Biomass

Biomass is plant or animal mat erial used as fuel t o produce elect ricit y or heat . Examples are
wood, energy crops and wast e from forest s, yards, or farms.[1] Since biomass t echnically can be
used as a fuel direct ly (e.g. wood logs), some people use t he t erms biomass and biofuel
int erchangeably. More oft en t han not , t he word biomass simply denot es t he biological raw
mat erial t he fuel is made of. The word biofuel is usually reserved for liquid or gaseous fuels,
used for t ransport at ion. The U.S. Energy Informat ion Administ rat ion (EIA) follows t his naming
pract ice.[2]

Wood pellets

The IPCC (Int ergovernment al Panel on Climat e Change) defines bioenergy as a renewable form
of energy.[3] In 2017 t he IEA (Int ernat ional Energy Agency) described bioenergy as t he most
import ant source of renewable energy.[a] IEA also argue t hat t he current rat e of bioenergy
deployment is well below t he levels required in low carbon scenarios, and t hat accelerat ed
deployment is urgent ly needed.[b] Researchers have disput ed t hat t he use of forest biomass for
energy is carbon neut ral.[4][5]

Biomass feedstocks

Straw bales

Wood and wood residues is t he largest biomass energy source t oday. Wood can be used as a fuel
direct ly or processed int o pellet fuel or ot her forms of fuels. Ot her plant s can also be used as
fuel, for inst ance corn, swit chgrass, miscant hus and bamboo.[6] The main wast e energy
feedst ocks are wood wast e, agricult ural wast e, municipal solid wast e, manufact uring wast e, and
landfill gas. Sewage sludge is anot her source of biomass. There is ongoing research involving
algae or algae-derived biomass.[7] Ot her biomass feedst ocks are enzymes or bact eria from
various sources, grown in cell cult ures or hydroponics.[8]

Biomass is also used t o produce fibers and indust rial chemicals.

Based on t he source of biomass, biofuels are classified broadly int o t hree major cat egories:[9]

First -generat ion biofuels are derived from food sources, such as sugarcane and corn st arch.
Sugars present in t his biomass are ferment ed t o produce bioet hanol, an alcohol fuel which serve
as an addit ive t o gasoline, or in a fuel cell t o produce elect ricit y.

Second-generat ion biofuels use non-food-based biomass sources such as perennial energy
crops (low input crops), and agricult ural/municipal wast e. Proponent s argue t hat t here is huge
pot ent ial for second generat ion biofuels. Third-generat ion biofuels refer t o t hose derived from
microalgae.
 Biomass conversion

Biomass plant in Scotland.

Upgrading raw biomass t o higher grade fuels can be achieved by different met hods, broadly
classified as t hermal, chemical, or biochemical.

Thermal conversions

Thermal conversion processes use heat as t he dominant mechanism t o upgrade biomass int o a
bet t er and more pract ical fuel. The basic alt ernat ives are t orrefact ion, pyrolysis, and gasificat ion,
t hese are separat ed principally by t he ext ent t o which t he chemical react ions involved are
allowed t o proceed (mainly cont rolled by t he availabilit y of oxygen and conversion
t emperat ure).[10]

There are ot her less common, more experiment al or propriet ary t hermal processes t hat may
offer benefit s, such as hydrot hermal upgrading.[11] Some have been developed for use on high
moist ure cont ent biomass, including aqueous slurries, and allow t hem t o be convert ed int o more
convenient forms.

Chemical conversion

A range of chemical processes may be used t o convert biomass int o ot her forms, such as t o
produce a fuel t hat is more pract ical t o st ore, t ransport and use, or t o exploit some propert y of
t he process it self. Many of t hese processes are based in large part on similar coal-based
processes, such as t he Fischer-Tropsch synt hesis.[12]
Biomass can be convert ed int o mult iple
commodit y chemicals.[13]

Biochemical conversion

As biomass is a nat ural mat erial, many highly efficient biochemical processes have developed in
nat ure t o break down t he molecules of which biomass is composed, and many of t hese
biochemical conversion processes can be harnessed. In most cases, microorganisms are used t o
perform t he conversion process: anaerobic digest ion, ferment at ion, and compost ing.[14]

Glycoside hydrolases are t he enzymes involved in t he degradat ion of t he major fract ion of
biomass, such as polysaccharides present in st arch and lignocellulose. Thermost able variant s are
gaining increasing roles as cat alyst s in biorefining applicat ions, since recalcit rant biomass oft en
needs t hermal t reat ment for more efficient degradat ion.[15]

Electrochemical conversions

Biomass can be direct ly convert ed t o elect rical energy via elect rochemical (elect rocat alyt ic)
oxidat ion of t he mat erial. This can be performed direct ly in a direct carbon fuel cell,[16] direct
liquid fuel cells such as direct et hanol fuel cell, a direct met hanol fuel cell, a direct formic acid
fuel cell, a L-ascorbic Acid Fuel Cell (vit amin C fuel cell),[17] and a microbial fuel cell.[18] The fuel
can also be consumed indirect ly via a fuel cell syst em cont aining a reformer which convert s t he
biomass int o a mixt ure of CO and H2 before it is consumed in t he fuel cell.[19]

Carbon neutrality for forest biomass

GHG emissions from wood pellet production and transport (Hanssen et al. 2017).[20]
IEA defines carbon neut ralit y and carbon negat ivit y like so: «Carbon neut ralit y, or 'net zero,' means
t hat any CO2 released int o t he at mosphere from human act ivit y is balanced by an equivalent
amount being removed. Becoming carbon negat ive requires a company, sect or or count ry t o
remove more CO2 from t he at mosphere t han it emit s.» [21] The act ual carbon int ensit y of biomass
varies wit h product ion t echniques and t ransport at ion lengt hs. According t o t he EU, t ypical
greenhouse gas emissions savings when replacing fossil fuels wit h wood pellet s from forest
residues is 77% when t he t ransport dist ance is bet ween 0 and 500 km, also 77% when t he
t ransport dist ance is bet ween 500 and 2500 km, 75% when t he dist ance is bet ween 2500 and 10
000 km, and 69% when t he dist ance is above 10 000 km. When st emwood is used, t he savings
change only marginally, from bet ween 70 and 77%. When wood indust ry residues are used,
savings increase t o bet ween 79 and 87%.[c]

Likewise, Hanssen et al. argue t hat greenhouse gas emissions savings from wood pellet s
produced in t he US sout heast and shipped t o t he EU is bet ween 65 and 75%, compared t o fossil
fuels.[d] They est imat e t hat average net GHG emissions from wood pellet s import ed from t he
USA and burnt for elect ricit y in t he EU amount s t o approximat ely 0.2 kg CO2 equivalent s per kWh,
while average emissions from t he mix of fossil fuels t hat is current ly burnt for elect ricit y in t he
EU amount s t o 0.67 kg CO2-eq per kWh (see chart on t he right ). Ocean t ransport emissions
amount s t o 7% of t he fossil fuel mix emissions per produced kWh (equivalent t o 93 kg CO2-eq/t
vs 1288 kg CO2/t ).[22]

IEA Bioenergy est imat es t hat in a scenario where Canadian wood pellet s are used t o t ot ally
replace coal use in a European coal plant , t he specific emissions originat ing from ocean t ransport
of t he pellet s, going from Vancouver t o Rot t erdam, amount s t o approximat ely 2% of t he plant 's
t ot al coal-relat ed emissions.[23]

More CO2 from wood combustion than coal combustion

When combust ed in combust ion facilit ies wit h t he same heat -t o-elect ricit y conversion
efficiency, oven dry wood emit s slight ly less CO2 per unit of heat produced, compared t o oven
dry coal.[e] However, many biomass combust ion facilit ies are relat ively small and inefficient ,
compared t o t he t ypically much larger coal plant s. Furt her, raw biomass can have higher moist ure
cont ent compared t o some common coal t ypes. When t his is t he case, more of t he wood’s
inherent energy must be spent solely on evaporat ing moist ure, compared t o t he drier coal, which
means t hat t he amount of CO2 emit t ed per unit of produced heat will be higher.
Coal port in Russia.

Some research groups (e.g. Chat ham House) t herefore argue t hat «[...] t he use of woody biomass
for energy will release higher levels of emissions t han coal […].» [24]

How much «ext ra» CO2 t hat is released depends on local fact ors. Some research groups
est imat e relat ively low ext ra emissions. IEA Bioenergy for inst ance est imat es 10%.[25] The
bioenergy consult ant group Fut ureMet rics argue t hat wood pellet s wit h 6% moist ure cont ent
emit s 22% less CO2 for t he same amount of produced heat , compared t o sub-bit uminous coal
wit h 15% moist ure, when bot h fuels are combust ed in facilit ies wit h t he same conversion
efficiency (here 37%).[f] Likewise, t hey st at e t hat «[…] dried wood at MC’s [moist ure cont ent ]
below 20% have t he same or less CO2 emission per MMBTU [million Brit ish t hermal unit s] as most
coal. Wood pellet s at under 10% MC result in less CO2 emission t han any coal under ot herwise
equal circumst ances.» [26] (Moist ure cont ent in wood pellet s is usually below 10%, as defined in
t he ISO st andard 17225-2:2014.)[27] However, when raw wood chips are used inst ead (45%
moist ure cont ent ), t his wood biomass emit s 9% more CO2 t han coal in general, for t he same
amount of produced heat .[26] According t o Indiana Cent er for Coal Technology Research, t he
coal t ype ant hracit e t ypically cont ains below 15% moist ure, while bit uminous cont ains 2–15%,
sub-bit uminous 10–45%, and lignit e 30–60%.[28] The most common coal t ype in Europe is
lignit e.[29]

Ot her research groups est imat e relat ively high ext ra emissions. The Manomet Cent er for
Conservat ion Sciences for inst ance, argue t hat for smaller scale ut ilit ies, wit h 32% conversion
efficiency for coal, and 20-25% for biomass, coal emissions are 31% less t han for wood chips.
Assumed moist ure cont ent for wood chips is 45%, as above. The assumed moist ure cont ent for
coal is not provided.[30]
The IPCC (Int ergovernment al Panel on Climat e Change) put t heir «ext ra CO2» est imat es for
biomass at roughly 16% ext ra for wood over coal in general, somewhere in t he middle compared
t o t he est imat es above.[g] They argue t hat focusing on gross emissions misses t he point , what
count s is t he net effect of emissions and absorpt ion t aken t oget her: «Est imat ing gross
emissions only, creat es a dist ort ed represent at ion of human impact s on t he land sect or carbon
cycle. While forest harvest for t imber and fuelwood and land-use change (deforest at ion)
cont ribut e t o gross emissions, t o quant ify impact s on t he at mosphere, it is necessary t o
est imat e net emissions, t hat is, t he balance of gross emissions and gross removals of carbon
from t he at mosphere t hrough forest regrowt h […].» [31]

Wood pellet mill in Germany.

IEA Bioenergy provide a similar argument : «It is incorrect t o det ermine t he climat e change effect
of using biomass for energy by comparing GHG emissions at t he point of combust ion.» [25] They
also argue t hat «[…] t he misplaced focus on emissions at t he point of combust ion blurs t he
dist inct ion bet ween fossil and biogenic carbon, and it prevent s proper evaluat ion of how
displacement of fossil fuels wit h biomass affect s t he development of at mospheric GHG
concent rat ions.» [32] IEA Bioenergy conclude t hat t he addit ional CO2 from biomass «[…] is
irrelevant if t he biomass is derived from sust ainably managed forest s.» [25]

What is sust ainable managed forest s? The IPCC writ es: «Sust ainable Forest Management (SFM)
is defined as ‘t he st ewardship and use of forest s and forest lands in a way, and at a rat e, t hat
maint ains t heir biodiversit y, product ivit y, regenerat ion capacit y, vit alit y and t heir pot ent ial t o
fulfill, now and in t he fut ure, relevant ecological, economic and social funct ions, at local, nat ional,
and global levels, and t hat does not cause damage t o ot her ecosyst ems’ […]. This SFM definit ion
was developed by t he Minist erial Conference on t he Prot ect ion of Forest s in Europe and has
since been adopt ed by t he Food and Agricult ure Organizat ion [of t he Unit ed Nat ions (FAO)].» [33]
Furt her, IPCC writ es: «Sust ainable forest management can prevent deforest at ion, maint ain and
enhance carbon sinks and can cont ribut e t owards GHG emissions-reduct ion goals. Sust ainable
forest management generat es socio-economic benefit s, and provides fibre, t imber and biomass
t o meet societ y’s growing needs.» [34]

In t he cont ext of CO2 mit igat ion, t he key measure regarding sust ainabilit y is t he size of t he
forest carbon st ock. In a research paper for FAO, Reid Miner writ es: «The core object ive of all
sust ainable management programmes in product ion forest s is t o achieve a long-t erm balance
bet ween harvest ing and regrowt h. […] [T]he pract ical effect of maint aining a balance bet ween
harvest ing and regrowt h is t o keep long-t erm carbon st ocks st able in managed forest s.» [35]

Globally, t he forest carbon st ock has decreased 0.9% and t ree cover 4.2% bet ween 1990 and
2020, according t o FAO.[36] IPCC st at es t hat t here is disagreement about whet her t he global
forest is shrinking or not , and quot e research indicat ing t hat t ree cover has increased 7.1%
bet ween 1982 and 2016.[h] IPCC writ es: «While above-ground biomass carbon st ocks are
est imat ed t o be declining in t he t ropics, t hey are increasing globally due t o increasing st ocks in
t emperat e and boreal forest s […].» [37]

Forest protection

Old-growth spruce forest in France.

