Opportunities for Primary Industries in the Bioenergy Sector · The Future Fuels Forum (2008)3 assessed a range of future fuel mixes and concluded that liquid fuels could be prioritised

National Research, Development and Extension Strategy

Priority Area RD&E Implementation Plan

Opportunities for Primary Industries in the Bioenergy Sector

©2014 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

All rights reserved.

ISSN: 1440-6845 ISBN 978-1-74254-672-8

Opportunities for Primary Industries in the Bioenergy Sector National Research, Development and Extension Strategy Priority Area RD&E Implementation Plan

Publication No. 14/056

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2 15 National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 Kingston ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected] Web: www.rirdc.gov.au

3

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 5Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 91 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 112 RD&E work plan ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Purpose of the bioenergy work plan .............................................................................132.2 Contributors and process for the BWP .........................................................................132.3 An overview of the BWP within the broader bioenergy domain ....................................14

3 Task A Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 153.1 Sustainability - context and strategy priorities .............................................................153.2 Progress towards the Sustainability RD&E priorities ...................................................16

3.2.1 Sustainability certification for bioenergy .....................................................................16

3.2.2 Progress towards an ISO bioenergy sustainability standard .......................................17

3.2.3 The forest industry approach to sustainability provides a valuable precedent for bioenergy sustainability .........................................................................18

3.2.4 Key knowledge gaps ......................................................................................................183.3 Sustainability work plan ...............................................................................................19

4 Task B Feedstocks ..................................................................................................................... 214.1 Feedstocks-context and strategy priorities ..................................................................21

4.1.1 Feedstock supply for energy operates in a bio-economic context ..............................21

4.1.2 Significance of different feedstocks ..............................................................................21

4.1.3 Feedstocks and bioenergy in Australia .........................................................................22

4.1.4 Defining feedstock potential .........................................................................................23

4.1.5 Integration of short rotation trees (SRT) into farming systems ...................................23

4.1.6 Feedstock RD&E priorities ............................................................................................244.2 Progress towards the Feedstocks RD&E priorities ......................................................25

4.2.1 Summary of Australian work ........................................................................................25

4.2.2 Feedstock readiness tool ..............................................................................................25

4.2.3 Regional feedstocks ......................................................................................................264.3 Feedstocks work plan ...................................................................................................27

4.3.1 Development of specific feedstock types .....................................................................27

4.3.2 Overarching research tasks ..........................................................................................275 Task C Supply Logistics ............................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Supply Logistics-context and strategy priorities ..........................................................31

5.1.1 Significance of supply logistics .....................................................................................31

5.1.2 Reducing supply costs to make bioenergy business case ...........................................31

5.1.3 Supply chain events, scale, infrastructure and regions ...............................................31

5.1.4 Supply Logistics priorities from the strategy ...............................................................325.2 Progress towards the Supply Logistics RD&E priorities ...............................................32

5.2.1 Forest residues ..............................................................................................................32

5.2.2 Stubble and hay .............................................................................................................33

5.2.3 Short rotation trees .......................................................................................................345.3 Supply Logistics work plan ...........................................................................................34

4 Opportunities for Primary Industries in the Bioenergy Sector

6 Task D Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development ................................................... 366.1 Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development-context and strategy priorities .366.2 Progress towards the RD&E priorities .........................................................................36

6.2.1 Desktop analysis (examples of Task D2) ......................................................................36

6.2.2 Detailed feasibility (example of Task D3) ......................................................................37

6.2.3 Project development (examples of Task D4) ................................................................376.3 Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development work plan ..................................37

7 Timelines ................................................................................................................................... 397.1 Task A Sustainability .....................................................................................................397.2 Task B Feedstocks ........................................................................................................407.3 Task C Supply Logistics .................................................................................................407.4 Task D Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development .......................................40

8 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 429 References ................................................................................................................................. 4310 Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 48

10.1 Terms of reference for the bioenergy RD&E advisory forum ........................................4810.2 PIMC framework-RD&E efficiency ................................................................................4910.3 Members of the Bioenergy RD&E Advisory Forum

and Technical Working Groups (June 2013) ..................................................................5010.4 Appropriate approaches to sustainability assessment ................................................5210.5 Principles, criteria and indicators ................................................................................5310.6 Full feedstock readiness table ......................................................................................5510.7 Impact of previous supply logistics studies on this work plan ......................................59

5

Executive Summary

BackgroundAlready in wide use throughout the world for cooking and warmth, bioenergy is a global product. The emergence of additional new uses for biomass1 based on modern technologies has prompted further interest in biomass and bioenergy, and enormous potentials and benefits have been claimed. However, the potential role for bioenergy is yet to be fully understood and large-scale utilisation of biomass for energy will be limited biophysically and economically. The need to understand and demonstrate sustainable production systems is paramount.2

Bioenergy is a source of renewable energy which can be produced as bioelectricity, biofuel or heat. For electricity production, bioenergy competes with the increasingly low-cost wind and solar energy. For biofuel production, the only competition is with fossil fuels. Biomass could provide the feedstock for a wide range of bio-products from bio-refinery production, with bioenergy and biofuels as co-products.

Bioenergy can make a valuable contribution to Australia’s future energy mix and provide significant greenhouse gas savings. The potential is yet, however, to be realised. In 2010, approximately 15 per cent of new renewable electricity generation was derived from biomass sources. Estimated 2010/11 biofuel production was approximately 360 million litres (ML), about 1 per cent of the petrol and diesel sold in Australia.

The Future Fuels Forum (2008)3 assessed a range of future fuel mixes and concluded that liquid fuels could be prioritised for those parts of the transport sector where there was no short-to-medium term substitute for fossil fuels; for example in the aviation, mining, agriculture and marine sectors.

The scale of bioenergy is limited by the amount of sustainable feedstocks available. Whilst Australia has large quantities of existing feedstocks, such as straw and forest residues, these are unlikely to catalyse a bioenergy industry in regional Australia without private- public partnerships. This would require the government to participate in the development of supply logistics and sustainability systems.

Basis of planThis National Bioenergy RD&E Work Plan (BWP) flows from the issues and opportunities identified in the report Opportunities for primary industries in the bioenergy sector-national RD&E strategy (RIRDC 2011).

The plan utilises the methodology of Stucley et al (2012)4 that analyses bio-economic factors of production to guide research and investment for bioenergy feedstocks. This approach focuses on the delivered cost of feedstock, while considering the prospects of land managers and other supply-chain businesses to make profits. Integrating technology,

1 Biomass referred to in the workplan is from terrestrial sources. Biomass from algae is considered in ongoing research programmes.

2 Pearman, GI 2013, ‘Limits to the potential of bio-fuels and bio-sequestration of carbon’, Energy Policy, vol. 59, pp. 523–535.

3 See <http://www.csiro.au/resources/Fuel-For-Thought-Report>.4 See Section 9.3, p. 169. While the feedstock being considered in this chapter of

Stucley et al (2012) is mallee, the methodology applies equally to all feedstocks.


economies of scale and productivity estimates provides a delivered cost of feedstock and this analysis enables risk to be assessed.

The potential for a biomass feedstock to be available, in substantial quantities at competitive cost, within close proximity to a bioenergy conversion plant drives the priorities in this plan.

BWP aim and focusThe aim of the BWP is to support investors, governments and research providers in assessing priority research, development and extension (RD&E) actions to enable development of an economically viable and sustainable bioenergy industry whilst avoiding research duplication. The work plan has been developed in consultation with industry, government and research institutions.

The BWP focuses on three of the key areas identified in the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy: Feedstock identification and availability, Supply Logistics, and Sustainability. The BWP recognises the overlap between these three components and addresses their convergence through adding a fourth key area of focus: Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development.

FeedstocksAustralia has a significant existing volume of feedstocks that could be utilised or adapted for bioenergy systems in the short term. The matching of feedstocks to growing environment, conversion technology and markets for final products is a critical issue for bioenergy.

The tasks identified for the Feedstocks area were:

• Develop feedstocks that are significant, scalable, sustainable and deployable. Key feedstocks include stubble, forest residues and woody crops.

• Maintain links between feedstock research providers to share learnings, avoid duplication and encourage investment.

• Adapt the US Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) feedstock readiness tool to Australia to assist research and investment.

• Produce and maintain a Biomass Resource Atlas (as an online tool).

Supply LogisticsBioenergy produced is proportional to the quantity and quality of feedstock converted. As feedstock supplies increase, managing the supply chain by lowering costs, creating valuable co-products and developing infrastructure will be essential to establish and sustain regional bioenergy facilities.

For existing feedstocks, RD&E may provide the catalyst for commercial deployment. The key problems include: (i) financial issues relating to scale up and bulk handling technologies; and (ii) risk and cost reductions, as practices and technologies move along a ‘learning curve’.

A number of studies have identified supply logistics as an important barrier to bioenergy establishment and describe the complexity of bioenergy supply logistics. The BWP seeks to synthesise these previous studies, and provide directions for future work.

Allocating resources to supply logistics research priorities requires an understanding of the scale of the available feedstock (notably straw and forest residues), and hypothesised cost savings and level of private investment.

Regions with a wide range of feedstocks and/or large variation in feedstock supplies (for example woody weeds, land clearing, urban waste) and variable markets for biomass products (including bioenergy) are likely to catalyse projects that have priority for research such as that proposed for bio-hubs.

7

The tasks identified for the Supply Logistics area were:

• Quantify key harvest and logistics cost drivers for forest residue, agriculture residue, short rotation trees and mixed feedstock supply chains.

• Develop optimised harvest system selection frameworks for forest residue, agriculture residue, short rotation trees and mixed feedstock supply chains.

• Develop and apply business models for biomass ‘brokers’.

SustainabilitySustainability is a critical issue for the bioenergy industry, both domestically and internationally. Quantitative, robust and independently verified sustainability credentials are recognised as vital for the bioenergy industry to expand globally. This recognition has translated to specific government policies in some countries, which will limit market access and government support to only those bioenergy products (e.g., fuels such as ethanol) meeting specified sustainability criteria.

Significant and rapid expansion of the global industry has created a set of sustainability issues including: (i) competition for resources causing indirect effects on land-use change and market substitution; and (ii) aggregate landscape-scale impacts on water, biodiversity and social values. The social, economic and biophysical impacts are cumulative, and in many cases, non-linear. These indirect effects are difficult to address by the bioenergy industry or local jurisdiction alone, because the impacts, by definition, occur elsewhere and frequently have multiple exacerbating causal factors (O’Connell et al 2009). The perceived and actual effects are complex, difficult to analyse and the subject of on-going debate.

Standards Australia has convened a technical committee comprised of industry, the Australian Government and some state governments, consumer groups and researchers to work with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in developing internationally agreed sustainability criteria5. The ISO standard will provide for a consistent set of data relevant to sustainability to be reported, but will not provide any thresholds or targets for what is required in order for a product to be considered sustainable. Therefore, complementary mechanisms will be required in order to assess sustainability, based on the data reported under the ISO standard.

The tasks identified for the Sustainability area were:

• Support the development of the ISO standard, including the complementary mechanisms that will be required to ensure sustainability.

• Identify and prioritise the sustainability risks in bioenergy systems.

• Develop mechanisms to apply sustainability standards progressively.

• Develop an Australian standard if required.

• Apply a systematic approach to evaluate the sustainability of major regional projects.

Integrated Supply Chains and Industry DevelopmentThis focus area was not specifically identified in the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy. However, during the broad consultation conducted to develop this BWP, integration was identified as the single-most important short-term step that could be taken in Australia to provide a developmental pathway for many of the RD&E tasks identified in the other three key areas of the BWP.

Focusing on an integrated value chain in specific regions helps to set RD&E priorities. A region has known infrastructure and a pattern and scale of feedstock supply. RD&E is required to address important local factors, while enhancing and being enhanced by national and global improvements. Maintaining national coordination is likely to avoid duplication and support the attraction of investment to the most promising business cases.

5 See Commonwealth of Australia, Senate, Hansard, Monday 27 June 2011.


The tasks identified for the Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development area were:

• Establish a steering group to guide bioenergy RD&E nationally.

• Conduct desktop scientific analysis of prospective individual projects (proof of concept).

• Undertake detailed feasibility studies: local and specific research to de-risk investment.

• Attract and work with bioenergy businesses through project development.

Building any new industry relies on a long-term commitment to a vigorous and coordinated program of RD&E. The program of research outlined in this BWP provides the basis for continuing development of a robust and sustainable bioenergy industry in Australia. Research, government and industry collaborative partnerships are expressed in the framing of the RD&E tasks, and can be further explored and developed through joint delivery of future research.

AB CD

Bioenergy RD&E Model — A B C & D make up the Work Plan

SustainabilityEconomic viability of each segment plus whole value chain; communities of consent and a ‘license to operate’; sustainability issues along the value chain — local and global and indirect; assessment systems for sustainability

Communication and information disseminationBioenergy can play a central role in agriculture and renewable energy (especially transport fuels) but

this is not well understood, and requires a very focussed RDE workplan to target the opportunities

Communication and information disseminationMultidisciplinary research with cross-sectional reach;

roles for professional and educational institutions

FeedstocksExistingForestry residues, grain, sugar cane residues, cotton gin, othersEmergingShort rotation trees, modified sugar cane, cropsNew and Novel∙ Energy grasses, sugar cane, crops and trees∙ Matching feedstock to growth environment (soil, water, climate, farming system) and conversion∙ New species and varieties

SupplyHarvest, infield processing, extraction and transport to factory∙ Understand cost drivers∙ Harvest system selection framework∙ Optimised supply chains∙ Planning and management models

Conversion Technologies∙ Global race to develop∙ Fast pyrolysis produces fuels and biochar∙ Biochemical conversion produces ethanol and bio chemicals

Product DevelopmentMore than energy

MarketSustainability certification supports investment

Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development

from

desktop assessment of proof of concept

through to

detailed feasibility:pre-commercial research into derisking and optimisation

through to

investment in project development and industry scale-up

9

Definitions

AFORA Australian Forest Operations Research Association

ARENA Australian Renewable Energy Agency

BWP Bioenergy work plan

C&I Criteria and indicators

CAAFI US Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

CRC Cooperative Research Centre

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DA Department of Agriculture

DAFFQ Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Queensland

DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia

DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife

DIISR Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

DPI Department of Primary Industries

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission (electrical standards organisation)

FFI CRC Future Farm Industries CRC

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GHG Greenhouse gas

GRDC Grains Research and Development Corporation

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JASANZ Joint Accreditation Society of Australia and New Zealand

kg CO2-eq Kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent (a measure of greenhouse gas emissions)

LCA Life cycle analysis

NSW New South Wales

PC 248 ISO project committee for developing a sustainability standard for bioenergy

PC&I Principles, criteria and indicators

PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

PIMC Primary Industries Ministerial Council

PISC Primary Industries Standing Committee

R&D Research and development

RD&E Research, development and extension

RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

RSB Round Table for Sustainable Biofuels


RSPO Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil

SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute

SCER Standing Committee on Energy and Resources

SCOPI Standing Council on Primary Industries

Supply chain

Often used interchangeably with value chain. Steps followed to reach a product, in this case bioenergy. Each step usually adds value to the previous step and leads to the supply of the end product. Bioelectricity and biofuels are the products in the BWP. Steps start with the idea to produce bioenergy-but the focus in the supply chain is strongest from harvest to conversion to bioenergy.

