Search

Vienna's biomass demand is large and nearly all biomass consumed in the city is produced in the regional and global hinterland. This raises the question, how the socioecological conditions at specific places somewhere in the world are impacted by urban consumption and how negative impacts can be addressed and mitigated by urban actors. Here we focus on the city's biodiversity footprint and argue that the spatial mismatch between the social-ecological impacts of biomass production and consumption and its impact on biodiversity on the one hand, and the governance instruments available at a city level mentioned by the interviewed experts on the other hand, must be considered when looking for bottom-up governance strategies of urban actors. We combine food regime theory, the analysis of biomass flows and a multiscalar governance approach to analyze "biomass from somewhere" in three important sectors of biomass use in Vienna – food, energy and construction timber. We find that consumption in Vienna requires 3.1 Mio. t of primary biomass per year (2010–2013), of which 59 % are for food, 28 % for material (only 1.3 % for construction) and 13 % for energy; roughly half of this biomass was sourced from Austria, the rest from other countries, mainly in Europe. While governance instruments at the city level are quite effective with respect to urban ecosystems and conservation within the city, they are insufficient to tackle biodiversity loss in the global hinterland. Important leverage points at the city scale are public procurement and the promotion of consumption patterns with lower land and primary biomass demand. An important prerequisite is unambiguous information and labelling concerning the biodiversity impacts of biomass products which is complicated by the fact that indirect land use effects need to be considered. Currently, none of the governance measures investigated includes extensive biodiversity criteria. We conclude that to effectively address the spatial mismatch, a different mode of production – regulated at higher scales and including mandatory measures – and a different mode of consumption as well as a reduction of consumption and production is required. • The paper scrutinizes governance options for mitigating pressure on biodiversity. • It presents a conceptual approach to analyze "biomass from somewhere". • Almost 50 % of the biomass consumed in Vienna originates from foreign countries. • Urban room for maneuver is limited regarding the biomass regime. • Unambiguous information concerning the biodiversity impacts of products is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is evidence that the replacement of carbon-intensive products with bio-based substitutes (‘material substitution with biomass’) can be highly efficient in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Based on two case studies (CS1/2) for Austria, potential benefits of material substitution in comparison to fuel substitution are analysed. GHG savings are calculated according to default IPCC approaches (Tier 2 method assuming first-order decay) and with more realistic approaches based on distribution functions. In CS1, high savings are achieved by using wood residues for the production of insulating boards instead of energy. The superiority of material substitution is due to the establishment of a long-term carbon storage, the high emission factor of wood in comparison to natural gas and higher efficiencies of gas-fired facilities. The biomass feedstock in CS2 is lignocellulosic ethanol being used for bio-ethylene production (material substitution) or replacing gasoline (fuel substitution). GHG savings are mainly due to lower production emissions of bio-ethylene in comparison to conventional ethylene and significantly lower than in CS1 (per unit of biomass consumed). While CS1 is highly robust to parameter variation, the long-term projections in CS2 are quite speculative. To create adequate incentives for including material substitution in national climate strategies, shortcomings of current default accounting methods must be addressed. Under current methods the GHG savings in both case studies would not (fully) materialize in the national GHG inventory. The main reason is that accounting of wood products is confined to the proportion derived from domestic harvest, whereas imported biomass used for energy is treated as carbon-neutral. Further inadequacies of IPCC default accounting methods include the assumption of exponential decay and the disregard of advanced bio-based products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to achieve the targets defined in the European Union's “Low Carbon Roadmap”, the “Energy Roadmap 2050” and the “Bioeconomy Strategy”, an enhanced use of biomass is required; not only for energy but also for material uses. In this context and to facilitate targeted resource and energy policy measures, profound knowledge of the