Tag: anaerobic digestion

Feedback’s response to the ADBA’s article ‘Why you MUST invest in anaerobic digestion and biogas to build back greener’

6th Nov 20 by Martin Bowman, Senior Policy and Campaign Manager

Feedback provides some clarity and accuracy on our research findings on AD.

Feedback welcome the ADBA’s response to our Executive Director’s recent article in Responsible Investor – however, since the ADBA misrepresent our view and the issues, we hope that this response provides some clarity. For more info, read our report on AD.

A summary of Feedback’s advice to investors

Don’t invest in:

  • AD plants which run on bioenergy crops like maize or grass – even if these are co-digested
  • AD plants built on newly built or newly expanded intensive livestock farms
  • AD plants which lower the costs of animal waste disposal for intensive livestock farms
  • AD plants which process food waste edible to humans or animals
  • AD plants which charge little or nothing for waste disposal or actively pay for wastes, and thus disincentivise waste prevention

Do invest in:

  • AD plants which digest sewage feedstocks
  • AD plants which process only manures and slurries on smaller-scale more sustainable livestock farms
  • AD plants which take on unavoidable food waste which is not edible to humans or animals
  • AD plants which charge higher gate fees to take on food wastes or animal slurries


First, the points on which we agree: AD does have some role in a sustainable future, as a last-resort waste management option – as we argue in our report, there is a ‘sustainable niche’ for AD. AD is certainly better than landfill and incineration of food waste, and is preferable to open storage of manure and slurries – practices which should be heavily taxed and banned as soon as possible. To be clear, this will require some growth in the AD industry, and investment to this end – so it is sometimes sustainable to invest in AD, within limits and in some specific situations. We also agree that sewage treatment by AD is part of this sustainable niche. ADBA’s false claim that Feedback assume AD can only be used to treat food waste is misplaced – our report and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study on which it is based, examine bioenergy crops, manure and slurries too.

However, crucially we model two scenarios: the “industry driven AD” scenario in line with ADBA’s ambitions for AD industry growth, and the “climate optimised AD” scenario where environmentally preferable alternative uses for AD feedstocks are maximized (like food waste prevention) with remaining feedstocks used for AD. In the climate-optimised scenario, we model no bioenergy crops and about a third less food waste going to AD, and additionally we model a context where meat production (and thus availability of manure and slurries) is roughly halved – but all available slurries go to AD in both scenarios. The LCA found that the climate optimised scenario resulted in over double the emissions savings, as well as generating more energy (generated by solar PV on land previously used for bioenergy crops) and significantly higher food production on spared cropland.

ADBA’s presentation of AD as a “win-win-win-win” solution is a simplistic fantasy, although not a surprising stance to take for a body set up to promote the AD industry. Our ground-breaking LCA study, completed in collaboration with academic experts at Bangor University, shows a far more complex and nuanced picture, with some serious limitations to AD. Below, we highlight four key problems:

The first problem is that, as the ADBA acknowledge, AD is far less effective than waste prevention. In fact, preventing food waste results in 9 times more emissions savings than sending it to AD, and if trees are planted on the spared grassland, about 40 times more. The ADBA also often ignore animal feed – our LCA found that sending food waste to animal feed saves 3 times more emissions than sending it to AD. This makes food waste prevention, and using food waste as animal feed, far more effective green investments – and means that only unavoidable food waste inedible to both humans and animals should be sent to AD. Within the current legal framework, there is plenty of scope to increase the processing of food waste like bread for animal feeds – and EU-funded research found that it is possible to feed food waste containing meat to pigs and chickens safely, if EU law is reformed to allow this in a safely regulated fashion. When it comes to manures and slurries, these wastes can be prevented too – through shifts from meat to plant-based diets. For instance, switching from pig meat to a plant-based protein alternative such as tofu results in a 74% reduction in emissions and 80% in land use – land which can then be used for tree planting to offset emissions even further. The emissions savings from sending slurries to AD are far smaller in comparison – so investing in plant-based alternatives to meat would be a far greener investment, from pulses and beans to plant-based burgers and milks. Investors looking to green their portfolios should aim to support dietary shifts as a priority, with AD only used to mitigate the emissions of a smaller, more sustainable livestock sector.