Some research groups seem t o want more t han «just » sust ainably managed forest s, t hey want
t o realize t he forest s full carbon st orage pot ent ial. For inst ance EASAC writ es: «There is a real
danger t hat present policy over-emphasises t he use of forest s in energy product ion inst ead of
increasing forest st ocks for carbon st orage.» [38] Furt her, t hey argue t hat «[…] it is t he older,
longer-rot at ion forest s and prot ect ed old-growt h forest s t hat exhibit t he highest carbon
st ocks.» [39] Chat ham House argues t hat old t rees have a very high carbon absorpt ion, and t hat
felling old t rees means t hat t his large pot ent ial for fut ure carbon absorpt ion is lost . In addit ion
t hey argue t hat t here is a loss of soil carbon due t o t he harvest operat ions.[40]

Research show t hat old t rees absorb more CO2 t han young t rees, because of t he larger leaf area
in full grown t rees.[41] However, t he old forest (as a whole) will event ually st op absorbing CO2
because CO2 emissions from dead t rees cancel out t he remaining living t rees’ CO2 absorpt ion.[i]
The old forest (or forest st ands) are also vulnerable for nat ural dist urbances t hat produces CO2.
The IPCC writ es: «When veget at ion mat ures or when veget at ion and soil carbon reservoirs reach
sat urat ion, t he annual removal of CO2 from t he at mosphere declines t owards zero, while carbon
st ocks can be maint ained (high confidence). However, accumulat ed carbon in veget at ion and
soils is at risk from fut ure loss (or sink reversal) t riggered by dist urbances such as flood, drought ,
fire, or pest out breaks, or fut ure poor management (high confidence).» [42] Summing up, IPCC
writ es t hat «[…] landscapes wit h older forest s have accumulat ed more carbon but t heir sink
st rengt h is diminishing, while landscapes wit h younger forest s cont ain less carbon but t hey are
removing CO2 from t he at mosphere at a much higher rat e [...].» [43] Regarding soil carbon, t he IPCC
writ es: «Recent st udies indicat e, t hat effect s of forest management act ions on soil C [carbon]
st ocks can be difficult t o quant ify and report ed effect s have been variable and even
cont radict ory (see Box 4.3a).» Because t he «current scient ific basis is not sufficient », t he IPCC
will not current ly provide soil carbon emission fact ors for forest management .[44]

Regarding t he net climat e effect of conversion from nat ural t o managed forest s, t he IPCC
argues t hat it can swing bot h ways: «SFM [sust ainable forest management ] applied at t he
landscape scale t o exist ing unmanaged forest s can first reduce average forest carbon st ocks
and subsequent ly increase t he rat e at which CO2 is removed from t he at mosphere, because net
ecosyst em product ion of forest st ands is highest in int ermediat e st and ages (Kurz et al. 2013;
Volkova et al. 2018; Tang et al. 2014). The net impact on t he at mosphere depends on t he
magnit ude of t he reduct ion in carbon st ocks, t he fat e of t he harvest ed biomass (i.e. use in short
– or long-lived product s and for bioenergy, and t herefore displacement of emissions associat ed
wit h GHG-int ensive building mat erials and fossil fuels), and t he rat e of regrowt h. Thus, t he
impact s of SFM on one indicat or (e.g., past reduct ion in carbon st ocks in t he forest ed landscape)
can be negat ive, while t hose on anot her indicat or (e.g., current forest product ivit y and rat e of
CO2 removal from t he at mosphere, avoided fossil fuel emissions) can be posit ive. Sust ainably
managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon densit y t han unmanaged forest ,
but t he younger forest s can have a higher growt h rat e, and t herefore cont ribut e st ronger carbon
sinks t han older forest s (Trofymow et al. 2008; Volkova et al. 2018; Poort er et al. 2016).» [33]

In ot her words, t here is a t radeoff bet ween t he benefit s of having a maximized forest carbon
st ock, not absorbing any more carbon, and t he benefit s of having a port ion of t hat carbon st ock
«unlocked», and inst ead working as a renewable fossil fuel replacement t ool. When put t o work,
t his carbon is const ant ly replacing carbon in fossil fuels used in for inst ance heat product ion and
baseload elect ricit y product ion – sect ors where it is un-economical or impossible t o use
int ermit t ent power sources like wind or solar. Being a renewable carbon source, t he unlocked
port ion keep cycling back and fort h bet ween forest s and forest product s like lumber and wood
pellet s. For each cycle it replaces more and more of t he fossil based alt ernat ives, e.g. cement
and coal.

FAO researcher Reid Miner argues t hat t he «compet it ion» bet ween locked-away and unlocked
forest carbon is won by t he unlocked carbon: «In t he long t erm, using sust ainably produced
forest biomass as a subst it ut e for carbon-int ensive product s and fossil fuels provides great er
permanent reduct ions in at mospheric CO2 t han preservat ion does.» [45]

Plantation forest in Hawaii.

Summing up t he above, IEA Bioenergy writ es: «As t he IPCC has point ed out in several report s,
forest s managed for producing sawn t imber, bioenergy and ot her wood product s can make a
great er cont ribut ion t o climat e change mit igat ion t han forest s managed for conservat ion alone,
for t hree reasons. First , t he sink st rengt h diminishes as conservat ion forest s approach mat urit y.
Second, wood product s displace GHG-int ensive mat erials and fossil fuels. Third, carbon in
forest s is vulnerable t o loss t hrough nat ural event s such as insect infest at ions or wildfires, as
recent ly seen in many part s of t he world including Aust ralia and California. Managing forest s can
help t o increase t he t ot al amount of carbon sequest ered in t he forest and wood product s
carbon pools, reduce t he risk of loss of sequest ered carbon, and reduce fossil fuel use.» [46]

The IPCC furt her suggest t hat t he possibilit y t o make a living out of forest ry incent ivize
sust ainable forest ry pract ices: «[…] SFM [sust ainable forest management ] aimed at providing
t imber, fibre, biomass and non-t imber resources can provide long-t erm livelihood for communit ies,
reduce t he risk of forest conversion t o non-forest uses (set t lement , crops, et c.), and maint ain
land product ivit y, t hus reducing t he risks of land degradat ion […].» [43] Furt her: «By providing long-
t erm livelihoods for communit ies, sust ainable forest management can reduce t he ext ent of
forest conversion t o non-forest uses (e.g., cropland or set t lement s) (high confidence).» [47]

The Nat ional Associat ion of Universit y Forest Resources Programs agrees: «Research
demonst rat es t hat demand for wood helps keep land in forest and incent ivizes invest ment s in
new and more product ive forest s, all of which have significant carbon benefit s. […] Failing t o
consider t he effect s of market s and invest ment on carbon impact s can dist ort t he
charact erizat ion of carbon impact s from forest biomass energy.» [48]

Favero et al. focus on t he pot ent ial fut ure increase in demand and argues: «Increased bioenergy
demand increases forest carbon st ocks t hanks t o afforest at ion act ivit ies and more int ensive
management relat ive t o a no-bioenergy case […] higher biomass demand will increase t he value of
t imberland, incent ivize addit ional invest ment in forest management and afforest at ion, and result
in great er forest carbon st ocks over t ime».[49]

Possibly st rengt hening t he argument s above, dat a from FAO show t hat most wood pellet s are
produced in regions dominat ed by sust ainably managed forest s. Europe (including Russia)
produced 54% of t he world’s wood pellet s in 2019, and t he forest carbon st ock in t his area
increased from 158.7 t o 172.4 Gt bet ween 1990 and 2020. Likewise, Nort h America produced
29% of t he worlds pellet s in 2019, while forest carbon st ock increased from 136.6 t o 140 Gt in
t he same period. Carbon st ock decreased from 94.3 t o 80.9 Gt in Africa, 45.8 t o 41.5 Gt in Sout h
and Sout heast Asia combined, 33.4 t o 33.1 Gt in Oceania,[j] 5 t o 4.1 Gt in Cent ral America, and
from 161.8 t o 144.8 Gt in Sout h America. Wood pellet product ion in t hese areas combined was
13.2% in 2019.[k] Chat ham House respond t o t he above argument like so: «Forest carbon st ock
levels may st ay t he same or increase for reasons ent irely unconnect ed wit h use for energy.» [50]

Carbon payback time

Some research groups st ill argue t hat even if t he European and Nort h American forest carbon
st ock is increasing, it simply t akes t oo long for harvest ed t rees t o grow back. EASAC for
inst ance argues t hat since t he world is on t rack t o pass by t he agreed t arget of 1.5 degrees
t emperat ure increase already in a decade or so, CO2 from burnt roundwood, which resides in t he
at mosphere for many decades before being re-absorbed, make it harder t o achieve t his goal.
They t herefore suggest t hat t he EU should adjust it s sust ainabilit y crit eria so t hat only
renewable energy wit h carbon payback t imes of less t han 10 years is defined as sust ainable,[l] for
inst ance wind, solar, biomass from wood residues and t ree t hinnings t hat would ot herwise be
burnt or decompose relat ively fast , and biomass from short rot at ion coppicing (SRC).[51] Chat ham
House agrees, and in addit ion argues t hat t here could be t ipping point s along t he t emperat ure
scale where warming accelerat es.[m] Chat ham House also argues t hat various t ypes of
roundwood (most ly pulpwood) is used in pellet product ion in t he USA.[52]

Fut ureMet rics argues t hat it makes no sense for forest ers t o sell sawlog-qualit y roundwood t o
pellet mills, since t hey get a lot more money for t his part of t he t ree from sawmills. Forest ers
make 80-90% of t heir income from sawlog-qualit y roundwood (t he lower and t hicker st raight part
of t he t ree st em), and only 10-15% from pulpwood, defined as a.) t he middle part of mat ure
t rees (t he t hinner part of t he st em t hat oft en bends a lit t le, plus branches) and b.) t ree t hinnings
(small, young t rees cleared away for increased product ivit y of t he whole forest st and.) This low-
value biomass is mainly sold t o pulp mills for paper product ion, but in some cases also t o pellet
mills for pellet product ion.[53] Pellet s are t ypically made from sawmill residues in areas where
t here are sawmills, and from pulpwood in areas wit hout sawmills.[n]

Chat ham House furt her argue t hat almost all available sawmill residue is already being used for
pellet product ion, so t here is no room for expansion. For t he bioenergy sect or t o significant ly
expand in t he fut ure, more of t he harvest ed pulpwood must go t o pellet mills. However, t he
harvest of pulpwood (t ree t hinnings) removes t he possibilit y for t hese t rees t o grow old and
t herefore maximize t heir carbon holding capacit y.[54] Compared t o pulpwood, sawmill residues
have lower net emissions: «Some t ypes of biomass feedst ock can be carbon-neut ral, at least
over a period of a few years, including in part icular sawmill residues. These are wast es from ot her
forest operat ions t hat imply no addit ional harvest ing, and if ot herwise burnt as wast e or left t o
rot would release carbon t o t he at mosphere in any case.» [55]
An import ant presupposit ion for t he «t ree regrowt h is t oo slow» argument is t he view t hat
carbon account ing should st art when t rees from part icular, harvest ed forest st ands are
combust ed, and not when t he t rees in t hose st ands st art t o grow.[o] It is wit hin t his frame of
t hought it becomes possible t o argue t hat t he combust ion event creat es a carbon debt t hat has
t o be repaid t hrough regrowt h of t he harvest ed st ands.[p]

When inst ead assuming t hat carbon account ing should st art when t he t rees st art t o grow, it
becomes impossible t o argue t hat t he emit t ed carbon const it ut es debt .[q] Fut ureMet rics for
inst ance argue t hat t he harvest ed carbon is not a debt but «[…] a benefit t hat was earned by 30
years of management and growt h […].» [56] Ot her researchers however argue back t hat «[…] what is
import ant t o climat e policy is underst anding t he difference in fut ure at mospheric GHG levels,
wit h and wit hout swit ching t o woody biomass energy. Prior growt h of t he forest is irrelevant t o
t he policy quest ion […].» [57]

Greenhouse gas parity times for wood-pellet electricity from different feedstocks (Hanssen et al. 2017.)[58]

Some researchers limit t heir carbon account ing t o part icular forest st ands, ignoring t he carbon
absorpt ion t hat t akes place in t he rest of t he forest .[r] In opposit ion t o t his single forest st and
account ing pract ice, ot her researchers include t he whole forest when doing t heir carbon
account ing. Fut ureMet rics for inst ance argue t hat t he whole forest cont inually absorb CO2 and
t herefore immediat ely compensat e for t he relat ively small amount s of biomass t hat is
combust ed in biomass plant s from day t o day.[s] Likewise, IEA Bioenergy crit icizes EASAC for
ignoring t he carbon absorpt ion of forest s as a whole, not ing t hat t here is no net loss of carbon if
annual harvest do not exceed t he forest ’s annual growt h.[t]

IPCC argue along similar lines: «While individual st ands in a forest may be eit her sources or sinks,
t he forest carbon balance is det ermined by t he sum of t he net balance of all st ands.» [59] IPCC
also st at e t hat t he only universally applicable approach t o carbon account ing is t he one t hat
account s for bot h carbon emissions and carbon removals (absorpt ion) for t he whole landscape
(see below). When t he t ot al is calculat ed, nat ural dist urbances like fires and insect infest at ions
are subt ract ed, and what remains is t he human influence.[u] In t his way, t he whole landscape
works as a proxy for calculat ing specifically human GHG emissions: «In t he AFOLU [Agricult ure,
Forest ry and Ot her Land Use] sect or, t he management of land is used as t he best approximat ion
of human influence and t hus, est imat es of emissions and removals on managed land are used as a
proxy for ant hropogenic emissions and removals on t he basis t hat t he preponderance of
ant hropogenic effect s occurs on managed lands (see Vol. 4 Chapt er 1). This allows for
consist ency, comparabilit y, and t ransparency in est imat ion. Referred t o as t he Managed Land
Proxy (MLP), t his approach is current ly recognised by t he IPCC as t he only universally applicable
approach t o est imat ing ant hropogenic emissions and removals in t he AFOLU sect or (IPCC 2006,
IPCC 2010).» [60]

