Results:

• UK-grown biomass can deliver genuine, system-level, greenhouse gas savings.
• Planting around 1.4 Mha of second generation (non-food) bioenergy crops, such as Miscanthus, Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and Short Rotation Forestry (SRF), by the 2050s would make a signifi cant contribution to delivering a cost-effective, low carbon energy system. This is equivalent to ~7.5% of the total agricultural area of the UK.
• Steadily increasing the area of bioenergy crops in the UK (averaging around 30-35 kha/yr of new planting out to the 2050s) would allow the sector to ‘learn by doing’ and develop best practices, as well as monitor and manage impacts on other markets and the wider environment.
• Delivering a substantial energy crops sector whilst balancing the demand for land from other sectors will require an increase in land productivity and a reduction in food waste throughout the supply chain.
• The market for second generation energy crops is nascent.
• As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, there is an opportunity to restructure farming support in a way which provides long-term clarity and support to farmers and encourages the sustainable growth of the UK biomass sector

• Planting 30 - 35 kha/yr of second generation crops (Miscanthus, Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and Short Rotation Forestry (SRF)) would keep the UK on the trajectory to deliver a bioenergy sector of the scale needed to help cost-effectively decarbonise the UK energy system.
• Due to the seasonal nature of bioenergy crop planting, management and harvesting, the majority of job opportunities will be part-time, but are complimentary to the seasonal demands of other roles in the agricultural and forestry sectors, particularly arable farming. By 2032, a 30 kha/yr planting rate could create around 8,100 job opportunities in the busiest months (or 4,300 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs when averaged across the year). By the 2050s, around 16,700 opportunities could be created during peak periods (9,100 FTE jobs across the year).
• The UK is not currently in a position to deliver a planting rate of 30 kha/yr - the total planted area of Miscanthus and SRC willow has remained at around 10 kha in recent years with a limited number of players in the market. Investment is needed in the production of plant breeding materials, including research into new establishment techniques to reduce costs. Investment is also needed in training and specialised equipment for planting and harvesting.
• As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, there is an opportunity to restructure farming support in a way which encourages the sustainable growth of the UK biomass sector. This could place a value on the wider environmental benefits growing second generation energy crops can make to the farming landscape.

• Respondents have consistently supported government-led action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In 2017, over half of respondents (58%) thought that the government should do more to reduce emissions, with only 6% believing that the government should reduce efforts to lower emissions.
• Support for producing bioenergy from both biomass and waste has been consistently strong across all three surveys with the highest levels of support recorded in the most recent survey. Across the three surveys between 72% and 77% of respondents supported the use of biomass, and 81-84% supported the use of waste for bioenergy production.
• Bioenergy is associated with several positive features. The ability to generate energy from waste has consistently been the positive feature most selected by respondents. The ETI’s broader analysis highlights the importance of using waste feedstocks effectively to deliver emissions savings. In order to help achieve this, the ETI is investing in a 1.5 MWe waste gasifi cation demonstration plant with syngas clean-up.
• In all three surveys, competition for land and having to import biomass because not enough is produced in the UK have been perceived by respondents as the main negative features of bioenergy. Our 2016 report explored these views in more detail and concluded that using a mix of imported and domestic feedstocks could be publically acceptable, such that the UK is not overly reliant on imports and can maintain at least current levels of food self-sufficiency
• The government has consistently been the most popular choice to lead the development of the bioenergy sector, but a greater number of respondents trust scientists/academics or experts in the field, independent consumer or industry watchdogs, and environmental interest groups to provide reliable information on the sector. This suggests it will be crucial for different groups to work together to increase awareness and understanding of bioenergy while developing the sector in the UK.

• All three case studies demonstrate that planting energy crops can increase the profitability of the land over a 23-year lifetime. Initial investment costs are expected to be paid back within the first six to seven years.
• When optimising the use of land across the farm, impacts on food production can be minimised or avoided. in two case studies, food impacts were minimised by using land which delivered poor arable yields, and by minimising the reduction in sheep numbers through higher stocking densities (the number of sheep per hectare). in the third case study, the crop was planted on unused land so no food production was displaced.
• Land which is less suitable for food production or grazing can be suited to energy crops as they can be successfully planted on poorer quality soils, and land which is more prone to waterlogging or weed problems. They are also suited to less accessible fields as they require less intensive management than arable crops.
• The farmers in these case studies chose to grow energy crops for a variety of reasons - making better use of difficult or underutilised land, diversifying income and reducing workload. In addition, all farmers cited the importance of obtaining secure fixed-term contracts with buyers in their decision making. This reinforces findings from previous ETI work on enabling UK biomass.
• Discussions with land agents suggest that land used to grow biomass crops should not be valued differently to other agricultural land, as land should be valued on its productive capacity. however, the specific price offered by a buyer will be affected by their objectives in buying the land and their understanding of bioenergy crops. The presence of a profitable contract for the crop and a willingness from the buyer to continue with bioenergy cropping may have a beneficial impact on the land value. If the buyer wishes to change the land use, is uncertain how to manage a bioenergy crop, or if there are limited market outlets for the crop, the land value may be lower than if it weren’t planted with a bioenergy crop.
• Qualitative evidence from the Miscanthus farmers indicate an increase in wildlife, particularly birds, since growing the crop. In the Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Willow case study, the farm carried out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before planting.

