Raman Sujatha, Mohr Alison, Helliwell Richard, Ribeiro Barbara, Shortall Orla, Smith Robert, Millar Kate
Institute for Science & Society (ISS), School of Sociology & Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.
Centre for Applied Bioethics (CAB), School of Biosciences and School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Biomass Bioenergy. 2015 Nov;82:49-62. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.022.
The paper clarifies the social and value dimensions for integrated sustainability assessments of lignocellulosic biofuels. We develop a responsible innovation approach, looking at technology impacts and implementation challenges, assumptions and value conflicts influencing how impacts are identified and assessed, and different visions for future development. We identify three distinct value-based visions. From a techno-economic perspective, lignocellulosic biofuels can contribute to energy security with improved GHG implications and fewer sustainability problems than fossil fuels and first-generation biofuels, especially when biomass is domestically sourced. From socio-economic and cultural-economic perspectives, there are concerns about the capacity to support UK-sourced feedstocks in a global agri-economy, difficulties monitoring large-scale supply chains and their potential for distributing impacts unfairly, and tensions between domestic sourcing and established legacies of farming. To respond to these concerns, we identify the potential for moving away from a one-size-fits-all biofuel/biorefinery model to regionally-tailored bioenergy configurations that might lower large-scale uses of land for meat, reduce monocultures and fossil-energy needs of farming and diversify business models. These configurations could explore ways of reconciling some conflicts between food, fuel and feed (by mixing feed crops with lignocellulosic material for fuel, combining livestock grazing with energy crops, or using crops such as miscanthus to manage land that is no longer arable); different bioenergy applications (with on-farm use of feedstocks for heat and power and for commercial biofuel production); and climate change objectives and pressures on farming. Findings are based on stakeholder interviews, literature synthesis and discussions with an expert advisory group.
本文阐明了木质纤维素生物燃料综合可持续性评估的社会和价值维度。我们开发了一种负责任的创新方法，着眼于技术影响和实施挑战、影响如何被识别和评估的假设及价值冲突，以及对未来发展的不同愿景。我们识别出三种不同的基于价值的愿景。从技术经济角度看，木质纤维素生物燃料有助于能源安全，与化石燃料和第一代生物燃料相比，其温室气体影响有所改善，可持续性问题更少，尤其是当生物质来自国内时。从社会经济和文化经济角度看，存在对在全球农业经济中支持英国原料供应能力的担忧、监测大规模供应链及其不公平分配影响的可能性的困难，以及国内原料供应与既定农业传统之间的紧张关系。为回应这些担忧，我们确定了从一刀切的生物燃料/生物精炼厂模式转向区域定制生物能源配置的潜力，这种配置可能会减少用于肉类生产的大规模土地使用、减少单一栽培以及农业的化石能源需求，并使商业模式多样化。这些配置可以探索调和粮食、燃料和饲料之间一些冲突的方法（例如将饲料作物与木质纤维素材料混合用于燃料、将牲畜放牧与能源作物结合，或使用芒草等作物来管理不再可耕种的土地）；不同的生物能源应用（包括农场内将原料用于供热和发电以及用于商业生物燃料生产）；以及气候变化目标和对农业的压力。研究结果基于利益相关者访谈、文献综述以及与专家咨询小组的讨论。
