This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Can we meet targets for biofuels and renewable energy in transport given
the constraints imposed by policy in agriculture and energy?
B.M. Smyth a, b, B.P. Ó Gallachóir a, b, *, N.E. Korres a, b, J.D. Murphy a, b
a
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 29 January 2010
Received in revised form
29 June 2010
Accepted 29 June 2010
Available online 7 July 2010
The deployment of biofuels is significantly affected by policy in energy and agriculture. In the energy
arena, concerns regarding the sustainability of biofuel systems and their impact on food prices led to
a set of sustainability criteria in EU Directive 2009/28/EC on Renewable Energy. In addition, the 10%
biofuels target by 2020 was replaced with a 10% renewable energy in transport target. This allows the
share of renewable electricity used by electric vehicles to contribute to the mix in achieving the 2020
target. Furthermore, only biofuel systems that effect a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by
2020 compared with the fuel they replace are allowed to contribute to meeting the target. In the agricultural arena, cross-compliance (which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy) dictates the allowable
ratio of grassland to total agricultural land, and has a significant impact on which biofuels may be
supported. This paper outlines the impact of these policy areas and their implications for the production
and use of biofuels in terms of the 2020 target for 10% renewable transport energy, focusing on Ireland.
The policies effectively impose constraints on many conventional energy crop biofuels and reinforce the
merits of using biomethane, a gaseous biofuel. The analysis shows that Ireland can potentially satisfy 15%
of renewable energy in transport by 2020 (allowing for double credit for biofuels from residues and
ligno-cellulosic materials, as per Directive 2009/28/EC) through the use of indigenous biofuels: grass
biomethane, waste and residue derived biofuels, electric vehicles and rapeseed biodiesel.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Biofuel
Renewable energy
Sustainability criteria
Agricultural policy
Biomethane
Grass
1. Introduction
1.1. Biofuels policy
The EU Directive on Renewable Energy (2009/28/EC) (EC,
2009a) has set a target for 10% of transport energy to be met
with renewable sources by 2020, a target which requires significant
growth in the biofuels arena. The growth of biofuels to date has
been largely directed by policy (Zah and Ruddy, 2009), which
initially widely promoted biofuels; however, concerns over environmental damage (e.g. deforestation) and social issues (e.g. food
prices) have led to a number of changes. While, on one hand, EU
energy policy is encouraging the use of biofuels (through, for
example, targets for renewable energy in transport), on the other
hand policy is seeking to restrict the growth to only those biofuels
classified as sustainable. Other policy areas, such as those relating
* Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Tel.: þ353 21 4903037; fax: þ353 21
4276648.
E-mail address: b.ogallachoir@ucc.ie (B.P. Ó Gallachóir).
0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.027
to agriculture, waste, emissions and the environment, also affect
biofuels, both directly and indirectly. Particularly, agricultural
policy has a major impact on biofuels, by supporting energy crops
through subsidies, while at the same time limiting their production
through restrictions on land conversion. Cross-compliance, which
forms part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, restricts
changes in the ratio of grassland to total agricultural land, thus
limiting the conversion of grassland to arable energy crops.
1.2. Focus of paper
The recent policy changes (namely the sustainability criteria in
Directive 2009/28/EC and the requirements of cross-compliance),
along with existing policies and the ongoing discussions on indirect
land use change, will significantly affect growth trends in biofuel
usage within the EU and therefore the ability of EU Member States
to reach a 10% renewable energy target in transport by 2020.
Various studies have looked at the impact of biofuels policy, with
a focus on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability criteria
(Upham et al., 2009; Lechón et al., 2009; Reinhard and Zah, 2009;
Bringezu et al., 2009), but the interplay between biofuels and
Author's personal copy
1672
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
agricultural policy is an under-researched area. This paper begins to
address this knowledge gap. The paper examines the policy
developments and discusses how they impact on the ability of one
EU state (in this case Ireland) to deploy sufficient biofuels, specifically for meeting the 2020 target.
Suitable biofuel systems, in particular indigenous biofuel
systems, are location specific. A solution for one country or region
cannot be applied to all others. The growth of the crop is a very
significant issue (palm oil grows well in South East Asia but not in
northern temperate Europe). Even within Europe, maize grows well
in Germany and Austria, but the yields are far less in the UK and in
Ireland. Also of issue is the dominant agricultural practice within
the state; in Ireland, 91% of agricultural land is under grass, while
just 6.7% is used for cereals and less than 3% for other crops (average
for 1997e2006 (CSO, 2009a)). This is in contrast to the European
average of 62% of agricultural land under arable farming (Eurostat,
2007). The more contentious issue over which there is little
agreement is indirect land use change; this process is not fully
understood or calibrated. Thus what is applicable to Ireland has
a strong relationship with temperate northern Europe, but is
specific to Ireland. The potential of biofuels from wastes is also
country specific and depends heavily on agriculture, industry and
demographics.
Ireland is located on the western fringe of Europe and is split
into the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland, the latter
forming part of the UK. In this study, Ireland is assumed to refer to
the ROI. Ireland has a population of approximately 4.2 million (CSO,
2006) and a land area of 6.8 million ha (OSI, 2010). Agricultural land
occupies approximately 61% of the land mass (CSO, 2009a) and the
agri-food sector is one of the most important and dynamic
elements of the Irish economy, accounting for an estimated 8.1%,
8.1% and 9.8% of GDP, employment and exports respectively (DAFF).
The interplay between biofuels and agricultural policy is therefore
of particular interest in this country. Irish agriculture is characterized by extensive, grass-based livestock farming. Ireland has the
highest ratio of cattle to human population in the EU (8% of cattle
population with less than 1% of the human population, from data in
(Eurostat, 2009a,b)) and is unique among the EU-15 countries for
the proportion of its GHG emissions which originate in agriculture
(Jensen et al., 2003).
Murphy, 2009; Singh et al., 2010), along with other studies from
the literature.
Biofuels are examined using energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
balances, which are especially critical for assessing the sustainability of bioenergy systems (Buchholz et al., 2009). An energy
balance is calculated on a cradle-to-grave life cycle basis and
involves subtracting the parasitic energy demands, e.g. energy in
agriculture, from the gross energy of the biofuel to arrive at the
net energy value. GHG balance is determined in a similar manner
by comparing the emissions saved through fossil fuel replacement
with the net emissions resulting from biofuel production. By
comparing the energy needed to produce the biofuel with the
energy obtained from the biofuel, the energy balance gives an
indication of the efficiency of land use. The type of land required
(e.g. arable land) is also of concern, given the restrictions on
availability of land due to cross-compliance, as is land use change,
which has implications for food production and environmental
degradation.
The paper presents imported and indigenous first generation
biofuels only. Of particular interest is the potential for gaseous
transport fuel (biomethane), which is not much discussed in the
literature compared to the liquid biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel.
Biomethane is produced by upgrading biogas, the product of
anaerobic digestion (AD), to the same standard as natural gas. AD is
a well established technology and biomethane can be produced
from many organic materials, such as food and garden waste,
animal slurry or grass. The contribution of second generation biofuels towards achieving biofuel targets is excluded. While there are
a small number of plants worldwide, commercial viability on
a significant scale by 2020 is unlikely; these technologies are still
under development and are likely to remain in the research and
development stage for the next 5e10 years at least (Goldemberg
and Guardabassi, 2009; Bruton et al., 2009). In this paper, the
term “first generation” refers to biofuels that are produced using
conventional technologies from feedstock such as sugar, starch,
vegetable oil or animal fat. “Second generation” biofuels are those
which are still at the developmental stage and are produced using
novel materials (e.g. cellulose) or techniques (e.g. FischereTropsch
diesel).
3. Policy affecting biofuels in Ireland
2. Methodology
3.1. Policy overview
Biofuel production and use is heavily influenced by policy,
resulting in a complex network of incentives and restrictions
(Fig. 1). The first part of the paper therefore sets the scene by
detailing the various policies influencing biofuels, before moving
on to assess the biofuel options for Ireland in terms of meeting the
2020 target. The biofuel options consist of two main categories:
indigenous and imported (Fig. 2). The options are investigated
under the headings of wastes and residues, imported energy crops
and indigenous energy crops. The biofuels are assessed in terms of
how they fit into the policy framework, and whether or not they
comply with the criteria required to contribute to Ireland’s 2020
target. The principal policies are the sustainability criteria in the EU
Renewable Energy Directive and the requirements of crosscompliance under the Common Agricultural Policy. For biofuels
compliant with policy, the practically available resource for 2020 is
calculated, taking into account issues such as feedstock and land
availability, and competing uses for feedstock and land. The
empirical analysis draws on the results of individual biofuel life
cycle and resource analyses previously published by the authors
(Foley et al., 2009; Smyth et al., 2009; Murphy and Power, 2008;
Korres et al., in press; Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a; Singh and
Due to concerns regarding climate change and oil dependence,
substantial support programmes for biofuels began to appear
across EU countries during the 1990s, leading to significant growth
in global biodiesel capacity (IEA, 2003). This supplemented ethanol
production in Brazil (from sugarcane since the mid-1970s) and in
the United States (from corn since the early 1980s). EU Directive
2003/30/EC (EC, 2003a) established an indicative target for biofuels
of 5.75% of the energy content of petrol and diesel usage by the year
2010, with an interim target of 2% by 2005. By 2005 (CEC, 2007),
biofuels were in use in 17 EU Member States (of 28) and the EU
reached an estimated 1% market share. By the end of 2006, 13
Member States received state aid approval for new biofuel tax
exemptions and at least 8 Member States brought biofuel obligations into force or announced plans to do so. The combined efforts
worldwide resulted in global biofuel demand growing from 6 Mtoe
in 1990 to 10.3 Mtoe in 2000 and 24.4 Mtoe in 2006 (IEA, 2008a).
