BIOENERGIA JA BIOETIIKKA - Eduskunta 8/2009 TUTKAS Tutkijoiden ja kansanedustajien seura BIOENERGIA...

JULKAISU 8/2009

TUTKAS Tutkijoiden ja kansanedustajien seura

BIOENERGIA JA BIOETIIKKA

The bioethics of bioenergy

Toimittanut Ulrica Gabrielsson

The bioethics of bioenergy November 17, 2009 The seminar is organized by the Nordic Committee on Bioethics (www.ncbio.org) and the Association of Parliament Members and Scientists (TUTKAS). During recent years the interest in developing alternative sources for renewable energy has increased dramatically. The up-coming climate conference to be held this fall in Copenhagen will focus on international restrictions on green house gas emissions. Different sources of bioenergy have been suggested and renewable energy is now being promoted as an alternative to fossil fuels. The large-scale production and consumption of bioenergy raises, however, a host of ethical issues. This one day seminar will present different dimensions related to the production and use of different types of bio-energy, the impact they may have on the environment and consumer choices, as well as the direction and possibili-ties that ongoing research is offering to development. In this seminar will include a number of international experts who will present on topics ranging from the latest technologies available for the production of bioenergy to ethical aspects. With the seminar we hope to provide a meeting place for experts, citizens and political representatives to discuss these issues in a constructive environment.

Contents On the Way to Copenhagen - Expectations of the Environment Committee of the Finnish Parliament Susanna Huovinen, Environmental Committee of the Finnish Parliament Biofuel Production and Industry Kristina Maria Holm, Statoil New Types of Bioenergy - Algae in Energy Production Kristian Spilling, Finnish Environment Institute Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities for Market and Food Security Keith Wiebe, FAO Sustainability and Ethical Aspects of Bioenergy Henrik Wentzel, University of Southern Denmark Ethical Concerns of Bioenergy Use Mickey Gjerris, Copenhagen University Bioenergy - a Problem or a Solution? Maija Suomela, Greenpeace Bioenergy and Development Policies - Small-scale Bioenergy Initiatives Steven Hunt, Practical Action Consulting Bioenergy and Air Pollution: Health Effects Raimo Salonen, National Institute for Health and Welfare

BIOETHICS OF BIOENERGY 17 November 2009 Chair Susanna Huovinen Eduskunta Environment Committee Dear audience, It is my pleasure to bring the greetings of the Eduskunta Environment Committee to this seminar, which is focusing on an important and topical subject. The Environment Committee views bioenergy as one of the central means with which to curb climate change, but we also recognise the need to improve awareness of the diverse impacts energy use has. The Committee has considered these matters in many of its submissions. Our submission regarding the national climate strategy, for example, dealt with several aspects of this subject. First and foremost I must, in relation to bioenergy – as in the case of all other energy forms as well – stress the great importance of the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Climate change is a global threat that calls for a global solution, and the role of bioenergy as a substitute to fossil fuels must be examined as a part of this. Research in climate science is progressing so rapidly that it has proven very challenging to secure the most recent knowledge to serve as a foundation for political decision making. Since climate change poses such a great challenge to humankind, we need to develop our ability to compile scientific research findings into a form, which facilitates decision making, much faster than at present. The challenge for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is substantial, as it has to combine the findings of researchers from countries all over the world. December’s meeting in Copenhagen needs to achieve a comprehensive and sufficiently ambitious agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. An opening speech I heard at a recent event made me sit up and think. The speaker said that he was sick and tired of hearing talk about saving the planet because he reckoned that the planet would save itself – just as it had always done up to now. His view was rather that humanity should take action to save itself. The treaty that will hopefully emerge from the Copenhagen conference should therefore secure the commitment of all countries and present its objectives in a sufficiently clear form. If we fail to achieve this primary objective, details on, for example, carbon sinks will not, in my view, play as significant a role as they would if a comprehensive treaty were in force. Ladies and Gentlemen, The effort to replace fossil fuels that is being led by industrialised countries must not be allowed to speed up the destruction of tropical forests. As we know, many of the indirect effects associated with land-use issues are already very difficult from the point of view of deforestation. A fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions on the global level is caused by tropical forest destruction. This is why forest-related questions must be incorporated into the global treaty. Forests and issues related to forest carbon sinks are essential for Finland. It is a good idea to emphasise the crucial significance of scientific knowledge in responding to the challenge of climate change. Appropriate decisions cannot be made without a scientific understanding of, for example, how carbon sinks function. I would like to also point out that the challenge of global consideration does not apply to forests alone. We have to find a way to reduce our own emissions in a way that does not lead to increased emissions or hamper sustainable development elsewhere in the world.

So let’s hope that a global treaty is achieved – my personal view is that the EU’s common reduction target could be as high as 30%. We know, however, that this all just a prelude: emissions need to be reduced by as much as 80% by 2050. It would be best if we began adjusting to the new situation at once. This applies also to the climate funding that developing countries are calling for. To win the support of developing nations for a comprehensive treaty, the EU needs to commit to a sufficiently large amount of climate funding. We inhabitants of the prosperous northern hemisphere cannot expect the developing countries to do their share without our support. Active engagement with this common undertaking would be in our own best interests as well. We can still prevent climate change from breaking away from the two-degree target if we work together. Dear audience, The Environment Committee has emphasised that, for Finland, the strategic objective should be set at halting and reversing growth in energy consumption. In addition to this, we need to substantially improve our energy-efficiency as well as adopt a vision of an emission-free energy economy. It would also be good if we considered how Finns could take advantage of the ongoing energy transition. The search for emission-cutting solutions is now on all over the world, and it is imperative that we do not fall by the wayside of this trend. A competitive advantage on the international markets cannot be established without bold and concrete national objectives that produce demand within the domestic market and thus create a reference for the broader markets. Any increase to renewable energy utilisation has to take into consideration the principles of sustainable development. We must select the environmentally, socially and economically most sustainable energy forms and know everything about the impact they have on the environment over their full lifecycle. We must not forget to evaluate their regional, social and health effects either. The effects of bioenergy utilisation on biodiversity should also be examined. Forest utilisation, for example, can, up to point, be made more effective. Models, which can identify and limit the harmful environmental impacts of forest energy use, need to be developed. We need scientific knowledge and evaluations as well as wide-ranging socio-political debate to support political decision making. I believe that knowledge, which will enable us to realise our common great challenge to climate change also on the practical level, is being shared and disseminated at this seminar, too. I hope that your meeting is fruitful and I thank you for your attention.

Statoil and biofuelsSeminar: The bioethics of bioenergy

Nordic Committee on Bioethics and the Association of Parliament Members and Scientists

The Finnish Parliament, Helsinki

Kristina Maria Holm

17.11.2009

•Energy company present in 40 countries with 30,000 employees

•Producing 1.95 million barrel of oil equivalent (boe) pr day

•About 22 billion boe in proven resources (5.6 billion as booked reserves)

•One of the world’s largest net sellers of crude oil

•The world's largest operator in waters deeper than 100 metres

•World leader in carbon capture and storage

•The second largest exporter of gas to Europe

•Biggest retailer of oil products in Scandinavia

Who we are

Our business areas

Exploration & production Norway

International exploration & production

Natural gas Technology & new energy

Projects & procurement

Manufacturing & marketing

Maximisethe NCS values

Deliver international growth

Build new energy

Harsh environments

Deep water

Heavy oil

Gas value chains

Building growth from a firm strategy

Statoil and biofuel production

DRIVERS

•Growing market - financial opportunities

•Contribute to our climate change mitigation

•Secure sustainable supply to our stations

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES

•E&P positions in ”biofuel regions”

•Value chain integrated

•World-class trading organisation

•Technology and R&D platform

•Ability to handle complex projects

CHALLENGES

•Sustainable biofuel production

•Limited agricultural competence

•Biofuel market development driven by politics & legislation

•Unstable market and investment conditions

•Production facility based on rapeseed

producing 1st generation biodiesel in

Lithuania

– Production capacity: 100.000 tonnes/y

– Feedstock sourcing secured

– StatoilHydro ownership: 49%

– StatoilHydro markets 100% of production

– In operation since November 2007

•GHG reduction 46%*

•EU demand 2017: 50%

Presence in European biofuel production

*) Energy allocation method, Ludvig Bolkow Systemtechnik GmbH

Next generation technology positions:Inbicon

•Future ethanol value chain

•Demo plant start-up November 2009 (ownedby Inbicon (100% Dong Energy))

– Hydrothermal pre-treatment combinedwith enzymatic prosess

– Feedstock is wheat wheat stover

– Capacity 4 ton stover/day

– Capex 300 MDKK

•Statoil’s role

– Partner in EU project Kacelle

– Statoil Danmark will purchase and market first 5000 m3 produced

– Negotiating a collaboration agreementfor plant operation

Next generation technology positions: Weyland as

•Future ethanol value chain

•Demo plant start-up 1Q 2010 (owned by

inventors, Sarsia Seed and Ragncell)

– Concentrated acid hydrolysis

– Feedstock is wood chips

– Capacity 2 ton wood chips/day

– Capex 25 MNOK

•Statoil’s role

– Contributed to financing via LOOP project 6 MNOK

– Considering offtake of ethanolproduction

Next generation technology positions: ChAP algae project

•Future biodiesel value chain

•Research initiative between The College of William, Mary and Virginia Institute of Marine Science and a number of corporate partners.

