Many of the technologies needed to reach net zero – including hydrogen, batteries, the electricity grid, and wind and solar power – require critical raw materials (CRMs) to function.

As the demand for CRMs such as cobalt, copper and lithium increases, the supply chain faces risks from limited availability, concentrated supply, global competition, and environmental and social impacts. These can lead to supply disruptions, price volatility, trade dependencies and wider strategic risks for governments and industry.

However, the transition to net zero also presents opportunities, including through circular economy approaches that can reduce supply-chain risks. Robust, coherent and evidence-based CRM policy is needed to support Scotland’s transition.

This report assesses Scotland’s future CRM needs, supply-chain risks and opportunities for action.

Key findings

• Global CRM demand is expected to outpace extraction, particularly for copper, lithium, nickel and rare earth elements. This may constrain Scotland’s net zero ambitions, as we aim to expand wind, solar, electric vehicles, hydrogen and other net zero technologies.
• Scotland is highly exposed to global CRM supply-chain risks, with extraction and processing concentrated in a small number of countries, particularly China.
• Geopolitical tensions, trade restrictions and price volatility could further disrupt supplies and increase the cost of delivering Scotland’s net zero transition.
• Recycling alone will not meet near-term demand, while Scotland has limited infrastructure when it comes to recovery, recycling, reprocessing and remanufacturing.
• Scotland has a strong foundation for improving the resilience of CRM supply chains, drawing on expertise in engineering, geology, mining, oil and gas and R&D, alongside existing net zero industries, port infrastructure and high ESG standards.
• Circular economy approaches could also improve resilience by extending the life of technologies, increasing material recovery and recycling, and developing domestic reprocessing and remanufacturing capacity.
• Three priorities for action emerge:
  • developing recycling, reprocessing and remanufacturing capability
  • improving data, traceability and material recovery
  • strengthening Scotland’s contribution to UK and international CRM policy and partnerships.

For further information, please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783. 

Photo by Andrew Dawes on Unsplash

Research completed: March 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7624

Executive Summary

Background

Critical raw materials (CRMs) are essential for many technologies needed to reach net zero, including wind and solar power, hydrogen, batteries, and the electricity grid. By 2030, the energy transition alone is expected to have increased global demand of CRMs by 3.5 times.

CRM supply chains face risks from limited availability, concentrated supply, global competition, and environmental and social impacts. This can lead to supply disruptions, price volatility, trade dependencies, and wider strategic risks for governments and industry.

However, the transition to net zero also presents significant opportunities, including through circular economy approaches that can reduce supply chain risks. There is a pressing need for robust, coherent and evidence-based policy on CRMs to support Scotland’s net zero transition.

The study combined evidence review, stakeholder engagement and modelling to assess Scotland’s future CRM needs. We also explore opportunities for action, particularly to support Scotland’s circular economy.

Key findings

Projected CRM needs for net zero technologies in Scotland

The expansion of net zero technologies is expected to drive rapidly increasing demand for the CRMs they require in the coming years. Scotland has ambitious policy targets across multiple net zero technology sectors. These include: an additional 10 Gigawatts (GW) of onshore wind by 2030; total 8-11 GW of offshore wind by 2030 and 40 GW by 2040; and total 4-6 GW of solar deployment by 2030. Electric vehicle (EV) sales are projected to reach 579,000 by 2030 and 3.4 million by 2050. Hydrogen production is expected to reach 5 GW by 2030 and 25 GW by 2045. The associated demand for seven of the CRMs in Scotland is shown in Table 1, based on our data modelling.

Aluminium, iron and niobium were not included in our modelling exercise, due to the scope and timeline constraints of our study, and the complexity and granularity of available data. Instead, we note here headline figures drawn from literature. For aluminium, total projected Scottish demand from 2023 to 2050 is 1,100 kt (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). For iron, total projected Scottish demand for the same period is 3 million tonnes (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). For niobium, only a snapshot global figure was found, of 103 kt in 2031 (Mordor Intelligence, 2026).

Key CRM supply chain risks 

Scotland is vulnerable to disruptions in global CRM supply chains. The biggest risks include:

• Geographical concentration of supply: For each of the CRMs examined, the top three countries account for over 50% of global extraction. Processing and refining are also geographically concentrated, with China particularly dominant.
  
• Demand outpacing supply: Global CRM demand is projected to increase faster than extraction. This could affect Scotland’s rollout of net zero technologies, particularly where copper, lithium, nickel and rare earth elements (REEs) are required.
  
• Geopolitical and economic tensions: Conflict, cartels and trade restrictions could disrupt the supply of several CRMs, including cobalt, manganese, nickel, REEs and lithium. These risks are heightened by geographically concentrated supply.
  
• Price volatility: Unpredictable prices can discourage investment in new CRM projects and are compounded by complex supply chains.
  
• Risks relating to recycling and recovered materials: Recovering CRMs from existing products can be difficult. While recycling rates are relatively high for some CRMs, such as nickel, aluminium, iron and copper, recycling alone is unlikely to meet near-term demand.
  
• Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) concerns: Many CRM reserves are located in areas with prominent ESG concerns related to water use, energy consumption, human and labour rights. This creates challenges for responsible and sustainable sourcing.
  

The most significant medium-term risks are concentrated supply chains, particularly China’s role in processing, and global demand growth for copper, lithium, nickel and REEs.

Scotland’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Figure 1 summarises the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats we identified for CRM supply and circular economy approaches in Scotland. Circular economy approaches could help mitigate some of the risks identified in Section 1.2.2.

Potential actions 

Scotland is in a strong position to use circular economy approaches to address CRM supply chain risks for the net zero transition. We have identified potential actions to address the risks, weaknesses and threats identified in Figure 1. These are summarised in Table 2.

Three priority themes emerged: developing recycling and reprocessing capability, improving data and traceability of materials, and strengthening Scotland’s contribution to UK and international CRM policy.

Abbreviations table

Introduction

Background and context

Critical raw materials (CRMs) are essential for technologies linked to the transition to low-carbon economies, including wind and solar power, hydrogen and batteries. Global demand for CRMs required for the energy transition alone is expected to increase by 3.5 times by 2030 (Green Alliance, 2024a) and supply chains face numerous challenges.

There is limited material availability, which is concentrated in few locations, alongside global competition for resources. CRM production has climate, environmental and social impacts. Implementation of circular approaches for recovering and reprocessing CRMs are lacking. All of this leads to supply vulnerabilities, price volatility, trade dependencies, and associated strategic risks for governments and industry.

Nevertheless, net zero offers significant opportunities for economic growth and job creation, including through circular economy (CE) approaches. For the purposes of this report, circular economy approaches include reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling, recovery and reprocessing of materials and components. Recovered and recycled materials are referred to collectively in some sections as ‘secondary supply’ or ‘secondary materials’. In this report, these terms refer to materials obtained from products, infrastructure or waste streams rather than from primary extraction. There is therefore a pressing need for robust, coherent and evidence-based policy on CRMs in Scotland, including through CE policies.

Several pieces of legislation, policies and strategies provide the Scottish context for this research. These are summarised in Table 10‑2 in ‎Appendix A. Key elements related to CRMs and CE approaches include:

• The United Kingdom (UK) Critical Minerals Strategy, which sets a vision and some targets) for the UK to secure critical minerals for economic growth and the clean energy transition. It recognises the role of CE, UK strengths in research and development and innovation, midstream processing and recycling, and the need for skills development, access to finance and investment. It also specifically notes Aberdeen and Fort William as promising regional clusters.
  
• The Scottish Green Industrial Strategy, which aims to build supply chain resilience, including through CE approaches to secure CRMs for the energy transition. It notes recycling/remanufacturing of wind economy facilities as a particular opportunity.
  
• The Scottish Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan, which notes a commitment to adopting CE approaches to sourcing materials, including recycling and refurbishment of wind turbines and electric vehicle battery recycling.
  
• The Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029, which notes the need to explore how recycling and remanufacturing can build supply chain resilience regarding CRMs for the energy transition.
  
• The Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland, which aims to make the Scottish economy more resilient to disruptions in global supply of materials, including CRMs. It includes a priority to maximise the role of CE for CRMs in Scotland, and notes energy infrastructure and transport as priority sectors of relevance. It also points to key policy levers available to take action, including: business support, behaviour and systems change, place-based approaches, procurement, due diligence, skills and education, data improvements, and greater policy alignment.

Several UK and Scottish strategies recognise the importance of critical raw materials and circular economy approaches for the net zero transition. However, while a number of relevant strategies exist, Scotland does not yet have a dedicated strategic approach to critical raw materials. This creates challenges for policy coordination, prioritisation and long-term planning across the CRM supply chain.

Report aims and structure

The aim of this research is to increase understanding of CRM supply chain needs and risks in Scotland for renewable and net zero technologies (NZTs), and to explore the role of CE in mitigating these needs and risks. We address the following questions:

1. What is the current and projected CRM demand associated with Scotland’s renewable and NZTs?
2. What are the most significant risks to these CRM supply chains over the medium-term time horizon (2025-2040) relevant to Scotland’s renewables and net zero sectors? At what stages of renewable deployment do these risks lie?
3. What are the key economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with CRMs, especially in the context of a CE for Scotland?
4. How can the Scottish Government and public sector bodies support CE activity and other measures that strengthen the resilience of CRM supply chain?

Methodology

This research adopted a mixed methods approach, including evidence review, stakeholder engagement and modelling. More detail is provided in ‎‎Appendix B, and ‎Appendix C with regards to our modelling.

Selection of focus CRMs

We selected the CRMs to focus on for this project from the United Kingdom (UK) 2024 Criticality Assessment’s list of 34 CRMs (Mudd et al, 2024), plus copper. Key considerations included:

• The relevance of each CRM to a list of NZTs provided by the Steering Group (See ‎‎Appendix B)
• The comparative importance of NZTs in Scotland, cross-checked with the National Energy Systems Operator Future Energy Scenarios. These led to a priority list of NZTs: on/offshore wind, hydrogen/fuel cells, batteries, the grid and solar/Photovoltaics
• The UK criticality score for each CRM
• The presence of the CRMs on other countries’ criticality lists (the European Union, United States of America, Canada and Australia)

Based on this, we selected ten focus CRMs: aluminium, cobalt, lithium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, niobium, rare earth elements (REEs) and silicon. This list captures some of the most critical battery metals (cobalt, nickel, lithium), crucial materials for motors and wind turbines (REEs) and for solar, grid infrastructure, and emerging hydrogen technologies (silicon, aluminium, iron, manganese, niobium), and copper, which will be vital for wider electrification.

Ten CRMs were selected for review, with quantitative modelling undertaken for seven where sufficient data were available. The modelled CRMs were cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, nickel, REEs and silicon.

Review of literature and stakeholder engagement

We identified eight key pieces of Scottish and UK legislation and policy, together with around 70 pieces of potentially useful academic and grey literature from over 30 different organisations and authors.

The stakeholder engagement phase comprised an online survey and a series of semi-structured online interviews. The survey contained sections related to specific CRMs, technologies and supply chain risks. We focused on addressing knowledge gaps from the literature review. We received 17 responses from a mix of private sector companies, public and private research institutions, industry associations, civil society organisations, and academia. An explanation of how we cite the survey responses throughout the report can be found in ‎Appendix B.

We also carried out nine semi-structured online interviews. Interviewees were chosen to achieve a balance between Scottish, UK and international expertise, different backgrounds (academia, business/industry, public sector and non-governmental organisations) and areas of knowledge.

Modelling of CRM supply and demand

We modelled future predicted supply and demand of seven CRMs in NZTs at three geographical levels: in Scotland, the rest of the UK, and the rest of the world. The aim was to gain insights into future supply and demand threats and opportunities. The CRMs included in our modelling are cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, nickel, REEs and silicon. Datasets used at all three geographical levels are the annual uptake rates for NZTs, quantities of CRMs used in NZTs, and average lifetime of NZTs.

We compiled and analysed available global level data on annual primary and secondary production of CRMs, and demand for CRMs in non-NZT applications. Our findings include projections for annual CRM demand per NZT at the three geographical levels, annual net CRM availability for NZTs only for Scotland and more broadly, and annual NZT end-of-life quantities for Scotland and the rest of the UK. The full methodology, data sources and set of assumptions for our modelling are provided in ‎Appendix C.

Limitations

Our research faced some limitations. These are noted briefly here, and discussed in more detail in ‎Appendix B and Appendix C.

We focused on only 10 CRMs (seven for our modelling exercise), and a subset of NZTs. The report should therefore not be seen as providing a full picture regarding all 34 UK CRMs plus copper, nor being across all NZTs.

The modelling also assumes that Scottish and UK policy ambitions for deployment of net zero technologies are achieved. Actual deployment rates may differ due to changing policy priorities, market conditions, investment decisions or implementation constraints. Results should therefore be interpreted as indicative scenarios rather than forecasts of what will necessarily occur.

We also found limited Scotland-specific data sets, meaning that in some cases we rely on very limited Scottish data sets, or UK-wide or global data. This is specified where appropriate in the report.

Given the relatively low response rate to our survey, and limited set of interviews, the full range and nuance of stakeholder opinion may not be reflected.

Our modelling exercise also faced some key uncertainties. These include difficulties in identifying the future speed and volume of NZT uptake, the quantity of CRMs in NZTs and how this may change over time (e.g. with new technological developments), and the availability of primary CRMs. See ‎Appendix C for a full discussion of modelling limitations.

Current and projected CRM needs for Scotland

The expansion of renewable and net zero energy technologies will result in rapidly increasing demand for the associated CRMs (Jolly, 2024). This chapter sets out the predicted future roll-out of NZTs in Scotland, and the associated CRM requirements. Additional detail, where appropriate, is included in ‎Appendix D.

Net zero technology projections

Onshore wind

An additional 10 Gigawatts (GW)^[1] of Scottish onshore wind capacity will be installed by 2030 (Scottish Government, 2023), with a further 20 GW by 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). A steep growth in annual onshore wind installed capacity is necessary for Scotland to meet its 2030 ambitions (see Figure 2). In Q2 2025, onshore wind represented 59% of Scotland’s cumulative installed renewable electricity generation capacity, at 10.4 GW (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2025a).

Offshore wind

Operational offshore wind capacity is set to increase from 1.9 GW in June 2022 to between 8 and 11 GW of installed capacity by 2030 (Scottish Government, 2023). A Scottish Government consultation that closed in August 2025 includes proposals to increase capacity to 40 GW by 2040 (Scottish Government, 2025b). In Q2 2025, offshore wind – both seabed and floating – accounted for 24% of Scottish cumulative installed renewable electricity generation capacity, at 4.3 GW (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2025a).

Solar photovoltaic (PV)

The Scottish Government announced in 2023 an ambition for solar deployment of 4-6 GW by 2030 (Martin, 2023). As of Q2 2025, Solar PV represented 4% of Scotland’s cumulative installed renewable electricity generation capacity, at 764 Megawatts (MW) (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2025a).

In Q2 2025, Scotland’s total electricity capacity from wind and solar was 15.5 GW. The additional wind and solar capacity would increase this to around 35 GW in 2030, and 85 GW in 2050. Figure 2 shows projected new annual capacity installations, for on-shore and off-shore wind, solar, and the associated battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Electricity Grid

A significant increase to grid transmission and distribution infrastructure will be required to enable distribution of the increased electricity supply (Jackson et al., 2024). Scotland’s more remote regions are becoming increasingly important for energy production as wind power capacity grows, necessitating upgrades to grid infrastructure in these regions. Additionally, the Scottish grid may need to be upgraded to cope with additional connections of electric vehicles (EVs), heat pumps and low-carbon energy generation.

To meet the grid requirements for the roll-out of renewable energy and other planned upgrades, the United Kingdom (UK) Critical Materials Intelligence Centre estimates the UK will need up to 1.6 million tonnes (Mt) of copper, and 300 kilotonnes (kt) of aluminium between 2023 and 2050 (Jackson et al., 2024). As over 90% of new onshore and 75% of new offshore wind installations in the UK from 2025-2030 are forecast to be in Scotland, this adds considerably to Scotland’s total forecasted copper and aluminium needs (see Section 5.2 for details).

Electric vehicle batteries

Under the UK’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, which applies to Scotland, the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be phased out by 2030, and hybrid cars and vans with internal combustion engines by 2035 (Department for Transport et al., 2025). Additionally, the Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan contains a target to phase out all petrol and diesel vehicles – including heavy-goods vehicles – by 2050 (Scottish Government, 2025a).

In Q2 2025, there were 141,967 EVs in Scotland. According to Zero Waste Scotland, the net zero transition will require the number of EVs in Scotland to reach 579,000 by 2030 and 3.4 million by 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). Figure 3 shows projected annual EV sales required to meet the 2030 and 2050 net-zero requirements.

Given the limited EV battery manufacturing that takes place in Scotland, the majority of demand for CRMs for EVs is in the form of finished products, rather than for domestic manufacturing.

Hydrogen and fuel cells

The Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan outlines the Scottish Government’s plan to scale up low-carbon hydrogen production to 5 GW by 2030, and 25 GW by 2045 (Scottish Government, 2023). 57% of the UK’s currently proposed green hydrogen capacity is in Northern Scotland (National Energy System Operator, 2025). Figure 4 shows projected annual hydrogen installations required to meet the 2030 and 2045 targets.

Similarly to EV batteries, hydrogen fuel cell production in Scotland is limited, and thus reliance on CRMs for their increased usage will also be predominantly in the form of finished products rather than raw materials.

CRM demand in net zero technologies

‎Information on projected demand for each CRM is detailed below. ‎Appendix D details the CRMs used in each of the NZTs included in this research. We note that one Zero Waste Scotland report mapping material demand for energy infrastructure (2023b) provides much of the data, since it contained the most complete Scottish data in our reviewed literature. Graphs are included for the CRMs included in our modelling exercise.

Aluminium

Aluminium is widely used in renewable and NZTs, including wind, hydrogen, solar, batteries and the grid. Given the necessary growth of these technologies in the pursuit of net zero, an increase in aluminium supply will be required to meet demand from the renewable energy sector through to 2050.

Zero Waste Scotland estimated that up to 1,100 kt of aluminium will be required for installation and life extension of renewable energy technologies between 2023 and 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). However, this estimate is caveated by a lack of confidence in related capacity forecasts, including those for hydropower and hydrogen. 300 kt of aluminium will be needed for grid upgrades across the UK from 2023-2050 (Jackson et al., 2024), with at least half of this required by 2030.

Zero Waste Scotland analysis has concluded that only a small increase in the volume of total UK aluminium imports would be required to meet demand for NZTs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Cobalt

Cobalt and related oxides are predominantly used in the production of batteries. Given projected EV sales and battery storage installations, our modelling shows that annual cobalt requirements for these two technologies in Scotland is projected to approach 700 tonnes (t) in 2030, even as cobalt content in EV batteries is projected to decline.

Projected UK demand for cobalt varies widely based on future battery chemistry scenarios but could reach 11.2 kt by 2030 (Task & Finish Group, 2023). Another study places the cobalt demand for batteries across the UK at 11 kt by 2030 (Lusty et al., 2022).

Copper

Copper is used widely in renewable technologies, including wind power, solar power, batteries and in the grid. It is also widely used in heat pumps (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Our modelling shows that copper demand in NZTs is projected to approach 38 kt in 2030, driven primarily by grid and wind power needs. One MW of offshore wind requires nearly 3 times the copper of onshore wind, meaning copper needs in Scotland for the two technologies are nearly identical in 2030, despite new onshore wind capacity in 2030 being over double that of offshore (2,575 MW vs 917 MW, respectively).

Zero Waste Scotland research estimates that cumulatively 1,300 kt of copper will be needed in Scotland to meet demand for installation and life extension of renewable technologies through to 2050. This means that by 2050 Scotland would annually require double the copper that was imported into the UK in 2023 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Cumulative UK-wide demand for copper to 2050 is set to reach 2.4 million tonnes (Mt), equal to 30-fold growth from 2024 levels (Petavratzi et al., 2024c). This is driven by demand in growth for heat pumps (1.34 Mt), traction motors for EVs (626 kt) and wind turbines (402 kt) (Lusty et al., 2022).

In the short term, substitution of copper with other materials will be difficult, meaning increased demand cannot be alleviated through alternative material selection (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023e).

Iron

Iron and its alloy steel are also used across wind power, solar power, hydrogen, batteries and grid infrastructure. Research estimates that 3 Mt of iron will be required in Scotland to meet renewable energy technology demand through to 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). An 11% increase of iron and steel is set to be required by Scotland by 2050, based on UK import figures from 2023 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Lithium

Lithium is predominantly used in EV batteries and battery storage systems. Average lithium content in EV batteries is projected to increase over time, so more will be needed to achieve Scottish EV targets and the battery storage required for solar and wind electricity. Our modelling shows that in 2030, Scotland is projected to require 1,200 t of lithium in the form of new EV batteries and battery storage.

By 2030 Scotland may require as much as 150% more lithium-cobalt (Li-Co) – the oxide used in EV batteries – than was imported into the UK as a whole in 2020, owing to growth in EV usage (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Manganese

Modelling shows that Scotland is projected to require over 3,400 t of manganese in 2030 to meet its NZT ambitions, with manganese being required in the production of wind turbines and associated battery storage. It is also required in the production of battery cathodes in EVs.

Annual UK demand for manganese from batteries is forecast to reach 10 kt by 2030 (Lusty et al., 2022). Projected cumulative demand for manganese from EVs in the UK between 2018 and 2040 has been estimated at 493,632 t (Jolly, 2024).

Nickel

Nickel is used across wind power, solar power, hydrogen and batteries. Nonetheless, its demand is predominantly driven by EV sales, given its use in battery cathodes (Petavratzi et al., 2024c).

Modelling shows that in Scotland, the demand for nickel in NZTs in 2030 is projected to be over 5,000 t, of which 70% is due to EV sales. The UK’s annual demand for nickel for batteries production is forecast to reach 90 kt by 2030 (Lusty et al., 2022).

Niobium

Niobium is widely used within renewable energy technologies, for example within high grade steel, which is used within wind turbines, towers and pipelines (Oakdene Hollins, 2014). Niobium also has the potential for increasing usage in battery anode materials to improve battery stability and fast charging (Kim, et al., 2021).

The reviewed literature did not contain any concrete figures on current Scottish or UK niobium demand, supply or projections relevant to NZTs. One industry source forecasts that global niobium demand will rise from 79.68 kt in 2025 to 103.18 kt by 2031, driven in part by hydrogen pipeline expansion and niobium-doped Li-ion batteries (Mordor Intelligence, 2026).

Rare Earth Elements (REEs)

REEs such as neodymium and dysprosium are used to produce permanent magnets and generators for use in wind turbines, as well as in electric motors (Task & Finish Group, 2023). They are also used within fuel cell catalysts for the generation of hydrogen power. REE demand worldwide is expected to increase three- to seven-fold by 2040 (Arup, 2024).

Cumulative UK demand by 2050 for REEs has been estimated at 57,300 t, the majority of which is set to be driven by growth in the number of wind turbines (Petavratzi et al., 2024c). Installing 75 GW of offshore wind energy in the UK would require 93 kt of permanent magnets – since these magnets are typically 28.5% neodymium and 4.4% dysprosium, it is clear that growth of the UK wind sector is heavily dependent on these materials (Task & Finish Group, 2023).

In Scotland, REE demand in NZTs is driven primarily by use in magnets in offshore wind turbines. Two-thirds of the 300 t of REEs projected to be required in 2030 for NZTs are driven by new offshore wind installations. Over 300% more neodymium per year is forecast to be required for Scotland to meet its targets for onshore and offshore wind by 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

Silicon

Silicon has a variety of uses in renewable energy technologies, including battery anode doping, in semiconductors, and in solar cells (Task & Finish Group, 2023).

Modelling shows over 2,500 t of silicon are projected to be required in 2030 for Scotland to meet its net zero ambitions. This is driven predominantly by use in solar electricity generation.

Cumulative demand for silicon in the UK from NZTs is forecast to reach 283.6 kt by 2050, fuelled by growth in PV cells (Petavratzi et al., 2024c). UK demand for silicon from solar PV alone is estimated at 190 kt by 2050 (Petavratzi et al, 2024b).

6. Global CRM supply for Scotland’s net zero technologies

The modelling in this section draws on the global supply chain analyses detailed in ‎Appendix E. See ‎Appendix C for modelling methods, data and assumptions.

For the purposes of this analysis, availability reflects modelled estimates of future global supply relative to projected demand under the assumptions described in Appendices C and E. Availability should therefore be interpreted as an indicator of potential supply pressure rather than a prediction of future shortages.

Scotland’s ambitious 2030 target for onshore wind means that near-term availability of CRMs is of critical importance. As shown in Figure 6‑9, net global copper availability may be a risk to Scotland achieving this target. In the longer term, net copper availability is predicted to decline from 2029 onwards. REE availability is also constrained from 2030, putting longer-term onshore wind projects at risk.

Scotland has large long-term offshore wind ambitions, making the long-term availability CRMs of key concern for offshore wind. In particular, the long-term global supply constraints of copper, nickel and REEs could threaten Scotland’s 2040 offshore wind ambitions.

The near-term global availability of copper is a concern for Scotland to achieve its solar target of 4-6 Gigawatts (GW) installed capacity by 2030, as shown in Figure 6‑11.

Scotland’s battery storage ambitions are potentially constrained by the short-term supply constraints of copper and lithium, and longer-term constraints on copper, lithium and nickel. As battery storage is required to optimise the functioning of wind and solar farms, constraints in battery storage CRMs pose a risk to Scotland achieving its renewable energy targets.

Achieving Scotland’s EV ambitions involves a continuous annual increase in EV sales out to 2040. Copper and lithium supply constraints in the near term, and copper, lithium, nickel and REE constraints in the long term, pose risks to the achievement of EV rollout at the required speed and scale.

The rollout of hydrogen production is dependent on the global availability of nickel, and is increasingly at risk into the medium- and long-term as net nickel availability is predicted to decline.

Scotland’s long-term heat pump ambitions are at risk from the predicted lack of long-term availability of copper and REEs. The heat pump deployment assumptions used in this analysis are set out in Appendix C.

Overall, the modelling suggests that Scottish net zero deployment ambitions may be exposed to constraints in several global CRM supply chains. Potential vulnerabilities are evident for copper, lithium, nickel and rare earth elements, although the significance varies by technology and time period. Copper is of particular relevance, as potential supply constraints are identified across multiple technologies including wind, solar, battery storage, electric vehicles and heat pumps. These findings highlight the importance of understanding wider CRM supply chain risks, which are explored in the following chapter.

Significant CRM supply chain risks

As part of an island nation with limited resource deposits (Task & Finish Group, 2023), Scotland is highly vulnerable to any disruptions in the global CRM supply chain (Lusty et al., 2022). We have identified several key threats to CRM supply in the short- to- medium-term, which are discussed below. Throughout the chapter, we acknowledge where these threats are interconnected and may exacerbate the risk of another. We also note how they relate to deployment of NZTs. Where relevant, we discuss when issues are a significant concern only for particular CRMs.

Geographical concentration of supply

Supply of CRMs is geographically concentrated across multiple stages of the supply chain, which are addressed separately below. ‘Extraction’ refers to the mining and extraction of raw CRMs from deposits. ‘Processing and refining’ refers to any post-mining activity whereby value is added or materials are upgraded from their virgin state (Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025). Finally, trade refers to the import and export of both raw and refined CRMs.

Extraction

As Figure 19 shows, extraction of CRMs is highly concentrated in a few countries globally, on which the United Kingdom (UK) and Scotland are dependent for imports (Petavratzi et al, 2024a; Zils et al, 2024a; Ross & Wright, 2025). The top three countries for each of our focus CRMs constitute over 50% of global extraction (Petavratzi et al, 2024a), exacerbating the risk of other threats such as geopolitical and economic tensions. Figure 20 shows the share of global CRM extraction by country.

Copper extraction is dominated by Chile (Arup, 2024) and other south American countries including Brazil (Bielowicz, 2025).

Although cobalt extraction remains highly concentrated, production is expanding in other countries, reducing reliance on a single dominant source. At the same time, China’s growing role within the cobalt supply chain is expected to reinforce its broader influence across global CRM markets (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Ross & Wright, 2025).

Lithium extraction is similarly concentrated among a small number of countries, with extraction shares shifting over time between leading exporters, reflecting evolving supply dynamics within global markets (Petavratzi et al, 2024a).

Whilst nickel extraction is dominated by Indonesia (Arup, 2024) following rapid and large expansion in recent years (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023b), Russia and South Africa were also key exporters of nickel in 2025 (Bielowicz, 2025).

Extraction of aluminium and iron is dominated by a limited number of countries. Scotland relies significantly on imported steel, particularly from China, South Korea and several European countries (EUROFER, 2024).

Rare Earth Element (REE) extraction is particularly concentrated globally, with 90% of supply coming from three countries: China, Myanmar and Australia. An academic stakeholder highlighted that China’s dominance in REEs in particular leaves Scotland’s net zero transition vulnerable to potential geopolitical disruptions, due to a lack of strong alternative supply chains. This concern was also raised by other stakeholders, despite emerging REE projects in other countries including Norway, Finland, Greenland, Angola, and the US.

The geographical concentration of CRMs was a concern raised by interviewees across all stakeholder groups. China’s current dominance across extraction of all CRMs (Petavratzi et al, 2024a), and across full CRM supply chains, was specifically noted as a concern by five interviewees. China’s approach to CRM supply is unpredictable. For example, its foreign trade policy for CRMs is still under review (Beijing Newsroom, 2026), and the example of the Chinese ban on plastic waste imports in 2017 highlights the significant global impact its policies can have (Sommer, 2024). China also banned exports of certain CRMs to the United States of America (USA) in response to trade tensions (Lv & Munroe, 2024), further illustrating potential risks for the UK and Scotland related to global uncertainty alongside supply chain concentration.

Research sector interviewees agreed that reliance on imports linked to supply chain vulnerabilities including geographical concentration, geopolitical tensions and environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns is a particular risk for Scotland. A lack of current potential domestic mining opportunities was noted by research sector and academic stakeholders in interviews. However, it was still felt the UK Critical Minerals Strategy (UK Government, 2025) aim of 10% domestic production for selected minerals is achievable. Potential for domestic extraction is discussed further in ‎8.1.1.

Processing and refining

CRM processing and refining is also geographically concentrated (Mudd et al, 2024; Petavratzi et al, 2024a; Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025). For example, Figure 21 highlights China’s dominance in mid-stream CRM processing. An academic interviewee noted that China dominates production and processing of both light and heavy REEs. Other important processing and refining countries for each CRM in the scope of this study are also shown in Figure 21.

Processing and refining were perceived to be more of a bottleneck than extraction by interviewees in the research sector. Two interviewees from academia and technical institutes noted that the UK has limited processing and refining operations and is therefore dependent on the global supply chain. However, a 2025 research report conducted for the Department for Business and Trade indicates otherwise. It states that the UK has a strong reputation for refining REEs, aluminium and nickel, and also has activity in refining copper, iron, and silicon (Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025). These activities do still rely on imports for their materials, and the report notes that capacity is not strong enough to influence global markets. Excluding secondary CRM recycling and recovery, the report lists five active UK refineries relevant to the CRMs covered by this report, and a further two relevant processing plants (Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025).

Trade

Trade in imports and exports of CRMs is also geographically concentrated, affecting supply security (Zils et al, 2024a). Table 3 details the main importing and exporting countries for selected CRMs, and the share of the market they hold in each case, illustrating the concentration in trade systems.

^a China made up over 50% in these cases (Petavratzi et al, 2024a; Petavratzi et al, 2024b).

In terms of suppliers, five companies are responsible for 75% of global lithium chemical production (Task & Finish Group, 2023). It is unclear whether the market is similarly dominated by few companies for other CRMs.

It should be noted that, typically, component and product manufacturing involving CRMs, such as wind turbine components and electrolysers, is less geographically concentrated (Zils et al, 2024a). Further exploration on this is an important area for further research.

Increase in demand outpacing supply

Supply and demand

Another risk to CRM supply chains is the increase in demand outpacing supply rates, as shown in our modelling detailed in ‎Appendix E. We find varied urgency between CRMs, which is supported by other analyses (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023a; Ghorbani et al., 2024). Demand outpacing supply is partly due to net zero transitions requiring significant amounts of CRMs (Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025), which a large majority of survey respondents agreed was a factor affecting global demand. CRM demand in NZTs is discussed in Section ‎5.2.

Projected increases in demand over the next 10 to 15 years are not being met by an equivalent increase in extraction projects (Arup, 2024). This is reflected by relatively low production rates for many CRMs (Simas et al, 2022).

It should be noted that supply shortfalls do not necessarily equate to a lack of resources or reserves (see section 6.2.2). Current annual extraction rates can be maintained for 37 years for copper, 30 years for cobalt, 85 years for lithium, 31 years for nickel, and 413 years for REEs (Arup, 2024). However, increased extraction rates are needed to meet growing demand. Current projections of CRM supply would only meet 30-40% of global demand by 2050 (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a). This is a particular threat for copper, lithium and REEs which face the risk of supply gaps. These are also the materials that emerge most consistently in the modelling analysis presented in Chapter 6.

Details of supply and demand for each material are set out in ‎Appendix D.

Risks to new CRM extraction

Bringing new CRM supply on-stream is a risk due to long lead times for mining projects (Ghorbani et al., 2024; Jackson et al., 2024; Ross & Wright, 2025). Typically, only 0.1% of mineral exploration projects become mines (Task & Finish Group, 2023). A majority of survey respondents saw this as a factor affecting global CRM demand. For example, new lithium mines have a shorter lead time than other CRMs, but can still take between four and seven years to become operational (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023d). Lead times can be 15-20 years for copper mines (Simas et al, 2022; Energy Transitions Commission, 2023e), 13-19 years for nickel and 10-20 years for REEs (Simas et al, 2022). Plans to increase exploration and expand reserves (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a) are further inhibited by geographical or political inaccessibility of reserves, such as those within protected areas, dense forest, or indigenous land (Arup, 2024), or mineral supply and investment plans that fall short of net zero energy needs (International Energy Agency, 2022; Energy Transitions Commission, 2023e).