However, the predominant focus of biofuels policy on biofuels
growth has shifted somewhat. A noticeable change was evident in
2008 due to growing concerns regarding the impact of biofuels on
rising food prices and the environment. Recent policy developments within the EU have resulted in the introduction of
Author's personal copy
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
1673
Fig. 1. Policy influencing biofuels.
sustainability criteria for biofuels. However, it is not only specific
biofuels and energy policy that affect biofuels. Biofuels straddle
many different policy areas and influencing policy relates also to
GHG and other emissions, and to agriculture and waste management. The main policies affecting biofuels are summarised in
Table 1 and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
3.2. Biofuels, energy and transport policy
3.2.1. Targets for renewable energy in transport
EU Directive 2009/28/EC on renewable energy sets a mandatory
target for each EU Member State for 10% of transport energy (road
and rail) to be met by renewable sources in 2020 (EC, 2009a). To
quantify the 10% target in energy terms, two separate sets of
national energy forecasts for Ireland are available, Baseline and
White Paper Plus, both of which have been recently updated
(Walker et al., 2009) to take account of current economic conditions. The forecasts for the quantity of energy associated with the
10% target vary between 23.8 PJ (White Paper Plus) and 24.7 PJ
(Baseline), as the former takes into account energy savings in
transport associated with Ireland’s National Energy Efficiency
Action Plan. Notwithstanding the caveats associated with the
quantification of these energy savings (Hull et al., 2009), the value
of 24 PJ is used in this analysis.
The mechanism used by Ireland to increase biofuels deployment
recently changed from support in the form of excise relief to biofuel
producers to an obligation on transport fuel suppliers, which
requires road fuel to contain 4% by volume of biofuel (DCENR, 2009).
An increase in renewable transport energy is also supported by EU
Directive 2009/33/EC (EC, 2009b), which requires public authorities
to take into account lifetime energy and environmental impacts
when purchasing road transport vehicles. The government has also
introduced an electric vehicles plan and aims to have 10% of all
vehicles in the transport fleet powered by electricity in 2020 (DOT,
2009). In addition, there is a target for 40% of electricity from
renewable sources by 2020 (Howley et al., 2008), providing a route
for non-biofuels renewable energy in transport. However, according
to Foley et al. (2009), achieving 10% electric vehicles will only deliver
around 3.37 PJ of renewable energy in transport. When electricity
used in trams and rail (0.21 PJ, Walker et al., 2009) is added to this,
the total electricity in transport in 2020 is 3.6 PJ. This leaves
a shortfall of 8.5% which must come from biofuels.
3.2.2. Sustainability criteria
Environmental concerns centre around potential ecosystem
damage, the effects that biofuels policies in the developed world
may be having on the developing world, and doubts over the climate
change benefits of some biofuels, particularly first generation biofuels (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a; Goldemberg and
Guardabassi, 2009; Börjesson, 2009; Escobar et al., 2009; Luo
et al., 2009). Concerns over food prices stem from the sharp rise in
prices in 2008, with grain prices more than doubling in two years
(CEC, 2007). Although a number of factors have influenced this rise,
competition from biofuels is certainly among them. According to the
World Bank, 70e75% of the increase in the price of food commodities
is attributed to biofuels and the related consequences of low grain
stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity and export bans
(Mitchell, 2008). Other reports have stated that biofuels are
Author's personal copy
1674
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Arable
crops
Indigenous
Grassland
Wastes &
residues
Biofuel
options
Rapeseed
Biodiesel
Wheat, sugar beet
Ethanol
Grass
Biomethane
Tallow, UCO
Biodiesel
Dairy waste
Ethanol
Slurry, slaughter
waste, OFMSW
Biomethane
Rapeseed,
soybean
Biodiesel
Corn, wheat,
sugar beet
Ethanol
Palm oil, soybean
Biodiesel
Sugarcane
Ethanol
Temperate
Imported
Tropical
OFMSW: organic fraction of municipal solid waste; UCO: used cooking oil
Fig. 2. Main biofuel options for Ireland.
responsible for 3% of the price increase of agricultural commodities
(Lazear, 2008), and 15% of food price increases (OECD, 2008).
Coming out of these concerns, Directive 2009/28/EC (EC, 2009a)
states that biofuels must meet certain sustainability criteria in
order for them to be counted towards national biofuels targets. The
main criteria are:
By 2017, GHG savings of 50% compared with fossil fuel replaced
must be effected. By 2018, GHG savings of 60% must be effected
for biofuels from new installations producing from January 1,
2017;
Biofuels from peatlands and land with high biodiversity value
or high carbon stock may not be used;
Impacts of biofuel policy on social sustainability, food prices
and other development issues is to be assessed.
To promote non-food feedstock, the Directive considers the
contribution made by biofuels produced from wastes, residues, and
ligno-cellulosic material to be twice that made by other biofuels for
the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the 10% target.
Ireland, with its large production of grass-based livestock, can
benefit considerably from this, in particular, from biomethane from
agricultural slurry and slaughter waste. Biofuel from grass may also
earn double credits. Previous work has considered grass to be
a ligno-cellulosic material (Singh et al., 2010); however, the classification of grass as ligno-cellulosic is unclear and should be clarified in the Directive. Deployment of electric vehicles is also
encouraged by the Directive, and the electrical energy provided
from renewable sources is weighted by a factor of 2.5.
3.3. Biofuels and waste policy
Council Directive 1999/31/EC sets targets for the diversion of
biodegradable waste from landfill (EC, 1999a). In 2007, Ireland sent
1.5 million tonnes of biodegradable waste to landfill, an increase of
4% on the previous year (Le Bollach et al., 2009). This is moving
Ireland further from the target of less than one million tonnes of
biodegradable waste to be landfilled by 2010 and just over 450,000 t
by 2016. The National Waste Report (Le Bollach et al., 2009) identifies
as a priority the development of a new waste policy and accelerated
investment in an infrastructure. To comply with the Directive,
Ireland will have to install treatment facilities, be they biological
(composting and/or anaerobic digestion (AD)) or thermal (incineration or gasification). Murphy and Power suggest that biomethane
production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW) is preferable to composting at scales in excess of 25,000
t/a (ca. 100,000 people) (Murphy and Power, 2006). Used cooking oil
(UCO) and tallow may be used to make biodiesel. Thus, these technologies offer sustainable waste treatment methodologies and
sustainable biofuels. This latter benefit provides the rationale for
these biofuels obtaining double credits for meeting the 2020 target.
3.4. Biofuels and agricultural policy
3.4.1. Land use
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the main vehicle used
to deliver agricultural policy. Under CAP, EU farmers are required to
set aside 10% of their land to qualify for other CAP benefits and
participating farmers receive a payment for this (EC, 1999b).
Farmers are allowed to plant oilseeds on the set-aside land (subject
to Blair House Agreement limitations) as long as it is contracted
solely for the production of biodiesel or other industrial products
(Schnepf, 2006). The production of energy crops is promoted by
Council Regulation EC No. 1782/2003 (EC, 2003b), which established the Single Payment Scheme and introduced an aid of V45 per
hectare per year for areas under energy crops. Any agricultural raw
material may be grown under the Energy Crops Scheme provided
that the crops are intended primarily for use in the production of
Author's personal copy
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
1675
Table 1
Overview of policies affecting biofuels.
Policy area
Policy
Energy in
transport
Directive 2003/30/EC on biofuels and
renewable fuels in transport
Directive 2009/28/EC on the use of energy
from renewable sources
Directive 2009/33/EC on clean and
efficient vehicles
National Biofuels Obligation
National Electric Vehicles Plan and Renewable
Electricity Target
Waste
Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste
Directive 2009/28/EC on the use of energy from
renewable sources
Agriculture
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Rural Environmental Protection Scheme
(REPS)
Other
Policy requirements and implications
Set targets for biofuels of 5.75% of the energy content of petrol and diesel by 2010,
with an interim target of 2% by 2005;
Has been superseded by Directive 2009/28/EC.
Sets a target for 10% of transport energy to be met with renewable sources by 2020;
Lays down sustainability criteria for biofuels used to meet the target, including minimum
GHG savings, exclusion of certain land types and assessment of impact of biofuel on
food and social issues;
Allows double counting of biofuels from wastes, residues and ligno-cellulosic materials
for the purposes of meeting the target;
Incentivises electric vehicles powered from renewable sources.
Promotes sustainable fuels and efficient vehicles;
Requires public authorities to take into account lifetime energy and environmental
impacts when purchasing vehicles.
Obligation on transport fuel suppliers for road fuel to contain 4% by volume of biofuels.
Electric Vehicles Plan sets a target for 10% electric vehicles in the transport fleet by 2020,
which, in conjunction with the target for 40% electricity from renewable sources in 2020,
provides a route for non-biofuels electricity in transport.
Sets targets for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill.
Allows double counting of biofuels from wastes and residues for the purposes of
meeting the target for 10% renewable energy in transport.
CAP is the main instrument for delivering agricultural policies;
Cross-compliance restricts the conversion of grassland to arable cropping;
Energy Crops Scheme (with a top-up from the National Exchequer) subsidises energy crops.
Promotes more extensive and more environmentally friendly farming practices.
Nitrates Directive, Water Framework Directive and Biodiversity Action Plan
(among others) aim to reduce pollution from agricultural waste.
products considered biofuels (including biogas) and electric and
thermal energy. An additional top-up of V80 per hectare, funded by
the National Exchequer, is also paid.
Also under CAP, cross-compliance regulations require that the
ratio of the area of permanent pasture to the total agricultural area
of each Member State must not decrease by 10% or more from the
2003 reference ratio (EC, 2004). Ireland is therefore under obligation not to allow any significant reduction in the total area of
permanent pasture, which restricts the type of energy crops that
can be grown. (The terms grassland and permanent pasture are
used interchangeably in this paper).
Declining livestock numbers may also impact on land use
patterns, and could free up grassland that could then be used for
energy. The National Climate Change Strategy has suggested
reducing the size of the national herd as a means of reducing
national GHG emissions (DEHLG, 2000). Also, recent reform of CAP
has removed the link between financial support and the obligation
to retain specific animal numbers, which is likely to maintain the
downward trend in livestock populations in Ireland.
Major reform of CAP is expected in 2013 and this may have
implications for energy crops and biofuels.