Hanssen et al. not es t hat when comparing cont inued wood pellet product ion t o a pot ent ial
policy change where t he forest inst ead is prot ect ed, most researchers est imat e a 20–50 year
carbon parit y (payback) t ime range for t he burnt wood pellet s. But when inst ead comparing
cont inued pellet product ion t o t he more realist ic alt ernat ive scenarios of 1.) inst ead using all
harvest ed biomass t o produce paper, pulp or wood panels, 2.) quit t ing t he t hinning pract ice
alt oget her (leaving t he small t rees alone, realizing more of t heir growt h pot ent ial but at t he
same t ime reduce t he growt h pot ent ial of t he bigger t rees), and 3.) leaving t he forest residue
alone, so it is decomposed in t he forest over t ime, rat her t han being burned almost immediat ely
in power plant s, t he result is t hat carbon payback (parit y) t imes for wood pellet s drop t o 0-21
years in all demand scenarios (see chart on t he right ). The est imat e is based on t he landscape
rat her t han t he individual forest st and carbon account ing pract ice.[61]

Short-term vs long-term climate benefits

Researchers from bot h sides agree t hat in t he short t erm, emissions might rise compared t o a
no-bioenergy scenario. IPCC for inst ance st at es t hat forest carbon emission avoidance
st rat egies always give a short -t erm mit igat ion benefit , but argue t hat t he long-t erm benefit s
from sust ainable forest ry act ivit ies are larger:[59]
 Relative to a baseline, the largest short-term gains are always
achieved through mitigation activities aimed at emission avoidance
[…]. But once an emission has been avoided, carbon stocks on that
forest will merely be maintained or increased slightly. […] In the
long term, sustainable forest management strategy aimed at
maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an
annual yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, will
generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

— IPCC 2007

Similarly, addressing t he issue of climat e consequences for modern bioenergy in general, IPCC
st at es: «Life-cycle GHG emissions of modern bioenergy alt ernat ives are usually lower t han t hose
for fossil fuels […].» [62] Consequent ly, most of IPCC’s GHG mit igat ion pat hways include
subst ant ial deployment of bioenergy t echnologies.[63] Limit ed or no bioenergy pat hways leads t o
increased climat e change or shift ing bioenergy’s mit igat ion load t o ot her sect ors.[v] In addit ion,
mit igat ion cost increases.[w]

IEA Bioenergy also priorit ize t he long-t erm benefit s: «Concern about near-t erm emissions is not a
st rong argument for st opping invest ment s t hat cont ribut e t o net emissions reduct ion beyond
2030, be it t he scaling-up of bat t ery manufact uring t o support elect rificat ion of car fleet s, t he
development of rail infrast ruct ure, or t he development of biomass supply syst ems and
innovat ion t o provide biobased product s displacing fossil fuels, cement and ot her GHG-int ensive
product s. We assert t hat it is crit ical t o focus on t he global emissions t raject ory required t o
achieve climat e st abilizat ion, acknowledging possible t rade-offs bet ween short - and long-t erm
emissions reduct ion object ives. A st rong focus on short -t erm carbon balances may result in
decisions t hat make long-t erm climat e object ives more difficult t o meet .» [32] IEA st at es t hat
«[…] t he current rat e of bioenergy deployment is well below t he levels required in low carbon
scenarios. Accelerat ed deployment is urgent ly needed t o ramp up t he cont ribut ion of
sust ainable bioenergy across all sect ors […].» [64] They recommend a five-fold increase in
sust ainable bioenergy feedst ock supply.[x]

The Nat ional Associat ion of Universit y Forest Resources Programs agrees, and argues t hat a
t imeframe of 100 years is recommended in order t o produce a realist ic assessment of
cumulat ive emissions: «Comparisons bet ween forest biomass emissions and fossil fuel emissions
at t he t ime of combust ion and for short periods t hereaft er do not account for long t erm carbon
accumulat ion in t he at mosphere and can significant ly dist ort or ignore comparat ive carbon
impact s over t ime. […] The most common t imeframe for measuring t he impact s of greenhouse
gases is 100 years, as illust rat ed by t he widespread use of 100-year global warming pot ent ials.
This t imeframe provides a more accurat e account ing of cumulat ive emissions t han short er
int ervals.» [65]

Carbon neutrality for energy crops

Miscanthus x giganteus energy crop, Germany.

Like wit h forest s, it is t he t ot al amount of CO2 equivalent emissions and absorpt ion t oget her
t hat det ermines if an energy crop project is carbon posit ive, carbon neut ral or carbon negat ive. If
emissions during agricult ure, processing, t ransport and combust ion are higher t han what is
absorbed, bot h above and below ground during crop growt h, t he project is carbon posit ive.
Likewise, if t ot al absorpt ion over t ime is higher t han t ot al emissions, t he project is carbon
negat ive.

Many first generat ion biomass project s are carbon posit ive (have a posit ive GHG life cycle cost ),
especially if emissions caused by direct or indirect land use change are included in t he GHG cost
calculat ion. The IPCC st at e t hat indirect land use change effect s are highly uncert ain, t hough.[y]
Some project s have higher t ot al GHG emissions t han some fossil based alt ernat ives.[z][aa][ab]
Transport fuels might be worse t han solid fuels in t his regard.[ac]

During plant growt h, ranging from a few mont hs t o decades, CO2 is re-absorbed by new plant s.[66]
While regular forest st ands have carbon rot at ion t imes spanning many decades, short rot at ion
forest ry (SRF) st ands have a rot at ion t ime of 8–20 years, and short rot at ion coppicing (SRC)
st ands 2–4 years.[67] Perennial grasses like miscant hus or napier grass have a rot at ion t ime of 4–
12 mont hs. In addit ion t o absorbing CO2 and st oring it as carbon in it s above-ground t issue,
biomass crops also sequest er carbon below ground, in root s and soil.[ad] Typically, perennial crops
sequest er more carbon t han annual crops because t he root buildup is allowed t o cont inue
undist urbed over many years. Also, perennial crops avoid t he yearly t illage procedures (plowing,
digging) associat ed wit h growing annual crops. Tilling helps t he soil microbe populat ions t o
decompose t he available carbon, producing CO2.[ae][af]

Soil organic carbon has been observed t o be great er below swit chgrass crops t han under
cult ivat ed cropland, especially at dept hs below 30 cm (12 in).[68] A met a-st udy of 138 individual
st udies, done by Harris et al., revealed t hat second generat ion perennial grasses (miscant hus and
swit chgrass) plant ed on arable land on average st ore five t imes more carbon in t he ground t han
short rot at ion coppice or short rot at ion forest ry plant at ions (poplar and willow).[ag]

McCalmont et al. compared a number of individual European report s on Miscant hus x gigant eus
carbon sequest rat ion, and found accumulat ion rat es ranging from 0.42 t o 3.8 t onnes per hect are
per year,[ah] wit h a mean accumulat ion rat e of 1.84 t onne (0.74 t onnes per acre per year),[ai] or
25% of t ot al harvest ed carbon per year.[aj] When used as fuel, greenhouse gas (GHG) savings are
large—even wit hout considering t he GHG effect of carbon sequest rat ion, miscant hus fuel has a
GHG cost of 0.4–1.6 grams CO2-equivalent s per megajoule, compared t o 33 grams for coal, 22
for liquefied nat ural gas, 16 for Nort h Sea gas, and 4 for wood chips import ed t o Brit ain from t he
USA.[ak]

Carbon negative (miscanthus) and carbon positive (poplar) production pathways.

Likewise, Whit aker et al. argue t hat a miscant hus crop wit h a yield of 10 t onnes per hect are per
year sequest ers enough carbon below ground t hat t he crop more t han compensat es for bot h
agricult ure, processing and t ransport emissions. The chart on t he right displays t wo CO2 negat ive
miscant hus product ion pat hways, and t wo CO2 posit ive poplar product ion pat hways, represent ed
in gram CO2-equivalent s per megajoule. The bars are sequent ial and move up and down as
at mospheric CO2 is est imat ed t o increase and decrease. The grey/blue bars represent
agricult ure, processing and t ransport relat ed emissions, t he green bars represent s soil carbon
change, and t he yellow diamonds represent t ot al final emissions.[al]

Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for
successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a
GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon-rich land).

Successful sequest rat ion is dependent on plant ing sit es, as t he best soils for sequest rat ion are
t hose t hat are current ly low in carbon. The varied result s displayed in t he graph highlight s t his
fact .[am] For t he UK, successful sequest rat ion is expect ed for arable land over most of England
and Wales, wit h unsuccessful sequest rat ion expect ed in part s of Scot land, due t o already
carbon rich soils (exist ing woodland) plus lower yields. Soils already rich in carbon includes
peat land and mat ure forest .

Milner et al. furt her argue t hat t he most successful carbon sequest rat ion in t he UK t akes place
below improved grassland.[an] However, Harris et al. not es t hat since t he carbon cont ent of
grasslands vary considerably, so does t he success rat e of land use changes from grasslands t o
perennial.[ao] The bot t om graphic displays t he est imat ed yield necessary t o achieve CO2
negat ivit y for different levels of exist ing soil carbon sat urat ion. The higher t he yield, t he more
likely CO2 negat ivit y becomes.

Environmental impact

Biodiversity and pollution

Gasparat os et al. reviews current research about t he side effect s of all kinds of renewable
energy product ion, and argue t hat in general t here is a conflict bet ween "[...] sit e/local-specific
conservat ion goals and nat ional energy policy/climat e change mit igat ion priorit ies [...]." The
aut hors argue t hat for inst ance biodiversit y should be seen as an equally "[...] legit imat e goal of
t he Green Economy as curbing GHG emissions."[69] Oil palm and sugar cane are examples of crops
t hat have been linked t o reduced biodiversit y.[70] Ot her problems are pollut ion of soil and wat er
from fert iliser/pest icide use,[71] and emission of ambient air pollut ant s, mainly from open field
burning of residues.[72]

The aut hors not e t hat t he ext ent of t he environment al impact "[...] varies considerably bet ween
different biomass energy opt ions."[70] For impact mit igat ion, t hey recommend "[...] adopt ing
environment ally-friendly bioenergy product ion pract ices, for inst ance limit ing t he expansion of
monocult ure plant at ions, adopt ing wildlife-friendly product ion pract ices, inst alling pollut ion
cont rol mechanisms, and undert aking cont inuous landscape monit oring."[73] They also recommend
"[...] mult i-funct ional bioenergy landscapes."[73] Ot her measures include "[...] careful feedst ock
select ion, as different feedst ocks can have radically different environment al t rade-offs. For
example, US st udies have demonst rat ed t hat 2nd generat ion feedst ocks grown in unfert ilized
land could provide benefit s t o biodiversit y when compared t o monocult ural annual crops such as
maize and soy t hat make ext ensive use of agrochemicals."[73] Miscant hus and swit chgrass are
examples of such crops.[74]

Air quality

The t radit ional use of wood in cook st oves and open fires produces pollut ant s, which can lead t o
severe healt h and environment al consequences. However, a shift t o modern bioenergy cont ribut e
t o improved livelihoods and can reduce land degradat ion and impact s on ecosyst em services.[ap]
According t o t he IPCC, t here is st rong evidence t hat modern bioenergy have «large posit ive
impact s» on air qualit y.[75] When combust ed in indust rial facilit ies, most of t he pollut ant s
originat ing from woody biomass reduce by 97-99%, compared t o open burning.[76] A st udy of t he
giant brown haze t hat periodically covers large areas in Sout h Asia det ermined t hat t wo t hirds of
it had been principally produced by resident ial cooking and agricult ural burning, and one t hird by
fossil-fuel burning.[77]

Consequences of low surface power production density

While bioenergy is generally agreed t o have a net reducing impact on greenhouse gas emissions
on t he global scale, increasing biomass demand can creat e significant social and environment al
pressure in locat ions where t he biomass is produced.[78][79]

The impact is primarily relat ed t o t he low surface power densit y of biomass (see below). The
low surface power densit y has t he effect t hat much larger land areas are needed in order t o
produce t he same amount of energy, compared t o for inst ance fossil fuels. In some cases, large
areas of nat ural forest s have been logged illegally (e.g. in Romania[80] and Siberia[81]), and t he
remaining forest has been put on fire t o cover up illegal operat ions.[82]

Feasibilit y assessment s t o replace coal in German power plant s wit h bush biomass harvest ed in
Namibia, which experiences bush encroachment on over 30 million hect ares, have caused
prot est s from environment al organisat ions. The organisat ions argue t hat t he t rees and bushes
st ore carbon, and t hat burning t hem releases more CO2 upfront t han burning coal.[83] Namibian
researchers argue t hat bush encroaching causes lower income for farmers, lower biodiversit y,
lower groundwat er level and displacement of wildlife.[84] Prot est s against forest export s for
biomass also happened in Sweden[85] and Canada.[86] In Mississippi a company producing wood
pellet s for UK power plant s was fined $2.5m for exceeding volat ile organic compounds pollut ion
for a number of years.[87] Long-dist ance t ransport of biomass have been crit icised as wast eful
and unsust ainable.[88]

Biomass surface power production densities compared to other renewables

To calculat e land use requirement s for different kinds of power product ion, it is essent ial t o
know t he relevant surface power product ion densit ies. Vaclav Smil est imat es t hat t he average
lifecycle surface power densit ies for biomass, wind, hydro and solar power product ion are 0.30
W/m2, 1 W/m2, 3 W/m2 and 5 W/m2, respect ively (power in t he form of heat for biomass, and
elect ricit y for wind, hydro and solar).[89] Lifecycle surface power densit y includes land used by all
support ing infrast ruct ure, manufact uring, mining/harvest ing and decommissioning. Van Zalk et al.
est imat es 0.08 W/m2 for biomass, 0.14 W/m2 for hydro, 1.84 W/m2 for wind, and 6.63 W/m2 for
solar (median values, wit h none of t he renewable sources exceeding 10 W/m2). Fossil gas has t he
highest surface densit y at 482 W/m2 while nuclear power at 240 W/m2 is t he only high-densit y
and low-carbon energy source.[90] The average human power consumpt ion on ice-free land is
0.125 W/m2 (heat and elect ricit y combined),[91] alt hough rising t o 20 W/m2 in urban and indust rial
areas.[92]

Plant s wit h low yields have lower surface power densit y compared t o plant s wit h high yields.
Addit ionally, when t he plant s are only part ially used, surface densit y drops even lower. This is t he
case when producing liquid fuels. For inst ance, et hanol is oft en made from sugarcane's sugar
cont ent or corn's st arch cont ent , while biodiesel is oft en made from rapeseed and soybean's oil
cont ent .