One survey respondent from business/industry emphasised that new projects can be inhibited by artificially depressed market prices. When dominant supply countries like China purposefully flood the market with cheap CRMs, new extraction becomes economically unviable, allowing the country to retain dominance. One research sector interviewee noted the same applies for production of certain key components, such as EV batteries.

Declining quality of mineral reserves (International Energy Agency, 2022; Ross & Wright, 2025) also poses increasing risk, especially for the supply of low volume, high specification materials (Oakdene Hollins, 2014). Around one-third of survey respondents felt this affects global CRM demand, with one respondent noting this was mainly a concern for copper, which is nearing peak production due to declining ore quality and reserve exhaustion (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023e; Arup, 2024). There are also challenges in supply of the high-purity class 1 nickel and refined nickel sulphate used in batteries (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023b).

ESG concerns are also relevant, with expanded mining activities bringing a risk of local issues relating to mining conditions, human rights, and child labour concerns (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Bielowicz, 2025; Energy Transitions Commission, 2023c). This was seen as a factor affecting global demand for CRMs by around half of survey respondents (see Section 6.6).

Geopolitical and economic tensions

The threat of conflict impacting the supply of CRMs is a risk for many countries, particularly in the upstream and mid-stream stages of the supply chain (SFA Oxford, 2023; Mudd et al, 2024), a concern reiterated by several stakeholders. For example, there is a threat of mineral cartels and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a dominant cobalt producer (Ross & Wright, 2025; Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Arup, 2024). Around one-third of survey respondents identified cartelisation in key supplier countries as a threat to CRM supply chain resilience. Geopolitical issues are also likely to lead to supply and price volatility (Ross & Wright, 2025). A large majority of survey respondents agreed this is a threat, and a majority felt local or regional conflicts would also impact CRM supply chain resilience in the next 5-10 years. Stakeholder views are backed by historical examples, such as a recent coup d’etat in Gabon disrupting manganese supply, and civil war in Zambia affecting cobalt as noted by one research sector stakeholder. It is also important to note that any country with significant CRM reserves has the potential to capitalise on the net-zero transition to become more geopolitically influential, even if they are not currently exploiting this (Ghorbani et al., 2024).

Similarly, geographically concentrated supply, both for extraction and refining, is vulnerable to the threats of trade restrictions such as export bans and protectionism (SFA Oxford, 2023; Task & Finish Group, 2023; Ross & Wright, 2025). For example, nickel ore export from the Philippines is subject to a licensing agreement and fiscal tax, while nickel ore and concentrate export from Indonesia has been banned by their government since 2020. Similarly, cobalt ores and concentrates from the DRC are subject to various licensing agreements and export taxes (Petavratzi et al., 2024c). Producers of REEs have also historically restricted output to attempt to draw refineries into the country and exercise more control over the value chain, triggering price spikes and stockpiling (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b; Metabolic et al., n.d.). This is currently a particular concern regarding China’s dominance in REE and lithium production (Fletcher & Olaniyi, 2024), a view corroborated by a research sector interviewee. Protectionism and trade and investment barriers are also increasingly seen from the USA and the European Union (Ross & Wright, 2025), with almost all survey respondents agreeing this poses a risk to CRM supply chain resilience in the next 5-10 years. Around half of the respondents felt this impact would be significant, with both academic and business interviewees identifying it as a threat.

Price volatility

CRM price volatility can act as a significant barrier to investment in new projects, and threaten a stable and secure supply of CRMs (Oakdene Hollins, 2014; Arup, 2024; Bide et al., 2022). Around half of the survey respondents felt this issue would have significant impact. CRM prices are highly dependent on demand as well as the other risks set out in this section. For example, as EV demand increased between 2020-2022, so did battery metal prices, though this will also be influenced by other contextual factors and does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship. The price of battery-grade lithium increased by 500%+, and cobalt by 95%. Equally, as demand subsided with a worsening economic outlook in 2023, so did market prices. The price of lithium was down 75%, cobalt down 50% as of November 2023 (Task & Finish Group, 2023).

This threat is exacerbated by the complex, dynamic, opaque and fragmented nature of global supply chains (Task & Finish Group, 2023; Ghorbani et al., 2024; Mudd et al, 2024). These global factors make it hard to predict changes in these small, equally opaque markets (Bide et al., 2022). For example, CRMs are often not traded on futures markets such as the London Metals Exchange, so there is little transparent information on market-wide demand, supply and prices (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a).

Risks relating to secondary supply

One option for reducing supply chain risk is to extract and recycle CRMs from waste, ‘secondary supply’. However, there are difficulties in obtaining valuable materials from waste resulting in poor recovery and recycling rates (Oakdene Hollins, 2014; Bide et al., 2022; Task & Finish Group, 2023). Current global recycling rates are below 1% for lithium and REEs (Simas et al, 2022; Currie & Elliott, 2024), although stakeholders noted they are higher for some other CRMs such as nickel, aluminium, iron, and copper. Poor CRM recovery was also specifically noted as an issue by one survey respondent.

Limited consideration is given to reuse of materials in design of NZTs and their components, which also impacts on the secondary CRM supply chain. Interviewees from business/industry and academia noted that design complexity, Intellectual Property restrictions and the lack of documentation of which CRMs are in products inhibit potential CRM recovery from NZTs. This lack of sufficient data inhibits traceability for CRMs (Bide, Horn, & Gunn, 2021). This was corroborated by two stakeholders, though opinion here was less unanimous than with other risks. Similarly, an academic interviewee emphasised the importance of digital traceability of products and components across the entire global value-chain.

An academic interviewee emphasised that, even with sufficient capacity and support, recycling alone would not meet near-term CRM demand, as many CRMs are only now entering the economy in products with long lifespans (e.g. EVs, offshore wind magnets). This is detailed in section 7.3.1. Therefore, the dependence on extraction in a vulnerable supply chain remains, according to one academic and one technical institute interviewee.

Interview insights from academia, the research sector and business/industry highlight the lack of UK REE processing or manufacturing, and the export of ores to other countries such as China, France and Taiwan, as a significant vulnerability. However, a facility for separating and recycling REE magnets was opened in England in January 2026, increasing UK capacity for secondary CRM processing (University of Birmingham, 2026).

Environmental, social and governance concerns

As discussed in section 6.2, further exploration and expansion of mining and extraction operations is needed globally. However, many resources and reserves are in areas with prominent ESG concerns (Fletcher & Olaniyi, 2024; Ghorbani et al., 2024; Ross & Wright, 2025). Concerns include:

• water supply issues related to mineral extraction (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Arup, 2024)
• energy and emissions intensiveness of production (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Ghorbani et al., 2024; Jackson et al., 2024)
• water stress and drought (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a; Jolly, 2024)
• flooding, extreme heat, environmental disasters, and extreme storms.

Many of these issues are also related to climate change (International Energy Agency, 2022; Mudd et al, 2024; Ross & Wright, 2025). Exposure of the CRM supply chain to climate risk was raised by one NGO survey respondent as a major threat to supply chain resilience, illustrated for example by storms in South Africa damaging CRM infrastructure. Additional concerns include chemical pollution, biodiversity loss, and land-use change (Jolly, 2024).

ESG issues contribute to concerns surrounding the capacity to increase global copper mines (Mudd et al, 2024). REE production concentration in China and Myanmar is associated with poor ESG performance (Zils et al, 2024a), with China often releasing toxic waste from extraction into the environment (Bielowicz, 2025). One business/industry interviewee noted greater understanding is also needed regarding ESG concerns, with an academic interviewee also noting these impacts are difficult to track. This issue is likely to be at least partially addressed with the introduction of product passports, for example those for batteries, in the future. Increasing traceability of materials will enable companies to be more aware of how materials and components are sourced.

These threats also relate to the current geographical concentration of supply. Certain issues may dissuade the UK from sourcing CRMs from some countries due to growing scrutiny of environmental and social performance (International Energy Agency, 2022). Compounding this issue, several stakeholders noted stringent or differing ESG requirements could impact CRM supply. This could particularly relate to opportunities for domestic extraction, where Scottish planning and permitting procedures are more complex than elsewhere, potentially making domestic supply less efficient or cost-effective.

Trade is a reserved matter, with decisions being made by the UK Government but Scotland may be able to influence decision-making towards responsible sourcing of CRMs (Scottish Government, 2025e). For example, in its Trade Strategy the UK Government recognises the strong growth in Scotland’s net zero economy, and notes that the new Supply Chain Centre in the Department for Business and Trade will work with businesses across the UK on critical supply chains (2025b). This offers an avenue for Scotland to leverage its recognised expertise at the UK level in support of responsible trade in CRMs.

Implications of significant supply chain risks for Scotland

The geographical concentration of CRM supply throughout the value chain creates a significant vulnerability for Scotland’s net zero transition, as part of an island nation with limited domestic resource deposits. Dependence on imports from a limited number of countries, particularly China, exposes the UK and Scotland to the impacts of geopolitical and economic tensions, including trade restrictions and price volatility. This can lead to supply disruptions and increased costs for the CRMs necessary for Scotland’s NZT targets, as set out in Section 5.1.

The inability of current supply to meet rapidly increasing demand, especially for copper, nickel, lithium, and REEs, further exacerbates this risk. This applies to all NZTs (wind, solar, EVs, battery storage, hydrogen production and heat pumps), as they all contain CRMs where demand is likely to outstrip supply. Long lead times for new mining projects and declining ore quality are hindering efforts to scale up production globally. Potential domestic mining opportunities are also currently limited, although some opportunities do exist in Scotland (see section 7.2.1). These supply-demand imbalances, coupled with price volatility, pose a direct threat to Scotland’s ability to reliably and affordably source the necessary CRMs for its NZT deployment. Across the risks considered, copper appears particularly exposed due to its importance across multiple net zero technologies and projected supply-demand imbalances. Unlike some other CRMs, copper is a key input across electricity networks, wind power, solar generation, battery storage, electric vehicles and heat pumps. A detailed review of modelled net copper availability is set out in ‎Appendix E.

Limited secondary supply due to low recycling rates, complex product and component design, and limited UK processing infrastructure means Scotland cannot currently mitigate these primary supply risks through circular economy approaches. This leaves the country reliant on external markets.

Finally, ESG concerns surrounding CRM extraction and processing can also impact supply and increase costs, potentially creating a dilemma for Scotland (as part of the UK) in balancing ethical, sustainable sourcing commitments with net zero goals.

Economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats for Scotland

This chapter outlines our findings on economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for CRM supply in Scotland. We focus on circular economy (CE), to highlight potential for future adoption of CE practices. It is important to note that many issues are not exclusive to a particular section of this SWOT discussion and as a result, common themes recur.

Strengths

We identified strengths in three key areas – capacity in the value chain, net zero technologies, and research and development.

Existing capacity across the value chain

Certain strengths have been identified within the value chain in both the United Kingdom (UK) and in Scotland specifically). Specific strengths have been recognised in relation to skills around mineral and mining expertise, high environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards and globally significant investors (National Energy System Operator, 2025).

Scottish Enterprise has identified that some of Scotland’s capabilities match well with significant projected market opportunities, including on/offshore wind, heat pumps and heat networks (Scottish Enterprise, 2024).

Regarding mineral resources, Scotland has areas of high potential for nickel exploration, including cobalt as a possible by-product (Gunn & Deady, 2022). Around half of the survey respondents agreed this is a strength. One business/industry interviewee highlighted Scotland has existing strengths in the identification, collection and aggregation of materials and expertise in recovery and collection of copper, aluminium and iron. Strong expertise in oil and gas extraction could be translated to mining more generally (Reeves, 2023). Capability within the British Geological Survey and UK university geoscience departments could be deployed, particularly in CRM extraction research (Reeves, 2023). This was also corroborated by around half of survey respondents and one business/industry interviewee.

There are indications that Scotland has some workforce capacity to deliver many CRM-related needs (mining, geological expertise, end-of-life materials management) for the net zero transition. For example, Scotland and the wider UK have manufacturing, technical and capacity related strengths in offshore wind components (Skills Development Scotland, 2025). Skills Development Scotland predicts that the offshore wind sector workforce will grow from around 9,000 to over 40,000 between 2024 and 2029. There will likely be overlap between existing skills and those needed to develop the offshore wind supply chain, with “significant work” already undertaken to ensure skills needed for the energy transition are being honed (Scottish Government, 2025b). This existing strength was also recognised by a majority of survey respondents.

Furthermore, a Circular Energy Hub at Conexus West aims to provide a South of Scotland facility for the CE value chain generally, with an investment of just under £18 million creating around 100 jobs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2024). Whilst some city deal funding applications have been unsuccessful, this site is part of the Hagshaw Energy Cluster Framework which includes CE activity potential, for example through eventual reuse and recycling of renewable energy infrastructure, such as wind turbines (Land Use Consultants, 2023). The project claims to be an early example of applying a Development Framework to a renewable energy cluster, which has been adopted by Planning Authorities as non-statutory guidance to promote positive change within planning applications. Part of this Development Framework includes a CE strategy, promoting local skills and materials.

Despite these points, our analysis and findings also highlight existing key skills and labour-related gaps across other parts of the value chain, as detailed in section 7.2.3. It is clear however, that Scotland has a strong basis on which to build skills needed to harness CE within the NZT sector.

Existing net zero technology capacity

A range of interviewees agreed that Scotland’s strong natural resources position it well for various NZT development, including on/offshore wind and green hydrogen. Wind turbine decommissioning offers a potential new market (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023a), with Scottish wind power (particularly offshore) currently one of the largest renewable energy markets in the world (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023a). A majority of survey respondents agree that wind turbine decommissioning is a significant potential new market for Scotland. Some Scottish windfarms are already at the decommissioning phase, such as Repower Phase 2 of the Hagshaw extension. There has been research into a business case for a blade recycling centre (Zero Waste Scotland, 2024), and private sector research in the UK to develop alternatives to Rare Earth Elements (REEs) in wind turbines (Task & Finish Group, 2023).

One survey respondent also noted a clear Scottish Government commitment to supporting raw materials industries to invest in production and recycling facilities via Section 23 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024. Section 23 required preparation of a report on waste reprocessing infrastructure, which was published in August 2025. The report notes particular opportunities and priorities for Scotland in relation to reprocessing both wind infrastructure, when first-generation turbine decommissioning begins at scale, and batteries (Scottish Government, 2025c).

Existing research and development capacity

In the UK, £1.45bn has been deployed for research and development (R&D) innovation projects since 2017, mostly through UKRI challenge programmes (£0.9bn). These are largely business- and academic-led investments (~£0.4bn). Specific projects investigating CE and supply chain resilience were described as relatively underfunded, receiving a total of £59.8m (4% of the investment) (Reeves, 2023). This includes several multi-year projects at the UK level, with none specific only to Scotland. Key funds and programmes identified related to this R&D area are:

• Strategic Priorities Fund – National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Research Programme (£30 million, 2021-2025);
• Security of Supply of Mineral Resources (£15 million, 2015-2019); and
• Resource Recovery from Waste (£7.2 million, 2014-2019).

The report does not disaggregate this figure to the Scottish level, but does note key institutes and funding bodies active in the Scottish context, including the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland (NMIS) and Zero Waste Scotland.

Since the publication of this R&D mapping study, further studies led by NMIS, Zero Waste Scotland and others continue to be published, many of which form part of this project’s literature review. Around half of survey respondents considered significant investment in R&D innovation projects and a history of undertaking high quality research as a strength for Scotland.

Weaknesses

We identified weaknesses in three key areas – limited capacity for domestic extraction, low recycling rates, and a skills and labour gap.

Capacity for extraction within Scotland and the UK

Current exploration activity for CRMs in Great Britain is low (Bide et al., 2022), with one research sector interviewee noting that Scotland is “chronically under-explored”. Geological prospectivity has not been undertaken for a large proportion of Scotland’s land area, particularly areas designated as sites of special scientific interest, national parks and National Scenic Areas (Deady et al, 2023). Whilst some literature suggests that significant further research and exploration is needed for materials with identified geological potential (Green Alliance, 2024a), very few survey respondents highlighted low CRM exploration research activity as a weakness. In almost all cases more research is necessary to invest in exploration (Bide et al., 2022).

The lack of a centralised system for reporting exploration data can result in the loss of data needed to inform future exploration (Bide et al., 2022). A minority of survey respondents highlighted this as a weakness. However, aligned and transparent reporting could be a confidentiality or competitiveness risk for the mining industry (Bide et al., 2022).

Table 7‑1 presents an overview of the potential extraction capacity of CRMs as identified by the literature and stakeholders. It makes a qualitative assessment of Scotland’s capacity to explore and extract each CRM. A ‘low’ rating indicates either no consensus on potential sites, identified economic cases to extract or whether there is existing mine production. ‘Potential’ indicates an identified small but growing capacity.

^A Although information is not yet published (Hebridean New Metals Ltd, n.d.), insight was provided by the Project Steering Group for inclusion in this report.

^B This organisation focuses on exploration of bedrock deposits of nickel, copper and cobalt in the Northeast of Scotland (Aberdeen Minerals, 2024). Insight was provided by the Project Steering Group for inclusion in this report.

Limitations and capacity constraints in areas beyond extraction were noted as a weakness by around half of survey respondents. However, our reviewed literature makes limited statements regarding capacity, and these are related to specific technologies:

• Electrolysers: No mining or refining activities identified in Scotland relating to key materials used for electrolysers, but some UK activity in the component and assembly stages of the supply chain (Zils et al, 2024a).
  
• Photovoltaics: Limited Scottish involvement in the PV supply chain (Petavratzi et al, 2024b).
  
• Semiconductors: Limited Scottish involvement has been noted (Petavratzi et al, 2024b).

Low recycling rates

Low recycling rates for CRMs (Mudd et al, 2024) and subsequent limitations around material circularity (Frazer-Nash Consultancy, 2025) may present a missed economic opportunity for Scotland. This can hamper the transition towards closed-loop supply chains in the energy sector (Task & Finish Group, 2023) and maintain reliance on imports of materials for net zero energy infrastructure expansion. A large majority of survey respondents agreed that low recycling rates for key raw materials was an economic weakness in the context of building a CE in Scotland for CRMs.

There are several underlying causes for low recycling rates. These include technology readiness levels (TRL): costs (including energy costs), infrastructure, investment, regulation and market incentives. The high cost of material reprocessing may mean secondary materials are unable to compete with low-cost virgin alternatives (Scottish Government, 2025c). Typical barriers to infrastructure development, particularly for materials from renewable energy installations, include high material reprocessing costs, low value of secondary materials, transportation and logistics costs, and a small market size (Scottish Government, 2025c). As an example, Scotland currently exports around 78% of battery waste for reprocessing, and the reprocessing sector faces challenges including high energy costs, fires at waste battery storage facilities, high insurance costs, and complex and costly reprocessing processes (Scottish Government, 2025c).

Furthermore, the UK Critical Minerals Strategy (UK Government, 2025) set targets for 2035 for 10% of annual demand to be met through domestic production, and a further 20% to be met from recycled materials. However, the strategy does not specify that these should be domestically recycled materials (i.e. the 20% could be met using recycled, but imported, materials). This therefore reduces market certainty related to the development of domestic recycling facilities. There is also a lack of infrastructure in the UK for permanent magnet recycling, which is important for REE recovery (Task & Finish Group, 2023). Neodymium (a REE) magnets from wind turbines have high market value (National Engineering Policy Centre, 2024). This is currently uncaptured, as the recycling supply chain is immature. Only around 17% of nickel is recycled globally, hindered by its frequent use in alloys which makes recovery difficult (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

UK recycling rates vary significantly for key raw materials (Mudd et al, 2024). For instance, there is no secondary copper smelter-refinery in the UK, although there are private sector initiatives to create a circular economy for green copper production.^[2] This means that all copper scrap is currently exported, and products made incorporating the scrap are imported (Mudd et al, 2024). Similarly, a majority of aluminium scrap is currently exported, as noted by the Scottish Government (2025c) and interviewees. Whilst high collection rates are achieved for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), most materials are exported for processing (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). There is therefore scope in the UK for much greater recycling of key metals from WEEE, such as copper and aluminium (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b).

One business/industry interviewee highlighted insufficient volumes for economically viable recycling for some CRMs, for example in relation to battery recycling. This interviewee also noted a lack of economic incentives for recovery of certain CRMs (manganese, silicon and niobium) with no established UK market, and a lack of industry knowledge of the economic value in separating manganese from steel. Two technical institute interviewees noted a funding gap between small seed grants (e.g. Innovate UK) and large-scale investments worth >£25 million, as well as a lack of a European Union (EU)-style “strategic project” designation to ease permitting and financing^[3]. The following were also all noted by business/industry and technical institute interviewees as major barriers to investment:

• Lengthy and complex planning processes
• Permit delays
• Lack of dedicated expertise and skills from the public sector to execute projects
• A need for coordination between UK and Scottish governments on the role of CRMs.

Skills and labour related gaps

As highlighted in section 7.1, technical skills in certain parts of the value chain are well established in the UK and Scotland specifically. However, some stages in the value chain have been identified in the literature as having gaps that need to be addressed to achieve CE goals in the UK and in Scotland. In particular these relate to industrial capacity, manufacturing and recycling. This section highlights some of these identified gaps in greater detail.

Lack of investment and a “weak industrial base” may have impacted the potential for increased economic opportunities associated with Scotland’s net zero transition (Mazzucato & MacFarlane, 2024). In recent decades, the Scottish (and UK) economies have seen structural change with manufacturing contributing less, and financial and business services contributing more. In the context of NZT, highlighting the example of the Scottish offshore wind market specifically, labour skills have dropped significantly based on turnover, indicating the growth of Scotland’s wind sector has not been matched by new job creation. Mazzucato & MacFarlane (2024) suggest the greatest potential for job creation in renewables is in manufacturing and construction, due to the capital intensity of renewable energy and the limited operating costs. However, Scotland does not yet have the domestic supply chains needed to meet the demand (Mazzucato & MacFarlane, 2024). The Aldersgate Group estimated a potential missed UK economic opportunity of some £30bn between 2008 and 2022 linked to a lack of development of manufacturing capability related to wind power supply chain manufacturing (Aldersgate Group, 2025). A large majority of survey respondents agreed Scotland’s “weak industrial base” is a key weakness, as well as two business/industry interviewees.

Another factor identified in the reviewed literature is a skills gap related to mining engineering, mineral processing and metallurgic skills, with a need to modernise perceptions of work in the sector to provide the skills needed by industry, academia and regulators (Stonehouse, 2023). One survey respondent also suggested a lack of chem-tech processing expertise, with one technical institute interviewee also highlighting that support for chemical engineering is a key need for industrial policy. However, existing skills are present across relevant industries, including strengths in chemical manufacturing at Grangemouth that can be utilised, as recognised in the 2045 Vision for Grangemouth (Leigh & Creamer, 2025). Such skills gaps were seen as a weakness by around half of survey respondents. Furthermore, one academic interviewee noted underinvestment in school and university geology qualifications. A research sector interviewee noted that the UK-mining-specific workforce largely works overseas, for example in Australia and Canada.

Whilst there are some gaps, it is clear that overall Scotland has existing skills capacity that puts it in a strong position to progress CE approaches in the net zero transition, and to become a front-runner in related services in certain parts of the value chain.

Opportunities

We identified five key opportunities – the wider circular economy, job creation, materials substitution, infrastructure and expertise in ESG standards.

Using the circular economy to alleviate supply pressures

Circular economy approaches include reuse, repair, remanufacturing, recycling, recovery and reprocessing of materials and components. There is potential to increase CRM provision, in both the Scottish and general contexts, through innovative recycling and other circularity-related principles such as materials efficiency (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a). Recovered and recycled materials are referred to collectively as ‘secondary supply’ or ‘secondary materials’. These terms refer to materials obtained from products, infrastructure or waste streams rather than from primary extraction.

Recycling is likely to make a significant contribution to total supply of CRMs from 2040 (Lusty et al., 2022). For instance, in the context of battery manufacturing, scrap from UK gigafactories is expected to be an important source of cathode active materials as early as 2030 (Lusty et al., 2022). Low-carbon emitting refineries using recycled scrap metal have been developed in the UK, reducing scrap material export (e.g. Alvance, Evolve Metals) (Jackson et al., 2024). Jackson et al. (2024) argue that both government and the private sector have been seeking to mitigate supply risk to date by increasing recycled inputs to component manufacture, “considering” direct financing deals between manufacturers and mining companies, and substituting aluminium for copper. Furthermore, until 2021 the UK had no domestic EV battery recycling capacity – this changed with the development of RSBruce’s in-house LIB battery recycling facility (Lusty et al., 2022). In January 2022, Veolia announced its first EV battery recycling facility in the West Midlands, which by 2024 was processing 20% of the UK’s EV batteries (Lusty et al., 2022). One survey respondent highlighted the opportunity for Scottish industry to establish its own recycling systems to ensure future material availability. This is elaborated further below.

Zero Waste Scotland (2023b) highlight the potential for Scotland to domestically recycle a proportion of the currently-exported aluminium, lithium and neodymium, to increase and diversify domestic supply of CRMs (Mudd et al, 2024). Deady et al. (2023) also suggest potential for CRM recovery from waste from historical mining sites, where CRM co- or by-products were not previously extracted with the primary products. There is also potential to generate revenue from key CRMs at the technology end of life stage (EoL) and associated secondary material markets (Lusty et al., 2022; SFA Oxford, 2023). This was recognised as a key opportunity for Scotland by a large majority of survey respondents and one interviewed business group representative. One academic interviewee highlighted that there are companies keen to increase domestic neodymium capacity.

Figure 19 and related figures below show modelled total annual CRM demand for NZTs in Scotland, against the availability of CRMs from NZTs reaching end-of-life. This CRM availability represents a theoretical maximum, and would require 100% recycling rates across all NZTs, with 100% recovery rates of each CRM. The figures provide an indication of Scotland’s key CRM capacity if domestic recycling reached full capacity. The quantity of CRMs available at end-of-life can inform decision making on potential sourcing options for future CRM needs.

While nickel recycled from end-of-life NZTs could theoretically only supply 1% of Scotland’s NZT nickel needs in 2030, this rises sharply to 7% in 2035, and 35% in 2040.

Lithium recycled from NZTs could supply 21% of Scotland’s NZT lithium needs by 2035, and over half (52%) by 2040.

At UK level, up to the equivalent of 24% of 2020 UK imports of Li-Co could be obtained from domestic battery recovery by 2030, rising to over three times the quantity imported in 2020 by 2050. This is because Li-Co can be generated domestically through recovery of materials during decommissioning of assets (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). Achieving UK domestic recycling targets could mean domestically recycled nickel, lithium and cobalt could supply over 50%, 43% and 150% respectively of the UK’s EV battery manufacturing requirements by 2040 (Green Alliance, 2024a), with respective economic values of £536 million, £146 million and £63 million. One business/industry interviewee highlighted emerging second tier markets in the UK for key CRMs (nickel, lithium and cobalt), driven by EV battery demand and automotive original equipment manufacturers.

Zero Waste Scotland estimates that 784 kilotonnes (kt) of aluminium could be recovered through decommissioning and life extension by 2050 (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). Scotland is expanding its capacity to reprocess aluminium via the Alvance-run billet and recycling facility at their Lochaber smelter, estimated to be opened in 2026 or 2027 (Alvance British Aluminium, 2026). This offers an opportunity to redirect the high volume of UK exports of aluminium waste domestically, and to take advantage of significant aluminium stocks in existing infrastructure, not just NZTs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). Interviewees from academia and the research sector also highlighted the opportunity related to the Lochaber aluminium smelter refinery. The plant is investing in circular practices and is considered one of the most sustainable aluminium smelters in the world. This may comprise a potential future business for reprocessing aluminium in Scotland.

Despite the expense and technological complexity of separation processes and secondary production of REEs, recycling is becoming increasingly competitive in the face of price volatility and political instability in primary producing countries (Bielowicz, 2025). A majority of survey respondents agreed that CE approaches offer a key opportunity to alleviate supply pressures and exposure to price volatility of CRMs generally. One survey respondent suggested that there may be untapped REE resources in industrial wastes, such as coal fly ash storage sites. One business/industry interviewee highlighted a potential longer-term opportunity for Scotland to develop a reputation in the area of REE identification and recovery.

Increasing domestic recycling/reprocessing capacity would help Scotland to continue to meet local demand for REEs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b), although one business/industry stakeholder highlighted that the recovery cost is extremely high and not currently reflected in the market price for secondary REE. Two stakeholders also questioned the usefulness of REE recovery in Scotland without an accompanying manufacturing supply chain to produce the products that rely on them. It was also noted that it may not be economically viable to do so, considering existing global competition, for example given China’s dominance in permanent magnets.

The added value of Scotland-specific capacity for REE was not noted in our reviewed literature or by interviewees. One technical institute interviewee highlighted a specific opportunity via the offshore wind sector, with large volumes of reclaimable steel and REE magnets in end-of-life turbines. Although there are no active REE recycling sites in Scotland, UK capacity has recently developed with the opening of the HyProMag recycling and manufacturing plant in Birmingham in January 2026. This has capacity to produce over 300 tonnes (t) of recycled REE alloy per year (Mkango Resources, 2026). Investment in Scottish infrastructure is not currently considered economically viable due to the relatively low amounts of REE source material available in Scotland. However, we believe this could be reconsidered in the future as the decommissioning of offshore wind installations increases (see Figure 25).

As offshore wind in Scotland is only expected to reach end of life in large quantities post-2040, REEs availability through recycling up to 2040 remains relatively low at a Scottish level. In 2040, our modelling shows that recycling REEs from end-of-life NZTs in Scotland could only supply less than 10% of Scotland’s NZT REE requirements. However, this will increase significantly in the longer-term, and is projected to jump to around 50% by 2050, due to increased annual decommissioning volumes.

The quantities reaching end of life for both offshore and onshore wind (see Figures 25 and 27) are of particular importance to understand the potential availability of copper from NZT recycling.

Approximately half of the predicted 2050 copper deficit could be filled by materials recovered during decommissioning of various (unspecified) NZTs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). Our modelling supports this finding, showing a strong increase in secondary supply from NZT decommissioning from less than 1% in 2030, through to 19% in 2040, and 51% in 2050 (Figure 28). One technical institute interviewee noted there is also potential in Scotland to increase copper recovery from scrap and post-consumer waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Oakdene Hollins, 2014), with the UK the second largest producer of WEEE per capita globally as of 2018 (Forti, Baldé, & Kuehr, 2018).

Approximately 85% of the silicon contained in solar PV units can be reused (Scottish Government, 2025c). UK solar PV waste, around 5% of which is typically silicon by weight, is forecast to cumulatively reach 30 kt by 2030 and 1 million tonnes (Mt) by 2050 (Scottish Government, 2025c). This will increase the potential to meet a portion of domestic demand through reprocessing. Some facilities exist in the UK to reprocess silicon from general WEEE and solar PV WEEE, for example the SRS facility near London. This facility states it can achieve 100% recycling with full transparency and auditable recycling routes for all materials, and has capacity to recycle over 300,000 solar panels per year (Solar Recycling Solutions, 2024).

Until 2040, secondary silicon can make only a limited contribution to supply in Scotland, due to the limited decommissioning of solar farms expected over that period, as shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30.

1.5 Mt of iron can be recovered through decommissioning and life extension, and there is UK capacity to reprocess iron even though most is currently exported for reprocessing (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023b). An academic stakeholder also noted the potential for investment in renewable energy-powered electric arc furnaces for recycling iron in Scotland.

The potential for Scotland to meet its NZT manganese needs from recycling of NZTs increases in the mid- to long-term, from near-zero contribution until 2030, increasing to 6% in 2035, then to almost half (47%) in 2040 (Figure 31).

Across all CRMs, there is currently low potential secondary availability from NZTs at end-of-life. This is simply due to few historic installations of these technologies, and therefore low quantities reaching end-of-life today. Secondary availability will increase in the future, increasing more quickly for the CRMs used in technologies with shorter life spans. This is particularly the case for those used in EVs.

This highlights an important limitation of CE approaches in the short term. Whilst recycling, recovery and reprocessing could make a significant contribution to future CRM supply, they are unlikely to address near-term supply pressures because many net zero technologies have not yet reached end-of-life in sufficient volumes.

Extending End of Life (EoL)

The National Engineering Policy Centre (National Engineering Policy Centre, 2024) state that the useful life of lithium batteries should be extended as far as possible, given the lack of recycling capacity for the predicted volume of EoL lithium-ion batteries in the coming years. EoL EV batteries can retain up to 75% of their capacity after 10 to 15 years of use, and could therefore be repurposed for stationary or back up power solutions, subject to the establishment of standards and protocols (National Engineering Policy Centre, 2024). Lusty et al. (2022) predict that this could create up to 20 kt of reusable cathode active materials for the UK market, enough to produce 7 Gigawatt hours (GWh) of power for alternative applications, assuming UK battery production capacity reaches 90 GWh by 2030. A majority of survey respondents and a research sector interviewee agreed that such EV battery reuse presents an opportunity.

Job creation and economic benefits

If Scotland meets its 2045 net zero emissions target, employment in low-carbon technologies is projected to exceed current oil and gas industry employment by the late 2030s (Scottish Enterprise, 2024). Around half of survey respondents see an opportunity for increased employment in the net zero transition, related to NZT development and deployment. Academic and research sector interviewees highlighted that Scotland has established energy engineering expertise from the oil and gas sector that could be redeployed into NZTs.

Around half of survey respondents agreed there is an opportunity for a green steel industry in the UK. This could be supported by scaling up electrically powered recycling to support offshore wind development, decommissioning of oil and gas to source recycled steel for new wind turbines (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023a). NGOs have highlighted a potential £9.6 billion UK market for remanufacturing ten key components for wind turbines over the next 10 years (Green Alliance, 2024b). Around half of survey respondents agreed there is a potential UK market for this. Mazzucato & Macfarlane (2024) suggest that an additional 20,000 jobs could be created in the UK by 2030 related to creating a circular economy for the floating offshore wind industry, concentrated in Scotland.

There is an opportunity for the UK to become a frontrunner in sustainable wind turbine technology, and a leading player in international standards development (National Engineering Policy Centre, 2024). Standards for wind turbines provide a basis for design, operation and maintenance and the UK is the greatest contributor of technical experts for wind energy standardisation at the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a key global standards body. Great Britain is also currently chair of the IEC Technical Committee (2024-2029), providing the opportunity to increase the ambition of sustainable wind turbine technologies, and pursue proactive international standards development (National Engineering Policy Centre, 2024). One business/industry stakeholder noted the opportunity for Scotland to invest in digital product passports and design-for-disassembly standards, although such work should align with international action in this area.

