Search

Abstract: Based on literature and six country studies (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Slovakia) this paper discusses the compatibility of the EU 2020 targets for renewable energy with conservation of biodiversity. We conclude that increased demand for biomass for bioenergy purposes may lead to a continued conversion of valuable habitats into productive lands and to intensification, which both have negative effects on biodiversity. On the other hand, increased demand for biomass also provides opportunities for biodiversity, both within existing productive lands and in abandoned or degraded lands. Perennial crops may lead to increased diversity in crop patterns, lower input uses, and higher landscape structural diversity which may all have positive effects on biodiversity. In production forest opportunities exist to harvest primary wood residues. Removal of these forest residues under strict sustainability conditions may become economically attractive with increased biomass demand. An additional biomass potential is represented by recreation areas, road-side verges, semi-natural and natural areas and lands which have no other use because they have been abandoned, polluted or degraded. Whether effects of cropping of biomass and/or removal of biomass has positive or negative impact on biodiversity depends strongly on specific regional circumstances, the type of land and land use shifts involved and the associated management practices in general. However, it is clear that in the six countries studied certain types of biomass crops are likely to be more sustainable than others. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Reduction of the emissions of greenhouses gases, increasing the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the energy balance, increasing electricity production from renewable energy sources and decreasing energy dependency represent the main goals of all current strategies in Europe. Biomass co-firing in large coal-based thermal power plants provides a considerable opportunity to increase the share of RES in the primary energy balance and the share of electricity from RES in gross electricity consumption in a country. Biomass-coal co-firing means reducing CO2 and SO2, emissions and it may also reduce NO x emissions, and also represents a near-term, low-risk, low-cost and sustainable energy development. Biomass-coal co-firing is the most effective measure to reduce CO2 emissions, because it substitutes coal, which has the most intensive CO2 emissions per kWh electricity production, by biomass, with a zero net emission of CO2. Biomass co-firing experience worldwide are reviewed in this paper. Biomass co-firing has been successfully demonstrated in over 150 installations worldwide for most combinations of fuels and boiler types in the range of 50–700MWe, although a number of very small plants have also been involved. More than a hundred of these have been in Europe. A key indicator for the assessment of biomass co-firing is intrduced and used to evaluate all available biomass co-firing technologies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Following the development of large-scale use of biomass energy in the EU, international biofuel trade is a plausible scenario and something that is already taking place in Northern Europe. This paper focuses on Swedish biofuel imports, both direct and indirect imports, the latter which derive from the fact that part of the imported pulpwood and timber end up as fuel. The objective is to describe the biomass import flows, the actors involved and analyse the fundamental drivers for the trade flows.The rapid expansion of biomass energy, that has taken place in district heating since the early 1990s in Sweden, has been met partly by imports. The direct biofuel import was estimated to 18 PJ for 2000, which corresponded to 26% of the biofuel supply in district heating. The total indirect biofuel import was estimated to 9 PJ of which 5.5 PJ is consumed in the district heating sector. Sawmill wood chips, decay-damaged stemwood and pellets are imported from Estonia and Latvia, whereas used wood and solid recovered fuels are imported from Germany and the Netherlands. Tall oil and pellets are imported from North America.Key factors related to the Swedish biofuel import are analysed, both from the view of Swedish demand and from the view of supply in the Baltic countries as well as supply from Germany or the Netherlands. National differences in energy policy are perhaps the most important driving force behind the seemingly strange trade flows. Structures in the different national energy systems are also discussed as well as the transformation process that has taken place in the forest sector in the Baltic countries. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]