3.4.2. Agricultural waste, pollution and agri-environmental policy
There are around 6.5 million cattle, 1.4 million pigs, 5 million
sheep and 12.5 million poultry in Ireland (CSO, 2009b), resulting in
the production of considerable amounts of agricultural waste,
including slurry, slaughterhouse waste and tallow. The majority of
this waste is currently disposed of to land, often leading to air and
water pollution. Agricultural policy, including the Nitrates Directive
(EEC, 1991), and water and air quality legislation, restricts the
application of agricultural waste to land. Improved waste
management practices are required. AD presents a means of
treating many of these wastes, and the associated environmental
benefits and value in terms of meeting policy requirements are well
documented (Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009). The added benefit is the
potential to use the biogas as a biofuel. Biodiesel can be produced
from fatty agricultural wastes such as tallow.
The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) aims to
encourage farmers to carry out their activities in a more extensive
and environmentally friendly manner (Hynes et al., 2008). Schemes
like REPS may reduce farm GHG emissions via lower stocking rates
(Lanigan et al., 2008), which could free up grassland for other
purposes. The EU Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000) may have
a similar effect. Proposals for protecting waters through reducing
nutrient losses include reducing stocking rates, harvesting grasslands
for silage/hay instead of cattle grazing, and reducing the length of the
grazing season. The adoption of batch storage for slurry has also been
suggested (Chardon and Schoumans, 2008), which could make it
amenable to AD and biofuel production. Biofuels are also influenced
by the Biodiversity Action Plan (CEC,1998), which aims to improve or
maintain biodiversity and prevent further biodiversity loss due to
agricultural activities. Priorities include restricting intensive farming
and establishing sustainable resource management.
3.5. Current policy e outcomes and problems
3.5.1. Outcomes of current policy
National and EU targets are driving increased penetration of
biofuels in transport, but are aiming to restrict growth to sustainable biofuels through measures such as required GHG savings,
protection of sensitive ecosystems and incentivising biofuels from
non-food feedstock, wastes and residues. Policy in the waste arena
is demanding improved waste management and treatment, and,
combined with policies surrounding agricultural wastes and
pollution, could help channel OFMSW, slurries and slaughter waste
into biofuel production. Other agricultural policies are promoting
less intensive farming practices and a reduction in livestock
numbers, which could free up grassland that could then be used for
biofuel production. The requirements of cross-compliance limit the
quantity of grassland that can be converted to arable cropping, thus
restricting the type of energy crops that can be grown in Ireland.
The interplay between the policies is significant; biofuels must be
increased, but they must be sustainably produced and in line with
agricultural land use requirements.
Author's personal copy
1676
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
3.5.2. Problems with policy requirements
The difficulties related to both the direct and indirect effects of
policy measures have been raised by a number of authors (Zah and
Ruddy, 2009; Upham et al., 2009; Tomei and Upham, 2009; von
Blottnitz and Curran, 2007). There are worries that certification
schemes may not be able to prevent indirect land use change
(Upham et al., 2009) and that more than one biofuels market may
develop e one sustainable biofuels market in, for example, Europe,
and another lower cost market with poor environmental and social
performance (Tomei and Upham, 2009). It has therefore been recommended that current targets for biofuels be reconsidered
(Eickhout et al., 2008). Although the importance of indirect land use
change is highlighted in Directive 2009/28/EC, so far there is no
methodology within the Directive for assessing its effects (though
this is under review).
While the importance of tightening sustainability and environmental criteria is not doubted, the authors question whether or not
biofuels are being provided a level playing field on which to compete
with other markets. Energy crops grown for heat and electricity are
not currently subject to such strict limitations, nor are crops grown
for food, feed or fibre. Especially in relation to rising food prices, the
negatives associated with biofuels may have been exaggerated; it is
rarely acknowledged that since biofuels have dampened the
increase in oil prices (through substitution of oil), they have limited
one of the factors leading to an increase in food prices (the cost of
fertiliser, which influences the cost of food, tends to follow oil prices)
(IEA, 2008b). Other factors influencing food prices (and expansion of
farmland) include poor harvests; high energy prices; the declining
value of the dollar; agricultural policies; and increasing population
accompanied with the emergence of new economic powers (Peeters
et al., 2009) and diet changes (Banse et al., 2008). To provide more
effective control over global land use, it has been proposed that an
integrated approach be developed covering the supply of biomass
for all markets and linked to a global GHG management system (IEA,
2009a).
There is a misalignment between the sustainability criteria for
biofuels in EU Directive 2009/28/EC and the treatment of biofuels in
complying with emissions targets in EU Decisions 406/2009/EC (EC,
2009c) (i.e. EU’s effort sharing to deliver a 10% GHG emissions
reduction, relative to 2005, for non-emissions trading sectors by
2020). In the latter, which follows UNFCCC inventory methodologies, all biofuels consumed in a country are deemed carbon neutral
and a zero emission factor is applied, i.e. implicitly assuming a 100%
GHG saving relative to the petrol or diesel displaced, irrespective of
whether the biofuels are produced in a GHG emissions intensive
manner or not. The GHG emissions associated with biofuel
production are attributed to the country where the biofuels are
produced. This gives a perverse incentive to import biofuels as the
default option in order to achieve the maximum emissions benefit
and provides no incentive to distinguish between biofuels that
achieve greater GHG savings.
3.5.3. Problems with national implementation of policy
Despite policy support for biofuels, to date in Ireland there has
been a lack of cross-departmental co-operation and the government has been slow to encourage policy implementation through
grants, subsidies or other incentives (aside from the mineral oil tax
excise relief and recently introduced biofuel obligation on
suppliers). The policy gaps in the waste sector are a prime example.
Significant improvements are required in the management of
biodegradable waste. AD is a means of using these wastes to
produce biofuel and is clearly supported by biofuels policy. Despite
this, the potential for AD and the use of wastes for biofuel has been
largely ignored in Ireland.
4. Biofuels options for Ireland
4.1. Current biofuel production worldwide and in Ireland
Global biofuel production is currently concentrated on first
generation ethanol and biodiesel, with a small but growing quantity of biomethane. By 2007, annual global liquid biofuel production
had grown to 35.8 Mtoe and global biogas production reached
16.4 Mtoe (IEA, 2009b). The top five fuel ethanol producing countries (Table 2, Escobar et al., 2009; REN21, 2009; EBIA, 2009; Ash
et al., 2009) produced over 65 billion litres of ethanol in 2008,
which accounted for 97% of total world production. Worldwide
biodiesel production is concentrated in the EU (Table 2, Escobar
et al., 2009; Tomei and Upham, 2009; REN21, 2009; EBIA, 2009;
Ash et al., 2009; Bacovsky et al., 2009) and rapeseed is the
primary source of this biodiesel. The principal trade-flows of crops
and biofuels into Europe are palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia;
soybeans (and lesser quantities of soy oil) from South America;
rapeseed and rape oil from Eastern Europe; biodiesel, soybeans,
rapeseed and rape oil from North America; bioethanol from South
America; and rapeseed and rape oil from Australia. The majority of
biogas produced worldwide is used directly for heat or electricity
generation, but the upgrading of biogas to biomethane quality and
its use in vehicles is growing in popularity. Biomethane is used as
a vehicle fuel in many countries in Europe, including Sweden,
Austria, France and Switzerland. Austria is aiming to replace 20% of
natural gas used in the transport sector with biomethane (Jönsson,
2006), while around 55% of the gas used in transport in Sweden is
biomethane, with the quantity growing each year (Mathiasson,
2008).
Current penetration of biofuels in Ireland is low, standing at 1.2%
of petrol and diesel sales in 2008 (Howley et al., 2009a). However,
there has been a significant increase in the share of transport
Table 2
World fuel ethanol and biodiesel production.
Country
Ethanol (billion l)a
% Total
Principal feedstockb
Country
Biodiesel (billion l)c
% Total
Principal feedstockd
USA
Brazil
China
France
Canada
Total top 5
Total EU
Total world
34
27
1.9
1.2
0.9
65
2.8
67
50.7
40
2.8
1.8
1.3
97
4.2
100
Corn
Sugarcane
Corn, wheat
Sugar beet, cereals
Corn, wheat
Germany
USA
France
Brazil
Argentina
Total top 5
Total EU
Total world
2.2
2
1.6
1.2
1.2
8.2
8
12
18.3
16.7
13.3
10
10
68.3
66.7
100
Rapeseed
Soybean
Rapeseed
Soybean
Soybean
a
b
c
d
From
From
From
From
Sugar beet, wheat
e
REN21 (2009).
Escobar et al. (2009), EBIA (2009), Ash et al. (2009).
REN21 (2009).
Escobar et al. (2009), Tomei and Upham (2009), EBIA (2009), Ash et al. (2009), Bacovsky et al. (2009).
Rapeseed, sunflower
e
Author's personal copy
1677
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
energy from renewables in recent years, albeit from a low base,
from 1 ktoe in 2005 to 3 ktoe in 2006, 21 ktoe in 2007 and 56 ktoe
in 2008 (Howley et al., 2009a). In 2007, the dominant biofuel was
biodiesel, representing 76% of biofuel usage, followed by bioethanol
(16%) and pure plant oil (PPO) (8%) (Foley et al., 2009). The share of
indigenous biofuels is higher than imported biofuels, the difference
being 21%, but this varies considerably between the different biofuels; for example, in the case of bioethanol, imports represented
more than five times the amount produced in Ireland in 2007 (Foley
et al., 2009). Biomethane plays no part in the current Irish biofuel
mix. Bearing in mind the current biofuel situation worldwide and in
Ireland, the biofuel options for Ireland are discussed in the
following sections.
4.2. Biofuels from wastes and residues
4.2.1. Compliance with policy
Policy requires improved management of wastes and residues in
Ireland and supports their use for biofuels. Agricultural wastes and
food and garden waste are considered in the analysis, given the
focus on transport. Other wastes amenable to AD, such as sewage or
food industry sludge, are excluded as the biogas is more likely to be
used on site (in a CHP plant) than to be exported. This is the case in
Ireland in Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and industrial
facilities where AD is currently employed. GHG emissions savings
from waste/residue-derived biofuels easily surpass sustainability
requirements. Biomethane and biodiesel from residues have the
highest default savings in Directive 2009/28/EC (Table 3). Previous
work has found savings of 82% for biomethane from cattle slurry
and >100% for biomethane from slaughter waste when compared
with diesel (Singh and Murphy, 2009).