SRT Short rotation trees

SW WA South-west Western Australia

TWG Technical working group

WTA World trade agreement

WTO World Trade Organization

11

1 IntroductionThe 2012 Energy white paper (DRET 2012)6 identifies three intersecting factors of critical importance to the Australian economy:

1. the need to deliver secure, reliable and competitively priced energy for a growing population and economy

2. the further expansion of our energy exports to Asia and other growth markets

3. the need to become more energy efficient across the economy and to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and transform to a clean energy economy.

Bioenergy can make a valuable contribution to Australia’s future energy mix and provide significant greenhouse gas savings (e.g. RIRDC 20117; Farine et al 20128; Stucley et al 2012; Sawin and Martinot 2011). Its potential is yet, however, to be realised. In 2010, approximately 15 per cent of new renewable electricity generation was derived from biomass sources (CER 2011)9. The estimated 2010/11 biofuel production was approximately 360 million litres (ML), about 1 per cent of the petrol and diesel sold in Australia (DRET 2010)10.

Bioenergy is a source of renewable energy which can be produced as bio-electricity, biofuel or heat. For electricity production, bioenergy competes with the increasingly low-cost and popular wind and solar energy. For biofuel production, the only competition is with fossil fuels. The Future Fuels Forum (2008)11 assessed a range of future fuel mixes and concluded that liquid fuels could be prioritised for those parts of the transport sector where there was no short-to-medium term substitute to fossil fuels; for example, in the aviation, mining, agriculture and marine sectors. Biomass is widely utilised for heat, generally in small-scale domestic systems (e.g., wood fires).

A large increase in scale of the industry would be required if the potential for biomass-based energy were to be realised. There are existing sources of biomass which could be used as feedstock, and potential for new and novel biomass production systems to be created (see footnote12). The barriers which must be overcome to use this biomass in new, cost-efficient supply chains and thus underpin industry expansion have been well documented (see footnote13). In addition, it is well recognised that understanding, defining, and operating sustainably is a critical issue for the bioenergy industry domestically and internationally. Quantitative, robust and independently verified sustainability credentials are required to gain societal and government support for industry expansion.

This work plan builds directly on previous initiatives in designing and delivering a nationally cohesive bioenergy RD&E program in Australia. From 2007 to 2012, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) coordinated a national funding program in this area. This was underpinned by the publication of Bioenergy, bioproducts and energy-a framework for research and development (O’Connell et al 2007), see also O’Connell and Haritos (2010) for further detail. In parallel, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) developed the concept of ‘national R with regional D&E’ across multiple primary industries sectors, and established a national RD&E framework. The bioenergy national RD&E framework was led by the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC), and focused on the need for greater coordination of focused RD&E to assist Australian primary industries to best engage and pursue Australian bioenergy opportunities.

6 See p. x.7 See p. vii.8 See pp. 149–1509 Quoted in RIRDC (2011) p. 3.10 Quoted in RIRDC (2011) p. 3.11 See <http://www.csiro.au/resources/Fuel-For-Thought-Report>.12 See Farine et al (2012); Shepherd et al (2011); Hobbs et al (2009); Bartle (2009); and Rodriguez (2011a).13 See Bartle et al (2007); Rodriguez (2011a); Stucley et al (2012); McEvilly et al (2011); and Ecowaste (2013).


The National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy, entitled Opportunities for primary industries in the bioenergy sector (RIRDC 2011), was developed based on extensive consultation across Australian government agencies, state government agencies, industry and other stakeholders. The bioenergy strategy provides:

• detail on the rationale, background and context of the national RD&E framework

• a detailed resource analysis of existing funding sources, research areas and key delivery projects for bioenergy RD&E (to 2010)

• clearly identified RD&E priorities and gaps

• a set of recommendations about how to implement the strategy.

In particular, the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy recommended:

• that the Primary Industry Standing Committee (PISC) and the Standing Committee on Energy and Resources (SCER) need to jointly consider the bioenergy supply/value chain opportunities

• the establishment of a Bioenergy RD&E Advisory Forum (the Forum) to align RD&E activities relevant to primary industry stakeholders, in order to maximise returns on their involvement and/or investment in bioenergy supply chains.

The Forum is coordinated and supported by RIRDC, and includes representatives from relevant PISC jurisdictions, including universities, CSIRO, federal and state government, funding bodies and primary industry representatives. Bioenergy industries are also represented so that industry-specific needs are identified and captured, and aligned to the relevant primary industry. The terms of reference for the Forum are provided in Appendix 10.1.

13

2 RD&E work plan2.1 Purpose of the bioenergy work planThe purpose of the bioenergy work plan (BWP) is to guide the priorities for RD&E in the bioenergy sector, with a focus on primary industries. The plan will assist funders, jurisdictions and agencies to identify areas for specific focus and, through communication, complement processes for collaboration. The plan will deliver more-considered detail to:

1. guide the recognition of bioenergy options and issues

2. encourage increased agency support for bioenergy-related RD&E

3. through this process, assist respective jurisdictions (agencies) in priority setting

4. facilitate collaboration through shared prioritisation and communication of objectives

5. help focus strategic directions and project processes for funding bodies

6. reduce duplication of funded research.

For more detail on the PIMC framework for primary industry RD&E, see Appendix 10.2.

2.2 Contributors and process for the BWPTechnical working groups (TWGs) were established to develop the BWP, addressing each of the priority areas. The BWP is intended to help determine coordination and collaboration actions. The priorities identified in the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy were:

1. sustainability

2. feedstocks

3. supply logistics

4. policy analysis

5. outreach, capacity building and networking.

This document presents the BWP for the first three of these priorities; ie, Sustainability, Feedstocks, and Supply Logistics. We have listed the specific recommendations from the strategy in each section, and have modified these on the basis of further consultation in the process of developing this work plan. For example, we have added a fourth priority area: Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development.

The members of the Forum and the contributors to this report are provided in Appendix 10.3. A TWG was established for each of the three topics, led by Deborah O’Connell of CSIRO (Sustainability), Brendan George of New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) (Feedstocks), and John McGrath of Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre (FFI CRC) (Supply Logistics). Three work plans were separately developed, and presented for discussion at the Bioenergy Australia 2012 conference in Melbourne. These plans were combined into a single document which was circulated for comment and further discussed and refined at a workshop in Sydney in June 2013. The workshop participants are also listed in Appendix 10.3. The work plans were presented in this form to the Bioenergy Australia Forum quarterly meeting in Brisbane in late June 2013.


2.3 An overview of the BWP within the broader bioenergy domain

We have built on the existing RD&E frameworks (O’Connell et al 2007; O’Connell and Haritos 2010), and adapted them for the current purpose. The four specific tasks which are the topic of this primary industries focused BWP are shown as boxes A to D, within the broader framework for bioenergy RD&E in Figure 2.1.

AB CD

Bioenergy RD&E Model — A B C & D make up the Work Plan

SustainabilityEconomic viability of each segment plus whole value chain; communities of consent and a ‘license to operate’; sustainability issues along the value chain — local and global and indirect; assessment systems for sustainability

Communication and information disseminationBioenergy can play a central role in agriculture and renewable energy (especially transport fuels) but

this is not well understood, and requires a very focussed RDE workplan to target the opportunities

Communication and information disseminationMultidisciplinary research with cross-sectional reach;

roles for professional and educational institutions

FeedstocksExistingForestry residues, grain, sugar cane residues, cotton gin, othersEmergingShort rotation trees, modified sugar cane, cropsNew and Novel∙ Energy grasses, sugar cane, crops and trees∙ Matching feedstock to growth environment (soil, water, climate, farming system) and conversion∙ New species and varieties

SupplyHarvest, infield processing, extraction and transport to factory∙ Understand cost drivers∙ Harvest system selection framework∙ Optimised supply chains∙ Planning and management models

Conversion Technologies∙ Global race to develop∙ Fast pyrolysis produces fuels and biochar∙ Biochemical conversion produces ethanol and bio chemicals

Product DevelopmentMore than energy

MarketSustainability certification supports investment

Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development

from

desktop assessment of proof of concept

through to

detailed feasibility:pre-commercial research into derisking and optimisation

through to

investment in project development and industry scale-up

Figure 2.1 Scheme for bioenergy RD&E, showing the areas of focus of this report within the broader scheme (adapted from O’Connell et al 2007; O’Connell and Haritos 2010)

In the following sections outlining the tasks of each priority area, we present:

• context and background to the task together with RD&E priorities, gaps and actions from the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy

• existing work progress towards the identified priorities

• an RD&E work plan.

15

3 Task A Sustainability3.1 Sustainability - context and strategy prioritiesBioenergy is a global product, already in wide use throughout the world for cooking and warmth. The emergence of modern technologies based on additional new uses of biomass has provided a renewed interest in biomass and bioenergy, and enormous potentials and benefits have been claimed. However, many of these claims rely on untested assumptions and may breach biophysical limits (eg Pearman 2013) or incur further sustainability issues.

Sustainability is therefore a critical issue for the bioenergy industry, both internationally and in Australia. Quantitative, robust and independently verified sustainability credentials are recognised as vital in order for the bioenergy industry to expand globally. This recognition is already translating to government policies in some countries which will limit market access and government support to only those biofuels which meet specified sustainability criteria.

The sustainability issues from bioenergy and biofuels have been well documented (for example see, UN-E 2007; Fehrenbach et al 2008; van Dam et al 2008; O’Connell et al 2005; O’Connell et al 2009). They arise at each stage of the supply chain, as well as across the whole supply chain. Sustainability issues arising directly from the bioenergy/biofuel supply chain (called ‘direct effects’14) are, in general reasonably well-defined (O’Connell et al 2009), although many aspects require further R&D to gain deeper understanding of the impacts and management thereof.

Significant and rapid expansion of the industry has also created a different set of sustainability issues, such as competition causing indirect effects on land-use change and market substitution, as well as aggregate landscape-scale impacts on water, biodiversity and social values (for example see, Fargione et al 2008; Searchinger et al 2008). The social, economic and biophysical impacts are cumulative, and in many cases, non-linear. They are called ‘indirect effects’, and are difficult to address by the bioenergy industry or local jurisdiction alone, because the impacts, by definition, occur elsewhere and frequently have multiple exacerbating causal factors (O’Connell et al 2009). They are complex, difficult to analyse and the subject of on-going debate.

The sustainability RD&E priorities and gaps identified in the strategy (RIRDC 2011) are:

1. Continue to understand the significant sustainability issues and basic science, e.g. understanding of carbon balance in bioenergy systems; water management; food versus fuels.

2. Review national and international development in the approaches to addressing and documenting sustainability relevant to production of bioenergy products in Australia, including relevant government policies and pathways to adoption of future sustainability guidelines.

3. Develop and test processes and methods for assessing sustainability across scales, regions and particular configurations of industry.

4. Undertake Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and developed Life Cycle Inventories using common ISO standard methods.

14 The terms ‘impacts’ and ‘effects’ are used somewhat synonymously in this document, as is the case in much of the scientific and policy literature. However, in ISO 14000 the word ‘effect’ has been used to denote the deviation from a baseline-for example, the effect of a discharge to a river on the baseline. In recognition that many individual economic operators do not have the resources to measure a baseline, the word ‘impact’ has been defined in the context of an unknown change to a baseline-for example, the operator will report a discharge to a river as an impact, without knowing the full effect on the baseline. In the natural resource management (NRM) area this was approached by using the terminology of action (for the activity that could be defined but where the effect/impact on an NRM resource was unclear or not measurable in a constrained timeframe) and resource condition for the impact; hence management action target (MAT) and resource condition target (RCT). RCTs are often further classified as Aspirational and Achievable. For more, see NRM Ministerial Council (2003) p. 13 and Australian Government (2009) p. 20 also pp, 4,19 and 31.


The actions were: Development of a paper to inform policy on biomass and bioenergy sustainability. Establish a TWG to coordinate and implement RD&E work plan to

• address key sustainability issues (e.g. criteria harmonisation; development of LCA; competition for resources)

• coordinate reviews of national and international activities

• participate in developing processes for sustainability assessment for bioenergy15

3.2 Progress towards the Sustainability RD&E prioritiesIn this section, we briefly document key existing work to build on, and recent progress towards the priorities that were identified in the strategy.

3.2.1 Sustainability certification for bioenergy

Much has been done to develop sustainability assessment and certification approaches for bioenergy, but the issues, impacts and responses require ongoing development.

O’Connell et al (2009) provided a summary of significant issues related to bioenergy and sustainability:

• There are many stakeholders with legitimate interests in the development of individual bioenergy projects as well as in the non-additive effects of major expansion of the industry. Effective ways are needed to engage them in transparent and robust processes for achieving sustainability.

• The bioenergy supply chain crosses from biomass production through conversion to distribution (potentially including export and import markets), and therefore a broad range of other policies are relevant along the supply chain. These include policies for water, biodiversity, climate change, agriculture, forestry, waste management, transport and regional development. Emerging bioenergy and biofuel supply chains require reference to and compliance with this array of policies, legislation and regulations from different levels of government, and, with the advent of international trade, with intergovernmental agreements such as world trade agreements (WTAs). Any new requirements will need to take account of the complex web of existing policies and initiatives.

