to prevent is undertaken, however, fossil fuel substi-
the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmos- tution, both by using wood fuel and using tim-
phere. One frequently sees `biomass burning' ber as a renewable raw material, should be a
listed as a major cause of global warming, so more sustainable and less costly approach
this assertion requires further elaboration so than sequestration alone. A€orestation or new
that the distinction is made between renewable plantations could also be used to displace the
biomass for energy and biomass destruction. harvest of more ecologically valuable forests.35

6. IS BIOMASS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY? 7. HOW LARGE A ROLE WILL BIOMASS PLAY IN

FUTURE
The annual emissions of greenhouse gases
from fossil fuel combustion and land use If real action is taken to prevent global cli-
change are approximately 6.7 and 1.6 Pg C, mate change, and the modern biomass indus-
respectively. Vegetation, and in particular for- try is developed in a sensitive and responsible
ests, can be managed to sequester carbon. manner, then the role for biomass in the
Management options have been identi®ed to future global energy supply could be very sub-
conserve and sequester up to 90 Pg C in the stantial.36 The bene®ts of sustainably pro-
forest sector in the next century, through glo- duced biomass energy in future energy
bal a€orestation.31 This option may become a scenarios have recently been acknowledged in
necessity (as recommended at the Framework two major international studies. The ®rst is by
Convention on Climate Change meeting Shell International Petroleum Company,37
recently held in Kyoto), but a preventative which carried out a scenario analysis of what
approach could be taken, reducing total GHG might be the major new sources of energy
emissions by substituting bioenergy for fossil after 2020, when renewable energies have pro-
fuels in electricity production. gressed along their learning curves and
Simply sequestering carbon in new forests is become competitive with fossil fuels. After
problematic because trees cease sequestering 2020, in their business-as-usual scenario, the
once they reach maturity, and as available renewables biomass, wind, solar and geother-
land is used up (and emissions from fossil mal become the major new suppliers of
fuels continue) the cost of further a€orestation energy. In their conservation scenario where
will grow. Indeed the cost of reducing the less new energy is needed, biomass becomes
build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere is the major supplier, with smaller roles for the
already lower for fossil fuel substitution than other renewables.
for sequestration, since fast growing energy In both scenarios fossil fuel use expands its
crops are more ecient at carbon removal, market share initially, but after 2020 renew-
and because revenue is generated by the sale ables provide for all further growth. In the
of electricity.32 Some biomass fuel cycles can business-as-usual (`Sustained Growth') scen-
364 D. O. HALL

Table 1. Preliminary estimates of tropical plantation woody biomass productivity potential under di€erent management
situations (odt/(ha yr))8
Semi-arid Sub-humid
Situation low high low high
1) No genetic improvement, no fertiliser added and no 2 5 5 10
water added
2) Genetic improvement, no added fertiliser nor water 4 10 10 22
3) Genetic improvement, fertiliser added but no water added 6 12 12 30
4) Genetic improvement, water added but no fertiliser added 8 18 11 25
5) No genetic improvement and no water added, but 3 7 8 15
fertiliser added
6) Genetic improvement, fertiliser and water added 20 30 20 35

ario total global energy use in 2060 amounts between 1990 and 2100, compared to 1300
to over 1500 EJ (compared to 400 EJ today). GtC in their business-as-usual case.
Only one third of this is from fossil fuels or Table 2 summarises the estimates for future
nuclear. Biomass provides 221 EJ (14% of the biomass use from these two studies and 5
total), with 179 EJ coming from plantations others. The ®gures should be compared with
rather than traditional non-traded sources. current global energy use of approximately
Solar and wind would provide 260 and 173 400 EJ, 55 EJ of which are derived from bio-
EJ, respectively. In the conservation mass.
(`Dematerialisation') scenario total energy use The large role biomass is expected to play
in 2060 amounts to under 940 EJ, with fossil in future energy supply can be explained by
fuels and nuclear providing 41% of the total. several considerations. Firstly, biomass fuels
Biomass provides 207 EJ (22% of the total), can substitute more-or-less directly for fossil
with 157 EJ from dedicated bioenergy sources. fuels in the existing energy supply infrastruc-
Solar and wind provide 36 and 144 EJ, re- ture. Intermittent renewables such as wind and
spectively. Shell have recently set up Shell solar energy are more challenging to the ways
International Renewables as part of their core we distribute and consume energy. Secondly
business, and will invest US $0.5 billion in the potential resource is large since land is
biomass and solar energy over the next 5 available which is not needed for food pro-
years. duction and as agricultural food yields con-
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate tinue to rise in excess of the rate of population
Change38 has considered a range of options growth. Thirdly, in developing countries
for mitigating climate change, and increased demand for energy is rising rapidly due to
use of biomass for energy features in all of its population increase, urbanisation and rising
scenarios. In ®ve scenarios biomass takes an living standards. While some fuel switching
increasing share of total energy over the next occurs in this process, the total demand for
century, rising to 25±46% in 2100. In the `bio- biomass also tends to increase. Evidence from
mass intensive' energy scenario, with biomass Myanmar, Madagascar, Zambia and Rwanda,
providing for 46% of total energy in 2100, the for example, has shown that urbanisation
target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere at raises the demand for biomass, particularly
present-day levels is approached. Annual CO2 charcoal for household and industrial use.
emissions fall from 6.2 GtC in 1990 to 5.9 Even in East Asia and the Paci®c, where there
GtC in 2025 and to 1.8 GtC in 2100: this has been considerable economic growth and
results in cumulative emissions of 448 GtC increase in the use of fossil fuels, biomass still