•Investigate a new technology to produce biofuel from the algae growing naturally in rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.

•The project involves the entire process of producing biofuels, from algal growth to harvesting, extracting the oil and other products from the algae, processing the oil, and producing the final biofuel product

•Statoil has seeded the enterprise with an initial $3 million investment.

Possible expansion options

– Sugar cane ethanol (Brasil)

– FAME/RME

–Hydrogenated biodiesel (EU)

–Next generation technology positions

–Advanced feedstock positions (jatropha, algae, waste material)

Global Biodiesel Market

Global Ethanol Market

2G Ethanol;

lignocellulosic

1G Ethanol;

grain

1G Ethanol;

sugarcane

1G Biodiesel;

FAME

1,5G Biodiesel;

hydrotreated

2G Biodiesel;

BtL

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

NOK/l

Large variation in biofuel production costs45 USD/bbl 110 USD/bbl

Gasoline GasolineDiesel Diesel

Price driven by

technological

development

Price driven by feedstock costs

1G Ethanol

1G Ethanol

2G Ethanol

1G Biodiesel

1,5G Biodiesel

2G Biodiesel

1. Agricultural by-products – cereal straws, corn cobs, corn stalks, cotton stalks and

sugarcane bagasse

2. Plantation crops – Miscanthus, Switchgrass, Poplar, Willow and Black Locust

3. Woody biomass consisting of three sub-categories:

S1: Woody biomass derived directly from forests – harvest residues, supplies

of fuel wood itself, accumulated wood surplus

S2: Processing residues from the wood processing industry – including black

liquor and solid residues from wood processing

S3: Recovered wood – sourced from municipal solid waste (MSW) as well as

waste from construction and demolition.

4. Municipal waste — lignocellulosic materials including green waste and recycled paper,

cellulosic materials from recycled clothes. used plant and animal cooking oil as

well as food and food processing waste

5. Industrial waste —paper production sludge (PS) and animal fat

Second Generation Feedstock - Categories

Second Generation Feedstock - Challenges•Agri-waste

– Scattered distribution

– Poorly developed collection systems

•Plantation crops

– Still being trialled

– High establishment costs

•Woody biomass and municipal waste

– Alternative uses

– Competition from heat and power

•Industrial waste

– Variable supply

– Neither widespread nor homogenous feedstock

Much is dependent on governmental policies

Sustainable feedstock supply

Sugarcane

Ethanol

Agri waste/Wood waste

Macro algae

Time

Sustainable feedstock supply

Rapeseed, sunflower, waste cooking oil, animal fat

Diesel

Jatropha

Micro algae

Agri waste/Wood waste

Time

Biofuel sustainability issues

• Greenhouse gas impact

• Indirect land use change

• Food vs. fuel

• General environmental

concerns

• General social

challenges

Source: JEC Study (WELL-to-WHEELS Report Version 2c, March 2007)

Emission reductions from different biofuels

Compared to fossil equivalent [%]

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

2G ethanol, lignocellulosic 2G Biodiesel, BtL

1G Ethanol, sugarcane 1G Biodiesel, rapeseed

1G Ethanol, sugar beet 1G Ethanol, wheat

Indirect land use change (ILUC)

•The EU will provide a report on this issue by 2010 with steps to minimise impacts.

•No scientifically proven methodology exists yet.

• All indirect effects are difficult to measure ►

•Inclusion of an immature system could affect

competitiveness.

•The system needs to be announced well in

advance, especially if ILUC effects are

incorporated only for biofuels

•Such notice is important for investors and the

realisation of new projects.

•Existing production plants should be granted a transition window.

Statoils Sustainability principles

1. We aim to be familiar with the origin of our biofuels and emphasize traceability through the whole production chain.

2. Our biofuels shall contribute significantly to greenhouse gas reductions compared to fossil fuels in a life cycle

perspective.

3. We do not use feedstock from rain forests or other areas with high carbon stock.

4. We actively work to prevent damage to biodiversity, ecosystems and areas of high conservation value.

5. We emphasize protection of soil, water and air in all our activities.

6. We aim to prevent displacement of food production important for sustainable livelihoods.

7. We aim to contribute to positive local development through agricultural competence building and job creation.

8. We support the protection of labour rights and human rights in accordance with the UN Global Compact Initiative,

applicable ILO standards and the UN Declaration on Human rights. We follow relevant national legislation and work

against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

9. We contribute to develop new technologies for sustainable biofuel production.

10. We expect our suppliers and partners to follow our sustainability requirements. We audit their sustainability performance

on a regular basis to ensure compliance and motivate improvements.

• We support the work of RSB*, which covers the EU requirements and more.

• The establishment of one internationally accepted certification system would be preferable.

Presentation title

Presenters name

Presenters title

E-mail address, tel: +47 51 99 00 00

www.statoil.com

Thank you

New types of bioenergy – algae in energy production

microalgae as raw-material for biofuels

Kristian SpillingFinnish Environment Institute, SYKE

What is algae

Simple plants (e.g. without roots)Macro and micro formsVery diverse

Scrippsiella hangoei

Peridiniella catenata

Pauliella taeniata

Thalassiosira baltica

Chaetoceros wighamii

Baltic Sea species

20 µm

Micro-algae

Aquatic, free-floating, unicellular orfilamentous (phytoplankton)Can be very fast-growingHave minimal amounts of structuralcomponents

Why planktonic algae? – biology and biochemistry

Harvest cycle• Forest biomass: years to decades• Field biomass: months• Microalgae: days, even hours

Biomass composition• Oil compounds (lipids) can be very high (even 40-60%)

Production per area• Higher to very much higher (2-10 times), compared

with the best terrestrial crops

Additional benefits of algae

Do not compete for fertile landSalt or wastewater can be usedPotentially very positive energy / carbonbalanceCan be coupled with CO2 producing industry

www.freephoto.com

www.waterencyclopedia.com

Research history

Aquatic Species Program (ASP)• USA, 1978-1996• Focus on open algal cultivation systems for bio-

diesel

Research for Innovative Technology ofthe Earth program (RITE)• Japan, 1990-2000• Focus on closed photobioreactors, CO2 mitigation

and higher value products

After 2000, renewed focus

Renewed focus on microalgae

Political focus on biofuel• Climate change• Energy independence (high oil price)• Biofuel can be used with present infrastructure

Problems with traditional energy crop• Energy vs. food production• Biodiversity (e.g. cutting down rain forest)• Energy / carbon balance

Projected raw-material shortage(EU’s target is 10 % biofuels by 2020)

Why biofuels?

Climate change (CO2)• Biofuels offer a closed carbon loop (in theory)• Can be used now (with small modifications)

What about hydrogen or electric vehicles• No-emission-fuel is environmentally the best option

(NB! whole life cycle must be taken into account)• But it requires full change of infrastructure (takes time)

What are the alternatives• As price of crude oil ticks upwards several alternatives

becomes economical viable• Most are more polluting than fuels refined from crude oil,

e.g. fuel from coal or tar sand

Any bioethical concerns of algal biofuels?

Need for CO2 in higher concentrationthan in airDependence on fossil fuels?

A lot of CO2 also from other sourcesMore energy output per CO2 emitted

Solix Biofuels

Applications of algae - dynamite

© Curtis Clarke

Dynamite = nitroclycerin + kieselguhr (diatoms)

Applications of algae

Applications of algae

Health food

Pharmacuticals

Fine chemicalsAnimal feed

Bulk chemicals

Energy, biofuel

EUR / kg

100+

5-20

1-5

0.4

Technology (product and production method)

Liquids vs. gas (biogas /methane vs. hydrogen)Biodiesel vs. bioalcohol (ethanol) or bothClosed vs. open systems (or hybrid)• Closed – GreenFuel• Hybrid – (Shell)• Open – Most existing plants today

Harvesting vs. ’milking’• Harvesting – GreenFuel• Milking - Algenol

Solix Biofuels Algenol

Algal Biofuel Companies

A2BE Carbon Capture LLCAlgae BiofuelsAlgae Floating SystemsAlgae FuelAlgae Fuel SystemsAlgae LinkAlgalOilDieselAlgenolAlgodynneAlgoilAquaflow BionomicAquatic EnergyAurora BioFuels Inc.BionavitasBioFuel SystemsBlue BiofuelsBlue Marble EnergyBodega AlgaeCellenaCequestaChevronCircle Biodiesel & EthanolCommunity FuelsDiversified EnergyEnBWE.ON HanseEnergy FarmsEnhanced Biofuels & TechologiesGeneral AtomicsGlobal Green Solutions

Green StarGreener BioEnergyGreenFuel Technologies CorpGreenShiftGrowdieselGS CleantechHR Biopetrolium/ShellIGVImperium RenewablesInfinfuelBiodieselInventure ChemicalKai BioEnergyKASKent SeaTech Copr.KwikpowerLiveFuels Inc.Mighty Algae BiofuelsOilfoxOrganic FuelsOriginOilPetroAlgaePetroSunPhycalRevolution BiofuelsRWE AGSapphire EnergySeambioticSeaAg Inc.Shell

SolazymeSolenaSolix Biofuels Inc.Sunx EnergySusquehanna BiotechTexas Clean FuelTrident Exploration/MenovaValcent ProductsVattenfallVertigoW2 EnergyXL Renewables

Visions – Shell + HR Biopetrolium (building pilot plant)

www.seambiotic.com

Ash removalDesulphurization

Flue gas

Vision – Seambiotic (have a pilot plant using flue gas)