• Many governments and market segments consider that quantitative, robust and independently verified (or certified) sustainability credentials are vital in order for the bioenergy industry to expand on the past and current set of uses. In the international arena, there is active progress towards assessment and verification of the sustainability of bioenergy products including the Round Table for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This is already translating to government policies in some countries which will limit market access and government support to only those biofuels which meet specified sustainability criteria or standards (see also Appendix 10.4 Appropriate approaches to sustainability).

• The bioenergy supply chain is often embedded within the supply chains of the forestry, agriculture and waste domains which provide the biomass. Although forestry has relatively well-established schemes for demonstrating sustainably produced biomass (see Section 3.2.3), schemes for the conventional agriculture or waste industries, or novel biomass production systems such as agroforestry or algae are only beginning to emerge. While forestry continues to improve sustainability criteria and indicators (C&I), certification schemes and compliance mechanisms, the emerging bioenergy industry is faced with the burden of proof which may require developing sustainability assessment systems that are operable across all the domains from which biomass is sourced (ie agriculture, forestry, waste, algae).

• Those countries or organisations that are in the process of developing a sustainability assessment system are using C&I approaches that reflect economic, environmental and social sustainability principles. Many sustainability frameworks under development identify the indirect effect of land-use change on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity and food as a very significant risk to sustainability. This is based on published work demonstrating large indirect land-use effects.

15 Note: editing changes made to the original text from the strategy (RIRDC 2011).

17

Some strongly recommend a slowing in the development of bioenergy until methods of dealing with the indirect effects have been established. Others assign default values based on life cycle assessments factoring in a GHG emissions burden assuming some level of indirect land-use change, and/or restrict eligibility to ‘low risk’ sources of biomass (see also Appendix 10.5 Principles, criteria and indicators).

• All countries are struggling with how to implement sustainability assessment schemes on the ground, including the scale at which they are applied (national-level targets, rules or guidelines versus project-scale implementation). It is still too early to be able to evaluate the practicality and effectiveness of any scheme.

• There is general agreement that it is important to base new systems for assessing sustainability on existing processes and relevant certification systems (such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) or the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) wherever possible; that compliance costs should be minimised; and that schemes should be designed that lend themselves to mutual recognition to facilitate international trade in biomass, bioenergy and biofuels. Many sustainability schemes will probably retain a significant voluntary element until important issues relating the effects of discrimination based on the sustainability of production of biomass and biofuels for international trade have been tested and agreed upon under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

• Assurance to the end-user that a bioenergy end-product is produced in accordance with specified sustainability criteria and requirements can only be delivered through auditing and certification of the production process and then the tracking of certified product through the production chain from initial biomass to end-user. Structured processes to develop and test, implement, and formalise recognition of the sustainability assessment and any associated verification systems are therefore necessary.

The work on sustainability frameworks conducted in O’Connell et al (2009) is being updated, further developed and tested in a broader context with the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability (O’Connell et al 2013).

3.2.2 Progress towards an ISO bioenergy sustainability standard

In June 2011, the Australian Government announced it would work along with the Biofuels Association of Australia and with the ISO to develop internationally agreed sustainability criteria, to ensure that support for biofuels does not compromise sustainable production practices but will provide greater impetus for initiatives such as second generation biofuels.16 The Strategic framework for alternative transport fuels (Australian Government 2011) includes Action 20 which states “Industry to undertake work to develop and implement sustainability criteria and a certification scheme for biofuels”.17

In November 2011, Australia (through Standards Australia) became a participating member of the ISO project committee for developing a sustainability standard for bioenergy (TC 248). Standards Australia is the Australian member of the ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Standards Australia has set up a Technical Mirror Committee in Australia (EV-020) to participate in the ISO TC 248 process.18 There is a risk that the ISO standard will fail to reach consensus. In late 2013, a second Committee Draft is to be circulated for international voting; if this is successful, it will proceed to a Draft International Standard, and aims to be operational in 2015.

A key feature of the ISO standard PC 248 is that it will focus only on a standard for data measurement and reporting, and will not assess or evaluate the sustainability (or otherwise) of any given economic operator or their product. It will ensure that a minimum set of data (framed as C&I) is reported in a standard fashion, to facilitate a purchasing party or regulator to make their own decisions about whether it achieves their sustainability requirements.

In order to achieve a certification standard meaningful to achieving ‘sustainable production’ (rather than ‘sustainability reporting’), the ISO standard (even if successfully developed), still requires further complementary mechanisms to be developed. The ISO standard will provide a set of C&I to be reported.

16 See Commonwealth of Australia, Senate, Hansard, Monday 27 June 2011.17 See Commonwealth of Australia, Strategic Framework for Alternative Transport Fuels, December 2011.18 The ISO has circulated in August 2012, a Committee Draft of the standard, which is currently under review by the ISO

participating countries. Australia will host the next plenary session of the ISO TC 248 in January 2013.


However, there were no thresholds or expectations set in the criteria against which the reported indicators could be evaluated for their sustainability performance. Therefore, if there is a demand for certification of sustainable production, there will need to be:

a) a set of thresholds or expectations against which indicators, may be evaluatedb) processes for third-party audit, verification and certification (e.g. through the Joint Accreditation

Society of Australia and New Zealand, or JASANZ19).

3.2.3 The forest industry approach to sustainability provides a valuable precedent for bioenergy sustainability

The forest industry approach to sustainability measurement, reporting, assessment and certification provides a valuable working model for any new initiatives in sustainability, including bioenergy. Key inputs include management guidelines for sustainable biomass production, a Code of Practice specifying goals and guidelines for environmental care across the production chain, agreement on key data to be collected and reported, and the nature of audit and certification mechanisms.

The sustainability criteria for forestry cover the properties and processes occurring in the various parts of forest ecosystems, socio-economics, and the legal and institutional systems that support sustainable forest management. For example, the Montreal Criteria cover biodiversity, productive capacity, ecosystem health, soil and water, carbon stocks, socio-economics, and legal and institutional frameworks. Sets of indicators have been developed for each of these criteria to support reporting at the international level, and, for many countries have been adapted to meet more local needs including the improvement of practices at the forest-management-unit level (e.g. Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008). The indicators aim to be surrogates for important ecosystem properties and processes. They are designed to be sufficiently sensitive so as to be able to detect change and be inexpensive to measure, so that they can be used to track temporal change in ecosystem condition and output (Raison et al 1997). Such an approach may also work well for bioenergy.

Bioenergy businesses (Australian or otherwise) may be required to demonstrate sustainability credentials (rather than just compliance with reporting a standard dataset) requiring an additional process to set thresholds, or formulate statement(s) on what constitutes a sustainable product. These requirements may take the form of legislated targets or thresholds, industry targets or thresholds listed in Management Guidelines or Codes of Practice; or, indeed, many other mechanisms.

3.2.4 Key knowledge gaps

Gaps exist in our knowledge on sustainability science in general, and in sustainability assessment for bioenergy in particular (O’Connell et al 2009). Although there is some current activity in Australia to develop an ISO standard for sustainability in bioenergy, the development of threshold values and targets for sustainability are required to support and develop the bioenergy industry. Robust science is required to inform and underpin the adaption and implementation of C&I reporting, particularly in devising thresholds that must be met in order to be considered sustainable by stakeholders.

In addition, there are many other aspects and approaches to understanding and assessing the sustainability of an emerging industry based on changed use of resources, new and novel feedstocks, new types of technologies, social acceptance of the emerging industries and products which require R&D into risks, and on-ground positive and negative outcomes across local through to national scales (O’Connell et al 2009 and in prep 2013).

19 See <http://www.jas-anz.com.au/>.

19

3.3 Sustainability work planWe provide a five-point plan for how RD&E can support the achieving and reporting of sustainability. This is shown in Section 7.1 Sustainability Timeline.

Task A1 Contribute to development of ISO standard

• this is largely a short-term D&E activity

• participate on Technical Mirror Committee

• attend overseas plenaries

• required scale of investment - small

Task A2 Broadly identify and prioritise risks to sustainability

• conduct risk assessment for feedstock x technology x region x scale across full supply chain

• catalogue existing studies across country, main risks identified, and identify gaps in prospective regions

• conduct gap-filling risk assessments on selected priority supply chains

• required scale of investment - substantial over 1 year

Task A3 Develop and implement interim and/or complementary and associated certification mechanisms

• engage to get agreement on what needs to be done in the short term at national and regional levels ($Substantial) to demonstrate sustainability

• explore any interim approaches that can be used for independent auditing and/or certification of sustainability, e.g. through JASANZ

• commission research if necessary to support outcomes ($Small)

• develop the agreed output (e.g. Codes of Practise, Best Practise Guidelines, purchase specifications etc) $Substantial

• undertake communication/extension activities $Substantial

• required scale of investment - substantial for 2–4 years

Task A4 [If supported by the Australian Government] Develop an Australian standard and associated certification mechanisms

• conduct additional consultation and engagement to support this major undertaking

• harmonise with other mechanisms, e.g. regulations, Codes of Practice, certification schemes

• develop and test appropriate thresholds or targets for sustainability aspects against which relevant measured or reported indicators may be assessed. Indicators may be those developed in the ISO PC 248 standard (described in Task A1). If the ISO PC 248 standard fails, an alternative set of C&I will need to be developed for an Australian standard

• develop and test third-party audit, reporting and certification mechanisms. To achieve this, information will be sourced from (a) Tasks A1, A2, A3, (b) case studies conducted under Tasks D2, D3, D4; and (c) new R&D activities specified below

• required scale of investment - substantial.


Task A5 Develop a systematic approach to measuring, reporting, assessing and certifying the sustainability of bioenergy projects

Note: this work will be linked to the tasks in Feedstocks, Logistics and Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development projects. This task consists of the applied, on-ground sustainability measurement, reporting, assessment and certification processes associated with on-ground development of new integrated supply chains, from biomass production, through to delivery of products to market, and from enterprises through to national scales (see O’Connell et al 2013).

• set up appropriate and effective stakeholder participation mechanisms

• select and provide consistent design for case studies in systems representative of existing production systems and future advanced production systems (e.g. integrated grain and stubble for ethanol; short rotation tree systems, grasses, algae or Pongamia)

• define the scale of impacts and therefore the risk of particular bioenergy production pathways (links to Task A2)

• develop indicators appropriate to monitoring the effects of bioenergy projects on environmental, social and economic values. Conduct a series of field assessments to test the utility of indicators in situ in a range of case study environments

• use the results to evaluate and report sustainability outcomes including detailed LCAs

• undertake in-field testing of the mechanisms to report sustainability across complex and emerging supply chains

• Required scale of investment - Very large for 5 years.

21

4 Task B Feedstocks4.1 Feedstocks-context and strategy priorities

4.1.1 Feedstock supply for energy operates in a bio-economic context

The potential for a feedstock to be available in substantial quantities at moderate cost within close proximity to a bioenergy conversion plant drives the priorities in this plan. Without achieving this potential, no sustainability, logistics or integrated supply chain work is required as large-scale utilisation is very unlikely.

Large-scale production of bioenergy relies on the consistent and cost-competitive supply of sustainably produced biomass feedstocks, underpinned by a clear strategy to match supply with demand. This section focuses on the RD&E required to enhance bioenergy generation through identification and growing of appropriate feedstocks for energy and other bioproducts.

Stucley et al (2012)20 present a methodology that analyses bio-economic factors of production to guide research and investment for bioenergy feedstocks. The approach focuses on the delivered cost of feedstock whilst considering the prospects of farmers and other supply chain businesses to make profits. Integrating technology, economies of scale and productivity estimates provides a delivered cost of feedstock and the careful analysis involved enables risk to be assessed.21 Task D Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development was added to this work plan to highlight this important element.

4.1.2 Significance of different feedstocks

Australia has significant existing feedstocks22 that could be utilised or adapted for bioenergy systems in the short term. Many of these biomass sources are utilised in existing production systems (e.g. sugarcane, forest residues, stubble) and/or left as waste products from production (e.g. forest residues where other timber is used for higher value products).

Future development of new feedstocks (e.g. Pongamia, mustard, algae and short rotation trees (SRT)) has the potential for significant increases in production but will need to address current and potential limitations to resources (e.g. water) and inputs (e.g. fertiliser) as well as pressing environmental constraints (e.g. changing climatic conditions).

Figure 4.1 quantifies the relative significance of different feedstocks if utilised for electricity generation and estimated GHG (CO2-eq) saved if used instead of fossil fuels. The current electricity supply (5 per cent of nationwide demand) is shown for scale.

20 See Section 9.3, p.169. While the feedstock being considered in this chapter of Stucley et al (2012) is mallee, the methodology applies equally to all feedstocks.

21 Stucley et al (2012) deals with scalability (see pp. 27.32, 47 and 106) and with risk (for example secure feedstock supply, and enterprise failure pp. 37, 50, 51, 61 and 98).

22 We define feedstocks as terrestrial biomass that is either a waste product, a residue or biomass grown for energy. Aquatic feedstocks such as algae are potentially significant and important but other funding processes consider the RD&E needs to develop and promote these sources. For example, there is a current and significant research program investigating opportunities for algae-biofuel based in Queensland; see <http://minister.ret.gov.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/AdvancedBiofuels.aspx>; accessed 13Aug13.


Energy produced and CO2-eq savings potential of biomass feedstocks100

5% of electricity production

100

Energy produced

PJ(dark green)

Greenhousegas emissions

savedMt CO2-eq

(light green)

50

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

73232551 1548

-178.1-277.8-59.5-125.7 -34-9.2-20.2

Gross Energy (PJ)Mt CO2-eq

Stub

ble

Nativ

e Fo

rest

s

Plan

tatio

ns

Baga

sse

curr

ent

Woo

d w

aste

SRT

Shor

t Rot

atio

n Tr

ees

Plan

tatio

ns (e

xtra

to 2

030)

Figure 4.1 Feedstocks23 - potential energy produced and greenhouse gas emissions avoided per year.24 In total the energy output is equivalent to 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity production and 25 per cent of our transport fuels requirements.