Table 2. The role of biomass in future global energy use (EJ)

Year
Scenario 2025 2050 2100
37
Shell (1996) 85 200±220 ±
IPCC (1996)38 72 280 320
Greenpeace (1993)39 114 181 ±
Johansson et al. (1993)40 145 206 ±
WEC (1993)41 59 94±157 132±215
Dessus et al. (1992)42 135 ± ±
Lashof and Tirpak (1991)43 130 215 ±
 Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future 365

accounts for 33% of energy supplies. The made. E€orts are now being made to integrate
World Bank recently concluded that these perspectives, and provide a tool for ana-
`. . . energy policies will need to be as con- lysing options and strategies in the bioenergy
cerned about the supply and use of biofuels as sector. For example BEFAT (Biomass Energy
they are about modern fuels . . .[and]. . .they Flow Analysis Tool) is an expert system for
must support ways to use biofuels more e- the integration of data on local, regional and
ciently and sustainably . . .'.44 This is an im- national scales in the UK.46
portant change of perspective for the World
Bank, though the quote perpetuates the mis- 9. CONCLUSION
conception that biofuels are necessarily not
`modern'. Biomass always has been, and will remain,
an important source of energy. It may, how-
ever, see greatly expanded use in response to
8. BIOMASS IN ENERGY STATISTICS AND
MODELS the environmental problems caused by fossil
fuel use, most notably climate change.
We can expect that biomass will remain an Bioenergy has been proposed to have a central
important source of energy and may see its role to play in future, more sustainable energy
use greatly expanded in future. Research, scenarios. For this to become a reality several
development and demonstration work in the real or perceived problems need to be over-
modernisation of the bioenergy sector is essen- come. The research and development e€orts to
tial to its environmental acceptability. In turn, modernise biomass production and conversion
real environmental bene®ts are essential if have made signi®cant advances in this respect,
modern biomass is to gain world-wide accep- but much work remains to be done, particu-
tance. Technical improvements in feedstock larly in the demonstration of promising sys-
production and conversion are necessary, but tems. A change in attitudes is also needed,
insucient, means to these ends. LCA and the whereby biomass is no longer neglected in pol-
estimation of external costs are useful tools icy making, models and ocial statistics. In
for identifying the most environmentally industrialised countries removal of the subsi-
acceptable approaches, and for pinpointing dies and tari€s that perpetuate unsustainable
the parts of the fuel cycles which most need land use and energy industries is a necessary
improvement. A further fundamental change prerequisite for alternatives to grow. In devel-
needed is in our knowledge and attitudes relat- oping countries modernisation of biomass
ing to biomass energy. Often too little is energy provision is an urgent necessity for the
known about the available resources or how sake of human health, protection of the en-
and why they are used or neglected. Statistical vironment, and climate change abatement.
modelling can help to redress this situation. Given sucient recognition, resources and
Biomass energy ¯ow charts are a means to research biomass could become the environ-
assess the real situation in terms of biomass mentally friendly fuel of the future.
availability and use. In ¯ow charts developed
for Kenya and Zimbabwe45 it was found that AcknowledgementsÐThis paper was ®rst presented at the
3rd Biomass Conference of the Americas (Montreal,
only 45% of the available biomass reaches end August 1997) and its presentation was assisted by the or-
users, due to losses, inecient conversion and ganisers for which we are grateful.
under-use. Ocial statistics such as those pro-
duced by the Food and Agricultural
REFERENCES
Organisation (FAO), greatly underestimate the
available resources. The ¯ow chart approach 1. Hall, D. O., Biomass Energy, Energy Policy, 1991, 19,
allows one to pinpoint how the bioenergy sec- 711±731.
2. Smith, K. R., Fuel combustion, air pollution ex-
tor could be expanded and best managed for posure, and health: The situation in developing
climate change mitigation. countries, Annual Review of Energy and the
The same principles apply in the industrial- Environment, 1993, 18, 529±566.
3. Ravindranath, N. H. and Hall, D. O., Biomass,
ised countries where energy policies are often Energy and Environment: A developing country perspec-
poorly informed as regards biomass resources tive from India. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
and potentials. Often site-speci®c local data is 1995.
4. Woods, J. and Hall, D. O., Bioenergy for develop-
available on biomass potential, and macro- ment, Food and Agricultural Organisation Paper, 1994,
scale estimates of national potentials can be 13, FAO, Rome.
366 D. O. HALL

