The future of biomass in the Netherlands. An interdisciplinary view on the energy transition towards a sustainable energy supply

(1)

The future of Biomass in the Netherlands

An interdisciplinary view on the energy transition towards a sustainable energy supply

Eric Blok – 11056177

Luka de Koe – 11038799

Tobias Witteveen – 10974660

Patrick Luif – 10776958

Group C - Biomass

Tutor: Donya Danesh

Expert: Marc Davidson

Interdisciplinary Project

Future Planet Studies

22-12-2017

(2)

Abstract

There is a transition taking place in the Netherlands from a fossil fuel based energy sector towards a more sustainable energy supply by the use of renewable sources. However, in 2016 a mere 6,0 percent of the total Dutch energy came from renewable sources. In the Paris Climate Agreement from 2015 it is stated that by 2020 the share of renewable energy must be at least 14 percent. Therefore, it is needed to radically increase the speed of implementation of energy from renewable sources, which could be achieved by implementation of biomass energy. This paper addresses the possible role of biomass in the Dutch energy sector by implementing an interdisciplinary approach containing the earth sciences, political and business/economic disciplines. Regarding the earth sciences discipline, biomass cannot be considered carbon neutral. Besides, it could impose negative effects on food security, land degradation, and pollution of water bodies. The economics point of view shows that producing energy crops in the Netherlands is possible, but it may be at the expense of current agricultural production. Moreover, there is an ethical issue whether energy crops should replace traditional food crops, it may be more profitable for investors but has negative consequences for environmental impact and food security. Concerning the political side of the problem, a transition towards a sustainable energy supply with the use of biomass is very expensive, but less than closing the brand-new coal-based power plants. The Dutch government is not willing to close these plants. Therefore, biomass energy could be useful to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals. However, due to the possibly large consequences, it is not advised to make biomass play a large role in the energy transition.

(3)

1. Introduction

In June 2015, a Dutch organisation for sustainability and innovation, Urgenda, sued the Dutch government for not trying aggressively combat climate change (IEEFA, 2016). The District Court of The Hague ruled in favour of Urgenda and the government has since passed a resolution calling for halving the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions before 2030 (IEEFA, 2016).

Subsequently, a few months later at the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) in December 2015, 195 countries signed an agreement, including the Netherlands, in which they agreed upon to lower the CO2 emissions and increase the use of renewable energy by 2020.

The Netherlands however, is not doing well in increasing the amount of renewable energy. In 2015, the amount of renewable energy in the Netherlands has only been increased by 0,3 percent to a total of 5,8 percent in 2014. In 2016 this number increased by 0,2 percent to a total of 6,0 percent, thus the share of renewable energy remained almost the same (CBS, 2016; CBS-II, 2017). In other words, 94 percent of the energy production is not sustainable and can therefore be seen as harmful to the environment.

According to the outcome of the PCA, the amount of renewable energy production in the Netherlands should be 14 percent by 2020. Yet, considering the current developments of the last two years and with only three years left, there is much to do to reach this 14 percent (CBS-II, 2017). A report from the New Climate Institute, commissioned by Greenpeace Netherlands, concluded that to achieve the goals of the PCA, keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius by 2050, the Netherlands must reduce all industry– and energy related CO2 emissions. This means that the

emissions must drop to zero between 2025 and 2035 (New Climate Institute, 2016). And what’s more, all coal-based power facilities in the Netherlands must close to reach the PCA goals. Considering that the coal-based power facilities generate the largest amount of energy in the Netherlands, the Dutch government recently have opened a new coal-based power plant. In light of the PCA goals, this is a step away from a sustainable future.

In the Netherlands, the largest source of renewable energy is derived from biomass energy. Of all renewable energy produced in the Netherlands in 2016, 63 percent is produced from biomass (CBS-II, 2017). Biomass energy production is generated using organic materials such as plants, trees, algae and crops (McKendry, 2002). The largest amount of biomass energy is used by waste incineration plants, which initially was done by co-firing biomass in power plants, subsidized by the government (CBS-II, 2017). As the production of biomass energy requires a lot of organic material, this can lead to a declining food security and can create pressure not only on food security, but also on ancient forests (Hassuani et al., 2005).

This report will try to find out more about the energy transition in the Dutch energy sector, focusing on the part that biomass contributes in the transition. The research question that this report will try to answer is: “What potential role does biomass play in a sustainable Dutch energy production?”.

Since many stakeholders are involved in the matter of an energy transition, the research question can be answered in an interdisciplinary way. Looking at this topic from only one discipline will not be sufficient, as politics, law makers, economists, and environmental scientist all approach this topic in another way.

The topic of an energy transition to a sustainable state regarding biomass is approached by three different disciplines; earth sciences, politics and business. The earth science discipline will discuss topics as land degradation, food security, production techniques and atmospheric pollution. The business discipline on their hand will address the profitability of biomass and reasons why to invest and finally the politic discipline will be about opportunities for the Dutch government and current plans about their transition towards a sustainable energy supply. All together the results from these discussed topics will answer the research question.

(5)

First the theoretical framework will be presented, in which all disciplines present their own theories. Followed by the problem definition and the interdisciplinary integration. The selected methods and results will be presented after. Finally, the discussion and conclusion will be discussed.

