“The bioenergy sector must finally start using clear language in its discussions and disputes,” says Svebio CEO Gustav Melin (Gustav Melin).
“The first thing we have to address is the stance many people have against combustion as such. Without combustion as a process, life on Earth cannot exist. For instance, Stockholm Exergi burns five million tonnes of biofuel annually in the centre of Stockholm without affecting air quality. If a modern diesel car runs on HVO100, it is better for the climate than running an electric car on Norwegian electricity,” assesses Gustav Melin.
Which energy source in Sweden outperforms hydropower and nuclear power?
Most people working in the energy sector know that it is biomass, which provided 151 TWh of energy in Sweden in 2021, compared to 73.8 TWh from hydropower and 51 TWh from nuclear power (in terms of electricity produced).
Of the biomass used in 2020, including small amounts of peat and waste, the majority was used for heat and fuel, and approximately 11 TWh for electricity. In total, there were 242 biomass cogeneration plants operating in Sweden at that time, with a total installed capacity of 4,000 megawatts. Due to poor profitability, only about 30% of the capacity was utilised.
Industry organisations, such as Svebio, which includes 300 companies, have long emphasised the advantages of bioenergy resources, considering both environmental and efficiency arguments. For example, combined heat and power production typically utilises more than 90% of the energy from biological sources.
Gustav Melin emphasises that bioenergy resources have significant untapped potential, primarily in three aspects: “We should be able to better redistribute the heat produced in Sweden's district heating networks for electricity generation. In Denmark, 80% of the produced heat is used this way, while in Sweden it is less than 50%,” he says.
Technologies could be developed to increase the share of electricity: “Today, only 25-35% of the energy contained in biofuel is used for electricity; the rest is converted into heat. It is possible to double electricity production, for example, through gasification technology.”
Furthermore, according to Gustav Melin, significantly more biomass can be obtained from the forest: “In Sweden, after logging, we leave about 140 TWh annually in the forest in the form of branches, tops and stumps. Part of this should be left to maintain biodiversity, but researchers estimate that we can harvest about 60 TWh more without affecting biodiversity.” It should be noted that 60 TWh of energy is equivalent to the electricity generated by seven nuclear reactors of the Forsmark type.
However, resistance to biofuel – especially certain types – is strong and can seem confusing from the outside. Environmental and climate considerations are often presented from diametrically opposed positions, and the tone is harsh. The environment in Brussels is particularly harsh, where well-resourced and influential lobby organisations constantly manipulate the European Commission in the name of the environment.
Currently, significant decisions regarding bioenergy are being prepared in addition to those already adopted, such as the Deforestation Regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the taxonomy. First and foremost, these will have a significant impact on Sweden and Finland. The conflict begins with the description of the situation, especially regarding forestry issues.
According to Gustav Melin, a series of significant misunderstandings arise regarding combustion as a process:
“The first thing we have to deal with is the stance of many people against combustion. It is self-evident that we must not engage in, organise, or perform combustion that creates emissions dangerous to the environment and health. However, a fundamental and everyday fact is that combustion is a natural and necessary part of the ecological cycle.” If combustion did not exist, our planet would be lifeless.
“In biology, combustion is often called cellular respiration. In the human body, combustion happens all the time. We ‘eat biomass’ that contains energy. In the organism, biomass is broken down, we inhale oxygen which oxidises carbohydrates, and we exhale carbon dioxide,” reminds Gustav Melin.
“This process does not contribute to an increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because we eat plants. Plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use solar energy to build carbohydrates. We can eat the plant a few days or weeks later, or eat the meat of animals that have also eaten plants.” In an engine or power plant, combustion occurs at higher temperatures than in cells, but the process happens in the same way.
“It is a question of carbohydrates and hydrocarbons – for example, cellulose, ethanol, or vegetable-based diesel – that oxidise to break down into carbon dioxide and water vapour. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nutrients are stored in plants and are burned in an eternal cycle, with modern technologies preventing dangerous emissions.”
“Sometimes plants are burned in the human body, sometimes in a car engine or a cogeneration plant, and often dead plant parts are left in nature, where they rot in the field or in the forest. In the forest, fungi and bacteria break down plant remains in much the same chemical process, albeit at lower temperatures than in the human body.”
Gustav Melin mentions that the purification equipment in combustion plants and engines is now of such high quality that combustion has no particular impact on the environment.
“Stockholm Exergi can burn five million tonnes of biofuel annually in the centre of Stockholm without affecting air quality. The same applies to modern petrol and diesel cars. Of the polluting particles generated by cars, 95% is caused by road wear and tyres.”
“If we use renewable biofuel for driving, the positive impact on the climate is immediate. If a modern diesel car runs on HVO100, it is better for the climate than running an electric car on Norwegian electricity. Banning the internal combustion engine is just as silly as banning people from breathing.”
“EU policy should ban fossil fuels and batteries if fossil raw materials are used in their production,” believes Gustav Melin.
His conclusion – the bioenergy sector must stand up for itself and become tougher “in its argumentation against both misguided EU politicians and environmental organisations”.
“Sweden and Finland can lead the way for others in how to obtain biofuel from the forest, biochar for the steel and cement industry, how to develop flexible electricity production and new technologies, and raw materials for biorefineries. Both Scandinavian countries have many strong companies in this sector.”
What are EU politicians being (or allowing themselves to be) misled about? Some of Gustav Melin's conclusions:
– Any combustion is dangerous.
– Emissions should only be measured at the exhaust pipe.
– It is better for a forest to be left untouched and allowed to burn regularly, rather than being utilised and replanted.
– Growing energy crops would threaten food availability and cause the destruction of rainforests.
– Harvesting crops and logging forests has a negative impact on the climate, even though in reality biomass volumes globally are increasing every year.
According to Gustav Melin, these perceptions are the result of many years of agitation by various organisations.
Which organisations are these?
“Firstly, some large environmental organisations and other alarmists who are ‘fishing’ for more members and truly believe that everything will go to hell unless humans stop influencing nature. American and British foundations fund their campaigns with many millions of dollars.”
“Sometimes the fossil fuel industry might also badmouth biofuels to continue selling their products. Even companies involved in electrification may consider that biofuel hinders the sale of heat pumps or electric vehicles.”
“Bioenergy development is a real threat to the fossil fuel industry and electrification,” says Gustav Melin.
Thanks to Lars-Göran Hedlund of Södra Latvia for the informative material