4.2.2. Energy potential
Recent research (Singh et al., 2010) estimated the practical
transport energy available from tallow and UCO (biodiesel) and
agricultural slurry, OFMSW and slaughter waste (biomethane) in
2020 to be 4.3 PJ/a. The practical energy is the amount of realistically collectable feedstock, taking into account competing uses (e.g.
compost, CHP) and the current low uptake of AD and biodiesel
technology. The practical energy is based on 5% of cattle, pig and
sheep slurry, 75% of poultry slurry, 50% of slaughter waste, 25% of
OFMSW, 75% of collected UCO and 23% of tallow. There is currently
one waste-ethanol facility in the country, with a production
capacity of 12.7 million litres/a (Caslin, 2009); this equates to
0.27 PJ/a assuming no other plants are built and the capacity
remains constant to 2020. The total practical energy from waste/
residue-derived transport fuel is 4.6 PJ; applying double credits,
this will contribute 3.8% towards 2020 transport energy, meaning
that additional sources of renewable transport energy need to be
found.
4.3. Temperate imports
4.3.1. Corn ethanol from the USA
Although corn ethanol is only really produced for the home
market in the USA, it cannot be ignored as a potential import, as
globally more corn ethanol is produced than any other biofuel. Poor
or negative energy balances, adverse environmental effects and
GHG savings below the required 60% target have been reported for
corn ethanol (von Blottnitz and Curran, 2007; Pimentel and Patzek,
2005; Searchinger et al., 2008). Other work (Liska et al., 2009)
shows improved performance resulting from more efficient crop
production, biorefinery operation and use of co-products. However,
there remain concerns regarding the “corn connection” (Laurance,
2007). Subsidies for corn bioethanol production in the USA have
caused US farmers to switch from soy to corn, leading to decreased
soy production, and a resultant increase in soy and beef prices. This
has resulted in increased soy and beef production in South America,
which is strongly linked to deforestation (Laurance, 2007). If this
land use change is taken into account, the GHG emissions are far
Table 3
GHG savings of various biofuels with and without land use change.
Biofuel
GHG savings with no LUC (%) (EC, 2009a)
GHG savings with LUC (%) (Upham et al., 2009;
Searchinger et al., 2008)
Process/process fuel
Typical
Default
Corn/maize
Lignite (CHP plant)
Natural gas (CHP plant)
Straw (CHP plant)
Natural gas
71
61
32
53
69
56
71
52
16
47
69
49
Biodiesel
Palm oil
Methane capture at oil mill
68
65
Soybean
40
31
Rapeseed
45
38
Waste veg/animal oil
Biomethane
Manure
Municipal waste
Grass
Slaughter waste
88
83
Ethanol
Sugarcane
Sugar beet
Wheat
LUC ¼ land use change.
84e86
81e82
80
73
21e150 (Korres et al., 2010)
>100 (Singh and Murphy,
2009)
Previous land use
93
135
185
12
84
2550
1134
699
109
569
123
Worldwide displacement
Forestland in Malaysia
Forestland in Indonesia
Grassland in Malaysia
Grassland in Indonesia
Forestland in Brazil
Forestland in Argentina
Grassland in Brazil
Grassland in Argentina
Forestland in UK
Grassland in UK
Author's personal copy
1678
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
worse than petrol (Searchinger et al., 2008) and do not meet the
requirements of Directive 2009/28/EC.
4.3.2. Soybean biodiesel from the USA
Soy is grown in both tropical and temperate climates. Soy biodiesel has been widely imported to Europe from the USA over the
past couple of years. American soy was the most common biodiesel
feedstock in the UK in 2008 (Upham et al., 2009), although changes
in EU tariffs have resulted in a sharply reduced quantity of imports
from the US (RFA, 2009a). The GHG savings from soy biodiesel are
poor; the default value in the Renewable Energy Directive (EC,
2009a) of 40% is well below the 60% savings which are required
for 2018.
4.3.3. Imports from Europe
It has been suggested that Europe (EU-27 and Ukraine) could
produce enough biofuels to meet the 2020 target using first
generation technologies and conventional energy crops on existing
agricultural land (Londo et al., 2010). However, it is argued
(Eickhout et al., 2008) that production on this scale would require
full liberalization of European agricultural policies, reform which is
unlikely to occur within a short time frame. With temperate crops,
there also remains the problem of low GHG savings (making
compliance with the sustainability requirements of Directive 2009/
28/EC unlikely), displacement effects and high land requirements.
To replace 5% of petrol with ethanol and 5% of diesel with biodiesel,
the EU would need 5% and 15% of farmland respectively, while the
US would need 8% and 13% (Escobar et al., 2009). The potential for
biofuel production lies mainly in tropical regions (Escobar et al.,
2009); potential imports from tropical regions are discussed in
the following section.
4.4. Tropical imports
4.4.1. Palm oil biodiesel
Oil palm is a tropical crop that offers high yields compared with
temperate crops such as rapeseed (3570 l/ha/a versus 1355 l/ha/a)
(Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a). GHG emissions savings are also
favourable, with a reduction of 55% compared with conventional
diesel (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a). However, there are
concerns over land use change. Indonesia and Malaysia account for
over 80% (FAOSTAT, 2009) of global palm oil production and
growing worldwide demand is contributing to deforestation in
these countries at an annual rate of 1.5% (Fargione et al., 2008).
With land use change, there are no net GHG savings (Upham et al.,
2009; Reinhard and Zah, 2009) (Table 3) and hence palm oil biodiesel is not a biofuel with respect to Directive 2009/28/EC, which
requires GHG savings of 60% by 2020.
4.4.2. Sugarcane ethanol
Sugarcane ethanol is the most efficient source of bioethanol in
terms of land use, but there are worries relating to land use change
and deforestation (von Blottnitz and Curran, 2007). GHG savings of
between 71 and 92% are reported (EC, 2009a; Searchinger et al.,
2008; Girard and Fallot, 2006) if there is no land use change.
However, if tropical grazing land is converted to sugarcane pushing
cattle farming into rainforest, the time taken to pay back the
emissions is 45 years (Searchinger et al., 2008), and sugarcane
ethanol could not therefore be classed as a biofuel for the purposes
of meeting the 2020 target.
4.4.3. Soybean biodiesel
Although the main driver of soybean production is soymeal for
animal feed (Steinfeld et al., 2006) and not soybeans for biodiesel,
an increase in demand for soybean biodiesel is likely to lead to
higher prices, resulting in the acceleration of rainforest clearing in
Brazil (Morton et al., 2006). The poor performance of soybean
biodiesel in South America has been highlighted in a number of
studies (Upham et al., 2009; Reinhard and Zah, 2009; Tomei and
Upham, 2009; Fargione et al., 2008). The time taken to repay the
biofuel carbon debt for soybean biodiesel in Brazil was found to be
319 years if grown on tropical rainforest and 37 years if grown on
cerrado grassland (Fargione et al., 2008). In addition, the current
mode of soybean production in Argentina is having adverse social
and environmental impacts (Tomei and Upham, 2009). The ability
of soybean biodiesel to comply with biofuels policy is questionable.
4.5. Energy potential of imports
Temperate biofuel crops do not fare well in terms of GHG
savings and land use. On the other hand, tropical energy crops can
provide high yields, and excellent energy balances and GHG
savings. However, if land use change is taken into account, the
ability of imported biofuels to meet policy requirements is questionable, and certification schemes are unlikely to be able to
guarantee compliance. If/when legislation on indirect land use
change is introduced, compliance with policy may become even
more difficult. Due to the risks associated with non-compliance, it
is therefore recommended that Ireland does not go down the route
of importing biofuels and the contribution of imports is excluded
from the analysis.
Despite this, imported fuel is likely to contain up to 5% biofuels.
About 35% of Ireland’s current oil demand is provided by the
Whitegate refinery in Cork, while the remainder is imported,
mainly from the UK with some imports from Norway (Hamelinck
et al., 2004). The UK biofuels obligation is 5% biofuels by volume
in transport from 2013/2014 onwards (RFA, 2009b). The UK imports
most of its transport fuel pre-blended with 5% biofuels (Caslin,
2009). Even if Ireland doesn’t go down the route of large scale
biofuels importation, it is likely that there will be quantity of
“hidden imports” in pre-blended fuels. The target for 5% by volume
equates to around 4% by energy (assuming half is from biodiesel
substituting diesel and half from ethanol substituting petrol) and
the energy value of hidden imports is estimated as 4% of 65% of
transport fuel demand in 2020, or about 6.2 PJ/a. Ireland’s biofuel
obligation scheme stipulates that biofuel supplies must comply
with the sustainability criteria of Directive 2009/28/EC. However,
Ireland has very little control over these hidden imports, they may
not be relied upon for the purposes of meeting the 2020 target and
are thus excluded from this analysis.
4.6. Argument for indigenous fuels
In addition to likely non-compliance with the Directive criteria,
importing biofuels at the expense of local industry could make it
difficult for indigenous producers to find a market. This is contrary
to the government’s goals of accelerating the growth of renewables
and creating jobs in the energy sector (DCMNR, 2007). An ethanol
industry based on indigenously grown wheat creates 25 times more
jobs than gasoline (Hamelinck et al., 2004). Separate to these
employment and economic benefits, security of supply is one of the
most important macroeconomic and strategic issues for any
country (Domac et al., 2005). Ireland is over 99% dependent on oil
in the transport sector, all of which is imported (Howley et al.,
2009b); energy security has been highlighted as “the most valid
argument for promoting biofuels in the transport sector” (Eickhout
et al., 2008). Dwindling fossil fuel supplies mean that biofuels
targets are likely to increase in the future and it would be beneficial
to have an indigenous industry on which to build.
