Accounting globally for about 10% of the primary energy and 70% of the renewable energy supply in 2022, bioenergy is recognized for its immense contribution to the universal green economy transition. But is biomass really that green? Should it be considered as a sustainable energy resource? Or is it even a true renewable energy? Such questions intrigue acronym debates between two camps. On one hand, the proponent of bioenergy believe it has positive environmental impact. They assert that it is renewable since biomass sources can be regrown or replenished in a relatively short time span compared to fossil fuels and that it helps reduce waste, as biomass sources can be derived from organic materials that would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerators. Moreover, they claim it is carbon neutral, as biomass fuels release the same amount of carbon dioxide that was absorbed by the plants during photosynthesis, creating a closed carbon cycle. Overall, they promote for biomass energy as an alternative or supplement to coal, oil, and gas, enhancing energy security and diversity. To some extent, biomass energy – if properly produced and consumed – can contribute to a more sustainable development. Implementing sustainable practices includes using waste or residues as biomass sources, applying efficient and clean technologies, following environmental and social standards and regulations, developing innovative solutions, improving the yield and quality of biomass sources, enhancing the conversion and storage of biomass fuels, and integrating biomass with other renewable energy sources. On the other hand, the opponents perceive the biomass as a weakness point that at least lowers the ceiling of ambition of the global renewable energy movement and at most demolishes the entire global endeavor of net zero. This is quite logical! Bioenergy is polluting, as it emits various pollutants and greenhouse gases when burned, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, affecting air quality and human health. Being a major source of biomass energy, global forestry is under acute danger. Excessive bioenergy production can increase forest loss and fragmentation, by clearing or burning forests for biomass production, especially for large-scale monoculture plantations of energy crops, such as oil palm, sugarcane, or eucalyptus. It can also reduce forest biodiversity and ecosystem services, by replacing native or diverse forests with exotic or uniform species, and by affecting the soil, water, and wildlife resources and functions.

Biomass energy then is perceived by some experts as a trojan or as a crack that may dismantle or downgrade the ultimate goal of the global renewable energy transition. It has also been criticized as a tool of greenwashing. Some power stations that claim to be among the world’s leading generators of renewable electricity from biomass burn more wood than a country produces in a year. They receive billions of dollars in subsidies from their governments, while emitting more carbon dioxide than any other power plant in their country.

Another example of bioenergy misuse is biodiesel. Palm oil biodiesel is marketed as a green alternative to fossil fuels, alleging that it can reduce carbon emissions and support rural development. However, palm oil production is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and human rights violations in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Palm oil biodiesel also emits more greenhouse gases than conventional diesel when the land use change impacts are taken into account. A third example is wood-burning stoves which are popular among homeowners who want to reduce their energy bills and carbon footprint by using wood as a renewable and carbon-neutral fuel. However, wood-burning stoves can have negative impacts on air quality, health, and climate. Wood-burning stoves emit high levels of particulate matter, which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as black carbon, which is a short-lived climate pollutant that contributes to global warming. Wood-burning stoves also require a lot of wood, which can lead to unsustainable logging and forest degradation.

So, to understand the scale, the consequences and the net impact of biomass energy, we need to analyse the global bioenergy mix and distribution. It is estimated that the global biomass energy supply in 2030 will range from 97 EJ to 147 EJ per year. Approximately 40% of this total would originate from agricultural residues and waste (37-66 EJ). The remaining supply potential is shared between energy crops (33-39 EJ) and forest products, including forest residues (24-43 EJ). The global bioenergy consumption in 2020 was about 62 EJ, accounting for nearly 5% of the total primary energy consumption. The main sectors that consumed bioenergy were industry (25 EJ), transport (15 EJ), and residential (14 EJ). The main types of bioenergy consumed were solid biomass (42 EJ), liquid biofuels (12 EJ), and biogas (8 EJ). The main producing countries of biomass energy in 2020 were China (11 EJ), the United States (9 EJ), Brazil (7 EJ), India (6 EJ), and Germany (3 EJ). The main producing companies of biomass energy in 2020 were Poet (2.4 billion liters of ethanol), ADM (1.9 billion liters of ethanol), Valero (1.8 billion liters of ethanol), Raizen (1.7 billion liters of ethanol), and Neste (1.6 billion liters of renewable diesel).