Vision – Algenol (building plant)

Production cost

Should be <0.5 $ per kg dry biomassLowest present production cost: 5-20 $ / kgbiomassMain cost:1) Manpower2) Energy (harvesting)3) Water4) Fertilizer / CO2

6) Tax

Algae for biofuel, SYKE & VTT projects

Participants:SYKEVTT

Projects:ALGIESEL(SA, 2012)LIPIDO(SA, 2011)MICROFUEL(Tekes, 2009)

Overall aim:

Investigate the potential of microalgae asa raw-material for biodiesel

Targeted through investigations of:

* Sp. selection* Lipid profile

* Growth controland yield

* Harvesting* Biomass handling

Three important elements for development

Obtaining high growthefficiencyLow energy harvestingDownstream processing(e.g. getting lipids out)

Road ahead

Reduce production costPolicy change e.g.taxing fuels based ontheir carbon footprintAdded value, e.g.wastewater treatmentand CO2 uptake

The State of Food and Agriculture 2008The State of Food and Agriculture 2008

Biofuels:prospects, risks and opportunities

for markets and food security

Keith WiebeDeputy Director, Agricultural Development Economics Division

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Seminar on the Bioethics of BioenergyThe Finnish Parliament, Helsinki

17 November 2009

World ethanol and biodiesel production, 2005-2018

Key messagesKey messages

ShortShort--term risks, longerterm risks, longer--term term opportunitiesopportunities

Distribution depends on policiesDistribution depends on policies

Production costs exceed net fossil Production costs exceed net fossil fuel prices for most major biofuelsfuel prices for most major biofuels

Source: OECD-FAO 2008

Biofuel production costs with projections for 2017

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2004 2007 2004 2007 2004 2007 2004 2007 2004 2007 2004 2007

Ethanol sugar caneBrazil

Ethanol sugar beet EU Ethanol Maize USA Ethanol Wheat EU Biodiesel Rape oil EU Biodiesel SoybeanBrazil

US

$/li

tre

Co-product value Feedstock costs Processing costs Energy costs

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Net price of gasoline or diesel in national markets

Net costs, total

cost ofbiodiesel

price ofdiesel



Distribution depends on policiesDistribution depends on policies Current policies seek toCurrent policies seek to

–– enhance energy securityenhance energy security–– mitigate climate changemitigate climate change–– support agriculture and rural developmentsupport agriculture and rural development

Modest impacts on energy Modest impacts on energy securitysecurity

Oil34%

Coal26%

Gas21%

Biomass & waste10%

Nuclear6%

Hydro & other3%

Source: IEA 2008

World primary energy demand, 2006

Liquid biofuelsfor transport

0.2%

Greenhouse gas emissions

Ethanol, maize, USA

Biodiesel, rapeseed,

EU

Ethanol,sugar cane,

Brazil

?

?

with land-use change

Diverse and uncertain Diverse and uncertain impacts on climate changeimpacts on climate change

Fossil fuels

0

Source: IEA and FAO

Source: OECD and FAO

Significant impacts on Significant impacts on agriculture & food securityagriculture & food security

Share of global production used for biofuelsShare of global production used for biofuels

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Coarse grains

Vegetable oils

Significant impacts on Significant impacts on agriculture & food securityagriculture & food security

30% of maizeUSA

50% of sugarcaneBrazil

5% of cereals,10% of coarse grains,13% of vegetable oils,but over half of the increasesince 2005

World

60% of rapeseedEU

Share of crop to biofuels

Source: OECD and FAO

Prices of crude oil and maize, 2003-2009

Monthly prices are from the Commodity Research Bureau (www.crbtrader.com).Parity price lines for US ethanol are from Tyner and Taheripour 2007.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

50 100 150 200 250 300

Price of maize (US$/tonne)

Pri

ce

of

oil

(U

S$

/ba

rre

l)

parity prices w /o subsidy parity prices w ith subsidy monthly prices since 2003

July 2003

April 2004

March 2006

October 2007

February 2007

June 2008

August 2008

January 2009

Multiple drivers of high Multiple drivers of high food pricesfood prices

economic growth and changes in dieteconomic growth and changes in diet declining investment in agriculturedeclining investment in agriculture declining cereal stocksdeclining cereal stocks weatherweather--related production shortfallsrelated production shortfalls rising energy costsrising energy costs rapid growth in biofuelsrapid growth in biofuels exchange rates and export restrictionsexchange rates and export restrictions

How much of the increase in food How much of the increase in food prices was due to biofuels?prices was due to biofuels?

January 2002 January 2002 –– February 2008February 2008global food indexglobal food index75 %75 %World Bank (April 2008)World Bank (April 2008)

2000 2000 –– 200720072000 2000 –– 20072007

maize maize rice & wheatrice & wheat

39 %39 %2121--22 %22 %

IFPRI (May 2008)IFPRI (May 2008)

2008 2008 –– 201720172008 2008 –– 201720172008 2008 –– 20172017

coarse grainscoarse grainsvegetable oilsvegetable oilswheatwheat

42 %42 %34 %34 %24 %24 %

OECDOECD--FAO (May 2008)FAO (May 2008)

2006 2006 –– 200820082006 2006 –– 20082008

maizemaizeUS retail foodUS retail food

2525--60 %60 %1919--26 %26 %

Collins (June 2008)Collins (June 2008)

April 2007 April 2007 –– April 2008April 2008April 2007 April 2007 –– April 2008April 2008January January –– April 2008April 2008

commoditiescommoditiesglobal food indexglobal food indexUS retail foodUS retail food

2323--31 %31 %10 %10 %44--5 %5 %

GlauberGlauber (June 2008)(June 2008)

March 2007 March 2007 –– March 2008March 2008March 2007 March 2007 –– March 2008March 2008

maizemaizeglobal food indexglobal food index

35 %35 %3 %3 %

US CEA (May 2008)US CEA (May 2008)

Time periodTime periodCommodityCommodityEstimateEstimateSourceSource

Crop price projections to 2018Crop price projections to 2018

Source: OECD and FAO 2009

Global cereal production Global cereal production actually increasedactually increased

record global harvests in 2008record global harvests in 2008–– up 7.3% over 2007up 7.3% over 2007

but performance was unevenbut performance was uneven–– up 13.2% in developed countriesup 13.2% in developed countries–– up 2.8% in developing countriesup 2.8% in developing countries

Most poor households areMost poor households arenet buyers of staple foodsnet buyers of staple foods

---- even in rural areaseven in rural areas

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ghana

Mal

awi

Guatem

ala

Nicar

agua

Bangla

desh

Pakis

tan

Viet N

am

Tajik

ista

n

% o

f p

oo

r h

ou

seh

old

s

Urban RuralSource: FAO 2008

What is food security?What is food security?

availabilityavailability–– global, national, local, householdglobal, national, local, household–– land, water, inputs, technology, yieldsland, water, inputs, technology, yields

accessaccess–– national, local, household, individualnational, local, household, individual–– prices, income, wealthprices, income, wealth

utilizationutilization–– clean water, sanitation, healthclean water, sanitation, health

stabilitystability–– variability in any of the abovevariability in any of the above

Source: FAO 2008

Decline in wages, employment, remittances

Borrowing, asset depletion, asset sales

Poor households are hit hardestPoor households are hit hardestImpacts Impacts of a 10% increase in the price of maizeof a 10% increase in the price of maize

Rural

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Guatemala Nicaragua Malawi

Expendtiture quintiles

% c

ha

ng

e in

we

lfare

1 2 3 4 5

source: FAO/RIGAZezza et al (2008): The Impact of Rising Food Prices on the Poor (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj284e/aj284e00.pdf)

Rising food import billsRising food import bills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Total, LDC

Total, Developed

Vegetable Oils, global

Cereals, global

Meat, global

Dairy, global

% increase, 2008 over 2007

Source: FAO, 2008

LAC53m

Asia & Pac642m

SSA265m

NENA 42m

Developed15m

1.02 billion hungry people in 20091.02 billion hungry people in 2009

Many different types of impactsMany different types of impacts

impact on farmers via dedicated feedstock productionimpact on farmers via dedicated feedstock production–– depends on technology and scale of productiondepends on technology and scale of production

impact on farmers via commodity pricesimpact on farmers via commodity prices–– depends on access to input & output marketsdepends on access to input & output markets

impact on consumers via food pricesimpact on consumers via food prices–– depends on income, net buyers depends on income, net buyers vsvs net sellers of foodnet sellers of food

impact on workers via wages and employmentimpact on workers via wages and employment–– depends on technology and scale of production (in both depends on technology and scale of production (in both

feedstock and fuel production)feedstock and fuel production)

impact on resource holders and users via land pricesimpact on resource holders and users via land prices–– depends on access to resources and tenure securitydepends on access to resources and tenure security



Distribution depends critically on policiesDistribution depends critically on policies Current policies implyCurrent policies imply

–– modest impacts on energy securitymodest impacts on energy security–– diverse impacts on climate changediverse impacts on climate change–– significant impacts on agriculture and food significant impacts on agriculture and food

securitysecurity Reducing risks and expanding Reducing risks and expanding

opportunities requires changing policiesopportunities requires changing policies

Policy prioritiesPolicy priorities

Invest in agriculture and rural Invest in agriculture and rural developmentdevelopment

