Peer reviewed versionCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA): Galvez Martos, J. L.

The increasing demand for biomass for the production of bioenergy is generating land-use conflicts. These conflicts might be solved through spatial segregation of food/feed and energy producing areas by continuing producing food on established and productive agricultural land while growing dedicated energy crops on so called "surplus" land. Ambiguity in the definition and characterization of surplus land as well as uncertainty in assessments of land availability and of future bioenergy potentials is causing confusion about the prospects and the environmental and socio-economic implications of bioenergy development in those areas. The high level of uncertainty is due to environmental, economic and social constraints not yet taken into account and to the potentials offered by those novel crops and their production methods not being fully exploited. This paper provides a scientific background in support of a reassessment of land available for bioenergy production by clarifying the terminology, identifying constraints and options for ReseARCh ARtiCle BioRisk A peer-reviewed open-access journalJens Dauber et al. / BioRisk 7: 5-50 (2012) 6 an efficient bioenergy-use of surplus land and providing policy recommendations for resolving conflicting land-use demands. A serious approach to factoring in the constraints, combined with creativity in utilizing the options provided, in our opinion, would lead to a more sustainable and efficient development of the bioenergy sector. Unless the sustainability challenge is mastered, the interdependent policy objectives of mitigating climate change, obtaining independence from fossil fuels, feeding and fuelling a growing human world population and maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services will not be met. Despite the advanced developments of bioenergy, we still see regional solutions for designing and establishing sustainable bioenergy production systems with optimized production resulting in social, economic and ecological benefits. Where bioenergy production has been identified as the most suitable option to overcome the given problems of energy security and climate change mitigation, we need to determine which bioenergy cultivation systems are most suitable for the respective types of surplus land, by taking into account issues such as yields, inputs and costs, as well as potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

Willow Energy cropsNet present value Gross margins Economics a b s t r a c t Recent full decoupling of EU agricultural subsidy payments from production in Ireland is forecast to result in substantial destocking of grassland over the coming decade. In conjunction with increased energy prices, this presents new opportunities for energy crops. This paper uses extensive literature review and country-specific information on current prices to construct life-cycle cost assessments for production of Miscanthus and shortrotation coppice willow (SRCW) in Ireland. Gross margins for different harvest and supply strategies (e.g. chopped or baled harvest for Miscanthus; stick or chipped harvest for SRCW) are calculated based on farm-gate biomass prices equivalent to 70, 100 and 130 h t À1 dry matter (DM) at maximum 20% moisture content-reduced for some SRCW supply strategies to reflect additional chipping and transport costs, and lower heating values.

No abstract

No abstract

Soil phosphorus (P) management requires a more targeted and soil-specific approach than is currently applied for agronomic recommendations and environmental evaluation. Phosphorus buffering capacities control the supply of P in the soil solution and were measured across Irish soils with contrasting parent material and chemical properties. Langmuir sorption buffer capacities (MBCs) and binding energies (b) were strongly correlated with soil pH and extractable aluminium (Al). A broken-line regression fitted to the relationship between MBC and Al derived a change-point value for Al above which MBC increased linearly. Soils above the change point were predominantly acidic to neutral with non-calcareous parent material, with larger buffering capacities and binding energies than calcareous soils. Ratios of Mehlich3-Al and P (Al:P) were used to relate buffering capacity to supply potential in non-calcareous soils. Large ratios of Al:P were associated with poor P availability, characteristic of strongly P-fixing soils. Threshold values of iron-oxide paper strip P (FeO-P) and Morgan's P revealed Al:P ratios where soils began to supply P in available form. The change-point for Morgan's P fell within the current target index for P availability; however, the confidence interval was more compatible with previous agronomic P indices used in Ireland. Relationships between Morgan's P and measures of extractable P, M3-P and Olsen P, deviated in calcareous soils at large soil P contents, indicative of P precipitation processes dominating in these soils. Identifying differences in soil P buffering capacity at the laboratory scale would improve agronomic and environmental assessment at field and catchment scales.

Managing organic waste streams is a major challenge for the agricultural industry. Anaerobic digestion (AD) of organicwastes is a preferred option in the waste management hierarchy, as this processcangenerate renewableenergy, reduce emissions from wastestorage, andproduce fertiliser material.However, Nitrate Vulnerable Zone legislation and seasonal restrictions can limit the use of digestate on agricultural land. In this paper we demonstrate the potential of cultivating microalgae on digestate as a feedstock, either directlyafter dilution, or indirectlyfromeffluent remaining after biofertiliser extraction. Resultant microalgal biomass can then be used to produce livestock feed, biofuel or for higher value bio-products. The approach could mitigate for possible regional excesses, and substitute conventional high-impactproducts with bio-resources, enhancing sustainability withinacircular economy. Recycling nutrients from digestate with algal technology is at an early stage. We present and discuss challenges and opportunities associated with developing this new technology.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is expanding rapidly in the UK. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have highlighted the sensitivity of environmental outcomes to feedstock type, fugitive emissions, biomethane use, energy conversion efficiency and digestate management. We combined statistics on current and planned AD deployment with operational data from a survey of biogas plant operators to evaluate the environmental balance of the UK biogas sector for the years 2014 and 2017. Consequential LCA was applied to account for all major environmental credits and burdens incurred, including: (i) substitution of composting, incineration, sewer disposal, field decomposition and animal feeding of wastes; (ii) indirect land use change (ILUC) incurred by the cultivation of crops used for biogas production and to compensate for bakery and brewery wastes diverted from animal feed. In 2014, the UK biogas sector reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 551-755Gg CO2e excluding ILUC, or 238-755Gg CO2e including ILUC uncertainty. Fossil energy depletion was reduced by 8.9-10.8PJe, but eutrophication and acidification burdens were increased by 1.8-3.4Gg PO4e and 8.1-14.6Gg SO2e, respectively. Food waste and manure feedstocks dominate GHG abatement, largely through substitution of in-vessel composting and manure storage, whilst food waste and crop feedstocks dominate fossil energy credit, primarily through substitution of natural gas power generation. Biogas expansion is projected to increase environmental credits and loadings by a factor of 2.4 by 2017. If all AD bioelectricity replaced coal generation, or if 90% of biomethane replaced transport diesel or grid natural gas, GHG abatement would increase by 131%, 38% and 20%, respectively. Policies to encourage digestion of food waste and manures could maximize GHG abatement, avoiding the risk of carbon leakage associated with use of crops and wastes otherwise used to feed livestock. Covering digestate stores could largely mitigate net eutrophication and acidification burdens.