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

energy crops
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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:


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Energy crops The effectiveness of UK Policy

Kevin Lindegaard

ENERGY CROPS HOW EU COOPERATION CAN HELP 19 March 2014

slide-2
SLIDE 2

“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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

A decade of downs (and a few ups)

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

The spiral of failure

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

Reduced confidence Increased scepticism Increased ambivalence Stagnation

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Energy crop planting in England

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Miscanthus SRC

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Energy Crops Scheme

 ECS 1  2000-2006  £29 million budget (£7.7 million spent)  Flat rate grant  8,191 hectares planted  ECS 2  2007-2013  Managed by Natural England  £47 million budget (£5 million spent)  40-50% of eligible costs  3,937 hectares planted

Simple, easily administered scheme Bureaucratic, time consuming scheme

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Co-firing under the RO

2002 RO introduced

  • 75% of co-fired ROCs to be generated from ECs

by 2006

2004 review

  • Staggered phase in of 75% ECs requirement

between 2011-2016

2007 review

  • ECs requirement removed

2009 review

  • Banding introduced 1 ROC /MWh for co-firing

with ECs

2013 review

  • Co-firing ECs uplift removed

Changing priorities Incentivise biomass supply chains and improve security of supply Achieve 2020 RE targets as simply and cheaply as possible. Biomass imports OK

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Renewable Heat Incentive

 Introduced 2011  2% of EC growers believe that the RHI is having a major effect

  • n 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

  • 30 g/GJ particulates
  • 150 g/GJ NOx

 2014 Sustainability criteria introduced

  • Woodfuel suppliers list introduced
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Current situation

15,000 hectares of energy crops (4,500 SRC)

650 active growers (0.6% of farmers)

Only 3 volume markets

  • Drax, Ely, Iggesund

Big issues

Unsupportive policies

Bureaucratic scheme → no scheme

Not joined up

  • 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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

CAP reform

 Policy by lobby

  • 6 responses in favour of energy crops
  • 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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

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 uptake and sediment retention, more rapid establishment of vegetation roughness (especially for SRC) and increased carbon sequestration, as well as a more attractive and faster economic return for landowners.” BUT…. “……there is no incentive to plant (energy) crops where they could benefit water most.”

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Turning things around

 Multifunctional environmental crop delivering solutions to

local issues and economic benefits

  • Local heat production in off gas areas
  • Assistance in flood prevention
  • Improve water quality
  • Create jobs
  • 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

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Rokwood

 EU Framework 7 research project  20 partners from 6 countries  Each cluster includes:

  • SME, a research body and a local authority

 Duration: 36 Months

slide-17
SLIDE 17

European platform for SRP

Analysis of regional clusters state of play Analysis

  • f links to
  • ther

European initiatives Working with policy makers to create policy briefs Identification of relevant RTD issues in participating regions Ireland, UK, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Belgium Industry Public bodies Research Institutions

Joint Action Plan Common Strategies

slide-18
SLIDE 18

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

  • Interim payments during early years

End users

  • Retirement option for farmers
  • Government backed contracts

DEFRA

 Cost/benefit analysis of multifunctional applications DEFRA/ EA  Demonstration projects

LEPs/EU

slide-19
SLIDE 19

The hardest nut to crack

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Spatial diffusion pattern

Sample output maps of energy crop selection and power plant locations between 2010 and 2050.

20

Ref: Alexander P, et al. (2013) Modelling the perennial energy crop market: the role of spatial diffusion. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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