Smil est imat es t he following densit ies for liquid fuels:

Wheat fields in the USA.

Et hanol

Wint er wheat (USA) 0.08 W/m2 [93]

Corn 0.26 W/m2 (yield 10 t /ha) [94]

Wheat (Germany) 0.30 W/m2 [93]

Miscanthus x giganteus 0.40 W/m2 (yield 15 t /ha) [95]

Sugarcane 0.50 W/m2 (yield 80 t /ha wet ) [96]

Jet fuel

Soybean 0.06 W/m2 [96]

Jat ropha (marginal land) 0.20 W/m2 [96]

Palm oil 0.65 W/m2 [96]

Biodiesel

Rapeseed 0.12 W/m2 (EU average)[97]

Rapeseed (adjust ed for energy input , t he Net herlands) 0.08 W/m2 [98]

Sugar beet s (adjust ed for energy input , Spain) 0.02 W/m2 [98]
Eucalyptus plantation in India.

Combust ing solid biomass is more energy efficient t han combust ing liquids, as t he whole plant is
used. For inst ance, corn plant at ions producing solid biomass for combust ion generat e more t han
double t he amount of power per square met re compared t o corn plant at ions producing for
et hanol, when t he yield is t he same: 10 t /ha generat es 0.60 W/m2 and 0.26 W/m2 respect ively.[99]

Oven dry biomass in general, including wood, miscant hus[100] and napier[101] grass, have a calorific
cont ent of roughly 18 GJ/t .[102] When calculat ing power product ion per square met re, every t /ha
of dry biomass yield increases a plant at ion's power product ion by 0.06 W/m2.[aq] Consequent ly,
Smil est imat es t he following:

Large-scale plant at ions wit h pines, acacias, poplars and willows in t emperat e regions 0.30–
0.90 W/m2 (yield 5–15 t /ha)[103]

Large scale plant at ions wit h eucalypt us, acacia, leucaena, pinus and dalbergia in t ropical and
subt ropical regions 1.20–1.50 W/m2 (yield 20–25 t /ha) [103]

In Brazil, t he average yield for eucalypt us is 21 t /ha (1.26 W/m2), but in Africa, India and
Sout heast Asia, t ypical eucalypt us yields are below 10 t /ha (0.6 W/m2).[104]

FAO (Food and Agricult ure Organizat ion of t he Unit ed Nat ions) est imat e t hat forest plant at ion
yields range from 1 t o 25 m3 per hect are per year globally, equivalent t o 0.02–0.7 W/m2 (0.4–
12.2 t /ha):[ar]

Pine (Russia) 0.02–0.1 W/m2 (0.4–2 t /ha or 1–5 m3)[ar]

Eucalypt us (Argent ina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay) 0.5–0.7 W/m2 (7.8–12.2 t /ha or 25 m3)[ar]

Poplar (France, It aly) 0.2–0.5 W/m2 (2.7–8.4 t /ha or 25 m3)[ar]

Smil est imat e t hat nat ural t emperat e mixed forest s yield on average 1.5–2 dry t onnes per
hect are (2–2,5 m3, equivalent t o 0.1 W/m2), ranging from 0.9 m3 in Greece t o 6 m3 in France).[105]
IPCC provides average net annual biomass growth dat a for nat ural forest s globally. Net growt h
varies bet ween 0.1 and 9.3 dry t onnes per hect are per year, wit h most nat ural forest s producing
bet ween 1 and 4 t onnes, and wit h t he global average at 2.3 t onnes. Average net growt h for
plant at ion forest s varies bet ween 0.4 and 25 t onnes, wit h most plant at ions producing bet ween 5
and 15 t onnes, and wit h t he global average at 9.1 t onnes.[106]

As ment ioned above, Smil est imat es t hat t he world average for wind, hydro and solar power
product ion is 1 W/m2, 3 W/m2 and 5 W/m2 respect ively. In order t o mat ch t hese surface power
densit ies, plant at ion yields must reach 17 t /ha, 50 t /ha and 83 t /ha for wind, hydro and solar
respect ively. This seems achievable for t he t ropical plant at ions ment ioned above (yield 20–25
t /ha) and for elephant grasses, e.g. miscant hus (10–40 t /ha), and napier (15–80 t /ha), but unlikely
for forest and many ot her t ypes of biomass crops. To mat ch t he world average for biofuels (0.3
W/m2), plant at ions need t o produce 5 t onnes of dry mass per hect are per year. When inst ead
using t he Van Zalk est imat es for hydro, wind and solar (0.14, 1.84, and 6.63 W/m2 respect ively),
plant at ion yields must reach 2 t /ha, 31 t /ha and 111 t /ha in order t o compet e. Only t he first t wo
of t hose yields seem achievable, however.

Yields need t o be adjust ed t o compensat e for t he amount of moist ure in t he biomass

(evaporat ing moist ure in order t o reach t he ignit ion point is usually wast ed energy). The moist ure
of biomass st raw or bales varies wit h t he surrounding air humidit y and event ual pre-drying
measures, while pellet s have a st andardized (ISO-defined) moist ure cont ent of below 10% (wood
pellet s)[as] and below 15% (ot her pellet s).[at] Likewise, for wind, hydro and solar, power line
t ransmission losses amount s t o roughly 8% globally and should be account ed for.[au] If biomass is
t o be used for elect ricit y product ion rat her t han heat product ion, not e t hat yields has t o be
roughly t ripled in order t o compet e wit h wind, hydro and solar, as t he current heat t o elect ricit y
conversion efficiency is only 30–40%.[107] When simply comparing surface power densit y wit hout
regard for cost , t his low heat t o elect ricit y conversion efficiency effect ively pushes at least
solar parks out of reach of even t he highest yielding biomass plant at ions, surface power densit y
wise.[av]

Worldwide production
Energy product ion from solid biofuels and renewable wast e (MW)
[108]
# Count ry 2020

1 China 17 784

2 Brazil 15 228

3 India 10 518

4 Unit ed St at es 9 916

5 Unit ed Kingdom 5 393

6 Sweden 4 402

7 Thailand 3 835

8 Germany 2 674

9 Finland 2 481

10 Canada 2 360

11 Denmark 1 990

12 Indonesia 1 775

13 Japan 1 470

14 Russia 1 370

15 France 1 339

16 It aly 1 174

17 Aust ria 1 085

18 Guat emala 1 029

19 Cuba 951

20 Spain 855

21 Sout h Korea 822

22 México 811

23 Malaysia 798

24 Poland 797

25 Aust ralia 678

26 Port ugal 646

27 Net herlands 624

28 Belgium 591

29 Turkey 533

30 Czech Republic 472

31 Pakist an 423

32 Uruguay 423

33 Chile 410

34 Hungary 397

35 Taiwan 393

36 Viet nam 378

37 Philippines 339

38 Colombia 316

See also

Biochar Cow dung

Biofact (biology) Energy forest ry

Biomass (ecology) Firewood

Gasificat ion Microgenerat ion

Biomass heat ing syst em Microbial elect rolysis cell generat es

hydrogen or met hane
Biomass t o liquid
Permacult ure
Bioproduct s
Thermal mass
Biorefinery
Woodchips
European Biomass Associat ion
Renewable Energy Transit ion
Carbon foot print

Notes

a. "The recent discussions on renewable energy are mostly focused on the rapid growth of wind and
solar deployment and their impressive drop in cost. While these developments are remarkable, they
 also overshadow what remains the most important source of renewable energy today – bioenergy."
IEA 2017a.

b. "Bioenergy is the main source of renewable energy today. IEA modelling also indicates that modern
bioenergy is an essential component of the future low carbon global energy system if global climate
change commitments are to be met, playing a particularly important role in helping to decarbonise
sectors such as aviation, shipping and long haul road transport. However, the current rate of bioenergy
deployment is well below the levels required in low carbon scenarios. Accelerated deployment is
urgently needed to ramp up the contribution of sustainable bioenergy across all sectors, notably in the
transport sector where consumption is required to triple by 2030." IEA 2017b.

c. The estimates are for the "medium case" considered (case 2a); a pellet mill that uses wood for
processing heat, but sources electricity from the grid. Estimates (for forest residue based pellets)
reduce to 50–58% when fossil fuels is used for processing heat (case 1), but increase to 84-92% when
electricity is sourced from a CHP biomass power plant (case 3a). See EUR-Lex 2018, p. Annex VI.

d. "[...] GHG emission reductions of wood-pellet electricity compared to fossil EU grid electricity are 71%
(for small roundwood and harvest residues), 69% (for commercial thinnings) or 65% (for mill residues),
as shown in more detail in Fig. S3. The GHG reduction percentage of wood-pellet electricity from mill
residues was [...] 75% [...]." Hanssen et al. 2017, pp. 1415–1416.

e. See EPA 2020, p. 1. The emission factors are based on the higher heating value (HHV) of the different
fuels. The HHV value reflects the actual chemical energy stored in the fuel, without taking moisture
content into consideration. The fuel’s lower heating value (LHV) is the energy that remains after the
necessary amount of energy has been spent to vaporize the fuel’s moisture (so that the fuel is able to
reach the ignition point).

f. See FutureMetrics 2015a, p. 1-2. Chatham House notes that modern CHP plants (Combined Heat and
Power) achieve much higher efficiencies, above 80%, for both fossil fuels and biomass. Chatham
House 2017, p. 16.

g. The individual emission rates are: Wood 112 000 kg CO2eq per TJ, anthracite 98 300, coking coal 94
600, other bituminous 94 600, sub-bituminous 96 100, lignite 101 000. IPCC 2006a, p. 2.16–2.17.

h. «The trends of productivity shown by several remote-sensing studies (see previous section) are largely
consistent with mapping of forest cover and change using a 34-year time series of coarse resolution
satellite data (NOAA AVHRR) (Song et al. 2018). This study, based on a thematic classification of
satellite data, suggests that (i) global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million km² between 1982
and 2016 (corresponding to +7.1%) but with regional differences that contribute a net loss in the
tropics and a net gain at higher latitudes, and (ii) the fraction of bare ground decreased by 1.16 million
km² (corresponding to –3.1%), mainly in agricultural regions of Asia (Song et al. 2018), see Figure 4.5.
Other tree or land cover datasets show opposite global net trends (Li et al. 2018b), but high agreement
in terms of net losses in the tropics and large net gains in the temperate and boreal zones (Li et al.
2018b; Song et al. 2018; Hansen et al. 2013).» IPCC 2019a, p. 367.
 i. Stephenson et al. continue: «Second, our findings are similarly compatible with the well-known age-
related decline in productivity at the scale of even-aged forest stands. […] We highlight the fact that
increasing individual tree growth rate does not automatically result in increasing stand productivity
because tree mortality can drive orders-of-magnitude reductions in population density. That is, even
though the large trees in older, even-aged stands may be growing more rapidly, such stands have
fewer trees. Tree population dynamics, especially mortality, can thus be a significant contributor to
declining productivity at the scale of the forest stand. Stephenson et al. 2014, p. 92.

j. According to FAO, tree cover in Australia is increasing, but carbon stock is only provided for Oceania
as a whole. FAO 2020, p. 136.

k. Wood chips, mainly used in the paper industry, have similar data; Europe (including Russia) produced
33% and North America 22%, while forest carbon stock increased in both areas. West, Central and
East Asia combined produced 18%, and the forest carbon stock in this areas increased from 31.3 to
43.3 Gt. Wood chips production in the areas of the world were carbon stock is decreasing, was 26.9%
in 2019. For wood pellet and wood chips production data, see FAOSTAT 2020. For carbon stock data,
see FAO 2020, p. 52, table 43.

l. «The potentially very long payback periods for forest biomass raise important issues given the
UNFCCC’s aspiration of limiting warming to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels to ‘significantly reduce
the risks and impacts of climate change’. On current trends, this may be exceeded in around a decade.
Relying on forest biomass for the EU’s renewable energy, with its associated initial increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, increases the risk of overshooting the 1.5°C target if payback
periods are longer than this. The European Commission should consider the extent to which large-
scale forest biomass energy use is compatible with UNFCCC targets and whether a maximum
allowable payback period should be set in its sustainability criteria.» EASAC 2017, p. 34.

m. «Some have argued that the length of the carbon payback period does not matter as long as all
emissions are eventually absorbed. This ignores the potential impact in the short term on climate
tipping points (a concept for which there is some evidence) and on the world’s ability to meet the
target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial
levels, which requires greenhouse gas emissions to peak in the near term. This suggests that only
biomass energy with the shortest carbon payback periods should be eligible for financial and
regulatory support.» EASAC 2017, p. 4.