It has been estimated that wind turbine component reuse, refurbishment and remanufacturing could benefit the UK economy by up to £1.6 billion in total gross value added between 2025 and 2035, not including the potential opportunity generated by turbine decommissioning (BVG Associates, 2023). This process, in Scotland specifically, could have generated up to 1.4 Mt of materials to date (Zero Waste Scotland, 2024). Three interviewed stakeholders from technical institutes highlighted existing expertise in academia (Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt Universities), university ‘spin-outs’ such as Birmingham University’s HyProMag, and the private sector (companies like Pure Alchemy and ReBlade) that can deliver these activities, particularly around wind turbine decommissioning.

Manufacturing of electrolysers and components could be worth up to £5 billion in the UK by 2030 (Zils et al, 2024a), and the Scottish Government has already commissioned work supporting deployment of an electrolyser supply chain in Scotland (Zils et al, 2024a).

Regarding upskilling, one academic interviewee pointed to Swedish Government support for the development of a master’s programme specifically for industrial applications of CE, to upskill engineers on circular materials. It was noted that Scotland could do the same, with a small enough population and established educational.

Material substitution and less critical alternatives

The Renewable Parts Ltd specialist refurbishment centre has been identified as a key Scottish player in the transition to CE principles, particularly in the wind energy industry (Green Alliance, 2024a). Opportunities being explored include material substitution and innovation in alternative synthetics. Such technical development is important to reduce the quantity of primary-supply materials or to find less critical alternatives (Price, 2023). There may be an opportunity for the UK to substitute some copper components with aluminium in high-voltage subsea and underground cables and low-voltage distribution transformers. This could increase copper availability for use in other technologies subject to alignment with regulatory standards (Jackson et al., 2024). Ushie et al. (2025) reviewed global data to explore how to mitigate the volatility of critical copper and aluminium mineral demand for electricity network production in the net zero transition. They found that substitution scenarios reduced both global aluminium and copper demand by 2035. The scenario suggests that the properties and availability of aluminium make it less prone to supply and demand volatility than copper. However, as highlighted in section 5.2, short-term substitution of copper with other materials will be difficult, meaning increased demand cannot immediately be alleviated through alternative material selection (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023e).

Infrastructure

There is an opportunity for Scottish ports to become centres for the use and reuse of CRMs in offshore and onshore renewables manufacture, and disassembly of assets for recovery and reuse (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). A majority of survey respondents and interviewees from business/industry and the research sector identified this as an opportunity. The Scottish Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan announced investment in an ultra-deep port in Shetland to increase the competitiveness of Scotland’s decommissioning sector. It also notes that decommissioning at Scottish ports should follow CE principles, promoting material reuse over recycling and disposal (Scottish Government, 2023).

Whilst recognising the importance of access to finance, two other technical institute interviewees agreed that Scotland could emulate successful clusters in Teesside (ports), the Southwest (mining heritage) and West Midlands (recycling) by leveraging existing infrastructure and energy assets. Whilst the Scottish Clean Energy Cluster operates across the whole of Scotland, clustering efforts could be focused on areas such as the ultra-deep port in Shetland. This benefits from proximity to the North Sea and related trade routes, as well as relevant skills and labour. Offshore Wind Scotland also highlights the capacities of several other Scottish ports and harbours related to the offshore wind industry (Offshore Wind Scotland, 2026). These are located closer to key logistical centres such as the National Manufacturing Institute of Scotland and Conexus West.

Environmental, Social and Governance opportunity

One business/industry interviewee highlighted an opportunity for Scotland to develop coordination and cooperation with mining countries to reduce environmental impacts by ensuring alignment of ESG standards. The UK is already looking at ways to promote responsible mining and processing of CRMs, with an ambition for London to become a global hub for sustainable mining finance. An academic stakeholder noted that Scottish networks such as the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland (NMIS) offer scope for Scotland to be involved in the establishment of a network of leading R&D facilities for material recovery innovation.

Threats

We identified four key threats – circular economy viability, economies of scale in supply, price volatility, and the social license to operate.

Viability of circular economy approaches

Whilst embedding CE approaches as business as usual is a key opportunity (see section 7.3), there are inherent viability risks for some of these processes. For instance, global EoL recycling rates vary depending on the material, with processes well established for some (e.g. steel) and others in early stages of uptake (e.g. lithium or REEs) (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a). The Energy Transitions Commission (2023a) identified key challenges related to efficiency and recycling improvements including:

• Complex and fragmented value chains that dilute market signals for investment in recycling (corroborated by a majority of survey respondents)
• Complexity of recycling processes due to variability in NZT design (verified by around half of survey respondents)
• Lack of cost-effectiveness in some cases (due to lack of volume and long lifespan of technologies) However, cost-effectiveness may increase over time due to economies of scale.

A lack of working capital may also pose a barrier to scaling the CE in CRMs for the energy transition – highlighted in section 7.2.3 and corroborated by the Task & Finish Group (2023).

Whilst secondary supply can be used to alleviate CRM supply chain risks in Scotland, there are also risks associated with secondary supply chains. These are similarly complex and fragmented (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a) and also rely on imported materials, for example from China. Secondary supply of CRMs is less predictable than primary supply, for example due to the decommissioning cycles of existing infrastructure such as oil rigs or wind turbines. Around half of survey respondents reported the lack of predictability in secondary CRM supply as a risk. Quantities can also be affected by the uptake of circular approaches (such as repair or remanufacturing) that extend the lifetime of technologies and the materials they contain. For example, this can reduce the demand for new steel (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023a). However, Scotland has existing potential in this area (See Section 7.1.1).

Limitations related to capacity in recycling technologies have been identified (Simas et al, 2022). One technical institute stakeholder noted this can lead to disproportionate recovery costs. Industry and academic interviewees noted that Scotland has few recycling and midstream facilities compared to England, for example emerging REE and magnet recycling. This may be due to a lack of economies of scale, reducing the cost-effectiveness of Scottish investment, and lack of a regulatory framework and guidance to respond to inward investment propositions. Technical institute, academic and business interviewees noted that Scottish secondary smelting and refining infrastructure is limited to just one smelter, the Alvance-run billet and recycling facility and aluminium smelter in Lochaber (see section 7.3.1). Two technical institute stakeholders highlighted that high energy costs are a major deterrent for smelting and refining, with UK costs significantly higher than global competitors (see section 7.2.2). The Green Industrial Strategy (Scottish Government, 2024a) aims to maximise economic benefits to Scotland from the global net zero transition. Material reprocessing is noted as central to this goal, but domestic costs are likely to remain a challenge in the short term (Scottish Government, 2024c). We have not identified specific current or planned efforts to reduce these costs.

Current recycling technologies may also not be able to provide the levels of purity required for particular uses of some CRMs (e.g. aluminium), prohibiting the use of secondary supply (Jackson et al., 2024). These factors, along with the lack of a developed market for recovery of several CRMs, mean most scrap material is exported (according to business/industry and technical institute interviewees).

One source suggests Scotland may need to increase technical, skill-based, and infrastructural capacity to boost the domestic supply of secondary CRMs (SFA Oxford, 2023). These factors were reiterated by survey responses and interviewees. One survey respondent suggested a coherent longer-term plan and additional government support for skills relating to secondary CRM supply and CE more broadly, could help to safeguard critical metal supply and critical energy infrastructure.

CRM supply economies of scale

As discussed throughout chapter 6, there are multiple risks to CRM supply chains which can separately and collectively be classified as threats to Scotland’s NZT ambitions. Around half of survey respondents agreed that lack of economies of scale for the development of CRM supply chains was a risk. One specific example is the opportunity to develop a battery-grade nickel supply chain in the UK, which must consider that EU demand for EV batteries will likely be realised much faster than that of the UK (SFA Oxford, 2023). Therefore, a nickel supply chain in the UK is only likely to be viable at scale if it can also serve the EU market in the shorter term. Combined with high UK energy costs compared with much of the rest of Europe, once an EU supply chain is established, UK industry might be unable to achieve comparable economies of scale (SFA Oxford, 2023).

Price volatility

As discussed in section 6.4, CRM prices can be highly volatile and affect private investment for further exploration in recycling or reuse (Frazer Nash Consultancy, 2025), corroborated by one business/industry interviewee.

Furthermore, Ross & Wright (2025) argue that Scotland could be “excluded” from certain markets depending on demand for local materials and processing within these markets which can be impacted by global policies and other green subsidy schemes. Around half of survey respondents saw this as a threat. Another consideration is Scottish export activities influenced by EU Acts relating to net zero and CRMs (Ross & Wright, 2025) and by unpredictable US trade protection measures. One survey respondent suggested Scotland could mitigate price volatility by securing long-term contracts for materials producers to provide speciality materials. Well-established strategies include maintaining a working inventory of materials through service-based contracts in which companies retain ownership over products and materials (Oakdene Hollins, 2014).

Social Licence to Operate of CRM-related projects

A Social Licence to Operate (SLO) is the ongoing approval from local communities and the public for an organisation or business to undertake a project. SLO concerns, particularly surrounding conducting exploratory or new CRM projects, have been identified as a significant barrier (Bide et al., 2022). Interviewees from research and academic fields stated that SLO concerns at any stage in the supply chain could also present a barrier to increasing supply in Scotland. Traditionally an energy-resource producer in oil and gas, Scotland is transitioning to be an energy-resource consumer. This structural shift could present a ‘cultural shock’ to certain communities that inhibits CRM activity (according to one academic interviewee), as community acceptance is critical (as noted by two research sector interviewees).

The landscape for sustainable mining is also complex, creating confusion for companies, consumers and investors (Bide et al., 2022). Risks associated with the acceptability and ESG concerns of CRM-related activities were seen as a threat by around one-third of respondents. One survey respondent highlighted that due diligence related to ESG should not be seen as a threat, but rather as a minimum requirement.

Implications of SWOT findings for Scotland

Scotland has a strong foundation to embrace a CE for CRMs in the net zero transition. This is underpinned by existing strengths related to established expertise in the mining, oil and gas industry, adherence to high ESG standards, and a robust R&D landscape.

Hebridean New Metals has identified potential sites for REEs, manganese, and lithium. Aberdeen Minerals has identified nickel, cobalt, and copper in Scotland and this review has identified the highest potential for extraction of nickel in Scotland. Whilst historical estimates of nickel (and copper) make up are not known in modern reporting standards, exploration of the Arthrath Intrusion for nickel-copper-cobalt mineralisation was ongoing by Aberdeen Minerals Ltd as of 2022 (Gunn & Deady, 2022). Of course, mining in itself is not circular, so domestic mining potential must be contextualised alongside production and manufacturing potential. Weaknesses in other parts of the value chain, such as manufacturing and recycling infrastructure, have also been identified.

Nevertheless, significant opportunities exist for Scotland to pursue CE approaches in relation to the CRMs needed for NZTs. For instance, boosting domestic recycling efforts could be feasible for CRMs including aluminium, lithium, and neodymium. Our review has also identified the potential to boost the secondary supply of CRMs, for example through recovery of CRMs from historical mining sites. Scotland also has potential to efficiently process end-of-life products, including EV lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines and solar PV panels. Such initiatives could alleviate supply pressures and create new revenue streams for the Scottish economy.

The net zero transition presents a key opportunity for job creation in sectors reliant on CRMs such as green steel production and the expanding offshore wind industry. It has been identified that Scotland can effectively redeploy and upskill its existing offshore and oil and gas engineering capacities.

Scotland also has an opportunity to become a global leader in sustainable wind turbine technology through shaping international standards. One avenue for this is the UK’s current position as chair of the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee, offering a chance for Scotland to push for proactive international standards development.

Scotland can also leverage its existing port infrastructure to establish centres for renewables projects, creating hubs or clusters for the efficient use, reuse, and recovery of CRMs for reprocessing.

Conclusions

We found that Scotland faces significant risks from global CRM supply chains as demand for net zero technologies increase. Circular economy approaches could help reduce some of these risks. Scotland has strengths that could support greater recovery, reuse and recycling of CRMs.

Our research focused on 10 CRMs (aluminium, cobalt, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, niobium, rare earth elements, silicon) and their use in selected net zero technologies (NZTS). These included onshore and offshore wind, solar power, electricity networks, electric vehicles, hydrogen and fuel cells. CRMs are also used in other NZTs and sectors, including defence, transport, chemicals, electronics and medical technology. These uses will also influence future CRM demand and the actions needed to reduce supply chain risks.

Table 4 summarises the main supply chain risks we identified and their implications for Scotland. It also shows where these risks occur across the CRM supply chain and identifies potential opportunities for Scottish action. Most opportunities relate to circular economy approaches, although mineral exploration and extraction could also help reduce some supply risks.

Overall, the evidence reviewed suggest that Scotland has a strong foundation for developing a more circular approach to CRMs. However, gaps in infrastructure, skills, data, investment and markets could limit progress. Addressing these gaps will require coordinated action across government, industry, research and other stakeholders.

Discussion of opportunities for Scotland

The discussion below is structured around the policy levers identified in the Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2026). These are: business support, behaviour and systems change, place-based approaches, procurement, skills and education, data improvements, and greater policy alignment.

Our findings identify several areas where Scotland could reduce CRM supply chain risks. Overall, the evidence reviewed suggests that Scotland’s strongest opportunities are likely to lie in recovery, reprocessing, remanufacturing and related circular economy activities, rather than large-scale primary extraction of CRMs. These include investment, place-based approaches, procurement, extending product lifetimes, skills, data and policy alignment. Some actions fall within Scottish responsibilities. Others would require action through UK or international channels.

Several recurring opportunities emerge from this research, particularly around circular economy activity, data and traceability, skills development, and policy coordination. The discussion below considers these opportunities in more detail.

Business support through investment

Developing CRM circularity will require investment in research (see sections 8.1.3 and 8.1.5) and infrastructure for CRM recycling, reprocessing and remanufacturing. While economic development is a devolved Scottish power, there are also UK funding options to explore. These include UK R&D funds and the UK Contracts for Difference Clean Industry Bonus, which provides additional revenue support to offshore wind projects that invest in shorter supply chains or more sustainable production methods (as noted by a business/industry interviewee). Great British Energy has also announced a £300 million Supply Chain Fund for Offshore Wind and Networks, providing grants for domestic manufacturing of critical components (Great British Energy, 2025). Using funding opportunities such as these could help develop manufacturing activities and supply chains in Scotland and the wider UK, creating markets for secondary CRMs recovered domestically.

Place-based approaches

Scotland’s extensive and growing wind energy capacity and infrastructure, one key opportunity to develop a Scottish cluster or hub for CRM circularity in onshore and offshore wind. Relevant devolved powers include economic development, renewable energy, circular economy, waste management, planning and permitting. Stakeholders suggested Scotland prioritising midstream processing and reprocessing to provide secondary CRMs, for example through chemical engineering and magnet recycling. End-of-life turbines offer large volumes of reclaimable steel and rare earth element (REE) magnets. There is also potential for a UK market worth £9.6 billion from remanufacturing ten key wind turbine components (Mazzucato & MacFarlane, 2024). The Development Framework for the Hagshaw Energy Cluster includes a CE strategy focused on local skills and materials, and identified the reuse and recycling of wind turbines as a future opportunity.

Existing Scottish infrastructure and energy assets, particularly ports and clean energy to power processing could support domestic CRM recovery, turbine disassembly, material recycling and component remanufacturing. Several interviewees highlighted the potential for Scottish ports to become centres for CRM recovery and reuse in the renewables sector, supported by access to logistics, skills and labour. This aligns with investment announced in the Scottish Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan for an ultra-deep port in Shetland to strengthen the decommissioning sector (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). In addition, Renewable Parts Ltd’s innovation centre in Argyll and Bute specialises in circular innovation for the wind industry, such as remanufacturing of wind turbine components (Renewable Parts Ltd, 2026).

One stakeholder indicated potential for the aluminium smelter in Lochaber to process some of the aluminium scrap currently collected and exported from the UK, keeping this valuable material in the domestic supply chain. The smelter’s use of hydropower helps offset high energy costs, although opportunities of this type are location-specific and would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Lochaline silica sand mine deposit was noted by another stakeholder as small but of a purity suitable for semiconductors and PVs.

Exploring material substitution and innovation in alternative synthetics could alleviate some primary and secondary supply pressure. Scotland’s world leading STEM research base could support innovation in this area. Survey respondents also identified revenue generation from key CRMs at the end-of-life stage and development of new secondary CRMs supply markets in the UK are as key opportunities for Scotland.

Domestic stockpiling of components containing CRMs could reduce the current loss of CRMs exported for processing and provide initial stocks for domestic refurbishment or reuse, as well as for future domestic recycling facilities. Strategic prioritisation of specific CRMs, such as REEs in wind turbines or aluminium, may allow Scotland to benefit from economies of scale and support future processing and reprocessing. Scotland could also contribute to actions under the recently-signed UK-US Memorandum of Understanding on critical minerals (Department for Business and Trade, 2026).

Procurement

Voluntary commitments or commercial procurement of NZT infrastructure based on standards and product CRM content could also drive circularity. One business/industry stakeholder noted that the wind sector is particularly sensitive to corporate social responsibility and public perception. This could make commitments to procure wind turbines containing a certain percentage of locally recycled magnets a potential selling point. Although aspects of industrial policy are devolved or reserved UK powers, Scotland may be able to take relevant action through its devolved powers in economic development, energy and permitting.

EV battery use

One example of a systems-based approach noted in the literature and by stakeholders is exploring how to extend the power output of EV batteries. For example, by using them to store energy generated by Scottish renewables. This could make better use of available battery capacity while helping to address the current lack of recycling capacity for the expected increase in end-of-life lithium-ion batteries.

Skills and education

Both the reviewed literature and stakeholder discussions indicate existing strengths that could be built on to further develop Scotland’s workforce and academic expertise in CRM circularity. Possible focus areas include material sciences (including innovation, substitution and purification), geology, NZT and component design, recycling innovations and cost-effectiveness, and high-tech and chemical engineering. Scotland’s STEM universities, engineering industries and R&D hubs provide a strong foundation, alongside expertise in chemical manufacturing at Grangemouth. Interviewees also suggested that targeted academic programmes on CRM could help retain domestic talent and export knowledge to other countries.

Data improvements

An exercise to map the presence of CRMs in Scotland and when they may become available would help plan for future domestic supply. CRMs can be found in existing NZT infrastructure, industrial waste such as coal fly ash storage sites (REEs), and domestic plumbing and WEEE (copper). This could provide greater certainty for planning and investment in domestic CRM circularity and strengthen Scotland’s expertise in CRM identification and recovery. This would require cooperation between government, SEPA, planning bodies and private sector supply chain actors to ensure robust, whole-system data. Interviewees suggested building on the End of Life Wind (ELMWind) project. This could be aligned with work by the UK Technology Metals Observatory and Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre on data, stocks and flows of ‘technology metals’. It could also build on work by the new Supply Chains unit in DESNZ to identify bottlenecks to delivering clean power for 2030.

The provision of information to allow CRM identification and recovery at end-of-life is crucial. Supporting the development of international standards, regulation and digital product passports, and aligning national standards with these, could maximise the potential for secondary CRM recovery in Scotland and internationally. Several interviewees highlighted this opportunity. Scotland could also build a global reputation for knowledge on recyclability/disassembly-by-design, standards and traceability. This could be supported by promoting ambitious international standards and the rollout of product passports, including through the UK’s current chair of International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee.

Whilst domestic extraction is not a CE opportunity, its potential to reduce supply chain risks is noted in the UK Critical Minerals Strategy. Further research and geological surveys could improve knowledge on Scottish extraction opportunities, help assess their commercial viability, and even reduce reliance on imports of some CRMs. However, one academic interviewee noted that barriers such as limited material deposits, environmental regulations and permitting may mean that circularity actions in other areas will likely be more meaningful for Scotland.

Greater policy alignment

There may be existing regulatory barriers to waste processing that could be addressed in Scotland to support future CRM recycling. Two technical institute interviewees suggested these may include waste classification and shipment rules, permitting and licensing for waste carriers.

Stakeholders highlighted opportunities for Scotland to influence UK participation in strategic global CRM solutions and partnerships. One example is the G7 Critical Minerals Production Alliance. This was created in June 2025 to promote multilateral partnerships and investment in sustainable CRM projects, helping to reduce market concentration and dependencies (Government of Canada, 2025). An academic interviewee suggested Scotland is an attractive partner for mineral-rich countries, with expertise to share on technology, skills and standards. Stakeholders also suggested potential for Scotland to establish a regional or global data hub on CRM flows, and for Edinburgh’s financial sector to support responsible financing of ethical and modern mining projects globally.

Another key priority is to anticipate, understand and respond to global policy shifts. These include the European Union (EU)’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), green subsidies and trade tariffs. Tools such as the EU’s CBAM can encourage investment in less carbon-intensive supply chains, compared with markets without the same environmental protections in place (SFA Oxford, 2023). As trade and taxation are reserved UK powers, Scotland could seek to influence UK policy in these areas. Scotland could also identify areas of expertise where it can contribute to implementing the UK Critical Minerals Strategy in coordination with the UK Government.

Given the various barriers, uses, challenges and trade-offs, there is a broader need for a strategic and coherent vision for Scottish actions on CRM circularity. Implementation of the forthcoming Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland is a key opportunity to outline thematic actions, investment needs and associated timelines for Scotland to realise its CRM-related potential.

References

Aberdeen Minerals. (2024). News Releases: Drilling success at Arthrath Nickel-Copper Project, Aberdeenshire. Retrieved from https://aberdeenminerals.com/news/news-releases/drilling-success-at-arthrath-nickel-copper-project-11-2024/

African Development Bank Group. (2021). Critical Mineral Insights 10: Manganese. Retrieved from https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/manganese_factsheet_final_nov_21.pdf

Aldersgate Group. (2025). Futureproofing Growth Through the Modern Industrial Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk/content/uploads/2025/05/Aldersgate-Group-Futureproofing-Growth-briefing-1.pdf

Alvance British Aluminium. (2026, January 16). The Future. Retrieved from Available at: https://alvancebritishaluminium.com/the-future/

Arup. (2024). Critical Raw Materials EU Guide. Retrieved from https://www.arup.com/insights/critical-raw-materials-guide/

ASHRAE. (n.d.). ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy chart. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infhvac/ASHRAE_Chart_HVAC_Life_Expectancy.pdf

Beijing Newsroom. (2026, February 12). China to brief metals firms on rare earth export controls next month. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-brief-metals-firms-rare-earth-export-controls-next-month-2026-02-12/

BGS and Minerals UK. (2020). The Potential for Cobalt in the UK. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/534411/1/cobalt.pdf

Bide et al., T. (2022). Securing sustainable supply of critical raw materials for the UK: good practice and recommendations for improvement. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-securing-sustainable-supply-of-critical-raw-materials-for-the-uk-good-practice-and-recommendations-for-improvement-or22034.pdf

Bide, T., Horn, S., & Gunn, A. G. (2021). Overview of activities and policy related to critical raw material standards and resource management. UK Critical Materials Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-overview-of-activities-and-policy-related-to-critical-raw-material-standards-and-resource-management-cr21124.pdf

Bielowicz, B. (2025). Waste as a Source of Critical Raw Materials – A New Approach in the Context of Energy Transition. Energies, 18(8), 2101. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/en18082101

BVG Associates. (2023). Circularity market analysis: Assessing the potential market size and economic benefits in the UK of moving toward a circular model for operational wind turbine components.

Currie, D., & Elliott, H. (2024). The potential for rare earth elements in the UK. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/the-potential-for-rare-earth-elements-in-the-uk-2024.pdf

Deady et al, E. (2023). Potential for Critical Raw Material Prospectivity in the UK. British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-potential-for-critical-raw-material-prospectivity-in-the-uk-cr23024.pdf

Department for Business and Trade. (2026). UK and US sign Memorandum of Understanding on critical minerals. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-critical-minerals

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2023a). Heat Pump Investment Roadmap: Leading the Way to Net Zero. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heat-pump-net-zero-investment-roadmap

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2023b). Hydrogen production delivery roadmap. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hydrogen-production-delivery-roadmap

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2024). Heat Pump Deployment statistics. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/heat-pump-deployment-statistics

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2025a). Energy Trends September 2025. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2025b). Solar roadmap: United Kingdom powered by solar (accessible webpage). Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/solar-roadmap/solar-roadmap-united-kingdom-powered-by-solar-accessible-webpage

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2025c). Regional and local authority electricity consumption statistics. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/regional-and-local-authority-electricity-consumption-statistics

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2026, 02 12). Energy Trends: UK renewables. Retrieved 05 03, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

Department for Transport and DVLA. (2025). VEH1103: Licensed vehicles at the end of the quarter by body type and fuel type: Great Britain and United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-licensing-statistics-data-tables

Department for Transport et al. (2025). Backing British business: Prime Minister unveils plan to support carmakers. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/backing-british-business-prime-minister-unveils-plan-to-support-carmakers

Department for Transport; Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. (2026, 01 15). Vehicle licensing statistics data tables. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-licensing-statistics-data-tables

Energy Transitions Commission. (2023a). Material and Resource Requirements for the Energy Transition. SYSTEMIQ. Retrieved from https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/material-and-resource-energy-transition/

Energy Transitions Commission. (2023b). Nickel for the energy transition. Retrieved from https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ETC_Materials_Factsheet_nickel.pdf

Energy Transitions Commission. (2023c). Cobalt for the energy transition. Retrieved from https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ETC_Materials_Factsheet_Cobalt.pdf

Energy Transitions Commission. (2023d). Lithium for the Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ETC_Materials_Factsheet_Lithium.pdf

Energy Transitions Commission. (2023e). Copper for the Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ETC_Materials_Factsheets_copper.pdf

EUROFER. (2024). European Steel In Figures 2024. Retrieved from https://www.eurofer.eu/assets/publications/brochures-booklets-and-factsheets/european-steel-in-figures-2024/European-Steel-In-Figures-2024-v2.pdf

European Commission. (n.d.). RMIS – Raw materials’ profiles, RMIS – Raw Materials Information System. Retrieved from https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rmp/Iron%20&%20Steel

Fletcher, P. A., & Olaniyi, T. K. (2024). Sustainability Challenges and Circular Economy Solutions for Lithium in the Transition to Clean Energy: A UK Perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Energy Development, 12(1), 653–665. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.20533/ijsed.2046.3707

Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., & Kuehr, R. (2018). E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators, second edition. Bonn: United Nations University, ViE – SCYCLE. Retrieved from https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6477/RZ_EWaste_Guidelines_LoRes.pdf

Frazer-Nash Consultancy. (2025). UK Critical Minerals Recycling and Midstream Processing Capability Assessment. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67e6b6034a226ab6c41b2040/critical-minerals-capability-assessment-frazer-nash.pdf

Gardner, P., Coates, S., Stevenson, N., Lock, B., Barnes, Z., & Jones, F. (2020). Good practice principles for grid-scale battery. Edinburgh: ClimateXChange.

Ghorbani et al., Y. (2024). The strategic role of lithium in the green energy transition: Towards an OPEC-style framework for green energy-mineral exporting countries (GEMEC). Resources Policy, 90, 104737. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104737

Government of Canada. (2025, October 31). The Honourable Tim Hodgson Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Speaking Remarks for the Closing Press Conference G7 Energy and Environment Ministers’ Meeting. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2025/10/the-honourable-tim-hodgson-minister-of-energy-and-natural-resources-speaking-remarks-for-the-closing-press-conference-g7-energy-and-environment-min.html

Great British Energy. (2025). Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.gbe.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/GBE%20Strategic%20Plan%20Dec2025.pdf

Green Alliance. (2024a). Mission critical: safeguarding resources for UK energy security. Retrieved from https://green-alliance.org.uk/publication/mission-critical-safeguarding-resources-for-uk-energy-security/

Green Alliance. (2024b). Why a circular economy is good for business. Retrieved from https://green-alliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Why-a-circular-economy-is-good-for-business.pdf

Gunn, A., & Deady, E. (2022). The potential for nickel in the UK. British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/the-potential-for-nickel-in-the-uk-2022.pdf

Hebridean New Metals Ltd. (n.d.). Projects (coming soon). Retrieved from http://hebrideannewmetals.com/services

International Energy Agency. (2021a). Share of top producing countries in extraction of selected minerals and fossil fuels. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/share-of-top-producing-countries-in-extraction-of-selected-minerals-and-fossil-fuels-2019

International Energy Agency. (2021b). Demand for copper and aluminium for electricity grids in the Stated Policies Scenario, 2020-2040. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/demand-for-copper-and-aluminium-for-electricity-grids-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2020-2040

International Energy Agency. (2021c). Mineral demand from solar PV by scenario, 2020-2040. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/mineral-demand-from-solar-pv-by-scenario-2020-2040

International Energy Agency. (2021d). Annual electric car sales in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/annual-electric-car-sales-in-the-sustainable-development-scenario-2020-2040

International Energy Agency. (2021e). Annual battery storage capacity additions in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/annual-battery-storage-capacity-additions-in-the-sustainable-development-scenario-2020-2040

International Energy Agency. (2021f). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Abu Dhabi: International Energy Agency.

International Energy Agency. (2021g). Total mineral demand from battery storage additions by scenario, 2020-2040. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/total-mineral-demand-from-battery-storage-additions-by-scenario-2020-2040

International Energy Agency. (2022). The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. Retrieved from https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf

International Energy Agency. (2023). Anticipated supply and projected demand for nickel in the Net Zero Scenario, 2030,. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/anticipated-supply-and-projected-demand-for-nickel-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2030

International Energy Agency. (2024). EV Life Cycle Assessment Calculator. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/ev-life-cycle-assessment-calculator

International Energy Agency. (2025a). Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025. Retrieved from https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ef5e9b70-3374-4caa-ba9d-19c72253bfc4/GlobalCriticalMineralsOutlook2025.pdf

International Energy Agency. (2025b). Hydrogen Production and Infrastructure Projects Database. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database

International Energy Agency. (2025c). Renewable Energy Progress Tracker. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/renewable-energy-progress-tracker

International Nickel Study Group. (2025). Nickel Surplus Predicted. Retrieved from British Stainless Steel Association: https://bssa.org.uk/nickel-surplus-predicted/

International Nickel Study Group. (2025). Press release: INSG September 2024 meetings. Retrieved from https://insg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pressrel_INSG-Press-Release-April_2025-5al9-lk.pdf

International Renewable Energy Agency . (2024). World Energy Transitions Outlook 2024 1.5°C Pathway. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency.

Jackson et al., R. (2024). Study on future material requirements of the national grid infrastructure to reach net zero. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/539473/1/CR24146N.pdf

Jenns, C. (2025). The global cobalt market: outlook to 2030. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.mining-technology.com/features/the-global-cobalt-market-outlook-to-2030/?cf-view

Jolly, M. R. (2024). Critical materials: demand-side resource efficiency measures for sustainability and resilience. National Engineering Policy Centre’s (NEPC) Working Group on Materials and Net Zero. Retrieved from https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/qutgamxj/nepc-critical-materials-report.pdf

Josso, P., & Lusty, R. (2023). The potential for manganese in the UK. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/the-potential-for-manganese-in-the-uk-2023.pdf

Kim, Y., Jacquet, Q., Griffith, K. J., Lee, J., Dey, S., Rinkel, B. L., & Grey, C. P. (2021). High Rate Lithium Ion Battery with Niobium Tungsten Oxide Anode. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 168. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/abd919

Komoto, K., & Lee, J.-S. (2020). End‐of‐Life Management of Photovoltaic Panels: Trends in PV Module Recycling Technologies. Abu Dhabi: International Energy Agency.

Land Use Consultants. (2023). A Development Framework for the Hagshaw Energy Cluster: Planning for Net Zero. Retrieved from https://www.thehagshawenergycluster.co.uk/pdfs/A%20Development%20Framework%20for%20the%20Hagshaw%20Energy%20Cluster_FINAL%20July%202023_low-res.pdf

Leigh, E., & Creamer, D. (2025). Grangemouth Research Baseline Report. Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.

Lusty et al., P. (2022). Study on future UK demand and supply of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and graphite for electric vehicle batteries. UK Critical Materials Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-battery-minerals-report.pdf

Lv, A., & Munroe, T. (2024, December 3). China bans export of critical minerals to US as trade tensions escalate’, Reuters, 3 December. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-bans-exports-gallium-germanium-antimony-us-2024-12-03/

Martin, G. (2023). Letter to Edward Mountain MSP, 28 October [Letter]. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/net-zero-energy-and-transport-committee/correspondence/2023/solar-ambition-for-scotland-28-october-2023.pdf

Mazzucato, M., & MacFarlane, L. (2024). A Mission-Oriented Industrial Strategy for Scotland: Framing Paper’, Future Economy Scotland & the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. University College London. Retrieved from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10196028/1/Mazzucato_a_mission-oriented_industrial_strategy_for_scotland.pdf

Metabolic et al. (n.d.). Towards A Circular Energy Transition. Retrieved February 12, 2026, from https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/towards-a-circular-energy-transition/

MineralsUK; Natural Environment Research Council. (2026). World mineral statistics data. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/world-mineral-statistics/world-mineral-statistics-data-download/world-mineral-statistics-data/

Mkango Resources. (2026, January 15). UK Minister for Industry officially opens rare earth magnet recycling and manufacturing facility at Tyseley Energy Park, Birmingham – Press release. Retrieved from https://mkango.ca/site/assets/files/5103/20260115-nr-mka-v5.pdf

Mordor Intelligence. (2026). Niobium Market Size & Share Analysis – Growth Trends and Forecast (2026-2031). Retrieved from https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/niobium-market

Mudd et al, G. (2024). UK 2024 Criticality Assessment. UK Critical Materials Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/539735/1/OR24059.pdf

National Energy System Operator. (2025). (2025) Future Energy Scenarios: Pathways to Net Zero. Retrieved from https://www.neso.energy/document/364541/download

National Engineering Policy Centre. (2024). Critical materials: demand-side resource efficiency measures for sustainability and resilience. Retrieved from https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/cc53843b-72e9-444c-8289-6ca253cb1cb7/content

Oakdene Hollins. (2014). Critical Materials: Examining the materials critical to our sectors and economy. Retrieved from https://www.scottish-enterprise.com/media/bahchzdr/critical-materials-examining-the-materials-that-are-critical-to-our-sectors-and-economy.pdf

Offshore Wind Scotland. (2026). Ports and harbours for component manufacture and logistics. Retrieved from https://www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/the-scottish-offshore-wind-industry/ports-and-harbours/component-manufacture-and-logistics/

Ofgem. (2024). RIIO-ET3: Economic Lives of Electricity Transmission Network Assets. Ofgem.