Protect the poor and food insecureProtect the poor and food insecure Ensure environmental sustainabilityEnsure environmental sustainability Review current biofuel policiesReview current biofuel policies Promote international policy Promote international policy

coordinationcoordination

Thank you

http://www.fao.org/sof/sofa

[email protected]

Sustainability and ethical aspects of bioenergy – a macroscopic view

Nordic Committee on BioethicsMeeting on “The bioethics of bioenergy”

November 17th, 2009The Finnish Parliament, Helsinki, Finland

Henrik Wenzel, University of Southern Denmark [email protected]

Presentation overview

• New customers for biomass

• Constraints and framework conditions

• Land and biomass constraints

• Environmental constraints

• Social/ethical constraints

• Carbon constraints

• Conclusion

New customers for biomass

Animal waste Conversion Bio-diesel

Fossil fuel & feedstockProcessingOil/gas/coal

Wastewater sludge Conversion

Liquid manure

TransportHeat

Power

Chemicals

Materials

Bio-polymer

Conversion Biogas

Arable land Oil crop Conversion Bio-diesel

Arable land CH crop Conversion Bio-ethanol

Biomass residues Conversion Bio-ethanol

Two types of references:• Functional reference: Alternative provision of same product/service• Resource application reference: Alternative use of the constrained waste/resource

Constraints and framework conditions – in the design of future energy systems

Resources Environment Social/ethicalFossil fuels Global warming Food/hungerArable land Biodiversity Local societal structureBiomass Nutrients Supply securityWater Pesticides Conflicts & warsPhosphorus Water …Money …Political attention, time, focusCarbon- the forgotten resource constraint

…

The mutual strength of the constraints governs the composition of the future energy systems

Land and biomass constraints- some key aspects and figures

How big are the new customers for biomass?Earth land area: 15 Gha; global agricultural area: 5 Gha– of which 1.5 Gha arable land and 3.5 Gha pastures

World average food intake: 2700 kcal/pers/day ≈ 25 EJ/yearAgricultural biomass today ≈ 100-150 EJ/yearFossil energy consumption today ≈ 400 EJ/yearBiomass for full fossil substitution today ≈ 500-600 EJ/year→ we need ≈ 5 times more biomass than today‟s agricultural output for full fossil substitution

Can agricultural yield increases reduce the gap?Yield increase in agriculture ≈ 1% per year → 0.8 %Consumption growth (GDP/capita) ≈ 3% per year → ?? %Land use increase from trend towards more meat on the menu

≈ ??% per year


How much new land can be cultivated?

New cultivable land: Biophysical maximum ≈ 2 Gha more– most of which is in South America and Africa (Ramancutty et al., 2002).

BUT: cultivating new land can imply a 2-9 times higher release of CO2 than energy crops can save over 30 years by substitution of fossil fuels (Righelato and Spracklen, Science 2007) – meaning pay back of 60 – 300 years.

Sustainable new land cultivation30-40% more (Danish Ministry for Food and Agriculture, 2008)- and we need 500% more if biomass should fully substitute fossil fuels


Study Scope Time Supply Demand Scenario Biomass potential (EJ/y)Demand Potential

Residue Crops Total EJ/y %

(26) EU25 2030 X 6.7 5.2 11.9 80-90 16-18%(27) EU27 2015-2025 X 2.8 1.8 4.6 90-100 4-5%

EU27 2025-2045 X Low 2.9 5.6 8.5 90-100 8-9%

EU27 2025-2045 X High 3.5 7.2 10.7 90-100 10-12%

EU27 >2040 X Low 2.5 15.4 17.9 90-100 17-19%

EU27 >2040 X High 3.1 19.9 23 90-100 21-25%

(22) Global 2030 X Low 96 219 315 630-720 42-48%

Global X High 96 315 411 630-720 55-62%

(28) Global 2030 X 87 151 238 630-720 32-36%

(29) Global 2025-2050 X 31 267 298 630-720 40-45%

(30) Global 2020 X 15 112 127 630-720 17-19%

(31) Global 2025 X 74 630-720 10-11%

(35) Global 2025 n.d n.d 85 630-720 11-13%

(32) Global 2025 Xb Xb BI 56 17 74 630-720 10-11%(33) Global 2030 X FFES 91 630-720 12-14%

(34) Global 2025 Xb Xb RIGES 65 80 145 630-720 19-22%

Ref.: Hedegaard K, K Thyø and H Wenzel, Env Sci Tech, 2008

Land constraints - the area footprint of renewable energy technologies

100

50

W/m2

Windmill Solar heater Solar cell Terrestrial plants

200 - 1500

50 - 60

15 - 20 (80)

0.5 - 1

Area footprint• Biomass: requires several planets

• Solar: the dessert areas will do

• Wind: requires almost no land: wind turbines are placed on water or non-fertile land, or land is cultivated under them

Biomass constraints- proportions in potentials for demand and supply in 2030

Demand type Fuel demand(EJ/year)

Biomass demand(EJ/year)

Jetfuels 25 50Chemicals 30 60Long distance road (20% of road) 20 40Heat & electricity fuel buffer (20%) 90 90Short distance road (80% of road) 80 160Heat & electricity bulk (80%) + other

350 350

≈ 600 ≈ 750Supply type Demand driven

(EJ/year)Supply driven

(EJ/year)Residues (non-food) 56-65 15-96Crops (food competition) 17-80 112-411

Environmental constraints- the good, the bad and the ugly LCA

Three categories of system delimitations found in existing LCA studies of biofuels:

• the good

• the bad

• the ugly


Biomass

Fermentation

Bio-ethanol

The ugly

- seeing bio-ethanol in isolation

Energy „balance‟

Fossil energy consumption : heat value

21.3 MJ/l : 21.6 MJ/l ≈ 1 : 1

(Nielsen and Wenzel 2005)


Petrol

Biomass

Fermentation

Bio-ethanol

TransportThe bad

- seeing transport in isolation

Fossil energy balanceFossil energy consumption for bio-ethanol : displaced fossil energy consumption for petrol and feed

≈ 1 : 1,5

Fossil fuels

Refining

Feed

Fossil fuels

Refining

Petrol

Biomass

Fermentation

Bio-ethanol

Transport Electricity

Heat

Fossil fuels

Food

Feed

The good

Biomass


- seeing transport in correlation with competitive biomass and land uses

Fossil energy balanceFossil energy consumption for bio-ethanol and heat & power : displaced fossil energy consumption for petrol and feed

≈ 1,5 : 1 to 2 : 1

2G 1G

1 ton of biomass

1 ton of biomass

Burn it

Pretreatment Fermentation Distillation

Drying

Environmental constraints - understanding the bad environmental performance of bioethanol

Heat/power

Ethanol

Heat/power

17 GJ of oil, gas or coal

8 GJ of oil, gas or coal

Residual matter & co-metabolites

Net fossil fuel savings

Environmental constraints - understanding the time perspective

Biomass

Transport fuelsMaterialsChemicals

PowerHeat

Fossil fuels

Now 2050?Short term Long term

On the short term: don‟t cross the river to fetch water:Do not convert biomass to transport fuels. Instead exchange biomass to transport fuels in heat and/or power sector

On the longer term: we run into the carbon ressource constraint:Recycle CO2, i.e. use biomass in stationary applications and produce transport fuels from the CO2

Social/ethical constraints- influencing food availability and prices?

Can the food sector be influenced?

Crop prices have almost doubled, to some extent catalysed by USA‟s production of bio-ethanol (USA‟s bio-ethanol being 30-70 % of the reason says World Bank report, USA says something else).

USA‟s bio-ethanol ≈ 0.15 % of world energy consumption

Increasing production of biofuels make beer prices riseBy Michael Rothenborg

Torsdag 10. januar kl. 12:55

mailto:[email protected]

http://politiken.dk/






Carbon constraints - prioritizing biomass in the non-fossil system

1. Biogas from manure

2. Biomass for boosting manure biogas

Cabon-based fuels/feedstock needed for

3. Organic chemicals

4. Jetfuels

5. Electricity & heat system buffering?

6. Long distance road?

In any case, fuels for mobile applications need to be GHG low/free:

• H2 (NH3?)

• CH3OH or other fuels from H2 and CO2/CO

• CH4 from H2 or e- and CO2

• Algae oil from sunlight and CO2

Carbon recycling: more than doubling the use of biogenic carbon

Carbon constraints - boosting the carbon cycle by recycling CO2

Biomass(50 EJ/y) BTL

Heat/power(10 EJ/y)

CO2(20%)

Fuel & feedstock(25 EJ/y)

AtmosphereCO2

(0.04%)

Transport & chemicalsPhotosynthesis

Electro-lysis

H2WindSolarGeothermalNuclear

Biomass(50 EJ/y)

StationaryH and/or P

Heat/power(50 EJ/y)

CO2(20%)

Methanolproduction

Jet-fuelproduction

Fuel & feedstock(55 EJ/y)

AtmosphereCO2

(0.04%)

Transport & chemicalsPhotosynthesis

Fuel & feedstock: 36 EJ/yHeat & power: 10 EJ/yTotal: 46 EJ/y

Fuel & feedstock: 55 EJ/yHeat & power: 50 EJ/yTotal: 105 EJ/y

Electro-lysis

H2WindSolarGeothermalNuclear

Methanolproduction

Jet-fuelproduction

+ (11 EJ/y)

Carbon constraints - boosting the carbon cycle

WindSolar

NuclearOther

CO2H2Methanol

production

Carbon constraints - boosting the carbon cycle

Biomass CO2(20%)

+H2

WindSolar

GeothermalNuclear

Methanolproduction

AtmosphereCO2

(0.04%)

Photosynthesis

Power Heat

Biomass

Production RecoveryChemicals

Losses

Transport

Conclusion

Use of biomass in stationary appliances is by far the most eco-efficient and cost-efficient solution on the short term. It is, moreover, a good platform for the long term development.