n. «In many locations sawmill residuals from structural lumber production are abundant and they supply
much of the raw material needed to produce wood pellets. In other locations, there are insufficient
sawmill residuals. In those locations, the pellet mills, just like the pulp mills, use the non-sawlog
portions of the tree.» FutureMetrics 2017, p. 8.

o. «Harvesting immediately reduces the standing forest carbon stock compared with less (or no)
harvesting (Bellassen and Luyssaert, 2014; Sievänen et al., 2014) and it may take from decades to
centuries until regrowth restores carbon stocks to their former level—especially if oldgrowth forests
are harvested.» EASAC 2017, p. 21.
p. «Following this argument, the carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) released by the burning of
woody biomass for energy, along with their associated life-cycle emissions, create what is termed a
‘carbon debt’ – i.e. the additional emissions caused by burning biomass instead of the fossil fuels it
replaces, plus the emissions absorption foregone from the harvesting of the forests. Over time,
regrowth of the harvested forest removes this carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the carbon debt.
The period until carbon parity is achieved (i.e. the point at which the net cumulative emissions from
biomass use are equivalent to those from a fossil fuel plant generating the same amount of energy) is
usually termed the ‘carbon payback period’. After this point, as regrowth continues biomass may begin
to yield ‘carbon dividends’ in the form of atmospheric greenhouse gas levels lower than would have
occurred if fossil fuels had been used. Eventually carbon levels in the forest return to the level at which
they would have been if they had been left unharvested. (Some of the literature employs the term
‘carbon payback period’ to describe this longer period, but it is more commonly used to mean the time
to parity with fossil fuels; this meaning is used in this paper.)» Chatham House 2017, p. 27.

q. «There is no such thing as a carbon debt if the stock of carbon held in the forest [is] not reduced.»
FutureMetrics 2017, p. 7.

r. «It has been argued that carbon balances should not be assessed at the stand level since at
landscape level depletion of carbon in one stand may be compensated by growth in a stand
elsewhere. For scientific analysis of the impact on climate forcing, however, it is necessary to
compare the effects of various bioenergy harvest options against a baseline of no bioenergy harvest
(or other credible counterfactual scenarios) for the same area of forest. Such studies provide
information on the impacts of changes at the stand level, which can then be integrated with other
factors (economic, regulatory and social) that may influence effects at landscape level.» EASAC 2017,
p. 23.

s. «It is important to realize that our 3650 ton per year CHP plant does not receive 3650 tons in one
delivery and does not release 3650 tons of wood’s worth of carbon in one lump either. In fact, the
forest products industry can be characterized as a just-in-time manufacturing system. For our CHP
plant, 10 tons per day are sustainably harvested and delivered off of our 3650 acre FSC or SFI certified
forest. So the carbon released into the atmosphere that day is from 10 tons of wood. The atmosphere
“sees” new carbon. But during that same day on our 3650 acre plot, 10 new tons of wood grow and
sequester the amount of carbon that was just released.» FutureMetrics 2011b, p. 2.

t. «Forests are generally managed as a series of stands of different ages, harvested at different times, to
produce a constant supply of wood products. When considered at plot level, long-rotation forests take
many years to regrow after harvest, and the EASAC statement indicates this as a time gap between
releasing forest carbon and its reabsorption from the atmosphere. However, across the whole forest
estate or landscape, the temporal fluctuations are evened out since other stands continue to grow and
sequester carbon, making the time gap as indicated by EASAC less relevant. If annual harvest does
not exceed the annual growth in the forest, there is no net reduction in forest carbon.» IEA Bioenergy
2019: «The use of forest biomass for climate change mitigation: response to statements of EASAC»
IEA Bioenergy 2019, p. 2.
u. «The natural disturbance component is subtracted from the total estimate of […] emissions and
removals, yielding an estimate of the emissions and removals associated with human activity on
managed land.» See IPCC 2019j, p. 2.72. «The 2006 IPCC Guidelines are designed to assist in
estimating and reporting national inventories of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and
removals. For the AFOLU Sector, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks are
defined as all those occurring on ‘managed land’. Managed land is land where human interventions
and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions. [...] This
approach, i.e., the use of managed land as a proxy for anthropogenic effects, was adopted in the
GPG–LULUCF and that use is maintained in the present guidelines. The key rationale for this approach
is that the preponderance of anthropogenic effects occurs on managed lands. By definition, all direct
human-induced effects on greenhouse gas emissions and removals occur on managed lands only.
While it is recognized that no area of the Earth’s surface is entirely free of human influence (e.g., CO2
fertilization), many indirect human influences on greenhouse gases (e.g., increased N deposition,
accidental fire) will be manifested predominately on managed lands, where human activities are
concentrated. Finally, while local and short-term variability in emissions and removals due to natural
causes can be substantial (e.g., emissions from fire, see footnote 1), the natural ‘background’ of
greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks tends to average out over time and space. This
leaves the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from managed lands as the dominant result of
human activity. Guidance and methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals for the
AFOLU Sector now include: • CO2 emissions and removals resulting from C stock changes in biomass,
dead organic matter and mineral soils, for all managed lands; • CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fire
on all managed land; • N2O emissions from all managed soils; • CO2 emissions associated with liming
and urea application to managed soils; • CH4 emissions from rice cultivation; • CO2 and N2O
emissions from cultivated organic soils; • CO2 and N2O emissions from managed wetlands (with a
basis for methodological development for CH4 emissions from flooded land in an Appendix 3); • CH4
emission from livestock (enteric fermentation); • CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management
systems; and • C stock change associated with harvested wood products.» See IPCC 2006b, p. 1.5.

v. «For example, limiting deployment of a mitigation response option will either result in increased
climate change or additional mitigation in other sectors. A number of studies have examined limiting
bioenergy and BECCS. Some such studies show increased emissions (Reilly et al. 2012). Other studies
meet the same climate goal, but reduce emissions elsewhere via reduced energy demand (Grubler et
al. 2018; Van Vuuren et al. 2018), increased fossil carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy,
energy efficiency and/or renewable energy (Van Vuuren et al. 2018; Rose et al. 2014; Calvin et al. 2014;
Van Vuuren et al. 2017b), dietary change (Van Vuuren et al. 2018), reduced non-CO2 emissions (Van
Vuuren et al. 2018), or lower population (Van Vuuren et al. 2018).» IPCC 2019e, p. 637.

w. «Limitations on bioenergy and BECCS can result in increases in the cost of mitigation (Kriegler et al.
2014; Edmonds et al. 2013). Studies have also examined limiting CDR, including reforestation,
afforestation, and bioenergy and BECCS (Kriegler et al. 2018a,b). These studies find that limiting CDR
can increase mitigation costs, increase food prices, and even preclude limiting warming to less than
1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Kriegler et al. 2018a,b; Muratori et al. 2016).» IPCC 2019e, p. 638.
x. "Bioenergy has an essential and major role to play in a low-carbon energy system. For instance,
modern bioenergy in final global energy consumption should increase four-fold by 2060 in the IEA's
2°C scenario (2DS), which seeks to limit global average temperatures from rising more than 2°C by
2100 to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change. It plays a particularly important role in the
transport sector where it helps to decarbonize long-haul transport (aviation, marine and long-haul road
freight), with a ten-fold increase in final energy demand from today’s 3 EJ to nearly 30 EJ. Bioenergy is
responsible for nearly 20% of the additional carbon savings needed in the 2DS compared to an
emissions trajectory based on meeting existing and announced policies. But the current rate of
bioenergy deployment is well below these 2DS levels. In the transport sector, biofuel consumption
must triple by 2030, with two-thirds of that coming from advanced biofuels. That means scaling up
current advanced biofuels production by at least 50 times to keep pace with the 2DS requirements by
2030. In scenarios with more ambitious carbon reduction objectives, such as the IEA’s Beyond 2
Degree Scenario (B2DS), bioenergy linked to carbon capture and storage also becomes necessary. [...]
The roadmap also points out the need for a five-fold increase in sustainable bioenergy feedstock
supply, much of which can be obtained from mobilising the potential of wastes and residues." IEA
2017a.

y. «Bioenergy from dedicated crops are in some cases held responsible for GHG emissions resulting
from indirect land use change (iLUC), that is the bioenergy activity may lead to displacement of
agricultural or forest activities into other locations, driven by market-mediated effects. Other
mitigation options may also cause iLUC. At a global level of analysis, indirect effects are not relevant
because all land-use emissions are direct. iLUC emissions are potentially more significant for crop-
based feedstocks such as corn, wheat and soybean, than for advanced biofuels from lignocellulosic
materials (Chum et al. 2011; Wicke et al. 2012; Valin et al. 2015; Ahlgren and Di Lucia 2014). Estimates
of emissions from iLUC are inherently uncertain, widely debated in the scientific community and are
highly dependent on modelling assumptions, such as supply/demand elasticities, productivity
estimates, incorporation or exclusion of emission credits for coproducts and scale of biofuel
deployment (Rajagopal and Plevin 2013; Finkbeiner 2014; Kim et al. 2014; Zilberman 2017). In some
cases, iLUC effects are estimated to result in emission reductions. For example, market-mediated
effects of bioenergy in North America showed potential for increased carbon stocks by inducing
conversion of pasture or marginal land to forestland (Cintas et al. 2017; Duden et al. 2017; Dale et al.
2017; Baker et al. 2019). There is a wide range of variability in iLUC values for different types of
biofuels, from –75–55 gCO2 MJ–1 (Ahlgren and Di Lucia 2014; Valin et al. 2015; Plevin et al. 2015;
Taheripour and Tyner 2013; Bento and Klotz 2014). There is low confidence in attribution of emissions
from iLUC to bioenergy.» IPCC 2019i, p. 194.
 z. "The environmental costs and benefits of bioenergy have been the subject of significant debate,
particularly for first‐generation biofuels produced from food (e.g. grain and oil seed). Studies have
reported life‐cycle GHG savings ranging from an 86% reduction to a 93% increase in GHG emissions
compared with fossil fuels (Searchinger et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2009; Liska et al., 2009; Whitaker et
al., 2010). In addition, concerns have been raised that N2O emissions from biofuel feedstock
cultivation could have been underestimated (Crutzen et al., 2008; Smith & Searchinger, 2012) and that
expansion of feedstock cultivation on agricultural land might displace food production onto land with
high carbon stocks or high conservation value (i.e. iLUC) creating a carbon debt which could take
decades to repay (Fargione et al., 2008). Other studies have shown that direct nitrogen‐related
emissions from annual crop feedstocks can be mitigated through optimized management practices
(Davis et al., 2013) or that payback times are less significant than proposed (Mello et al., 2014).
However, there are still significant concerns over the impacts of iLUC, despite policy developments
aimed at reducing the risk of iLUC occurring (Ahlgren & Di Lucia, 2014; Del Grosso et al., 2014)."
Whitaker et al. 2018, p. 151.

aa. "The impact of growing bioenergy and biofuel feedstock crops has been of particular concern, with
some suggesting the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of food crops used for ethanol and biodiesel
may be no better or worse than fossil fuels (Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008). This is
controversial, as the allocation of GHG emissions to the management and the use of coproducts can
have a large effect on the total carbon footprint of resulting bioenergy products (Whitaker et al., 2010;
Davis et al., 2013). The potential consequences of land use change (LUC) to bioenergy on GHG
balance through food crop displacement or 'indirect' land use change (iLUC) are also an important
consideration (Searchinger et al., 2008)." Milner et al. 2016, pp. 317–318.

ab. "While the initial premise regarding bioenergy was that carbon recently captured from the atmosphere
into plants would deliver an immediate reduction in GHG emission from fossil fuel use, the reality
proved less straightforward. Studies suggested that GHG emission from energy crop production and
land-use change might outweigh any CO2 mitigation (Searchinger et al., 2008; Lange, 2011). Nitrous
oxide (N2O) production, with its powerful global warming potential (GWP), could be a significant
factor in offsetting CO2 gains (Crutzen et al., 2008) as well as possible acidification and
eutrophication of the surrounding environment (Kim & Dale, 2005). However, not all biomass
feedstocks are equal, and most studies critical of bioenergy production are concerned with biofuels
produced from annual food crops at high fertilizer cost, sometimes using land cleared from natural
ecosystems or in direct competition with food production (Naik et al., 2010). Dedicated perennial
energy crops, produced on existing, lower grade, agricultural land, offer a sustainable alternative with
significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon sequestration when produced with
appropriate management (Crutzen et al., 2008; Hastings et al., 2008, 2012; Cherubini et al., 2009;
Dondini et al., 2009a; Don et al., 2012; Zatta et al., 2014; Richter et al., 2015)." McCalmont et al. 2017,
p. 490.
ac. "Significant reductions in GHG emissions have been demonstrated in many LCA studies across a
range of bioenergy technologies and scales (Thornley et al., 2009, 2015). The most significant
reductions have been noted for heat and power cases. However, some other studies (particularly on
transport fuels) have indicated the opposite, that is that bioenergy systems can increase GHG
emissions (Smith & Searchinger, 2012) or fail to achieve increasingly stringent GHG savings
thresholds. A number of factors drive this variability in calculated savings, but we know that where
significant reductions are not achieved or wide variability is reported there is often associated data
uncertainty or variations in the LCA methodology applied (Rowe et al., 2011). For example, data
uncertainty in soil carbon stock change following LUC has been shown to significantly influence the
GHG intensity of biofuel production pathways (Fig. 3), whilst the shorter term radiative forcing impact
of black carbon particles from the combustion of biomass and biofuels also represents significant
data uncertainty (Bond et al., 2013)." Whitaker et al. 2018, pp. 156–157.

ad. "Soil carbon stocks are a balance between the soil organic matter decomposition rate and the organic
material input each year by vegetation, animal manure, or any other organic input." McCalmont et al.
2017, p. 496.