Petavratzi et al, E. (2024a). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies – the case of batteries. Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/demand-foresight-studies/ukcmic-foresight-report-batteries.pdf

Petavratzi et al, E. (2024b). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies: the case of photovoltaic cells. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/demand-foresight-studies/ukcmic-foresight-report-photovoltaics.pdf

Petavratzi et al., E. (2024c). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies. UK Critical Materials Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/demand-foresight-studies/ukcmic-foresight-report-synthesis.pdf

Petavratzi, E. et al. (2024e). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies: the case of fuel cells. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/539472/1/CR24145N.pdf

Petavratzi, E., Josso, P., Shaw, R., & Horn, S. (2024d). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies: the case of wind turbines. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/539380/

Price, F. (2023). Scoping report on the material requirements for a UK hydrogen economy. British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-scoping-report-on-the-material-requirements-for-a-uk-hydrogen-economy-or12017.pdf

Reeves, M. (2023). Critical Minerals Research Landscape Review. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-critical-minerals-research-landscape-review-innovate-UK.pdf

REIA. (n.d.). Rare Earths. Retrieved from Rare Earth Industry Association: https://global-reia.org/rare-earth/

Renewable Parts Ltd. (2026). Retrieved from https://www.renewable-parts.com/

Ross, L., & Wright, C. (2025). The Importance of Critical Raw Materials & Technologies. Scottish Enterprise.

Scottish Enterprise. (2024). Economic Impact Scenarios for Scotland’s Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://www.scottish-enterprise.com/media/e5vlpm4u/the-economic-impact-of-scotlands-energy-transition.pdf

Scottish Government. (2022). Hydrogen Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/hydrogen-action-plan/

Scottish Government. (2023). Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan – delivering a fair and secure zero carbon energy system for Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2023/01/draft-energy-strategy-transition-plan/documents/draft-energy-strategy-transition-plan/draft-energy-strategy-transition-plan/govscot%3Adocument/draft-energy-strategy

Scottish Government. (2024a). Green Industrial Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/green-industrial-strategy/documents/

Scottish Government. (2024b). Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024 – 2029 Actions today, for a climate resilient future. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/

Scottish Government. (2024c). Scotland’s Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-circular-economy-waste-route-map-2030/

Scottish Government. (2024d). Deployment ambition for solar power generation 2030: EIR release. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202400392034/

Scottish Government. (2024e). Response to EIR request for information. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2024/02-a/foi-202300376161/documents/foi-202300376161—information-released—annex/foi-202300376161—information-released—annex/govscot%3Adocument/FOI%2B202300376161

Scottish Government. (2025a). Scotland’s Climate Change Plan: 2026–2040. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-change-plan-2026-2040/documents/

Scottish Government. (2025b). Increasing offshore wind ambition. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/news/increasing-offshore-wind-ambition/

Scottish Government. (2025c). Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/waste-reprocessing-infrastructure-scotland/

Scottish Government. (2025e). UK trade strategy: Scottish Government priorities – January 2025. Retrieved February 18, 2026, from https://www.gov.scot/publications/uk-trade-strategy-scottish-government-priorities/

Scottish Government. (2025f). Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/waste-reprocessing-infrastructure-scotland/

Scottish Government. (2026). Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2026/03/circular-economy-strategy-scotland/documents/circular-economy-strategy-scotland/circular-economy-strategy-scotland/govscot%3Adocument/circular-economy-strategy-scotland.pdf

Scottish Parliament. (2023). Wind energy in Scotland: current position and future plans. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://spice-spotlight.scot/2023/04/26/wind-energy-in-scotland-current-position-and-future-plans/

SFA Oxford. (2023). The UK nickel supply chain: Future supply and demand for electric vehicles. UK Critical Materials Intelligence Centre. Retrieved from https://ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/ukcmic-uk-nickel-supply-chain-public-report-sfa-oxford.pdf

Shafiee, M. (2024). Extending the Lifetime of Offshore Wind Turbines: Challenges and Opportunities. Energies, 17(16), 4191.

Shaw, R. (2022). The potential for lithium in the UK. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ukcmic.org/downloads/reports/the-potential-for-lithium-in-the-uk-2022.pdf

Simas et al, M. (2022). The Future is Circular – Circular Economy and Critical Minerals for the Green Transition. SINTEF Industry / Sustainable Energy Technology. Retrieved from https://nva.sikt.no/registration/0198cc7f98e8-ef1f449c-fe12-4f5a-8869-861137bc5176

Skills Development Scotland. (2025). Career Opportunities in Scotland across Offshore Wind. Retrieved from https://www.skillsdevelopmentscotland.co.uk/media/uc3eoknz/career-opportunities-across-scotland-in-offshore-wind.pdf

Smith, K., Saxon, A., Keyser, M., Lundstrom, B., Cao, Z., & Roc, A. (2017). Life Prediction Model for GridConnected Li-ion Battery Energy Storage System. Washington: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Solar Recycling Solutions. (2024). Silicon Recycling Solutions. Retrieved from https://solarrecyclingsolutions.co.uk/silicon-recycling-solutions/

Sommer, K. (2024). The Chinese plastic waste import ban: Lessons for EU policy. CEPR. Retrieved from https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinese-plastic-waste-import-ban-lessons-eu-policy

Stavridou, N., Koltsakis, C., & Baniotopoulos, C. (2020). A comparative life-cycle analysis of tall onshore steel wind-turbine towers. Clean Energy, 4. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/4/1/48/5639689

Stonehouse, R. (2023). The talent gap: critical skills for critical materials’. Institute of Materials, Minerals & Mining. Retrieved from https://www.iom3.org/resource/iom3-submits-report-on-critical-minerals-value-chain-skills-gaps-to-uk-government.html

Task & Finish Group. (2023). Report on Industry Resilience for Critical Minerals. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c9f85ccc433b0011a90bd0/the-task-_-finish-group-report-on-industry-resilience-for-critical-minerals-feb-2024.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). DOE Technical Targets for Fuel Cell Systems and Stacks for Transportation Applications. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-fuel-cell-systems-and-stacks-transportation-applications

U.S. Geological Survey. (2026). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. Retrieved from U.S. Geological Survey: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2026/mcs2026-rare-earths.pdf

UK Government. (2024). Clean Power 2030 Action Plan: A new era of clean electricity. London: UK Government.

UK Government. (2025). Vision 2035: Critical Minerals Strategy. UK Government.retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-minerals-strategy

UK Government. (2025a). The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy: Critical Minerals Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-minerals-strategy

UK Government. (2025b). The UK’s Trade Strategy. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68838f4ebe2291b14d11af2e/uk-trade-strategy-print.pdf

University of Birmingham. (2026). World-leading rare earth magnet recycling facility launches in West Midlands. Retrieved February 18, 2026, from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2026/world-leading-rare-earth-magnet-recycling-facility-launches-in-west-midlands

Usher, K. (2022). Modelling heat pump growth in Scotland. Retrieved 03 05, 2026, from https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/modelling-heat-pump-growth-in-scotland/#app-navigation

Ushie, O. J., Nwokolo, S. C., & Ohiero, P. O. (2025). Resilient strategies to mitigate the volatility of copper and aluminium critical mineral demand for net-zero electricity network production. Sustainable Energy Research, 12(56). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-025-00178-8

Veysi et al, S. (2025). Electric Vehicle Sales Forecast for the UK: Integrating Machine Learning, Time Series Models, and Global Trends. Algorithms, 18(7), 430.

Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2019). Benchmarking Anticipated Wind Project Lifetimes: Results from a Survey of U.S. Wind Industry Professionals. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Yergin et al, D. (2026). Copper in the Age of AI: Challenges of Electrification. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/special-reports/copper-in-the-age-of-ai#appendixB

Zero Waste Scotland. (2022). Scotland’s Ports: A Future Vision. Retrieved from https://cdn.zerowastescotland.org.uk/managed-downloads/mf-rgklpw_v-1688474957d

Zero Waste Scotland. (2023a). Circular Steel in Scotland. Retrieved from https://cdn.zerowastescotland.org.uk/managed-downloads/mf-qwstm9se-1688475468d

Zero Waste Scotland. (2023b). Energy Infrastructure Materials Mapping. Retrieved from https://cdn.zerowastescotland.org.uk/managed-downloads/mf-mtasacuu-1688475446d

Zero Waste Scotland. (2024). Delivering a circular economy at Hagshaw Energy Cluster: Annual Review. Retrieved from https://cdn.zerowastescotland.org.uk/managed-downloads/mf-lkkmf79m-1727779308d

Zils et al, M. (2024a). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies: the case of electrolysers. UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre; British Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/539480/1/CR24149N.pdf

Zils, M., Einarsson, S., & Hopkinson, P. (2024b). A UK foresight study of materials in decarbonisation technologies: the case of heat pumps. Exeter: University of Exeter Business School.

Appendices

Relevant legislation, policies and strategies

Table 6 summarises the key legislation, policies and strategies that provide the Scottish context for our research.

Study methodology

This appendix summarises the study methodology. Key steps were the selection of focus critical raw materials (CRMs) for the research, the selection and review of relevant literature, and the stakeholder engagement survey and interviews carried out to complement the literature review.

Selection of focus CRMs

Before starting the literature review, we defined focus CRMs from within the list of 34 United Kingdom (UK) CRMs plus copper, to keep the research focused and of a reasonable depth.

The key considerations used to select the focus CRMs were:

1. Relevance of the CRMs to the Steering Group’s list of net zero technologies (NZTs): Using several sources, we checked the relevance of the CRMs to the eight NZTs suggested by the Steering Group: on/offshore wind; fuel cells and hydrogen (grouped in the net zero context); heat pumps; batteries (EV) and energy storage (grouped for similar CRM use); the grid; solar/Photovoltaics (PVs). Ten CRMs were identified as relevant to three or more of the technologies.
   
2. Comparative importance of NZTs in Scotland, cross-checked with the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO) Future Energy Scenarios (FES): We reviewed the 2023 Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan for Scotland and cross-checked these with the 2025 NESO FES pathways. This confirmed on/offshore wind, hydrogen/fuel cells, batteries, the grid and solar/PV to be most important.
   
3. CRMs with a high UK criticality score: We reviewed the overall criticality score for each CRM in the 2024 UK Criticality Assessment. Ten CRMs of relevance to NZTs had an overall criticality score of 5 or higher.
   
4. Zero Waste Scotland’s report on Energy Infrastructure Materials Mapping: To further consider the Scottish context, we noted the materials this report highlights as vital for future energy infrastructure: aluminium, copper, neodymium (a REE), carbon, iridium, nickel, iron, platinum, lithium-cobalt oxide and titanium (chromium, steel and concrete are not on the UK CRMs list).
   
5. Presence on other countries’ criticality lists: To consider global criticality and competition for CRMs, we noted which UK CRMs are also on criticality lists for the European Union (EU), United States of America, Canada and Australia.

The application of the selection criteria is summarised in Table 7, with the CRMs in bold selected for the focus list. This list captures: some of the most critical battery metals (cobalt, nickel, lithium), crucial materials for motors and wind turbines (Rare Earth Elements, REEs) and for solar, grid infrastructure, and emerging hydrogen technologies (silicon, aluminium, iron, manganese, niobium), and copper, which will be vital for wider electrification.

Selection and review of literature

Selection of literature

We identified a range of literature including official Scottish (and UK) legislation and policy (to understand the policy context), academic literature (to gather data and peer-reviewed insights), and other literature such as reports by organisations and research consultancies (to gather data and insights from various interests).

The key policies and legislation used to confirm the policy context were:

• The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009;
• The Draft Climate Change Plan;
• The Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029;
• The 2022 Scottish Hydrogen Action Plan;
• The 2024 Scottish Green Industrial Strategy;
• The 2023 Scottish Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan;
• The 2025 UK Critical Minerals Strategy;
• The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024;
• Scotland’s Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030; and
• The 2025 Draft Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland.

We searched the websites of key organisations, including Zero Waste Scotland, the UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre (CMIC), the UK Technology Metals Observatory, Scottish Enterprise and the NESO. We focused on documents addressing net zero energy technologies, CRMs and material supply chains. Most of the literature found via this route is grey literature, or technical reports. We received a small number of additional useful suggestions from the project steering group.

In addition, we used Google Scholar and wider Google searches to identify potentially useful literature. This was based on single and combined keyword searches, with terms including “Scotland”, “Scottish”, “critical raw materials”, “net zero”, “renewable*”, “energy”, “energy technolog*”, “circular”, “risk”, “econom*” and “supply chain”.

In total, we reviewed ten key pieces of official policy and legislation and around 70 pieces of other (academic, technical and grey) literature, written by over 30 different organisations and authors. Around 20% of the sources selected for review are academic literature, around 40% technical (e.g. British Geological Survey, UK CMIC, Energy Transitions Commission, NESO) and the remaining 40% grey literature. Limited Scotland-specific data sets were found.

Review of literature

Each source was reviewed by one member of the team. Firstly, the executive summary/abstract was screened using keyword searches. Keywords used, in addition to those noted in the previous section, were the ten focus CRMs and the five key NZTs.

For each source found to be of relevance, we searched the remainder of the document for the same keywords. We logged useful information in a literature review sheet in a central shared Excel register, including key document details and information of relevance to the research questions.

Stakeholder engagement

Following the literature review, we undertook a stakeholder engagement phase comprised of:

1. Engagement with stakeholders via an online survey
2. A series of semi-structured online interviews with selected stakeholders.

We obtained informed consent from all stakeholders via a project information form and consent form (either at the start of the survey or prior to interview). Stakeholders were made aware of how their inputs would be used and offered the chance to withdraw consent at any time. All data was handled and held in accordance with GDPR and confidentiality requirements.

Online survey

The survey contained a section on each of the project’s main research questions:

• What is the current and projected CRM demand associated with Scotland’s renewable and NZTs?
• What are the most significant risks to these CRM supply chains over the medium-term time horizon (2025-2040) relevant to Scotland’s renewables and net zero sectors? At what stages of renewable deployment do these risks lie?
• What are the key economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with CRMs, especially in the context of a circular economy for Scotland?

We developed questions related to specific CRMs, technologies and/or supply chain risks, with a particular focus on knowledge gaps identified via the literature review. Question formats used a range of multiple choice, Likert scale questions, and open-ended questions to allow respondents to provide more detailed answers. The survey was designed to allow different respondents to complete only sections relevant to their background, skills and experience. Our communication to stakeholders clarified which sections and questions related to which topic areas.

Using the Excel-based register compiled during the literature review phase, all documents with named authors were interrogated further to identify email addresses. These were obtained via a basic Internet search. This created a ‘long-list’ of identifiable stakeholders to send the initial stakeholder survey to. The survey was not initially sent to stakeholders identified as potential interviewees, although it was sent as an alternative to those who declined an interview.

The survey was sent to 90 stakeholders, who were then sent reminders in an attempt to increase the response rate. In total, we received 17 responses. Five responses were received from private sector companies, five from public and private research institutions, three from industry associations, two from civil society organisations, and two from academia.

In the report we have simplified how we cite the number of respondents giving a particular answer, by consistent application of the following bands:

• 0-10% of respondents – very few
• 11-25% of respondents – a minority
• 26-40% of respondents – around one third
• 41-60% of respondents – around half
• 61-75% of respondents – a majority
• 76-90% of respondents – a large majority
• 91-100% of respondents – almost all

Stakeholder interviews

We discussed a longlist of potential interviewees with ClimateXChange. After review, a shortlist of interviewees was identified. We selected participants for interview based on a combination of factors. The first was geography – aiming to achieve a balance between those living and working in Scotland, the wider UK and internationally. Additionally, a variety of institutional backgrounds – academia, business/industry, public sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – were targeted to ensure representation across stakeholder groups. Finally, we aimed to ensure that the expertise of those interviewed together covered topics related to all three key research questions.

We sent personalised invitations for interview to 14 individuals. Nine accepted, with interviews held over a five-week period from December 2025 to January 2026. Three interviewees were from academia (professors of geology, energy materials and sustainable material manufacture), two from the research sector, two from business/industry and two from technical institutes. The organisations are as follows (one anonymised by request):

• Academia: Cranfield University, St. Andrews University and Lincoln University
• Research sector: SINTEF (Norwegian independent research organisation) and British Geological Survey
• Business/industry: Circularity Collective and Business group (anonymised)
• Technical institutes: Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, and Critical Minerals Association

Interviews were up to one hour long and used a semi-structured format. We tailored questions to the expertise of each interviewee, taking account of their published work identified in the literature review. Individuals were encouraged to elaborate on the findings of their work in the context of the core research questions. They were also invited to offer policy-related reflections based on their expertise and experience.

We conducted and recorded interviews via Microsoft Teams, with transcription (verbatim) using the built-in Artificial Intelligence function. A written two-page summary was produced from each transcript. We then collated key points related to the project’s core research questions into a sheet in the study’s Excel register and integrated these into the relevant chapters of this report. Points mentioned by several stakeholders were prioritised for inclusion in the report. Points mentioned by only one interviewee were included if deemed to be of particular importance or contributing something new. Less pertinent points made by only one interviewee were not included. The type(s) of stakeholder making each point is noted in the report, to provide context on where the comments originate from.

Limitations

Our research faced some limitations. We focused on only 10 CRMs, and a subset of NZTs. These choices were made to keep the research manageable and to focus on areas where more data was anticipated to be available. The report should therefore not be seen as providing a full picture regarding all 34 UK CRMs plus copper, across all NZTs.

We also found limited Scotland-specific data sets, meaning that in some cases we rely on UK or global data. We relied in particular on one Zero Waste Scotland source (2023b) for Scotland-specific information on materials for the energy transition.

Regarding the stakeholder engagement phase, we had a somewhat limited response rate to the survey, meaning that responses may not reflect the full range of stakeholder opinion. The number of interviews held was as anticipated based on the study resources, but again may not be fully representative of all stakeholder views.

For discussion surrounding uncertainties and interpretation related to the modelling data and methodology, please see Appendix C.

1. Modelling data and assumptions

This section presents background details to understand the modelling work. This includes:

• The methodology used to create the model;
• All data sources and assumptions that fed into the model; and
• Discussion on uncertainty and interpretability of the results.

Model methodology

The aim of the modelling exercise was to forecast supply (primary and secondary) and demand for six critical raw materials (CRMs) in Scotland over time. We ultimately looked at seven CRMs due to good data availability, and the presence of multiple different CRMs in so many net-zero technologies (NZTs) in scope.

The modelling was designed to answer the following questions:

• What is the Scottish annual demand for CRMs for applications in NZTs into the future?
• What is the production/availability of secondary CRMs for use in Scotland/the United Kingdom (UK), assuming appropriate domestic recycling facilities are developed?
• What is the global availability of primary CRMs?
• What are the net required imports of CRMs over time in Scotland?
• Should Scotland invest in domestic recycling capacities, and for which CRMs would this be appropriate?

The CRMs included in this analysis are: cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, nickel, Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and silicon. These were selected because they had the best data availability. In the process of shortlisting the CRMs, attention was paid to the CRM make-up of the NZTs. It is important to note that the data and modelling in this study is restricted to demand from NZTs. It does not consider alternative demand-side pressures in a comprehensive or systematic way, relying predominately on a single source from the International Energy Agency (International Energy Agency, 2022). Care should therefore be taken when interpreting these results.

The modelling analysis predicts future supply and demand of these CRMs at three geographical levels: Scotland, the rest of the UK, and global. A number of datasets were used as inputs to the modelling.

Historic and projected data were used as inputs at each of the three geographical levels regarding:

• The annual uptake rates of each NZT. For example, annual installed Megawatt (MW) capacity of onshore wind.
• The quantity of each CRM required for a ‘unit’ of a NZT. For example, the quantity of copper required in a MW installed capacity of onshore wind, which changes over time due to a changing onshore wind technology mix.
• The average lifetime of each NZT. E.g., the average lifetime of an onshore wind farm.

In addition, at a global level only, the model uses historic and projected data on:

• The annual global primary production of each CRM. For example, the annual production of primary refined copper.
• The annual global secondary production of each CRM. For example, the annual production of secondary refined copper.
• The demand for each CRM in other technologies outside of NZT demand. For example, the annual non-NZT global demand for copper.

Where available, this data was obtained from external sources. Where data gaps existed, the data was produced by the modelling team. The full set of external data sources, as well as the assumptions used by the team to fill data gaps, is set out in 10.6 below.

The model then took these inputs, and created the following projections:

• Annual CRM demand per NZT in Scotland (see Figure 5-11), the rest of the UK, and globally
• Annual net CRM availability (supply minus demand) considering NZTs only (for Scotland, see Figure 12 to Figure 18) and across all uses (Figure 34 – Figure 37 for net global supply in the context of Scottish NZT ambitions)
• Annual NZT end of life quantities (see Figure 22 to Figure 25) for Scotland and the rest of the UK).

Modelling includes timeseries analysis using raw- and generated- data.

Data, data sources and assumptions

The following section records data, sources and assumptions systematically for each datapoint used within these models.

Grid infrastructure

Copper is one of the core CRMs needed for grid infrastructure (Petavratzi et al., 2024c). The following data sources were used to model grid copper requirements;

• At the global level, copper demand for electricity grids between 2020 and 2040 (International Energy Agency, 2021b);
• At the UK level copper demand in grid infrastructure is available for 2030 and 2050 (Jackson et al., 2024);
• Scottish copper requirements for the grid were assumed to be 9.5% of this, as Scotland has 9.5% of UK power meter connections (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2025c).

Net zero technology uptake

The uptake of NZTs in Scotland has been modelled based on Scottish policy projections.

Existing NZT installations

Existing NZT installations can be recycled at end of life to extract CRMs. The quantity and age of existing NZTs is used in the model to predict future availability of secondary CRMs.

CRMs in NZTs

The tables in this section set out the data used to model the quantity of each CRM required on average within a given NZT.

NZT average lifetime

The availability of secondary CRMs is modelled based on new NZTs reaching the end of their life. For this, it is necessary to know the age at which a NZT reaches its EoL and can be recycled.

CRM primary production volumes (Scotland, UK, Global)

The tables below provide the data and sources for primary production volumes of each CRM, where data is available.

Non NZT demand

The table below provides figures related to weights, per annum, of CRMs needed for non NZT applications.

Average recycling rates of CRMs

The table below provides the global recycling rates of CRMs, where available. This is not specific to NZT applications.

Uncertainty and interpretation

Our modelling work was forward-looking, and predicting the future is always an uncertain exercise. In particular, uncertainties that have a large potential impact on the modelling results exist around:

• The speed and volume of uptake of NZTs
• The quantity of CRMs contained within an average ‘unit’ of NZT, and how this quantity will change over time
• The availability of primary CRMs from mining.

These uncertainties are discussed below.

At a Scottish and UK level, when predicting NZT roll-out, the model assumed all ambitions stated in Scottish and UK policy will be achieved. In reality, changing politics and priorities, as well as practical barriers and delays to implementation, may mean these targets are not achieved. In particular, only 4 years remain to achieve any 2030 targets. An analysis of current pipeline projects may shed further insights into likely new NZT installations between now and 2030.

Globally, future supply and demand are both uncertain.

On the demand side:

• NZT CRM content is changing (see Section 10.8 below for a full analysis):
  • Different battery technologies require different levels of cobalt, lithium, manganese and nickel. An emerging dominance of one technology over another could drastically shift projected CRM needs for electric vehicles (EVs) in particular.
  • Permanent magnets used in wind turbines and heat pumps are becoming more common, increasing REE needs for these technologies. Alternatively, as wind turbines become more powerful, the required REE content per installed MW could decrease.
• New technologies and uses of CRMs are emerging. For example, the impact of data centres on future CRM needs is only beginning to be understood (see, for example, (Yergin et al, 2026)).
• The speed at which the world decarbonises is uncertain, which means both cumulative and annual CRM demand from NZT could be significantly higher or lower than predicted.

On the supply side, primary CRM production levels can change significantly, even over a relatively short period of time. For example, cobalt primary production has doubled from 2021-2024 (Jenns, 2025), which was largely unexpected and unpredicted by forecasts as recent as 2023 (see, for example, (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023c)).

As such, future predictions of net global CRM availability should be interpreted with caution.

Uncertainties that have a smaller impact the modelling results include:

• Future recycling rates and secondary CRM availability at a global level:
  • The impact on the model is small because secondary supply is only a small contributor to total global supply, particularly in the shorter term.
• Average NZT lifetimes:
  • This shifts the exact timeframes when CRMs will be available at end-of-life, but overall trends on end-of-life availability will still be maintained, provided changes in average lifetimes are small relative to those modelled here.

CRMs used in net zero technologies

Onshore wind

The REE requirements and market shares of the four dominant onshore wind turbine technologies are set out below (Petavratzi, Josso, Shaw, & Horn, 2024d).

Onshore wind turbines use a variety of CRMs, with Arup estimating that 10.3 t of these materials are required per MW, the majority being zinc and copper (Arup, 2024). Iron is a critical component in the gearbox, while copper is used in the generator (Stavridou, Koltsakis, & Baniotopoulos, 2020) and is required for wiring and cables (Arup, 2024). Aluminium is used across all four turbine types, particularly within structural components (Petavratzi, Josso, Shaw, & Horn, 2024d). Zinc, manganese, chromium and nickel are also used in offshore wind technology (Arup, 2024).

Material intensity per MW of energy generated may be reduced through to 2050 by increasing the size of turbines, leading to higher capacity factors (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a). Demand for materials can also be met through increased recycling, with there being potential globally for 90% of wind turbines to be collected for recycling by 2050 (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023a). In Scotland, city ports could act as circular hubs for the recycling of onshore renewables alongside manufacturing of offshore renewables using these reclaimed CRMs (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022).

Offshore wind

As technologies using REE-containing permanent magnets hold a higher market share of offshore turbines, total CRM material requirements per MW for offshore are estimated to be higher, at 15.5 t (Arup, 2024). According to UK CMIC, permanent magnet technologies (direct-drive permanent-magnet synchronous generators and direct-drive electrically excited synchronous generators) held a combined market share of 94% in offshore wind in 2020, with this figure expected to increase to 100% in 2050 (Petavratzi, Josso, Shaw, & Horn, 2024d). Furthermore, copper requirements for offshore wind are estimated to be approximately 8 t per MW – roughly 2.5 times higher than onshore, since increased electricity infrastructure is required over longer distances (Arup, 2024).

Solar photovoltaic (PV)

Research suggests that on average approximately 6.7 t of CRMs are needed for each MW of solar capacity, of which the majority is silicon and copper (Arup, 2024). Estimates vary for the proportions between the two metals, though the United States Copper Development Association estimates the copper requirement to be 5.5 t per MW (Copper Development Association, undated). Passivated emitter and rear solar cells (PERCs) are the most commonly used solar PV technology, holding a 90% share of the global market in 2020 (Petavratzi et al, 2024b). This technology relies on a silver front contact layer, crystalline silicon (c-Si) substrate and aluminium paste rear contact layer (Petavratzi et al, 2024b). Silicon heterojunction solar cells (SHJ) are the next most common, at 5% of the market, using a silver paste front and back contact layer, with a c-Si substrate (Petavratzi et al, 2024b). Aluminium is also frequently used in the support structure for all cell types. These two c-Si based technologies are forecast to continue to lead the market through to 2050, though SHJ’s share is forecast to increase to 40% by 2035 (Petavratzi et al, 2024b).

Grid infrastructure

Material requirements for improving grid infrastructure centre on large quantities of copper and aluminium, which are used across both the transition and distribution networks, and across other distribution technologies such as solar connections, grid storage batteries and EV (Electric Vehicle) charging infrastructure (Petavratzi et al., 2024c).

Electric vehicles and vehicle batteries

Three of the priority CRMs in this study – nickel, cobalt and manganese – are used in the production of the battery cathodes used in EVs. Copper, aluminium and graphite are also used in battery production. Planned UK vehicle battery manufacturing plants, also known as ‘gigafactories’, are expected to reach an annual production capacity in 2030 of 135 Gigawatt hours (Lusty et al., 2022). Across EVs as a whole, including the battery, Arup estimates that 215 kg of CRMs are used per vehicle (Arup, 2024).

Demand for these CRMs can be partially met through pre- and post-consumer battery scrap, which is expected to represent a key source of recycled cathode materials in the UK by 2030 (Lusty et al., 2022), though this is dependent on regulatory decisions on the processing of waste batteries. Additionally, the number of end-of-life EVs in the UK is expected to increase significantly by 2040 and may by that point also be a key source for recycled critical cathode materials (Lusty et al., 2022). New and emerging technologies – such as sodium-ion batteries, may also decrease demand for CRMs in future (Arup, 2024).

Hydrogen and fuel cells

Electrolysers are devices which use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, used for the production of green hydrogen. Four main types of electrolyser technology exist: alkaline electrolysers (AEL), proton exchange membrane electrolysers (PEM), solid oxide electrolyser cell (SOEC) and anion exchange membrane electrolysers (AEM) (Zils et al, 2024a). AEL and PEM electrolysers are currently dominant globally, holding roughly a 60% and 30% share of total global capacity respectively (Zils et al, 2024a). By 2030 across the UK, this split is expected to be 70% PEM, 25% AEL and 5% SOEC.

AELs use approximately 0.8 t of nickel per MW, as well as 0.5 t of aluminium, 100 kilograms of zirconium, and small quantities of cobalt and copper (Zils et al, 2024a). PEM technology uses catalysts with a platinum and iridium base, requiring 0.3 kg of platinum and 0.4 kg of iridium per MW (Zils et al, 2024a). The composition of SOEC technology varies, but is understood to require per MW approximately 175 kg of nickel, 40 kg of Zirconium, 20 kg of lanthanum (a REE), and 5 kg of Ytterbium (also a REE) (Zils et al, 2024a). AELs use approximately 0.8 t of nickel per MW, as well as 0.5 t of aluminium, 100 kilograms of zirconium, and small quantities of cobalt and copper (Zils et al, 2024a). PEM technology uses catalysts with a platinum and iridium base, requiring 0.3 kg of platinum and 0.4 kg of iridium per MW (Zils et al, 2024a). The composition of SOEC technology varies, but is understood to require per MW approximately 175 kg of nickel, 40 kg of Zirconium, 20 kg of lanthanum (a REE), and 5 kg of Ytterbium (also a REE) (Zils et al, 2024a).

Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity and have a variety of applications including transport (e.g. EVs and aviation) and grid storage. Key fuel cell types include proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC), solid oxide (SOFC), alkaline (AFC), phosphoric acid (PAFC), and molten carbonate (MCFC). The most commonly-used technology, PEMFC, uses three of the priority CRMs – cobalt, aluminium (approximately 300 grams per 1 kilowatt (kW) fuel cell) and copper (approximately 20g per 1kW fuel cell) (Petavratzi, E. et al., 2024e).

Projected global supply and demand of selected CRMs

Figures 32 to 36 show the projected global supply and demand of selected CRMs across all uses (including non-NZT uses). See ‎Appendix C for a discussion on uncertainty within these predictions. Supply includes both primary supply from mining activities, and secondary supply. The supply gap (where demand outpaces supply) is an indication of periods when Scotland may struggle to obtain the CRMs it requires to meet its NZT ambitions, or when CRM costs may be prohibitive.

There is a particular risk regarding copper as production is near peak levels, and is expected to plateau in the coming years based on recent production forecasts (Yergin et al, 2026). The current copper mine project pipeline points to a potential 10-15% supply shortfall by 2030 (Ross & Wright, 2025) and 30% by 2035. Reasons include declining ore grades (reiterated by a research sector interviewee), rising capital costs (around one-third of survey respondents felt this was a factor affecting global CRM demand), limited resource discoveries, and long lead times (International Energy Agency, 2025a). Risks of new CRM extraction are discussed in more detail in Section ‎7.2.2. Globally, copper demand is expected to increase two- to three-fold by 2040 (Arup, 2024).

Nickel supply until recently was expected to exceed demand only until 2026 (SFA Oxford, 2023) and to be in a 10-15% deficit by 2030. However, supply of nickel has increased in recent years (International Nickel Study Group, 2025), driven in particular by growth in Indonesian and Chinese production. This means in the short-term a continued surplus is likely. However, with demand increasing sharply any supply surplus margin remains small, particularly beyond 2035. As both supply and demand forecasts are inherently uncertain, shortfalls in nickel supply should be planned for.

IEA modelling of two different demand scenarios has estimated that nickel demand worldwide is expected to increase by 7 to 19 times by 2040, with the latter being the figure necessary for a demand pathway consistent with meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement (International Energy Agency, 2022).

For lithium, near-term markets appear well-supplied, but rapidly growing demand is expected to push the market into deficit by the 2030s (International Energy Agency, 2025a). Even a lower demand projection with high efficiency and recycling of lithium exceeds reserves (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023d). Global lithium demand is expected to increase by 13 to 42 times by 2040 (Arup, 2024).

There are also competing demands for production, particularly for nickel and other base metals, which are in higher demand than other CRMs (Price, 2023).

Global cobalt demand is expected to increase by 6 to 21 times by 2040 (Arup, 2024). A recent large increase in cobalt production (Jenns, 2025) means cobalt supply is likely to be sufficient to meet increasing demand to at least 2040.

Modelling shows that the global demand for REEs used in magnets is expected to exceed supply from 2030, posing a risk to Scotland’s net zero ambitions, for wind, Electric Vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps.

How to cite this publication:

Watkins, E., Sandilands, J., Wells, R., Hill, D., Worsdell, E., McAuley, L., Nicholson, M. (2026) Scotland’s Critical Raw Materials Supply Chain for the Net Zero Energy Sector: Risks and Opportunities, ClimateXChange.