The second problem is that high subsidies to AD create perverse incentives, sometimes actively impeding the better waste prevention alternatives mentioned above. It is completely disingenuous of the ADBA to claim that they are not advocating for high subsidies locked in for decades – their own report clearly advises that AD subsidies are returned to the very high levels of 2011-15, that large-scale AD is subsidised at the same high levels as small-scale plants, and that these be guaranteed for decades into the future. In Northern Ireland, AD subsidies at a similar high level to those advocated by the ADBA were explicitly designed as a means to support an explosion in the size of the country’s intensive livestock industry. Through reducing the industry’s waste disposal costs (even paying for their waste), enabling sites to gain planning permission and bypass environmental regulations, highly subsidised AD plants actually helped expand the polluting industry it was meant to be reducing the environmental effects of. In the case of food waste too, testimonies to a House of Lords enquiry complained that high AD subsidies created perverse incentives to send edible food to AD rather than ensure it is eaten, and Feedback has found many other instances of such complaints. In one case, Feedback’s investigations found an AD plant in a port that in a single day was processing an estimated 60,000 cucumbers, 10,000 figs, 4,000 cabbages and many other foods – which all appeared edible. In this context of distorting high subsidies, investments in some AD plants may thus actively prevent far more sustainable alternatives. The better way to make AD plants financially sustainable without creating these perverse incentives is to tax or ban worse alternatives to AD, such as incineration, landfill, and open manure storage, thus pushing up the supply of wastes to AD and gate fees they can charge for collection.

The third problem is that AD’s emissions mitigation potential significantly declines over time. This is a big problem, since AD plants often take decades of highly subsidised operation to break even on their high up-front costs. The reason for the decline is that as society decarbonises, the emissions that AD currently mitigates are often avoided by other means – for instance, as the electricity grid shifts to renewables, heat and transport are electrified, landfill and open manure storage are banned, AD begins to compare less and less favourably with alternatives. Our study found that some AD feedstocks like grass even begin to have a negative rather than positive environmental impact in a net zero context. This means that the green credentials of investments in AD will decline significantly over time. In comparison, food waste prevention, tree planting, dietary change and solar PV consistently far outperform AD in future decarbonisation contexts (see our report for more detail on this).

The final problem with AD is that, although the AD industry claim that they only want “unavoidable” wastes to go to AD, they have a strong incentive to downplay how much waste is “avoidable” to maximize their growth. The ADBA nowhere in its report mentions dietary shifts away from meat as an option and only currently support the UK’s unambitious voluntary targets on food waste, which pledge only a 24% reduction in post-farmgate food waste between 2015 and 2030. A 50% reduction in UK meat consumption, a genuine 50% reduction in UK food waste from farm to fork through ambitious regulation, and tree planting on the millions of hectares of land that would be spared by these measures, could together mean that UK agriculture could be net carbon negative by 2040 without recourse to BECCS. The AD industry is eager portray agriculture as “difficult to decarbonise” because it actively sidelines these more ambitious alternatives.


*Using 2007 as a baseline year, excluding inedible food waste, using per capita figures which also use a 2007 baseline year.

What can you do next?

Follow us on Instagram to see our work in action.

Follow us

Bad Energy? The truth about bioenergy crops

20th Oct 20 by Martin Bowman, Senior Policy and Campaigns Manager

There's no good reason to grow bioenergy crops for “green gas” – let’s grow delicious food, plant trees and build better renewables instead.

This is the second in a series of blog posts exploring the findings of our new report Bad Energy.