Making transport fuels from CO2 is a sustainable solution. But the conventional route by terrestrial plant photosynthesis is:

– Too slow – much too low carbon flow rate– Too inefficient– Too costly, and– Too land intensive and, thus, interfering with food production (with respect to 1G)

The present liquid biofuel technologies will, thus, take us no-where. And while doing that, they may create a lot of misery and offset the right development for an in-affordably long period of time.

The technologies for methane, methanol and other fuel productions from CO2and electricity/H2 can prove to be real sustainable solutions.

A tuc tuc on CNG…

Thank you for the attentionQuestions and comments?

Ethical concerns of bioenergy use

Associate Professor Mickey Gjerris

Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment

University of Copenhagen

Conferences on developments within technology and natural science often have designated talks to look into the ethical concerns related to the specific area of the meeting. There is thus more than a trend in contemporary applied ethics to split thinking into smaller and smaller areas of technology and natural science, thus becoming very good at finding the specific concerns within an area, but at the same time missing all the basic concerns since they apply across large areas of human action. Why are we doing this and what do we expect the outcome to be? The answers to those questions and a clarification of who “we” are can often enlighten the discussion.

This talk will thus focus on the ethical issues in bioenergy by taking a step back. When asked to analyze the ethical concerns of bioenergy use, the task is first and foremost to clarify what is meant by “ethics”, and “bioenergy”. As there will be many experts talking on the concept of “bioenergy” this talk will focus on the ethical part. This entails A: looking at the main areas of concern within the complex area of bioenergy and B: looking at some of the different ways of understanding ethics typically found within discussions like this. The hope is to show how a call for ethical thinking might complicate matters more than initially expected – and to show why this is not such a bad thing after all.

18‐11‐2009

1

Ethical concerns of bioenergy use

Mickey GjerrisDanish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment

Institute of Food and Ressource EconomicsFaculty of Life Sciences

University of Copenhagen

Overview

• An impossible task

• Ethics

• Ethical concerns related to bioenergy

• Let´s have a dialogueAn impossible taskp

• The task– ”Identify the ethical concerns related to bioenergyuse”

– ”Identify the economic potential in biotechnology”

– Too many• Known unknowns• Unknown knowns• Unknown unknowns

• Bioenergy (Wiki):– Bioenergy is renewable energy made available from materials derived from biomass

– Biomass is any organic material which has stored sunlight in the form of chemical energy

– Bioenergy can thus be extracted by a variety of methods from a variety of sources in a variety of forms for a variety of purposes

– As you will have heard many brilliant people describe different aspects of this, I will focus on Ethics

18‐11‐2009

2

• Ethics (wiki)– Meta‐ethics

• Semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics

– Normative ethics • How moral values should be determined

– Applied ethics• How a moral outcome can be achieved in specific situations

– Descriptive ethics• What moral values people actually abide by

• 3 options– Present endless list of concerns

– Select a specific kind of bioenergy and a specificethical theory and figure out the concernsethical theory and figure out the concerns

– Ask basic question about why and how we ask the question of ethics

Ethics

• We do not usually spend much time reflecting

on ethics, but rely on our norms

• Sometimes we are confronted with situations

where we are forced into thinking about

ethics

– The conflict between what we believe is right and

what we do

– Complex situations

Lars Von Trier: De fem benspænd (The Five Trippings), 2003

18‐11‐2009

3

• Ethics is a phenomenon closely related to ourfeelings

• We are creatures that are impressable. The world can reach us through our feelings

• Our feelings of right and wrong is the basis of g g gethics

• Ethics is more than feelings– Individual ethical perspective

– Institutional attempts to frame the issues

– Critical reflection

• Ethics as a hammer– The ethicist as an expert: a philosophical plumber

– Discussing ethics solves problems and justifiesactions

– The purpose of ethics is often seen as providingp p p gthe tools to create a socially acceptable development

• Ethics as a flashlight– Knowledge about the issue at hand

– Understanding of our own perspective and partialunderstanding of the perspectives of others

– Facilitating a more transparent dialogue on the basis of this

• What is applied ethics?– Applying a pre‐cut band‐aid to new concerns

– Rethinking ethical values in the light of cultural and technological developmentand technological development

– Trying to grasp what new challenges arise within a certain area

– Placing the concerns within a given area within a larger context, describing how they are connected in time and space to other issues

• Claim:– More and more ethical research is tied up withspecific projects within natural science

– Natural science is becoming more and more specialized

– Upside• Ethics get into the details, points to new challengesg , p g(awareness creation), becomes relevant to scientistsand enables an informed discussion ‐When it works

– Flipside• Ethics get caught in the details, is unable to discusswhat is common, is reduced to a lubricant and onlyleaves room for ”ethically” cost‐benefit analysis – Whenit is worst

18‐11‐2009

4

Cloning Nanotech Neurotech Stem cells

Visions of the futureSocial justice

Who is ethically relevantWho should be included (stake‐holders)

Consumer vs. Citizen perspective

Ethical concerns related to bioenergy

• Questions that can be asked to all uses of bioenergy

– Will it help solve or increase• Climate problems (Global warming)• Environmental problems (Pollution)• Social problems (Hunger, Inequity)• Fuel problems (Fossil fuel dependence)

– Will it benefit or harm• Humans• Animals• Plants• Ecosystems ‐ Biodiversity

• For each use of bioenergy the answers willchange

• Add to that the scientific and economicuncertainty of the effectsuncertainty of the effects– The competition of guesstimates

– Biofuel case 2008

Biofuels

What is most discussed

• The ethics of turning food into fuel

• Impact on food prices

• 1. generation vs. 2. generation vs. 3. igeneration

• CO2 emission impact

• Effects on agricultural sector and North‐South balance

18‐11‐2009

5

What is less discussed

• That the discussion of Fuel vs. Food takes place in a context of a cultural understanding of ”freedom” as equal to ”instant private mobility”

• The problem of ”hyped” science and the blind searchfor technological solutions across the board

• The possibility of creating local economies and leaving globalized trade behind

Let´s have a dialogueLet s have a dialogue

• Science‐oriented– Dialogue is information going out

• Belief in the knowledge deficit myth• Dialogue as monologue

• Policy‐oriented– Dialogue is information going in– Dialogue is information going in

• Belief in the value of votes• Dialogue as ”marketing” research

• Flash‐light‐oriented– Dialogue is value discussion

• Belief in certain values paired with respect for the values of others• Dialogue as value exploration and clarification

Pre dialogical iss esPre‐dialogical issues

• Discussing ethical issues in relation to bioenergy has a tendency of ending up withpeople discussing radically different things at the same timethe same time

• It can be debated what should be debated– Risk management or also risk understanding

– Specific issues or also general issues

– Existing technologies or also visions of the future

• Taks before entering the dialogue

– Figure out how to understand my own values and the consequences of them in light of the technologicalpossibilities

– Figure out how to frame the public discussion, so thatno one perspective will monopolize the debate

– Decide what the succes criterium is: find consensus, reach compromise or become wiser – or all of them?

18‐11‐2009

6

• But it is hard to argue against the value of clarifying what is actually discussed

Ethics as identification of individualvalues

Ethics as framing the discussion

Ethics as decision‐making

Applicationlevel

Policy level

Symbolism

The modest goal

• Establishing a real dialogue will not ensure– Consensus– General acceptance of the solutions we choose

• But it might ensure– Public participation p p– Democratic process– Socially robust acions

• Accept of the policy by the majority• Accept of the process by the minority

• One of the very important tasks of applied ethicsis to facilitate this dialogue

www.greenpeace.fi/palmuoljy

Bioenergy: a problem or a solution

Maija Suomela

Palm Oil Campaigner, Greenpeace

[email protected]

+358 40 1809 303


• The potential of bioenergy is

significant but it is conditional

to many ethical and practical

dimensions


Ethical dimensions of the bioenergy

• The consequences of bioenergy production to

– Fair distribution of the benefits and costs of

production

– Ownership and tenure rights, participatory rights

and access to justice of local and indigenous

people

– Food production

– Biodiversity and ecosystem balance

– GHG emissions and climate impact


The climate impact of bioenergy• The carbon-neutrality of bioenergy is based on the

conditional fact, that the net impact to the atmosphere

should remain neutral in the medium term, ie the

emissions are absorbed by the continuously grow of the

biomass

• IPCC: ”Emissions of CO2 from biomass fuels are

estimated and reported in the Agriculture, Forestry and

Land Use sector”

• Carbon-neutrality is conditional to the carbon accounting

rules of forestry and land use

– Current rules in UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol do not fully

guarantee this, new REDD also includes potential loopholes

– RSPO sertificate currently ignores this


Biofuels booming• Greenhouse gases (GHG) and high prices for

fossil fuels have increased the interest

• EU and national renewable targets to replace

transport fuels further push the interest

• Raw materials: Palm, rapeseed (canola),

sunflower, soya, jatropha, algae, waste …

• Palm oil a leader, major investments planned

• Increasing pressure for large scale production

in tropical areas


Production of raw materials in tropical areas causes• Forest and peat land destruction