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026
Prepared by Logika and IEEP UK on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

1. These figures have been updated from those stated in the referenced reports to account for capacity increases since their publication. ↑

2. https://www.evolvemetals.uk/. The company is working to create the “world’s first hydrogen-based, non-toxic, low emissions copper refinery”. ↑
   

3. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act designates strategic projects to increase EU capacity to extract, process and recycle strategic raw materials, and diversify EU supplies from third countries. Project acceptance under this designation allows for streamlined permitting processes. Under the Act, permitting for extraction is capped at 27 months, and 15 months for processing/recycling projects. ↑
   

   
   

Research completed: March 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7561

Executive summary

Introduction and aims

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmospheric cycle and into permanent storage is key to achieving net zero. Biochar is one of the most widely adopted methods of doing so globally.

Biochar is a solid carbon material similar to charcoal, made by decomposing biological material, typically plant biomass, at very high temperatures – a process known as pyrolysis. Biochar can store carbon in the long term, allowing for the transfer of carbon out of the active cycle and into permanent storage.

This report aims to assess the potential for biochar deployment in Scotland, drawing on a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of published literature and nine stakeholder interviews. It examines feedstock availability, biochar impacts related to carbon sequestration, soil health and yields, international experience with biochar, potential deployment pathways for Scotland, and key barriers and enablers for biochar deployment.

Key findings

Feedstock sources

Scotland has substantial biomass resources that could supply biochar production, including residue and waste streams from forestry, sawmills, whisky production, agriculture and municipal sources. The availability of these feedstocks is not likely to limit biochar deployment, in particular given forestry processing volumes are projected to almost treble over the next 20 years.

However, a significant gap exists regarding biochar-relevant analysis of Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams, including agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood.

Carbon sequestration and stability

Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage. For woody feedstocks such as forestry residues (one of the most feasible for Scotland) each tonne of biochar removes roughly 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after accounting for production emissions. This has been confirmed by operational data in the UK.

Scotland’s conditions are favourable for long-term carbon storage. Biochar typically degrades more slowly in cooler climates. Most Scottish agricultural soils are mineral soils, favourable to biochar retention. Scotland’s high rainfall may reduce measurable soil carbon gains over time, but this is a measurement consideration rather than a reduced storage benefit.

Soil health, land productivity and climate resilience

Biochar has been shown to increase crop yields in tropical systems, and in degraded soils, but there is limited data from studies in Scotland.

A limited pilot study involving Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) in 2023-2025 showed an increase in grassland (16-18%) and arable (34%) yields through co-application of biochar with organic fertiliser, compared with fertiliser alone. This suggests that biochar can deliver benefits under Scottish conditions when used as part of existing farm practice.

In a separate study, biochar has been found to raise soil pH, benefitting approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils (low pH can reduce productivity). It has also reduced nitrous oxide emissions from mineral soils by 12 to 38%. Application to peat should be avoided given uncertainty around potential to increase emissions.

Lessons from international experience

Scotland can learn from biochar policy development in other European countries.

Denmark has the most advanced policy framework in Europe for biochar, but there is a significant gap between ambition and deployment. In Sweden, the biochar sector has grown through public co-financing, municipality-level support – a collaborative approach where biochar plants are treated as learning sites alongside production infrastructure.

Germany benefits from strong industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology and regulatory recognition of pyrolysis as an acceptable method for phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge, creating a market pull for the technology.

Potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

We have identified seven potential pathways that could be explored for biochar deployment in Scotland. The viability of each depends on the match between feedstock, production conditions and end-use. There is a trade-off between optimising for carbon permanence and optimising for immediate soil benefits.

Use of biochar as an agricultural soil amendment offers the highest carbon sequestration potential. The most promising approach for Scotland is co-application with organic fertilisers at low doses, requiring minimal change to current farm practice. The carbon storage benefit is delivered regardless of the agronomic outcome.

Wider barriers and enablers

Biochar manufacture is classified as a waste management activity in Scotland, with pyrolysis facilities processing over 50 kg per hour requiring full waste management licensing. This was consistently identified by stakeholders as the primary barrier to investment.

The market for biochar is at an early stage. Production costs are highly variable, carbon credit revenue will be critical for most pathways, and no mechanism currently exists to support the transition from demonstrator to commercial operation.

Public awareness of carbon removal technologies is very low, and farmer adoption is constrained by limited Scottish evidence and uncertainty over returns. Trust will depend on credible, independent evidence.

Areas for future action and research

We have identified several areas where action or research could be undertaken to support a move towards biochar use in Scotland. These are:

• Taking steps to bridge the gap between demonstrator and commercial stages through targeted support for early commercial operations. Both UK and Scottish stakeholders have identified that current funding mechanisms leave this gap, which acts as a distinct constraint to deployment.
• Developing end-of-waste criteria for qualifying biochar through engagement with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in parallel with any future biochar policy commitment. International experience identifies this as a critical-path enabler for deployment.
• Commissioning Scottish agricultural field trials at economically realistic application rates across priority feedstocks and soil types, including long-term monitoring of both carbon persistence and soil health outcomes.
• Opportunity mapping for biochar production at different scales, identifying where existing and future infrastructure might favour investment, considering the feedstock logistics and end-uses, including the heat product.
• Conducting comparative LCAs across major Scottish feedstock resources and supply chains, to assess biochar against credible alternative uses rather than in isolation.
• In the short term, agreeing a standardised framework for biochar characterisation, traceability and monitoring, covering both climate claims and environmental safeguards.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Background and context

Biochar is a solid carbon material similar to charcoal. It is made from biological material, or biomass, through pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the decomposition of organic materials at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. As a stable material, biochar can store carbon in the long term. Biochar therefore represents the transfer of carbon out of the active cycle and into permanent storage.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies have been identified as a key tool for Scotland and the United Kingdom (UK) to achieve net zero, to offset residual emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from fossil fuels and address the emission of non-CO₂ trace gases (mainly from land use). Globally, biochar is currently the most widely adopted method of permanent GGR, accounting for 90% of all GGR removal credits delivered by the global voluntary carbon market (IBI, 2023).

The Seventh Carbon Budget, presented to the UK Government by the Climate Change Committee in February 2025 is the first to include biochar in its pathways for net zero (Climate Change Committee, 2025). The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has also recently consulted on “non-Carbon Capture and Storage reliant” GGRs, where biochar has become the focus, recognising the importance of geological carbon storage for achieving net zero. Biochar is expected to be included in the integration of GGR into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS), a step predicted to become operational by the end of 2029 (subject to further consultation and regulatory assessment) (UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, 2025).

Strategies to develop a viable biochar carbon removal sector have rested on three principles:

1. Biochar provides end-user value at the same time as permanently storing carbon;
2. The benefits of using biochar are scalable, i.e., local benefits are equally valuable regardless of the aggregate scale of adoption; and
3. The societal benefits of making biochar exceed the short-term benefits gained by the end-user.

These principles suggest a win-win opportunity for delivery of GGR. However, commercial biochar production has only recently begun in the UK, largely due to UK Government investment in demonstration and pilot projects. It is in this context that our report examines the existing evidence and experience on the properties of biochar materials, efforts to commercialise biochar use, and pathways to accelerate and/or increase its deployment.

Report aims and structure

In this report, we aim to present an overview of existing evidence of relevance to the potential for deploying biochar in Scotland. The key objectives are to:

• Assess the supply chain viability for biochar in Scotland, considering feedstock sources, necessary infrastructure and logistics, and costs, benefits, risks and barriers;
• Review existing evidence on the effects of biochar on carbon sequestration, soil health, and agricultural performance, under Scotland’s climate and soil conditions;
• Outline lessons learned from a selection of countries where biochar implementation is further advanced.

We also aim to identify where key evidence gaps exist, to indicate where new work could efficiently and effectively inform future biochar deployment pathways in Scotland.

Methodology

For the study, we used a Rapid Evidence Assessment method for literature review, reviewing in detail 10 pieces of academic literature on feedstocks, 13 on carbon impacts, and 27 on soil impacts, plus 66 pieces of grey literature. This was supplemented by a series of 9 online stakeholder interviews, with 12 individuals from the fields of industry, government, research and the NGO sector. Our methodology was designed to identify information relevant to the key research topics, including: feedstock sources, carbon impact, effect of biochar on soil health, land productivity and climate resilience, processing infrastructure, supply chain logistics, and capital and operational expenditure. It also aimed to capture information for the economic assessment and political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal (PESTEL) analysis. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A.

Evidence base for biochar potential in Scotland

In this section, we focus on the application of biochar to agricultural soils as part of crop and livestock production systems, since that is the main use explored in the literature we have reviewed. The chapter concludes with the consideration of some potential alternative biochar deployment pathways for Scotland (other than direct application to soils).

Feedstock sources

Feedstock availability is not likely to be a limiting factor for biochar production in Scotland. Scotland has substantial biomass resources across forestry, agriculture, whisky production and waste streams, which are set to grow. These have been assessed for their potential role in the energy system and in non-fuel uses, leading to a Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement (Scottish Government, 2024). Pyrolysis has not been considered as a lead use option for potential feedstocks in Scottish policy, but most of the resources identified could theoretically supply biochar production. Estimated national potential of biochar production in the research literature reviewed is shown in Table 5‑1.

Table 5‑1: Estimated national potential of biochar production for Scotland (Ahmed, et al., 2012)

A key challenge encountered in this research is the significant gap in evidence related to Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams for biochar. Some of these feedstock streams have no Scottish biochar-specific research, though United Kingdom (UK)-level volume and characterisation data exists for most. The studies identified primarily assess feedstock availability, competing uses, and calorific properties, not biochar production potential or agronomic outcomes from biochar produced from these feedstocks.

Summary of evidence on feedstocks

Here, we briefly outline the areas of confident knowledge, issues under active debate and key evidence gaps in relation to feedstocks for biochar in Scotland. In the following sections, we discuss specific feedstock types in a little more detail. In Appendix B, we include a table with an overview of the level of confidence of the evidence presented on feedstocks.

Areas of confident knowledge. Scotland has substantial and diverse biomass resources that could theoretically supply biochar production. Forestry and sawmill co-products are the most immediately viable feedstock, with well-characterised volumes and existing processing infrastructure concentrated in Scotland. Timber processing volumes are projected to grow significantly over the next two decades. The whisky industry produces large, well-characterised point-source residues, though existing evidence suggests competing uses (particularly animal feed) currently deliver climate benefit.

Issues under active debate. The central question is how biochar compares to existing uses in terms of overall climate benefit, including both carbon sequestration and avoided emissions. Most feedstock streams have established end-uses, and any diversion to biochar production could alter existing supply chains. For feedstocks within Scotland, comparative evidence is largely missing, meaning the relative climate benefit of biochar versus current uses is unknown rather than demonstrated to be lower. The economics of feedstock collection, transport (particularly for wet wastes) and pre-processing also remain under-evaluated in a Scottish biochar context.

Key evidence gaps. The most significant gap is the absence of research into the potential of Scotland’s largest feedstock streams to be used to produce biochar. There is a lack of Scottish biochar research for agricultural residues, sewage sludge, waste wood, and horticultural residues despite them having the largest available volumes and the fewest competing high value uses. The peer-reviewed literature is biased toward whisky industry co-products and specific forestry sites, while quantitative volume data exists primarily for forestry products (through Forest Research statistics) and whisky co-products (through industry reporting) (Forest Research, 2025b). For agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood, Scottish-specific availability data were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. No comparative LCA has been conducted weighing biochar against other uses across Scottish feedstock streams.

Forestry residues and sawmill co-products

Evidence base: Multiple studies on sawmill throughput, pellet production, and forestry brash volumes. One Scottish lab-scale biochar characterisation study (Flow Country brash). No Scottish field trials. No peer-reviewed data on arboricultural arisings in Scotland.

Forestry residues is the feedstock stream with the most extensively documented supply data and the most immediate relevance for Scottish biochar production, in contrast to agricultural residues where no biochar-specific research was identified. Currently 5.5 million tonnes per year of softwood (2.25 M dry t) pass through UK sawmills, with half of UK processing conducted in Scotland. Ten mills account for 60% of total throughput (Forest Research, 2025b). Woodchip, bark and sawdust are sawmill co-products with established competing markets including bioenergy, panel board, and horticultural products.

Conversion of sawmill co-products into saleable pellets has been a marked trend over the past decade: of the 327,000 t of softwood pellets produced in 2024, more than half were derived from sawmill co-products (Forest Research, 2025b). Scottish softwood availability is forecast to increase by approximately 40% from the current period to the late 2030s, rising from 8.8 to 12.3 M meters cubed overbark standing (Forest Research, 2025b), which suggests a rapidly expanding supply base that could support biochar production.

Beyond sawmills, forestry harvesting generates substantial brash residues. Gaffney, et al. (2024) estimated 80 t of forestry brash per hectare are available post-harvest from Scottish forest plantations. If left on-site this can release organic carbon, potassium and phosphorus into sensitive waters, dependent on specifics of the site (Gaffney, et al., 2024). Brash removal has been proposed as a management option that could also supply pyrolysis feedstock, though the logistics and costs of collection at scale have not been assessed for Scottish conditions (Gaffney, et al., 2024).

The properties of biochar produced from Flow Country conifer brash have been examined at laboratory scale (Pap, et al., 2022). The biochar may be more appropriately used to recycle phosphorus to new plantations rather than for bulk soil application (Pap, et al., 2022). No field-scale trials using Scottish forestry brash biochar have been conducted.

Arboricultural arisings, material from tree surgery and urban tree management, are currently the feedstock used by one of the few operational biochar production facilities in the UK (WoodTek, Surrey). This suggests commercial viability at small scale, though Scottish-specific volumes and supply chain data could not be identified in the peer-reviewed literature.

Whisky co-products

Evidence base: Well-studied feedstock stream with four recent studies including three life cycle assessments (LCAs). All examined animal feed, anaerobic digestion (AD), or biorefinery routes. No studies assessed examined biochar production from whisky co-products.

The Scottish whisky industry produces around 7.65 Mt of pot ale and 1.34 Mt of draff per year from 136 individual distilleries (Andrews, et al., 2025). These are well-characterised, point-source residues with established supply chains. However, pot ale is approximately 96% water, meaning the dry mass available for thermal processing is a small fraction of the headline volume (Edwards, et al., 2022).

From the evidence assessed, this is the most-studied Scottish feedstock stream, although none of the studies examined biochar production. All studies identified instead focused on use in animal feed, AD, or biorefinery routes (Andrews, et al., 2025; Duffy, et al., 2023; Schestak, et al., 2022; Edwards, et al., 2022). Three recent LCAs compared established end-use options and found that animal feed use (displacing imported soy) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation than AD (Duffy, et al., 2023). This finding suggests that any diversion of these resources would need comparative life cycle analysis, as any future biochar pathway would need to demonstrate comparable or greater benefit unless excess volume is used.

Pot ale has also been used for nutrient recovery through reapplication to land as a fertiliser (Edwards, et al., 2022). No evidence was found for integration of biochar into the whisky supply chain, for example in barley growing. Scotland’s brewing industry produces similar co-product types but at substantially smaller volumes, and no biochar-relevant research was identified for this sector.

Agricultural residues

Evidence base: UK-wide volume and characterisation data available. One international study showed straw-to-biochar conversion benefits. No studies identified examining biochar production from Scottish agricultural residues (barley straw, oat straw, horticultural waste).

The UK produces around 15 M dry t of agricultural waste per year, including 6.6 Mt as wheat straw (Bolaji, et al., 2021). Scotland accounts for a disproportionately high share of barley and oat straw (26% and 21% of UK totals respectively), but also a markedly higher proportion of livestock farming (Bolaji, et al., 2021). The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs estimates 2–3 Mt of straw per year is potentially available for alternative uses across the UK (Bolaji, et al., 2021).

The fate of crop straw is an economic decision between sale into existing markets for animal bedding and feed, or direct return to the soil during harvest. In terms of soil carbon, converting straw to biochar before soil application should be more effective than direct incorporation, since straw is readily degradable. This has been demonstrated experimentally: the amount of carbon stored in the soil was increased four-fold by prior conversion to biochar (Liu, et al., 2024).

Livestock manures and slurries present a different picture. The economic limits to transport of wet wastes (liquid manure, slurry) may be as low as 10 kilometres (km), compared to 30–50 km for dry biomass (Bevan, et al., 2021; Edwards, et al., 2022). Manures are not well suited as a pyrolysis feedstock due to their high moisture content but they contain more reactive nitrogen, so provide a more valuable vehicle for directly delivering biochar to land. In contrast, dry low-nitrogen residues like straw are a better primary feedstock for pyrolysis.

No recent studies were identified examining biochar production from Scotland-specific agricultural resources such as barley and oat straw, or wastes arising from protected horticultural crops including soft fruit. Given that agricultural residues represent the largest biomass stream in Scotland, and one with fewer competing high-value uses than whisky co-products, this gap is significant.

Other waste streams

Evidence base: UK-level studies on food waste management and hydrothermal carbonisation of digestate. One village-scale feasibility study. No national assessment of sewage sludge pyrolysis potential in Scotland. No Scotland-specific waste-to-biochar studies identified.

The UK generates 13.1 Mt of food waste annually, managed through AD or composting (14–41%, depending on the stage in the food supply chain at which the waste is generated), incineration (13–48%), landfill (1–23%), animal feed (4–27%), or land spreading (30–60% of primary production waste) (Jeswani, et al., 2021). Converting wet wastes to biochar depends on efficient mechanical extraction of organic solids, and energy for pre-drying of feedstock that is roughly equivalent to the heat product from pyrolysis. The life cycle benefits depend on the alternative end-use, particularly whether biochar production avoids the need for incineration and ash disposal.

Recent academic work has examined conversion of food waste digestate to hydrochar via hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC), noting that the UK currently produces 1.11 Mt per year of wet digestate (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). Hydrochar is not biochar, but has comparable processing and feedstock requirements. A village-scale HTC study (Bevan, et al., 2021) projected only 99 t of hydrochar per year from food waste and sewage from 2,250 residents. This evidence, while tangential, suggests that biochar from municipal waste sources is likely better suited to centralised facilities or AD integration rather than dispersed, small-scale production.

No national assessment has been made for the potential pyrolysis of sewage sludge in Scotland (digested or non-digested), only part of which arises in large facilities operated by Scottish Water. Waste wood and green waste represent additional potential feedstocks, but Scotland-specific availability data were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature reviewed.

Biomass and energy crops

Evidence base: One UK-wide bioenergy assessment and one ClimateXChange report on perennial energy crops in Scotland. No evidence found linking energy crop production to biochar pathways in Scotland.

Perennial energy crops, including short rotation coppice willow and miscanthus, have been assessed for their potential contribution to UK bioenergy. An Energy Technologies Institute-funded assessment identified short rotation forestry as having relevance in Scotland, with willow coppice and miscanthus less well suited to Scottish conditions (the latter due to day-length constraints). A previous ClimateXChange report on land-use impacts of perennial energy crops in Scotland (ClimateXChange, 2020) provides further context, though uptake has been slower than projected. Woody energy crops could in principle supply pyrolysis feedstock, but no evidence was found assessing this pathway for Scotland. In addition, the scale uptake of energy crops to date means the practical feedstock contribution is currently small.

Carbon impact of biochar

Our evidence review suggests that biochar provides reliable, long-term carbon storage. For dry woody feedstocks most relevant to Scotland, net removal values are typically above 2.5 tCO2e per tonne of biochar, confirmed by UK operational data. Scotland’s cool soils are favourable for carbon permanence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology estimates 72-88% of biochar carbon remaining after 100 years, although new methods adopted in some carbon markets infer much higher levels of permanence.

Summary of evidence on carbon impact

Here, we briefly outline the areas of confident knowledge, issues under active debate and key evidence gaps in relation to evidence on the carbon impact of biochar. In the following sections, we discuss in a little more detail soil carbon impacts, biochar carbon permanence in soils, and life cycle emissions considerations.

Areas of confident knowledge. Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage. Net removal values for dry woody feedstocks, the most relevant for Scotland, are typically above 3 tCO₂e per tonne of biochar, with UK operational data confirming values of 2.5–3.1 tCO₂e/t under real-world conditions. Carbon permanence is determined primarily by pyrolysis temperature and soil temperature, both of which are favourable for Scotland.

Issues under active debate. The role of soil moisture and rainfall in long-term permanence is not fully resolved and is not accounted for in the IPCC methodology. The relative persistence of biochar carbon in different Scottish soil types (particularly sandy vs clay-rich soils) has not been directly tested. It remains uncertain whether secondary effects on native soil organic carbon are significant at low application rates.

Key gaps. No long-term field studies exist for Scottish soils. The 11-year German trial is the best available analogue. The interaction between Scotland’s high rainfall and cool temperatures on biochar permanence has not been quantified. There is no published full-chain LCA for biochar production under Scottish conditions.

Soil carbon impacts

The primary carbon value of biochar lies in the direct transfer of carbon from the active biological cycle into long-term storage. When biomass is pyrolysed, its carbon, which would otherwise return to the atmosphere through decomposition within months to years, is converted into a highly stable form that can persist in soil for centuries or longer. This represents a net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. After accounting for production emissions (including energy use, transport, and any offset from heat generated), life cycle calculations show net removal values in the range of 1.15–3.1 tCO₂e/t biochar applied; Scottish figures are likely to be above 2.5 (Gamaralalage et al., 2025; Woolf et al., 2021). The lower end of this range reflects high-moisture feedstocks such as food waste; dry feedstocks such as straw or wood, which are the most likely Scottish feedstocks, are typically within the higher end of the range. These values are confirmed by UK operational data from the Black Bull Biochar demonstrator programme, which reported net carbon removal certificate factors of 2.5 and 3.1 tCO₂e removed per dry t of biochar at two production sites, after accounting for full value-chain emissions (Bagaria et al., 2025).

Separately from this direct carbon store, biochar application can cause small changes in existing soil organic carbon (SOC) pools, through effects on plant growth, soil chemistry, or interactions between stable biochar carbon and native organic matter. These secondary effects are small relative to the direct carbon storage value and are highly dose-dependent. The distinction is important: even where biochar shows no measurable effect on soil processes, the carbon stored within the biochar material itself persists. In-field studies report total soil carbon increases of 25–35% at experimental doses of 10–30 t/ha (Bekchanova et al., 2024; Chagas et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2023), but most of this increase reflects the biochar carbon itself being measured as part of the soil carbon pool, rather than biochar stimulating additional carbon accumulation by the soil (Jaufmann et al., 2025).

Equally important is to distinguish between the residence of biochar in the soils, and the storage of carbon by biochar. In sandy soils some biochar is likely to migrate through the soil profile (to deeper layers). This should not negatively affect the carbon storage aspect of the biochar is maintained but can complicate site-based validation. Little longer-term monitoring of carbon storage impacts was available: we identified only one study in soils comparable to Scotland that tracked impacts beyond 10 years. An 11-year German trial found that on loamy soil (26% clay), the biochar-induced soil carbon increase remained stable, while on sandy soil (94% sand) the measurable increase declined by 88% over 9 years (Gross et al., 2024). However, to reiterate, biochar structures persisted at both sites; the loss on sandy soil was likely due to physical transport of fine particles through the sand matrix. The authors conclude that soil carbon sequestration through biochar is achievable, particularly in loamy and clay-rich soils, while the measurable effect on total soil carbon is less well sustained on sandy soils.

Factors determining biochar carbon permanence in soils

When compared to global evidence, Scottish soils are generally cool (mean annual soil temperature ~10°C), high in organic carbon, and are typically exposed to high rainfall (>600 millimetres (mm) across most agricultural land). These characteristics affect how biochar performs and how its impact is measured.

The IPCC has developed a methodology for biochar carbon accounting (Woolf, et al., 2021), establishing the key factors that determine how much biochar carbon persists in soil. Table 5‑2 summarises these factors and their relevance for Scotland. Further detail on the IPCC methodology is included in Appendix C. IPCC methodology estimates that 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years at Scottish temperatures, although recent research suggests that levels of permanence could be much higher (Sanei et al, 2024).

Table 5‑2: Factors affecting biochar carbon permanence and relevance for Scotland

Soil moisture is not included in the IPCC methodology, mainly because water is likely to be more limiting in the field than in laboratory conditions (and therefore the omission is conservative). However, one global analysis noted that sites receiving >600 mm of annual rainfall showed lower soil carbon gains from biochar application than drier sites (Chagas, et al., 2022), likely due to aggregate breakdown and accelerated biological oxidation when soils are frequently wet. Scotland receives well over 600 mm across most agricultural land, and this effect warrants consideration when interpreting reported changes in soil carbon storage.

This finding should be interpreted with caution. The quantity of carbon stored through biochar addition is not affected by baseline soil carbon or rainfall. In soils already rich in organic carbon, as is typical in Scotland, the same amount of biochar carbon is stored but it represents a smaller proportional increase relative to the large existing pool. This is a measurement consideration, not a reduced benefit (Huang, et al., 2023; Zhang, et al., 2023).

Life cycle emissions considerations

Biochar production has life cycle emissions related to feedstock collection, transport and the pyrolysis process, contributing 1.4–16% of the total system carbon footprint (Han, et al., 2025), with transport and pyrolysis accounting for over 70% of this. Most studies do not fully account for upstream emissions arising from sourcing of biomass, and full consequential LCAs consistently show smaller net benefits than field-only studies (Han, et al., 2025; Schmidt, et al., 2021). The full carbon benefit of biochar production considers the fate of the heat generated during pyrolysis and the effects of biochar in its end-use beyond carbon storage. The results of these analyses are sensitive to assumptions of future energy mix, particularly where substitution of electrical energy is involved, as the electricity grid is decarbonised (Bagaria, et al., 2025). In comparing the benefit of biochar production with alternative end-uses for biomass, an appropriate unit of analysis could be carbon removal per tonne of biomass, rather than per tonne of biochar produced.

Soil health, land productivity and climate resilience impacts

Our Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) demonstrates that biochar is generally beneficial to measures of soil health, but the impacts are dependent upon the initial soil conditions, and the quantity and qualities of the biochar. It also demonstrates that:

• Most research uses rates likely to be uneconomic in the current ‘real world’;
• Many papers measure the short-term yield benefits associated with liming or nutrients from the feedstock remaining with the biochar, rather than biochar-specific effects; and
• Few papers look at the long-term impacts of biochar.

Applied and long-term research is therefore needed on the yield and wider soil health impacts of low-dose, nutrient-enriched, targeted applications of biochar.

The impact of biochar on the soil-crop system is fundamentally affected by dose and method of application. Although small, targeted doses may produce effects comparable to high doses mixed evenly into soil, almost all of the literature reports high-dose, even-mixing experiments. The findings below should therefore be interpreted as indicating the potential direction and mechanism of effects, rather than as predictions of outcomes at the lower doses (0.5–2 t/ha) likely to be used in practice.

Biochar has two principal routes to improving agricultural returns. The first is as a carrier and retainer of nutrients, reducing losses to leaching and improving the efficiency of applied fertiliser. The second is through interactions with existing soil conditions. The improvement of nutrient use efficiency is likely to be the most economically viable route at low doses. The improvement of features like soil structure and water retention is more dose-driven and dependent on existing soil characteristics.

Impacts on yield

The global research base has focused heavily on yield as the primary measure of biochar’s value. Biochar has been shown (under experimental conditions) to change crop yields from −32% to +974%, although most syntheses showing averages between 13–17% (Huang, et al., 2023; Schmidt, et al., 2021). These results are strongly influenced by studies of poor or degraded soils in tropical and subtropical regions where biochar helps to address yields constrained by low pH, poor nutrient retention and water stress.

Global meta-analyses pinpoint the alleviation of pH constraints of acidic tropical soils as particularly important in terms of yield gains from raised pH. Importantly, the temperate evidence base is limited by short study durations and high application rates. A major synthesis of 56 papers found no significant yield benefit from biochar alone in regions with mean annual temperatures below 10°C, when nutrients were not limiting (Schmidt, et al., 2021). Scotland’s mean annual temperature is approximately 10°C, placing it at the threshold where these limitations apply. However, this finding draws primarily on two of the 26 meta-analyses reviewed (Ye, et al., 2019 and Jeffrey et al., 2017), both of which note that biochar properties, soil properties, and co-application with fertiliser were as relevant as, or more relevant than, climate in determining yield response. In temperate climates, field studies in Denmark, Germany and Norway have shown variable yield response (Jaufmann, et al., 2025; Bruun, et al., 2022; Budai, et al., 2024). One four-year German trial found that initial yield reductions in years 1–3 were reversed by year 4 through improvements in nitrogen cycling (Jaufmann, et al., 2025). These results suggest that short-term studies may underestimate longer-term benefits.

Where biochar is co-applied with fertiliser, the picture changes. A global meta-analysis of biochar-nitrogen interactions found that nitrogen fertiliser is the primary driver of yield gains, but that the interaction between biochar and nitrogen is synergistic — the combined effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects (Jia, et al., 2023). This synergy is likely driven by biochar improving nutrient retention and availability rather than directly increasing yield on its own. However, this analysis is weighted heavily toward tropical systems and does not isolate the temperate results, so the scale of this synergistic effect under Scottish conditions is uncertain. Using smaller amounts of biochar (<1 t/ha) combined with fertiliser has been shown to increase yields, reducing upfront cost while building carbon stores over time (Melo, et al., 2022), though the evidence for temperate climates specifically is limited and wheat showed no response. The practical implication is that biochar’s agronomic value in Scottish conditions is most likely to come from its use as a targeted amendment combined with a nutrient source, potentially allowing the same yield to be achieved with less fertiliser input.

The UK GGR pilot project implemented by Black Bull Biochar provides the first Scottish evidence for this targeted approach (Bagaria, et al., 2025). At Scotland’s Rural College Crichton Farm, Dumfries, biochar was co-applied with organic fertiliser at low doses and compared against fertiliser alone. A grassland strip receiving slurry amended with biochar at 0.5 t/ha/yr produced 16–18% higher yields than slurry alone over two seasons. Arable plots with farmyard manure amended at 1 t/ha/yr showed a 34% yield increase compared to manure alone. No differences in crop quality were found, and soil analysis showed increased pH and soil carbon in treated plots. Notably, the grassland yield benefit was sustained into the second season without reapplication, suggesting a single low-dose application can deliver effects across multiple growing seasons. These are encouraging results at economically realistic doses (0.5–1 t/ha), though this is grey literature from a two-year pilot with limited replication and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

Taken together, this evidence suggests that biochar is most effective when co-applied with fertilisers already in use on farm, at low rates of 0.5-1 t/ha. At these doses biochar acts synergistically with the nutrient source, improving nutrient retention. It can thereby increase nutrient use efficiency, without requiring changes to existing farm practice or additional fertiliser inputs beyond those already applied. The carbon storage benefit is delivered regardless of the agronomic outcome.

Effects on soil chemistry and pH

Biochar acts as a mild liming agent, raising soil pH by 0.2–0.6 units depending on dose (Aurangzeib, et al., 2024; Sun, et al., 2022; Singh, et al., 2022). This could benefit the approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils that display reduced productivity due to low pH (Scottish Government, 2023c). Biochar can also improve nutrient retention, particularly for nitrogen and phosphorus, reducing leaching losses. These chemical effects are among the best-evidenced benefits and are relevant at the doses being considered for Scottish deployment.

Effects on water retention and climate resilience

Biochar can improve soil water-holding capacity, with the largest effects on coarse-textured soils. However, the evidence for benefits under Scottish conditions is limited. A Danish trial on sandy soil showed improved water retention but no grain yield gain (Bruun, et al., 2022). A UK study found no protective effect of biochar under drought or flood conditions (Rhymes, et al. 2024). While Scotland is widely seen as a wet country, it already relies on irrigation for some high-value crops, with exceptional levels required for potatoes in 2025 (Adam Christie, Managing Director, Scottish Agronomy, pers. comm.). There is currently no evidence on whether water retention benefits are relevant where rainfall exceeds water loss for most of the year (Brown , et al., 2023). Below 5 t/ha there is essentially no data on water retention outcomes, meaning the case at economically realistic doses remains largely untested.

The evidence base for biochar’s contribution to climate resilience specifically, meaning the capacity of agricultural systems to withstand or recover from extreme weather, is very limited. No studies identified in our review directly tested biochar’s role in climate adaptation under Scottish conditions. This is a significant gap given that climate resilience is a stated objective for Scottish agricultural policy, and the potential mechanisms (improved water retention, reduced nutrient leaching, enhanced soil structure) are plausible but untested at realistic application rates in Scotland’s high-rainfall environment.

Effects on soil greenhouse gas emissions

On mineral soils, biochar reduces nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions by 12–38%, with the strongest effect in the first 2–3 years and when used with nitrogen fertiliser (Huang, et al., 2023). When biochar and nitrogen are co-applied, the interaction on GHG emissions is antagonistic — meaning the combined effect on emissions is lower than the sum of their individual effects — while the interaction on yield is synergistic (Jia, et al., 2023). This is an encouraging combination for climate-smart agriculture: lower emissions with higher productivity. Methane (CH₄) emissions are reduced by around 15% overall. Soils naturally absorb small amounts of CH₄ from the atmosphere (a process called methane uptake). In some cases wood biochar combined with nitrogen fertiliser has been found to suppress this effect, though this needs quantifying in Scottish conditions (Jia, et al., 2023; Huang, et al., 2023).

The opposite effect may occur on peat soils. Finnish studies found that biochar applied at 10–30 t/ha increased N₂O emissions by over 200% on deep agricultural peat (Ronkainen, et al., 2025), confirmed by a second study (Saarnio, et al., 2024). These are high doses on soil types unlikely to be targeted under the deployment pathways considered in this report. A UK study on fen peat found that biochar combined with a raised water table reduced emissions by 30% and increased crop growth (Jeewani, et al., 2025). Biochar may therefore be beneficial when paired with rewetting on degraded peatland but poses a risk on undrained organic soils at high application rates.

Summary of evidence on soil health and productivity

Areas of confident knowledge. Biochar can raise soil pH (beneficial for around 50% of Scottish agricultural soils), reduce N₂O emissions on mineral soils (12–38%), and improve nutrient retention. These effects are well-evidenced across multiple meta-analyses. The interaction between biochar and nitrogen fertiliser is synergistic for yield and antagonistic for GHG emissions. The Black Bull Biochar pilot project provides indicative Scottish evidence that low-dose co-application with organic fertiliser can improve yields.