(6)

2. Theoretical Framework

In this section, the theories concerning the energy transition from coal to biomass in Dutch power plants will be discussed by dividing them in sub disciplines. This interdisciplinary view results in different theories per discipline. Together they will form the problem of this study. Although, the theories are divided in disciplines, all theories are correlated to each other in a direct or indirect way. First several theories regarding the earth sciences will be presented, followed by theories from an economic/business point of view and finally the theories from a political viewing point.

2.1 Environmental Impacts of Biomass

The main widely known environmental effect of biomass energy production is the GHG emission which takes place when burning biomass. When considering air pollution, there is a widely accepted theory that biomass is a sustainable replacement for coal in terms of air pollution (Repo et al., 2011). However, Repo et al. (2011) have concluded that this theory is not completely accurate. Although, it is true that the carbon dioxide pollution is less high with the usage of biomass than the amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere when coals are used for combustion (Kluts et al., 2017). Moreover, it is also true that a closed system is created when the amount of biomass used for combustion is equal to the number of trees planted back in nature (Repo et al., 2011), an important point of discussion is missed. Repo et al. (2011) have found that the idea of a closed system is only correct on a large time scale, due to the growth time of for examples the trees from ancient forests.

Aside from the impact of air pollution, less known effects of biomass energy could be just as severe. Large-scale implementation of crop based biomass energy could enhance a decline in food security due to the use of potential food as resource for power plants. Relations have been found between the increasing demand for crop based biomass energy and the increase in international food prices (Ewing & Msangi, 2009). Implementation of strict regulation on the use of farmland and crops is therefore very important in order to prevent the prices for food to rise in the future and affect food security.

Moreover, using the potential food as biomass also leads to land degradation as the residues (the part of a crop that is left on the field when it is harvested) and thus all the nutrients are scraped of the land for usage as well (Hassuani et al., 2005) This process leads to less nutrient rich soil, which directly leads to the use of more fertilizers (Hassuani et al., 2005). Besides the use of crops, whole ancient forests are taken down for the woods that can be used as biomass. This process does not only affect environmental properties, but also biodiversity in many areas (Hassuani et al., 2005).

Furthermore, an increase in cultivation of energy crops can lead to an increase in use of fertilizers. Over usage of especially Nitrogen (N) and Phosphor (P) has multiple consequences. First of all, the nutrient P is diminishing and not evenly distributed on earth. Morocco has over 90% of the total remaining P, this means that they can determine the price, which is expected to rise extremely as the stock is declining. Furthermore, runoff of nutrients into the ocean can lead to eutrophication. Eutrophication is the event of enormous algal growth which blocks the light from reaching deeper waters. This eventually leads to a decrease in aquatic life.

2.2 The Investing Potentials of Biomass Energy

The step from fossil fuel energy production to renewable energy production is not easy. Not only are there technological pitfalls in the process, another is financing it. By removing an energy source and replacing it with another energy source, an entire economy system is being replaced. How to make renewable energy interesting for potential investors? As funding of renewable energy can be very expensive.

There are two main concepts regarding the biomass energy producing. This is the concept of the potential total biomass energy that can be generated. The other concept is regarding the potential available resources (organic material) of biomass that can be used to generate the potential biomass energy.

(7)

Not only can biomass be used to produce energy, it also can be used in the transport sector, using biofuels (Van Dam et al, 2007). An increase of energy crop production is in need for large areas in Europe. However, since good quality land is scarce, the production of biofuels need to compete with the production of food crops. Expanding the production of biofuels will only appear when the prices can go up against the prices of fossil fuels. In the future, low cost of biofuels is required. Only then biomass energy production can have a potential of being worthwhile (Van Dam et al, 2007).

In Central and Eastern Europe, EU energy policies and agriculture are expanding and can offer potentials to produce energy crops. In these areas, the low labour cost and low agricultural cost in contrast with Western European countries are ideal. What is more, there is a large amount of land available to produce these energy crops. The surplus of land in Central and Eastern Europe can foresee attractive economic biomass supplies. This may result in alternative economic activities in the rural areas. Considering these given facts, there might be a bright future to produce biomass which can serve Europe’s energy demands (Van Dam et al., 2007).

A study from Van Dam et al. (2007) show that the production costs of biomass decrease with an increasing land quality. This is because high yields (and therefore high energy potential) can be accomplished with better quality of land. For this reason, the areas with good land quality are interesting for biomass production. The question is whether these areas will be more profitable for food crop production or for energy crop production.

Another concept is the profitability of biomass production. Whether governments and other parties that are interested will invest, depends on the profitability of the biomass energy production. A study from Walsh et al. (2003) show that per estimated 17 million ha of bioenergy crops, annually yield 171 million dry tonnes of biomass. They state that this is produced at a profit higher than traditional use of agricultural land. For switchgrass at a price of $44/dry tonne is more profitable than current production of crops. This also goes for an area of 17 million ha of rural land. This production of biomass energy could cover 7,3% of the US energy needs (Bryan et al., 2008; Walsh et al., 2003). Incomes of farms that produce energy crops could annually increase by $6 billion (Walsh et al., 2003).

2.3 Political statements on the use of biomass in power plants

Relative to the rest of Europe, the Dutch energy sector is performing poorly; whereas Sweden uses less than 5% non-renewable energy sources, the Dutch energy supply exists of more that 80% non renewable energy sources in 2012 (CBS, 2015). Hence the Netherlands faces a big challenge while the Urgenda-lawsuit and the Paris Agreement of 2015 make it impossible for the Dutch to maintain their non-renewable sources based energy supply. The New Climate Institute (2016) claims that in order to achieve to goal of the Paris Agreement to hold back global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, all energy- and industry-related CO2-emissions need to drop to zero between 2025 and 2035.