Author's personal copy
1679
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Fig. 3. Typical gross and net energy of various energy crop biofuel systems. Adapted from Smyth et al. (2009) with additional data from von Blottnitz and Curran (2007); Pimentel and
Patzek (2005); Girard and Fallot (2006); Murphy and Power (2009b); Tilman et al. (2006); Patterson et al. (2008). The net energy is “well-to-tank” energy, i.e. it is the energy in the vehicle
tank, and does not take into account vehicle efficiency. Bi-fuel, e.g. combined methane and diesel, vehicles are generally optimised for diesel, and engine efficiency typically falls by
around 18% when fuelled with methane (Korres et al., in press). However, some new models, e.g. VW Touran, are optimised for natural gas/biomethane and have a similar efficiency to
a diesel/petrol vehicle. Thus with an optimised vehicle, there should be no significant difference in efficiency between ethanol, biodiesel and biomethane vehicles.
Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009b). For example, with rapeseed biodiesel, common practice is to plough the straw back into the land,
but using the straw for heat increases the gross energy by a factor of
almost three (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009b). The gross energy
can be further increased through digestion of rapecake and glycerol
to generate biomethane (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009b). GHG
savings can also be increased, for example, wheat ethanol using
straw as a process fuel achieves savings of 69%, compared with 47%
if natural gas is used (EC, 2009a). While the improved systems have
higher total energy yields and better GHG savings than the base
case scenarios, they still compare poorly in terms of transport
biofuel production per hectare (Fig. 3).
4.7. Energy and emissions of indigenous arable energy crop biofuels
Previous work has investigated arable energy crop biofuels
for Ireland (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a; Murphy and Power,
2009a; Power et al., 2008). The energy balances of wheat
ethanol and rapeseed biodiesel compare poorly with the tropical
biofuel systems (Fig. 3). Sugar beet ethanol has a good energy
balance but, like wheat and rapeseed, requires arable land and
must be grown in rotation, meaning that additional land must
be under contract. If grown to meet the 10% target, sugar beet,
wheat and rapeseed all need more arable land than is available
(Table 4, CSO, 2009a; Smyth et al., 2009; Thamsiriroj and
Murphy, 2009a; Murphy and Power, 2009b). In terms of GHG
savings, default values for sugar beet ethanol, wheat ethanol and
rapeseed biodiesel do not meet the requirement for 60% GHG
savings (Table 3).
Although the energy balances of indigenous arable biofuels tend
to compare poorly with tropical biofuels, systems can be improved
through the use of by-products (Murphy and Power, 2008;
4.8. Arable land availability in Ireland
Less than 7% of agricultural land in Ireland is under cereals (CSO,
2009a) and self-sufficiency in cereals is only around 80% (CSO,
2009c), leaving little scope for arable energy crops without
affecting food production. Historically in Ireland a larger area was
Table 4
Land required to meet the 10% target for renewable energy in transport from indigenous biofuels in Ireland.
Biofuel
Rapeseed biodiesel
Sugar beet ethanol
Wheat ethanol
Sugar beet biomethane
Wheat biomethane
Grass biomethane
a
b
c
d
Gross energy (GJ/ha/a)
a
46
105b
66b
134b
74b
122c
Land required (kha)
Rotation (1 in x yrs)
Land contracted (kha)
Land type
% Land typed
522
229
364
179
324
197
5
3
1.5
3
1.5
1
2609
686
545
537
486
197
Arable
Arable
Arable
Arable
Arable
Grassland
685
180
143
141
128
5.1
From Thamsiriroj and Murphy (2009a).
From Murphy and Power (2009b).
From Smyth et al. (2009).
Calculated from 381 kha arable land and 3880 kha grassland in 2006 (CSO, 2009a).
Author's personal copy
1680
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Table 5
Various statistics on agricultural land in Ireland including maximum allowable
conversion of grassland in 2020.
Details
Value
Total agricultural area in 2006 (CSO, 2009a)
Grassland converted to forest from 2006 to 2020a
Cropland converted to forest from 2006 to 2020a
Total agricultural area in 2020b
Predicted grassland in 2020c
Reference ratiod ¼ grassland/total agricultural land
Minimum allowable reference ratio (10% decrease
(EC, 2004) ¼ 0.91 0.9)
Minimum allowable grassland in 2020
(0.82 4060.6)
Maximum allowable grassland conversion
(3608.6e3329.7)
4260.5 kha
188.7 kha
11.2 kha
4060.6 kha
3608.6 kha
0.91
0.82
3329.1 kha
278.9 kha
Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
a
There is a target for 1185.9 kha of forest cover by 2030 (DAFF, 1996). Forest cover
in 2006 was 612.2 kha (McGettigan et al., 2009); assuming a constant planting rate
to 2030, 334.7 kha will be planted from 2006 to 2020. From 1997 to 2006, 56.4% of
forest planting took place on grassland and 3.4% on cropland (from data in
(McGettigan et al., 2009)). These percentages are used for 2006e2020.
b
Aside from forestry, other land use changes that may affect the total agricultural
area (e.g. conversion of peatland to grassland) are omitted from the calculations as
the numbers are small.
c
2020 Grassland from Table 7; ratio of grassland to total agricultural land for 2020
is 0.89, which is within the allowable range.
d
Obtained in personal communication with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, Portlaoise, Ireland.
under arable crops (CSO, 1997), and approximately 1 million ha of
land has the potential to be under arable production, compared
with the 0.4 million ha which is currently tilled (Hamelinck et al.,
2004). However, the expansion of arable land into grassland faces
a number of difficulties. As the tilled area has stayed relatively
constant for the past half-century, large increases would require
retraining of farmers and substantial investment in machinery
(Hamelinck et al., 2004). In addition, cross-compliance legislation
restricts the conversion of grassland to other agricultural uses. The
maximum allowable conversion of grassland in 2020 is estimated
to be 279 kha (Table 5).
With this quantity of land, the only possibility of meeting the
10% target with arable crops is with sugar beet. However, as sugar
beet is grown in rotation, around 350 kha of additional arable land,
i.e. arable land currently in use for food and feed, would need to be
under contract, requiring considerable interplay between growers
and processors. Such a large area under sugar beet is also unlikely
because, since the demise of the sugar beet industry in 2006, there
has been very little or no sugar beet grown in Ireland (CSO, 2009a)
and the 179 kha required for sugar beet biomethane (or 229 kha for
sugar beet ethanol, Table 4) is over 5 times the average annual area
of sugar beet grown in Ireland in the 10 years prior to the demise.
Finding suitable land for conversion may also prove difficult.
Smaller farms with lower levels of resources are unsuitable for
arable crops such as rapeseed and sugar beet, and part-time
farmers may not be interested (Hamelinck et al., 2004). The use of
set-aside for arable energy crops has been put forward in the past.
However, set aside is unlikely to be easily converted as the land is
often below average quality and located in small fragmented areas
(Hamelinck et al., 2004). Previous studies have found that a large
increase in the arable area for biofuel crops is not likely (Hamelinck
et al., 2004; Rice and Finnan, 2009).
4.9. Energy potential of arable energy crop biofuels in Ireland
Rapeseed is currently the principal energy crop grown for biofuel production in Ireland and a total installed capacity of 61.7
million litres (Caslin, 2009) is already in place for biodiesel and PPO
production. The current installed capacity is over 7 times greater
than the 2008 indigenous rapeseed potential of 7.7 million litres
(calculated from data in Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2009a; CSO,
2009d). Some feedstock also comes from UCO and tallow, and the
estimated quantity for 2010 is 0.5 PJ (Singh et al., 2010) or 15
million litres. A substantial quantity of rapeseed is imported (Caslin,
2009). There are currently no other biofuel plants in Ireland based
on arable energy crops.
Although a large increase in the area under cereals for biofuel
crops is not predicted (Rice and Finnan, 2009), it is likely that some
rapeseed will continue to be grown for energy; it is a good breakcrop, receives an energy crops subsidy, and infrastructure is already
in place for biodiesel/PPO production. The realistic potential for
rapeseed biodiesel in Ireland is 15 kha (Hamelinck et al., 2004) or
17.3 million litres (0.6 PJ). Despite the shortfall between feedstock
and plant capacity, there are plans for further biodiesel plants,
meaning that the industry will be even more reliant on imports.
This does not aid energy security and, depending on the process,
rapeseed biodiesel may not even be classed as a biofuel in terms of
Table 6
Irish livestock numbers and grassland required for livestock in 2006 and 2020.
Ewes
Rams
Other sheep
Total sheep
Dairy cows
Other cows
Heifers-in-calf
Stock bulls
Cattle >2 years
Cattle 1e2 years
Cattle <1 year
Total cattle
Total sheep þ cattle
Total grassland 2006 (kha) (CSO, 2009a)
LU/ha
Required grassland 2020 (kha)
Nr heads 2006 (103)a
LU/headb
Total LU 2006 (103)
% Decrease
2931.5
89.7
805.1
3826.3
1087.1
1128.8
364.9
58.1
532.8
1194.2
1635.8
6001.7
0.17
0.17
0.125
498.4
15.2
100.6
614.2
1087.1
1015.9
255.4
58.1
532.8
835.9
490.7
4276
4890.3
3879.5
1.26c
14.6
49.5
49.5
1
0.9
0.7
1
1
0.7
0.3
9.1
11.3
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
10
b
Total LU 2020 (103)
425.4
7.7
50.8
483.9
988.3
901.1
225.6
51.3
470.6
738.3
441.7
3816.9
4300.8
1.26
3411.8
Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
a
December populations are used from CSO (2009e).
b
LU (livestock unit) values are from Connolly et al. (2009) and the percentage decrease is from Donnellan and Hanrahan (2008). Animal categorizations in these reports are
slightly different to those in CSO (2009e), so assumptions are made to relate the data.
c
This is typical for the 5 years from 2004 to 2008.
Author's personal copy
1681
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Table 7
Irish grassland in 2006, predicted change in grassland area in 2020 and predicted energy (from AD) available from grassland in 2020.