Issues under active debate. Whether the temperate yield response is genuinely weak or an artefact of short study durations and high application rates is actively debated. The relative value of biochar as a nutrient carrier versus a soil conditioner at low doses is unresolved. Whether water retention benefits translate to yield or resilience gains under Scottish rainfall conditions is unclear.

Key gaps. There are no peer-reviewed Scottish field trials at economically realistic application rates. We found no evidence on climate resilience effects under Scottish conditions. There is no data below 5 t/ha on soil health outcomes. There is no comparative assessment of biochar versus alternative soil amendments for Scottish farming systems.

Lessons from international experience

We chose Denmark, Sweden and Germany to compile lessons from international experiences with biochar. These countries were chosen due to similarity in climate and land conditions with Scotland, as well as their more advanced state of biochar deployment.

Denmark

Denmark is the most advanced country in Europe in terms of policy commitment to biochar deployment, making its experience particularly instructive for Scotland.

The 2024 Danish Strategy and Work Program for Pyrolysis (Danish Government, 2024) sets out a comprehensive countrywide framework. It establishes clear guidelines for biochar application to agricultural land, including guidance on permitting and pollution tailored to the Danish context, and creates a cross-governmental Pyrolysis Taskforce to coordinate implementation. 10 billion Danish krone (DKK) (£1.16 billion at March 2026 prices) has been allocated for biochar produced by pyrolysis on Danish agricultural land from 2027 to 2045, with a further DKK 100 M (£11.6 M) for testing, scaling and demonstration of pyrolysis plants. The strategy sets a target of 0.3 Mt CO₂ sequestration by 2030. It introduces mandatory emissions accounting, including emission factors for biochar in Denmark’s GHG inventory by 2027 and monitoring, reporting, and verification for CH₄ from pyrolysis plants. Denmark is also the first country to introduce a carbon tax on livestock CH₄ emissions, and the first European Union (EU) member state to seek European Commission approval for a biochar subsidy scheme, though approval discussions remain ongoing. Some Danish pyrolysis projects have also received direct funding support from the European Commission.

Denmark already has multiple pyrolysis projects in operation, making it the European country with the most developed implementation experience of biochar production at scale. However, our interviews with Danish industry and government stakeholders reveal a gap between this policy ambition and practical deployment. Despite the scale of public commitment and operational production capacity, there is a lack of biochar application outside of testing. The primary barrier identified is end-of-waste permitting. Current Danish rules require local municipalities to grant environmental permits under Section 19 of the Environmental Protection Act before biochar can be applied to agricultural land, but municipalities have been reluctant to do so because of uncertainty around groundwater interactions and other risks. A Danish industrial stakeholder noted that the industry’s own ambitious volume projections may have contributed to regulatory caution, with authorities responding to the scale of proposed deployment by adopting a more precautionary approach.

The Danish Ministry of Environment has commissioned contaminant testing through the Technical University of Denmark, with results showing levels below emission thresholds for most biochar types. New national environmental guidelines to replace the current case-by-case permitting approach are due to be published in 2026. Some Danish producers have exported biochar to Germany rather than applying it domestically. The subsidy auction has not yet launched, pending both EU state aid approval and finalisation of the environmental regulation. Denmark is aiming for clear national rules by mid-2026, which would provide the regulatory clarity needed for the subsidy scheme to become operational.

These implementation challenges are instructive. The Danish approach with dedicated funding, a cross-governmental taskforce, integration into national emissions accounting, and clear subsidy mechanisms provide a developmental roadmap that Scotland could draw on. The main finding was that regulatory readiness, particularly end-of-waste criteria and permitting pathways, needs to be developed in parallel with policy ambition rather than sequentially to prevent bottlenecking. This regulatory barrier mirrors the situation in Scotland, where biochar manufacture is classified as a waste management activity under the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s 2012 Position Statement. Multiple Scottish stakeholders identified waste classification and end-of-waste criteria as directly affecting investment decisions (see Section 7.6).

Our interviews also identified several operational insights relevant to Scottish deployment. A Danish industrial stakeholder uses low-cost agricultural and livestock residues as feedstock rather than woody biomass. They also reported that feedstock cost is the largest operational expenditure, with prices varying significantly between wet and dry biomass. The industry began with small pyrolysis units and faces significant challenges in scaling. The same stakeholder reported that scaling to commercial systems (20 Megawatts, processing 40,000 t/year of dry matter) introduces significant engineering complexity, and that cost does not scale linearly with capacity. Plants also need to be located close to heat customers to maximise value, constraining site selection. The biochar subsidy scheme has proved more challenging to establish than the equivalent Carbon Capture and Storage scheme, in part because foundational environmental regulations for pyrolysis were not in place when the policy commitment was made.

While Danish targets for biochar are ambitious, concerns have been raised. A Lund University study suggests that biochar carbon removal could result in mitigation deterrence if financed through carbon credits, meaning continued emissions that could otherwise have been reduced (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, 2024). A Danish think tank has cautioned that emission removal targets based on biochar could be unrealistic given that operational scaling has not yet been achieved (Green Transition Denmark, 2024).

Sweden

Currently, biochar is seen as part of the mitigation plan for the forest and land sector. There is an overall target to remove 1.2 Mt CO₂e annually by 2030, but there are no specified targets for biochar.

State support for biochar in Sweden is limited and primarily channelled through the general Climate Leap scheme, Klimatklivet. More targeted, biochar-specific subsidies are not currently considered appropriate, given the need for further applied research on how biochar can most effectively contribute to Sweden’s net zero pathway (Carbon Gap, 2025). Nevertheless, Olsson et al. (2024) argue that the sector has reached its current scale largely because programmes such as Klimatklivet reduced the upfront capital burden associated with establishing pyrolysis facilities. The sector therefore has been co-financed through public grants, and private investments.

Olsson et al. (2024) also point out that municipality-level support has been critical for the biochar industry, where the high environmental safeguards of municipalities indirectly enabled domestic biochar producers over imported production. Lastly, biochar plants are not only seen as production infrastructure but also learning sites. Public support enables experimentation, monitoring and data generation, while bringing municipalities, researchers, and industry together and building institutional capacity. This collaborative, co-financed and knowledge intensive landscape has been essential for the Swedish biochar industry to develop.

Germany

The German biochar industry is empowered by notable industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology in the country, and also by regulatory developments on waste management.

Regarding industry, German companies were mentioned by three interviewees as frontrunners in supplying modern pyrolysis plants. Germany has a substantial base of technical expertise and operational knowledge, and is a key provider in the emerging global biochar supply chain.

On the regulatory side, the 2017 Sewage Sludge Ordinance required large wastewater treatment plants to recover phosphorus rather than simply spreading sludge on fields (effective by 2029). This led to the recognition of pyrolysis (carbonization) of sludge as an acceptable phosphorus recovery method. Germany’s wider support to Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage technologies has also positively impacted the biochar industry. Finaly, according to Carbon Gap, Germany’s recent efforts to create a national carbon removal strategy could also incentivise the industry to scale up (Carbon Gap, 2026).

Our interviews suggest that Southern Germany (and Austria) largely rely on woody biomass as feedstock. Our REA indicates that biochar in Germany has been produced from different feedstocks, including but not limited to woody biomass, and applied across different soil types (Teichmann, 2014). Lastly, soil improvement benefits associated with biochar are viewed as important in the German context and there is ongoing research on these co-benefits (EU Cap Network, 2024).

Potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

This section identifies seven potential deployment pathways for biochar in Scotland, drawing on evidence from the REA and stakeholder interviews. These pathways are:

• Pathway 1: Agricultural soil amendment – application of biochar to agricultural land
• Pathway 2: Biochar-based fertiliser (BBF) – biochar combined with other nutrients to produce a fertiliser product
• Pathway 3: Anaerobic digestion (AD) integration – adding biochar to the AD process
• Pathway 4: Whisky co-product valorisation – use of whisky co-products as a feedstock for biochar production
• Pathway 5: Forestry residue pyrolysis – use of forestry residues as a feedstock for biochar production
• Pathway 6: Construction materials – addition of biochar to construction materials such as concrete, asphalt, and plasterboard
• Pathway 7: Water filtration – use of biochar in water treatment applications

The seven pathways vary in feedstock source, production context, application method, and end-use. Several pathways share the same end-use (agricultural soil application) but differ in how biochar is produced, processed, or delivered to the field.

Pathway 2 (Biochar-based fertiliser, BBF) represents a specific formulation of the approach described in Pathway 1, and Pathway 4 (whisky co-products) is distinguished primarily by feedstocks rather than end-use. The barriers and enablers that would need to be addressed to realise each pathway are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. Each is assessed against the evidence base for its feasibility, considering feedstock availability and impacts on carbon and soil health (Sections 5.1 to 5.3). Table 5‑2 provides a summary, including the key knowledge gaps identified for each pathway; the evidence is discussed below. Additional potential applications were identified by stakeholders, including livestock bedding, but were not developed into full pathways due to the limited evidence base. These are noted at the end of this section.

A key finding from the REA is that the viability of any use case (scenario) depends on synergies between feedstock, pyrolysis processing and end-use. There is no universal solution, and there may be compromise between permanence of carbon removal (achieved by high-temperature pyrolysis, >600°C) and certain immediate effects on soil properties (achieved by low-temperature pyrolysis, <500°C), suitability for water filtration (high surface area), or potential applications in the construction industry (specific particle size and stability). Use cases should be understood as an integration across the value chain and assessed over a defined time period, rather than alternative uses for a uniform product.

Table 5‑3: Summary of potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

Pathway 1: Agricultural soil amendment

Application of biochar to agricultural land is the most widely studied pathway and offers the highest carbon sequestration potential, estimated at 1.2–3.1 tCO₂e per tonne applied (see Section 5.2). In Norway, Budai et al. (2024) found biochar has the largest mitigation potential of nine carbon farming^[1] methods assessed, equivalent to 20% of Norwegian agricultural emissions if deployed at scale. The Scottish Government’s Negative Emissions Technologies feasibility study (Scottish Government, 2023a) identified this as the primary deployment route.

As discussed in Section 5.3.1, global meta-analyses (Schmidt, et al., 2021; Ye, et al., 2019; Jeffery, et al., 2022) suggest weaker yield gains in temperate conditions than tropical ones. However, it is actively debated whether this reflects a genuine climatic limitation or is an artefact of short study durations, high application rates, and/or differing soil conditions (with factors such as low pH, poor nutrient retention and water stress more common in tropical climates). Where biochar is co-applied with fertiliser at low doses, the yield response appears to depend more on soil properties, biochar characteristics and application method than on climate zone alone. The Black Bull Biochar project’s results at 0.5–1 t/ha suggest that targeted co-application under Scottish conditions may produce yield benefits not captured by the broader meta-analytic averages (Bagaria, et al., 2025), though these are grey literature results from a two-year pilot with limited replication. Biochar’s pH-raising effect could benefit the approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils that currently suffer reduced productivity due to low pH (see Section 5.3).

For Scotland, the primary carbon benefit is stable carbon storage rather than enhanced soil carbon cycling (Section 5.2). Localised biochar storage varies by soil type: loamy and clay-rich soils offer the most reliable long-term local storage, while sandy soils may not sustain measurable local gains over time (Gross, et al., 2021). However, while the loss of biochar from soils reduces soil fertility benefits, this does not equate to a loss of carbon storage. Instead, biochar lost from sandy soils remains as stable stored carbon elsewhere in the environment. At Scotland-relevant soil temperatures (~10°C), the IPCC methodology estimates 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years (Woolf, et al., 2021). Application to peat or peaty soils should be approached with caution given Finnish evidence on increased N₂O emissions at high doses (see Section 5.3), though biochar paired with rewetting may benefit degraded peatland (Jeewani, et al., 2025). The evidence reviewed in Section 5.3 indicates that biochar is most effective when integrated into existing fertiliser practice at low doses (0.5–1 t/ha), where it acts synergistically with the nutrient source to improve both nutrient retention and yield without requiring large changes to farm management. The deployment pathways considered here focus on mineral agricultural soils. A government agency interviewee questioned where biochar sits in Scotland’s wider decarbonisation strategy, noting that the same feedstocks are sought for sustainable aviation fuel and AD, and that carbon offsetting via biochar is less direct than fossil fuel substitution for reducing scope 1 emissions.

Pathway 2: Biochar-based fertiliser

BBF represents a potentially significant shift in the economics of biochar deployment. Melo et al. (2022) demonstrated that BBF achieves equivalent yield gains to high-rate biochar application at less than 1 t/ha, compared to the 15–30 t/ha previously considered necessary. Field studies show a mean yield increase of 12%, with a median application rate of 635 kg/ha. The Black Bull Biochar project tested biochar co-applied with slurry and farmyard manure rather than a manufactured BBF product, but the principle is the same: biochar enhances the effectiveness of nutrient inputs already being applied, rather than replacing them.

The evidence base for BBF remains limited and is dominated by tropical maize systems. A single pot trial investigated BBF and wheat yield and showed no statistically significant yield responses. No Scottish or UK field trials of BBF formulations were identified in our evidence review. A whisky research interviewee noted that field trials examining biochar in combination with fertiliser on Scottish crops would be needed before practical recommendations can be made, and that any new input must work within the fixed localities of existing cereal supply chains.

Pathway 3: Anaerobic digestion integration

Integration with AD was identified by multiple stakeholders during our interviews as one of the most immediately viable pathways for Scotland. Adding biochar to the AD process can improve digestion efficiency by providing a surface for microbial colonisation, which stabilises the biological process. It can also reduce the sensitivity of digesters to variability in feedstock content and structure, like ash, moisture and calorific content, which is responsible for a large proportion of digester down time. This in turn increases biogas yield, with a Local Authority interviewee reporting approximately 20% improvement. It can also improve the quality of the digestate as a soil amendment. Biochar may also improve nutrient use efficiency within the digestion process, though the relative value of this compared to biogas yield improvement has not been directly compared in the literature we reviewed. Carbogenics, a University of Edinburgh spin-out, has developed a biochar additive specifically to enhance biological performance in biogas plants. One Scottish interviewee described this as the most advanced biochar commercialisation in Scotland, with a clear link between the additive and increased biogas output.

Scotland has an established AD sector with processing capacity for organic waste, and the Scottish Government has identified AD sector expansion as a factor in the development trajectory of biochar plants. However, gate fee economics are sensitive (break-even at >£74/t digestate), and waste classification requirements add complexity and cost (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). An interviewee from a pyrolysis technology manufacturer reported that processing at 600°C can destroy Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and microplastics in digestate, which if verified for Scottish waste streams could reduce contaminant concerns associated with waste-derived biochar and support the case for end-of-waste reclassification. This pathway benefits from using existing waste management infrastructure and feedstock supply chains, reducing the need for new biomass sourcing.

Pathway 4: Whisky co-product valorisation

Scotland’s whisky industry produces 7.65 Mt of pot ale and 1.34 Mt of draff annually (Andrews, et al., 2025). These figures are wet mass; pot ale is approximately 96% water (3–4% solids) (Edwards, et al., 2022), meaning the dry matter available for conversion is substantially smaller than these headline volumes. Distilleries are typically located near arable land, creating the potential for closed-loop systems. However, our evidence review found a fundamental challenge: the existing use of whisky co-products as animal feed (Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles, DDGS) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater GHG mitigation than the AD route (Duffy, et al., 2023), and also offsets water scarcity impacts from avoided soy imports (Schestak, et al., 2022). UK renewable energy incentives have already driven a sub-optimal shift from feed to bioenergy use, with DDGS production declining by 57% between 2012 and 2019 (Duffy, et al., 2023). Diverting further co-products to biochar without careful LCA risks repeating this pattern. A whisky research interviewee indicated that the industry’s 2040 net zero ambition could create demand, but confirmed that co-product allocation remains commercially sensitive and distillery-specific.

Pathway 5: Forestry residue pyrolysis

Scotland produced an estimated 568 kt of wood waste in 2023, of which approximately 548 kt was already recycled or sent for energy recovery (2022). This figure covers material classified as waste and does not include the wider volume of sawmill co-products already in productive use. Due to the lack of other evidence, forest brash is one of the most studied Scottish feedstocks in academic literature. Pap et al. (Scottish Forestry, 2025) demonstrated lab-scale potential production of biochar from conifer brash. The resulting biochar released phosphorus, improving its potential value as an agricultural amendment, but limiting its water treatment use.

The primary constraint for this pathway is feedstock competition. A timber industry interviewee reported being approached repeatedly to supply feedstock but finding no credible market for biochar product compared to existing feedstock pathways. The same stakeholder pointed out that Scotland’s forestry product industry sustains over 16,000 jobs and contributes approximately £878 M/yr to the Scottish economy (Scottish Forestry, 2025). Any diversion of wood fibre into biochar production must be assessed against this existing economic contribution, and work to make biochar synergistic with existing industry. An industry stakeholder cautioned that removing forestry residues can release soil carbon through disturbance. Waste wood not currently finding productive use may offer a more viable route (SRUC, 2020).

Pathway 6: Construction materials

Several stakeholders identified potential for biochar in construction materials including concrete, asphalt, and plasterboard. Danish and Australian experience was cited, with PyroCore et al. (2021) valuing construction-grade biochar at £250–500/t for road applications. However, biochar is not currently included in UK building codes, without which its use in construction materials cannot be insured. Acceptance through building codes is likely to take decades. Peer-reviewed evidence for the UK context is limited. This is an emerging pathway that may become significant as the construction sector seeks to reduce embodied carbon, but currently lacks the evidence base and regulatory framework for deployment.

Pathway 7: Water filtration and remediation

Biochar has shown potential for some water treatment applications at substantially lower cost than activated carbon, which is used to control taste and odour and to remove organic chemicals (£370/t for biochar vs up to £33,760/t for activated carbon) (Pap, et al., 2022). The adsorption capacity of biochar is however substantially lower. Scottish Water has reportedly expressed interest, according to one industry stakeholder. A potential circular pathway exists in which sewage sludge is pyrolysed to produce biochar for water treatment. However, unmodified conifer brash biochar achieved only partial nutrient removal when tested: 63.6% of ammonium was removed but phosphorus was leached (Pap, et al., 2022). The focus on ammonium may also be too narrow, as nitrate is the main soluble nitrogen fraction driving eutrophication in watercourses. The regulatory pathway for biochar use in water treatment is also unclear. Further product development and systematic comparison with activated carbon are needed.

Other stakeholder identified routes

Livestock bedding was also identified as a potential application by several interviewees. A Local Authority interviewee reported that a mix of 75% wood fines and 25% biochar creates bedding that effectively absorbs ammonia and other pollutants that could otherwise run off to land or watercourses. This approach is currently being trialled for poultry bedding. Biochar used in bedding would subsequently reach agricultural soil through normal manure management, providing a practical route to soil application within existing farm systems. This approach could be significant given that ammonia emissions from agriculture are a key air and water quality pressure in Scotland and the UK. Biochar-amended bedding could potentially reduce ammonia emissions at source – though this has not yet been demonstrated at scale.

Economic assessment

This section brings together economic evidence from our Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) and stakeholder engagement. It should be noted that the evidence has several important limitations. Cost and revenue data for biochar are highly variable, depending on feedstock type, production technology, scale, end-use application, and regulatory requirements. The data also comes from a limited number of studies, including pilot projects and modelling studies, which may or may not be representative. The estimates we present here are therefore indicative ranges, reflecting a market still at an early stage in the United Kingdom (UK). Table 6‑1 summarises key cost components. The key findings are then discussed below, with reference to the deployment pathways identified in Section 5.5 where appropriate. Additional comments on uncertainties are briefly discussed in section 6.6.

Table 6‑1: Summary of biochar cost components

Note: Cost estimates are drawn from sources spanning 2011–2026 and vary in methodology. Where possible, figures are identified as breakeven production costs, sale prices, or modelled estimates. CAPEX and OPEX ranges are strongly influenced by production scale, feedstock type, and logistics. All figures originally reported in US$ or € have been converted to approximate £ at March 2026 rates. Figures reported before 2022 have been adjusted to March 2026 prices to account for inflation.

Production costs

Biochar production costs vary substantially with technology, feedstock, and scale. At the global level, IBI (2025) reports a breakeven production cost range of approximately £175–460/t (US$220–580). In Scotland, the only production cost data comes from (Pap, et al., 2022), who demonstrated production from Flow Country conifer brash at £370/t at lab scale. The Scottish Government’s Negative Emissions Technologies feasibility study (Scottish Government, 2023a) provides a full cost breakdown for various plant sizes, noting that the six-tenths or 0.6 rule^[2] can be used to extrapolate costs for different production rates.

Operational expenditure ranges from £42–399/t of biochar produced depending on plant scale and feedstock (Scottish Government, 2023a). Shackley et al. (2011) estimated costs from production to field application at £0–430 per applied t, with the lowest costs for systems using waste feedstocks (where biochar producers may be able to charge a fee to those disposing of the waste feedstock) and the highest profitability where both biochar and renewable energy are produced. These estimates included on-farm application costs but did not include costs of regulatory compliance or monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), which add disproportionate costs at smaller production scales.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)-funded demonstration project projected CAPEX falling from £5.5 M in 2025 to £4.2 M by 2030 for a representative plant with one pyrolysis module and nine Compressed Air Energy Storage systems, suggesting that costs may reduce as the technology matures (PyroCore, et al., 2021). Stakeholders identified that CAPEX also varies significantly depending on whether wet or dry feedstock is pyrolysed. Industry data indicates costs of approximately €1–1.5 M (~£870,000 – 1.3 M) per Megawatt (MW) of calorific input capacity for wet biomass systems (which require pre-processing including drying and pelletising), compared to approximately €0.5–0.75 M (~£0.44 – 0.65 M) per MW for dry feedstock systems, according to one industry interviewee (see Section 5.4), underscoring that scaling introduces engineering complexity that is not proportional to capacity.

Biomass procurement is usually the largest operational cost, and prices can be highly volatile. One Danish industry interviewee reported straw prices rising by 70% in a single year due to a poor harvest. However, this is a standard commercial challenge manageable through forward supply contracts, as other biomass-dependent industries have demonstrated.

Feedstock competition and opportunity costs

The economic assessment of any pathway must account for the opportunity costs of diverting feedstocks from current uses. However, feedstock competition is not inherently a barrier: if biochar represents the highest-value use of a given biomass resource, competition is the market operating as intended. The challenge is demonstrating that biochar does deliver greater overall value than alternative uses. The clearest example where this has not been demonstrated is whisky co-products (Pathway 4). Here, the feed pathway (DDGS) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater GHG mitigation than bioenergy alternatives (Duffy, et al., 2023), and DDGS production has already declined by 57% between 2012 and 2019 due to sub-optimal policy incentives shifting co-products from feed to AD. For wood fibre (Pathway 5), Scotland’s forest products industry contributes £878 M per year and sustains over 16,000 jobs (Scottish Forestry, 2025). If biochar were to become the highest-value use of this biomass, it could add to rather than detract from this economic contribution.

Waste streams with limited current productive use offer the strongest economic case, including lower-grade AD digestate, municipal green waste where composting capacity is saturated, and specific industrial residues. These pathways do however carry the heaviest regulatory and compliance burden. Waste-derived feedstocks require full waste management licensing in Scotland (Section 7.6), face more stringent contaminant testing requirements for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and microplastics (Section 7.5), and incur MRV and certification costs that are disproportionate for smaller operators. These costs partially offset the gate fee advantage, and the net economics will depend on the specific feedstock and production scale. Over 27 Mt of biomass arisings were generated in Scotland in 2014, many with limited valorisation (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Matching underused streams to appropriate pyrolysis pathways is likely to offer better economics than competing for feedstocks with established markets.

Revenue streams and market context

Revenue for biochar producers can come from three main sources: sale of biochar as a product, carbon credit certification, and heat or energy co-generation. The relative importance of each varies by pathway (Section 5.5).

For agricultural soil amendment (Pathway 1), carbon credit revenue is critical because agronomic value alone does not justify the purchase price of biochar for most farmers. Current voluntary market prices of £600–800/t of certified carbon removal reflect early-mover pre-purchase agreements that are not expected to represent long-term equilibrium prices (IBI, 2023). As the market matures and compliance mechanisms develop, prices are likely to settle lower. A key uncertainty is whether carbon removal credits will command a higher price than emissions reduction credits, or whether buyers will be required to balance the two in an evolving ratio. An interviewee from a government economic development agency identified aviation as a potential demand-side driver: airlines face limited near-term decarbonisation options and could purchase biochar carbon credits as a bridge until sustainable aviation fuel matures, providing a defined buyer segment for Scottish producers. For construction uses (Pathway 6), an achievable price of £250–500/t has been projected for road applications. For water filtration (Pathway 7), the cost advantage over activated carbon provides a product-based revenue stream independent of carbon markets.

The distinction between carbon stored directly in the biochar and any additional effect on native soil carbon matters in evaluating the potential of carbon credits as a revenue stream for biochar producers. Most of the reported increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) reflects the stable biochar carbon being measured as part of the soil pool, rather than biochar stimulating new carbon accumulation (Jaufmann, et al., 2025). The economic value of biochar for Scotland’s carbon-rich soils is, therefore, best calculated on the basis of the stable carbon it adds directly. At Scotland-relevant temperatures (~10° C), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology estimates 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years (Woolf, et al., 2021). To assess the potential of sequestration and hence the carbon credits it can claim, cost-benefit models should not additionally claim native SOC gains unless independently demonstrated under Scottish conditions.

Where waste feedstocks are used, producers can charge a gate fee for accepting material that would otherwise incur waste management costs, generating an estimated £89–124/t of biochar produced (Scottish Government, 2023a). This represents a genuine revenue stream, not a constraint: waste-derived pathways benefit from being paid to receive their input material. Electricity generated from pyrolysis co-products provides a further revenue stream, estimated at £37/t of biochar, though this will depend on energy prices (Scottish Government, 2023a). Currently, 47% of global biochar producers currently certify their carbon removals to recognised standards (IBI, 2023). While this demonstrates emerging practice, it also means that over half of production is not independently verified, highlighting the need for mandatory or standardised certification to ensure consistent quality and legitimate carbon claims as the market matures.

Heat co-generation is a significant but undervalued revenue source. An interviewee stated that one demonstration project in Shropshire reported approximately 1.2 MW of excess thermal energy from a single pyrolysis unit, although proximity to heat customers is required, constraining site selection.

Cost-effectiveness relative to alternatives

When assessed purely as a soil amendment (i.e. application of biochar to agricultural land for yield improvement – see section 5.5.1), biochar is the most expensive option per unit of yield gain. Zhang et al. (2023) calculated the cost per 1% yield increase: at pH 5.0–5.5, biochar costs approximately £120/ha compared to £12/ha for lime and £16/ha for manure. The Black Bull Biochar project achieved encouraging yield results (16–34% increases) at low doses (0.5–1 t/ha co-applied with organic fertiliser), but these have not been independently replicated. Biochar for this project was provided to farmers at half the market price, with 6 farmers purchasing biochar after the project. The economic case for farmers remains unproven at current prices. There is a clear opportunity to explore the potential for profitable applications through this targeted, low-dose approach, where both carbon storage and agronomic benefits are delivered together. It is useful to note, however, that some studies suggest the relationship between biochar application rate and benefit is non-linear, with diminishing and potentially negative returns at higher rates (Huang, et al., 2023; Wu, et al., 2022). Hence, exploring the potential in low doses might draw a limited picture.

When assessed as a carbon removal technology, the economics are more favourable relative to other options. Comparisons of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies have estimated biochar costs at £13–120/tCO₂, compared to BECCS at £100–350/tCO₂, DACCS at £145–557/tCO₂, enhanced weathering at £37–350/tCO₂, and afforestation at £10–12/tCO₂ (ClimateXChange, 2022; Climate Change Committee, 2025; ClimateXChange, 2025). All of these technologies are expensive in absolute terms, and the relevant question for policy is relative cost-effectiveness and the level of public investment society is willing to commit to sequestering carbon. Biochar’s cost range overlaps with, and in some scenarios falls below, that of other methods of engineered removal technologies. This suggests it could be cost-competitive in attracting carbon removal investment, particularly in places where feedstock and heat are co-located to reduce costs. Arup (2022) estimated a 2025 cost of approximately £300/tCO₂ removed by biochar. Several DESNZ-funded demonstrator projects targeted costs by 2050 below £200/tCO₂ removed by biochar, though these targets were conditions of grant funding and may not reflect market costs without subsidy. Norwegian data suggests breakeven production costs of approximately £590/t (Budai, et al., 2024), indicating that additional revenue streams or policy support are needed to close the viability gap.

Regarding other potential uses of biochar, it may offer potential for some water treatment applications at substantially lower cost than activated carbon (£370/t vs up to £33,760/t) (Pap, et al., 2022).

Investment landscape

Public grant funding for biochar-related infrastructure in Scotland is at an early stage, and private investment capital has not yet followed in significant volumes. The UK Government allocated over £100 M to develop GGR technologies through the GGR Innovation Programme, of which £31.5 M supported five land-based demonstrator projects including biochar (Scottish Government, 2023a). This programme has now concluded. The Grangemouth Just Transition Fund (£25 M) includes pyrolysis-related project sets within the Project Willow feasibility study. An additional £200 M is available from the UK National Wealth Fund for investible propositions (Scottish Government, 2025c). The Carbon Neutral Islands programme has allocated £600,000 for a Phase 1 biochar trial on agriculture, peatland and clear-fell land, plus £46,000 for a peatland restoration trial using biochar (Scottish Government, 2025d). The same feasibility study estimated that the gross value added of a biochar sector within Scotland could reach approximately £24.3M (Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2023a).

Industry stakeholders consistently identified commercial viability as the primary constraint on private investment. The question for policy is what level and form of public investment is required to bridge the gap between current grant-funded pilot activity and a self-sustaining commercial market. One Scottish interviewee observed that considerable R&D activity has not yet translated into commercially viable projects, and that the most advanced Scottish biochar company still imports raw biochar from Europe for post-processing in Scotland. Multiple interviewees noted that a clearer policy signal, comparable to Denmark’s 10 billion Danish krone (DKK) commitment to agricultural carbon sequestration subsidies, would be necessary to unlock private investment at scale. The anticipated UK ETS inclusion of biochar by 2029 was identified as potentially the most significant catalyst for market development, though compliance market prices are likely to be substantially lower than current voluntary market prices, as discussed above in section 6.2. A recurring theme from industry interviewees was the absence of funding to bridge the gap between demonstrator and commercial stages. A biochar industry interviewee projected that the UK biochar sector could reach market maturity between 2030 and 2035, but that achieving this timeline depends on sustained policy signals and early commercial revenue to bridge current funding gaps.

Current public funding supports research and pilot activity, but there is no mechanism to support early commercial operations during the period when producers need to generate revenue but cannot yet compete on price. This was identified as a distinct constraint from the availability of R&D funding, and one that other emerging low-carbon technologies have also faced.

Key uncertainties

The economic evidence base we present here has several important limitations. Most cost data derives from modelling studies and pilot projects rather than established commercial operations in Scotland. Carbon credit market projections are inherently uncertain, and small shifts in policy or sentiment could substantially alter the economics of all pathways. The relationship between biochar application rate and benefit is non-linear, with diminishing and potentially negative returns at higher rates (Huang, et al., 2023; Wu, et al., 2022). This means cost-benefit analyses based on average effects may be misleading. Biochar carbon persistence also varies by soil type: Gross et al. (2024) found that on loamy soil, biochar-derived SOC remained stable after 11 years, while on sandy soil 88% of the initial gain was lost after 9 years. Site-specific assessment will therefore be essential for any further evaluation of the potential of biochar as both a revenue stream and an emissions removal strategy in Scottish soils and deployment contexts.

PESTEL analysis

This section evaluates the political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal (PESTEL) factors affecting biochar deployment in Scotland. It draws on evidence from our REA, stakeholder interviews, and policy document analysis, distinguishing between inherent barriers and risks associated with scaling. The analysis complements the evidence base presented in Chapter 5 and our economic assessment in Chapter 6. Where those sections address the same topic, this section cross-references back to them, rather than repeating the information.

Table 7‑1 provides a summary, with each dimension discussed further in the following sections. A full analysis with additional detail is provided in Appendix D.

A general observation relevant to several risks discussed here is that biochar effects are strongly dose-dependent, when considering application to land. Many of the environmental concerns reported in the literature derive from experimental studies using application rates of 10–50 tonnes per hectare (t/ha), which are not economically realistic for Scottish farming (see Chapter 6). At the lower rates identified as viable in our evidence review (0.5–2 t/ha), some of these risks may be substantially reduced, though the evidence base at these rates is itself limited. It is also important to assess biochar against current agricultural practice rather than against zero impact: slurry, mineral fertiliser, and waste biomass are already applied to or generated from Scottish land, and each has its own environmental footprint.

Table 7‑1: Summary of key PESTEL barriers and risks

Political considerations

There are currently no Scottish policy incentives specifically targeting biochar deployment. The Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement (Scottish Government, 2024) describes biochar production as an emerging and experimental approach, anticipating deployment from 2030 onwards, but does not commit to specific support mechanisms. The Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report (Scottish Government, 2025a) makes limited reference to biochar, and it does not feature as a named measure in the current plan.

At UK level, the policy landscape is shifting. The Seventh Carbon Budget, presented to the UK Government by the Climate Change Committee in February 2025, is the first to include biochar in its pathways to net zero. The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) has consulted on integrating GGRs into the UK ETS, with biochar expected to be included by the end of 2029. The UK Government’s GGR Innovation Programme allocated over £100 Million (M) to develop GGR technologies, of which £31.5M supported five land-based demonstrator projects including biochar; this programme has now concluded. The Grangemouth Just Transition Fund (£25 M) and UK National Wealth Fund (£200 M) could potentially support biochar-related infrastructure at the Grangemouth site (Scottish Government, 2025c).

However, biochar competes with other policy priorities for the same resources. For example, scaling up dedicated biomass crops could compete with nature restoration commitments (Environment Agency, 2025b). However, the same report notes the potential for biochar to free up land for nature restoration through yield gains. Energy crops and woody feedstocks also compete with other bioenergy pathways including Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Economic considerations

The detailed economic evidence we have identified is presented in Chapter 6. One key barrier is commercial viability (consistently highlighted by industry interviewees), with Denmark’s experience confirming that even substantial public investment (DKK 10 billion committed) has not yet translated into commercial deployment where regulatory barriers remain unresolved (see Section 5.4). Immature carbon credit markets create complexities around additionality and certification (IBI, 2023), limits a key revenue stream, and may lead to further cost, particularly for smaller operators.