Coal-based power plants account for approximately 30% of the non-renewable energy sources, and is expected to grow due to opening of three brand new power plants. But obviously, if all energy- and industry-related CO2-emissions need to drop to zero, it is necessary that the use of coal-based energy will decrease.

The CE Delft (2016) has done research on how to cut back carbon emissions of the modern coal-based power plants in the Netherlands. According to them, there is only one option which can meet the goal of cutting back all energy- and industry-related CO2-emissions to zero, which is stated in the Paris Agreement of 2015. This option includes the capturing of 2,7 Mton carbon while only using biomass in the power plants. This procedure needs a single investment of 1.180 million Euro’s and will cost 400 million Euro’s annually, of which the government accounts for 800 million Euro’s and 315 million Euro’s respectively (CE Delft, 2016).

Obviously this is a lot of money, but closing the power plants, on the other hand, is not financially beneficial either. Spring Associates (2016) did a research on the costs of closing the power plants, and concluded that if all coal-based power plants have to close in 2020, it will result in an impairment of 3,3 billion Euro’s. As the government, according to CE Delft (2016), only accounts for a single payment of 800 million Euro’s and an annual payment of 315 million Euro’s, biomass can be

(8)

used in the coal-based power plants for almost 8 years before it costs as much as immediately closing the coal-based power plants.

But how does the Dutch government look at the new coal-based power plants? The ‘Energieagenda’ is a report by the ministry of Economic Businesses, in which the long-term goals regarding a more sustainable energy-supply are stated (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2016). One of the biggest goals is that of the reduction of CO2-emissions towards almost zero. In this report the Emission Trading System (ETS) is mentioned quite often. The Dutch government sees it as a useful way of reducing emissions, but that is not very effective at the moment because the Dutch power plants are very efficient and there is a surplus in supply of the rights to emit. On the other hand, the Dutch government sees the problem regarding climate change as an opportunity for the Dutch economy to benefit from this (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2016). That is why they see it as a necessity that they have to create policies besides the ETS.

Biomass is mentioned a few times in the report, as they state that biomass can help the Netherlands towards a negative emissions of CO2, but that the prices will rise. The coal plants are only mention once in the report, and not in a positive position regarding closing the plants. They claim that when the brand new coal-based power plants are closed, the energy will be imported from less efficient plants. This will be even worse for the emissions of CO2, that is why they claim that rules and regulation on European level is necessary.

(9)

3. Problem Definition

As already mentioned in the introduction, the Netherlands are far behind their goals for a more sustainable energy supply, as renewable energy currently accounts for only 5,8% of their total energy production (CBS, 2016). Hence, big steps need to be undertaken in order to achieve these goals. However, the question is how they should act; how to allocate their resources, and where to invest? As discussed above, this research paper will focus on biomass, to examine whether biomass is a logic step towards a more sustainable energy supply, or if biomass should be left behind and the focus must be shifted towards another renewable energy source. With the research, the advantages and/or disadvantages of biomass will be discussed in an interdisciplinary way. An interdisciplinary research is needed because the problem is complex and has effect on multiple stakeholders, hence the research would not be complete if not all perspectives are included. The interdisciplinary research will be based on the following research question: ‘What potential role does biomass play in the Dutch energy production?’.

The issue of a transition towards a more sustainable energy supply is a very complex problem in the Netherlands. A problem is complex when there are a large numbers of elements connected to and interacting with each other in many different ways (Mason, 2008). Those elements can be everything from humans to organizations, which both play an important role within our problem. One other property of a complex problem is the ‘observer dependence’, which means that the complexity can not be captured within one perspective. This is very much the case within our research: it is needed to know how biomass works, what the consequences of biomass regarding soil degradation and food security are, but also what the consequences are for the economy, and how the government can support a transition with rules and regulations.

Due to the complexity of the issue, the research question will be answered interdisciplinary, in which every discipline has its own part. The first part will highlight the consequences for the environment, things like food security, soil degradation, and air pollution. After that, a business perspective will be used to look at the problem and the costs and benefits of a transition towards a biomass-based energy supply are investigated. Lastly, the opportunities of biomass for the government will be highlighted.

As we believe that it is impossible to come up with an answer to the research question out of the blue, we have chosen to answer the question for each discipline individually. And after that, we can look at the results and integrate the different answers in to one final answer to the research question.

(10)

4. Interdisciplinary Integration

As this report is described from an interdisciplinary approach, not all the theories and findings can be compared to each other. Therefore, integration techniques are required. There are several integration techniques available. For this report, an organization integrating technique could be used. This involves combining the different domains under one umbrella of common understanding. Especially since politics with laws and regulations and (business) economics are closely intertwined, different concepts that are defined all complement each other. The different domains, business, politics and earth sciences in which several impacts on soil and air pollution are discussed, all have some common ground when placing it in a broader scope.

Earth science domain stresses the effect on food security, impact on soils and land degradation, pollution of water bodies and impact on the atmosphere. The economic (business) domain focuses on the production potentials and the profitability of energy crops for biomass, and finally options for investments of biomass production. The political domain stresses the different actors involved in this issue and the laws and regulations that are concerned with these issues. Concepts as food security and impact on soils and atmosphere at first sight may only concern the earth science domain, but as it is placed in a broader scope, politics get involved as well. The government acts in the interest of its citizens, their laws and regulations make sure the basic needs of food and food security are met. The government must provide its citizens with a clean and sustainable future. Therefore, it must invest in new sustainable energy sources. Biomass energy could be a solution, but as it requires

a lot of organic material, the food security might become endangered. Although there is a high potential using energy crops and forest woods, this might have a stressing impact on the soil and can cause land degradation.

