Results: Searching for 'Other biomass-derived fuels production'

• What we do
• The areas we work in
• The outcomes
• Commercially available products
• Who we have worked with

• The UK can implement an affordable (approximately 1% of GDP) 35-year transition to a low carbon energy system by developing, commercialising and integrating known – but currently underdeveloped solutions
• There is enormous potential and value in CCS and bioenergy in delivering alow carbon future
• The ability (or failure) to deploy these two technologies will have a huge impact on the cost of achieving the UK climate change targets and the national architecture of low carbon systems and future infrastructure requirements
• To avoidwasting investment, crucial decisions must be made about the design of the future UK energy system, driven by choices on infrastructure
• The next decade is critical in preparing for transition
• Preparation will require major investments in developing and proving key technology options by the mid 2020s
• Preparation creates options, demonstrates leadershipand provides scope for economic advantage in a global market place
• Planned UK spend is probably sufficient, if it is targeted to develop genuine deployment readiness of the most strategically valuable options on the pathway to 2050
• Significant policy intervention will be required to support key technologies with characteristics that make a pure market approach difficult (e.g. CCS, bioenergy, nuclear, offshore wind, heat networks

UKERC have submitted a reponse to the BEIS call for evidence on the future for small-scale low-carbon generation. This consultation sought to identify the role that small-scale low-carbon generation can play in the UK shift to clean growth by further understanding: 

• The challenges and opportunities from small-scale low-carbon generation in contributing to government’s objectives for clean, secure, affordable and flexible power; and
• The role for government and the private sector in overcoming these challenges and realising these opportunities.

In our submission we responded to the individual points raised in the call, drawing on two streams of work undertaken as part of the UKERC research programme. The first stream concerns community energy, drawing primarily on data from the UKERC Financing Community Energy project. This project has collected and analysed data from a number of sources:

• Quantitative data gathered as part of a UK-wide survey of community energy finance and business models. This dataset covers 145 community energy projects run by 48 different community energy organisations.
• Qualitative data on community energy organisations’ suggestions for changes in public policy and industry practice, and their plans for the future, gathered as part of the same UK-wide survey.
• Further qualitative data on community energy organisations’ views on pathways to future decentralised energy business models, gathered at workshops held as part of the Manchester Mayor’s Green Summit process, and the Community Energy England annual conference 2018.
• A wide range of other data and literature, including access to the dataset collected for Community Energy England’s 2017 State of the Sector Survey, covering 220 community energy organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The second stream draws on a number of recent UKERC publications on electricity systems and networks :

• Developing low carbon networks for a low-carbon future
• Security of electricity supply in a low-carbon Britain
• The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency
• Delivering a highly distributed electricity system: Technical, regulatory and policy challenges. 

The two-day residential workshop brought together experts from the bioenergy community to explore bioenergy research opportunities which could benefit from financial support from the Carbon Trust using its new directed research approach.

This paper explores the sensitivity of energy system decarbonisation pathways to the role of afforestation and reduced energy demands as a means to lessen reliance on carbon dioxide removal. 

Large uncertainties surround the viability of carbon dioxide removal

The stringency of climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement has placed strong emphasis on the role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over this century. However, there are large uncertainties around the technical and economic viability and the sustainability of large-scale CDR options. These uncertainties have prompted further consideration of the role of bioenergy in decarbonisation pathways and the potential land-use trade-offs between energy crops and afforestation. The interest in afforestation is motivated by its potential as an alternative to large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), with its arguably lower risk supply chains, and multiple co-benefits. Furthermore, doubt over the viability of large-scale CDR has prompted a renewed examination of the extent to which their need can be offset by lowering energy demands.

Testing the impacts of reduced demands and afforestation

A global optimisation model (TIAM-UCL) was used to examine decarbonisation pathways for the global energy system. Based on core assumptions, where energy demands follow business as usual trends and degraded land is used for energy crops, the model was unable to find a solution for a 1.5°C target. Over the period 2020-2100, the carbon budget of GtCO₂ is exceeded by 332 GtCO₂.

Scenarios where also run to examine how the least-cost decarbonisation pathway changes if i) energy demands are significantly reduced, or ii) degraded land is used for large-scale afforestation instead of energy crops. Each option on its own reduced the CO₂ budget exceedance but both were required to allow the model to meet the 1.5°C target.