5. Biewinga, E. E. and van der Bijl, G., Sustainability of on Phase 1 of the EU-JOULE project, JOR3-CT95-
energy crops in Europe: A methodology developed and 0006, 1996.
applied, CLM Centre for Agriculture and 25. ETSU, ExternE Externalities of Energy Volume 2
Environment, Utrecht, 1996. Methodology, European Commission DGXII,
6. Friends of the Earth Holland, Towards Sustainable Luxembourg, 1995.
EuropeÐThe Study (Naar een Duurzaam EuropaÐDe 26. Biofuels, Roundtable, Principles and guidelines for the
studie), Friends of the Earth Netherlands (VMD), development of biomass energy systems. A report from
Amsterdam, 1995. the National Biofuels Roundtable, May 1994, National
7. Hall, D. O. and House, J., Biomass energy in western Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO80601,
Europe to 2050, Land Use Policy, 1995, 12, 37±48. 1994.
8. Ravindranath, N. H. and Hall, D. O., Estimates of 27. National Audubon Society, Toward ecological guide-
feasible productivities of short rotation tropical for- lines for large-scale biomass energy development,
estry plantations, Energy for Sustainable Development, National Audubon Society (New York)/Princeton
1996, 2, 14±20. University, Princeton, 1991.
9. Ledig, F. T., Silvicultural systems for energy ecient 28. OTA, Potential environmental impacts of bioenergy
production of fuel from biomass. In Biomass as a non crop production, US Congress Oce of technology
fossil fuel source. ed. D. L. Klaas, Symposium 144, Assessment Background Paper, OTA-BP-E-118,
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1981. Washington, DC, 1993.
10. Turhollow, A. H. and Perlack, R. D., Emissions of 29. ETSU, Good practice guidelines: Short rotation coppice
CO2 from energy crop production, Biomass and for energy production. Department of Trade and
Bioenergy, 1991, 1, 129±135. Industry (London), Seacourt Press Ltd., Seacourt,
11. Foster, C., The carbon and energy budgets of energy 1996.
crops, Energy Conversion and Management, 1993, 14, 30. Aronsson, P., Energy Forestry and nature preservation:
897±904. Guidelines, Swedish University of Agricultural
12. Colley, R., Fulton, A., Hall, D. O. and Raymond, W. Sciences, Uppsala, 1995.
F., The environmental e€ects of large scale bioethanol 31. Dixon, R. K., Brown, S., Houghton, R. A., Solomon,
production in Europe, European Fuel Oxygenates A. M., Trexler, M. C. and Wisniewski, J., Carbon
Association, Brussels, 1993. pools and ¯ux of global forest ecosystems, Science,
13. OECD, Biofuels, OECD/IEA Energy and 1994, 263, 185±190.
Environment Policy Analysis Series, OECD, Paris, 32. Hall, D. O., Mynick, H. E. and Williams, R. H.,
1994. Alternative roles for biomass in coping with green-
14. Elliott, P., Energy market overviewÐHeat and Power. house warming, Science and Global Security, 2, 1991,
In Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and pp. 116±121; Also in Cooling the greenhouse with
Industry, 8th E.C. Conference, 129, ed. P. Chartier, A. bioenergy, Nature, 353, 1991, pp. 11±12.
Beenackers and G. Grassi. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 33. Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B., Forests for car-
1995. bon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensi-
15. Hillring, B., Price trends in the Swedish wood-fuel tivity analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1998 (in
market, Biomass and Bioenergy, 1997, 12, 41±51. press).
16. Hall, D. O., Rosillo-Calle, F. and Scrase, J. I., 34. Marland, G. and Marland, S., Should we store carbon
Biomass: An environmentally acceptable and sustain- in trees?. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 1992, 64, 181±
able energy source for the future, Report to the 195.
Division of Sustainable Development, United Nations, 35. Schlamadinger, B. and Marland, G., Substitution of