ae. "Any soil disturbance, such as ploughing and cultivation, is likely to result in short-term respiration
losses of soil organic carbon, decomposed by stimulated soil microbe populations (Cheng, 2009;
Kuzyakov, 2010). Annual disturbance under arable cropping repeats this year after year resulting in
reduced SOC levels. Perennial agricultural systems, such as grassland, have time to replace their
infrequent disturbance losses which can result in higher steady-state soil carbon contents (Gelfand et
al., 2011; Zenone et al., 2013)." McCalmont et al. 2017, p. 493.

af. "Tillage breaks apart soil aggregates which, among other functions, are thought to inhibit soil bacteria,
fungi and other microbes from consuming and decomposing SOM (Grandy and Neff 2008).
Aggregates reduce microbial access to organic matter by restricting physical access to mineral-
stabilised organic compounds as well as reducing oxygen availability (Cotrufo et al. 2015; Lehmann
and Kleber 2015). When soil aggregates are broken open with tillage in the conversion of native
ecosystems to agriculture, microbial consumption of SOC and subsequent respiration of CO2 increase
dramatically, reducing soil carbon stocks (Grandy and Robertson 2006; Grandy and Neff 2008)." IPCC
2019a, p. 393.

ag. "A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to assess the current state of knowledge and
quantify the effects of land use change (LUC) to second generation (2G), non-food bioenergy crops on
soil organic carbon (SOC) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of relevance to temperate zone
agriculture. Following analysis from 138 original studies, transitions from arable to short rotation
coppice (SRC, poplar or willow) or perennial grasses (mostly Miscanthus or switchgrass) resulted in
increased SOC (+5.0 ± 7.8% and +25.7 ± 6.7% respectively)." Harris, Spake & Taylor 2015, p. 27.
ah. "[...] it seems likely that arable land converted to Miscanthus will sequester soil carbon; of the 14
comparisons, 11 showed overall increases in SOC over their total sample depths with suggested
accumulation rates ranging from 0.42 to 3.8 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. Only three arable comparisons showed
lower SOC stocks under Miscanthus, and these suggested insignificant losses between 0.1 and 0.26
Mg ha−1 yr−1." McCalmont et al. 2017, p. 493.

ai. "The correlation between plantation age and SOC can be seen in Fig. 6, [...] the trendline suggests a
net accumulation rate of 1.84 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 with similar levels to grassland at equilibrium."
McCalmont et al. 2017, p. 496.

aj. Given the EU average peak yield of 22 tonnes dry matter per hectare per year (approximately 15
tonnes during spring harvest). See Anderson et al. 2014, p. 79). 15 tonnes also explicitly quoted as the
mean spring yield in Germany, see Felten & Emmerling 2012, p. 662. 48% carbon content; see Kahle et
al. 2001, table 3, page 176.

ak. "Our work shows that crop establishment, yield and harvesting method affect the C. cost of
Miscanthus solid fuel which for baled harvesting is 0.4 g CO2 eq. C MJ−1 for rhizome establishment
and 0.74 g CO2 eq. C MJ−1 for seed plug establishment. If the harvested biomass is chipped and
pelletized, then the emissions rise to 1.2 and 1.6 g CO2 eq. C MJ−1, respectively. The energy
requirements for harvesting and chipping from this study that were used to estimate the GHG
emissions are in line with the findings of Meehan et al. (2013). These estimates of GHG emissions for
Miscanthus fuel confirm the findings of other life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies (e.g., Styles and
Jones, 2008) and spatial estimates of GHG savings using Miscanthus fuel (Hastings et al., 2009).
They also confirm that Miscanthus has a comparatively small GHG footprint due to its perennial
nature, nutrient recycling efficiency and need for less chemical input and soil tillage over its 20-year
life-cycle than annual crops (Heaton et al., 2004, 2008; Clifton-Brown et al., 2008; Gelfand et al., 2013;
McCalmont et al., 2015a; Milner et al., 2015). In this analysis, we did not consider the GHG flux of soil
which was shown to sequester on average in the United Kingdom 0.5 g of C per MJ of Miscanthus
derived fuel by McCalmont et al. (2015a). Changes in SOC resulting from the cultivation of Miscanthus
depend on the previous land use and associated initial SOC. If high carbon soils such as peatland,
permanent grassland, and mature forest are avoided and only arable and rotational grassland with
mineral soil is used for Miscanthus then the mean increase in SOC for the first 20-year crop rotation in
the United Kingdom is ∼ 1–1.4 Mg C ha−1 y−1 (Milner et al., 2015). In spite of ignoring this additional
benefit, these GHG cost estimates compare very favorably with coal (33 g CO2 eq. C MJ−1), North Sea
Gas (16), liquefied natural gas (22), and wood chips imported from the United States (4). In addition,
although Miscanthus production C. cost is only < 1/16 of the GHG cost of natural gas as a fuel (16–22
g CO2 eq. C MJ-1), it is mostly due to the carbon embedded in the machinery, chemicals and fossil
fuel used in its production. As the economy moves away from dependence on these fossil fuels for
temperature regulation (heat for glasshouse temperature control or chilling for rhizome storage) or
transport, then these GHG costs begin to fall away from bioenergy production. It should be noted, the
estimates in this paper do not consider either the potential to sequester C. in the soil nor any impact
or ILUC (Hastings et al., 2009)." Hastings et al. 2017, pp. 12–13.
 al. See Whitaker et al. 2018, pp. 156, Appendix S1

am. "Whilst these values represent the extremes, they demonstrate that site selection for bioenergy crop
cultivation can make the difference between large GHG [greenhouse gas] savings or losses, shifting
life‐cycle GHG emissions above or below mandated thresholds. Reducing uncertainties in ∆C [carbon
increase or decrease] following LUC [land use change] is therefore more important than refining N2O
[nitrous oxide] emission estimates (Berhongaray et al., 2017). Knowledge on initial soil carbon stocks
could improve GHG savings achieved through targeted deployment of perennial bioenergy crops on
low carbon soils (see section 2). [...] The assumption that annual cropland provides greater potential
for soil carbon sequestration than grassland appears to be over‐simplistic, but there is an opportunity
to improve predictions of soil carbon sequestration potential using information on the initial soil
carbon stock as a stronger predictor of ∆C [change in carbon amount] than prior land use." Whitaker et
al. 2018, pp. 156, 160.

an. "Fig. 3 confirmed either no change or a gain of SOC [soil organic carbon] (positive) through planting
Miscanthus on arable land across England and Wales and only a loss of SOC (negative) in parts of
Scotland. The total annual SOC change across GB in the transition from arable to Miscanthus if all
nonconstrained land was planted with would be 3.3 Tg C yr−1 [3.3 million tonnes carbon per year]. The
mean changes for SOC for the different land uses were all positive when histosols were excluded, with
improved grasslands yielding the highest Mg C ha−1 yr−1 [tonnes carbon per hectare per year] at 1.49,
followed by arable lands at 1.28 and forest at 1. Separating this SOC change by original land use (Fig.
4) reveals that there are large regions of improved grasslands which, if planted with bioenergy crops,
are predicted to result in an increase in SOC. A similar result was found when considering the
transition from arable land; however for central eastern England, there was a predicted neutral effect
on SOC. Scotland, however, is predicted to have a decrease for all land uses, particularly for woodland
due mainly to higher SOC and lower Miscanthus yields and hence less input." Milner et al. 2016,
p. 123.
ao. "In summary, we have quantified the impacts of LUC [land use change] to bioenergy cropping on SOC
and GHG balance. This has identified LUC from arable, in general to lead to increased SOC, with LUC
from forests to be associated with reduced SOC and enhanced GHG emissions. Grasslands are highly
variable and uncertain in their response to LUC to bioenergy and given their widespread occurrence
across the temperate landscape, they remain a cause for concern and one of the main areas where
future research efforts should be focussed." Harris, Spake & Taylor 2015, p. 37 (see also p. 33
regarding SOC variations). The authors note however that "[t]he average time since transition across
all studies was 5.5 years (Xmax 16, Xmin 1) for SOC" and that "[...] the majority of studies considered
SOC at the 0–30 cm profile only [...]." Harris, Spake & Taylor 2015, pp. 29–30. Low carbon
accumulation rates for young plantations are to be expected, because of accelerated carbon decay at
the time of planting (due to soil aeration), and relatively low mean carbon input to the soil during the
establishment phase (2-3 years). Also, since dedicated energy crops like miscanthus produce
significantly more biomass per year than regular grasslands, and roughly 25% of the carbon content of
that biomass is successfully added to the soil carbon stock every year (see Net annual carbon
accumulation), it seems reasonable to expect that over time, soil organic carbon will increase also on
converted grasslands. The authors quote a carbon building phase of 30-50 years for perennials on
converted grasslands, see Harris, Spake & Taylor 2015, p. 31.

ap. «Traditional biomass (fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural residues, animal dung) used for cooking and
heating by some 2.8 billion people (38% of global population) in non-OECD countries accounts for
more than half of all bioenergy used worldwide (IEA 2017; REN21 2018) (Cross-Chapter Box 7 in
Chapter 6). Cooking with traditional biomass has multiple negative impacts on human health,
particularly for women, children and youth (Machisa et al. 2013; Sinha and Ray 2015; Price 2017;
Mendum and Njenga 2018; Adefuye et al. 2007) and on household productivity, including high
workloads for women and youth (Mendum and Njenga 2018; Brunner et al. 2018; Hou et al. 2018;
Njenga et al. 2019). Traditional biomass is land-intensive due to reliance on open fires, inefficient
stoves and overharvesting of woodfuel, contributing to land degradation, losses in biodiversity and
reduced ecosystem services (IEA 2017; Bailis et al. 2015; Masera et al. 2015; Specht et al. 2015;
Fritsche et al. 2017; Fuso Nerini et al. 2017). Traditional woodfuels account for 1.9–2.3% of global
GHG emissions, particularly in ‘hotspots’ of land degradation and fuelwood depletion in eastern Africa
and South Asia, such that one-third of traditional woodfuels globally are harvested unsustainably
(Bailis et al. 2015). Scenarios to significantly reduce reliance on traditional biomass in developing
countries present multiple co-benefits (high evidence, high agreement), including reduced emissions
of black carbon, a short-lived climate forcer that also causes respiratory disease (Shindell et al. 2012).
A shift from traditional to modern bioenergy, especially in the African context, contributes to improved
livelihoods and can reduce land degradation and impacts on ecosystem services (Smeets et al. 2012;
Gasparatos et al. 2018; Mudombi et al. 2018).» IPCC 2019a, p. 375.

aq. Cf. Smil's estimate of 0.60 W/m2 for the 10 t/ha yield above. The calculation is: Yield (t/ha) multiplied
with energy content (GJ/t) divided by seconds in a year (31 556 926) multiplied with the number of
square metres in one hectare (10 000).
ar. For yield estimates see FAO's "The global outlook for future wood supply from forest plantations" (htt
p://www.fao.org/3/X8423E/X8423E08.htm#TopOfPage) , section 2.7.2 – 2.7.3. Scot's pine, native to
Europe and northern Asia, weighs 390 kg/m3 (https://www.wood-database.com/scots-pine/) oven
dry (moisture content 0%). The oven dry weight of eucalyptus species commonly grown in plantations
in South America is 487 kg/m3 (average of Lyptus (https://www.wood-database.com/lyptus/) , Rose
Gum (https://www.wood-database.com/rose-gum/) and Deglupta (https://www.wood-database.co
m/deglupta/) ). The average weight of poplar species commonly grown in plantations in Europe is
335 kg/m3 (average of White Poplar (https://www.wood-database.com/white-poplar/) and Black
Poplar (https://www.wood-database.com/black-poplar/) .

as. "The raw material for wood pellets is woody biomass in accordance with Table 1 of ISO 17225‑1.
Pellets are usually manufactured in a die, with total moisture content usually less than 10 % of their
mass on wet basis." ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 2014a.

at. "The raw material for non-woody pellets can be herbaceous biomass, fruit biomass, aquatic biomass
or biomass blends and mixtures. These blends and mixtures can also include woody biomass. They
are usually manufactured in a die with total moisture content usually less than 15 % of their mass."
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 2014b.

au. Transmission loss data from the World Bank, sourced from IEA. The World Bank 2010.

av. Additionally, Smil estimates that newly installed photovoltaic solar parks reaches 7–11 W/m2 in sunny
regions of the world. Smil 2015, p. 191.

References

1. "Biomass – Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy" (https://www.eia.gov/energyexpla

ined/?page=biomass_home) . U.S. Energy Information Administration. June 21, 2018.

2. The EIA states: "Biofuels are transportation fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel that are made from
biomass materials." https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=biofuel_home

3. "Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change" (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-
1.pdf) (PDF). IPCC.

4. "Green groups dispute power station claim that biomass is carbon-neutral" (https://www.theguardian.
com/business/2021/mar/23/green-groups-dispute-power-station-claim-biomass-carbon-neutral) .
the Guardian. 2021-03-23. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
 5. Grunwald, Michael. "The 'Green Energy' That Might Be Ruining the Planet" (https://www.politico.com/n
ews/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-carbon-climate-politics-477620) . POLITICO. Retrieved
2021-03-27. "If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped
and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be
burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet? Most scientists and
environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits
greenhouse gases that heat up the earth."

6. Darby, Thomas. "What Is Biomass Renewable Energy" (https://web.archive.org/web/2014060802020

8/http://realworldenergy.com/what-is-biomass-renewable-energy/) . Real World Energy. Archived
from the original (http://www.realworldenergy.com/what-is-biomass-renewable-energy/) on 2014-
06-08. Retrieved 12 June 2014.

7. Randor Radakovits; Robert E. Jinkerson; Al Darzins; Matthew C. Posewitz1 (2010). "Genetic

Engineering of Algae for Enhanced Biofuel Production" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC2863401) . Eukaryotic Cell. 9 (4): 486–501. doi:10.1128/EC.00364-09 (https://doi.org/10.1128%2
FEC.00364-09) . PMC 2863401 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2863401) .
PMID 20139239 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20139239) .