4.1.3 Feedstocks and bioenergy in Australia

The matching of feedstocks to the growing environment, conversion technology and markets for final products is a critical issue for bioenergy. Whilst Australia may not have the capacity, compared to the US and Europe, for significant R&D in developing new conversion technology processes, local R&D providers and investors understand domestic production systems and sustainability issues.

Feedstocks can be considered as:

a) existing

b) developing

c) new/emerging.

Existing feedstocks include annual crop stubble, and forest residues. Many of these biomass sources are by-products of existing primary industries that are largely underutilised, and with limited investment may be used for bioenergy. An example of a developing feedstock is SRT, which is yet to contribute significantly, but its productivity potential is well researched. There is some understanding of long-term cost of supply, which is expected to fall when deployed. New/emerging feedstocks include algae (important but not addressed in detail in this workplan), oilseeds such as Pongamia nuts and mustard seed, and grasses.

The need for feedstocks to be in close proximity to bioenergy plants means that feedstock catchments are likely to be located across all of regional Australia, and in a wide range of growing environments (Rodriguez et al 2011c).

23 Grasses, see Herr et al (2012) The analysis highlights areas of high production in north-east Australia around the Tropic of Capricorn. The non-cleared land in this extensive agricultural zone shows a promising technical production potential (266 Mt y−1) and if 15 per cent of this land’s net primary production (NPP) were to be transformed into ethanol, it could replace a significant part (54 per cent) of current Australian petrol demand. Note however that with the likely cost of harvest and supply and alternative use (see Stucley et al (2012) Chapter 11) grasses fall in their readiness as feedstock

24 Derived from Farine et al (2012) expressed as PetaJoules (PJ) of electricity generated and tonnes (106) of CO2-eq emissions avoided. The figures rely upon assumptions made in Farine et al (2012). Other authors using other assumptions provide other figures, e.g. Crawford et al (2012), Graham et al (2011), LEK (2011) p. 25. However, Figure 4.1 provides an indication of the relative importance of different feedstocks.

23

4.1.4 Defining feedstock potential

Understanding potential feedstock production requires systematic evaluation. For developing and new/emerging feedstocks, the bio-economic approach (Section 4.1.1) may lack sufficient evidence for financial analysis, and in this case, an understanding of the likely implementation potential.

Figure 4.2 offers an approach to comparative evaluation. This systematic approach of identifying what feedstocks have appropriate physicochemical characteristics (Olsen et al 2004; Hobbs et al 2009), and then methodically determining availability (Herr et al 2012(a)) has already been employed in recent research (eg Rodriguez et al 2011c). Such a process will allow for the determination of feedstocks recognising various biophysical, social and economic limitations. And this process can be readily applied to all categories of biomass feedstock (i.e., existing, developing and emerging).

Available to bioenergy produciton

POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE BIOMASS

ie. Net Primary Productivity

Unable to collect

Retain to protect environment

Diverted by policy settings, infrastructure, social licence

Other supply (resource-assessment based) and demand

Theoretical potentional

Technical potentional

Environmental potentional

Economic potentional

Implementationpotential

Figure 4.2: Stages in the assessment of biomass potential (after Herr et al 2012(a))

4.1.5 Integration of short rotation trees (SRT) into farming systems

One of the underlying assumptions for the development of feedstock options in the last 15 years is that the basis of biomass production for energy in low-rainfall areas across southern Australian farming systems is economically sound and capable of ameliorating environmental issues (George and Nicholas 2012). The potential for strategically integrated tree crops include benefits such as:

1. production of feedstocks for low carbon emission bioenergy systems

2. provision of local base-load electricity generation across the grid, reducing transmission losses


3. diversification of farm incomes and regional economies by complementing, rather than displacing, existing food-based agricultural industries

4. provision of salinity mitigation and biodiversity benefits (FFI CRC 2010).25

Much research has focused on trying to meet these (multiple objective) goals. Recent estimates indicate at least 12,000 hectares of mallees have been planted in Western Australia (Bartle and Abadi 2010). Other states such as New South Wales (NSW), may have a greater potential (Bartle et al 2007), but large-scale planting and associated industry development has not yet occurred.

Systematic screening has sought to match tree species to sites (Olsen et al 2004), including the FloraSearch programme, which investigated species for the low to medium rainfall areas in Australia, including: Acacia spp.; Eucalyptus cladocalyx, E. globulus ssp. bicostata, and mallees including E. polybractea, E. loxophleba ssp. lissophloia (Hobbs and Bennell 2008; Hobbs et al 2009). Product opportunities identified included: existing forest products such as pulp and paper and composite wood (Hobbs 2009); fodder; extractives including eucalyptus oil and bioenergy (Hobbs et al 2009).

The multiple goals of SRT RD&E supported by NRM funding have not yet led to a commercial SRT feedstock. Plantings are wide spread, not providing enough feedstock at any one location, and belts are not designed for productivity and efficient harvest. However, the RD&E over the last 20 years provides a firm foundation for future SRT investment, attracting interest from international companies (e.g., Airbus) and others as a sustainable feedstock for jet fuel (Stucley et al 201226; FFICRC in prep).

4.1.6 Feedstock RD&E priorities

The National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy (RIRDC 2011) identified feedstock priorities as:

1. Compare and develop options for increasing sustainable feedstock production through:

• Continued identification of suitable, predominantly native, species.

• Identifying and modifying existing crops to improve yield for different regions of Australia - eg new oilseed perennials, seeds, grasses, weeds, algae, trees and indigenous species, including their costs of production.

• Assessing sustainability issues (including effect of removal of crop and forest residues on ecosystem carbon, and biodiversity as well as cost of production) for new and existing production systems.

• Assessing and developing suitable sustainable farming and production systems which complement other land uses (such as integrating with food production crops and systems) eg changing the management of harvest regimes of existing production systems, expanding current production systems to new areas, creating new and novel production systems.

• Ensuring a balanced portfolio (and limited number) of short and long term/high risk and low risk potential crops.

2. Characterise material properties of novel feedstocks, their variation and suitability for next generation processing opportunities.

3. Identify regions for the sustainable growing of bioenergy/biofuel crops and integrated biomass production (including the impacts of expanding production of lignocellulosic crops), in particular underutilised and low productivity land.

There is some overlap between these objectives; scale and time are important. For business development, RD&E at the local (small) scale is required. For industry development, larger scale RD&E is required (eg regional or state-wide).

25 See in particular p. 2, Recommendations 1 and 226 See Chapter 9, pp. 140–172.

25

4.2 Progress towards the Feedstocks RD&E prioritiesIn this section, we briefly document key existing work to build on, and recent progress towards the priorities that were identified in the strategy. In the last 10 years there has been significant progress made in addressing many issues identified in the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy. The earlier work in lower-rainfall areas across Australia guided much of the discussion in the formation of the strategy. More recently the opportunity to focus on northern Australia has been (partly) investigated, indicating some significant opportunities (Shepherd et al 2011; Murphy et al 2012). However, much remains to be done, especially in providing smaller-scale information to develop specific business cases/opportunities for bioenergy development.

4.2.1 Summary of Australian work

Stucley et al (2012)27 used a bio-economic methodology to review the RD&E of sustainable biomass supply with cases studies on SRT, Pongamia and grasses, and a summary of work on stubble and plantation residues. The report provides a good basis for setting the next steps for these prospective feedstocks.

4.2.2 Feedstock readiness tool

An alternative approach to feedstock evaluation, using a feedstock readiness tool, may be useful for comparing the promise of developing and new/emerging feedstocks with existing feedstocks.

The US Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)28 developed a set of ‘Fuel Readiness Tools’29 which articulated the maturity of various feedstock to jet fuel technology pathways in order to provide a quick way for users to understand and navigate the complexities of the multiple feedstocks, conversion technologies, and fuel pathways. They have produced a jet fuel readiness tool, which is supported by a feedstock readiness tool.

The feedstock readiness tool provides a pathway from basic principles of feedstock production through the cycle of basic principles through to concept formulated, proof of concept, preliminary technical evaluation, production system validation, full scale production initiation and commercial deployment as shown in Table 4.1. Each of the steps is broken down into tasks, with a numeric scale (1(emerging) to 9(fully deployed)) outlining the specific tasks that would need to be undertaken at respective steps. An approach like this allows a simpler style of communication to investors and policy makers about the combinations of feedstocks, technology, and production regions; the stage of maturity of each combination; and clearly identifiable steps which need to be taken in sequence to gain further maturity to commercial deployment.

This approach could be adapted to suit Australian conditions, feedstock types and production systems, markets, policy and regulatory environments, conversion processes, and sustainability requirements. A list of some of the relevant activities/steps is provided in Table 4.1 with more detail provide in Table A10.6 (see Appendix 10.6). The empty cells in Table A10.6 show where the steps outlined by CAAFI are relevant to the US, but have little relevance to the Australian context and need to be modified in order to be useful here. In the meantime, for the purposes of this report, we use the feedstock readiness scale as outlined by CAAFI to provide an overview of feedstock by region maturity in Australia. In Section 4.3 we provide an assessment of feedstock readiness RD&E required in Table 4.2.

27 See Chapters 4–11, pp. 47–215.28 See <http://www.caafi.org/>.29 See <http://caafi.org/information/fuelreadinesstools.html>.


Table 4.1 Feedstock readiness scale (from CAAFI <http://www.caafi.org/information/fuelreadinesstools.html>)

Activity Scale Description Category (see section 4.1.3)30

Preliminary feedstock evaluation

1 Basic principles c new/emerging

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Concept formulated c new/emerging

Feedstock experimental testing

3.1

3.2

Proof of concept c new/emerging

4.1

4.2

4.3

Preliminary technical evaluation

b developing

Pre-commercial feedstock assessment

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

Production system validation a existing

b developing

6.1

6.2

Full-scale production initiation

a existing

Sustainable feedstock production capacity established

7

8

9

Feedstock availability

Commercialisation

Feedstock commercial deployment

4.2.3 Regional feedstocks

It is critical to quantify the nature, distribution and sustainability of biomass production and potential feedstock availability to support project and industry development. The research into assessment of the biomass and feedstock resource through a geographical lens to support project development, has been listed under Task D2 and D3.

30 The categories from Section 4.1.3 do not quite overlap. In particular the existing feedstocks are available at substantial scale but are not yet deployed commercially. This may be due to current supply costs being too high to allow investment in an enterprise that includes bioenergy in its products.

27

4.3 Feedstocks work planWe provide a four-point plan for how RD&E can support the achieving and reporting of feedstocks. This is shown in Section 7.2 Feedstocks Timeline.

4.3.1 Development of specific feedstock types

Table 4.2 describes the current understanding of the readiness of each feedstock, linked to key references. While progress is being made on a range of feedstocks, stubble, forest residues and SRT are considered as within a few years of wide-scale commercial deployment in bioenergy applications.

Feedstock readiness requires judgment about the amount of work required to overcome specific barriers. We have assessed the reasonableness of the price likely to be available compared to the cost likely to be incurred in setting the feedstock readiness level. For example, Pongamia nut oil yield, continuous harvesting of small trees, and certifying sustainability of all feedstocks are all considerations. Whilst utilised to establish priorities for the workplan, we recognise that this table can be improved. The aim in this document is to better facilitate constructive discussion on the readiness and future RD&E of feedstocks.

4.3.2 Overarching research tasks

Task B1 Prioiritise investment in feedstocks that are considered most likely to provide significant and scalable biomass supplies across different regions.

• Initial focus will be on existing biomass including stubble, forest residue and (developing) short rotation trees. The basis and focus of RD&E will be the feedstock readiness tool, aiming to produce bioenergy in the most prospective regions over the next 5, 10 and 20 years

• Required scale of investment - substantial

• (see Table 4.2).

Task B2 Maintain links between feedstock research, to share learnings, avoid duplication and encourage investment

• Initially focus on forest residue and crop stubble as they are close to commercial deployment; to ensure that R&D are shared by grant providers, include requirement that results are communicated to all interested parties

• Required scale of investment - small.

Task B3 Test and adapt the CAAFI feedstock readiness tool to suit Australian feedstocks, conditions, and components

• Ensure that a range of energy products are considered

• Adapt policy and regulation section to be relevant to Australian conditions

• Add a sustainability component consistent with this work plan

• Required scale of investment - moderate.


Task B4 Produce and maintain an online Biomass Resource Atlas

• Produce an interactive map resource showing biomass production at national and regional scales (similar to US Department of Energy Biomass Atlas)

• Show regional distribution and production rates of existing species, and potential for new and emerging species

• Provide interactive links with reports, papers and other knowledge for each region

• Required scale of investment - substantial.

