Energy crops The effectiveness of UK Policy Kevin Lindegaard - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Energy crops The effectiveness of UK Policy Kevin Lindegaard ENERGY CROPS HOW EU COOPERATION CAN HELP 19 March 2014

“Miscanthus and short rotation coppice (SRC) could occupy areas of between 0.62 and 2.8 million hectares by 2050!”! Ref: Anon (2012) UK Bioenergy Strategy. Department of Energy & Climate Change, April 2012

Historical background 1970s Trial plots and early research projects 1980s Supportive policy 1996 UK SRC willow breeding programme launched 1998 Arbre project in construction Late 90’s 1500 hectares of SRC planted in Yorkshire & East Midlands 2000 Ely Power station commissioned 2000 Energy Crops Scheme established 2001 Numerous proposed biomass plants (NFFO 4) Why did it all go so wrong?

A decade of downs (and a few ups) 2001 Ambient projects fails to get planning Arbre project fails 2002 2003 Renewables Obligation introduced Miscanthus breeding at IBERs begins 2004 2005 2006 Winkleigh project fails to get planning ECS 1 ends (18 month period with no support) 2007 Bical goes bust 2008 ROC banding introduced (double 2009 ROCs)/Drax sets up Green Shoots Bioenergy infrastructure scheme scrapped 2010 scheme £10 million of ECS funding removed to set up Renewable Heat Incentive launched 2011 Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grant Terravesta set up / Iggesund offering 2012 Slough Heat & Power closes SRC contracts 2013 ECS 2 ends

The spiral of failure  Too ambitious Reduced confidence  Technically challenging projects  Ill thought through schemes  Too much money on the wrong things Increased  Hiatus period scepticism  Very prescriptive and overly complicated schemes  Inflexible (unless you know the right people!) Increased  No money available to plug the gaps ambivalence  Undersubscribed schemes Stagnation  No follow up schemes

Energy crop planting in England 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Miscanthus SRC

Energy Crops Scheme Simple, easily  ECS 1 administered scheme  2000-2006  £29 million budget (£7.7 million spent)  Flat rate grant  8,191 hectares planted  ECS 2  2007-2013  Managed by Natural England Bureaucratic, time  £47 million budget (£5 million spent) consuming scheme  40-50% of eligible costs  3,937 hectares planted

Co-firing under the RO Changing priorities 2002 RO introduced Incentivise biomass o 75% of co-fired ROCs to be generated from ECs supply chains and by 2006 improve security of 2004 review supply o Staggered phase in of 75% ECs requirement between 2011-2016 2007 review o ECs requirement removed 2009 review o Banding introduced 1 ROC /MWh for co-firing with ECs Achieve 2020 RE 2013 review targets as simply and cheaply as possible. o Co-firing ECs uplift removed Biomass imports OK

Renewable Heat Incentive  Introduced 2011  2% of EC growers believe that the RHI is having a major effect on planting levels  85% believe that changes to the RHI to promote local production of ECs could provide a step change  2013 RHI emissions certificates required o 30 g/GJ particulates o 150 g/GJ NOx  2014 Sustainability criteria introduced o Woodfuel suppliers list introduced

Current situation 15,000 hectares of energy crops (4,500 SRC)  650 active growers (0.6% of farmers)  Only 3 volume markets  o Drax, Ely, Iggesund Big issues Unsupportive policies  Bureaucratic scheme → no scheme  Not joined up  o DECC, DEFRA , Natural England, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency Long term paybacks / age of farmers  Not accepted by conservation groups  World class research not transformed into policy 

CAP reform  Policy by lobby o 6 responses in favour of energy crops o 75 responses from conservation groups  No Energy Crops Scheme 3  SRC in Ecological Focus Areas ?  Absent from New Environmental Land Management Scheme Biodiversity benefits and ecosystem services offered by SRC (and miscanthus) will be under exploited

Flood defence / Water quality “Energy woodland crops such as SRC could be a  particularly attractive option for mitigating nitrate leaching in NVZs by maximising nitrogen uptake and providing a high yielding crop for farmers .” “….the rapid growth and multi -stemmed nature of  these crops makes them ideally suited to flood risk management .” “……energy crops can offer additional advantages  for water protection, flood risk management and climate change mitigation by enhancing pollutant BUT…. uptake and sediment retention , more rapid “……there is no incentive establishment of vegetation roughness (especially to plant (energy) crops for SRC) and increased carbon sequestration , as where they could benefit well as a more attractive and faster economic water most.” return for landowners.”

Hydraulic roughness  Woodlands and flood risk workshop “ Focus woodland planting on floodplains where hydraulic roughness is key ” Ref: Typical Manning’s n values for Floodplains. After Chow (1959)

Turning things around  Multifunctional environmental crop delivering solutions to local issues and economic benefits o Local heat production in off gas areas o Assistance in flood prevention o Improve water quality o Create jobs o Increase wealth retention Ref: Focal Research Green Agenda Analysis 2012. http://analysis.focalresearch.co.uk/2012/green-agenda/analysis.php?s=which-local-authority-areas-have-the-most-households-off-gas-grid

A possible solution  Regional Energy Crops Scheme  Supported by Local Enterprise Partnership • Regional Growth Fund, Horizon 2020 • Green Bank, Pension funds  2,500 hectares planted over 6 years  Flat rate grant plus interim payments  Includes infrastructure grants, training etc.  Budget of £7.2 million  Local economy £107 million better off over 27 years  51.6% return on investment

Rokwood  EU Framework 7 research project  20 partners from 6 countries  Each cluster includes: o SME, a research body and a local authority  Duration: 36 Months

European platform for SRP Joint Action Plan Common Strategies Analysis of Identification of Analysis regional relevant RTD of links to Working with policy clusters issues in other makers to create state of participating policy briefs European play regions initiatives Industry Public bodies Research Institutions Ireland, UK, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Belgium

Things worth fighting for  Sensible sustainability rules for woodfuel suppliers DECC  Funding for infrastructure RDP funds  EFAs for livestock farms (not just arable) EC/DEFRA  Interest free loans for establishing crops DEFRA  Better contracts End users o Interim payments during early years o Retirement option for farmers DEFRA o Government backed contracts  Cost/benefit analysis of multifunctional applications DEFRA/ EA  Demonstration projects LEPs/EU

The hardest nut to crack

Spatial diffusion pattern Sample output maps of energy crop selection and power plant locations between 2010 and 2050. Ref: Alexander P, et al. (2013) Modelling the perennial energy crop market: 20 the role of spatial diffusion. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 10 .

Contacts Kevin Lindegaard Crops for Energy Ltd 15 Sylvia Avenue Knowle Bristol BS3 5BX www.crops4energy.co.uk Kevin@crops4energy.co.uk + 44 117 9089057