• Logging

• Drainage and burning

• GHG emissions

• Loss of biodiversity

• Competition for land

• Threatening food production

• Increased inequality between rich and poor

• Human rights violations


Indirect land use change (ILUC)• GHG reduction is main justification for interest

in biofuels and for public policies supporting

biofuels

• Substantial GHG emissions through land-use

changes arising from biofuels production

• Research increasingly indicates that these

GHG emissions can outweigh any savings

from using biofuels

• ILUC emissions must be included in EU and

national renewable targets


Research on biofuels• VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland:

Assessing the sustainability of liquid biofuels

on evolving technologies

• Conclusions: Biofuels can have remarkably

negative climate and environmental impacts

• Extremely challenging or impossible to create

functional criteria for sustainable bio fuels

production

• http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2009/T2482.

pdf


Research on biofuels• EC report on biofuels

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_biof

uels_report.pdf

• Conclusions: Indirect land use change could

potentially release enough GHG to negate

the savings from conventional EU biofuels

(page 11)


Research on biofuels • Bringezu et al. 2009. UNEP. Towards

sustainable production and use of resources:

Assessing Biofuels.

http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_

Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf

• Science based-policies recommended e.g: to

promote energy from residues /waste rather

than from energy crops

http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf

http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf


Case study: Southeast Asia• Tropical forest destruction is responsible for

20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in

the world

• Indonesia is the world’s third largest producer

of greenhouse gas emissions

• Forest destruction is the main cause for

Indonesia’s GHG emissions


Case study: Southeast Asia• Palm oil and pulp production are the main

drivers of deforestation in Southeast Asia

• Plantations established in forest areas to log

the forests for timber to fund first years before

the first palm oil crop

• The clearing of rain forest and peat land area

is driven by the growing demand for palm oil

• There is growing interest to use palm oil as

raw material for fuel


Palm oil production booming• In 20 years 3x more plantation area

• 90% of production in Southeast Asia

• In Indonesia more than 22x more land area,

increase by over 2100% in 20 years

• Most of palm oil still used in food and

cosmetics industry

• Growing demand of palm oil for fuel


• More production by large scale enterprises

• Companies work in both palm oil and pulp

business

• Increased number of conflicts every year

• People are violently driven away from their

land and homes

• According to Indonesian legislation the local

communities own their land but despite of this

the same areas are given to palm oil

corporations to establish plantations

Local impacts of palm oil production


Local impacts of palm oil production• Cheap labor force brought from other areas

• Local communities achieve no benefits: Lack

of groundwater, toxic chemicals use as

fertilizers poison environment, forest fires

cause environmental and health problems

• Environmental problems

• GHG emissions


Sustainable palm oil production?• Virtually impossible in large scale

• Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

• GHG emissions caused by land use change

are not included in criteria and will not be

included in becoming years

• RSPO standard can not be used for

measuring the GHG balance of palm oil

based bio fuels


Sustainable palm oil production?• Overestimated capacity of waste lands

• http://www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/Agr

ofuels&MarginalMyth.pdf

• More water, fertilizers and funds needed for

improvements in yields

• http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_

Policy_Briefs/PDF/WPB30.pdf


Neste Oil’s impact• Porvoo 1 in 2007, 170 000 MT/a

• Porvoo 2 in 2009, 170 000 MT

• Singapore in 2010: 800 000 MT

• Rotterdam in 2011: 800 000 MT

• Total capacity 1,94 MT

• In 2011 Neste Oil will need over 2 million MT

of raw materials for NExBTL

• Singapore and Rotterdam will be world’s

largest biofuel refineries and located in core

areas of palm oil industry


Research• VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland:

Assessing the sustainability of liquid biofuels

on evolving technologies

• Especially pays attention to the indirect land

use change caused by the use of palm oil as

fuel

• The use of palm oil as fuel is growing the

demand of palm oil and increases the

pressure to establish plantations to rain forest

areas


Research• Center for International Forestry Research

CIFOR

• The impacts and opportunities of oil palm in

Southeast Asia: What do we know and what

do we need to know? (2009). Sheil, D.;

Casson, A.; Meijaard, E.; van Noordwjik, M.;

Gaskell, J.; Sunderland-Groves, J.; Wertz, K.;

Kanninen, M

• http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications


Urgency and need for real solutions• UN estimates that virtually all Southeast

Asian rain forests will be vanished by 2011 if

the growth in demand of palm oil continues

• Orangutans estimated to become extinct in 5

to 15 years

• There is no time to wait to find alternative raw

materials

• Palm oil must not be used as raw material for

fuel


Urgency and need for real solutions• Contemporary research proves that the

growing demand raw materials for fuel is

putting more pressure to establish new

plantations to rain forest and peat land areas

• Palm oil hasn’t been used much as raw

material for fuel and now the demand is about

to increace immensely

• No palm oil should be used for fuel as the

GHG emissions are worse than the ones from

fossil fuels


Urgency and need for real solutions• No palm oil based fuels to be subsidized as

environmentally friendly

• To reduce emissions resources must be

focused on more energy efficient cars and

improvement of traffic and transport

infrastructure and logistics

• Real solutions must be subsidized, for

example waste based fuels and energy

efficiency


Sustainable future of biofuels• More efficiency in

ALL technologies within the transport sector

• Strict efficiency standards for cars

• Phase-in of electrical drives

http://www.energyblueprint.info/

Steven Hunt Senior Consultant, Practical Action Consulting Research Theme Leader, DFID PISCES Programme (Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security) Coming from a background of product development consultancy for global brand-name firms, via project work in slum redevelopment, relief shelter, and wind turbine design, Steven works on the realisation of clean energy products and services in developing countries. Steven is currently managing and providing technical input into assignments in countries around Latin America, Africa and South Asia, and has recently led technology and policy studies on behalf of FAO, UNDP, World Bank, the EU Presidency and DFID amongst others. He was recently the project manager and lead author on the joint FAO-PISCES report entitled Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa available from www.pisces.or.ke/pubs Bioenergy and development policies – small-scale bioenergy initiatives Although discussion of bioenergy tends to be dominated by large scale production of liquid biofuels for transportation, this is only a fraction of the role which bioenergy plays in developing country economies. In rural areas, trade in fuelwood and charcoal is often second only to agriculture as a source of income to rural economies. Small scale initiatives around the developing world are piloting innovative methods of improving the convenience and sustainability of natural bioresource use, as well as more efficiently processing bioresidues from existing agriculture and forestry activities to support local energy access and livelihoods. Other initiatives, often involving networks and co-operatives of farmers, are also developing purpose grown biofuels with an emphasis on meeting productive energy needs reducing drudgery and breaking local dependency on fluctuating oil costs. Such initiatives provide valuable lessons about cyclical and more efficient use of natural resources, and how the sustainable production and use of bioenergy could assist in the development of rural economies, rather than being primarily extractive. However, such initiatives are often fragile with wider social and environmental benefits generally unvalued. Development policy has largely ignored such initiatives to date and has focused on the intense debate relating to larger, export-led privately-financed liquid biofuels development geared towards meeting green transport fuel demand in northern countries. An opportunity exists however to bring small-scale sustainable livelihoods-oriented bioenergy initiatives more into focus of development policy in order to much more directly support local energy access and create new livelihoods opportunities, both in bioenergy market systems, as well as in the productive use of the energy itself.

Raimo O. SalonenMD, PhD, Adjunct Professor

Health-related aspects of

bioenergy production

The Bioethics of Bioenergy, 17 Nov 2009, Helsinki

National Institute for Health and Welfare

Department of Environmental Health

Kuopio, Finland

and the University of Kuopio

Governmental bioenergy strategy

� The target for the consumption of renewable energy (38% of total) by 2020 is planned to be achieved largely by increasing biofuel consumption in Finland

� Small-scale wood burning to be continued at a high level 13 TWh (2005 →→→→→→→→)

� Forest chips to be increased from 6 TWh (2005) to 21 TWh, mostly in small power plants (<<20 MW)

� Wood pellets and agricultural biomass to be increased from0.1 TWh (2005) to 3 TWh, mostly in small power plants

� Bio-oils to be increased from 0 TWh (2005) to 6 TWh, half in motor vehicles

Conflict of the strategy with public health

� About one third of the small-scale wood burning in communities with substantial population

� No regulations for energy efficiency of the combustionappliances, no emission limits

� Even inappropriate boilers without water tank are allowed as primary heaters (fine PM mass emission ∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼100-fold comparedto good combustion technology)

� No CE marking to advice the customers to buy low-emittingappliances

� Many of the small power plants (<20 MW) in the middle of the community

� No filtering of fine PM emissions, whether biomass, peat orheavy fuel oil are used

Agriculture

Traffic

Off-road

machinery

Industrial

processes

Solvents

and other

productsEnergy

plants

Domestic

combus

-tion

PM2.5 emissions in 2005 (tn) (%)

Energy plants 7740,26 23

Domestic combustion 15359,71 45

Traffic 4930,24 14

Off-road machinery 1356,00 4

Industrial processes 2804,70 8

Solvents and other products 1398,72 4

Agriculture 560,04 2

Other 12,27 0

Sum 34161,93 100

Finnish Environment Institute 2007

Assessed contribution of wood

combustion is ∼∼∼∼25% to the totalPM2.5 emissions in Finland

(Karvosenoja et al. 2008)

Residential biomass heating in

community →→→→ impaired air quality

� A high probability of elevated exposures in the neighbourhoods to fine particles (PM2.5), carcinogenic PAHs, CO and VOCs

� Release of combustion emissions from domestic heating appliances and small power plants close to the ground:

� Poor aerosol mixing in cold season days leads to elevated local outdoor pollutant concentrations ⇒⇒⇒⇒⇒⇒⇒⇒ penetration indoors

� Use of domestic heating appliances most active in the evenings, when most of the neighbours are at home

� Little research done until now on air quality problems, and on the human exposure and health effects related to poor biomass combustion in residential areas

Residential biomass heating and air quality

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

PM

10-,

NO

-, N

O2-p

ito

isu

usu

us (

µg

/m3)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

CO

-pit

ois

uu

s (

µg

/m3)

NO NO2 PM10 Leppävaara PM10 CO

One day with weak winds: higher PM10 concentrations than with busy traffic

in Leppävaara (Espoo) or Helsinki downtown (YTV, Helsinki, 2006)

Lintuvaara, Espoo, Finland 13.10.2005

PM

10, N

O, N

O2

co

nc.