Impacts on the energy system

Under the 2°C target, afforestation reduced the reliance on BECCS by 60%. Under the 1.5°C target, the system still used all of the biomass available, as the target is so ambitious. When the energy demands were lower, the effect of afforestation on biomass use was dependent on the climate target. Under the 2°C target, less biomass was used across all economic sectors, whereas under the stringent 1.5°C target, all the available wood and crop biomass was exploited, but its use shifted away from the production of liquid fuels towards use in power generation.

Lowering energy service demands had a larger effect on the energy mix than large-scale afforestation. This is because demands are lowered differently across the sectors according to their economic drivers. However, afforestation had a bigger impact on the marginal cost of climate change mitigation, as it substantially decreases the scale and pace of change required by the energy system, especially in the 2°C case.

Given its key role, afforestation should be considered more in deep decarbonisation scenarios, as should lower demand scenarios.

Lowering energy demand and introducing large-scale afforestation both present significant challenges and opportunities. Further work should focus on factors affecting the carbon sequestration potential of afforestation, along with an interdisciplinary research agenda on the scope for large scale energy demand reduction. Research on the social, technical and economic factors that affect the potential for converting abandoned agricultural land to energy crops or new forest would be beneficial. An interdisciplinary research agenda is needed that brings together techno-economic modelling and qualitative scenario development with research on the social change that could lead to large reductions in energy demand

This briefing paper examines how renewables in Scotland are shaped by decisions taken by the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the EU. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders, it explores the potential impact of Brexit on Scottish renewables.

Brexit has the potential to disrupt this relatively supportive policy environment in three ways in regulatory and policy frameworks governing renewable energy; access to EU funding streams; and trade in energy and related goods and services.

Our briefing identifies varying levels of concern among key stakeholders in Scotland. Many expect policy continuity, irrespective of the future UK-EU relationship. There is more concern about access to research and project funding, and future research and development collaboration, especially for more innovative renewable technologies. The UK will become a third country forthe purposes of EU funding streams, able to participate, but not lead on renewables projects, and there is scepticism about whether lost EU funding streams will be replaced at domestic levels.

While there is no real risk of being unable to access European markets even in a No-Deal Brexit scenario, trade in both energy and related products and services could become more difficult and more expensive affecting both the import of specialist labour and kit from the EU and the export of knowledge-based services. Scotlands attractiveness for inward investment may also be affected.

This workshop brought together a wide range of individuals and organisation with an interest in bioenergy for heat, power and liquid transport. This included researchers from universities and research institutes, Government Research Councils, Government Departments, stakeholders from industry and others. The meeting was convened to begin the process of developing a UK Bioenergy Research Roadmap, which will be completed before the end of 2007.

The aims of the workshop were:

• To prioritise research activity and overcome the gaps in knowledge in bioenergy
• To influence research funding strategies in energy research.
• To encourage closer collaboration between academic research groups and technology developers
• To seek funding for collaborative research from Research Councils, DTI, DEFRA, Carbon Trust EU, etc.
• To establish partner

The aims of this the workshop were:

• To prioritise research activity and overcome the gaps in knowledge in bioenergy
• To influence research funding strategies in energy research.
• To encourage closer collaboration between academic research groups and technology developers
• To seek funding for collaborative research from Research Councils, DTI, DEFRA, Carbon Trust EU, etc.
• To establish partnerships with the outside the existing bioenergy research community
• Create the Research Roadmap for bioenergy to 2020 and 2050.

This report aims to support informed debate about the amount of biomass that might be available globally for energy, taking account of sustainability concerns. It uses a systematic review methodology to identify and discuss estimates of the global potential for biomass that have been published over the last 20 years. The assumptions both technical and ethical that lie behind these are exposed and their influence on calculations of biomass potential described.

The report does not seek to determine what an acceptable level of biomass production might be. What it does is reveal how different levels of deployment necessitate assumptions that could have far reaching consequences for global agriculture, forestry and land use; ranging from a negligible impact to a radical reconfiguration of current practice. The report also examines the insights the literature provides into the interactions between biomass production, conventional agriculture, land use, and forestry.