New York, 1996. Wood from Plantation Forestry for Wood from
17. Greenpeace, Energy Subsidies in Europe, Vrije Deforestation: Modeling the E€ects on Carbon
University, Amsterdam, 1997. Storage. In Carbon Mitigation Potentials of Forestry
18. Patterson, W. and Grubb, M., Liberalising European and Wood Industry, 205, ed. G. H. Kohlmaier, M.
Electricity: impacts on generation and the environ- Weber and R. A. Houghton, 1997. in press.
ment, Royal Institute of International A€airs Brie®ng 36. Hall, D. O., Rosillo-Calle, F., Williams, R. H. and
Paper, 1996, 34, . Woods, J., Biomass for Energy: Supply prospects. In
19. Parfomak, P. W., Falling generation costs, environ- Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity,
mental externalities and the economics of electricity ed. B. J. Johansson, H. Kelly, A. K. N. Reddy and R.
conservation, Energy Policy, 1997, 25, 845±860. H. Williams. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1993.
20. Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G. A. and Stelzer, T., 37. Shell, The evolution of the world's energy system. Shell
Life cycle analysis of biofuels under di€erent environ- International Ltd. Group External A€airs, Shell
mental aspects, Biomass and Bioenergy, 1997, 12, 121± Centre, London, 1996.
134 See also their book Nachwachsende EnergietraÈger: 38. IPCC, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, adaptations
Grundlagen, verfahren, oÈkologische bilanzierung. and mitigation of climate change: Scienti®c-technical
Vieweg, 1997. analysis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
21. Biewinga, E. E. and van der Bijl, G., Sustainability of Working Group II report, Cambridge University Press,
energy crops in Europe: A methodology developed and Cambridge, 1996.
applied, Centre for Agriculture and Environment 39. Greenpeace, Towards a fossil free energy future: The
(CLM), Utrecht, 1996. next energy transition, A technical analysis for
22. Martin, J. A., A total fuel cycle approach to reducing Greenpeace International by the Stockholm
greenhouse gas emissions: Solar generation technol- Environment Institute Boston Centre, Boston, 1993.
ogies as greenhouse gas o€sets in U.S. utility systems, 40. Johansson T. B., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. K. N. and
Solar Energy, 1997, 59, 195±203. Williams, R. H., Renewable Energy: Sources for fuels
23. Mann, M. K. and Spath, P. L., Life Cycle Assessment and electricity. Island Press, Washington DC, 1993.
of a biomass gasi®cation combined-cycle power sys- 41. WEC (World Energy Council), Energy for Tomorrow's
tem, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory World. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993.
report, NREL/TP-430-23076, 1997. 42. Dessus, B., Devin, B. and Pharabod, F., World poten-
24. BioCosts, Total Costs and Bene®ts of Biomass in tial of renewable energies, La Hoille Blance, 1992, 1,
selected regions of the European Union: Final Report 1±50.
 Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future 367

43. Lasho€, D. A. and Tirpak, D. A., Policy options for 45. Hall, D. O. and Hemstock, S., Biomass energy ¯ows
stabilizing global climate, report to Congress, technical in Kenya and Zimbabwe: indicators of CO2 mitigation
appendices, Report prepared by the Oce of Policy, strategies, The Environmental Professional, 1996, 18,
Planning and Evaluation, US Environmental Protection 68±79.
Agency, Washington DC, 1991. 46. Hemstock, S., Hall, D. O. and Bart, N. M.,
44. World, Bank, Rural Energy and Development: Theoretical framework for BEFAT (Biomass Energy
Improving energy supplies for 2 billion people, World Flow Analysis Tool): a multi-dimensional model for
Bank Industry and Energy Department Report, 15912 analysing biomass energy in the UK, ETSU Renewable
GLB, 1996. Energy Database Workshop, Harwell, UK, 1997.