(µg

/m3)

CO

co

nc.

(µg

/m3)

Rough estimate of the present diseaseburden from poor biomass combustion

� Hundreds of premature deaths due to excess fine PM (total ∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼1300 per year in Finland as assessed by the Clean Air for Europe, CAFE project in 2005)

� Thousands of adult asthmatic or other respiratory diseasesubjects, and thousands of children, with impaired healthand restricted activity days due to excess fine PM

� Excess health costs in the order of tens of millions of euros per year in Finland (see CAFE 2005)

� Health risks among subjects with cardiovascular diseaseand health risks from gaseous pollutants (CO, VOC) poorlyknown

”Not-so-nice picture” of the societalburden from poor biomass combustion

� Newly retired people in good health and with a lot of sparetime change oil or electric heating in their 20- to 50-year old houses to inappropriate wood heating due to savingsin costs (wood mostly from own forest)

� Frank poisoning of other retired people with cardio-respiratory illnesses and small children & their mothers in neighbourhoods

� Tens-to-hundreds of official complaints in recent years bythe exposed people →→→→→→→→ mostly poor handling of the cases byofficials in municipalities →→→→ appeals to administrative courtsand occasionally to civil courts →→→→ variable decisions thatrarely help those who appealed

� Conflicts lasting for many years lead to poor relationsbetween neighbours, excess work by the administration etc.

Governmental control measures

� A statute for energy efficiency of the small-scale combustion appliances & emission limits first suggested to the Ministry of the Environment in 1997

� Appeal of three health NGOs to the political groups in the Parliament started preparation of the statute in 2005

� Statute ready for implementation in 2007 but not done

� The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health gives instructions to municipalities on the health aspects of poor wood combustion (STTV 6/2008)

� These instructions are nearly toothless without the statuteon energy efficiency & emission limits

� The Ministry of the Environment has prepared a statute to be given to the Parliament on very loose PM emission limits for small-scale power plants (said to represent BAT)

What should be done better?

� A statute for energy efficiency of the small-scale

combustion appliances & emission limits right now!

� Even the Finnish industry manufacturing these appliances

wants the statute →→→→→→→→ no national reference for markets of low-emitting appliances

� Ban of inappropriate boilers without water tank

� PM emission limits for small-scale power plants should be

tightened to represent current BAT in the Parliament (if not

before by The Ministry of the Environment)

� The central, regional and local governments should start be bear better responsibility for the health aspects of

bioenergy to avoid excess premature deaths & new cases

and exacerbations of chronic cardiorespiratory diseases

1

Bioenergy and air pollution:Health effects

NMR/HLG Climate-Air Pollution, Oslo 10.10.2008

Raimo O. SalonenMD, PhD, Senior Researcher

National Institute for Health and WelfareDepartment of Environmental Health

Kuopio, Finland

Presentation contents

�CAFE assessment of PM2.5-associated health impacts in Europe

�NMR/HLG and ERANET concerted actions on particulateair pollution, biomass combustion and health

�Highlights from Finnish interdisciplinary scientificresearch on biomass combustion emissions and wild-firesmoke episodes and their impacts on urban air pollutionand health

�Recommendations from the NMR/HLG and ERANET concerted actions

2

Why is there a need for strict control of

particulate air pollution?

� Fine particulate matter (PM2.5; diameter ≤≤≤≤ 2.5 µµµµm) causes the largest disease burden of all environmental factors to the European populations

� Current long-term PM2.5 exposures associated with ∼350 000 premature annual deaths, hospital admissions, and restrictedactivity in tens of millions of children and subjects with chroniccardiovascular or pulmonary disease in the EU25 (CAFE 2005)

� No clear threshold for health effects at low daily average PM10/ PM2.5 concentrations (< 5 µµµµg/m3), and even 1-hour peak concen-trations associated with severe respiratory and cardiac events

� Ultrafine particles (diameter ≤≤≤≤ 0.1 µµµµm) and coarse thoracicparticles (PM10-2.5; diameter 2.5-10 µµµµm) associated with healtheffects that are independent of concurrent PM2.5 levels

EU-CAFE assessment on the health impacts

of PM2.5 in the EU25 in 2000 (population ∼∼∼∼450 million)

� Premature death cases 347 900

� Life years lost 3 618 700

� Infant death cases 677

� New cases of chronic bronchitis 163 800

� Hospital admission cases (heart + lung) 100 300

� Lower respiratory symptom days (5-14 y) 192 756 400

� Restricted activity days (15-64 y) 347 687 000

� Value of health damage 268 - 781 billion € / year

3

CAFE assessment on health impacts of

PM2.5 in three Nordic countries (2000)(population ∼∼∼∼20 million)

� DK: premature death cases 3 270

� FI: premature death cases 1 270

� SE: premature death cases 3 280

� New cases of chronic bronchitis 3 510

� Hospital admission cases (lung + heart) 2 143

� Lower respiratory symptom days (5-14 y) > 4.4 million

� Restricted activity days in adults (15-64 y) > 7.2 million

� Value of health damage 5,8 – 17,6 billion € / year

Which sources and chemical compositions

are the most hazardous to health?

� Epidemiological evidence of variable strength on the harmfulness of traffic exhaust, small-scale coal and woodcombustion, locally or transnationally transported wild-fireand resuspended road dust particles

� Reasonably strong epidemiological evidence on soot(EC/BC); suggestive toxicological evidence on transitionmetals (e.g. Cu, Ni, V, Fe, Zn), PAH-compounds, quinonesand soil minerals

� Epidemiological and toxicological studies suggest that PM compositions originating from the same combustion sourcemay have different impacts on air quality and health in different climates and seasons (e.g. via transformation of the organics)

� Epidemiological and toxicological studies suggest that freshPM compositions from local combustion sources may bemore potent per mass unit than the aged compositions fromregional and long-range transport

4

NORDAIR concerted action project

� Funding: NMR Sea and Air Group in May 2004 - Dec 2005

� Project team: Raimo O. Salonen (FI), Marko Vallius (FI), Tom Bellander (SE), Bertil Forsberg (SE), Hans C Hansson, (SE), Risto Hillamo (FI), Steffen Loft (DK), Finn Palmgren (DK), Göran Pershagen (SE) and Per E. Schwarze (N)

� Work content: (1) Inventory of major on-going research projects on urban air pollution and health in Nordic countries, (2) Recognition of the most important Nordic aspects in this area for policy-making and new research, and (3) Proposal of an area of the highest priority for Nordic collaborative action

NORDAIR recommendations on high priority areas for Nordic research and policy-making

� Traffic-derived combustion PM in cold climate

� Road dust and other traffic-related non-exhaust PM

� Small-scale wood burning and other biomass

combustion aerosols

� Impacts of long-range transported pollutants

5

NORDAIR-BIOS concerted action project

� Funding: Nordic Council of Ministers, Sea and Air Group in Aug 2005 – Dec 2006

� Steering Group: Raimo O. Salonen (FI), Marko Vallius(FI), Bertil Forsberg (SE), Finn Palmgren (DK), Per E. Schwarze (NO)

� Participants: 18 Nordic biomass emission, air quality and health researchers, 1 air quality expert from USA (G Allen), 1 emission expert from Austria (I Obernberger) and 5 administrators as observers

� Work content: (1) Wood combustion aerosols from residential heating and transnationally transported biomass combustion aerosols, and (2) Science-based recommendations for reduction of air quality and health impacts & identification of gaps in scientific knowledge

BIOMASS-PM concerted action project

� Funding: ERANET Bioenergy Programme 1/2007-9/2008

� Steering group members and country coordinators: Jorma

Jokiniemi (FI), Kati Hytönen (FI), Ingwald Obernberger (AT),

Raimo O. Salonen (FI) and Christoffer Boman (SE)

� Participants: A total of 33 scientists from 10 emission, air

quality and health research teams from Finland, Austria,

Germany and Sweden

� Objectives: (1) Strenghten interdisciplinary scientific evidence

on the advantages of new combustion technologies and after-

treatment in small-scale biomass heating systems, and (2)

Determination of feasible methods for particle emission

measurements, sampling and physicochemical & toxicological

characterisation

Website: www.biomasspm.fi

� Final report and presentations of final dissemination workshop

6

Bioenergy and emissions

� Bioenergy use is promoted in decentralised heating systems,

but they are currently less energy efficient and cause more air

quality problems than large power plants

� Domestic wood combustion is responsible for 25% of all PM2.5

emissions, 65% of PAH emissions and 25% of all NMVOC

emissions in Finland – situation similar to many other EU-

countries (Karvosenoja 2004; Karvosenoja et al. 2008)

� The main reasons for large PM2.5 emissions from domestic

heating appliances (commonly 20 kW) are poor combustion

technology, poor biomass fuel quality and operational errors of

the users (e.g., overloading, restriction of air supply)

� Small heating plants (commonly 20 MW) using biomass, peat or

heavy fuel oil have no obligation to use the most efficient flue

gas after-treatment technology - no PM emission limits!