Commencing in 2016, the Financing Community Energy project provides a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the role of finance in the evolution of the UK community energy sector. This report presents the third of four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Gwent Energy (Wales) was formed in 2009 to deliver environmental benefit and cost savings to its local community. It aims to help local consumers save money on their energy bills through a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, storage and electric vehicle charging interventions, whilst simultaneously generating a surplus to fund local community initiatives.

The study has used a systematic selection and analysis procedure to assess each LCA, collating data on the energy and GHG balances of liquid transport fuels and biomass for heat and power. This consistent approach will produce a dataset which can be used to uniquely compare the energy and GHG balances of these two uses of biomass. The representation of collated LCAs as straightforward visual summaries highlights variations within methodology, system boundaries and reporting.

Although this study is ongoing, several issues relating to the lack of transparency of LCA reporting have already become apparent. Common obstacles to reviewing this subject have been in successfully identifying system boundaries, co-product allocation methods and conversion efficiencies used in the LCAs being analysed. Therefore, a set of recommendations for LCA reporting are listed at the end of this report.

Using biomass to provide energy services is one of the most versatile options for increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the existing system. This report reviews metrics used to compare alternative bio-energy pathways and identifies limitations inherent in the way that they are calculated and interpreted. It also looks at how companies and investors approach strategic decisions in the bio-energy area.

1. The transition to net-zero will affect the whole economy. Investment and policy decisions by all government departmentmes need to be compatible with this transition.
2. Policies to support renewable electricity generation should be more ambitious, building on deployment and cost reduction successes. Action is also needed to ensure electricity market rules are fit for a fully decarbonised power sector.
3. Decisions by the energy regulator, Ofgem, should also be compatible with net-zero. This includes enabling investment in local electricity networks to facilitate heat and transport decarbonisation, and ensuring more active use of existing networks.
4. Local energy systems could play a significant role in achieving net-zero, particularly in the integration of electricity, heat and transport. More resources and greater powers for Local Authorities will help to ensure the potential for local action is realised.
5. A clear plan is required for upgrading the UK housing stock. A heat and energy efficiency White Paper must include policies for widespread deployment of low carbon heat (including demonstrating hydrogen at scale) and for prioritising low income households.
6. Whilst the decarbonisation of industry is receiving more attention, policy initiatives are not joined up. Funding for specific projects and industrial clusters should be complemented by market creation policies, including for carbon capture and storage.
7. Our analysis shows that achieving net-zero requires the phase out of fossil-fuelled vehicles to be brought forward to 2030. Immediate action is also required to counter the rapid increase in sales of larger cars (including SUVs).
8. Plans to meet net-zero should maximise environmental co-benefits. Potential negative impacts on ecosystems should be assessed and mitigated.
9. Continuing uncertainty about the UK’s changing relationship with the European Union has already affected decarbonisation plans. Whatever the outcome, close co-operation with the EU is likely to make it easier to achieve net-zero.
10. The transition to net-zero should not compromise energy security. In light of the events on August 9th, responsibilities for ensuring system resilience need to be clarified and applied in a more rigorous way.

It argues that, since its emergence in the UK in the late 1990s, community energy has grown through finding opportunities for smaller scale, decentralised energy activities in the UKs highly centralised energy system. The combination of development of renewable energy technologies, and the launch of the governments Feed-In Tariff Scheme (FITS) in 2010, produced a boom in the sector, especially around solar electricity generation.

Recent cuts to FITS rates and other policy changes place community energy at a crossroads. Some renewables activity will continue, but groups are exploring a wide range of activities, partnerships, and business models. We are engaging with the sector around outputs from our research, which include a survey and case studies, to co-develop recommendations and pathways for the future.

This report has been produced by the UK Energy Research Centres Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) function. The TPA was set up to address key controversies in the energy field through comprehensive assessments of the current state of knowledge. It aims to provide authoritative reports that set high standards for rigour and transparency, while explaining results in a way that is useful to policymakers.