8. "Biomass-to-Fuel Conversion (Princeton University USA)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150201020

655/http://www.princeton.edu/~yanglab/research/energy-biol.shtml) . Archived from the original (htt
ps://www.princeton.edu/~yanglab/research/energy-biol.shtml) on 2015-02-01. Retrieved
2015-02-13.

9. Pishvaee, Mohseni & Bairamzadeh 2021, pp. 1–20.

10. Akhtar, Krepl & Ivanova 2018.

11. Smith, Aidan Mark; Whittaker, Carly; Shield, Ian; Ross, Andrew Barry (2018). "The potential for
production of high quality bio-coal from early harvested Miscanthus by hydrothermal carbonisation" (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fuel.2018.01.143) . Fuel. 220: 546–557. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.143
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fuel.2018.01.143) .

12. Liu et al. 2011.

13. Conversion technologies (http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,15179&_d

ad=portal&_schema=PORTAL) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20091026171218/http://ww
w.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,15179&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL)
2009-10-26 at the Wayback Machine. Biomassenergycentre.org.uk. Retrieved on 2012-02-28.

14. "Biochemical Conversion of Biomass" (http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/biochemical-conversion-tec

hnologies/) . BioEnergy Consult. 2014-05-29. Retrieved 2016-10-18.

15. Linares-Pastén, J. A.; Andersson, M; Nordberg karlsson, E (2014). "Thermostable glycoside hydrolases
in biorefinery technologies" (http://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/1345714/4882910.pdf) (PDF).
Current Biotechnology. 3 (1): 26–44. doi:10.2174/22115501113026660041 (https://doi.org/10.2174%
2F22115501113026660041) .
16. Munnings, C.; Kulkarni, A.; Giddey, S.; Badwal, S.P.S. (August 2014). "Biomass to power conversion in a
direct carbon fuel cell". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 39 (23): 12377–12385.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.255 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijhydene.2014.03.255) .

17. Kim, Ye Eun (17 May 2011). "Surface Modifications of a Carbon Anode Catalyst by Control of
Functional Groups for Vitamin C Fuel Cells". Electrocatalysis. 2 (3): 200–206. doi:10.1007/s12678-
011-0055-0 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12678-011-0055-0) . S2CID 93344222 (https://api.semanti
cscholar.org/CorpusID:93344222) .

18. Knight, Chris (2013). "Chapter 6 – Application of Microbial Fuel Cells to Power Sensor Networks for
Ecological Monitoring". Wireless Sensor Networks and Ecological Monitoring. Smart Sensors,
Measurement and Instrumentation. 3. pp. 151–178. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36365-8_6 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2F978-3-642-36365-8_6) . ISBN 978-3-642-36364-1.

19. Badwal, Sukhvinder P. S.; Giddey, Sarbjit S.; Munnings, Christopher; Bhatt, Anand I.; Hollenkamp,
Anthony F. (24 September 2014). "Emerging electrochemical energy conversion and storage
technologies (open access)" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174133) . Frontiers
in Chemistry. 2: 79. Bibcode:2014FrCh....2...79B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014FrCh....2...
79B) . doi:10.3389/fchem.2014.00079 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffchem.2014.00079) .
PMC 4174133 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174133) . PMID 25309898 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25309898) .

20. Hanssen et al. 2017, p. 3 (Figure S3 in the Supporting Information document, link to document
available at the bottom of the article).

21. IEA 2020.

22. Hanssen et al. 2017, pp. 3-4 (Figure S3 and Table S1 in the Supporting Information document, link to
document available at the bottom of the article).

23. IEA Bioenergy 2006, pp. 1, 4 (table 4).

24. Chatham House 2017, p. 2.

25. IEA Bioenergy 2019, p. 3.

26. FutureMetrics 2012, p. 2.

27. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 2014.

28. Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research 2008, p. 13.

29. "EURACOAL statistics" (https://euracoal.eu/info/euracoal-eu-statistics/) . The voice of coal in

Europe. 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-10.

30. The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 2010, p. 103-104.

31. IPCC 2019a, p. 368.

32. IEA Bioenergy 2019, p. 4.

33. IPCC 2019a, p. 351.

34. IPCC 2019a, p. 348.

35. Reid Miner 2010, p. 39–40.

36. FAO 2020, p. 16, 52.

37. IPCC 2019a, p. 385.

38. EASAC 2017, p. 33.

39. EASAC 2017, p. 1.

40. Chatham House 2017, p. 3.

41. Stephenson et al. 2014.

42. IPCC 2019b, p. B.1.4.

43. IPCC 2019a, p. 386.

44. IPCC 2019f, p. 4.6.

45. Reid Miner 2010, p. 39.

46. IEA Bioenergy 2019, p. 4–5.

47. IPCC 2019b.

48. NAUFRP 2014, p. 2.

49. Favero, Daigneault & Sohngen 2020, p. 6.

50. Chatham House 2017, p. 7.

51. EASAC 2017, p. 23, 26, 35.

52. Chatham House 2017, p. 21–22.

53. FutureMetrics 2016, p. 5–9.

54. Chatham House 2017, p. 19.

55. Chatham House 2017, p. 68.

56. FutureMetrics 2011a, p. 5.

57. John Gunn 2011.

58. Hanssen et al. 2017, p. 1416.

59. IPCC 2007, p. 549.

60. IPCC 2019j, p. 2.67.

61. Hanssen et al. 2017, pp. 1408–1410.

62. IPCC 2019g, p. 194.

63. IPCC 2019b, p. B 7.4.

64. IEA 2017.

65. NAUFRP 2014, p. 1–2.

66. "Biomass explained" (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/biomass-and-the-environment.p

hp#:~:text=Burning%20either%20fossil%20fuels%20or,a%20carbon%2Dneutral%20energy%20sourc
e.) . U.S. Energy Information Administration Federal Statistical System of the United States. 25
October 2019. Retrieved 31 October 2020.

67. "Short rotation forestry" (http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-reso

urces/fuel/energy-crops/short-rotation-forestry/) . Forest Research. 2018-05-29. Retrieved
2020-10-19.

68. Soil Carbon under Switchgrass Stands and Cultivated Cropland (Interpretive Summary and Technical
Abstract) (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=164741,) .
USDA Agricultural Research Service, April 1, 2005

69. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 174.

70. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 166.

71. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 172.

72. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 167.

73. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 168.

74. Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 173.

75. IPCC 2019h, p. 628.

76. Springsteen, Bruce; Christofk, Tom; Eubanks, Steve; Mason, Tad; Clavin, Chris; Storey, Brett (January
2011). "Emission Reductions from Woody Biomass Waste for Energy as an Alternative to Open
Burning" (https://doi.org/10.3155%2F1047-3289.61.1.63) . Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association. 61 (1): 63–68. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.63 (https://doi.org/10.3155%2F1047-3289.6
1.1.63) . PMID 21305889 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21305889) .

77. Gustafsson, O.; Krusa, M.; Zencak, Z.; Sheesley, R. J.; Granat, L.; Engstrom, E.; Praveen, P. S.; Rao, P. S.
P.; Leck, C.; Rodhe, H. (23 January 2009). "Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel
Combustion?". Science. 323 (5913): 495–498. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..495G (https://ui.adsabs.harvar
d.edu/abs/2009Sci...323..495G) . doi:10.1126/science.1164857 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscienc
e.1164857) . PMID 19164746 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19164746) . S2CID 44712883 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44712883) .

78. "Pulp Fiction, The Series" (https://www.climatecentral.org/news/pulp-fiction-the-series-19592) .

www.climatecentral.org. Retrieved 2021-03-05.
79. "Biomass Basics – biofuelwatch" (https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/biomass-basics-2/) .
Retrieved 2021-03-05.

80. Ribout, Benjamin (2020-06-03). "Illegal logging in Romania overwhelms authorities" (https://www.eura
ctiv.com/section/biomass/news/illegal-logging-in-romania-overwhelms-authorities/) .
www.euractiv.com. Retrieved 2021-03-05.

81. Wyatt, Tanya (2014-02-01). "The Russian Far East's illegal timber trade: an organized crime?" (https://d
oi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9461-y) . Crime, Law and Social Change. 61 (1): 15–35.
doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9461-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10611-013-9461-y) . ISSN 1573-0751
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-0751) . S2CID 153645746 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Co
rpusID:153645746) .

82. "Illegal logging implicated in vast Siberian wild fires" (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europ

e/illegal-logging-implicated-in-vast-siberian-wild-fires-1.3978840) . The Irish Times. Retrieved
2021-03-05.

83. "Plans for burning Namibian wood in German power plants denounced" (https://www.robinwood.de/pr
essemitteilungen/plans-burning-namibian-wood-german-power-plants-denounced) . Robin Wood (in
German). Retrieved 2021-03-05.

84. Shikangalah & Mapani 2020, pp. 251–266.

85. orchestrator (2021-03-20). "Standing up for forests and against the Swedish forestry model: A letter to
EC policymakers" (https://forestdefenders.eu/standing-up-for-forests-and-against-the-swedish-forestr
y-model-a-letter-to-ec-policymakers/) . Forest Defenders Alliance. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

86. "Risk Map: Primary forest and threatened caribou habitat overlap with preliminary estimated wood
pellet haul zones for Pinnacle/Drax in British Columbia" (https://www.stand.earth/publication/forest-c
onservation/forests-and-wood-pellets/risk-map-primary-forest-and-threatened) . Stand.earth. 2021-
03-23. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

87. Gatten, Emma (2021-02-19). "Mississippi wood pellet plant that supplies UK electricity grid fined
$2.5m over air pollution" (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/02/19/mississippi-wood-pe
llet-plant-supplies-uk-electricity-grid-fined/) . The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235 (https://www.worldcat.
org/issn/0307-1235) . Retrieved 2021-03-05.

88. "British Power Stations Are Burning Wood From US Forests – To Meet Renewables Target" (https://ww
w.iflscience.com/environment/british-power-stations-are-burning-wood-us-forests-meet-renewables-
target/) . IFLScience. Retrieved 2021-03-05.

89. Smil 2015, pp. 26–27, 211, box 7.1.

 90. Van Zalk, John; Behrens, Paul (2018-12-01). "The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable
power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the U.S." (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.enpol.2018.08.023) Energy Policy. 123: 86.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.enpol.2018.08.023) . ISSN 0301-4215
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0301-4215) .

91. Smil 2015, p. 170.

92. Smil 2015, p. 2095 (kindle location).

93. Smil 2015, p. 228.

94. Smil 2015, p. 89.

95. Smil 2015, p. 91.

96. Smil 2015, p. 227.

97. Smil 2015, p. 90.

98. Smil 2015, p. 229.

99. Smil 2015, pp. 80, 89.

100. Schwarz 1993, p. 413.

101. Flores et al. 2012, p. 831.

102. Ghose 2011, p. 263.

103. Smil 2015, p. 85.

104. Smil 2015, p. 86.

105. Smil 2008, p. 75-76.

106. IPCC 2019f, p. 4.34 – 4.41.

107. van den Broek 1996, p. 271.

108. "RENEWABLE CAPACITY STATISTICS 2021 page 41" (https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Age

ncy/Publication/2021/Apr/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2021.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 24 May 2021.

Sources

Pishvaee, Mir Saman; Mohseni, Shayan; Bairamzadeh, Samira (2021). "An overview of biomass
feedstocks for biofuel production". Biomass to Biofuel Supply Chain Design and Planning Under
Uncertainty. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820640-9.00001-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fb978-0-12-8
20640-9.00001-5) . ISBN 978-0-12-820640-9. S2CID 230567249 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:230567249) .
Akhtar, Ali; Krepl, Vladimir; Ivanova, Tatiana (2018-07-05). "A Combined Overview of Combustion,
Pyrolysis, and Gasification of Biomass". Energy & Fuels. American Chemical Society (ACS). 32 (7):
7294–7318. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b01678 (https://doi.org/10.1021%2Facs.energyfuels.8b016
78) . ISSN 0887-0624 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0887-0624) .
Liu, Guangjian; Larson, Eric D.; Williams, Robert H.; Kreutz, Thomas G.; Guo, Xiangbo (2011-01-20).
"Making Fischer−Tropsch Fuels and Electricity from Coal and Biomass: Performance and Cost
Analysis". Energy & Fuels. American Chemical Society (ACS). 25 (1): 415–437. doi:10.1021/ef101184e
(https://doi.org/10.1021%2Fef101184e) . ISSN 0887-0624 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0887-06
24) .
McCalmont, Jon P.; Hastings, Astley; McNamara, Niall P.; Richter, Goetz M.; Robson, Paul; Donnison,
Iain S.; Clifton-Brown, John (March 2017). "Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus
for bioenergy in the UK" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340280) . GCB Bioenergy.
9 (3): 489–507. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12294 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fgcbb.12294) . PMC 5340280 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340280) . PMID 28331551 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/28331551) .
Kahle, Petra; Beuch, Steffen; Boelcke, Barbara; Leinweber, Peter; Schulten, Hans-Rolf (November
2001). "Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on nutrients and
soil organic matter". European Journal of Agronomy. 15 (3): 171–184. doi:10.1016/S1161-
0301(01)00102-2 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS1161-0301%2801%2900102-2) .
Whitaker, Jeanette; Field, John L.; Bernacchi, Carl J.; Cerri, Carlos E. P.; Ceulemans, Reinhart; Davies,
Christian A.; DeLucia, Evan H.; Donnison, Iain S.; McCalmont, Jon P.; Paustian, Keith; Rowe, Rebecca L.;
Smith, Pete; Thornley, Patricia; McNamara, Niall P. (March 2018). "Consensus, uncertainties and
challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC5815384) . GCB Bioenergy. 10 (3): 150–164. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12488 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fg
cbb.12488) . PMC 5815384 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815384) .
PMID 29497458 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29497458) .
Milner, Suzanne; Holland, Robert A.; Lovett, Andrew; Sunnenberg, Gilla; Hastings, Astley; Smith, Pete;
Wang, Shifeng; Taylor, Gail (March 2016). "Potential impacts on ecosystem services of land use
transitions to second-generation bioenergy crops in GB" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4974899) . GCB Bioenergy. 8 (2): 317–333. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12263 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fg
cbb.12263) . PMC 4974899 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974899) .
PMID 27547244 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27547244) .
Harris, Z.M.; Spake, R.; Taylor, G. (November 2015). "Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of
soil carbon and GHG emissions" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biombioe.2015.05.008) . Biomass and
Bioenergy. 82: 27–39. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biombioe.2015.0
5.008) .
Anderson, Eric; Arundale, Rebecca; Maughan, Matthew; Oladeinde, Adebosola; Wycislo, Andrew; Voigt,
Thomas (9 April 2014). "Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production" (h
ttps://doi.org/10.4155%2Fbfs.10.80) . Biofuels. 2 (1): 71–87. doi:10.4155/bfs.10.80 (https://doi.org/10.
4155%2Fbfs.10.80) .
Felten, Daniel; Emmerling, Christoph (October 2012). "Accumulation of Miscanthus‐derived carbon in
soils in relation to soil depth and duration of land use under commercial farming conditions". Journal
of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 175 (5): 661–670. doi:10.1002/jpln.201100250 (https://doi.org/10.10
02%2Fjpln.201100250) .
Hastings, Astley; Mos, Michal; Yesufu, Jalil A.; McCalmont, Jon; Schwarz, Kai; Ashman, Chris; Nunn,
Chris; Schuele, Heinrich; Cosentino, Salvatore; Scalici, Giovanni; Scordia, Danilo; Wagner, Simon;
Harding, Graham; Clifton-Brown, John (June 2017). "Economic and Environmental Assessment of
Seed and Rhizome Propagated Miscanthus in the UK" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C5491852) . Frontiers in Plant Science. 8: 1058. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01058 (https://doi.org/10.3389%
2Ffpls.2017.01058) . PMC 5491852 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491852) .
PMID 28713395 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28713395) .}