• ensure a wider, more detailed representation of possible bioenergy pathways
• raise the overall data quality and level of confidence in the model
• improve the user interface
• increase the options for use cases and scenarios

• This report has been prepared in response to a specific request from the ETI; the additional full reviews of the 34 studies identified as adopting ALCA methodologiesis solely due to this request and not to any change in the original goal and scope that applies to all other aspects of the project.
• The 34 ALCA studies identified by the initial selection and screening process formed a sub-set of ALCA bioenergy studies likely to cover the scope of the project in terms of:biomass sources, being conventional forests (broadleaf, conifer and pine), plantation pine forests, short rotation forests (conifer and broadleaf),short rotation coppice (willow and poplar), miscanthus and wheat straw; geographical biomass provenance, being Canada, the USA and Europe; and specified conversion technologies.
• Due to the nature of the screening process, coverage of the value chains relevant to this project is less assured for the selected ALCA studies than for the CLCA studies in the main review; no supplementary screening was carried out to identify ALCA studies that would have been excluded from detailed review for a reason other than adoption of ALCA methodology (such as provenance of biomass).
• This report provides the results of each review as well as an assessment of the robustness of the evidence base provided by the studies (mainly in terms of coverage of value chains transparency of calculationsand methodologies adopted) and an examination of the differences and similarities between the studies.
• The mai nfindings from the review process were that, from the 34 reviewed ALCA studies, very few (11) of the potential (190) relevant whole bioenergy value chains were covered by 8 ALCA studies, and only 1 of these studies (a calculation tool with the potential to cover 3 of the specified value chains) had high transparency.
• Taking into account the analysis of the reviewed ALCA studies,which demonstrates the extensive variations in the methodologies adopted and the physical parameters used for results reporting, it is apparent that there are limits to findings on confidence and critical data that can be derived from them for the evidence base for the specified bioenergy value chains in this project.

• a critique of the robustness of the evidence base based on both data and methodologies used;
• a measure of certainty behind the data reviewed; and
• details of the confidence the reviewer may have in interpreting the data.

• Biomass combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) remains the only credible route to deliver negative emissions, necessary to meet the UK’s 2050 GHG emission reduction targets.
• Without targeted intervention and leadership, the opportunities to realise the full benefits of this negative emission potential could be missed
• Bio-hydrogen and bio-electricity are produced inpreference to biofuels and bio-methane
• Bio-heat is deployed across the UK, especially in earlier decades
• Gasification technology is a key bioenergy enabler, producing both hydrogen and syngas, and is one of the most flexible, scalable, and cost-effective bioenergy technologies
• Locational preferences for resource production are apparent: with Short Rotation Coppice Willow (SRC-W) in the west / north-west of the UK and Miscanthus in the south and east of the UK. Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) when grown is preferred in the south and east of the country, along with the collection of waste for making Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

• Results are as reliable as possible, since results from the ECOSSE model are directly reported (except for non-default fertiliser and yield improvement)
• Comparatively fast to use
• Future modifications are relatively straightforward, since results for different transitions, climates and regions, for example, can be obtained from the underlying model and used to create a new look-up table, without further modelling work to approximate the results of the ECOSSE model

• The data storage space for the meta-model is comparatively large
• Results are restricted to those considered by the model (although use of regression equations for non-default options works around this).

This document is a report for the project titled 'Harvester Development for New High Yielding SRC Crops and Markets'.

The objectives of this work are:

The project has consisted of a number of engineering and field trials. Key amongst these has been development of robust harvester drive mechanisms that are able to withstand the larger crops that the UK now produces and the modification of the chipping system to allow different fuels specifications to be produced. Throughout a method of research into the specific area has been followed by engineering adaptations that have then been field tested and reviewed. Clearly with cost objectives, trials involving the assessment of cost of production through workrate and expense have been necessary and these have been incorporated. Finally consolidation of the knowledge and results gained has been made and incorporated in guidance notes and recommendations for further work.

The conclusions of this project are:

1. Manufacture and Installation of New Components for Large Crop Harvesting
2. Activity Summary and Results of Initial Field Testing on SRC Crops
3. Activity Summary and Results of Field Testing and Yields of Different Ages of Crops
4. Remanufacture of Chipping Drum and Production of Market Chip Samples
5. Economic Analysis and Harvesting Guidance
6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Work

• Appendix A - Full economic analysis of harvesting systems

The objectives of this project are:

The conclusions of this project are:

The key objectives of the project and the research carried out were:

Three years ago the management of the Fairport Engineering Limited started to investigate the different ways of processing unsorted MSW. From the knowledge gained from this investigation they designed and built a small pilot processor to obtain data on operating parameters and product knowledge.

A key issue was to ensure the marketability of the principal output from the process: the biomass fuel fraction. Aware of the issues faced in the past in marketing RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) Fairport took a pro-active route to addressing the problem. Instead of following the traditional route of producing an RDF and then finding outlets for the product Fairport instead started by developing an acceptable specification with potential customers for these biomass fuel products and only then set about developing the process which would provide products to meet this agreed specification.

The aim was to develop a process which could be flexible, cost effective and provide a proven and sustainable option for waste treatment whilst accommodating the following market dynamics:

1. Introduction
2. Project Aims and Objectives
3. Key Activities and Observations
4. Testing of Biomass Fuel Products
5. Emissions and Environmental Issues
6. Density Separator
7. Market Place Evaluation
8. Project Conclusions and Recommendation's
9. Acknowledgements
10. Appendices

• Energy Technologies Institute•Value of bioenergy–Wastes
• We can already use combustion to get energy from waste - why do we need something different and why gasification?
• What is gasification and why is ultra-clean syngas important?
• What is the current UK gasification project landscape?
• The ETI’s project work

• Who are ETI
• Why is Bioenergy Important
• Why Waste as a feedstock
• Why Gasification
• What is the ETI doing to enable commercialisation of gasification