On the other hand, the economic domain provides a view on the costs of biomass energy production. And whether it is profitable for stakeholders and worthwhile investing in. This economic domain is involved with the political domain as one of the important stakeholders is the government which decides whether biomass production should be used in the future on a large scale.

Fig. 1. There are several colours that represent the different dimensions. Green for earth sciences, blue for economic/business and grey for political. Orange represents the concept of biomass production which is related to all three dimensions.

(11)

5. Methods

In order to make an assessment on the potential role of biomass in the Dutch energy production, data sources ranging from studies on biomass energy production and the effects to different environmental dimensions, to political policies and governance reports are needed. The type of data will predominantly be peer reviewed data. Therefore, the main focus of this report will be a literature based research. The use of peer reviewed literature will be sufficient, because datasets, on for example CO2 emission of biomass energy production, are widely available in various scientific

platforms.

Moreover, energy companies which use biomass to produce energy are big firms with a reputation of being heavy polluters due to use of coals and natural gas. Therefore, we believe it to be difficult to arrange interviews or obtain data directly from the firms.

In addition, the interview, which was discussed in the research proposal, with Remco Dijkstra, number 27 on the VVD election list, have not been taken place, due to the time limit. The interview would have been a proper addition to this report, as Remco Dijkstra spoke out against the use of biomass energy and thus undermining the official opinion of the VVD regarding this subject.

Furthermore, this paragraph will contain the methods of research per discipline. The methods for integrating the disciplines in an interdisciplinary way will be discussed in the interdisciplinary integration.

5.1 Earth sciences

The role of this discipline in the interdisciplinary analysis is to give a scientific background to the sustainability of the use of biomass. Therefore, for the analysis of atmospheric pollution, food security, water pollution and land degradation, solely peer reviewed literature is used. This literature contains mostly peer reviewed papers on the sustainability of biomass in general. There were no papers found on a specific case, i.e. the Dutch energy production system.

The subjects which were chosen for this research are based on the obtained knowledge on biomass during the major earth sciences.

5.2 Economic/business

This discipline gives an insight on the costs and benefits of biomass energy production. While investigating this topic, the concepts of production potentials and profitability were used to obtain a clear oversight on this topic. For this research, only academic literature is used. The articles used concerned case studies in the Central –and Eastern parts of Europe and in the United States. Unfortunately, no articles were found with similar studies that were conducted in the Netherlands.

5.2 Politics

The discipline of politics gives an insight on whether biomass is even possible in the Netherlands. What will be the costs and benefits for Dutch economy, and how will the citizens suffer of benefit from those consequences. For this part of the research, articles about coal-based power plants in the Netherlands and the ‘Energieagenda’ have been used. The ‘Energieagenda’ is a report of the Dutch Ministry of Economics on how they will deal with the climate change and the Paris Agreement.

(12)

6. Results

In this section the results of each discipline will be given. Furthermore, the comparison of the disciplines will be discussed in the interdisciplinary analysis, which is given in the discussion. Firstly, two sections will focus on the atmospheric and other environmental effects of biomass energy, where after the results on the investing potentials and politics of the case will be presented.

7.1. Impacts on the atmosphere

The transition from the use of solely coal to the use of co-firing forest biomass and coal in power plants does not terminate the (anthropogenic) GHG emissions, as any form of combustion will have by-products in the form of (anthropogenic) GHG emission (Buhre et al., 2005). However, a fierce debate persists on what type of GHG in biomass can be characterized as anthropogenic-GHGs (Cherubini et al., 2011; Schulze et al., 2012). Johnson (2014) for instance states that under certain conditions biomass fuels can contain actually more carbon than fossil fuels. Whilst other authors claim that the use of forest biomass in power plants can be considered a renewable energy alternative to fossil fuels under the condition that the harvested land remains forest cover (Graham et al., 1992; Schlamadinger et al., 1995; Domke et al., 2012). This paragraph will therefore discuss whether the atmospheric pollution when using biomass in power plants is lower than the pollution of the conventional coal combustion.

Khorsidi et al. (2013) studied the atmospheric impact of co-firing biomass and coal in a 500 MW coal based power plant, which is comparable to the Dutch power plants. They concluded that the emission of SOX, NOX and trace metals reduce due to co-firing. Moreover, a study by Loeffler &

Anderson (2013) showed that when 20% forest biomass is used in the co-firing combustion the total GHG emission will decrease by 15% for CO2, 95% for CH4, 18% for NOX, 27% for SOX and 82% for

particulate matter10 (PM10). PM10 can be defined as particles with a diameter of less than 10

micrometres. Although the presented data is based on forest biomass multiple similar studies have shown comparable, positive outcomes for other types of biomass (Verma et al., 2017).

The given arguments form partly the controversy of the theory. The argument that co-firing forest biomass and coal reduce the NOX and SOX is widely accepted among (Verma et al., 2017). This

is due to the low amounts of NOX and SOX in forest biomass (Demirbaş, 2003). However, the

argument that CO2 emission will decrease when using co-firing combustion is more arguable.

