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.