As a major consumer of biomass and the EU country using the highest proportion of imported biomass for energy production, Denmark should take an international lead on developing better criteria for measuring when the fuel is and is not a green source of energy and securing the right balance between it and cleaner forms of renewables

Denmark’s heavy reliance on mainly imported biomass for its green energy transition is squeezing cleaner forms of electricity and heat generation out of the market, warns the country’s Council on Climate Change, an independent advisory body. Not only that, without tighter regulation of the sustainability of the biomass used for energy, Denmark risks inadvertently exacerbating global warming rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, says the council. Denmark’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is mainly founded on biomass and not wind power, as might be supposed, the council points out in its main report for 2018, The Role of Biomass in the Green Transition — Climate Perspectives and Recommendations for Regulation of Solid Biomass for Energy Production. Over past years, the steady conversion of coal-fired power stations to biomass for the combined generation of heat and electricity means that over half of Denmark’s end use of renewable energy comes from wood pellets and wood chips, nearly all of which is imported, as well as locally grown straw and firewood. Of the 31% of final energy use in Denmark contributed by renewable sources in 2016, solid biomass accounted for 16% and a combination of wind power, supported by solar and household waste combustion, made up the remaining 15%. Fully 43% of all biomass is imported, the highest proportion of all EU countries.

Not as clean as wind or solar

Not all biomass qualifies as sustainable, however. “Biomass emits carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. As long as the trees are replanted, the CO2 emitted will be reabsorbed, but replanting does not always happen,” says the council. When it does, the uptake of CO2 can occur decades later and too late to prevent global temperatures from rising to disastrous levels. Other climate mitigation measures could make up for the loss of a country’s biomass stock, but only if they are implemented. “In practice, no biomass can be considered CO2-neutral in the same way as emission-free energy sources like wind and solar,” says the climate advisory body. The particular problem for Denmark is the dominant role of biomass in its energy transition and the uniquely high proportion of biomass fuel that is imported, the sustainability of which is outside its control. Different types of biomass have different sized carbon footprints, dependent on specifics such as the rate at which biomass crops are replanted, the speed at which the particular crop grows and whether the biomass is locally available as a timber industry waste product. Without rigorous regulation of the imported biomass in the country of origin, Denmark cannot be sure that its own biomass consumption is CO2 neutral. Even so, in Denmark all biomass, sustainably managed or not, is given preferential regulatory, tax and subsidy treatment in the energy market, giving biomass economic advantages over other renewable energies. Among the anomalies created, wind energy in plentiful supply that could be used to heat buildings, through the deployment of electrically driven heat pumps, is pushed out of the market by biomass. That is bad for the environment and bad for the national economy, demonstrates the influential council. Moreover, biomass is not an unlimited source of fuel, like wind and solar energy. The role of forests as carbon stores is vitally important for the sustainability of life on earth, putting a natural limit on the proportion that can be felled for energy production. That limit is already within sight if global temperatures are not to rise beyond the 2°C at which the risk of climate change having catastrophic effect on nature and human life greatly increases, the council’s report makes clear. The per capita consumption of biomass for energy generation in Denmark is already far higher than would be sustainable if it were repeated by other countries. For this reason alone, the Danish government’s continued promotion of biomass over other renewable energies is highly problematic, the council argues.

Regulatory solutions

Nonetheless, biomass should and must be part of the future energy system for the achievement of a globally sustainable supply, says the climate council, but only in so far as it is truly sustainable and not to the extent that it prevents the uptake of other, cleaner, renewable sources. The solution to the Danish biomass dichotomy is twofold. First, the “unjustified” favourable tax treatment of biomass should be stopped and it must be required to compete on a level playing field with other clean energy technologies. Only biomass certified as sustainable should be eligible for renewable energy subsidies and tax relief, while uncertified biomass should be taxed as a fossil fuel. In addition, the requirement for power stations to maximise fuel efficiency by co-generating electricity and heat should be relaxed to avoid the perverse situation of preventing the production of heat-only when wind and solar are already meeting electricity demand. To further facilitate the electrification of heating, consumer prices for electricity, largely consisting of taxes, should be adjusted to prevent high future energy bills functioning as a barrier to the installation of heat pumps in homes and other property. Second, sustainability criteria should be developed internationally that better account for the impact on the climate of burning different types of biomass and for the depletion of carbon stocks caused by the reduction of forested land. Denmark, which ranks first in imports of biomass and fifth in the proportion of biomass in its final energy consumption among the EU’s 28 member countries, has an obligation to take the lead on this task, says the climate council. It acknowledges the existence of international biomass regulations and the Danish biomass industry’s voluntary agreements in the area. “But neither the Danish agreement nor the European criteria sufficiently consider the degree to which biomass harvesting can reduce carbon stocks,” says the council. Aspects such as replanting, the time horizons for re-absorption of CO2, the country of origin’s climate goals and regulations, and the indirect impact of land use change should all be included in sustainability criteria, which should subsequently be implemented in existing Danish biomass regulation.

Cold shouldered

Publication of the climate council’s report in May 2018 predictably incited the wrath of Denmark’s combined heat and power association. It warned that changes to the favourable regulatory treatment of biomass and the imposition of taxes on some forms of biomass would see the return of coal-fired power stations. It also argued that all biomass used in energy production in Denmark is already sustainable under a voluntary sector agreement, misunderstood by the climate council, which makes up for gaps in the EU legislation governing biomass management. The association’s view was shared by energy minister Lars Christian Lilleholt. A tax on biomass would not be introduced, he stated unequivocally. Until EU regulations governing biomass were further developed, he considered the sector’s self policing to be sufficient. Removing taxes to encourage cleaner energy is preferable to introducing new taxes, said Lilleholt. A raft of Danish environmental organisations, however, support the climate council’s recommendations and its argument that all energy taxes and subsidies should be designed with the primary intention of reducing carbon emissions, not supporting other government aims.

WRITER: Lyn Harrison