Prominent scientific organisations for carbon footprinting presume that biomass is inherently carbon neutral (Renewable Energy Directive, 2008; PAS 2050, 2008; Gilmour et al., 2009). Whilst the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resource Institute (WBCSD, 2004; WRI, 2006; WRI, 2007) consider that recognising biomass as carbon neutral problematic.

A study by Rabl et al. (2007) conducted a survey of over 100 publications on biomass by 56 scientists, 25 researchers estimated wood to be carbon neutral. The studies presume forest biomass neutral in either of two approaches: implicit sequestration or explicit sequestration (Johnson, 2014). The implicit Sequestration

method ignores the CO2 flux

within forest biomass (Rabl et al., 2007). This means that CO2

input equals CO2 output, i.e.

the CO2 flux is zero. The other

approach uses a sequestration credit that is nearly equal to the combustion emission (Werner et al., 2003). Resulting in a combustion footprint of zero or close to zero, i.e.

(13)

Another argument on why forest biomass should not be accounted as carbon neutral is according to Johnson (2014) that this theory defies common sense. If a tree is harvested it reduces carbon stocks (the amount of carbon that is not in the atmosphere). Current approaches do not recognize this. For example, if it is assumed that there is carbon neutrality, then it makes no difference to the carbon footprint whether a forest is standing or chopped down for fuel wood as long as the forest is allowed to regrow (Rabl et al., 2007). Moreover, presumed carbon neutrality often leads to an underestimation of the carbon stocks. For instance, if forest A is completely harvested for biofuel usage, the carbon stock is assumed to be equal to the carbon stock of forest A if it is preserved (Johnson, 2014). Whilst common sense would tell that the preserved forest has a larger carbon stock than a chopped down forest.

Furthermore, forest biomass should not be seen as carbon neutral due to time (Johnson, 2014). Loeffler & Anderson (2013) stated that forest biomass is carbon neutral due to an implicit sequestration method, under the condition that the forest is allowed to regrow. This, however, takes time. This argument does not consider the time it takes to let a forest return to its original state. According to Liebsch et al. (2008) it takes an average forest 167 years before it is returned to the same state before a disturbance. This means indirectly that current emission of biomass GHGs will be in the atmosphere for 167 years. An amount of years that exceeds the time limit before the critical boundary of 500 ppm CO2 will be exceeded (IPCC, 2014).

7.2 Less known environmental impact

There are three impacts to the environment which are likely to develop when crop based biomass energy is implemented on a large scale. The first one is related to food security. Relations have been found between the increasing demand for crop based biomass energy and the increase in international food prices (Ewing & Msangi, 2009). Crops originated from agricultural land formerly used for food production, end up being burned up in the power plants, putting pressure on the world’s food supply and prices (Dodić et al. 2010). It is found that in a free market economy biomass energy specified crops will even displace crops used for food (Field et al. 2008). Therefore, it is important to have strict regulations on the use of crops for biomass energy. There are ways to prevent these potential problems regarding food security such as the use of abandoned agricultural land or pasture for the energy crops to be grown, but that must be strictly controlled.

The second impact regards to land degradation when biomass from crop residue is used. With a high removal of crop residue from the soil surface, the combination of increased soil erosion and less nutrient availability result in overall degradation of the soil, causing the land to be less productive and exhaustion of the soil will take place sooner (Hassuani et al. 2005). When continuing to use these degrading areas, more fertilizer must be used in order to maintain high productivity and yield of the farmland (Hassuani et al. 2005). Increase in fertilizer use can have harmful effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health which will be discussed hereafter. Therefore, it is important to leave sufficient crop residue on the soil when using it for biomass energy, because even with conservative residue removal this method can provide close to the amount of biomass produced on designated agricultural areas (Tilman et al. 2009).

The third effect is the pollution of water bodies due to increased nutrient leaching into water bodies (Beman et al. 2005). This is the most indirect effect, due to the fact that several problems in the agricultural sector also play a role in this topic. Pollution of water bodies can occur in both biomasses from crop residue as well as biomass from designated crop production and can be seen as a result of soil degradation and the increase in land used for agriculture. The increase in input of nutrients into water bodies can cause disastrous effects on aquatic ecosystems and the welfare of humans (Carpenter et al. 1998). High concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen are found to be the cause of eutrophication of surface waters and harmful algae blooms (Carpenter et al. 1998). Effects of large scale eutrophication are large scale death of bottom living organisms, altering of the benthic faunal communities and affecting fish habitat (Conley et al. 2011). Furthermore, human health can be harmed as well due to water contamination of various toxins (Zanchett & Oliveira-Filho, 2013).

(14)

7.3 Investing potentials

From an economic perspective, biomass production is very much dependent on financial aspects and potentials for investors. The concepts of production potentials and profitability of biomass production for investors are important.

As for the biomass production potential, in Central – and Eastern European countries the production potential for energy crops is 83 to 94 percent. Yet to obtain this high potential, 78 percent of current agricultural land must be used to produce energy crops (Van Dam et al., 2007). The demand for food in the future will increase due to an increase in world population so it is doubtful whether these numbers can be achieved. It is more a matter of ethics, rather than if the potentials can be met. Besides, these numbers only apply for Central –and Eastern Europe and not for smaller countries in the EU like the Netherlands.

When it comes to the profitability of biomass production, a study done in the US found that per estimated 17 million ha of bioenergy crops, the annual yield is 171 million dry tonnes of biomass. This yield is produced with a higher profit that the original use of agricultural land, producing food crops (Walsh et al., 2003). For switchgrass at a price of $44/dry tonne for an area of 17 million ha of rural land, the profits are also higher than production of current crops.