Details
Pasture, silage and hay
Rough grazing
Total
Units
Grassland in 2006 (CSO, 2009a)
% Of grassland in 2006
Grassland converted to forest by 2020a
Increase in crops, fruit and horticulture to 2020b
Grassland available for livestock and energy in 2020
Grassland required for livestock in 2020c
Grassland available for energy in 2020
Available energyd (122 GJ/ha (Smyth et al., 2009))
Practically available energy (60%)
3408.5
87.9
165.7
82.2
3160.5
2997.6
163.0
19.89
11.93
471
12.1
22.9
0
448.1
414.2
33.9
3879.5
100
188.7
82.2
3608.6
3411.8
196.8
kha
%
kha
kha
kha
kha
kha
PJ/a
PJ/a
Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
a
Total converted grassland from Table 5. Area of converted rough grazing and pasture, silage and hay assumed proportional to percentage of each land type in 2006.
b
Calculated from projections in Donnellan and Hanrahan (2008).
c
Total grassland from Table 6. Proportion of pasture, silage and hay to rough grazing is assumed same as 2006 value.
d
Rough grazing is excluded as this land is generally of lower quality and may be on hilly areas. Access for silage harvesting may be difficult or impossible, and even if silage
could be harvested it is unlikely to be economically viable due to lower yields.
meeting the 2020 target. It is therefore recommended that further
investment in biofuel plants based on arable crops be reconsidered.
An alternative resource is the 91% of agricultural land under grass.
75% and 150% respectively, easily surpassing the target of 60% by
2018.
4.11. Competing uses for grass
4.10. Argument for grass biomethane
The argument of the use of grass for energy, and in particular for
biofuel (biomethane) production, was put forward by Murphy and
Power (2009b). The vast majority (91%) of Irish agricultural land is
under grass. Grass/silage yields are high and grass requires neither
annual rotation nor arable land (land use change). Farmers are
familiar with grass and the equipment and expertise for growing,
harvesting and storing grass already exists on Irish farms. Other
advantages of perennial grasses over other first generation biofuel
sources include long persistency of high dry matter yield; intercropping potential with legumes and subsequent reduction in fertiliser application rates; the lower rates of pesticide application;
and the protection of grassland area in the present CAP crosscompliance system (Peeters et al., 2009). The double credits associated with grass as a ligno-cellulosic feedstock are also very
beneficial to grass biomethane.
The energy balance of the grass biomethane system is significantly better than alternative Irish biofuel crops and compares
favourably with the tropical biofuels, sugarcane ethanol and palm
oil biodiesel (Smyth et al., 2009) (Fig. 3). In terms of GHG emissions,
an analysis by Korres et al., (2010) found grass biomethane to be
one of the most sustainable indigenous, non-residue based European transport fuels. GHG savings of 54% were readily achieved;
however, grass can sequester carbon into the soil and allowing for
carbon sequestration of 0.6 and 2.8 t/ha/a increased the savings to
Livestock numbers are predicted to decrease in the coming
years, freeing up grassland which could then be used for other
purposes. Teagasc (The Irish Agriculture and Food Development
Authority) provides projected sheep and cattle numbers from 2006
to 2017 (Donnellan and Hanrahan, 2008). Numbers are on
a downward trend, although there is no clear pattern to the
decrease, especially in the case of sheep. Projections for 2017 are
assumed to hold constant to 2020, which gives a conservative value
for the grassland required for livestock. There are some discrepancies between 2006 livestock populations provided by Teagasc
(Donnellan and Hanrahan, 2008) and the Central Statistics Office
(CSO, 2009e). This paper uses the percentage decrease reported by
Teagasc (2006e2017) and applies it to the 2006 populations
reported by the CSO (which are more recent) to calculate 2020
populations. The grassland required for livestock in 2020 is determined as 3411.8 kha (Table 6).
Ireland has set a target to increase the country’s forest cover to
17% of total land area by 2030 (DAFF, 1996) (1185.9 kha) and it is
estimated that this will result in the conversion of 188.7 kha of
grassland by 2020 (Table 5). It’s likely that the majority of converted
grassland will consist of rough grazing (DAFF, 1996), although no
data was found detailing the area of each type of grassland converted to forestland (e.g. pasture, silage, hay or rough grazing). The
quantity of forest planted on (a) pasture, silage and hay, and (b)
rough grazing is assumed to be proportional to the 2006 ratio of (a)
Table 8
Principal biofuel energy crop options for Ireland and compliance with policy.
Sugarcane E
Palm oil BD
Imported biofuels
Biofuels policy
35% GHG savings
60% GHG savings
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Expansion is driving farmland
into sensitive ecosystems
Is it a biofuel?
?
E ¼ ethanol.
BD ¼ biodiesel.
BM ¼ biomethane.
Corn E
Rape seed BD
Wheat E or BM
Sugar beet E or BM
Grass BM
Imported or indigenous biofuels
Ecosystem damage
Agricultural policy
Land type
Land availability due to cross-compliance
Soybean BD
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Currently no, but may be possible
Yes
with improved systems
Few reported problems so far, but effects of expansion
need to be assessed
Expansion is leading to
global displacement
?
?
?
?
Yes
Arable
Limited
Arable
Limited
Arable
Limited
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grassland
Substantial
Author's personal copy
1682
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Table 9
Meeting the 10% target from indigenous biofuels in Ireland.
Fuel
Feedstock
Practical energy in 2020 (PJ)
Biodiesel
Tallow
UCO
Rapeseed
Cheese whey
Agricultural slurry
OFMSW
Slaughter waste
60% of surplus grass
National grid
0.715b
0.455b
0.6
0.27c
1.88b
0.57b
0.68b
11.93d
1.44
Bioethanol
Biomethane
Electricity
Total ex grass
Total incl grass
Target
Hidden imports
Factora
2
2
2
2
2
2
(2)
3.6 0.4 2.5
18.54
Contribution to target
(PJ)
(% 2020 transport energy)
1.43
0.91
0.6
0.54
3.76
1.14
1.36
11.93 (23.86)
3.6e
13.34
25.27 (37.2)
24
6.2 f
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.6
0.5
0.6
5.0 (10)
1.5
5.6
10.5 (15.5)
10
2.6
Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
a
Factors from EC (2009a). 40% renewable electricity is assumed; this is a national target for 2020 (Howley et al., 2008). Whether or not grass biomethane can be classified as
a ligno-cellulosic biofuel is unclear; the analysis considers both cases with values with double weighting included in parenthesis.
b
From Singh et al. (2010).
c
Assumes current capacity remains constant; current capacity from Caslin (2009).
d
From Table 7.
e
Electricity used in electric vehicles (Foley et al., 2009) plus electricity used in trains and trams (Walker et al., 2009).
f
See Section 4.5.
to (b), i.e. 88% to 12%, which results in a conservative value for the
grassland available for energy (Table 7).
No predictions are available for the total area under crops, fruit and
horticulture, and data for the years 1997e2008 follows no steady
trend. However, there are predictions for the areas under wheat and
barley from 2006 to 2017 (Donnellan and Hanrahan, 2008). The areas
under both crops are predicted to increase over the period, and from
2011 to 2017 there is an annual rise of approximately 3 kha. This trend
is projected to 2020 to give a 21.6% increase from 2006 to 2020.
Together, wheat and barley make up over 90% of the land under
cereals, and cereals account for about 70% of the total area under
crops, fruit and horticulture (CSO, 2009a). In the absence of other data,
the percentage increase for wheat and barley is assumed across the
total area of crops, fruit and horticulture, giving an increase of
82.2 kha (Table 7). This increase is assumed to take place on land
currently under pasture, silage and hay.
4.12. Energy potential of grass biomethane
The potential surplus grassland available for energy in 2020 is
163 kha (Table 7). As this area of grassland is predicted to be
available independent of any demand for grass biomethane, the use
of this grass would not have any direct effects on land use, and
could help to preserve grasslands, a task which may otherwise
prove difficult due to falling livestock numbers. The potentially
available biofuel energy from this grassland is 19.9 PJ/a (Table 7).
However, practically, it’s likely that not all of this grass would be
used for biomethane production, as distance from AD facilities and
farmer choice may exclude certain areas. However, as grassland
agriculture is widespread throughout the country, it is considered
probable that a substantial quantity of the potentially available
grassland could be used for energy. A value of 60% is assumed,
giving a practical energy of 11.9 PJ.
5. Can Ireland meet the 10% target for renewable energy in
transport in Ireland and remain within policy constraints?
Policy constraints mean that for the purposes of meeting the
2020 target for 10% renewable energy in transport (24 PJ), Ireland’s
options are limited. Waste/residue-derived biofuels and electric
vehicles can provide just over half of the 10% target, leaving the
remainder to be met by energy crop biofuels. The relatively large
proportion of biofuels required to meet the target means that
biofuel options need to be carefully assessed. Due to sustainability
criteria, the use of imports is excluded and, of the indigenous biofuels, only grass has significant potential in terms of biofuels policy
and land availability (Table 8). A small contribution is predicted
from rapeseed.
Taking into account biofuels from wastes/residues, rapeseed and
grass, and the contribution of electric vehicles, the practical energy
available from these indigenous sources in 2020 is 18.5 PJ (Table 9).
Using the factors in Directive 2009/28/EC for waste/residue-derived
biofuels and electric vehicles, this could contribute 25.3 PJ or 10.5%
of transport energy in 2020, thus showing that Ireland can surpass
the 2020 target and still remain in line with policy. The analysis has
highlighted the importance of grass biomethane, as without it only
13.3 PJ (56% of target) can be achieved. The Directive also applies
a double weighting to ligno-cellulosic biofuels, and if applied to
grass, the contribution of renewable transport energy rises to
37.2 PJ, more than one and a half times the target.
6. Conclusions
This paper analysed the biofuel options for Ireland in terms of
meeting the 2020 target for 10% renewable energy in transport set
by Directive 2009/28/EC. While the results are specific to Ireland,
the methodology developed could be applied to other country
studies across the EU and elsewhere. On a national and international level, such studies would be useful in determining the
implications of policy and could provide a solid roadmap for
meeting targets.
The review of policy undertaken for this paper highlighted
a number of deficiencies in current policy. On an EU level, the
sustainability criteria for biofuels in Directive 2009/28/EC and the
treatment of biofuels in complying with emissions targets in EU
Decisions 406/2009/EC (where all imported fuels are deemed to
provide 100% GHG savings) are at cross purposes, and demand
attention. Nationally, there is poor implementation of policy on the
ground; the various strands of policy relating to biofuels should be
aligned and an effective framework for the promotion of biofuels
developed.