Table 4.2 Feedstock readiness RD&E required

Feedstock Key references on completed R&D

Feedstock readiness

RD&E

Existing

Stubble Stucley et al (2012)

O’Connell et al (2007

Sultana et al (2010)

Warden & Haritos (2008)

O’Connell et al (2007)

Herr et al (2012(b)

Simon et al (2010)

Farine et al (2010)

5 Perform coordinated regional trials to determine reliable production systems, develop growth curves, yield improvement and dependable feedstock supply

Steps 5 to 9 of feedstock readiness scale

Bagasse/ unburnt cane residue



Plantation residue

Farine et al (2012)

Rodriguez et al (2012)

Ximenes et al (2012)

4–5 Perform coordinated regional trials to determine reliable production systems, develop growth curves, yield improvement and dependable feedstock supply for the residue as part of the plantation system


Land management residues-vegetation clearing, fuel reduction and woody weeds

Ecowaste (2013)31 4–5 Perform coordinated regional trials to determine dependable feedstock supply


31 See Section 2.4.

29


Feedstock readiness

RD&E

Developing

Short rotation trees

FFI CRC (in prep)

Stucley et al (2012)

George & Nicholas (2012)

Bartle et al (2007)


(Include competition with pasture impacts. Completed 15 years of RD&E for SW WA and mallee species)

Define range of adaptation for feedstock and identify production uncertainties


Sweet sorghum O’Hara et al (2013) 4–5 Perform coordinated regional trials to determine reliable production systems, develop growth curves, yield improvement and dependable feedstock supply

Include case studies in particular regions where sugar processing technologies can be applied


Agave Chambers & Holtum (2010)

3–4 Trial agave in prospective locations where agave production is a competitive land use

If trials prove the concept (requires 5 years of growth) then complete


Existing native or pasture grasses

Herr et al (2012)


3 Identify locations where grass production is a competitive land use and there is capacity to produce at least 120 kt/yr




Feedstock readiness

RD&E

New/emerging

Algae Stucley et al (2012)

Borowitzka (1999)

Borowitzka & Moheimani (2011)

2–3 Screen candidate genetic sources for feedstock yield

Perform coordinated regional trials to determine reliable production systems, develop growth curves, yield improvement and dependable feedstock supply


Pongamia and other oilseeds


Murphy et al (2012)

Jensen et al (2012)

Odeh et al (2011)

2–3 Screen candidate genetic resources for feedstock yield

Perform coordinated regional trials to determine reliable production systems, develop growth curves, yield improvement and dependable feedstock supply

See list of tasks in Murphy et al (2012), and all of the sorts of research tasks involved in Steps 5 to 9 of feedstock readiness scale

New species of grasses including ‘EnergyCane’ (high lignocelluloses, lower sugar, less requirement for irrigation)


O’Connell et al (2007)

Miranowski & Rosburg (2010)

Farine et al (2012)

Graham et al (2011)

2 Estimate likely range of production environments and competing land uses

Identify production system components

Identify possible consequences of expanded production, and articulate responses to trade-offs


31

5 Task C Supply Logistics5.1 Supply Logistics-context and strategy priorities

5.1.1 Significance of supply logistics

Bioenergy produced is proportional to the quantity and quality of feedstock converted. As feedstock supplies increase, managing the supply chain by lowering costs, creating valuable co-products and developing infrastructure will be essential to establish and sustain regional bioenergy facilities. For existing feedstocks, RD&E may provide the catalyst for commercial deployment, as discussed in the bio-economic methods (see Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). The key problems may be the financial issues relating to scale up and bulk handling technologies, risk and cost reductions as practices and technologies move along a learning curve. These problems seem well suited to public/private investment partnerships. Once an industry reaches a critical mass, such as the grain and meat industries, then RD&E can be industry-led, however in a prospective industry there are few businesses with the resources to lead, so until such time government may need to lead.

5.1.2 Reducing supply costs to make bioenergy business case

Feedstock supply costs can be substantial component of the cost of supplied bioenergy. Without secure, reliable and low-cost supply logistics either no bioenergy is produced or what is produced costs more than necessary. Where current supply logistics systems exist, optimising these can lead to cost reductions, where they don’t, developing and refining supply logistics systems enable them to be costed and used in making the business case for bioenergy plants.

As supply costs for existing feedstocks (as described in Table 4.2) become more attractive and project risks are reduced, bioenergy projects are more likely to develop.

Institutional capability in bioenergy supply logistics is fragmented. Institutions focused on forestry, grain, sugar and short rotation trees are located in different states, usually with a product focus other than bioenergy, and undertake some bioenergy logistics RD&E. The potential of bioenergy may be best realised by setting up an organisation that focuses on the supply logistics of feedstocks (Section 6.2).

A number of studies have identified supply logistics as an important barrier to bioenergy establishment, including Stucley et al (2004), O’Connell et al (2007), Warden and Haritos (2008). McEvilly et al (2011), Stucley et al (2012), Ximenes et al (2012), Ghaffariyan and Wiedermann (2011), Baumber et al (2012) and Schmidt et al (2012). These studies describe the complexity of supply logistics; the BWP seeks to synthesise theses previous studies and provide directions for future work (See Appendix 10.7 Impact of previous supply logistics studies on this work plan).

5.1.3 Supply chain events, scale, infrastructure and regions

Supply logistics considers the chain of events from the point of harvest to the conversion process to bioenergy, and these events are impacted by scale, infrastructure and regional context. RD&E priorities relate to steps in each supply chain. Allocating resources to the research priorities requires an understanding of the scale of the feedstock available, and hypothesised savings and level of private investment. Potential demand for feedstocks include combined heat and power plants (1,000 to 20,000 tonnes per year), to biofuels plants (modules of 120,000 tonnes per year), and co-firing electricity (100,000 to over 1M tonnes per year).

Regions with access to feedstocks and markets for biomass products (including bioenergy) are likely to catalyse projects for research into bio-hubs.

Existing feedstocks currently available in large quantities, such as straw and plantation residues, and developing feedstocks with the best prospects (such as SRT) which are potentially available in large quantities and shown to be sustainable, have priority for research because reducing their supply costs makes their effective use more likely.


5.1.4 Supply Logistics priorities from the strategy

The supply logistics RD&E priorities and gaps identified in the strategy (RIRDC 2011) are:

1. Investigate the scales of economy, logistics and costs of harvesting, storage and processing, risks and suitability of distributed as compared to centralised biomass conversion systems.

2. Investigate use of existing or development of small modular processing plant for distributed production of products and/or energy.

3. Investigate partial local processing options (especially densification) for the most promising new feedstock systems (e.g. harvesting and briquetting/pelletising technology).

4. Identify infrastructure requirements, supply logistics and transitions for regional processing and distribution.

The supply logistics priorities include small-scale bio digesters and pyrolysis plants, larger combined heat and power boilers and organic rankin cycle electricity generators through to very large electricity co-firing plants and biofuels plants. Each of these conversion technologies rely upon the efficient supply of feedstock and the most important of supply priorities are related to the most prospective feedstocks.

The number of studies listed in Section 6.2, the feasibility studies being conducted (e.g. Licella funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency or ARENA32), and proposals developed (e.g. FFI CRC Royalties for Regions33) show the importance that many place on these supply logistics priorities.

5.2 Progress towards the Supply Logistics RD&E prioritiesIn this section, we briefly document key existing work to build on, and recent progress towards the priorities, that were identified in the strategy.

The feedstock readiness tool (Section 4.2) applies equally to supply, and it demonstrates the integration of factors required to set priorities. In the full feedstock rating table (see Appendix 10.6) the factors in the ‘Market’ column broadly equate to supply logistics, and it shows that no feedstocks have reached commercial deployment in Australia. The most advanced are in pre-feasibility and preliminary technical evaluation. The most ready are plantation residues, stubble and short rotation trees.

5.2.1 Forest residues

Plantation residues are at the point of production system validation (Level 5, Table 4.2). As a co-product from timber harvesting operations, forest residues can be used as a bioenergy source and due to the reduction of material left on-site, residues removal can reduce site preparation costs. Australian Forest Operations Research Association (AFORA) have participated in the CRC for Forestry bioenergy experiments34, which have explored harvesting systems (falling), extraction (forwarder bin design, baling), drying, processing (infield chipping) and road transport. NSW DPI, Forest Corporation NSW35 and AFORA have investigated residue quantities and harvesting costs after industrial wood removal. International technologies36 and practices have been reviewed and considered for application in Australia. AFORA’s work integrating plantation residue collection with log and pulp supply chains demonstrates cost and contamination advantages over a separate biomass operation.

32 Licella Pty Ltd. The feasibility study will investigate the construction of Licella’s first pre-commercial bio-fuels plant. See <http://www.licella.com.au/projects.html>.

33 $17M bid to build a mallee biofuels plant see <http://www.timberbiz.com.au/features/default.asp?VIEW=77>.34 See Appendix 10.7 for a summary of AFORA’s research and a link to all AFORA’s bulletins.35 See Ximenes et al (2012).36 See Ghaffariyan (2010); Ghaffariyan et al (2013); and Spinelli (2011); for details on forest mechanisation and biomass supply

by the National Research Council of Italy Trees and Timber Institute, see also <http://www.ivalsa.cnr.it/en/laboratories/forest-mechanization-and-biomass-supply.html>.

33

In addition to experiments, supply chain planning and management tools37 have been applied to plantation residues to design optimised systems and focus research. With an appropriate conversion technology, and integrated with either short rotation trees or stubble, supply of plantation residues is close to commercial deployment. AFORA are well placed to continue forest residues feedstock logistics RD&E research.

5.2.2 Stubble and hay

Stubble is also at the point of production system validation (Level 5, Table 4.2). Straw collection, transport and storage is practiced widely in Australia, usually by baling after grain harvest, but sometimes at the time of harvest.38 Straw is currently mainly collected for animal feed and bedding.

The quantity of stubble (see Figure 4.1 and Syngas 201139), and global interest in its use for bioenergy, mean that improving stubble collection, transport and storage practices is the key priority in Australia. Syngas (2011)40 considered the state of development of straw collection, storage and transportation systems, and concluded that while bulk handling and baling systems currently have similar costs, that a step change41 improvement is likely with bulk handling systems. Syngas (2011)42 have made recommendations for further work in the following areas:

• bulk collection and paddock siding practices

o off-paddock pick up and paddock siding

o collection capacity improvements

o improved unloading (paddock siding)

o bulk biomass pick up

• transporting bulk biomass

o expandable trailers

o faun rotopress

o matching with farming practices

• potential bulk collection Improvements.

It seems that there are no end-to-end straw bulk harvesting systems operating (Syngas 2011)43, despite the availability of component technologies and a pathway for development. It does not seem that any program is dedicated to improving bioenergy supply logistics for stubble, despite the prospective benefits. The Biomass Alliance, proposed by the FFI CRC in 2012/2013, sought to provide a mechanism to formulate such programs, not only for straw, but also for forest residues and SRTs.

37 Ref Mirowski and Acuna (2012) see also Web Workshop Series 2013 at <http://www.usc.edu.au/research/research-partnerships/australian-forest-operations-research-alliance-afora>; click industry tools, open Web Workshop Series May 2013.pdf.

38 For example, see Glenvar straw baler view video at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anqGtsl29R0>.39 See Tables 3 and 4, pp. 20–21.40 See Section 2.5, pp. 29–30 and Attachment 4, pp. 124–135.41 See p. 108.42 See Section 10, pp.108–114.43 See p. 30.


5.2.3 Short rotation trees

SRT’s have been researched for 20 years, and are the most prospective of the emerging feedstocks (Level 4–5, Table 4.2). In the European Union, small dispersed tree harvesting has a long history (Spinelli et al. 2009, Spinelli et al. 2011). In Australia, the FFI CRC44 has run a woody-crop supply program over the last 6 years. In partnership with Biosystems Engineering, an early prototype tree harvester that produces woodchips at the stump was designed to provide an innovative continuous harvesting system. Currently in partnership with DEC and AFORA, trials of staged harvesting systems (Spinelli submitted 2014) with integrated harvest, extraction, drying and transport are being undertaking. Sugar and forest supply chains have been studied for application to SRTs. An initial study to develop planning and management models for woody-crop supply chains has been started (Stucley et al 2012; Schmidt et al 2012; and, Spinelli submitted 2014). The FFI CRC will close in 2014, creating a risk that SRT supply logistics RD&E will lapse prior to commercial deployment.

5.3 Supply Logistics work planTask C1 Quantify key harvest and logistics cost drivers for forest residue, agriculture residue, short

rotation trees and mixed feedstock supply chains

• conduct field trials with straw, forest residues and short rotation trees

• use field trials to verify and localise knowledge from international studies-use this data to understand the cost drivers for biomass supply

• cost drivers45 for exploring in a range of Australian conditions:

o harvest

- residue collection at same time as grain or other tree product

- equipment selection

- continuous or staged46

o in-field processing

- drying location and timing

- chipping location

- nutrient management, leave leaf/bark material at stump - sustainability issue

o extraction

- forwarder, skidder

- tractor and bins

- baling and bins

o transport to mill

- road or rail

• investment $ substantial.

44 See Submission no. 68 House of Representatives: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry: Inquiry into the Australian Forestry Industry, note p. 2, paragraph 2, p. 5 Supply Chain and p. 16 Future Research. Download from <http://aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=arff/forestry/subs/sub68.pdf>.

45 Not all activities are relevant for all systems.46 In forestry for example staged is: fall, forward, chip as separate operations and machines; where as continuous is in one step

such as the woody crop harvester which does this in one step at the stump.

35

Task C2 Develop optimised harvest system selection frameworks for forest residue, agriculture residue, short rotation trees and mixed feedstock supply chains

• balancing the component choices in a harvest system depends on many factors. In stubble systems, large quantities being moved to central storage may favour a one-pass bulk-handling system; whereas, smaller quantities being stored on farm may be better suited to a two-pass system, with straw collected on the second pass.In woody-crop harvesting, smaller trees are efficiently harvested by continuous-flow systems; whereas large trees are favoured by staged systems. By using the data collected in field trials, the cost consequences for a range of stand conditions can be analysed. Developing harvest system selection frameworks for a range of feedstocks and likely feedstock combinations is a priority


Task C3 Develop and apply business models for biomass ‘brokers’

• biomass is likely to come, in any given region, from a wide range of growers, and there is a role for biomass ‘brokers’ to handle the logistics of securing a steady supply of biomass at a given quality and cost

• in addition, many biomass-to-bioenergy conversion technologies are agnostic in terms of the types of biomass feedstocks they use. Many thermochemical processing methods can use a range of feedstocks from wet municipal waste, through to grassy or woody cellulosic materials. This task focuses on the business models for the logistics of sourcing, aggregating, sorting and distributing heterogeneous sources of biomass feedstocks, and matching the feedstock characteristics to appropriate or highest value conversion technology and product streams (e.g. Ecowaste 201347)


47 In particular the bio-hub concept underpinning the report


6 Task D Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development

6.1 Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development- context and strategy priorities

This focus area was not identified in the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy (RIRDC 2011). However, during the broad consultation conducted to develop this BWP, we identified that it was probably the single-most important short-term step that could be taken in Australia to provide a learning-by-doing platform for many of the R&D priorities identified in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this BWP.

This task covers RD&E to support the development of significant bioenergy projects in a few selected regions. It will consider the development of an integrated supply chain with installed capacity.

Focusing on an integrated supply chain in specific regions helps to set RD&E priorities. A region has known infrastructure and a pattern and scale of feedstock supply. RD&E is required to address both important local factors while enhancing and being enhanced by national and global improvements. Maintaining national coordination is likely to avoid duplication and support the attraction of investment to the most promising business cases.