The key risks are feedstock competition with established uses (Duffy, et al., 2023; Scottish Forestry, 2025). Any feedstock diversion would need to demonstrate competitive value in the context of Scotland’s existing bioeconomy. Biomass price fluctuations are a commercial challenge but are manageable through standard mechanisms such as forward supply contracts. The anaerobic digestion (AD) sector may offer the most immediate route to market. Biochar additives can increase biogas yield from AD, creating a commercial entry point for producers while the wider carbon credit market matures (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Social considerations

Public awareness and acceptance. Public familiarity with CDR technologies generally is very low. Cox et al. (2025), in a UK-wide deliberative study, found that 75% of participants had never heard of biochar, and CDR as a category was met with negativity and uncertainty. The lack of awareness of biochar was noted as a potential issue by several of our interviewees. Participants in the Cox et al. (2025) study perceived carbon removal as shifting responsibility for environmental issues from individuals to government and industry, raising moral hazard concerns. It should be noted that this finding relates to public attitudes towards CDR as a whole, not biochar specifically.

Participants in Scotland in the Cox et al. (2025) study expressed distrust of novel technologies. The Northern Ireland RHI scandal, where a failed biomass scheme effectively brought down the government in 2020, was cited as creating a localised lasting distrust of biomass-based approaches (Cox, et al., 2025). This evidence suggests that public engagement will need to address not only awareness but also deeper concerns about accountability, trust, and the relationship between removal and reduction.

Farmer and agricultural sector readiness. The farming community currently lacks sufficient data to make informed decisions about biochar adoption (Scottish Government, 2023b). Knowledge gaps exist around application methods, appropriate rates, scaling pathways, and expected returns. Farmer opinion research on biochar is extremely scarce in the UK literature (Brown , et al., 2023; Budai, et al., 2024). Skills gaps are also present in the farming sector for biochar scaling (Bagaria, et al., 2025; IPCC, 2022; IBI, 2023). Apprehension may stem from disputed land-use priorities (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d; Dalby, 2025), and the typical ‘slow-adopter’ characteristic of stakeholder groups like farmers, as suggested by a biochar industry interviewee. However, the evidence reviewed in Section 5.3 suggests that an approach for Scotland – co-application with organic fertilisers already in use at rates of 0.5–1 t/ha – may require minimal changes to current farm practice and no additional fertiliser inputs. Effective communication of this to the farming community could be one factor in reducing the barrier to adoption.

Employment and food security. An emergent biochar industry would support new employment in product development alongside design, installation and operation of pyrolysis equipment. A single pyrolysis facility typically requires 2–3 full-time equivalents to operate (PyroCore, et al., 2021) and building wider economic activity is consistent with the goals of Scotland’s Green Growth Strategy. Spatial mapping could reveal where current and future infrastructure support feedstock logistics and end-uses for heat, including focused developments at Grangemouth. Pathways outlined in this report draw on waste-derived feedstock, mitigating the recognised risks of using dedicated biomass crops at scale (Environment Agency, 2025b). Whilst using non-waste feedstocks could present potential trade-offs for food production (Scottish Government, 2023a), this is unlikely to be of significant relevance in the Scottish context.

Health and Safety. Interviewees indicated that among the public, perception can be that pyrolysis is equivalent to incineration. This poses a social licence risk, particularly if facilities are proposed near communities. Feedstock processing can release volatile organic compounds and particulate matter if not appropriately managed, and airborne biochar particles during field application present a potential inhalation risk (Environment Agency, 2025d). Evidence on health impacts of large-scale application is however limited (Environment Agency, 2025a; Lapwing Energy, n.d.). Biochar is also flammable during storage, with documented risks of spontaneous combustion, requiring appropriate handling and storage protocols. These risks can be mitigated through existing frameworks (e.g. Personal Protective Equipment, emission abatement techniques, etc.), but our interviewees corroborated that health and safety concerns remain common.

Technological considerations

TRLs. The core pyrolysis technology for biochar production is commercially ready (TRL 7–9), with operational plants in the UK and Europe (Environment Agency, 2025c). The overall value chain, from feedstock preparation through application and verification, is less mature, but the primary constraint on deployment is market development rather than technology. Industry interviewees reported that real-world output from pyrolysis units typically reaches only 60–65% of manufacturer specifications, with implications for financial modelling, but noted that this is a refinement issue that will improve with operational experience. A Danish industry stakeholder reported that scaling from pilot (0.2 Megawatts, MW) to commercial output (20 MW) required substantial redesign, and that costs do not scale proportionally with capacity (see Section 5.4). This suggests that engineering challenges increase non-linearly with scale and that pilot-stage performance data should not be extrapolated directly to industrial-scale facilities. The Scottish Government (2023a), reflecting the gap between the proven core technology and the systems needed for deployment at scale. Nevertheless, biochar technologies may progress through TRLs rapidly and lower ratings may no longer be applicable in 2026.

MRV. For biochar carbon storage, MRV is primarily about recording the quantity, quality, and pyrolysis conditions of the biochar applied, and verifying these against certification standards. This is distinct from field-level greenhouse gas (GHG) monitoring, which relates specifically to quantifying any additional trace gas suppression benefits (such as N₂O reduction) and is a separate, additional claim beyond the carbon storage itself. Jaufmann et al. (2025) found that applied biochar carbon closely matched measured soil organic carbon increases, suggesting that input-based verification could be a practical and cost-effective approach. However, existing methods are either outdated – typically conducted without digitalisation across the entire supply chain (IBI, 2025) – or do not account for storage permanence and the varying decomposition rates of biochar depending on feedstock and temperature (Scottish Government, 2023a). Some farmers may be hesitant about additional record-keeping and monitoring requirements, especially regarding digitalised MRV, but this will depend on how such systems are designed and integrated into existing farm management practices (Bagaria, et al., 2025).

Process constraints. Not all feedstocks are compatible with every production technology (IBI, 2025), and optimal pyrolysis conditions vary by feedstock and end-use. Lower temperatures (<500° C) favour nutrient retention, whilst higher temperatures (≥600 °C) produce more stable carbon (see Section 5.3). Small-scale pyrolysis can have lower energy efficiency (Han, et al., 2025). Pyrolysis plants need proximity to heat customers for commercial viability. Industry interviewees also identified a skills shortage: few UK operators have experience running pyrolysis units, and few farming contractors are currently equipped to apply biochar at scale.

Environmental considerations

The environmental impacts of biochar are discussed in Chapter 5, including carbon permanence (Section 5.2), soil health and GHG emissions (Section 5.3), and yield impacts (Section 5.3.1). This section addresses additional environmental considerations relevant to deployment decisions.

Peat soils and N₂O. Finnish studies on deep agricultural peat soils found that biochar application at 10–30 t/ha increased N₂O emissions by over 200% (Ronkainen, et al., 2025; Saarnio, et al., 2024). These findings relate to deep peat soils at application rates well above those considered economically viable (0.5–1 t/ha). Peaty mineral soils, which are more common in Scottish agriculture, were not tested in these studies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology for biochar carbon accounting explicitly excludes organic soils. Application to peat or peaty soils should be approached with caution, but this risk does not extend to mineral agricultural soils where the deployment pathways identified in Section 5.5 are focused. These findings derive from experimental studies using application rates of 10–30 t/ha, and this risk may be substantially reduced at lower rates, though the evidence base at these rates is itself limited (See section 5.3).

Ammonia and slurry co-application. Biochar mixed with cattle slurry has been found to increase ammonia volatilisation significantly. In a four-year German trial at application rates of 500–1,000 kilograms (kg) carbon/ha/yr (which is within the range considered economically viable) Sixt et al. (2025) found ammonia emission increases of 15–106%, caused by higher dry matter content and raised pH. This finding applies at realistic doses and contradicts the assumption, noted by several stakeholders, that biochar improves the environmental management of slurry. Slurry application already generates ammonia emissions under current practice; biochar co-application appears to increase those emissions further. Since ammonia emissions are subject to regulatory limits, this finding should be factored into assessment of Pathways 1 and 3. Further research would be needed to determine whether biochar exacerbates ammonia emissions under low-emission spreading methods.

Contaminant risk. The risk of contaminant transfer from biochar to soil is a feedstock selection issue rather than an inherent property of biochar. Sewage sludge and municipal waste feedstocks present the greatest concern for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or microplastics, while woody feedstocks are generally low risk (Environment Agency, 2025b). Quality standards and contaminant testing are essential safeguards for the waste-derived pathways identified in Section 5.5, and appropriate feedstock selection largely mitigates this risk.

Land-use change. There could be a risk of land-use change if virgin biomass were used as a feedstock, although both our REA and interviewees identified this as the least viable approach. If virgin biomass were to be considered, converting pasture to energy crops has been linked to biodiversity loss, particularly for farmland birds (Environment Agency, 2025b). An environmental NGO interviewee argued that dedicated energy crop production is generally not sustainable, citing risks to breeding bird populations and overlap with biodiversity and peatland restoration priorities. Regarding soil fauna, a three-year Dutch trial found biochar had no lasting impacts (Jeffery, et al., 2022). The waste-derived feedstock pathways recommended in Section 5.5 avoid this land requirement, and associated risks, entirely.

Production emissions. Biochar production has life cycle emissions from feedstock collection, transport and pyrolysis, contributing 1.4–16% of the total system carbon footprint (see Section 5.2). These emissions are already deducted in the net removal figures hroughout this report (e.g. the Black Bull Biochar pilot project’s carbon removal certificate factors of 2.5 and 3.1 t carbon dioxide (CO₂)/t biochar account for full value-chain emissions). CO₂ is also released from stored biomass (Environment Agency, 2025d) via oxidation when the product is exposed to air (Lapwing Energy, n.d.), although this is not technically an additional emission. These issues were corroborated in our stakeholder interviews.

Legal considerations

Waste classification. In Scotland, biochar manufacture is legally treated as a waste management activity. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s (SEPA) 2012 Position Statement allows small-scale production from certain woody forestry and agricultural wastes without a licence, but only for facilities with a production capacity of less than 50 kg/hour – a very low threshold equivalent to a small laboratory-scale unit. This constrains commercial investment (SEPA, 2012). Danish experience shows this as a primary barrier (see Section 5.4) reinforcing the case for early engagement with SEPA to develop end-of-waste criteria in parallel with any policy commitment, rather than sequentially. The waste status of relevant feedstocks is clear but restrictive. For example, biosolids and distillery residues are subject to full waste management requirements regardless of the quality of the biochar produced. These regulatory constraints were consistently reflected by our interviewees, with industry actors and Local Authorities identifying that waste classification and end-of-waste criteria directly affect investment decisions (Štrubelj, 2022).

Standards and certification. There are currently no UK-specific certification standards governing biochar for carbon offsetting. Six voluntary international standards exist, each with different requirements for feedstocks, technologies, testing, and permanence criteria (IBI, 2025). Only 47% of global biochar producers certify their carbon removals, which also provides a safeguard against indiscriminate application (IBI, 2023). The use of biomass for producing biochar should also comply with stringent sustainability criteria including land use and GHG emissions reduction requirements (DESNZ, 2025). This includes feedstock-specific sustainability requirements, such as Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification for woody biomass, as noted in an industry interview. As a result, Scottish-tailored guidance on labelling, sustainability certification, and contaminant limits would help reduce uncertainty and support market development (IPCC, 2022).

Regulatory divergence. In England, the Environment Agency has issued two low-risk waste positions (LRWP 60 and 61) for biochar production and application, providing a significantly more permissive framework than currently exists in Scotland (Environment Agency, 2025f). This creates a competitive disadvantage: English operations can produce and apply biochar from a wider range of waste feedstocks under simplified compliance, while equivalent Scottish operations require full waste management licensing. Multiple stakeholders identified this asymmetry as a barrier to investment. The UK ETS integration of GGRs, expected by 2029, will be a significant milestone for producers, though compliance market prices are likely to be lower than current voluntary market prices, affecting the revenue side of the business case.

Conclusions

This report aims to assess the potential for biochar deployment in Scotland, drawing on a rapid evidence assessment of published literature and stakeholder interviews. Our brief conclusions below are structured around supply chain viability, the effects of biochar on carbon sequestration and soil health, lessons from international experience, and key evidence gaps to be addressed to support future biochar use in Scotland.

State of evidence on biochar impacts

Carbon sequestration. Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage, with net removal values for dry woody feedstocks (most relevant for Scotland) typically above 3 tonnes (t) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per t of biochar. Carbon permanence is primarily determined by both pyrolysis temperature and soil temperature. Scotland’s cooler climate is favourable for long-term storage of biochar carbon, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology estimating 72–88% of biochar carbon remaining after 100 years. However, no long-term field studies exist for Scottish soils, and a full life cycle assessment (LCA) under Scottish conditions has not been conducted. The role of soil moisture and rainfall in long-term permanence is also not yet fully clear.

Soil health and agricultural performance: Biochar generally benefits soil health, but impacts depend on initial soil conditions, and on biochar quantity and quality. Average crop yield increases globally range from 13–17%, but in temperate climates comparable to Scotland yield improvements from biochar applied alone are not consistent in the short term. However, indicative results from the Black Bull Biochar demonstrator in Scotland show 16–18% higher grassland yields and 34% higher arable yields when biochar was co-applied with organic fertilisers at low doses (0.5–1 t/hectare, ha). Biochar can also raise soil pH and reduce nitrous oxide emissions on mineral soils by 12–38%. Application to peat should however be avoided, due to potential increased emissions. A significant limitation is the lack of peer-reviewed Scottish field trials at economically realistic application rates.

Supply chain viability for biochar in Scotland

Feedstock availability. The availability of feedstocks is not likely to be a limiting factor for biochar production in Scotland. There are substantial biomass resources, including from forestry, agriculture, whisky production, and other waste streams. Forestry and sawmill co-products seem to be the most immediately viable feedstock, with well-characterised volumes and existing processing infrastructure in Scotland. Co-products from the whisky industry are also reliable in quantity, but current use as animal feed also delivers climate benefits. There is a significant lack of biochar-specific research for Scotland’s largest feedstock streams, such as agricultural residues, sewage sludge, waste wood, and horticultural residues. This needs to be addressed.

Infrastructure and logistics. The core pyrolysis technology for biochar production is commercially ready (Technology Readiness Levels 7–9), and operational plants already exist in the United Kingdom and in Europe. However, the integrated value chain, from feedstock preparation through application and verification, is less mature. Scaling up biochar production can present engineering complexities, and proximity of production to heat customers can be a key factor for commercial viability. The economic limits to transportation of feedstocks impacts on logistics and site selection. For wet wastes (liquid manure or slurry) this may be as low as 10 km, whilst for dry biomass it can be 30–50 kilometres.

Costs, benefits, risks and barriers. Biochar production costs are highly variable, ranging from £175–460/t globally, with Scottish lab-scale production from conifer brash at £370/t. Costs vary based on feedstock availability, technology configuration, plant scale, and regulatory requirements. High upfront capital expenditure – around £9.5 Million for a 20 kilotonnes/yr facility – is a potential barrier to scaling up biochar deployment. Operational expenditure (OPEX) also varies significantly from £42–399/t of biochar. The overall cost of biochar as an option for permanent carbon removal at £13–208/tCO₂, overlaps with some non-permanent removal options. Carbon credit revenue is an important component for most deployment pathways, particularly for application to agricultural soil, with a current value of £600–800/t biochar in the voluntary market. However, this value may decrease as the carbon removals market matures.

Other barriers to deployment include the classification of biochar manufacture as a waste management activity in Scotland, requiring full waste management licensing for facilities processing over 50 kilograms/hour. Stakeholders consistently identified this as a key impediment to investment. Several feedstocks also have existing, economically established uses, so it needs to be demonstrated that biochar can offer greater overall value. Public awareness of carbon removal technologies is low, and farmer adoption is constrained by limited Scottish evidence and uncertainty over returns. Health and safety concerns related to pyrolysis, such as the potential release of hazardous air pollutants and the flammability of biochar, also need to be addressed.

Lessons from international experience

Denmark has the most advanced biochar policy framework in Europe, with substantial funding and a governmental taskforce. Nevertheless, there is still a significant gap between the level of ambition related to biochar and its actual deployment. This is primarily due to regulatory hurdles related to end-of-waste permitting, highlighting the critical need for supportive regulation to advance in parallel with policy ambition. The Danish experience also highlights feedstock as the largest OPEX, and that scaling up of biochar production can introduce significant engineering complexity.

The Swedish biochar sector has been able to grow due to public co-financing and municipality-level support, treating biochar plants as both production infrastructure and learning sites. This collaborative, knowledge-intensive approach has been essential for its development.

Germany benefits from strong industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology and regulation that recognises the use of pyrolysis for phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge. This has helped to create a market for the technology, and demonstrates how specific regulatory frameworks can drive growth.

Key evidence gaps and areas for future action and research

Several critical evidence gaps need to be addressed. There are a number of related actions that could help to address these gaps, to inform and support future biochar deployment in Scotland.

Targeted support is needed to bridge the gap between pilot projects and expanding commercial operations. Stakeholders have identified that this critical stage is not addressed by current funding mechanisms. This would also help to support operations until mature markets provide stable revenue from each value stream, including carbon removal.

There is an absence of biochar-specific research for Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams, including agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood. It is critical to address this to provide a sound evidence base and commercial case for future deployment. Comprehensive comparative LCAs are needed for major potential Scottish feedstock streams, to evaluate the benefits of biochar against alternative uses. In addition, a comparative assessment of biochar versus alternative soil amendments for Scottish farming systems would be beneficial.

There is a need for Scottish field trials to establish economically realistic application rates for biochar derived from different feedstocks and to different soil types, particularly through integration with nutrient management. Such trials could offer sites for benchmark monitoring of biochar under Scotland’s cooler, high rainfall climate, including secondary effects on nitrous oxide emissions, native soil organic carbon, and the contribution of biochar to soil resilience.

Further opportunity mapping should be carried out for biochar production at different scales, identifying where existing and future infrastructure might favour investment, taking into consideration the feedstock logistics and end-uses, including the heat product.

Early engagement with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency would be beneficial to explore how end-of-waste criteria can support biochar deployment, in parallel with any future policy commitments. A standardised framework for biochar characterisation, traceability, and monitoring would also be beneficial, covering both climate claims and environmental safeguards.

References

Ahmed, S. et al., 2012. The potential role of biochar in combaring climate change in Scotland: an analysis of feedstocks, life cycle assessment and spatial dimensions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(4), pp. 487-505.

Andrews, G. et al., 2025. Whisky decarbonisation potential using bio-waste. Fuel, 380(133188).

Arup, 2022. Integration of GGR technologies into linear infrastructure projects: DESNZ.

Aurangzeib, M. et al., 2024. Biochar Application Can Improve Most of the Chemical Properties of Acidic Soils: A Global Meta-Analysis. ACS Agricultural Science & Technology, 4(3).

Bagaria, S. et al., 2025. Black Bull Biochar: Direct Air Capture (DAC) & Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) Net Zero Innovation Programme (NZIP) Phase 2 Final Report: DESNZ.

Bekchanova, M. et al., 2024. Biochar’s effect on the soil carbon cycle: a rapid review and meta-analysis. Biochar, 6(88).

Bevan, E., Fu, J., Luberti, M. & Zheng, Y., 2021. Challenges and opportunities of hydrothermal carbonisation in the UK; case study in Chirnside. RSC Advances, Volume 55.

Biochar Europe, n.d. Work – Selected Contributions. [Online]
Available at: https://www.biochareurope.eu/work
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Bolaji, I. et al., 2021. Multi-criteria decision analysis of agri-food waste as a feedstock for biopolymer production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172(105671).

Brown , R. et al., 2023. Biochar application to temperate grasslands: challenges and opportunities for delivering multiple ecosystem services. Biochar, 5(33).

Bruun, E. et al., 2022. Ash and biochar amendment of coarse sandy soil for growing crops under drought conditions. Soil Use and Management, 38(2), pp. 1280-1292.

Budai, A. et al., 2024. Qualitative evaluation of nine agricultural methods for increasing soil carbon storage in Norway. European Journal of Soil Science, 75(3), p. e13493.

CapChar Ltd, Biochar Project Services Ltd & UK Hardwoods Ltd, 2022. The CapChar Project, s.l.: DESNZ.

Carbon Gap, 2025. Carbon Removal Policy in Sweden. [Online]
Available at: https://tracker.carbongap.org/regional-analysis/national/sweden/
[Accessed 26 02 2026].

Carbon Gap, 2026. Germany’s potential to deploy CDR at scale and speed

Chagas, J., Figueiredo, C. & Ramos, M., 2022. Biochar increases soil carbon pools: Evidence from a global meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 305(114403).

Circle Economy, 2022. The Circularity Gap Report Scotland

Clarke, A., Creber, H., Sohi, S. & Whitaker, J., 2021. The Biochar Network – Demonstrating a Scalable GGR Solution: DESNZ.

Climate Change Committee, 2025. The Seventh Carbon Budget – Advice for the UK Government

ClimateXChange, 2020. Evidence review: Perennial energy crops

ClimateXChange, 2022. Managing permanent grasslands for carbon sequestration in Scottish soils

ClimateXChange, 2023. Organic farming, net zero targets and the impact of a changing climate: an evidence review

ClimateXChange, 2024. Understanding metrics for effective environmental measures under the Agricultural Reform Programme for Scotland

ClimateXChange, 2025b. Funding and financing heat networks in Scotland

ClimateXChange, 2025. Cost and profitability of direct air capture in Scotland

Cox, E., Waller, L., Palmer, J. & Bellamy, R., 2025. Carbon removal support is tempered by concerns over whether biological methods are worth it. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(711).

Dalby, J., 2025. BIOCCUS Phase 2, Final Report: DESNZ.

Danish Government, 2024. ) ‘Strategi og arbejdsprogram for pyrolyse’ (Strategy and Work Program for Pyrolysis)

Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013. Bioenergy Strategy

DESNZ, 2023. A Public Dialogue on the Role of Biomassin Achieving Net Zero

DESNZ, 2025. Common Biomass Sustainability Framework

DESNZ, 2026. Direct Air Capture and Greenhouse Gas Removal Innovation Programme: Phase 1 projects

Duffy, C. et al., 2023. Optimising sustainability: Circular pathways for Scotch Whisky distillery co-products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 395(136436).

Edwards, C. et al., 2022. Recoverable resources from pot ale & spent wash from Scotch Whisky production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179(106114).

Environment Agency, 2025a. Evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications of selected greenhouse gas removal technologies: summary. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-on-potential-environmental-impacts-and-social-implications-of-selected-greenhouse-gas-removal-technologies/evidence-on-potential-environmental-impacts-and-social-implications-of-selected-greenhouse-gas-r
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Environment Agency, 2025b. Evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications of greenhouse gas removal technologies – overview report

Environment Agency, 2025c. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – evidence on potential environmental impacts

Environment Agency, 2025d. Biochar – evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications

Environment Agency, 2025e. Summary report on the potential environmental impacts and social implications of biochar

Environment Agency, 2025f. Storing and spreading biochar to benefit land: LRWP 61

EU Cap Network, 2024. Use of Biochar in German Farms – Benefits for Climate, Soil and Animal Health

European Commission, 2022. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals. [Online]
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0672
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Feng, J. et al., 2023. Trade-offs in carbon-degrading enzyme activities limit long-term soil carbon sequestration with biochar addition. Biological Reviews, 98(4), pp. 1184-1199.

Forest Research, 2025a. Timber Statistics. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/time-series/

Forest Research, 2025b. Forestry Statistics 2025: UK Government.

Forestry Commission Scotland, 2009. Business Health in the Forestry and Wood Industries

Forestry Commission Scotland, 2012. Scottish Government biomass incentives review: best use of wood fibre

Gaffney, P. et al., 2024. Water quality effects of peat rewetting and leftover conifer brash, following peatland restoration and tree harvesting. Journal of Environmental Management, 360(121141).

Gamaralalage, D. et al., 2025. Biowaste to biochar: a techno-economic and life cycle assessment of biochar production from food-waste digestate and its agricultural field application. Biochar, 7(50).

Government Office for Science, 2025. Net Zero Technology Outlook: UK Government.

Green Transition Denmark, 2024. Time to tame the hype about biochar as agriculture’s climate solution

Gross, A., Bromm, T. & Glaser, B., 2021. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration after Biochar Application: A Global Meta-Analysis. 11(12).

Gross, A. et al., 2024. Long-term biochar and soil organic carbon stability – Evidence from field experiments in Germany. Science of the Total Environment, 954(176340).

Han, M., Hui, X., Yang, H. & Chen, Y., 2025. The impact of biochar addition on the carbon footprint of grain crop: A life cycle assessment of biochar management. European Journal of Agronomy, 170(127776).

Huang, Y. et al., 2023. A global synthesis of biochar’s sustainability in climate-smart agriculture – Evidence from field and laboratory experiments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 172(113042).

IBI, 2023. Global Biochar Market Report

IBI, 2024. CONTAINING CONTAMINANTS: Harnessing Biochar for Effective Pollution Control

IBI, 2025. A Manual for Biochar Carbon Removal

IPCC, 2022. Climate Change and Land

Jalali, M., Panam, Z., Jalali, M. & Buss, W., 2025. The impact of feedstock type and pyrolysis parameters on the physical and chemical properties of biochars for sorption, agricultural and carbon sequestration applications: A meta-analysis. 192(107271).

Jaufmann, E., Schmid, H. & Hülsbergen, K., 2025. Soil carbon accrual and yield response to biochar. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Volume 131, pp. 213-235.

Jeewani, P. et al., 2025. Wetter farming: raising water table and biochar for reduced GHG emissions while maintaining crop productivity in agricultural peatlands. Biochar, 7(1).

Jeffery, S. et al., 2022. Biochar application differentially affects soil micro-, meso-macro-fauna and plant productivity within a nature restoration grassland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 174(108789).

Jeswani, H., Figueroa-Torres, G. & Azapagic, A., 2021. The extent of food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 26, pp. 532-547.

Jiang, Z., Huang, S. & Meng, Z., 2025. Long-term effects of biochar on the hydraulic properties of soil: A meta-analysis based on 1–10 years field experiments. Geoderma, 458(117318).

Jia, X., Yan, W., Ma, H. & Shangguan, Z., 2023. Antagonistic and synergistic interactions dominate GHGs fluxes, soil properties and yield responses to biochar and N addition. Frontiers in Environmental Science, Volume 11.

Joint Water Evidence Group, 2015. Production of Quick Scoping Reviews and Rapid Evidence Assessments: A How To Guide

Lapwing Energy, n.d. Reverse Coal: DESNZ.

Liao, X. et al., 2022. The impact of biochar on the activities of soil nutrients acquisition enzymes is potentially controlled by the pyrolysis temperature: A meta-analysis. Geoderma, 411(115692).

Liu, R. et al., 2024. The response of crop yield, carbon sequestration, and global warming potential to straw and biochar applications: A meta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 907(167884).

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, 2024. The use of biochar as a method to remove carbon can lead to mitigation deterrence. [Online]
Available at: https://www.lucsus.lu.se/article/use-biochar-method-remove-carbon-can-lead-mitigation-deterrence
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Melo, L., Lehmann, J., Carneiro, J. & Camps-Arbestain, M., 2022. Biochar-based fertilizer effects on crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, Volume 472, pp. 45-58.

Natural Scotland, 2010. Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan

Olsson, A., Fridahl, M. & Gronkvist, S., 2024. Expectations on biochar as a climate solution in Sweden: Carbon dioxide removal with environmental co-benefits. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition, 5(100087).

Pap, S. et al., 2022. Optimising production of a biochar made from conifer brash and investigation of its potential for phosphate and ammonia removal. Industrial Crops and Products, 185(115165).

PyroCore, et al., 2021. Greenhouse Gas Removal: Mersey Biochar – Executive Summary

Rhymes, J. et al., 2024. Biochar improves fertility in waste derived manufactured soils, but not resilience to climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 923(171387).

Ronkainen, J., Siljanen, H., Liimatainen, M. & Maljanen, M., 2025. The effect of soil amendments on the greenhouse gas production in agricultural peat soils. BOREAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, Volume 30, pp. 21-37.

Saarnio, S., Kekkonen, H. & Lang, K., 2024. Addition of softwood biochar did not reduce N2O emissions or N leaching from peat soil in the short term. Science of The Total Environment, 944(173906).

Sanei et al, H., 2024. Assessing biochar’s permanence: An inertinite benchmark. International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 281.

Schestak, I., Styles, D., Black, K. & Williams, A., 2022. Circular use of feed by-products from alcohol production mitigates water scarcity. Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 30, pp. 158-170.

Schmidt, H. et al., 2021. Biochar in agriculture – A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), pp. 1708-1730.

Scottish Executive, 2007. Biomass Action Plan for Scotland

Scottish Forestry, 2025. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forestry.gov.scot/economic-contribution-forestry

Scottish Government, 2023a. Negative Emissions Technologies (NETS): Feasibility Study – Final report

Scottish Government, 2023b. Negative Emissions Technologies (NETS): Feasibility Study – Technical Appendices

Scottish Government, 2023c. Reducing emissions from agriculture: the role of new farm technologies

Scottish Government, 2023d. Scotland Natural Capital Accounts

Scottish Government, 2024. Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement

Scottish Government, 2025a. Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report

Scottish Government, 2025b. Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland

Scottish Government, 2025c. Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland

Scottish Government, 2025d. Carbon Neutral Islands Financing Roadmap 2025-202

SEPA, 2012. Position Statement – manufacture and use of biochar from waste

SEPA, n.d. Burning on-farm waste. [Online]

Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J. & Ibarrola, R., 2011. The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Management, 2(3), pp. 335-356.

Singh, H., Northup, B., Rice, C. & Prasad, P., 2022. Biochar applications influence soil physical and chemical properties, microbial diversity, and crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Biochar, 4(1).

Sixt, T. et al., 2025. Does woody biochar mixed with liquid organic fertilizer reduce ammonia volatilization following field application?. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Volume 131, pp. 165-184.

SRUC, 2020. Materials to Land Assessment – Sustainability, Availability and Location: SEPA.

Štrubelj, L., 2022. Waste, Fertilising Product, or Something Else? EU Regulation of Biochar. Journal of Environmental Law, 34(3), p. 529–540.

Štrubelj, L. & Singh Ghaleigh, N., 2025. Biochar Regulation in the UK: A Wasteful Approach to Greenhouse Gas Removal

Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Shi, L. & Li, G., 2022. Effects of biochar on soil chemical properties: A global meta-analysis of agricultural soil. Plant, Soil and Environment, 68(6), pp. 272-289.

Teichmann, I., 2014. Climate Protection through Biochar in German Agriculture: Potentials and Costs, Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW).

UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, 2025. Integrating Greenhouse Gas Removals in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Main Response

Wei, B. et al., 2023. Drivers of biochar-mediated improvement of soil water retention capacity based on soil texture: A meta-analysis. Geoderma, 437(116591).

Woolf, D. et al., 2021. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21).

Wu, W. et al., 2022. Impact of biochar amendment on soil hydrological properties and crop water use efficiency: A global meta-analysis and structural equation model. GCB Bioenergy, 14(6), pp. 657-668.

Xu, H. et al., 2021. Effects of biochar application on crop productivity, soil carbon sequestration, and global warming potential controlled by biochar C:N ratio and soil pH: A global meta-analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 213(105125).

Ye, L. et al., 2019. Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: A. Soil use and management, 36(1), pp. 2-18.

Zero Waste Scotland, 2022. Circular Bioeconomy Opportunities in Scotland: Valorising Agricultural Wastes and Co-products

Zhang, S. et al., 2023. Effects of soil amendments on soil acidity and crop yields in acidic soils: A world-wide meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345(118531).

Appendices

Study methodology

This appendix summarises the study methodology. The key research elements were to undertake a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of academic and grey literature, and carry out a series of stakeholder interviews carried out to complement the REA.

Our methodology was designed to identify information relevant to the key research topics, namely:

• Feedstock sources (including availability, scalability and competing uses);
• Carbon impact (life-cycle emissions considering carbon sequestration potential);
• Effect of biochar on soil health, land productivity and climate resilience; and
• Processing infrastructure, supply chain logistics and capital and operational expenditure (CAPEX and OPEX).

In addition, we aimed to capture information relevant to the economic assessment and PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal) analysis.

Rapid evidence assessment of literature

To fit within the short study timeline, we chose an REA method, and to supplement other recent reviews rather than reproduce them (for example on feedstock availability). REA involves targeted search strategies, streamlined screening of sources, prioritisation of synthesised evidence (meta-analyses and systematic reviews), and streamlined quality appraisal. Our review prioritised breadth and policy relevance over exhaustive coverage, enabling research evidence to be synthesised whilst still maintaining methodological rigour and a transparent evidence base. Our approach followed guidance from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (Joint Water Evidence Group, 2015).

To ensure relevance of the sources to the Scottish context, we focused first on evidence collected in the context of the Scottish or United Kingdom (UK) land, climate and economy, supplementing with evidence from comparable contexts (e.g. northern Europe or temperate maritime regions). To maintain a manageable quantity of sources to review, we focused on literature published since 2020, with the exception of earlier meta-analyses, seminal or highly cited work where they remain the best available evidence.

We identified sources via a combination of indexed academic databases and targeted organisations publishing grey literature.

For academic literature, we used the academic databases Web of Science & Scopus. Keywords used for the search were:

• General: biochar, pyrolysis, char, biocarbon, biomass, feedstock, forestry residue, agricultural waste, co-product, sewage sludge, draff, spent grain
  
• Geography/climate: (priority) Scotland, Scottish, UK, United Kingdom, Britain; (secondary) temperate, northern Europe, Scandinavia, Ireland, maritime climate, cool humid, boreal, New Zealand
  
• Feedstock: Supply, volume, resource, generation, waste stream, circular economy
  
• Carbon impact: sequestration, abatement, removal, storage, durability, permanence, stability, recalcitrance, persistence, half-life, H:C ratio, N₂O, nitrous oxide, CH₄, methane, greenhouse gas, GHG, life cycle assessment, LCA, GWP, global warming potential, carbon footprint, net zero, emissions profile
  
• Soil, land and climate: yield, crop productivity, biomass, barley, wheat, grassland, silage, pasture, nutrient use efficiency, liming, soil organic carbon, SOC, water holding capacity, pH, bulk density, porosity, drought tolerance, water stress, waterlogging, flood recovery, climate adaptation, extreme weather, soil moisture
  
• Infrastructure, supply chains, costs: techno-economic analysis, TEA, cost benefit analysis, CBA, CAPEX, OPEX, supply chain, logistics, infrastructure, pyrolysis, transport, storage

We screened identified academic literature using Covidence, a systematic review management platform. Search results were imported into Covidence and titles and abstracts were first screened using Covidence’s scoring system (include/exclude/maybe), then reviewed by the study team. We then carried out a full-text screening for the most relevant literature, based on geographical relevance, literature since 2020, quantitative studies (where possible), English language, and relevance to the key research topics.