Agriculture

Traffic

Off-road

machinery

Industrial

processes

Solvents

and other

productsEnergy

plants

Domestic

combus

-tion

PM2.5 emissions in 2005 (tn) (%)

Energy plants 7740,26 23

Domestic combustion 15359,71 45

Traffic 4930,24 14

Off-road machinery 1356,00 4

Industrial processes 2804,70 8

Solvents and other products 1398,72 4

Agriculture 560,04 2

Other 12,27 0

Sum 34161,93 100

Finnish Environment Institute 2007

Assessed contribution of wood

combustion is ∼∼∼∼25% to the totalPM2.5 emissions in Finland

(Karvosenoja et al. 2008)

7

Residential biomass heating →→→→

air quality →→→→ health

� A high probability of elevated exposures in the neighbourhoodsto PM10, PM2.5, PAH, CO and NMVOC

� Release of combustion emissions from domestic heating appliances and small power plants is close to the ground:

� Poor aerosol mixing in cold season days leads to elevated local outdoor pollutant concentrations ⇒ penetration indoors

� Use of domestic heating appliances most active in the evenings, when also the neighbours are at home

� Little research done until now on air quality problems, and the human exposure and health effects related to poor biomass combustion in residential areas

� Increased asthma attacks have been reported as reviewed by Boman et al. (2003) and Naeher et al. (2007)

Are these particulate compositions as harmful to the health of children and cardiac patients as those from traffic exhaust?

Residential biomass heating and air quality

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

PM

10-,

NO

-, N

O2-p

ito

isu

usu

us (

µg

/m3)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

CO

-pit

ois

uu

s (

µg

/m3)

NO NO2 PM10 Leppävaara PM10 CO

One day with weak winds: higher PM10 concentrations than with busy trafficin Leppävaara (Espoo) or Helsinki downtown (YTV, Helsinki, 2006)

Lintuvaara, Espoo, Finland 13.10.2005

PM

10, N

O,

NO

2co

nc.

(µg

/m3)

CO

co

nc. (µ

g/m

3)

8

Experimental human and animal studies on

biomass combustion emissions

� Controlled acute exposures of human subjects to diluted

combustion emissions in exposure chamber to answer few,

selected scientific questions (Barregård et al. 2007; Sandström et al.)

� Monitoring of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and

biochemical response markers in a limited number of experiments

� Mild inflammation and increased blood coagulation reported

� Controlled acute, subacute and subchronic exposures of animals

(rats, mice) to aerosolized or liquid-suspended emission particles

from biomass combustion to answer a somewhat larger number of

selected scientific questions (see e.g. Zelikoff et al. 2002)

� Monitoring of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, biochemical

response markers, and structural changes in the lungs

� Mild inflammation, decreased host defence against bacterial

infections etc. reported

Experimental cell studies on biomass

combustion emissions

� Controlled exposures of key target cells (macrophages, epithelial

cells) of the respiratory tract to liquid-suspended emission

particles from biomass combustion to answer a larger number of

scientific questions (see, e.g. Zelikoff et al. 2002) and to aid

technological development of combustion installations

� Measurement of biochemical markers of a wide range of

mechanistic health end points (inflammation, genotoxicity,

cytotoxicity, cell cycle) in mammalian cells

� Inflammatory and cytotoxic activities of air particles are

anticipated to be linked with the non-carcinogenic respiratory and

cardiovascular effects, and genotoxic acitivity with the lung cancer

risk among human subjects

� Increased inflammatory activity, cell death and genotoxicity, and

cell cycle arrest reported

9

Wildfire smoke episodes 1

� Smoke-haze episodes from forest, bush and peat fires arecommon features in Southern and Northern Europe

� Incomplete biomass combustion gives rise to large amounts of potentially harmful particulate (PM2.5, PAH) and gaseous (CO, NMVOC) emissions

� The combustion-derived pollutants can episodically causeprofound increases in PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, and in the carbonaceous composition of the particulate mass

� The smoke-haze episodes appear annually in certain months and can last for weeks each time, and the episodes are likely to become more prevalent with climate change in Europe

⇒⇒⇒⇒ Smoke aerosols affect populations not only locally but alsoat distances hundreds or thousands of kilometres away

⇒⇒⇒⇒ Premature deaths of about 10 subjects with cardiorespiratorydisease per typical episode week has been estimated forsouthern Finland (Hänninen et al. 2009)


Helsinki, Finland – annual data 2006 by FMI

The impacts of (1) local small-scale wood combustion and (2 and 4) episodes of

wild fire smoke on the PM2.5 (upper panel) and organic carbon (lower panel)

concentrations were identified with the help of specific marker – levoglucosan

(blue lines); (3) the low biomass-smoke June-July (Saarnio et al., submitted).

2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

6.2

.06

13

.2.0

6

20

.2.0

6

27

.2.0

6

6.3

.06

13

.3.0

6

20

.3.0

6

27

.3.0

6

3.4

.06

10

.4.0

6

17

.4.0

6

24

.4.0

6

1.5

.06

8.5

.06

15

.5.0

6

22

.5.0

6

29

.5.0

6

5.6

.06

12

.6.0

6

19

.6.0

6

26

.6.0

6

3.7

.06

10

.7.0

6

17

.7.0

6

24

.7.0

6

31

.7.0

6

7.8

.06

14

.8.0

6

21

.8.0

6

28

.8.0

6

4.9

.06

11

.9.0

6

18

.9.0

6

Date

levo

glu

co

sa

n µ

g/m

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

OC

µg

/m3

levoglucosan

OC

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

6.2

.06

13

.2.0

6

20

.2.0

6

27

.2.0

6

6.3

.06

13

.3.0

6

20

.3.0

6

27

.3.0

6

3.4

.06

10

.4.0

6

17

.4.0

6

24

.4.0

6

1.5

.06

8.5

.06

15

.5.0

6

22

.5.0

6

29

.5.0

6

5.6

.06

12

.6.0

6

19

.6.0

6

26

.6.0

6

3.7

.06

10

.7.0

6

17

.7.0

6

24

.7.0

6

31

.7.0

6

7.8

.06

14

.8.0

6

21

.8.0

6

28

.8.0

6

4.9

.06

11

.9.0

6

18

.9.0

6

Date

lev

og

luc

os

an

µg

/m3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PM

2.5

µg

/m3

levoglucosan

PM2.5

1

2

3

4

1 3

4

10


Helsinki, Finland – 10 August 2006

The location of wildfires and their emissions can be assessed fromsatellite images, and the transportation of smoke-haze can be modelled(Saarikoski et al., 2007).

NORDAIR-BIOS recommendation on

wildfire smoke episodes

� National internet portals should be established for

presentation and instantaneous dissemination of on-line air

quality data collected from continuously operating local

monitoring networks in order to facilitate early detection of

regional episodes of particulate air pollution caused by

transnational transport of forest fire or wildfire smoke-haze

� Early warning of the susceptible population groups such as

elderly subjects with chronic cardiovascular or respiratory

disease and asthmatic subjects of all ages

� The National Reference Laboratories of Air Quality

Monitoring in the Nordic countries are recommended to share

on-line with each other their pooled on-line air quality data

11

NORDAIR-BIOS & BIOMASS-PM

recommendations on small-scale systems

Measures have to be implemented to reduce PM emissions

from residential biomass combustion systems:

� The future increase in biomass energy should be primarily made in

community-level plants with high-quality controls for the combustion

process and emissions

� Substitution of old residential combustion devices by modern low

emission systems should be promoted

� Provision of appropriate “user training” for non-automatically fed

systems (stoves/boilers)

� Support of R&D of low-dust combustion technologies

� Support of R&D and application of appropriate filter technologies for

residential biomass combustion systems

� Emission limits and test standards should be harmonized on a

European level

BIOMASS-PM research needs 1

� More information on the impact of real-life user practices

on particulate emissions is needed as well as on the

overall impact of small-scale biomass combustion

emissions on local and regional air quality

� More information is needed about the association between

different kinds of particulate matter emissions from

biomass combustion installations and their adverse health

effect potential as assessed by experimental human and

animal studies

12

BIOMASS-PM research needs 2

� Cell studies should provide a generic concept on the

association of inorganic and organic chemical

constituents with the inflammatory, cytotoxic and

genotoxic activities of particulate emissions from a series

of combustion technologies and biofuels

� Interdisciplinary research between the aerosol scientists

and epidemiologists:

� New short-term panel studies with personal exposure monitoring and source-specific exposure modelling are needed

� GIS-based cohort studies on chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer are needed

BIOENERGIA JA BIOETIIKKA - Eduskunta 8/2009 TUTKAS Tutkijoiden ja kansanedustajien seura BIOENERGIA...

Documents

Transcript of BIOENERGIA JA BIOETIIKKA - Eduskunta 8/2009 TUTKAS Tutkijoiden ja kansanedustajien seura BIOENERGIA...