Biomass May Be the Missing Piece in the Net-Zero Puzzle

Large parts of the global economy cannot be decarbonized through electricity alone. A new review published in Energies argues that this is where biomass and bioenergy deserve serious attention; not as a universal substitute for fossil fuels, but as a targeted tool for sectors where renewable carbon, liquid fuels, process heat, carbon removal and infrastructure compatibility matter most.

The study, "Defining the Interplay Between Energy Transition Challenges and Biomass Contributions: A Resource, Technology, and Environment Perspective," brings together evidence from peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, technical reports and expert discussions linked to the international seminar Energy Transition and Biofuels at the Federal University of Itajubá.

The study holds that biomass is not a climate cure-all. Its value depends on the feedstock, the technology, the region, the supply chain and the safeguards. Poorly governed bioenergy can intensify land pressure, water demand, biodiversity loss, fertilizer use and indirect land-use change. Well-governed bioenergy, on the other hand, can help diversify energy systems, support rural economies, cut fossil-fuel dependence and serve hard-to-abate sectors where other low-carbon options remain limited.

Electricity Cannot Do the Whole Job

Decarbonization is often presented as a shift from fossil fuels to renewable electricity. The review notes that aviation and maritime transport remain resistant to electrification because of high energy-density requirements, while cement and steel production rely on carbonaceous feedstocks in core industrial processes.

Unlike wind or solar, biomass is a renewable carbon source. It can be converted into liquid fuels, heat, power, chemicals, carbon-rich materials and carbon-removal pathways. The review argues that biomass is especially relevant where energy systems need dispatchable power, low-carbon process heat, drop-in fuels or compatibility with existing fuel infrastructure.

If countries design net-zero strategies around electrification alone, they may underinvest in solutions for aviation, industrial heat, long-distance transport, backup power and carbon-based materials. But if they overpromote bioenergy without safeguards, they risk creating new land, food and environmental pressures.

The strategic challenge is not whether biomass is good or bad. It is where biomass is genuinely useful, and where other solutions should take priority.

Bioenergy's Strongest Case Is in the Hardest Sectors

The review identifies several areas where biomass could play a credible role: sustainable aviation fuels, biomass-to-liquid routes, refinery co-processing, biochar, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biofuel-hybrid mobility, and hydrogen-biomass synergies. However, each pathway comes with different opportunities and constraints.

Sustainable aviation fuel is one of the clearest examples. Aviation is difficult to electrify at scale because aircraft require high-energy-density fuels. The study notes that SAF currently accounts for less than 0.3% of jet kerosene consumption, while demand could reach around 360 million tons by 2050 under a net-zero aviation scenario.

Certified SAF pathways exist, but scaling them will require investment, policy support, feedstock availability, low-carbon hydrogen, certification systems and stronger regulation. The review warns that current SAF deployment is constrained by high production costs, limited sustainable feedstocks, hydrogen demand and competition with other biomass uses.

Biochar and BECCS expand the climate argument beyond fuel substitution. Biochar has evolved from a soil amendment into a functional material for adsorption, catalysis and carbon management. BECCS, meanwhile, can theoretically deliver negative emissions by combining biomass conversion with carbon capture and storage. But the study is careful not to oversell either option. Biochar's climate value depends on feedstock origin, pyrolysis conditions, permanence and end-use performance, while BECCS is highly sensitive to land-use change, fertilizer-related nitrous oxide, biomass logistics, capture-energy penalties and storage integrity.

The Food-versus-Fuel Debate Needs Better Questions

Bioenergy remains politically sensitive because of the food-versus-fuel debate. The review does not dismiss those concerns. It states clearly that poorly governed expansion can worsen land pressure, water use, biodiversity loss, fertilizer demand and indirect land-use change. But it also argues that the debate is too often framed as a simple zero-sum contest between feeding people and producing energy.

The real issue is governance. Outcomes depend on crop choice, land type, yield growth, residue use, market conditions, access to land, water availability, biodiversity safeguards and whether bioenergy complements or displaces food production. The authors argue that food and energy production can coexist under strategic land use, residue utilization, yield improvement, waste reduction and strong governance — but only if local food security, soil carbon, water consumption, fertilizer inputs and indirect land-use change are explicitly assessed before expansion.

Many low- and middle-income economies have agricultural residues, degraded land, rural energy needs and bioeconomy potential. Bioenergy could support decentralized power, clean cooking, rural incomes and reduced fuel-import dependence. However, weak land governance could turn the same opportunity into a risk, especially where communities lack secure land rights or where monoculture expansion threatens biodiversity and food systems.

For Global South policymakers, the lesson is not to reject bioenergy outright, but to build safeguards before markets scale. It means land-use planning, feedstock certification, water assessment, community consent, transparent carbon accounting and investment in modern bioenergy systems that avoid the health and air-quality harms of traditional biomass use.

No Bioenergy Strategy Works Without Proof

Bioenergy must be proven through life-cycle evidence, not assumed to be green, the study warns. Life-cycle assessment is essential because emissions can occur across the entire chain: land preparation, fertilizer use, harvesting, transport, conversion, hydrogen inputs, co-products and end use. The study notes that LCA remains one of the best tools for identifying environmental hotspots, but it also warns that results can vary because of local data gaps, inconsistent system boundaries and assumptions about biogenic carbon neutrality.

The review highlights artificial intelligence and machine learning as tools for predicting biomass properties, optimizing conversion processes, forecasting yields, improving logistics and supporting sustainability assessment. Digital twins can also help monitor and optimize bioenergy systems in real time.

However, technology alone will not solve the governance problem. The study finds that the global bioenergy policy architecture is broad but uneven. Many international initiatives provide guidance, coordination or research support, but fewer create binding obligations, investment certainty, certification capacity or enforceable deployment mechanisms.

• Governments should avoid blanket subsidies and instead target bioenergy where it has clear comparative value: aviation, industrial heat, dispatchable energy, residue-based fuels, biochar, carbon management and rural energy access.
• Businesses and investors should watch feedstock certification, SAF supply chains, low-carbon hydrogen integration, logistics, biochar markets and AI-enabled optimization.
• Development agencies should focus on modern bioenergy models that support rural livelihoods without worsening land, food or forest pressures.

The review concludes that biomass should be treated neither as marginal nor indispensable. Its value depends on matching feedstocks, technologies, regions and policies. Future work should prioritize region-specific life-cycle assessments, stronger feedstock certification, hydrogen availability, low-carbon hydrogen integration and biomass logistics optimization.