The operational costs for biomass production depends on the availability of biomass. High quality land results in higher yields per unit land are profitable for usage. The income per ha biomass for power plants is higher than the income per ha for food production. This means that from the point of view of an investor, investing in biomass crops is a considerable option. Keeping in mind that this is solely looking at the financial and investing part. Yet, the ethical debate remains

Although in the US the use of bioenergy could increase profits in agriculture and yields, does not means that this will be the same for Europe, let alone the Netherlands. For the rural areas with high potential of transforming traditional agriculture into energy crops agriculture, it may be more interesting for interested parties to invest in biomass agriculture. But for smaller countries, who do not have this potential, other renewable energy sources may be more efficient and worth considering.

From an economic perspective regarding the role of biomass in a Dutch energy sector, there still are some uncertainties. First, the production potentials of bio crops for countries with large areas of high quality arable land are larger than for smaller countries like the Netherlands. Producing energy crops in the Netherlands is possible, but it may be at expense of current agricultural production. Also, energy crops must be produced in a more sustainable way, they should be optimized, not maximized (Sims et al. 2006).

Second, the profits of energy crops may be higher than profits from traditional crops. But there is an ethical debate alongside of it, whether the energy crops should replace traditional food crops. For investors, producing energy crops is profitable, but other constraints regarding environmental damage and food security are not considered in this matter.

7.4 Implications for the Dutch government

The consequences of biomass for the Dutch government are very important in the research whether biomass can play an important role in the transition towards a sustainable energy supply. The rules and regulations that are necessary for this transition will have to be made and controlled by the government. But is the Dutch government somewhat interested in the use of biomass?

First of all, a transition towards a sustainable energy supply with the use of biomass is very expensive. According to the CE Delft (2016), 2,7 Mton carbon has to be captured and the power plants should only use biomass in order to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement. The price of this transition will be a single investment of 1.180 million Euro’s and will cost 400 million Euro’s annually. The Dutch government will not account for all of this, they will eventually pay 800 million Euro’s once and after that 315 million Euro’s per annum. It has to be said that this research does not include the financial status of the Dutch government or the allocation of their resources. The cost of the

(15)

alternatives of biomass is also not taken into consideration within this research. But simply closing the power plants will be very financially unbeneficial as it will result in an impairment of 3,3 billion Euro’s (Springs Associates, 2016). This would mean that biomass can be used in the power plants for almost 8 years before it costs as much as an immediate shutdown of the power plants.

So in the first part the costs of using biomass for the Dutch government have been discussed. But besides that, it is important to look at their current perspective on biomass. The long-term goals regarding a more sustainable energy supply are stated in the ‘Energieagenda’, which is written by the Dutch Ministry of Economics (2016). Biomass is only mentioned a few times in the 120 pages long report and there is not a concrete plan about using biomass as a sustainable energy source. Closing the coal-based power plants is used only once in the report, and the Ministry of Economics is not positive about it. They claim that if the power plants are closed, the energy gets imported from less efficient plants, which is only worse for the goals of the PCA. They claim that European rules and regulations are necessary (Ministry of Economics, 2016).

According to the ‘Energieagenda’ the Dutch government is very passive in taking action against emitting CO2. The coal-based power plants are very beneficial for the Dutch government and

they are not willing to give that up. Only as the urge of the problem increases, and the European Union have to step in with actually working rules and regulation, the Dutch government is willing to alter their energy sources.

The research question: ‘What potential role does biomass play in a sustainable Dutch energy production?’ is hard to answer with a political perspective, as the Dutch government is not willing to go through such far-reaching changes. Biomass can play an important role in the transition towards a sustainable energy supply due to an unavoidable shutdown of the power plants. However, the Dutch government is too passive to make those changes.

(16)

7. Discussion

In this section the results of the different disciplines will be compared and discussed. First, an interdisciplinary analysis is given. Next, the points of discussion of the overall research are given.

8.1 Interdisciplinary Analysis

In order to create an overview whether biomass energy is suited to replace coal as fuel for power plants, an interdisciplinary analysis has to be made. In this paper the environmental impacts, economic feasibility and political statements considering biomass energy have been discussed.

First of all, when looking at the environmental impacts, it can be concluded that the use of biomass in power plants is controversial. As one can tell there is a fierce debate ongoing on whether co-firing biomass has less GHG emission into the atmosphere than with the usage of solely coal. The arguments given by Johnson (2014) and Rabl et al. (2007) give a reflection on the methods used in multiple publications. They argue that these methods assume that biomass is carbon neutral, whilst this is only the case over a certain amount of time. The fact that the period of time does not play a major role in all publications on co-firing forest biomass, tends to make the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral questionable. In combination with land degradation by using the crop residue, water pollution due to runoff and food security due to the use of potential food for biomass energy, biomass energy from an environmental perspective is not as sustainable as claimed.

Furthermore, the strategy of investors in the production of energy crops for biomass energy is dependent on research to the effects of biomass energy use on the environment result. For investors, producing energy crops is feasible, however, a fierce debate on whether it is ethically responsible considering food security and other environmental impacts withhold investors from producing energy crops on a large scale.

Moreover, apart from the ethical responsibility, investors are also impeded by the Dutch government. The Dutch government is not willing to invest in biomass energy in the long term. Although, the current power plants have to shutdown in order to reach the PCA agreement, use of biomass energy in these power plants are not on the agenda.