From the analysis of the biofuels options for Ireland, the
sustainability criteria associated with biofuels in combination with
cross-compliance constraints point biofuel production towards
Author's personal copy
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
indigenous biomethane production in Ireland. This clearly also aids
energy security. Biofuels from wastes/residues are the low-hanging
fruit and receive a double weighting in contributing to meeting the
10% target. Biological waste conversion is necessitated by policy;
governments should ensure policy dictates that fuel (biomethane)
is a product of this conversion. Together with the national electric
vehicles plan, and a small existing indigenous rapeseed biodiesel
industry, there is potential for 5.6% renewable energy in transport.
Livestock numbers are due to decline, which could result in surplus
grassland and may make it difficult to maintain this grassland as is
required by policy. Grass biomethane provides a solution. In an Irish
context it is possible to achieve 15% renewable contribution to
transport energy in 2020 through indigenous biofuels from wastes,
electric vehicles (electricity from wind), and 60% of calculated
surplus grass.
However, the extension of a grass biomethane industry beyond
this surplus grass could lead to a decrease in beef exports, particularly to the UK. The shortfall could be met from Latin America,
leading to land use change and related environmental impacts. This
is similar to the “corn connection” and may result in a lower level of
sustainability for grass biomethane. The calibration of these issues
needs to be resolved.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by Bord Gáis Éireann, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Strive Program. The authors
would like to thank Anoop Singh, Abdul-Sattar Nizami and Thanasit
Thamsiriroj for advice, conversations and critiques.
References
Ash, M., Dohlman, E., Wittenberger, K., 2009. Oil Crops Outlook. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Bacovsky, D., Barclay, J., Bockey, D., Saez, R., Edye, L., Foust, T., et al., 2009. Update on
implementation agendas 2009. A review of key biofuel producing countries. In:
Mabee, W., Neeft, J., van Keulen, B. (Eds.), IEA Bioenergy Task 39.
Banse, M., Nowicki, P., van Meijl, H., Ur, L., 2008. Why are current world food prices
so high? LEI-Wageningen UR Report.
Börjesson, P., 2009. Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective e
what determines this? Applied Energy 86 (5), 589e594.
Bringezu, S., Schütz, H., Arnold, K., Merten, F., Kabasci, S., Borelbach, P., et al., 2009.
Global implications of biomass and biofuel use in Germany e recent trends and
future scenarios for domestic and foreign agricultural land use and resulting
GHG emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (Suppl. 1), S57eS68.
Bruton, T., Lyons, H., Lerat, Y., Stanley, M., Rasmussen, M., 2009. A Review of the Potential
of Marine Algae as a Source of Biofuel in Ireland. Sustainable Energy Ireland, Dublin.
Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V.A., Volk, T.A., 2009. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems:
results from an expert survey. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (Suppl.1), S86eS98.
Caslin, B., Autumn 2009. Overview of biofuels in Ireland. Bioenergy News.
Renewable Energy Information Office, Sustainable Energy Ireland, pp. 12e14.
CEC, 1998. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on A European Community Biodiversity Strategy. COM(1998) 42
final. Commission of the European Communities.
CEC, 2007. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament. Biofuels Progress Report. Report on the Progress Made in the Use of
Biofuels and Other Renewable Fuels in the Member States of the European
Union COM(2006). Commission of the European Communities. 845 final.
Chardon, W., Schoumans, O., 2008. Overview of Potential European Measures for
Agriculture under WFD, Collected within COST Action 869: Mitigation Options
for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters. Sustainable
Grassland Systems in Europe and the EU Water Framework Directive. Teagasc,
Johnstown Castle Research Centre, Wexford, Ireland.
Connolly, L., Kinsella, A., Quinlan, G., Moran, B., 2009. National Farm Survey 2008.
Farm Surveys Department, Teagasc, Athenry, Ireland.
CSO, 1997. Farming since the famine. Irish Farm Statistics 1847e1996. Central
Statistics Office, Cork.
CSO, 2006. Population 1901e2006. Central Statistics Office, Cork.
CSO. Area farmed in June (000 Hectares) by type of land use, region and year.
Central Statistics Office. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/
Agriculture%20Area%20Used%20and%20Crop%20Production/Agriculture%
20Area%20Used%20and%20Crop%20Production.asp, (accessed November 2009).
CSO. Number of Livestock in June (000 Head) by Type of Animal, Region and Year.
Central Statistics Office Ireland. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/
1683
eirestat/Agriculture%20Livestock%20and%20Farm%20Numbers/Agriculture%
20Livestock%20and%20Farm%20Numbers.asp (accessed November 2009).
CSO. Supply Balance for Cereals by Type of Crop, Year and Statistic. Central Statistics
Office. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Agriculture%20Supply%
20Balances/Agriculture%20Supply%20Balances.asp, (accessed November 2009).
CSO. Crop Yield by Type of Crop, Year and Statistic. Central Statistics Office. http://
www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Agriculture%20Area%20Used%
20and%20Crop%20Production/Agriculture%20Area%20Used%20and%20Crop%
20Production.asp (accessed November 2009).
CSO. Farm Animals in December (Thousand) by Type of Animal and Year. Central
Statistics Office. http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Agriculture
%20Livestock%20and%20Farm%20Numbers/Agriculture%20Livestock%20and%
20Farm%20Numbers.asp, accessed November 2009.
DAFF. Ireland Rural Development National Strategy Plan 2007e2013. Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, undated.
DAFF, 1996. Growing for the Future A Strategic Plan for the Development of the
Forestry Sector in Ireland. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dublin.
DCENR, 2009. Press Release: Minister Ryan’s Announcement re Biofuels Obligation, 9th
November 2009. Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
DCMNR, 2007. Government White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for
Ireland The Energy Policy Framework 2007e2020. Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
DEHLG, 2000. National Climate Change Strategy Ireland. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin.
Domac, J., Richards, K., Risovic, S., 2005. Socio-economic drivers in implementing
bioenergy projects. Biomass and Bioenergy 28 (2), 97e106.
Donnellan, T., Hanrahan, K., 2008. Baseline 2008 Outlook for EU and Irish Agriculture. Rural Economy Research Centre, Teagasc, Athenry, Ireland.
DOT, 2009. Smarter Travel A Sustainable Transport Future. Department of Transport,
Dublin.
EBIA. Feedstocks for biodiesel production in Europe. European Biomass Industry
Association. http://p9719.typo3server.info/214.0.html (accessed November 2009).
EC, 1999a. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
L182/1e19: Official Journal of the European Communities.
EC, 1999b. Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing
a support system for producers of certain arable crops. L160/113e118: Official
Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy. L327/1e72: Official Journal of the European Communities.
EC, 2003a. Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8
May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for
transport. L123/42e46: Official Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2003b. Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and
amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/
2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/
1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001. L270/1e69:
Official Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2004. Commission Regulation 796/2004/EC of 21 April 2004 laying down
detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the
integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes
under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers. L141/18e58: Official Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2009a. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/
EC. L140/16-62: Official Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2009b. Directive 2009/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport
vehicles. L120/5e12: Official Journal of the European Union.
EC, 2009c. Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction
commitments up to 2020. L140/136e148: Official Journal of the European Union.
EEC,1991. Council Directive of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters
Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (91/676/EEC).
Eickhout, B., van der Born, G.J., Notenboom, J., van Oorschot, M., Ros, J.P.M., van
Vuuren, D.P., et al., 2008. Local and Global Consequences of the EU Renewable
Directive for Biofuels Testing the Sustainability Criteria. Milieu en Natuur
Planbureau (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency).
Escobar, J.C., Lora, E.S., Venturini, O.J., Yáñez, E.E., Castillo, E.F., Almazan, O., 2009.
Biofuels: environment, technology and food security. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (6e7), 1275e1287.
Eurostat, 2007. Agriculture Main statistics 2005e2006, 2007 ed. European
Communities, Luxembourg.
Eurostat. Total Population e at 1 Jan. European Commission. http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/main_tables (accessed May 2009).
Eurostat. Number of Cattle e (1000). European Commission. http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/main_tables (accessed May 2009).
FAOSTAT. Food and Agricultural Commodities Production. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
(accessed November 2009).
Author's personal copy
1684
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P., 2008. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319 (5867), 1235e1238.
Foley, A., Ó Gallachóir, B.P., Leahy, P., McKeogh, E.J., 2009. Electric vehicles and
energy storage e a case study on Ireland. In: IEEE International Vehicle Power
and Propulsion Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Dearborn, Michigan.
Girard, P., Fallot, A., 2006. Review of existing and emerging technologies for the
production of biofuels in developing countries. Energy for Sustainable Development 10 (2), 92e108.
Goldemberg, J., Guardabassi, P., 2009. Are biofuels a feasible option? Energy Policy
37 (1), 10e14.
Hamelinck, C., van den Broek, R., Rice, B., Gilbert, A., Ragwitz, M., Toro, F., 2004.
Liquid Biofuels Strategy Study for Ireland. Sustainable Energy Ireland, Dublin.
Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi, T., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., 2009. The future of anaerobic
digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology 100 (22), 5478e5484.
Howley, M., Ó Gallachóir, B., Dennehy, E., O’Leary, F., 2008. Renewable Energy in
Ireland Focus on Wind Energy and Biofuels. Energy Policy Statistical Support
Unit, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Cork.
Howley, M., Ó Gallachóir, B., Dennehy, E., 2009a. Energy in Ireland 1990e2008.
Energy Policy Statistical Support Unit, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Cork.
Howley, M., Ó Gallachóir, B., Dennehy, E., 2009b. Energy in Transport. Energy Policy
Statistical Support Unit, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Cork.
Hull, D., Ó Gallachóir, B.P., Walker, N., 2009. Development of a modelling framework
in response to new European energy-efficiency regulatory obligations: the Irish
experience. Energy Policy 37 (12), 5363e5375.
Hynes, S., O’Donoghue, C., Murphy, E., Kinsella, A., 2008. Are far off hills really
greaner? The impact of REPS on farmer behaviour. RERC Working Paper Series.
The Rural Economy Research Centre, Teagasc.