The UK’s food security has never been a higher priority – with Brexit looming, the question of how we’ll ensure we become less reliant on imports for what we eat has become a key question. The climate and biodiversity crises means we urgently need to reverse decades of deforestation and start restoring woodlands and habitats to draw down carbon from the atmosphere and create space for nature to regenerate – but whilst also ensuring everyone is fed. In this context, it seems mad to use valuable land to grow crops to burn them for energy. Anaerobic digestion (AD) – the process of producing “biogas” from organic matter like crops and wastes – has presented itself as the silver bullet to everything from producing green gas for heating and transport, to producing fertiliser for our crops. In this second part of our series on AD, we turn to the purpose-grown “bioenergy” crops which are grown especially for AD, and show that they have no role to play in a sustainable future.

Bioenergy crops, like maize and grass, are currently the most controversial feedstock processed by AD plants. The Soil Association has previously highlighted that 75% of sites with late harvested maize used for AD showed high or severe levels of soil erosion – concluding that maize has a “singularly harmful impact” on soils. Nearly a third of maize grown in England is grown as a bioenergy crop for AD. Our report shows that there are far better uses of land than bioenergy crops from almost every perspective. From the perspective of energy generation, we found that solar PV generates 12–18 times more energy per hectare than maize or grass grown for AD.

The AD industry aims to expand bioenergy crops to cover 282,900 hectares – this land could instead be used to grow enough peas to feed 1 million people per year. Grown in rotation, planting vining peas would be much better for soils than maize. Growing peas would also contribute to the UK’s vital shift away from meat intensive diets to eating more plant-based proteins. So from the perspective of food security and soil health, it makes more sense to use valuable cropland to grow food to feed people. The AD industry claims that land spared by preventing food waste could be freed up for bioenergy crops – but this would be a disaster, since this land too would be better used for planting trees, growing plant-based proteins, or for solar PV energy generation.

Growing grass as a bioenergy crop is particularly bad use of land – generating very little energy per hectare, and covering a large area resulting in indirect land use change. Grasses used for AD are often monocrop grasses grown on land which usually requires lots of synthetic fertiliser. Grass leys can increase soil carbon in depleted soils, although long-rotation perennial crops and forests do this more effectively. We found that planting trees saves 11.5 times more emissions per hectare than growing grass as a bioenergy crop, even in today’s context where energy from AD displaces some fossil fuels. In a net zero context, where we have transitioned to more renewables in our energy mix, using grass to feed AD plants actually causes net positive (extra) emissions, not savings:

You can also see from the above that growing maize for AD results in very low emissions savings per tonne by the net zero context. Since we will need to urgently shift to other renewable energy sources like wind and solar to avoid climate crisis, we will need to shift to this net zero context as soon as possible. Subsidies to AD would, therefore, be far better spent on alternatives. From every perspective – energy generation, food production or emissions mitigation – there are better alternative to bioenergy crops. Rather than locking in green gas, we need to focus on faster electrification of heat and transport wherever possible. A recent report found that the UK’s Heavy Goods Vehicles could be completely electrified by the 2030s, at an affordable cost of £19.3 billion. Despite this, the UK government continues to subsidise bioenergy crops for AD – albeit at a lower rate than for wastes (like food waste and manure) – paying out millions of pounds a year to some AD plants. These subsidies are generally locked in for 20 years after they are accepted – the only way for most AD plants to remain financially viable. This is a huge problem, as it effectively locks in subsidies for bioenergy crops for decades, despite the fact that their effectiveness at emissions mitigation is likely to drop dramatically during that time as we decarbonise the economy, and is already far worse than other alternatives. Worryingly, it seems like the government are poised to announce a massive increase in support for biomethane from AD plants. It is essential that public money should not go to support bioenergy crops – the government should focus its money on accelerating tree planting, plant-based proteins and solar PV construction, so that we all have enough to eat in a world safe from climate crisis. A better future demands it.


What can you do next?

Follow us on Instagram to see our work in action.

Follow us