van den Broek, Richard (1996). "Biomass combustion for power generation". Biomass and Bioenergy.
11 (4): 271–281. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(96)00033-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0961-9534%2896%29
00033-5) .
Flores, Rilner A.; Urquiaga, Segundo; Alves, Bruno J. R.; Collier, Leonardo S.; Boddey, Robert M. (October
2012). "Yield and quality of elephant grass biomass produced in the cerrados region for bioenergy" (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1590%2Fs0100-69162012000500003) . Engenharia Agrícola. 32 (5): 831–839.
doi:10.1590/s0100-69162012000500003 (https://doi.org/10.1590%2Fs0100-69162012000500003) .
Ghose, Mrinal K. (2011). Speight, James (ed.). The Biofuels Handbook (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=zmsoDwAAQBAJ) . Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, The Ingram Publisher Services
distributor. ISBN 978-1-84973-026-6. OCLC 798795266 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/798795266) .
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2014a). "ISO 17225-2:2014(en) Solid biofuels —
Fuel specifications and classes — Part 2: Graded wood pellets" (https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:i
so:17225:-2:ed-1:v1:en) . Retrieved 11 July 2020.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2014b). "ISO 17225-6:2014(en) Solid biofuels —
Fuel specifications and classes — Part 6: Graded non-woody pellets" (https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#is
o:std:iso:17225:-6:ed-1:v1:en) . Retrieved 11 July 2020.
Schwarz, H. (January 1993). "Miscanthus sinensis 'giganteus' production on several sites in Austria".
Biomass and Bioenergy. 5 (6): 413–419. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(93)90036-4 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2
F0961-9534%2893%2990036-4) .
Smil, Vaclav (2008). Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-69356-1.
Smil, Vaclav (2015). Power density: a key to understanding energy sources and uses (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=Mj87CQAAQBAJ&pg=PR5) . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-02914-8. OCLC 897401827 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/897401827) .
The World Bank (2010). "Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output)" (https://d
ata.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS) . Retrieved 11 July 2020.
IPCC (2019i). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 2. Land climate interactions" (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa
ds/sites/4/2020/08/05_ Chapter-2-V3.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019a). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 4. Land Degradation" (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/site
s/4/2019/11/07_ Chapter-4.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019h). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 6. Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food
security and GHG fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options" (https://www.ipcc.c
h/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/09_ Chapter-6.pdf) (PDF).
IEA (2020). "Going carbon negative: What are the technology options?" (https://www.iea.org/commen
taries/going-carbon-negative-what-are-the-technology-options) .
IEA (2017a). "Plotting a path for greater bioenergy use" (https://www.iea.org/commentaries/plotting-
a-path-for-greater-bioenergy-use) .
IEA (2017b). "Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy" (https://www.iea.org/reports/
technology-roadmap-delivering-sustainable-bioenergy) .
EASAC (2017). "Multi-functionality and sustainability in the European Union's forests" (https://easac.e
u/fileadmin/PDF_ s/reports_ statements/Forests/EASAC_ Forests_ web_ complete.pdf) (PDF).
EPA (2020). "Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories" (https://www.epa.gov/sites/producti
on/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factors-hub.pdf) (PDF).
Chatham House (2017). "Woody Biomass for Power and Heat. Impacts on the Global Climate" (http
s://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-02-23-woody-biomass-gl
obal-climate-brack-final2.pdf) (PDF).
IEA Bioenergy (2019). "The use of forest biomass for climate change mitigation: response to
statements of EASAC" (https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WoodyBiomas
s-Climate_ EASACresponse_ Nov2019.pdf) (PDF).
FutureMetrics (2015a). "Debunking two so-called "facts" about Wood Pellets" (https://futuremetrics.i
nfo/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FutureMetrics_ Debunking_ two_ so-called_ facts_ about_ wood_ pell
ets.pdf) (PDF).
FutureMetrics (2012). "A Look at the Details of CO2 Emissions from burning Wood vs. Coal" (https://f
uturemetrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CO2-from-Wood-and-Coal-Combustion.pdf) (PDF).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2014). "ISO 17225-2:2014(en) Solid biofuels —
Fuel specifications and classes — Part 2: Graded wood pellets" (https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:i
so:17225:-2:ed-1:v1:en) .
Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research (2008). "Coal Characteristics - CCTR Basic Facts File #
8" (https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics8-CoalCharacter
istics-Oct08.pdf) (PDF).
The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (2010). "Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy
Study" (https://www.mass.gov/doc/manometbiomassreportfullhirezpdf/download) .
IPCC (2006a). "2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 2: Energy.
Chapter 2: Stationary Combustion" (https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_ Volume2/V
2_ 2_ Ch2_ Stationary_ Combustion.pdf) (PDF).
Reid Miner (2010). "Impact of the global forest industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases" (http://w
ww.fao.org/3/i1580e/i1580e00.pdf) (PDF).
FAO (2020). "Global Forest Resources Assessment" (http://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/CA9825EN.pd
f) (PDF).
Stephenson, N. L.; Das, A. J.; Condit, R.; Russo, S. E.; Baker, P. J.; Beckman, N. G.; Coomes, D. A.; Lines, E.
R.; Morris, W. K.; Rüger, N.; Álvarez, E.; Blundo, C.; Bunyavejchewin, S.; Chuyong, G.; Davies, S. J.; Duque,
Á.; Ewango, C. N.; Flores, O.; Franklin, J. F.; Grau, H. R.; Hao, Z.; Harmon, M. E.; Hubbell, S. P.; Kenfack, D.;
Lin, Y.; Makana, J.-R.; Malizia, A.; Malizia, L. R.; Pabst, R. J.; Pongpattananurak, N.; Su, S.-H.; Sun, I-F.; Tan,
S.; Thomas, D.; van Mantgem, P. J.; Wang, X.; Wiser, S. K.; Zavala, M. A. (2014-01-15). "Rate of tree
carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size". Nature. Springer Science and Business
Media LLC. 507 (7490): 90–93. Bibcode:2014Natur.507...90S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Na
tur.507...90S) . doi:10.1038/nature12914 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature12914) . ISSN 0028-0836
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-0836) . PMID 24429523 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/244
29523) . S2CID 4387375 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4387375) .
IPCC (2019b). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Summary for Policymakers" (https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-fo
r-policymakers/) .
NAUFRP (2014). "Letter of transmittal" (http://naufrp.forest.mtu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/le
tter2014-carbon) .
Favero, Alice; Daigneault, Adam; Sohngen, Brent (2020). "Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass
energy, or both?" (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fsciadv.aay6792) . Science Advances. American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 6 (13): eaay6792. Bibcode:2020SciA....6.6792F (h
ttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SciA....6.6792F) . doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay6792 (https://doi.org/1
0.1126%2Fsciadv.aay6792) . ISSN 2375-2548 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2375-2548) .
FAOSTAT (2020). "Forestry Production and Trade" (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO) .
FutureMetrics (2016). "The Washington Post and 65 "Experts" that Wrote a Letter to Congress Are
Wrong about Biomass for Energy" (https://futuremetrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Washing
ton_ Post_ and_ 65_ Experts_ Are_ Wrong_ about_ Wood_ Pellets.pdf) (PDF).
FutureMetrics (2017). " 'Alternative Facts' in the Recent Chatham House Paper" (https://www.futurem
etrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Alternative%20Facts%20in%20the%20Recent%20Chatham%
20House%20Paper%20by%20FutureMetrics.pdf) (PDF).
FutureMetrics (2011a). "Response to the comments made by Manomet regarding the recent paper
by FutureMetrics about the Manomet Study on biomass" (https://futuremetrics.info/wp-content/upl
oads/2013/07/Response-to-Manomet-Comments.pdf) (PDF).
John Gunn (2011). "The Biomass Carbon Debate: When To Start Counting?" (https://www.renewablee
nergyworld.com/2011/10/20/the-biomass-carbon-debate-when-to-start-counting/) .
FutureMetrics (2011b). " "Good News, FutureMetrics and Manomet Agree (sort of – and of course
that is our opinion)" " (https://futuremetrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FutureMetrics-and-M
anomet-Agree-sort-of.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2007). "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 9. Forestry" (https://
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter9-1.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019j). "2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Generic methodologies applicable to multiple
land use categories" (https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_ Volume4/19R_ V4_ Ch02_
Generic%20Methods.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019f). "2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Chapter 4. Forest Land" (https://www.
ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_ Volume4/19R_ V4_ Ch04_ Forest%20Land.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2006b). "2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use. Chapter 1: Introduction" (https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006g
l/pdf/4_ Volume4/V4_ 01_ Ch1_ Introduction.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019g). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 2. Land climate interactions" (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa
ds/sites/4/2020/08/05_ Chapter-2-V3.pdf) (PDF).
IPCC (2019e). "Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 6. Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food
security and GHG fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options" (https://www.ipcc.c
h/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/09_ Chapter-6.pdf) (PDF).
IEA (2017). "Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy" (https://www.iea.org/reports/t
echnology-roadmap-delivering-sustainable-bioenergy) .
EUR-Lex (2018). "Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (Text with EEA
relevance.)" (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_ .2018.328.01.0082.01.
ENG) .
IEA Bioenergy (2006). "GHG Impacts of Pellet Production from Woody Biomass Sources in BC,
Canada" (https://task38.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/can2-brochure.pd
f) (PDF).
Hanssen, Steef V.; Duden, Anna S.; Junginger, Martin; Dale, Virginia H.; van der Hilst, Floor (2017-01-17).
"Wood pellets, what else? Greenhouse gas parity times of European electricity from wood pellets
produced in the south-eastern United States using different softwood feedstocks" (https://doi.org/1
0.1111%2Fgcbb.12426) . GCB Bioenergy. Wiley. 9 (9): 1406–1422. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12426 (https://doi.
org/10.1111%2Fgcbb.12426) . ISSN 1757-1693 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1757-1693) .
Gasparatos, Alexandros; Doll, Christopher N.H.; Esteban, Miguel; Ahmed, Abubakari; Olang, Tabitha A.
(2017). "Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy" (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2016.08.030) . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier BV. 70:
161–184. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2016.08.030) . ISSN 1364-
0321 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1364-0321) .
 Shikangalah, Rosemary; Mapani, Benjamin (2020-07-01). "A Review of Bush Encroachment in Namibia:
From a Problem to an Opportunity?" (http://www.rangeland.ir/article_ 672073.html) . Journal of
Rangeland Science. 10 (3): 251–266. ISSN 2008-9996 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2008-9996) .
Retrieved 2021-06-15.

External links

Look up biomass in Wikt ionary, t he free dict ionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media relat ed t o Biomass.

Biomass int eract ive by PBL Net herlands Environment al Assessment Agency (ht t p://infographi
cs.pbl.nl/biomass/)

Forest , Nat ure and Biomass (ht t p://ign.ku.dk/english/research/forest -nat ure-biomass/)

Mansoori, G. Ali; Enayat i, Nader; Agyarko, L. Barnie (2015). Energy: Sources, Utilization,
Legislation, Sustainability, Illinois As Model State. World Scient ific. doi:10.1142/9699 (ht t ps://d
oi.org/10.1142%2F9699) . ISBN 978-981-4704-02-1.

"All Solid biomass baromet ers Archives" (ht t ps://www.eurobserv-er.org/cat egory/all-solid-biom

ass-baromet ers/) . EurObserv'ER.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Biomass&oldid=1050270794"

Last edit ed 6 days ago by Lazylit crit ic

Wikipedia

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.