This report precedes a TPA study of some of the key issues which face the deployment of bio-energy resources in the period to 2050. The objective of this report was to review existing estimates of the UK resource base and identify the most important assumptions and uncertainties affecting estimates of the domestic resource potential. It was envisaged that this would inform the scope of the subsequent bio-energy TPA. A secondary objective was to assist DECC develop bio-energy route maps, promised under the UKs 2009 Low Carbon Transition Plan.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities inBioenergy for Heat, Power and Liquid transportation fuels research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: BIOENERGY FOR HEAT, POWER andLIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providersof applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

The UK Energy Research Centre welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the BERR Consultation on the UK Renewable Energy Strategy. We have addressed a number of the questions posed in the consultation document calling on all UKERC members for input.

To meet the EU 15% renewable energy target will be a significant challenge for the UK. It is important to understand that reductions in the UKs total energy demand will produce proportional reductions in the renewable contribution required. Although self-evident, this simple fact is often overlooked. Indeed the UK has to date failed to achieve any reductions in energy use, in fact the reverse is true: energy consumption in the key sectors of electricity and energy for transport continues to rise steadily.

In addition to reducing the demand for energy, there will need to be a massive increase in the contribution of renewables to transport fuel (predominately biofuels), heat and electricity. This submission concentrates on renewable electricity because UKERC has core competency this area. In Table 1, below, UKERC presents an illustrative scenario for the contribution of renew

• Without the adoption of a more holistic approach that addresses BETTA structural reform and network regulation, it is difficult to see how a satisfactory resolution of the transmission access issue can be achieved.
• It is proposed that more strategic and unified development of the onshore and offshore network together with the provision of interconnection would be encouraged through common or at least zonal ownership of offshore transmission assets, while cost-effectiveness and the efficient delivery of assets could be achieved through tendering and outsourcing construction.
• Modern distribution networks are not typically designed to accommodate generation; a number of technical and operational challenges will need to be addressed in order for the connection of significant amounts of distributed generation on these networks.
• The consequences of intermittency or variability of input will need to be managed by a combination of retaining conventional plant and developing demand response. Additionally, interconnection with adjacent transmission systems and improved forecasting of wind resource and maintaining geographic diversity of wind generation could also reduce the impacts of intermittency.
• The role of smart grids will be to enhance the capacity and utilisation of the electricity grid (both transmission and distribution) by means other than investing in traditional transmission assets and, via the deployment of smart metering, massively increase the contribution of the demand side to system security and the decarbonisation of the heat and transport sectors.
• UKERC is concerned that a major opportunity will be missed unless there is a timely change to a regulatory regime that encourages objective and costefficient choices between investment and smart grid solutions.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s interest in locally owned renewable energy. Our response draws on a range of research undertaken by the Heat and the City research group at the University of Edinburgh, including a UK-wide study of local authorities and energy; and on the Financing Community Energy research project being led by Tyndall Manchester. 

In our response we made the following general comments, before responding to individual points raised in the call:

• We suggest that greater attention should be paid to city/town/settlement scale infrastructure for a low carbon energy system, including area based upgrading of the built environment and low carbon heating infrastructure. Heat and energy efficiency for a low energy building stock are crucial to meeting Welsh and UK Government legally binding targets for carbon abatement.
•  At national scale, Wales has opportunities for sharing risk, costs and benefits of energy developments – i.e. the direct benefit to the citizens of Wales through public ownership and the aggregate costs across society of decarbonisation.
• Local Authority planning and ownership could be considered further as key components to securing greater local control and accountability, and achieving Welsh Government objectives. Our research indicates that further developing specific roles, powers, resources and responsibilities of local institutional actors in energy planning and ownership, especially Local Authorities would also add value to Welsh society and economy.

This meeting will bring together a wide range of stakeholders researchers, funders, policy makers and industrialists to identify bioenergy Research Roadmap priorities for the UK, as there is no current Research Roadmap specifically tailored for the context of the UK.

Our agricultural landscape is complex but limited and the way in which UK-sourced and imported feedstock may be deployed for the competing requirements of heat, power and liquid fuel is not easily resolved. On the one hand the energy balance of heat and power may be much better than that for liquid biofuels, but on the other hand, few alternatives for liquid biofuel are available, in contrast to renewable sources of heat and power. All of this highlights the complexity of this area and suggests that such a discussion meeting is timely and will produce valuable output that captures the interdisciplinary re