As can be derived from the results from different disciplines, all disciplines are interconnected to each other. Only the environmental impacts can be considered as a self-contained research. The acting of the other disciplines, however, are closely related to the outcome of one another.

8.2 Points of Discussion

Next to the points of discussion of each individual discipline. The overall research has some points that needs to be reviewed as well. The first point considers the literature used to obtain knowledge on the use of biomass in power plants. Most of the literature used is based on research that not has been performed in the Netherlands. This means that only a comparison to other countries can be made.

Furthermore, the combination of using literature which have researched the status of biomass use in power plants in other countries and the lack of empirical data which is based on the status in the Netherlands, result in a lack of comparison material and therefore it can corrupt the conclusion of this research. Contacting experts on biomass energy in the Netherlands would increase the liability of the outcome of this research.

The third point of discussion is the fact that the variable space has been taken into account. The amount of energy crops that needs to be produced in order to fulfil the demand to generate enough biomass energy to reach the PCA goals will cost a lot of space. As spoken about in the investing potentials, there is enough space to produce enough energy crops in western and central Europe. In the Netherlands, however, there is no data available to what extent agricultural land is needed.

Lastly, in this research the Dutch economy is not taken into account. When a transition towards biomass energy is made, the economic position of the Netherlands in Europe would possibly

(17)

shift. Nowadays, the Netherlands is a key player in the distribution of gas throughout whole Europe. A transition towards a completely renewable energy supply would harm this position. In order to make a reliable statement on whether the Netherlands should implement biomass energy to reach the PCA goals, a study to a possible shift in the economic position should assessed.

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

As made clear in this research, The Netherlands have to change a lot with regard to their energy supply. For the Dutch to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement of 2015, all industry- and energy related CO2- emissions have to drop to zero between 2025 and 2035 (New Climate Institute, 2016).

Within this research, the possibility of achieving this goal with the help of biomass has been analysed. Due to the size and the complexity of this problem, this research has been done in an interdisciplinary way. The disciplines that have been used are earth sciences, business/economics, and politics. The research question: “What potential role does biomass play in a sustainable Dutch energy production?”, has been answered by all the disciplines individually.

Regarding to the earth sciences discipline, biomass can not be considered carbon neutral. Besides that, it has negative effects on food security, land degradation, and pollutes water bodies. The economics discipline has shown that biomass comes along with some insecurities. Producing energy crops in the Netherlands is possible, but it may be at expense of current agricultural production. Moreover, there is an ethical issue whether energy crops should replace traditional food crops, it may be more profitable for investors but has negative consequences for environmental damage and food security. Concerning the political side of the problem, a transition towards a sustainable energy supply with the use of biomass is very expensive. However, closing the brand new coal-based power plants will cost even more. So taking that in consideration, biomass can be useful for the Netherlands to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement of 2015. However, regarding to their ‘Energieagenda’ (Ministry of Economics, 2016), the Dutch are not willing to close their brand new coal-based power plants and are very passive in changing their way of energy production.

When combining the answers of the disciplines, the research question: ‘What potential role does biomass play in a sustainable Dutch energy production?’ can be answered. The negative consequences of biomass on food security, land degradation and water pollution, together with the poor investment opportunities and the lax attitude of the Dutch government makes the role that biomass can play in a transition towards a sustainable energy supply very small.

However, within this research, the alternatives for biomass have not been taken into consideration. We are not aware of the exact consequences of a transition towards a sustainable energy supply with the use of for example solar energy. When those consequences are even worse with regard to the well-being of the Dutch environment and the Dutch economy, biomass may be the solution with regard to this problem. The consequences of the alternatives of biomass have to be analysed in future research.

Due to the urge of the problem and the fact that Dutch are far behind on their goals regarding the Paris Agreement of 2015, we strongly recommend that the Dutch government takes a more active attitude against climate change.

(18)

References

Beman, J. M., Arrigo, K. R., & Matson, P. A. (2005). Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature, 434(7030), 211.

Buhre, B. J., Elliott, L. K., Sheng, C. D., Gupta, R. P., & Wall, T. F. (2005). Oxy-fuel combustion

technology for coal-fired power generation. Progress in energy and combustion science, 31(4), 283-307.

Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., & Smith, V. H. (1998). Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological applications, 8(3), 559-568.

CBS. (2015). Elektriciteit in Nederland. Retrieved from

https://www.cbs.nl//media/imported/documents/2015/05/2015-elektriciteit-in-nederland.pdf

CBS (2016). Hernieuwbare Energie in Nederland 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2016/39/hernieuwbare-energie-in-nederland

(CBS-I, 2017)Emissies naar lucht door de Nederlandse economie; nationale rekeningen Retereived from the internet 4 okt 2017

http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/publication/?

dm=slnl&pa=83300ned&d1=a&d2=a&d3=0,5,10,15,20-25&vw=t

(CBS-II, 2017) Hernieuwbare Energie in Nederland 2016. Retreived form the internet on 4 Oktober 2017 from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2017/39/hernieuwbare-energie-in-nederland-2016

CE Delft. (2016). CO2-reductie bij een moderne kolencentrale. Retrieved from

https://www.natuurenmilieu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CE_Delft_3J22_CO2-reductie_bij_een_moderne_kolencentrale_Def.pdf

Cherubini, F., Peters, G. P., Berntsen, T., StrØmman, A. H., & Hertwich, E. (2011). CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming.