The bio-economic methodology described in Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1.1, with its focus on feedstock supply cost works well in a defined region and with a bioenergy plant location. The potential scale, profitability for businesses along the supply chain, hypothetical learning curves and risk can all be quantified and provide a catalyst for establishing sustainable bioenergy supply. As existing businesses prosper, and new business establish, they can share the investment and leadership in RD&E.

We have defined four RD&E tasks:• establishment of a steering group to guide bioenergy RD&E nationally • desktop assessment of proof of concept • detailed local R&D feasibility studies-pre-commercial feasibility assessment and the de-risking of

investment• project development-this step goes beyond the remit of RD&E per se, but the first few

installations provide enormous opportunities for learning by doing, and will provide feedback to the R&D priorities and delivery.

These steps could be readily mapped to Levels 5.1 through 9 of the CAAFI feedstock readiness tool (which we have suggested in Task B1 should be modified and adapted to suit the Australian context).

6.2 Progress towards the RD&E prioritiesSeveral geographic regions of Australia have had a degree of preliminary desktop assessment through to detailed feasibility assessment for a range of biomass production systems, and/or bioenergy technology pathways. These studies have been conducted over a number of years, by a number of different research providers and/or investors. Some studies are publicly available while others are not. The tasks listed here under Tasks D2 and D3 could usefully be collated at the national scale for a Biomass Resource Atlas (as identified in Task B4).

6.2.1 Desktop analysis (examples of Task D2)

• Green Triangle region (Rodriguez et al 2011a; Rodriguez et al 2011b)• Central NSW and East Gippsland (Rodriguez et al 2011c)• Fitzroy area in Queensland (Murphy et al submitted 2013; Hayward et al in internal review) • Mallee jet fuel at Perth Airport(FFI CRC in prep)• NSW North Coast (Ison et al 2013).

37

6.2.2 Detailed feasibility (example of Task D3)

• Ecowaste (2013)48 have conducted two detailed case studies in Dubbo and Cobar.

6.2.3 Project development (examples of Task D4)

• Electricity and activated carbon at Narrogin from mallee belts49

• Broadwater and Condong Sugar Plants-sugar cane, forestry residues.50

6.3 Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development work plan

We provide a four-point plan for how RD&E can support the achieving and reporting of sustainability. This is shown in Section 7.4 Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development Timeline.

Task D1 Establish a steering group to guide bioenergy RD&E nationally

Developing a bioenergy industry, beyond looking at local issues required for the establishment of one or two facilities, will require a coordinated national approach. A steering group is required at a national level to guide the RD&E necessary to underpin sustainable industry development:

• 10–12 people, meet three times per year, investment $Small

• Guide R&D priorities

• Broad consultation/engagement-two to three workshops etc, investment $Small

• Identify funding sources

• Identify and engage stakeholders

• Cross-sectoral engagement in sustainability science and commissioning analysis around identified topics, investment $Small

• Relevant to all Tasks A, B, C and D

• Investment $ moderate per year for steering group costs for 3–5 years initially, and ongoing as required.

Task D2 Conduct desktop scientific analysis of prospectivity (proof of concept) for individual projects, as well as the scale up of multiple projects to develop an industry

• Identify key project opportunities, benefits and risks

• For prospective study areas, audit all feedstocks potentially available and suitable for the candidate conversion technologies (Task B)

• Conduct preliminary desktop feasibility studies (e.g. Rodriguez et al 2011 a, 2011b)

• Include optimised logistics planning approaches (link to Tasks C1, C2, C3)

• Develop regional strategies to assess the potential for scale-up of secure feedstock supplies, and associated scale-up of processing capacity (ie not just the first and second facility, but a set of facilities and infrastructure which constitute an industry at economic scale) (e.g. Murphy et al submitted; Hayward et al in internal review)

• Consider infrastructure needs and potential markets for bioenergy products

• Conduct preliminary economic analyses

48 Refer to Section 2, Table 2.2.49 20,000t/yr of mallee biomass was to be delivered to the Narrogin electricity, activated carbon and mallee oil plant as

described in 2005 while the plant closed shortly after the following story was written-the challenge of cost-effective supply logistics remains a key barrier to profitable bioenergy plants. <http://www.planningplantations.com.au/assets/pdfs/sustainability/environment/bioenergy/Bioenergy_narrogin_integrated2005.pdf>.

50 See Ison et al (2013), Table 1, p. 5, Section 4.3, pp. 14 and 15.


• Multiple geographic areas/project analyses can be conducted in parallel or sequentially as shown in Section 7.4

• Investment $ substantial for 1 year per project.

Task D3 Undertake detailed feasibility studies: local and specific research to de-risk investment

Once areas of initial prospectivity have been identified on the basis of desktop studies, detailed feasibility studies should be conducted to assess the risk of the investment. As for Task D2, several of these studies could be conducted in parallel around the country.

• Engagement and communication

o establish community engagement and support

o catalyse interactions between new supply chain participants, community, policy agents to whom this will be a new configuration of working relationships (see Ecowaste 201351)

• Sustainable feedstock supply

o detailed studies on biomass sources, harvesting, transport, aggregation and logistics (e.g. Stucley et al 201252; Ecowaste 201353; McEvilly et al 201154) (links to Tasks A, B, C and D2)

o secure feedstock supply, including R&D to explore novel or appropriate contract options and incentives

o increase efficiency of feedstock production, including R&D into key tradeoffs such as dispersed versus concentrated biomass production systems, scale of processing facilities versus transport distance of biomass (Task B), further R&D into fit-for-purpose quality of feedstocks etc

o full sustainability assessment (link to Task A5)

• Project risk control

o guidance to minimise risks and enable bioenergy development (at both project/enterprise level, as well as a more aggregated regional–national level)

o conversion pathways and conversion technology cost reductions and use of co-products

o more detailed economic analysis of financials of facility; as well as broader economic impacts for region (direct and indirect jobs etc)

o health and safety aspects

• investment $ substantial per year initially for 3 years. On-going research required after project establishment.

Task D4 Project development

This task is about investment by project developers which will lead to learn-by-doing RD&E opportunities, and incorporate a feedback loop specifying new R&D to support ongoing development. [NOTE: this task does not fall directly under the RD&E banner, but is included for completeness and to clearly delineate roles, timing, dependencies and feedbacks between tasks.]

• feasibility assessment including detailed financial and investment analysis at project/enterprise level to secure investment in project development. Contracts for supply of feedstock, or offtake of product etc

• formal compliance reporting (e.g. planning permissions, environmental impact statements)

• community engagement


51 See Section 1, pp. 11–16.52 See Chapter 7, pp. 108–127 and Chapters 9–11, pp. 140–215.53 See Sections 2 and 3, pp. 17–34.54 See Section 2.1, p.10 and Chapter 3, pp. 19–49.

39

7 TimelinesThe following sections present timelines for each of the four tasks that make up this BWP.

7.1 Task A Sustainability

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030

A3 Develop and implement complementary or interim and associated certification mechanisms∙ $ substantial

SustainabilityTimeline (A)

A4 [If supported] develop an Australian standardand associated certification mechanisms∙ $ substantial

A5 Guide and co-ordinate systematic approach to measuring, reporting, assessing andcertifying the sustainability of bioenergy projects (linked to Task D)∙ Measurement and assessment costs to be borne in project development; but need guidance co-ordination∙ $ substantial

A1 Contribute to development of ISOStandard∙ $ small

A2 BroadIdentificationand Prioritisationof risks∙ $ substantial


7.2 Task B Feedstocks

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030

FeedstockTimeline (B)

B1 Stubble

B1 Plantation Residue

B1 Woody Crops

B1 Invest in specific feedstocks that are significant, scalable and sustainable $ substantial

Activity Preliminary feedstock evaluation

Basic principles

Concept formulated

Proof ofconcept

Preliminary technical evaluation

Production system

validation

Full-scaleproductioninitiation

Feedstockavailability

Comm-ercialisation

Sustainablefeedstockproductioncapability

established

1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.4 6.1 6.2 7 8 9

Feedstock experimental testing

Pre-commercial feedstock assessment

Feedstock commercial deployment

ScaleDescription

B2 Maintain links between feedstock research ∙ $ substantial

B4 Produce and maintain an online Biomass Resource Atlas ∙ $ substantial

B3 Adapt CAAFI feedstock readiness tool.∙ $ moderate

7.3 Task C Supply Logistics

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030

Supply logisticstimeline (C)

C1 Quantify key harvest and logistics cost drivers for forest residue, stubble, SRT and mixed feedstock supply chains∙ $ substantial for each feedstock category

C2 Develop optimised harvest system selection frameworks for forest residue, stubble, SRT and mixed feedstock supply chains∙ $ substantial

C3 Develop and apply Business Models for Biomass ‘brokers’ ∙ $ substantial

41

7.4 Task D Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2030

Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development Timeline (D)

D1 Establish Steering Group to guide bioenergy RD&E nationally∙ $ moderate for all activities

D2 Desktop prospects(individual plants plus regional industry scale up)∙ $ substantial 1-2 years per case study/project

D3 Detailed feasibility∙ $ substantial, 2-3 years per case study/project

D4 Project developmentActual investment by project developers (which may include specifying new R&D to support ongoing development)∙ $ substantial, 2 plus years per project

Note on D2, D3 and D4Apply to regions, a team may work in one region and move onto the next or 2 teams may work at the same time.


8 Conclusions This National Bioenergy RD&E Work Plan has drawn on a range of sources including:

• the last decade of R&D planning and delivery (e.g. O’Connell et al 2007; the RIRDC Bioenergy and Bioproducts funding program)

• the National Bioenergy RD&E Strategy, Opportunities for primary industries in the bioenergy sector (RIRDC 2011)

• consultation with a range of stakeholders in 2012/2013 via Bioenergy Australia, and a range of other fora, as well as task group workshops and discussions led by Brendan George, John McGrath/Paul Turnbull, and Deborah O’Connell.

During this consultation, there was a degree of enthusiasm (substantiated by published and unpublished RD&E and industry feasibility assessments of the last decade) about the potential for bioenergy to make a significant contribution to Australia’s future energy mix (particularly for advanced biofuels, especially jetfuel), as well as to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing regional development and manufacturing opportunities, and diversifying the risk profile and income streams for biomass producers.

There was a high degree of consensus amongst stakeholders that investment into the RD&E tasks presented in this National Bioenergy RD&E Work Plan would (if conducted in a well-sequenced and coordinated national approach) significantly de-risk project investments by quantifying and addressing some of the key uncertainties. Clearly, there are other uncertainties which cannot be addressed. Many stakeholders expressed, during the consultation, a high degree of perceived risk and uncertainty around investing in real projects and industry development. This uncertainty was in part caused by the global financial situation, as well as the political and policy uncertainties in Australia around carbon pricing and renewable energy in general.

Building any new industry relies on a long-term commitment to a vigorous and coordinated program of RD&E. We believe that Australia is building on a solid foundation of the last two decades of research and development in bioenergy. The program of research outlined in this National Bioenergy RD&E Work Plan provides the basis for continuing development of a robust and sustainable bioenergy industry in Australia. The research, government and industry collaborative partnerships are expressed in the framing of the RD&E tasks, and can be further explored and developed through joint delivery of future research.

43

9 ReferencesAustralian Government 2011, Strategic framework for alternative transport fuels, Canberra, Australia, 86 pp.

Australian Government 2009, NRM MERI Framework (Australian government natural resource management monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement framework). Download from <http://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/archived/proposed/NRM-MERI-Framework.pdf>.

Baumber, A, Rammelt, C, Ampt, P & Merson, J 2012, Bioenergy from native agroforestry planning for a regional industry in the NSW Central Tablelands, RIRDC publication no. 12/021, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Bartle, J 2009, ‘Integrated production systems’, in I Nuberg, BH George & R Reid (eds), Agroforestry for natural resource management, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 267–280.

Bartle, J.; Abadi, A. 2010: Toward sustainable production of second generation bioenergy feedstocks. Energy Fuels 24: 2–9.

Bartle, J, Olsen, G, Cooper, D & Hobbs, T 2007, ‘Scale of biomass production from new woody crops for salinity control in dryland agriculture in Australia’, International Journal of Global Energy Issues, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 115–137.

Borowitzka, MA 1999, ‘Economic evaluation of microalgal processes and products’, in Z Cohen (ed.), Chemicals from microalgae, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 387–409.

Borowitzka, MA & Moheimani, NR 2011, ‘Sustainable biofuels from algae’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, doi:10.1009/s11027-010-9271-9.

CER 2011, Increasing Australia’s renewable electricity generation, Annual report 2011, Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, Canberra.

Chambers, D & Holtum, JAM 2010, Feasibility of agave as a feedstock for biofuel production in Australia, RIRDC publication no. 10/104, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Crawford, D, Jovanovic, T, O’Connor, M, Herr, A, Raison, J & Baynes, T 2012, AEMO 100% renewable energy study potential for electricity generation in Australia from biomass in 2010, 2030 and 2050, CSIRO Report EP-126969. Download from <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/APPENDIX5-CSIRO-biomass-energy.pdf>.

Davis, SC, Boddey, RM, Alves, BJR, Cowie, AL, George, BH, Ogle, SM et al 2013, ‘Management swing potential for bioenergy crops’, GCB Bioenergy, 5(6): 623-638.

DRET 2012, Energy white paper 2012 Australia’s energy transformation, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra, 234 pp.

DRET 2010, Australian petroleum statistics, issue no. 173, (Table 3A), Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra.

Ecowaste 2013, A BioHub Network. A proposal to provide the enabling systems and infrastructure necessary for the timely development of the emerging biomass processing industry. First Order Pre-Feasibility Study. A report for the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICSRTE)

FFI CRC in prep, Sustainable mallee jet fuel: sustainability assessment and life cycle assessment of an Australian value chain, Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre, 100 pp.


FFI CRC 2010, Submission no. 68 House of Representatives: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry: Inquiry into the Australian forestry industry, submission by Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre. Download from <http://aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=arff/forestry/subs/sub68.pdf>.

Fargione, JE, Hill, J, Tilman, D, Polasky, S & Hawthorne, P 2008, ‘Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt’, Science, vol. 319, no. 5867, pp. 1235–1238, doi: 10.1126/science.1152747.