IEA, 2003. Biofuels for Transport e an International Perspective. International
Energy Agency.
IEA, 2008a. World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency.
IEA, July 2008b. Medium Term Oil Market Report. International Energy Agency.
IEA, 2009a. Bioenergy e the impact of indirect land use change. In: IEA Bioenergy
ExCo63 Workshop. International Energy Agency (IEA Bioenergy), Rotterdam.
IEA, 2009b. Renewables Information. International Energy Agency.
Jensen, J., O’Toole, R., Matthews, A., 2003. Controlling greenhouse gas emissions
from the agricultural sector in Ireland: a CGE modeling approach. In: 6th
Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Jönsson, O., 2006. Market Development for Biogas as a Vehicle Fuel in Europe e
STATUS 2006. Swedish Gas Centre.
Korres, E, Singh, A, Nizami, AS, Murphy, JD., 2010. Is grass biomethane a sustainable
transport biofuel? Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 4, 310e325.
Lanigan, G., O’Mara, F., Murphy, J., Finnan, J., O’Kiely, P., Richards, K., 2008. Gaseous
emissions in agriculture: challenges & opportunities. In: National REPS Conference 2008 Farming for a Better Environment. Teagasc, Tullamore, Co. Offaly.
Laurance, W.F., 2007. Switch to corn promotes Amazon deforestation. Science 318
(5857), 1721b.
Lazear, E.P., 2008. Testimony of Edward P. Lazear, Chairman, CEA Before the US
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Responding to the Global Food
Crises, 14 May 2008. Council of Economic Advisors.
Le Bollach, O., Cope, J., Kurz, I., Meaney, B., Higgins, T., 2009. National Waste Report
2007. Environmental Protection Agency, Co. Wexford, Ireland.
Lechón, Y., Cabal, H., de la Rúa, C., Caldés, N., Santamaría, M., Sáez, R., 2009. Energy and
greenhouse gas emission savings of biofuels in Spain’s transport fuel. The adoption of the EU policy on biofuels. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (6e7), 920e932.
Liska, A.J., Yang, H.S., Bremer, V.R., Klopfenstein, T.J., Walters, D.T., Erickson, G.E., et
al., 2009. Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions of corneethanol. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (1), 58e74.
Londo, M., Lensink, S., Wakker, A., Fischer, G., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H., et al.,
2010. The REFUEL EU road map for biofuels in transport: application of the
project’s tools to some short-term policy issues. Biomass and Bioenergy 34 (2),
244e250.
Luo, L., van der Voet, E., Huppes, G., 2009. Life cycle assessment and life cycle
costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 13 (6e7), 1613e1619.
Mathiasson, A., 2008. Vehicle gas utilization in Sweden - today and tomorrow. In:
2nd Nordic Biogas Conference. Malmö, Sweden. The Swedish Gas Association.
McGettigan, M., Duffy, P., Hyde, B., Hanley, E., O’Brien, P., 2009. Ireland National
Inventory Report 2009. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, Ireland.
Mitchell, D., July 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices, Policy Research Working Paper
4682. The World Bank Development Prospects Group, Washington.
Morton, D., DeFries, R., Shimabukuro, Y., Anderson, L., Arai, E., del Bon EspiritoSanto, F., et al., 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in
the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 103 (39), 14637.
Murphy, J.D., Power, N.M., 2008. How can we improve the energy balance of ethanol
production from wheat? Fuel 87 (10e11), 1799e1806.
Murphy, J.D., Power, N., 2009a. Technical and economic analysis of biogas
production in Ireland utilising three different crop rotations. Applied Energy 86
(1), 25e36.
Murphy, J.D., Power, N.M., 2009b. An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (3),
504e512.
Murphy, J.D., Power, N.M., 2006. A technical, economic and environmental
comparison of composting and anaerobic digestion of biodegradable municipal
waste. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous
Substances and Environmental Engineering 41 (5), 865e879.
OECD, 2008. Report on Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policy. Trade and
Agriculture Directorate, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
OSI, 2010. Frequently Asked Questions e What is the Area by County in Land and
Water (Fresh)? Ordnance Survey Ireland, Dublin.
Patterson, T., Dinsdale, R., Esteves, S., 2008. Review of energy balances and emissions associated with biomass-based transport fuels relevant to the United
Kingdom context. Energy & Fuels 22 (5), 3506e3512.
Peeters, A., Fujita, N., Amartuvshin, N., Yamada, Y., Matsui, K., Sakai, S., et al., 2009.
Importance, evolution, environmental impact and future challenges of grasslands and grassland-based systems in Europe. Grassland Science 55 (3),
113e125.
Pimentel, D., Patzek, T., 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and
wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources
Research 14 (1), 65e76.
Power, N., Murphy, J.D., McKeogh, E., 2008. What crop rotation will provide optimal
first-generation ethanol production in Ireland, from technical and economic
perspectives? Renewable Energy 33 (7), 1444e1454.
Reinhard, J., Zah, R., 2009. Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. Journal
of Cleaner Production 17 (Suppl. 1), S46eS56.
REN21, 2009. Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. REN21 Secretariat,
Paris.
RFA, 2009a. US soy drops off? Renewable Fuels Digest. Renewable Fuels Agency.
RFA, 2009b. UK Report to the European Commission Under Article 4 of the
Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC). Renewable Fuels Agency, UK Department of
Transport.
Rice, B., Finnan, J., 2009. The outlook for biofuels. Engineers Journal 63 (4), 210e213.
Schnepf, R., 2006. European Union biofuels policy and agriculture: an overview. CRS
Report for Congress.
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al.,
2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through
emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867), 1238e1240.
Singh, A., Murphy, J.D., 2009. Biomethane from animal waste and grass for clean
vehicular biofuel in Ireland. In: Twelfth International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium. CISA, Environmental Santiary Engineering Centre, Italy,
Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Singh, A., Smyth, B.M., Murphy, J.D., 2010. A biofuel strategy for Ireland with an
emphasis on production of biomethane and minimization of land-take.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (1), 277e288.
Singh, A., Pant, D., Korres, N., Nizami, A.S., Prasad, S., Murphy, J.D., 2010. Key issues
in life cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass:
challenges and perspectives. Bioresource Technology 101, 5003e5012.
Smyth, B.M., Murphy, J.D., O’Brien, C.M., 2009. What is the energy balance of grass
biomethane in Ireland and other temperate northern European climates?
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9), 2349e2360.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., de Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s Long
Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Thamsiriroj, T., Murphy, J.D., 2009a. Is it better to import palm oil from Thailand to
produce biodiesel in Ireland than to produce biodiesel from indigenous Irish
rape seed? Applied Energy 86 (5), 595e604.
Thamsiriroj, T., Murphy, J.D., 2009b. A technical analysis of bioenergy production
from oilseed rape. In: The 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Energy
and Environment (SEE). World Renewable Energy Congress 2009-Asia,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Tilman, D., Hill, J., Lehman, C., 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input highdiversity grassland biomass. Science 314 (5805), 1598e1600.
Tomei, J., Upham, P., 2009. Argentinean soy-based biodiesel: an introduction to
production and impacts. Energy Policy 37 (10), 3890e3898.
Upham, P., Thornley, P., Tomei, J., Boucher, P., 2009. Substitutable biodiesel feedstocks for the UK: a review of sustainability issues with reference to the UK
RTFO. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (Suppl. 1), S37eS45.
von Blottnitz, H., Curran, M.A., 2007. A review of assessments conducted on bioethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and
environmental life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (7),
607e619.
Walker, N., Scheer, J., Clancy, M., Ó Gallachóir, B., 2009. Energy Forecasts in Ireland
to 2020. Energy Modelling Group, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Dublin.
Zah, R., Ruddy, T.F., 2009. International trade in biofuels: an introduction to the
special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (Suppl. 1), S1eS3.
Author's personal copy
B.M. Smyth et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 1671e1685
Nicholas Korres Dr Nicholas Korres was born and
raised in Greece. He has a BSc in Agronomy & Crop
Production, an MSc in Crop Physiology, a PhD in Weed
Science and Population Dynamics (Reading University, UK)
and a Postgraduate Diploma in Operational Research and
Applied Statistics. He has extensive work experience in
the UK and Greece. He has been a research fellow at the
Greek National Agricultural Research Institute and at
the Agricultural University of Athens. Presently he is
a research fellow in bioenergy and biofuels in the Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork. He
has published widely in that field.
Jerry Murphy Dr. Jerry D Murphy has a Degree in Civil
Engineering, a Masters Degree in Anaerobic Digestion and
a PhD in energy from wastes. Jerry has extensive work
experience in the UK and Ireland. He is Lecturer in
Transportation Engineering in University College Cork and
the Principle Investigator in bioenergy and biofuels in the
Environmental Research Institute. He has published 17
peer review journal papers in the last five years, on topics
such as: gaseous transport fuels; design of digesters for
high solid content feedstocks; and life cycle analyses of
various biofuel systems. He represents Ireland on IEA
Bioenergy Tasks.
1685
Brian Ó Gallachóir Dr. Brian Ó Gallachóir is an Energy
Engineering Lecturer in University College Cork and
Principal Investigator in Energy Policy and Modelling in
UCC’s Environmental Research Institute. Brian holds a BSc
in applied sciences and PhD in ocean wave energy. His
research informs energy and climate policy through
bottom-up modelling of sectoral energy demand and
efficiency and energy systems modelling with TIMES. He
co-ordiantes UCC’s MEngSc in Sustainable Energy. Brian
represents Ireland on IEA’s ETSAP and EU DGTREN’s
Energy Economic Analysts WG. Brian is an elected member
of the RIA Climate Change Committee and Strategic
Advisor to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.
Beatrice Smyth On graduating with a Degree in Civil
Engineering (BE(Civil)) from University College Dublin in
2001, Beatrice worked in consultancy for a number of years,
mainly in geotechnical and environmental engineering.
She returned to education in 2006 to conduct a master’s in
sustainable energy in University College Cork (MEngSc,
2007) and is currently in the final year of her PhD, also in
UCC. The focus of her research is on the use of gas as
a transport fuel, with particular emphasis on the use of
grass to generate biomethane.