status quo of biomass utilization is of crucial importance. The core objective of this paper is to provide complete flow diagrams of the biomass streams within the Austrian economic system from a meso-scale perspective, taking into account all types of uses. Contrary to material flow accounts (MFA), internal streams (e.g. due to biomass processing and transformation, recycling and reuse of residues and by-products, stock changes of end-consumer products) are explicitly taken into consideration and quantified. This approach reveals gaps and inconsistencies in statistical data and facilitates conclusions about quantities not recorded in statistics. Furthermore, the structure of biomass use is visualized and the extent of biogenic material reuse and recycling is revealed. The results show that biomass imports to Austria surpassed exports by about 15% in 2011 (based on dry mass). The distribution of biomass among the different uses depends on whether direct consumption or final uses are considered. In the latter case, which is considered more appropriate, inland biomass consumption was distributed as follows: 7% human food, 18% raw material, 38% energy and 37% animal feed. Exports are primarily composed of wood products. Contrary to common assumption, energy recovery is still usually the ultimate step of cascadic biomass use rather than primary purpose, or based on by-products. Judging from wood quantities being processed and consumed and foreign trade data, domestic wood supply according to felling reports (and stated as “domestic extraction used” in official MFA data) is clearly underrated. Conversely, domestic feed production according to MFA data is inconsistent with official animal feed statistics and appears to be overestimated by at least 30%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The core issues of the Austrian energy policy agenda include reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Within this study, the costs of GHG mitigation and fossil fuel replacement (abatement costs) of established and upcoming bioenergy technologies for heat, electricity and transport fuel production are assessed. Sensitivity analyses and projections up to 2030 illustrate the effect of dynamic parameters on specific abatement costs. The results show that the abatement costs of wood-based heat generation technologies substituting oil-fired boilers and gas-fired heating plants, respectively, are in the range of −45 € per ton CO2-equivalent (€/t CO2-eq.) and −11 € per MWh higher heating value (€/MWhHHV) to 93€/t CO2-eq. and 24 €/MWhHHV. Heating systems around 50kW show the lowest abatement costs. For combined heat and power (CHP) plants, two different cases with regard to heat utilization are assumed. In an optimal mode (100% of generated heat displaces fossil fuel-based heat production), abatement costs of wood-based technologies, substituting electricity from modern combined cycle gas turbines, range from 5€/t CO2-eq. and 1€/MWhHHV to 201€/t CO2-eq. and 38 €/MWhHHV. Representative values of typical CHP plants with a capacity of 1MWel and more are in the magnitude of 50€/t CO2-eq. and 10 €/MWhHHV. Under less favorable conditions (3000 heat full load hours per year), abatement costs of typical plants are around 100€/t CO2-eq. and 17 €/MWhHHV higher. The costs of GHG mitigation and fossil fuel saving with established transport fuels (biodiesel and ethanol) range from 71€/t CO2-eq. and 8 €/MWhHHV to 200€/t CO2-eq. and 82 €/MWhHHV. For liquid fuels from lignocellulosis, abatement costs are estimated 147€/t CO2-eq. and 38 €/MWhHHV to 240€/t CO2-eq. and 59 €/MWhHHV. The abatement costs of synthetic natural gas are found to be significantly lower: 75€/t CO2-eq. and 14 €/MWhHHV to 128€/t CO2-eq. and 23 €/MWhHHV. The results suggest that heat generation and – given favorable conditions – CHP generation are the most cost-efficient options for reducing GHG emissions and fossil fuel dependence in Austria. A core advantage of CHP is higher quantities of abatement per unit of biomass used. In contrast, this is found to be the main drawback of synthetic transport fuels from wood. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this study, long-term perspectives for the Austrian bioenergy sector are analyzed. The focus is on the achievable contribution of biomass to the heat, electricity and transport fuel supply as well as to the total primary energy supply under different framework conditions. Also, the achievable GHG mitigation and the costs related to GHG reduction are assessed. The analyses are based on scenarios which are compiled with the simulation model Green-XBio-Austria. Within this model a myopic optimization of the bioenergy sector with regard to energy generation costs up to 2050 in eleven scenarios is carried out. The scenarios differ in the following aspects: the projections for fuel price development and for the energy demand as well as bioenergy