Farine, DR, O’Connell, DA, Raison, RJ, May, BM, O’Connor, MH, Crawford, DF et al 2012, ‘An assessment of biomass for bioelectricity and biofuel, and for greenhouse gas emission reduction in Australia’, GCB Bioenergy, vol. 4, pp. 148–175.

Farine, DR, O’Connell, DA, Grant, T, and Poole, ML 2010, ‘Opportunities for energy efficiency and biofuel production in Australian wheat farming systems’, Biofuels, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 547-561.

Fehrenbach, H, Giegrich, J, Reinhardt, G, Schmitz, J, Sayer, U, Gretz, M et al 2008, ‘Criteria for a sustainable use of bioenergy on a global scale’. See http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3514.pdf

Future Fuels Forum 2008, The future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities, Future Fuels Forum, June 2008, see <http://www.csiro.au/resources/Fuel-For-Thought-Report.

George, BH & Nicholas, ID 2012, Developing options for integrated food-energy systems, Volume 2 Supply chain logistics and economic considerations for short-rotation woody crops in southern Australia, IEA Bioenergy Task 43, Report 2012:PR03.

Ghaffariyan, MR 2010, ‘European biomass harvesting systems and their application in Australia’, Bulletin 10, CRC for Forestry, Hobart.

Ghaffariyan, MR, Spinelli, R, Brown, M & Mirowski, L 2013, ‘Chipping model: a tool to predict the productivity and cost of chipping operations’, AFORA Industry Bulletin 4.

Ghaffariyan, MR & Wiedermann, J 2011, ‘Harvesting low-productivity eucalypt plantations for biomass’, Bulletin 19, CRC for Forestry, Hobart.

Graham, P, Reedman, L, Rodriguez, L, Raison, J, Braid, A, Haritos, V, Brinsmead, T, Hayward, J, Taylor, J, O’Connell, D. 2011, Sustainable aviation fuels road map: data assumptions and modelling, CSIRO Centre of Policy Studies, Phillip Adams, May 2011.

Hayward, J, O’Connell, D, Raison, J, Rye, L, Warden, A, O’Connor, M et al (in internal review), ‘The economics of producing sustainable aviation fuels: a regional case study in Queensland, Australia’.

Herr, A, O’Connell, D, Farine, D, Dunlop, M, Crimp, S, Poole, M 2012(a), ‘Watching grass grow in Australia: is there sufficient production potential for a biofuel industry?’ Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 257–268.

Herr, A, O’Connell, D, Dunlop, M, Unkovich, M, Poulton, P, Poole, M 2012(b), ‘Second harvest – Is there sufficient stubble for biofuel production in Australia?’ GCB Bioenergy, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 654-660.

Hobbs, TJ (Ed) 2009, ‘Review of wood products, tannins and exotic species for agroforestry in lower rainfall regions of southern Australia’, Florasearch 1c,RIRDC publication no 07/08. Report to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP) and the Future Farm industries CRC. RIRDC, Canberra, Australia p77

Hobbs, TJ, Bartle, J, Bennell, M, George, BH 2009, ‘Prioritisation of regional woody crop industries pp. 5-38.in Regional industry potential for woody biomass crops in lower rainfall southern Australia’(Ed) Hobbs T.J., RIRDC publication No. 09/045 Report to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP) and the Future Farm industries CRC. RIRDC, Canberra, Australia p138

45

Hobbs, T, Bennell, M, Huxtable, D, Bartle, J, Neumann, C, George, N, O’Sullivan, W, McKenna, D. 2009, ‘Potential agroforestry species and regional industries for lower rainfall southern Australia’, Florasearch 2, RIRDC publication no. 07/082. Report to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP) and the Future Farm Industries CRC. Published by RIRDC, Canberra, Australia, pp. 138.

Hobbs, TJ, Bennell, M & Bartle, J (eds) 2009, ‘Developing species for woody biomass crops in lower rainfall southern Australia’, Florasearch 3a, RIRDC publication no. 09/043, Report to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP) and the Future Farm Industries CRC. Published by RIRDC, Canberra,Australia,.pp252

Ison, N, Wynne, L, Rutovitz, J, Jenkins, C, Cruickshank, P & Luckie, K 2013, NSW North Coast bioenergy scoping study, Report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures to RDA-Northern Rivers on behalf of Sustain Northern Rivers.

Jensen, E, Peoples, M, Boddey, R, Gresshoff, P, Hauggaard-Nielsen, H, Alves, B et al 2012, ‘Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 32, pp. 329–364.

LEK 2011, Advanced biofuels study strategic directions for Australia, Appendix 14, LEK Consulting Pty Ltd.

Miranowski, J & Rosburg, A 2010, An economic breakeven model of cellulosic feedstock production and ethanol conversion with implied carbon pricing, Iowa State University.

Mirowski, L & Acuna, M 2012, ‘Reducing forestry transport costs with FastTRUCK’, Bulletin 30, CRC for Forestry, Hobart.

Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia 2008, Australia’s state of the forests report 2008, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Download from <http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/_pubs/sofr2008reduced.pdf>.

Murphy, H, O’Connell, D, Seaton, G, Raison, R, Rodriguez, L & Braid, A et al 2012, ‘A common view of the opportunities, challenges and research actions for Pongamia in Australia’, BioEnergy Research, doi: 10.1007/s12155-012-9190-6.

Murphy, HT, O’Connell, D, Raison, J, Warden, A, Booth, T, Herr, A et al (submitted), ‘Biomass production and conversion systems for sustainable aviation fuels: a regional case study in Queensland, Australia’, (submitted to GCB Bioenergy June 2013).

McEvilly, G, Abeysuriya, S & Dix, S 2011, Facilitating the adoption of biomass co-firing for power generation, RIRDC publication no. 11/068, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

NRM Ministerial Council 2003, ‘Monitoring and evaluation framework endorsed by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, 3 May 2002 Meeting Attachment C’, under review, last revised: 8 April 2003. Download from <http://live.greeningaustralia.org.au/nativevegetation/pages/pdf/Authors%20N/13_NRMMC.pdf>.

O’Connell, D, Braid, A, Raison, J, Handberg, K, Cowie, A, Rodriguez, L et al 2009, Sustainable production of bioenergy A review of global bioenergy sustainability frameworks and assessment systems, RIRDC publication no 09/167, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

O’Connell, D, Braid, A, Raison, J, Hatfield Dodds, S, Wiedmann, T, Cowie, et al 2013, Navigating sustainability: measurement, evaluation and action, Paper prepared by CSIRO for the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability, CSIRO, Australia.

O’Connell, D & Haritos, V 2010, ‘Conceptual investment framework for biofuels and biorefineries research and development’, Biofuels, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 201–216. Download from <http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/bfs.09.14>.


O’Connell, D, Haritos, V, Graham, S, Farine, D, O’Connor, M, Batten, D, et al 2007, Bioenergy, bioproducts and energy-a framework for research and development, RIRDC publication no. 07/178, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

O’Connell, D, Keating, B & Glover, M 2005, Sustainability guide for bioenergy: a scoping study, RIRDC publication no. 05/190, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Odeh, I, Tan, D & Ancev, T 2011, ‘Potential suitability and viability of selected biodiesel crops in Australian marginal agricultural lands under current and future climates’, Bioenergy Resources, vol. 4, pp. 165–179.

O’Hara, I, Kent, G, Alberston, P, Harrison, M, Hobson, P, McKenzie, N et al 2013, Sweet sorghum. Opportunities for a new, renewable fuel and food industry in Australia, RIRDC publication no. 13/087, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Olsen, G, Cooper, DJ, Huxtable, D, Carslake, J & Bartle, JR 2004, Search project final report, NHT Project 973849-Developing multiple purpose species for large scale revegetation, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Kensington, Western Australia.

Pearman, GI 2013, ‘Limits to the potential of bio-fuels and bio-sequestration of carbon’, Energy Policy, vol. 59, pp. 523–535.

Raison, RJ, McCormack, RJ, Cork, SJ, Ryan, PJ & McKenzie, NJ 1997, ‘Scientific issues in the assessment of ecologically sustainable forest management, with special reference to the use of indicators’, in EP Bachelard & AG Brown (eds), Proceedings of the 4th Joint Conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and the New Zealand Institute of Forestry, Canberra, pp. 229–234.

RIRDC 2011, Opportunities for primary industries in the bioenergy sector-national RD&E strategy, RIRDC publication no. 11/079, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Rodriguez, LC, May, B, Herr, A & O’Connell, D 2011a, ‘Biomass assessment and small scale biomass fired electricity generation in the Green Triangle, Australia’, Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, pp. 2589–2599.

Rodriguez, LC, May, B, Herr, A, Farine, D & O’Connell, D 2011b, ‘Biofuel excision and the viability of ethanol production in the Green Triangle, Australia’, Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 1951–1957.

Rodriguez, L, Herr, A, Warden, A, O’Connell, D, Almeida, A, Raison, J et al 2011c, ‘Potential for forest bioenergy in two regions of Australia’, Bioenergy Australia 2011 Conference, Sunshine Coast, 24–25 November 2011.

Rodriguez, L. C.; Warden, A.; O’Connell, D.; Almeida, A.; Crawford, D.; Jovanovic, T.; Raison, J.; Herr, A.; May, B.; McGarva, L.; Twomey, A.; Freischmidt, G.; Taylor, J. A. 2012: Opportunities for bioenergy: an assessment of the environmental and economic opportunities and constraints associated with bioenergy production from biomass resources in two prospective regions of Australia,. Produced for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,Pp. 156. Canberra, Australia.

Sawin, JL & Martinot, E 2011, Renewables 2011 Global status report, Renewable Energy Policy Network, Paris, 116 pp.

Schmidt, E, Giles, R, Davis, R, Baillie, C, Jensen, T, Sandell, G et al 2012, Sustainable biomass supply chain for the mallee woody crop industry, RIRDC publication no. 12/022, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Searchinger, T, Heimlich, R, Houghton, RA, Dong, F, Elobeid, A, Fabiosa, J et al 2008, ‘Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change’, Science Express vol. 319, pp. 1238–1240.

47

Shepherd, M, Bartle, J, Lee, DJ, Brawner, J, Bush, D, Turnbull, P et al 2011, ‘Eucalypts as a biofuel feedstock’, Biofuels, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 639–657.

Simon, D, Tyner, W & Jacquet, F 2010, ‘Economic analysis of the potential of cellulosic biomass available in France from agricultural residue and energy crops’, Bioenergy Resources, vol. 3, pp. 183–193.

Spinelli, R; Nati, C; Magagnotti, N. 2009: Using modified foragers to harvest short-rotation poplar plantations. Biomass and Bioenergy 33(5): 817-821.

Spinelli, R; Magagnotti, N; Picchi, G; Lombardini, C; Nati, C. 2011: Upsized harvesting technology for coping with the new trends in short-rotation coppice. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 27(4): 551-557.

Spinelli, R 2011, ‘Latest from Italy and Europe’, presentation in Canberra April 2011. Download from <http://www.crcforestry.com.au/downloads/Latest-from-Italy-and-Europe-Raffaele-Spinelli-IVALSA.pdf>.

Spinelli, R, Brown, M, Giles, R, Huxtable, D, Relaño, R. L, Magagnotti N 2014, Harvesting alternatives for mallee agroforestry plantations in Western Australia. Agroforestry Systems (DOI 10.1007/s10457-014-9707-4).

Stucley, C, Schuck, S, Sims, R, Bland, J, Marino, B, Borowitzka, M et al 2012, Bioenergy in Australia. Status and opportunities, Bioenergy Australia (Forum) Limited, 340 pp.

Stucley, CR, Schuck, SM, Sims, REH, Larsen, PL, Turvey, ND & Marino, BE 2004, Biomass energy production in Australia. Status, costs and opportunities for major technologies, Report for the RIRDC/ FWPRDC L & W Australia/ MDBC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (in conjunction with the Australian Greenhouse Office).

Sultana, A, Kumar, A & Harfield, D 2010, ‘Development of agri-pellet production cost and optimum size’, Bioresource Technology, vol. 101, pp. 5609–5562.

UN-E 2007, ‘Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies’. Download from <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf>.

Syngas 2011, Logistics management field trials, Final report to Renewables SA Management and Board November 2011. Download from <http://www.renewablessa.sa.gov.au/files/120224-final-report-logistics-mngt-field-trials.pdf>.

van Dam, J, Junginger, M, Faaij, A, Jurgens, I, Best, G & Fritsche, U 2008, ‘Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification’. Download from <http://www.csbp.org/Portals/0/Documents/Van%20Dam%20Overview%20of%20Sustainable%20Biomass%20Certification%2019%2005%202008.pdf>.

Warden, AC & Haritos, VS 2008, Future biofuels for Australia. Issues and opportunities for conversion of second generation lignocellulosic, RIRDC publication no. 08/117, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Ximenes, F, Ramos, J, Bi, H, Cameron, N, Singh, BP & Blasi, M 2012, Determining biomass in residues following harvest in Pinus radiata forests in New South Wales, RIRDC publication no. 11/177, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.


10 Appendices10.1 Terms of reference for the bioenergy RD&E advisory forum

• Provide a national opportunity for consultation, coordination and communication amongst Australian research providers, funders, industry and government agencies focused on bioenergy RD&E activities relevant to primary industry stakeholders.

• Encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing in order to achieve greater efficiencies in use of resources and growth in capability.

• Provide input and representation to high-level decision-making fora relevant to the bioenergy sector, including encouragement of increased funding and resources for relevant RD&E activities through methods such as cost benefit analysis of RD&E activities.

• Lead and coordinate the communication of RD&E outcomes to primary industries, the general public and policy makers.

• Coordinate interaction with the other sectors and cross-sector National RD&E Strategies.

• Increase collaboration with non-primary industry sectors, including relevant Standing Committees and federal/state agencies and initiatives.

• Examine and further develop opportunities for international collaborations and innovation sharing that will benefit the Australian bioenergy industry.

• Update this National RD&E Strategy, including RD&E priorities, every 3 years through consultation with industry and researchers.

49

10.2 PIMC framework-RD&E efficiencyAs outlined in the DAFF website <http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/innovation/national-primary-industries>:

Through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC), the Australian, state and Northern Territory governments, rural R&D corporations, CSIRO, and universities are jointly developing the National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Framework to encourage greater collaboration and promote continuous improvement in the investment of RD&E resources nationally.