Gcb Bioenergy, 3(5), 413-426.

Conley, D. J., Carstensen, J., Aigars, J., Axe, P., Bonsdorff, E., Eremina, T., ... & Lannegren, C. (2011). Hypoxia is increasing in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(16), 6777-6783.

Van Dam, J. V., Faaij, A. P. C., Lewandowski, I., & Fischer, G. (2007). Biomass production potentials in Central and Eastern Europe under different scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31(6), 345-366.

Demirbaş, A. (2003). Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal. Energy conversion and management,

44(9), 1465-1479.

Dodić, S. N., Popov, S. D., Dodić, J. M., Ranković, J. A., & Zavargo, Z. Z. (2010). Biomass energy in Vojvodina: Market conditions, environment and food security. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(2), 862-867.

Domke, G. M., Becker, D. R., D’Amato, A. W., Ek, A. R., & Woodall, C. W. (2012). Carbon emissions associated with the procurement and utilization of forest harvest residues for energy, northern Minnesota, USA. biomass and bioenergy, 36, 141-150.

Ewing, M., & Msangi, S. (2009). Biofuels production in developing countries: assessing tradeoffs in welfare and food security. Environmental science & policy, 12(4), 520-528.

(19)

Field, C. B., Campbell, J. E., & Lobell, D. B. (2008). Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends in ecology & evolution, 23(2), 65-72.

Graham, R. L., Wright, L. L., & Turhollow, A. F. (1992). The potential for short-rotation woody crops to reduce US CO2 emissions. Climatic Change, 22(3), 223-238.

Hassuani, S. J., Leal, M. R. L. V., & Macedo, I. (2005). Biomass power generation. Sugar cane bagasse and trash Published by Programa das Nacoes Unidas para o Desenvolvimento and Centro de Technologi a Canavieriva, Peracicaba, Brazil.

IEEFA. (2016). The Dutch Coal Mistake. Retrieved from

http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Dutch-Coal-Mistake_November-2016.pdf

Johnson, E. (2009). Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental

impact assessment review, 29(3), 165-168.

Khorshidi, Z., Ho, M. T., & Wiley, D. E. (2013). Techno-economic study of biomass co-firing with and without CO2 capture in an Australian black coal-fired power plant. Energy Procedia, 37, 6035-6042.

Liebsch, D., Marques, M. C., & Goldenberg, R. (2008). How long does the Atlantic Rain Forest take to recover after a disturbance? Changes in species composition and ecological features during secondary succession. Biological Conservation, 141(6), 1717-1725.

Loeffler, D., & Anderson, N. (2014). Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: A case study in Colorado, USA. Applied Energy, 113, 67-77.

McKendry, P. (2002). Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresource

technology, 83(1), 37-46.

Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2016). Energieagenda. Retrieved from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzameenergie/documenten/rapporten/2016/ 12/07/ea

New Climate Institute. (2016). What does the Paris Agreement mean for climate policy in the

Netherlands?. Retrieved from

http://www.greenpeace.nl/Global/nederland/report/2016/klimaat%20en%20energie/Paris %20Agreement

PAS 2050 (2008). Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI British Standards. ISBN, 978(0), 580.

Rabl, A., Benoist, A., Dron, D., Peuportier, B., Spadaro, J. V., & Zoughaib, A. (2007). How to account for CO 2 emissions from biomass in an LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

12(5), 281-281.

Renewable Energy Directive (2008). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources. COM (2008), 19. Schlamadinger, B., Spitzer, J., Kohlmaier, G. H., & Lüdeke, M. (1995). Carbon balance of bioenergy

from logging residues. Biomass and bioenergy, 8(4), 221-234.

Schulze, E. D., Körner, C., Law, B. E., Haberl, H., & Luyssaert, S. (2012). Large scale bioenergy from ‐ additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. Gcb

Bioenergy, 4(6), 611-616.

Sims, R. E., Hastings, A., Schlamadinger, B., Taylor, G., & Smith, P. (2006). Energy crops: current status and future prospects. Global change biology, 12(11), 2054-2076.

(20)

Spring Associates (2016). Sluiten van de Nederlandse kolencentrales. Retrieved from: http://m.greenpeace.nl/Global/nederland/2016/Persberichten/Rapport%20waarde %20kolencentrales.pdf

Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J. A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., ... & Williams, R. (2009). Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325(5938), 270-271.

Verma, M., Loha, C., Sinha, A. N., & Chatterjee, P. K. (2017). Drying of biomass for utilising in co-firing with coal and its impact on environment–Areview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews.

Walsh, M. E., Daniel, G., Shapouri, H., & Slinsky, S. P. (2003). Bioenergy crop production in the United States: potential quantities, land use changes, and economic impacts on the agricultural sector. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(4), 313-333.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development, et al.

The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard, 1-56973-568-9 World Resources Institute, et al. The greenhouse gas protocol: the land use, land-use change and

forestry guidance for GHG Project Accounting, 1-56973-631-6 (2006)

World Resources Institute, et al. The greenhouse gas protocol: measuring to manage: a guide to designing GHG-accounting and reporting programs, 978-1-56973-671-5 (2007)

Zanchett, G., & Oliveira-Filho, E. C. (2013). Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins: from impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human health to anticarcinogenic effects. Toxins, 5(10), 1896-19

The future of biomass in the Netherlands. An interdisciplinary view on the energy transition towards a sustainable energy supply