policy measures assumed. The major conclusions are: With respect to greenhouse gas emission reduction and economic efficiency, the simulations make clear that bioenergy policies should focus on the promotion of heat an – to some extent – combined heat and power generation. A focus on liquid biofuels for transport has adverse effects on the development of the bioenergy sector due to increased competition for limited biomass resources. For significantly increasing the share of biomass in the Austrian energy supply, it is crucial to both subsidize bioenergy and reduce the overall energy consumption. In the case of highly increasing fossil fuel prices, the economics of bioenergy systems will improve significantly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Global biomass trade has risen sharply in recent decades. This development was accompanied by increasing concerns about adverse environmental impacts in exporting countries. In Austria, strong preference for food and bioenergy from domestic sources is prevalent, while especially biomass imports for energy are met with scepticism. We here investigate where biomass consumed in Austria originates from, and compare the source-region composition of biomass used for food, energy and material. High product-level detail is achieved by combining a physical consumption-based accounting approach with national statistics and process chain modelling. We find that 55% of the total biomass consumed in Austria originates from domestic forestry or agriculture and 30% from neighbouring countries. In all three use categories, the products with the largest biomass footprints (beef, pork, milk, cereal products, paper, wood fuels) are almost entirely sourced from Central Europe. Biomass originating from non-EU countries accounts for 7.6% of the primary biomass footprint and is most relevant for food (13%), primarily due to livestock feed imports. Although oil crop-based biofuels have relatively large primary biomass footprints overseas, bioenergy in Austria qualifies as more regional than food and material products. [Display omitted] • Analysis of Austria's total biomass consumption in raw material equivalents. • Focus on source regions of primary biomass for energy, food and material. • Overall biomass footprint is primarily located in Austria (55%). • Footprint abroad primarily in neighbouring countries (DE: 15%, CZ: 5%, HU: 4%). • Biomass for energy is more regional than food and biomass for material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban food consumption contributes significantly to global biodiversity loss. To ensure a sustainable food supply for the growing urban population a transformation of food production and consumption patterns is necessary. Here, options for reducing the food-related biodiversity footprint of Vienna (Austria), a high-income city in Europe were assessed regarding measures of product substitution, demand reduction through avoidance of waste and caloric overconsumption and a shift from imports to domestic production. The biodiversity footprints of 24 food consumption patterns were calculated with a life-cycle-assessment approach applying country- and primary biomass-specific factors for vertebrate species loss derived from a high-resolution global countryside species-area-relationship model that incorporates land-use intensity and spatially-explicit information on Vienna's source regions. Compared to the baseline food consumption in Vienna of 2010, diets with less animal products could reduce the footprint by 21%–43%, while waste reduction and adhering to the recommended caloric intake could reduce the footprint by 5% and 9%, respectively. Decreasing the demand for primary biomass under alternative diets could also free up domestic cropland and allow for reducing imports and relocating production from abroad to Austria. This could reduce Vienna's biodiversity footprint additionally by 5%–21%, depending on diet and demand level, due to comparatively higher yields and lower native species richness in Austria. Results further indicate that shifting towards a vegetarian diet requires the least product substitution per footprint reduction among the examined alternative diets. Substituting animal products with plant-based alternatives from area-efficient production systems located outside of biodiversity hotspots emerges as a promising strategy for Western cities to reduce their biodiversity footprint. [Display omitted] • Advancing urbanization makes food supply of cities a key lever for sustainability. • Diets with less animal products lower Vienna's biodiversity footprint by up to 43%. • 14% of the footprint are due to avoidable waste (5%) and overconsumption (9%). • Shifting from imports to domestic food can reduce Vienna's biodiversity footprint. • Reduced primary biomass demand allows for safeguarding biodiversity hotspots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]