When the Framework is fully implemented, it is expected:

• Research capability will become more collaborative, specialised, have larger critical mass and will be less fragmented across the nation. Efficiency and effectiveness of RD&E will be markedly improved overall, although some additional costs could be incurred providing national linkages and to support delivery of regional development and local extension.

• Agencies will retain and build capability in fields strategically important to their jurisdictions and industries. At the same time, it is expected agencies will collaborate with others to provide for a more comprehensive national research capability

• State jurisdictions will decide what their research role is in specific sectors, whereby:

o “Major priority” means that a jurisdiction will undertake a lead national role by providing significant R&D effort in all or most disciplines of a particular industry. For example, Victoria will have a major priority focus on the dairy industry.

o “Support” means that a jurisdiction will undertake some R&D, but others will be providing the major effort. For example, New South Wales will undertake some local development of research findings for the pork industry, whereas national research will be led from South Australia

o “Link” means that a jurisdiction will carry out little or no research in the field, but will access information and resources from other agencies. For example, Tasmania will access information on beef research undertaken elsewhere

• The national research capability will be an integral component of a wider innovation agenda, supporting development and extension. To encourage rapid uptake of new technologies, research developed in one location would be available nationally for the whole industry.

Outcome

There will be a more coordinated and collaborative approach to rural RD&E, and national research capability will be focused, used efficiently and effectively to achieve the best outcome and uptake by primary industries.


10.3 Members of the Bioenergy RD&E Advisory Forum and Technical Working Groups (June 2013)

Bioenergy RD&E Forum

Julie Bird, RIRDC

Stephen Woolcott, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

Michael Ryan, DAFF

Annika Smith, DAFF

Stephen Schuck, Bioenergy Australia (Limited) Forum

German Spangenberg, DPI Victoria

Rod Sudmeyer, DAFWA

Paul Wells, NSW DPI

Meagan McKenzie, DAFFQ

John McGrath, FFI CRC

Robert Henry, University of Queensland

Deb O’Connell, CSIRO

Simon Maddocks, SARDI

Brendan George, NSW DPI

Darren Atkinson, DIISR

Jodi Higgins, GRDC

Sustainability Technical Working Group

Convenor: Deborah O’Connell, CSIRO

Heather Bone, Downer EDI

Annette Cowie, University of New England

John Raison, CSIRO

Andrew Braid, CSIRO

Mark Brown, University of the Sunshine Coast

Grant Johnson, Australian Forest Products Association

Tracey Colley, Consumers Federation of Australia

Brendan George, University of New England

Stephen Schuck, Bioenergy Australia

Mark Glover, Renewed Carbon

Beverley Henry, Queensland University of Technology

Stan Rogers, AVTEQ Consulting Services

51

Supply Logistics Technical Working Group

Convenors: John McGrath & Paul Turnbull, FFI CRC

Amir Abadi, DEC Western Australia

John Bartle, DEC Western Australia


Brendan George, NSW DPI/University of New England

Colin Stucley, Renewable Oil Corporation

Feedstocks Technical Working Group

Convenors: Paul Wells & Brendan George, NSW DPI

Tom Baker, University of Melbourne


Garry Fullelove, DAFFQ

Brendan George, NSW DPI/University of New England

Robert Henry, University of Queensland

Alexander Herr, CSIRO

John McGrath, FFI CRC

Meagan McKenzie, DAFFQ

Paul Wells, NSW DPI

Fabiano Ximenes, NSW DPI


10.4 Appropriate approaches to sustainability assessment Table A10.4 Appropriate approaches to sustainability assessment systems depend on level of risk,

effort and the level of value required in terms of ensuring sustainable outcomes from a given activity or sector (from O’Connell et al 2009)

Approach to sustainability assessment

If the sustainability risk of the bioenergy sector is…

Effort required to implement sustainability assessment

Likelihood of achieving more sustainable outcomes

Appropriateness of approach

Both input and outcome-based must be embedded in effective process

Input-based Low Low Low Appropriate low investment

High (or uncertain)

Low-Medium Low An under-investment of effort

Outcome-based Low High Medium-High An over-investment of effort

High (or uncertain)

High Medium-High Appropriate high investment

Outcome-based approaches are therefore more robust in terms of ensuring sustainability, but they also require more effort (and resources) to implement. They are desirable for those sectors where there is a high degree of stakeholder concern, and/or where there is potentially high (or uncertain) level of risk of damage to socio-ecological systems from that sector.

53

10.5 Principles, criteria and indicatorsNote that C&I are somewhat inconsistently defined, and range from inputs and outputs to outcomes This is very typical for bioenergy C&I across multiple schemes.

Table A10.5 Illustrative issues with PC&I using examples from draft ISO standard

Principle: Maintain and protect soil quality and productivity

Criterion: Soil productivity

Proposed indicator

Examples of issues arising in Australia requiring scientific investigation

Productivity issues are specified in the soil management plan

Commercial forestry enterprises will have a soil management plan. Most agricultural enterprises, or hybrid enterprises (e.g. short rotation trees integrated into cropping and grazing, or clearing of regrowth) will not have a soil management plan. A specification of what will be required in specific industry contexts and geographic regions may be an approach to this, but the most appropriate approach will need to be determined.

Rotation period

For many new systems proposed (e.g. short rotation trees or grasses), there is no knowledge about the rotation periods and the impacts on productivity or soil health.

Proportion of biomass harvested

Nutrient compensation

This will vary greatly according to the production system, and will not be well known for new types of production systems. Even for well established production systems such as grains, the impact of removal of stubble and the levels of nutrient compensation required are not well established.

Compensatory measures for soil carbon losses

As above, except that it is even more difficult to estimate the impacts of stubble removal on soil carbon losses. They could range from minimal through to moderate impact. In addition, the specification of such an Indicator in a standard requires to be linked to what is measurable and achievable in reality. Without having a quantified estimate of the soil carbon losses per se, it is difficult to specify requisite compensatory measures. Some scientific investigations to determine the most appropriate approach will be required.


Principle: Conserve and protect water resources

Criterion: Water management plan

Proposed indicator


Existence of a water management plan

The existence of water management plans, and the existing baseline data, governance arrangements, and the efficacy of water management plans varies greatly in different states of Australia. A systematic approach relevant to this variation will need to be devised.

Riparian areas are maintained or re-established

Adequate buffer zones around riparian areas are generally specified and maintained in commercial forestry enterprises in Australia. However, they are not in agricultural landscapes. If biomass production is incorporated into an agricultural enterprise, to what extent should the additional on-farm activity (biomass production) drive change in the existing management of the riparian zone? This and many other questions require a systematic approach to be developed.

Avoid depletion of surface or groundwater resources beyond replenishment capacity

Management of surface, soil and groundwater systems is critical in many areas of Australia. However, the additional marginal impacts of biomass production (on top of the existing land use activities and their impacts on water resources) will be very variable around Australia and requires assessment in the light of the level of additional risks posed by bioenergy. There is also an issue around capacity of any industry in Australia to effectively report against such an indicator: existing data will be inadequate to demonstrate this for most areas of Australia, and therefore the burden of proof on the emerging bioenergy industry must be carefully considered and alternative approaches tested and implemented as appropriate.

Principle: Reduce GHG emissions in relation to fossil energy it substitutes

Criterion: Lifecycle GHG emissions of bioenergy shall be calculated and declared for each bioenergy feedstock over its rotation period according to specific methodology

Proposed indicator


kg CO2-eq per MJ of useful bioenergy/ functional unit

Reporting on this indicator requires full life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and removals for each specific bioenergy system. Industry participants will therefore need methods and data to undertake this assessment. While some required data will be readily obtained by the proponent, other data, especially for upstream and downstream processes will be more difficult to obtain. The AusLCI project, which aims to develop an Australian database of Life Cycle Inventory data will be a valuable resource of standard data. Input from technical experts is required to develop this database.

% of emissions of GHG avoided, compared to relevant fossil fuel alternative

Comparison with the applicable fossil fuel reference is the second step in demonstrating the GHG benefit of a bioenergy system. In other jurisdictions (e.g. for the UK Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation) such assessment has been facilitated through development of default fossil fuel chains with which a bioenergy system can be compared. Relevant default fossil energy chain data for each state and industry segment should be devised and published.

55

10.6 Full feedstock readiness tableWe recommend that this approach be adapted to suit Australian conditions feedstock types and production systems, markets, policy and regulatory environments, conversion processes, and sustainability requirements. The empty cells in this table show where the steps outlined by CAAFI are relevant to the US, but have little relevance to the Australian context and need to be adapted.

Table A10.6 Full feedstock readiness table

A more complete listing of the steps in the feedstock readiness tool can be obtained from CAAFI <http://www.caafi.org/information/fuelreadinesstools.html>. Production relates to Feedstocks (Section 4). Market relates broadly to Supply Logistics (Section 5) and also to Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development (Section 6). Market Policy relates to Integrated Supply Chains and Industry Development (Section 6), with many factors requiring national coordination.

Scale Production Market Market Policy - Program Support and Regulatory Compliance

Linkage to Conversion Process

1 Identify potential feedstock for a specific conversion technology

Identify current feedstock producers, feedstocks and coproduct users, and wastes

Identify regular true requirement to insert market column for producing a new feedstock

Identify any potential conversion technology to utilise feedstock

2.1 Estimates likely range of production environments and competing land uses

Assess feedstock markets alternatives

Evaluate feedstock for compliance with regulatory requirements for like production environments

Test feedstock quality for specific conversion technology

2.2 Identify production system components

Identify potential coproducts

Estimate production impacts on multiple resources concerns

2.3 Develop enterprise budget for potential feedstock

Identify waste disposal requirements

Formulate a plan, including best practices to address regulatory requirements

2.4 Identify possible consequences of expanded production, articulate responses to trade-offs

Identify harvest method, post-harvest collection, transportation, and storage logistic options

Comply with any feedstock pre-importation regulations




3.1 Screen candidate genetic resources for feedstock yield

Estimate feedstock production costs

Determined potential for societal resistance to use of the candidate feedstocks Test feedstock and

conversion process at the experimental bench scale

3.2 Screen candidate genetic resources for biofuel conversion potential

Evaluate current and alternative future scenarios for establishing a feedstock sector - feasibility study

Formulate a plan to address societal concerns

4.1 Perform coordinated regional feedstock trials to determine potential for yield improvement and dependability of feedstock supply

Identified biorefineries for targeted feedstock market development and link feedstock producers to feedstock brokers to supply biorefineries

Identify Australian government, state, or other incentive programs

Performance estimated for feedstock through conversion process

4.2 Compare performance of candidate feedstock with alternative feedstock choices

Identify specific alternatives for reducing production and supply uncertainties (i.e. contracts and loan guarantees)

Determine conversion efficiency and unique effects on full fuel properties

4.3 Implement agricultural extension and education programs to promote feedstock production

57



5.1 Define range of adaptation for feedstock and identify production uncertainties

Develop and refine, post-harvest Logistics and storage

Pilot scale testing

5.2 Conduct on farm, field scale production cost trials and assess production impacts on resource concerns

Assess maximum market potential feedstock and coproducts

5.3 Established pastoral budget costs and returns

Scaled commercial testing5.4 Establish price

points for feedstock market competitiveness with competing land use

Develop feedstock offtake options and pathways to realising market potential

6.1 Establish source material nurseries and begin feedstock production scale up process

Performance confirmed for feedstock conversion and effects on fuel properties, engines, and components

6.2 Produce feedstock planting materials to meet demand

Determine feedstock production capacity when linked to market outlets - price and quantity




7 Commercial scale production and feedstock delivery to conversion facilities - payments made for feedstock to reduce risk management tools to reduce uncertainty of feedstock production

Sustainable full-scale production of bio energy and coproducts

8 Ongoing monitoring and research to improve production system performance while managing multiple resource concerns

Markets established - make necessary adjustments to the supply chain is the feedstock markets evolve

9 Full array of private services support feedstock production sector – understanding of feedstocks sector if all’s - make adjustments as a commercial scale bioenergy production expands

Market functions to support sustainable feedstock production

59

10.7 Impact of previous supply logistics studies on this work plan

Research Impact on BWP

1) Mallee

(Stucley et al 2012; Schmidt et al 2012)

Estimates a long-term cost of supply for mallee biomass. Compares mallee with sugar-harvesting supply logistics. Detailed analysis but ongoing harvesting operations are required to develop supply logistics.

Mallee harvester operated at 20 g/tonnes per hour. No market for mallee harvester in Aus yet-IP sold to Biosystems Engineering-seeking markets in Brazil and US.

Small tree belt harvesting using separate fall, forward, chip processing is being trialed.

In all cases, the lack of even small markets impedes research and development of supply logistics

2) Pine residues

(Ximenes et al 2012)

Residue collection cost is higher than current markets can afford. Roadside whole-tree harvesting systems are the key to pine residue collection. Assume same principals apply to hardwood plantations.

Lower harvesting costs can be expected with improved extraction systems, but ongoing profitable markets are required for the improvements.

3) Tree harvesting and transport

AFORA and the Forestry CRC have produced 37 bulletins on tree harvesting many of them related to bionenergy feedstocks (2008 onwards).

They are downloadable from

<http://www.usc.edu.au/research/research-partnerships/australian-forest-operations-research-alliance-afora>

Then click on industry reports.

Tree harvesting research with good linkages to international research. Research focus is on optimising harvestings systems. In-field chipping, forwarding, bundling, infield drying, residue estimation and trucking costs are key topics for bioenergy feedstock logistics with the potential to reduce the supply costs substantially.

See Bulletins 4, 7, 10, 15, 18, 24, 31, 32 and Industry Bulletins 1, 2 and 4.

4) Co-firing Queensland

(McEvilly et al 2011)

Provides a summary of supply logistics-availability, cost, regulation, renewable energy target (RET) compliance and competing uses - for a range of feedstocks for co-firing in Queensland.

5) New South Wales Agroforestry

(Baumber et al 2012)

Provides a range of assumptions for the demand-side analysis for biomass availability.

6) Green Triangle biomass availability

(Rodriguez et al 2011a, 2011b, 2011c.)

Quantifies and costs biomass availability in a region. Underpins the development of large biomass plants.