It is worth mentioning that bioenergy is mostly consumed domestically by the countries that generate it, and the global trade of this sector is very low. None of the five largest biomass energy users – China, the United States, Brazil, India, and Germany – imported any biomass from abroad in 2020. The main consuming sectors of biomass energy in 2020 were industry (25 EJ), transport (15 EJ), and residential (14 EJ). The main consuming types of biomass energy in 2020 were solid biomass (42 EJ), liquid biofuels (12 EJ), and biogas (8 EJ).

In order to ensure a positive net impact of bioenergy, it is crucial to take into account the following recommendations:

1. Sustainable biomass production and supply: This involves ensuring that biomass is sourced from responsible and certified sources, avoiding negative impacts on biodiversity, land use, food security, and social welfare. It also requires improving the efficiency and reliability of biomass supply chains, as well as developing regional and local biohubs to facilitate biomass aggregation and distribution.
2. Biomass conversion and utilization: This involves advancing the state-of-the-art of biomass conversion technologies, such as gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, and fermentation, to produce a range of biofuels and bioproducts, such as hydrogen, biogas, biochar, bioethanol, and biodiesel. It also requires optimizing the integration of bioenergy into the existing energy systems, as well as exploring the potential of negative emissions technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage/utilization (BECCS/U).
3. Bioeconomy and policy: This involves promoting the development of a circular bioeconomy, where biomass is used to create value-added products and services, while minimizing waste and emissions. It also requires establishing supportive policies and regulations, as well as fostering collaboration and innovation among stakeholders, to create a conducive environment for bioenergy deployment and market development.

But unfortunately, biomass energy is primarily concentrated in low economies. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that biomass energy is largely consumed in Asia, Africa, and Latin America for cooking and heating in households where such technologies and policies are less adopted compared to Europe and North America where biomass is mainly used for electricity generation and industrial applications under stricter measures. Some countries have already suffered from excessive dependency on biomass energy, especially in the traditional form of burning wood or charcoal for cooking and heating. Kenya for example depends on biomass energy for about 70% of its energy needs, mostly for domestic use according to UNEP. This has resulted in high rates of forest degradation, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions. The UNEP report states that Kenya loses about 12,000 hectares of forest every year due to biomass energy consumption.

Ethiopia is a clearer case of inappropriate management of energy sector. According to a report by Biotechnology for Biofuels, Ethiopia relies on biomass energy for about 90% of its total energy consumption, mainly for household use. This has led to severe deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and health problems. The report estimates that Ethiopia loses about 1.5% of its forest cover annually due to biomass energy demand. To overcome the issue, Ethiopia has decided to turn into hydropower as a cleaner substitute of biomass energy by structing a massive dam on its border with Sudan, a decision that has been described as the worst in its kind. The dam, also known as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), was built In hope to double Ethiopia’s electricity generation and provide reliable and clean power to millions of its citizens. However, the dam contributed negatively to the Ethiopian environment and economy as many factors hinder the country from benefitting from this project including the low creditworthiness of the distribution and power generation utilities (EEU and EEP), which affects their ability to invest in infrastructure, maintenance, and service delivery, the conversion of foreign currency, which limits the import of equipment, spare parts, and fuel for power generation and transmission. The grid infrastructure, which suffers from low connectivity, poor reliability, and high losses due to technical and non-technical factors and furtherly, the off-grid populations, which account for about 55% of the total population, and rely on traditional biomass or other alternatives for their energy needs. Therefore, the dam is not a sufficient solution for the energy problem in Ethiopia, as it requires a comprehensive and integrated approach that addresses the technical, financial, institutional, and social aspects of the power sector. It also poses challenges and risks for the region, such as water security, environmental impacts, and geopolitical tensions.

In summary, biomass energy can be a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, but it requires careful management and use, considering the whole life cycle effects and trade-offs. More generally, renewable energy is not a universal solution, but a context-specific one. Each country should choose the best renewable energy source for its needs, based on various factors such as consumption patterns, competitive edges, market size, grid infrastructure, legal framework, geopolitical issues and sustainability. Adopting the right energy source is not enough, though. It also requires following the sustainability principles and criteria, applying efficient and clean technologies, and reinforcing the public awareness and participation.

This topic and more shall be discussed in detail during the CRES Convention held in Cairo from 10th to 12th September 2024. Read more about CRES Convention themes here.