For grey literature, we focused first on known sources, including: Scottish Government, Scottish Forestry, Zero Waste Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), UK Biochar Research Centre, Scotch Whisky Association, International Climate Research, ClimateXChange, UK Government (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero, DEFRA), International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and European Biochar Industry Consortium. We hand-searched their websites and used keywords in on-site searches (biomass, biochar, residues, organic waste, carbon sequestration, soil carbon). We supplemented this with Google Scholar searches using simple keyword phrases:

• Scotland biomass availability assessment
• Scottish forestry residues volume potential
• Scotland agricultural waste resource
• Scotland distillery co-products “spent grain” OR draff
• Scottish wood fuel supply chain

Review of search results was limited to the first two pages of results per search string.

Each relevant piece of academic and grey literature was reviewed by a team member, who extracted salient points and recorded them in shared data extraction Excel sheet, noting key document details and information of relevance to the research questions. In total, we reviewed in detail: 10 pieces of academic literature on feedstocks, 13 on carbon impacts, and 27 on soil impacts (15 global papers and 12 papers from Scotland or similar climates), plus 66 pieces of grey literature. This is a small fraction of the global literature referencing biochar (13,000 items), which has inherent biases but on which we have drawn (via comprehensive syntheses) to provide some contextualisation.

Stakeholder engagement interviews

To validate and complement the findings of the REA, we carried out a series of interviews with stakeholders involved in biochar supply and use chains. The study team drew up a longlist of potential interviewees, based on existing knowledge of relevant actors and reflections gained from the REA. We selected participants to invite for interview with the intention of engaging with:

• Different categories of stakeholders (academia, industry, forestry/agriculture, Government and Non-Governmental organisations, NGOs)
• Stakeholders with knowledge across the key research topics
• Stakeholders with knowledge relevant to economic costs (CAPEX, OPEX, economic benefits; scale-related cost variations; potential funding; how biochar valorisation can be increased; and
• Stakeholders with knowledge on political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors that can affect the deployment of biochar as a climate and land use solution in Scotland.

We sent personalised invitations for interview to 15 individuals. This resulted in 9 online interviews with 12 people, held over a four-week period in February and March 2026. Five interviews were held with industry (covering pyrolysis technology, biochar production and feedstocks), one with a government agency, one with a local authority, one with a research institute, and one with an NGO. Ten interviewees were male, and two female.

The interviews were around one hour long and semi-structured, based on a list of questions shared with the interviewees in advance (see Table 9‑1). With informed consent from the interviewees, interviews were recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams auto-transcription. Interviewers also took separate notes to record key insights. The recordings and notes were stored on the secure study SharePoint site for access by team members, with recordings deleted on conclusion of the study. We collated key points into a sheet in the study’s data extraction Excel sheet and integrated these into the relevant chapters of this report.

Table 9‑1: Overview of questions for stakeholder interviews

Summary of confidence regarding evidence on feedstock availability

This appendix provides additional background for the discussion presented in Section 5.1.

Table 10‑1 below summarises our confidence ratings based on volume of evidence, agreement between studies, and applicability to Scottish conditions. The main columns draw on the full international evidence base including temperate climate analogues. The final column indicates the availability of Scottish-specific evidence.

Table 10‑1: Confidence ratings of evidence assessed

Note: ‘Volume of evidence’, ‘Agreement’, and ‘Applicability’ draw on the full international evidence base, including studies from temperate climate analogues (UK, Scandinavia, Germany). ‘Scottish-specific evidence’ rates whether studies have been conducted using Scottish feedstocks, facilities, or conditions. Several feedstocks have strong international evidence but no Scotland-specific research.

IPCC methodology for biochar carbon accounting

The information here provides additional background on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology referred to in Section 5.2.3.

The IPCC methodology for biochar carbon accounting (Woolf, et al., 2021) establishes two key factors that determine biochar carbon permanence, i.e. how much carbon persists in soil over the longer term. The first is the temperature used during pyrolysis, with higher temperatures (>600° Celsius, °C) typically resulting in longer permanence, even exceeding 500 years. The second is the mean annual soil temperature, with biochar typically breaking down faster in warmer soils. This suggests that biochar may degrade relatively slowly in Scottish soils, although studies have not yet quantified this.

1. Pyrolysis temperature. During pyrolysis above 500°C, the carbon is reconfigured to structures that are the most resistant to breakdown. The hydrogen to organic carbon ratio is used as a predictor of the permanence of biochar, since only carbon remains in pure biochar formations. Ratios in this below 0.6 indicate that at least 63–82% of carbon will remain stored after 100 years. Wood-based biochars typically meet this threshold (Woolf, et al., 2021; Jalali, et al., 2025), possibly owing to the relative ease of pyrolysing wood. In local studies, biochar produced from forestry brash resulted in 71.9% fixed carbon – a proxy for aromatic carbon (Pap, et al., 2022) – while biochar from food-waste digestate can achieve higher at 88% (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). Meta-analyses suggest that mean residence of biochar in soil can exceed 500-year high temperature biochar (600°C+) (Schmidt, et al., 2021). Low-temperature biochar (250–400°C) include more labile forms of carbon that break down within the first year, providing short-term biological benefits analogous to more conventional organic inputs (Jalali, et al., 2025; Liao, et al., 2022).
   
2. Mean annual soil temperature affects degradation rate. Biological activity is higher in warmer soils, accelerating biochar breakdown, while in cooler soils it is slower. One meta-analysis found temperate studies showed an 86% relative increase in soil carbon, compared to 55% in tropical studies (Chagas, et al., 2022), although dosage and initial soil carbon levels may also differ. Scotland’s low mean annual temperature (around 8–9°C) should favour slower degradation compared to the warmer climates where most biochar research has been conducted. However, this benefit remains unquantified in Scottish conditions specifically.
   
   Full PESTEL analysis

This appendix provides our full Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal (PESTEL) analysis, with additional discussion to that contained in Section 7 of the report. It outlines our main findings in relation to the key political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal considerations to be taken into account when exploring future options for biochar deployment in Scotland. It should be emphasised that these findings identify key risks and barriers from literature and stakeholder consultation, and do not focus on the benefits of biochar in comparison to other technologies. Efforts have been made throughout to qualify the significance of barriers and concerns for Scotland.

Political considerations

Biochar stands out as a technological solution in its infancy. Stakeholders are expressing significant interest in biochar due to its versatility across various sectors. It has been suggested that deployment could be substantial, even without additional support (Scottish Government, 2023a).

However, stakeholders broadly recognise the need for Scotland to develop or advance regulation to support biochar deployment pathways. Scottish Government has indicated an interest in exploring opportunities for biochar use in agriculture and related carbon market opportunities (Scottish Government, 2024). However, there are as yet no Scottish policy incentives for biochar deployment at scale.

Stakeholder interviews indicate a range of views on which government actions would most effectively support the sector. Some interviewees highlighted the importance of clearer political signals on subsidies, grants and supply chains, as well as alignment with wider strategies such as United Kingdom (UK) timber utilisation or carbon roadmaps. Others suggested that a dedicated strategy, similar to those developed for sustainable aviation fuels or hydrogen, could help drive action, as it is marginally easier for firms to make progress with a strategy that backs action. However, some interviewees argued that progress may be faster through targeted funding schemes and technology de-risking rather than through a comprehensive biochar strategy.

The demonstrated potential of biochar to permanently store carbon is not sufficiently recognised in regulations and policies (Scottish Government, 2023a). Reducing policy uncertainty could indicate government support and provide long-term guarantees (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013) to incentivise market development. Lack of incentives also creates uncertainties in feedstock supplies. Several policy incentives to encourage market deployment have been suggested. Fertiliser taxation and fiscal incentives for integrated biorefinery clusters and anaerobic digestion (AD) to use and treat bio-wastes and residues could incentivise biochar application to soils (Circle Economy, 2022; Scottish Government, 2023b). Biochar could be also incentivised through inclusion in agricultural reforms (Scottish Government, 2023b).

Despite a lack of targeted policy incentives, Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) projects and a mature market for biochar, respondents to a Scottish Government study anticipate significant expansion. There are over 700 AD plants across the UK that could leverage biochar products to enhance efficiency and increase biogas yield. This anticipated growth is driven by the urgent need for NETs to address climate goals. The development of certified, verifiable negative emissions credits is considered crucial for this sector, with other char products and AD additives like carbon black contributing to a broader emerging char market the industry in Scotland aims to cultivate (Scottish Government, 2023b).

The following Government interventions related to biomass could potentially support biochar deployment:

• UK Government funding of over £100 Million (M) has been allocated to develop Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) technologies and assess GGR potential to deliver negative emissions, improve cost effectiveness and enhance scalability. Biochar is explicitly included as a pilot pathway, creating opportunities for implementation and research. Of this total, £31.5 M will be delegated to five land based GGR demonstrator projects (including biochar and perennial bioenergy crops) under the Strategic Priorities Fund (Scottish Government, 2023a).
• The ‘Project Willow’ feasibility study, jointly funded by the UK and Scottish Governments in 2024, to examine the long-term industrial future for the Petroineos Grangemouth refinery site. This study is referenced in multiple interviews as offering potential for biochar. It identifies nine initial viable “project sets” suited to the site, including some related to wastes and bio-feedstock. Proposals most relevant to biochar include second generation bioethanol using Scottish timber, and AD of organic waste and biogas upgrading to produce biomethane. The Scottish Government has made £25 M available through the Grangemouth Just Transition Fund to support immediate opportunities arising from Project Willow, with an additional £200 M available from the UK Government’s National Wealth Fund to support investible propositions (Scottish Government, 2025b).

In the development of future biochar policy, it will be important to consider sustainability and safeguards. Firstly, the use of biomass must comply with stringent sustainability criteria, including land criteria and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction criteria (Scottish Government, 2024), as well as key standards such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification and the UK Forestry Standard. Secondly, safeguards are necessary to consider the limits and availability of sustainable biomass in order to avoid excessive demand of biomass for energy and associated negative effects on carbon sinks and stocks, biodiversity, air quality and the bioeconomy (European Commission, 2022). One interviewee also found biochar to be politically sensitive due to political debates on supporting climate investments. To communicate the benefits of biochar and overcome political barriers, they suggested that biochar’s positive economic impacts on farmers and ecologic impacts on rivers and air quality could be emphasised.

Economic considerations

Circular economy impacts and systemic risks

Scotland’s circular bioeconomy is relatively advanced, with well-tracked biomass resources. However, imbalances in material use and land emissions remain. In addition, there are limited economic models examining trade-offs between alternative biomass uses, such as biochar, in terms of monetary costs and GHG benefits.

The agrifood sector makes up a significant share of Scotland’s material footprint, with two-thirds of all biomass feedstocks consumed heavily dependent on imported biomass (Circle Economy, 2022). This import dependence creates exposure to global supply chain volatility and externalised environmental impacts, limiting domestic control over resource security (Scottish Government, 2023d). Globally, sustainable biomass is increasingly recognised and pursued as a resource to be leveraged in response to emissions reduction commitments, which is expected to increase global prices for sustainable biomass (Scottish Government, 2024).

At the same time, Scotland generates substantial bio-based waste and by-products. The production of whisky, beer and fish alone, according to 2022 data, produces around 4.6 M tonnes (t) annually, indicating untapped potential for more efficient use of domestic biomass resources. However, barriers to improving circularity remain. Increased circularity and more efficient waste utilisation would require additional infrastructure and logistical support to collect, process and redistribute biomass streams (Circle Economy, 2022). Between 2003-2020, biomass production volumes declined even as economic value increased, indicating tighter resource availability (Scottish Government, 2023d).

Some economic opportunities related to AD could contribute to supporting future biochar deployment, particularly where policies and markets support parallel growth of both sectors. The Scottish Government has explicitly acknowledged that expansion of the AD sector will influence the development trajectory of biochar plants (Scottish Government, 2023a). Beyond this interaction, AD also delivers co-benefits that strengthen the broader case for integrated biomass pathways. Digestate can improve nutrient management and reduce reliance on imported synthetic fertilisers, assuming stable sector growth and continued farmer uptake (Scottish Government, 2024). In addition, long-term institutional strategies reinforce this direction. For example, Scottish Water aims to maximise the value of sludge through AD or advanced AD, improving product quality while generating energy from the process, providing a signal for durable policy and infrastructure support for the sector (SRUC, 2020).

Market trends

There are some emerging risks concerning the potential deployment of biochar at scale. The evidence we have found covers global and UK-wide trends due to lack of evidence for Scotland.

In contrast to the increasing demand for biomass, biochar carbon markets are relatively smaller in scale: developing high quality markets will require improvements in the maturity of carbon markets to act as a source of income (IBI, 2023). There are UK biochar companies who have successfully sold their carbon removal credits to UK corporate buyers. Globally, ambition and interest for issuing and purchasing biochar credits are also growing. However, complexities in additionality requirements, costs of certification and markets mean many biochar producers do not yet generate biochar carbon removal credits (IBI, 2023).

In the UK, it is widely recognised that there is a market gap for cost effective GGR technologies, with the biochar market at early stage of development. This was consistently highlighted in our interviews. (Arup, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025b; Biochar Europe, n.d.). Thus far, biochar has struggled to scale up in the UK (Bagaria, et al., 2025). Scottish stakeholders interviewed emphasised that commercialisation has been a key bottleneck for many entrepreneurs seeking to develop viable biochar projects. Despite strong theoretical knowledge and investments in R&D, several initiatives have struggled to translate into commercially viable operations. Stakeholders also highlighted demand-side uncertainties for businesses, including unclear purchaser markets and concerns that current prices per tonne of product may not be economically viable.

Lastly, for market development, interviewees pointed to the need for stronger industry networks and clustering in Scotland to better connect actors across the value chain, such as linking feedstock suppliers with biochar producers. Interviewees noted that current efforts are more concentrated in academic research than in initiatives aimed at supporting business development and commercial collaboration. 

Competing uses for feedstocks

Competing uses of feedstock resources is a primary concern for the viability and scalability of the biochar market in Scotland. According to Zero Waste Scotland, over 27 Mt of biomass arisings were generated in Scotland in 2014, many of which had limited productive use (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Agricultural biomass accounted for 16.7 Mt, and production was geographically concentrated, with about half arising from Aberdeenshire, Highland, Dumfries and Galloway, and the Scottish Borders. Within the agricultural category, slurry and manure make up the overwhelming majority at 14.4 Mt, with straw contributing 1.65 Mt (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Woody biomass represents another important feedstock stream for biochar production, with Forest Research reporting total production of 6.4 million tonnes in Scotland in 2024 (Forest Research, 2025a).

Feedstocks in the UK have already found multiple circular economy uses, meaning the biochar supply chain has to be commercially viable and sustainable to be competitive and to be able to secure feedstock.

AD and biogas sites are target customers for biochar and growth of the AD sector will affect the development of biochar plants. Biochar has potential to be used in AD sites as an additive to increase biogas production, as elaborated above in Section 5.5 (Pathways). Currently, biogas production targets (as a % of total gas demand) across Europe are much more ambitious than in the UK, which currently has no mandated target (and sits at 1% of total gas demand) (Scottish Government, 2023a). For example, targets in Denmark and Poland are 100% and in Germany 25%. In 2023, Carbogenics reprojected that the UK biochar sector would double in the following three years and that the UK biogas sector would double in less than a decade (Scottish Government, 2023a). This rate of growth was anecdotally confirmed during our interviews. Taking this projected growth as a proxy for establishing a market, a timeline of around 2030-2035 could be proposed for NETs development (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Biomass is used in the UK for electricity generation, heat, power, industry, and other Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies (Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2024; Scottish Executive, 2007). Industries in Scotland that currently use bioenergy include paper milling, wood panel manufacture, distilleries, breweries and wood pellet producers (Scottish Government, 2024). Electricity production from biomass is not yet a mature market in the UK, limiting potential competition for biochar feedstocks at present. In addition, generating electricity has low and decreasing carbon benefits in countries such as the UK, which already a large proportion of grid electricity from low carbon renewable sources. However, in other countries with similar biomass profiles such as Sweden, biomass supplies nearly half of the heat network (ClimateXChange, 2025b). Ultimately, whether use of biomass for industrial heat could lead to increased competition in the future depends on whether the economic value of biochar is higher than the alternative use of the feedstock.

Other potential biomass feedstocks mentioned by stakeholders during our stakeholder interviews include woody biomass, straws, and perennial energy crops such as willow and miscanthus. During the interviews, woody biomass stood out as a favourable material for biochar production in Scotland. However, wood fibre is a limited source, with increased demand in one pathway creating trade-offs with others (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2012). Scotland’s forestry product industry is large, sustaining over 16,000 jobs and adding around £878M/year to the Scottish economy, excluding the contribution of forest tourism and recreation (Scottish Forestry, 2025).

Lastly, feedstock use for biochar has been described as potentially conflicting with the policy goal of maintaining current domestic food production levels and avoiding further land use change for growing biomass for the purpose of biochar production (Environment Agency, 2025b).

Cost-related considerations

Biochar costs are highly variable and depend strongly on feedstock availability and chosen type, technology configuration, plant scale, and regulatory requirements. Upfront capital expenditure needs for pyrolysis facilities are substantial, while operational expenditure (OPEX) includes feedstock procurement and transport, energy inputs, labour, and application to land. Uncertainties around costs and high upfront investment needs remain among the primary barriers to starting up and scaling biochar deployment (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Studies conducted in 2019 and 2020 to estimate the cost of carbon capture through biochar found a wide range of costs. The cost depends on the choice and availability of feedstock, pyrolysis technology and scale, ranging from £13-208/t carbon dioxide (CO₂) (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Across the literature we reviewed, concerns are repeatedly raised regarding high costs of feedstock, pyrolysis plants and legal expenses (Shackley, et al., 2011; Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013; IPCC, 2022; Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2025a). Taken together, high costs constrain the development of a profitable biochar market. This was echoed by industry interviewees in comments on commercial viability. Further government supported research could help reduce uncertainty by defining the economic value (market price) of biochar in regular operational use. Cost pressures appear particularly acute for farmers, who face a high purchase price for biochar relative to other soil amendments and limited short-term financial returns (IBI, 2023; Han, et al., 2025; Bagaria, et al., 2025). Stakeholders from industry also shared that prices are geography and distillery specific, feeding into high variability of costs.

Technology related costs add further pressure to the economics of biochar production. Frequently cited are dryer/kiln technology to reduce moisture and pre-treatment infrastructure needs for lower grade biomass, power and grid safety related costs (Lapwing Energy, n.d.; CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022) . While some sources suggest smaller scale deployment could lower technological costs, such as when traditional artisan methods are used, other sources suggest that scaling up could help lower per-unit costs (IBI, 2025).

Where producers seek to generate revenue through carbon markets, additional layers of cost arise. This includes monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), certification, and associated administrative requirements, which can materially increase overall project costs, particularly for smaller operators (IBI, 2025). In addition, testing requirements may present an additional cost for waste-derived biochar production. At the same time, stakeholder interviews and some literature suggest that some of these cost pressures may reduce over time through scaling up, technological learning, supply chain optimisation, and improved access to finance (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Social considerations

Food, yield, agriculture, farming and land use concerns

There are concerns, including amongst the public, about the risk of biochar deployment at scale in Scotland resulting in trade-offs in food production and security if using domestic non-waste feedstocks (Scottish Government, 2024; Environment Agency, 2025d). Changes in land use, from growing domestic food supply to biomass crops for feedstocks, could therefore increase the price of agricultural commodities like food, with a risk of disproportionately impacting the poorest households (Scottish Government, 2023a). Distributional impacts like these, and the risk of creating or exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, must be considered (Environment Agency, 2025d). Though the application of the resultant biochar can increase yields of remaining agricultural land, evidence to support this effect is relatively limited in temperate regions like Scotland (IPCC, 2022), though biochar co-applied with organic fertiliser has been shown to be effective by one Scottish trial (Bagaria, et al., 2025). Refer to Section 5.3.1 for more detail on the impacts of biochar on yield.

This dispute in land use priorities risks conflict (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d) and local objections (Dalby, 2025). These are particularly notable for farmers, with a total agricultural workforce in Scotland of 66,800 people (Scottish Government, 2025c) who as noted by a stakeholder from the research sector are key to engage throughout the supply chain. An interviewee from the biochar industry sector also noted that farmers are typically slow adopters and may need incentives to encourage uptake of new technologies like biochar, such as targeted interventions via farming groups paying preferential prices for products that meet certain targets. Two interviewees built on this point by emphasising the challenge of getting buyers to trust biochar as a product, but had confidence that this would develop with time and use, if economic barriers were tackled.

For the above reasons, using biochar feedstocks that originate from waste may be seen as more socially acceptable, mitigating risks of land-use change and resultant conflicts (Environment Agency, 2025b). A local authority stakeholder confirmed that they are attempting to steer away from crops grown specifically for feedstock for these reasons, citing ethical concerns.

Health and safety concerns

Health and safety concerns around biochar production and storage may also act as a barrier to broader implementation in Scotland. This section focuses on human health and safety concerns; environmental impacts are considered in Section 10.7. There is a longstanding public perception that pyrolysis is on a par with incineration, risking the process being denied public license to operate if scaled up (Scottish Government, 2023a). This was corroborated by multiple interviewees across government and industry stakeholder groups.

Drying, grinding and crushing feedstocks can release hazardous air pollutants including acrolein, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter (PM) if not appropriately managed (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d). These concerns can be feedstock specific, as one interviewee highlighted a risk of cancer associated with wood dust, and impacts of air quality around wood pellet mills. Concerns about air quality and associated health risks (Environment Agency, 2025d; Dalby, 2025) also extend to biochar application, as being exposed to airborne biochar particles during spreading increases risk of lung disease (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). However, there is an evidence gap relating to the impact of these airborne pollutants on human health (Environment Agency, 2025a), and impacts of large-scale application of biochar on human health are yet to be explored (IPCC, 2022). Impacts may also be able to be mitigated by appropriate handling and proper Personal Protective Equipment. Nonetheless, health risks were raised as common concerns by interviewees across industry and non-governmental organisation (NGO) stakeholder groups.

There are also potential operational hazards related to the flammability of biochar (Lapwing Energy, n.d.), with a risk of unplanned ignition and combustion of the feedstock (CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022) and spontaneous combustion of the product during storage (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d). An industry stakeholder noted this risk can be a barrier to getting insurance for the facility.

Knowledge, education and skills

There is generally low awareness about biochar (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d; IBI, 2023), and an evidence gap on the social impacts of scaling up biochar technologies among the scientific community (Environment Agency, 2025a). The lack of awareness of biochar and scepticism of its benefits were noted as issues by several interviewees. Information needs extend to biomass more broadly, including equipping UK publics with information to understand how biomass use may influence their everyday lives, and monitoring of the impact biomass has on achieving net zero against transparent performance indicators (DESNZ, 2023). This is particularly relevant for key users like farmers.

There is also a lack of knowledge regarding scaling up biochar in the agricultural sector in Scotland, with a lack of permanent skilled on-site operators (Bagaria, et al., 2025; IPCC, 2022; IBI, 2023). This issue was also raised by an industry stakeholder. These skill requirements reportedly inhibit the feasibility of decentralisation. Another industry representative noted that despite high-skill requirements, the actual number of employees required to run a pyrolysis plant is minimal, and the low direct job creation potential could discourage government investment in the technology. Education and training would be needed in various areas to aid successful scaling (IBI, 2023). Moreover, a hesitancy towards digital tracking tools, which would likely be needed to implement biochar at scale, has been identified among farmers (Bagaria, et al., 2025).

Technological considerations

Technology readiness levels and need for R&D

Concerns regarding technology readiness levels (TRL) and the need for further research predominantly relate to technologies used for biochar production, such as pyrolysis units. A major barrier to scaling up biochar implementation in Scotland in the short term is the relatively early stage of technological development of biochar production (IBI, 2023; Scottish Government, 2024), with application in the UK so far limited to trials (Environment Agency, 2025b). Biochar technologies were in their infancy in 2013 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013), and even though substantial technological development has occurred recently globally, scaled-up deployment remains limited (IPCC, 2022). Large scale readiness is anticipated within a decade, but this is uncertain (Scottish Government, 2023a), with limited evidence on applicability at scale in Scotland (ClimateXChange, 2022) and the IPCC (2022) noting low current feasibility. Advancements in technology production and use are needed for biochar growth, since technology and equipment availability and capacity currently inhibits feasibility (IBI, 2023), though this landscape could change rapidly.

Described as ‘experimental’ by the Scottish Government (2024) and by a Local Authority interviewee, biochar technologies are rated as having a TRL between 3 and 9, depending on the technology and source. Biochar technologies may however progress through TRLs rapidly and lower TRLs may no longer be appropriate ratings in 2026. Biochar is presented as a technology option for many sectors in the UK, but is often labelled a ‘wildcard’ solution due to technological uncertainties and therefore varying confidence in its inclusion in net zero technology strategies (Government Office for Science, 2025). The Scottish Government (2023a) suggested that biochar production has a TRL of 3-6, placing it within the ‘proof of concept’ and ‘large [pilot plant] scale’ phases. Other studies have suggested a TRL of 7 (Arup, 2022), or between 4 and 9 depending on methods used (Environment Agency, 2025b). Specific biochar production technologies may be rated higher – for example, pyrolysis plants generally are at the full-scale commercial stage (Environment Agency, 2025c). The Environment Agency (2025d) suggest that pyrolysis and gasification have TRLs of 6-9, slightly lower for the latter if specifically for biochar production as the typical byproduct is an ashy waste with traces of char. Several interviewees across government and industry emphasised that R&D and projects on biochar technologies are not yet translating into fully commercially viable projects in the UK, typically remaining at a small-scale, trial or pilot basis. One industry stakeholder specifically noted that this small-scale, workshop level production will not suffice, requiring a ‘big player’ in the pyrolysis industry to scale biochar production. Larger scale facilities may however involve greater environmental implications, a concern raised by an NGO stakeholder.

Further research is required throughout the biochar supply chain, to build a strong knowledge and skills base (Scottish Government, 2023a). This will enable application of the most effective solutions in a given local context (Circle Economy, 2022). The Scottish Government (2024) notes a research need to understand the permanence of storage and optimum use for biochar. Additional research would also be useful to verify some biochar benefits, such as the potential of the pyrolysis process to effectively remove Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination (IBI, 2024) – a benefit also suggested by two interviewees. Increasing R&D to build deep knowledge could include public funding for research, development and demonstration activities, pilot projects and infrastructure development (Circle Economy, 2022).

Improving TRLs and increasing knowledge will support increased investment in biochar technologies, by addressing investors’ lack confidence in its early stage, small-scale status which inhibits uptake (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). Similarly, the farming community and industry as primary stakeholders lack sufficient data to make informed decisions regarding biochar implementation, such as good understanding of technologies, or carbon calculators that incorporate up-to-date scientific knowledge (Arup, 2022; ClimateXChange, 2023). A research stakeholder emphasised that practical knowledge is needed at-scale in real world conditions to enable uptake. Research to support businesses, rather than academic research, was noted by a government stakeholder as a particular gap.

Process issues

Biochar scaling and implementation is also inhibited by technological issues in the processes of production and application.

One such aspect of production is the selection of appropriate feedstocks. For example, not all feedstocks are compatible with every production technology (IBI, 2025). One industry stakeholder noted that most pyrolysis technology is designed for wood feedstocks, introducing complexity and yield implications if other feedstocks are used, including cheaper options. Adjusting the unit is a three-to-four-month process, but this barrier can technically be overcome. A government agency stakeholder indicated that this process takes longer for larger plants. A Local Authority interviewee also emphasised that homogeny of feedstock is critical.

Other production process related technological constraints also exist. These often overlap with legal requirements (see Section 10.8). The production processes are highly specific, requiring specific temperature ranges for optimal production depending on feedstock. These processes, especially small-scale pyrolysis, can have low energy efficiency, exacerbated at higher temperatures (Han, et al., 2025). Furthermore, several interviewees noted that units have not been operating long enough to provide sufficient information to accurately predict outputs.

Technological constraints also arise with the use and application of biochar products. This links to the economic constraints detailed in Section 6. Very low contaminant levels are required in biochar for use in agriculture and horticulture. For use in construction and agricultural fertilisers, characteristics such as stability, specific surface area and cation exchange are critical (PyroCore, et al., 2021). This specificity in application was highlighted by multiple industry stakeholders. Stakeholders in the research sector noted the need for UK and Scotland trials examining applications of biochar, including in combination with fertilizer, various farming activities, and for different crops.

There is also a lack of standardised approach to MRV once biochar has been applied to soils. Existing methods are either outdated – typically conducted without digitalisation across the entire supply chain (IBI, 2025) – or do not account for storage permanence and the varying decomposition rates of biochar depending on feedstock and temperature (Scottish Government, 2023a). Improved MRV procedures will require improvements in modelling biochar spread, which is complex (Scottish Government, 2023a). Lessons could be learned from international examples, for example an industry stakeholder reported that Denmark’s farming sector uses an established digital MRV system for carbon capture, also supporting compliance requirements. This issue relates to uncertainty surrounding the assessment of biochar characteristics, such as its durability (IBI, 2025) and predictors for its effect on nitrous oxide emission rates from soil. Methods can also be costly and rely on a high degree of specialist knowledge, making them difficult to scale (ClimateXChange, 2024).

Environmental considerations

Carbon storage

Other carbon removal technologies depend on geological storage of captured CO₂. In contrast, deploying biochar for carbon removal (i.e., as a net carbon negative product) depends on permanent storage of the carbon in biochar in-situ in soil or alternative place of use (Scottish Government, 2023a; Arup, 2022).

As stated in Section 5.2, academic evidence strongly supports that biochar offers long-term carbon storage, at time scales of multiple centuries. Though field studies consistently also show biochar carbon durability in the short term, it should be noted that the stated 1000-year durability of biochar can never be usefully demonstrated in real time, especially when aiming for deployment on a 2045 timescale. Evidence of long-term stability therefore relies on the structural characteristics of biochar. Certified carbon removal using biochar is currently traded under accounting protocols published by Verra, Puro, or Isometric against 100- or 1000-year durability. However, biochar carbon accounting is still under development and depends on understanding of the potential for mobilisation of the stored carbon and its possible emission (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Several sources reviewed state that the permanence of carbon in biochar when applied to soils is an evidence-gap, or an area of uncertainty, requiring more research (Environment Agency, 2025a; ClimateXChange, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025c). This suggests that the scientific confidence in biochar carbon durability (in both soil and other applications such as construction) has not yet been successfully disseminated into public knowledge and understanding, including at a governmental and policy level (Scottish Government, 2023c; Biochar Europe, n.d.). This social aspect may present a barrier to deployment, despite a lack of environmental concern. Despite this, some specific applications of biochar could still raise environmental concerns regarding soil carbon. Particularly relevant to Scotland, one industry stakeholder noted the relatively high potential for biochar to release carbon from peat bogs.

Moreover, biochar is not entirely homogenous. Extrapolating permanence based on initial decomposition overestimates longer term decomposition in laboratory experiments. On the other hand, microbial communities in biochar-rich soils could become tuned to a change in substrate, resulting in enzymatic shifts that increase decomposability over time (Feng, et al., 2023). Permanence should also not be over-stated without proper biochar characterisation (Schmidt, et al., 2021).

The carbon storage of biochar also varies depending on the feedstock used, with waste-derived biochar exhibiting the lowest carbon removal potential (Scottish Government, 2023a). This could be problematic in approaching biochar as a carbon mitigation tool based on the current legislative landscape in Scotland as discussed in Section 10.8. Paper, cardboard, food waste, and sewage sludge feedstocks also do not typically result in net GHG removals compared to bioenergy crops and agricultural arisings, though do still contribute to carbon mitigation if pyrolysed (Environment Agency, 2025b). They are also considered by an industry interviewee to be high-quality feedstocks in terms of biochar quality. Interviewees noted the importance of knowing feedstock origin and ensuring that any biomass removed is being replaced to ensure net carbon negativity within a reasonable timescale.

Carbon storage potential is also altered by pyrolysis conditions, specifically temperature. With increasing temperature, the carbon content and aromaticity of biochar also increase (Environment Agency, 2025d), although the research bias towards lower pyrolysis temperatures results in less data availability for higher temperatures.

Emissions and impacts on climate change

Concerns have also been expressed regarding potential climate change impacts of biochar throughout its value chain, including feedstock, production, storage, transport, and application. It should be noted that biochar’s effect on emissions in various life cycle stages is not fully understood and requires further research (Scottish Government, 2023c). These emissions pose health risks (discussed in Section 7.3) and environmental impacts. The life cycle emissions of biochar production are summarised in Section 5.2.4.

Biochar production technologies have associated emissions, since they require heat generation. Biochar production is noted to lead to increased non-GHG emissions, an example of burden shifting (Scottish Government, 2023a). For example, Volatile Organic Compound emissions are generated by wood chip burners, as well as nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides, and carbon monoxide (CO) (CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022). Heat can also be generated by combustion of pyrolysis co-products, which emits a small amount of CO₂, steam, nitrogen dioxide, CO, methane, and sulphur dioxide (Clarke, et al., 2021). In addition, emissions vary with the type of feedstock used (Scottish Executive, 2007). These effects are exacerbated if the feedstock materials have a high moisture content, due to greater energy demand for drying before pyrolysis (Environment Agency, 2025e). The impact of these emissions can be mitigated to an extent through appropriate abatement technologies.

Emissions are also released from stored biomass (Environment Agency, 2025d), for example through CO₂ loss via oxidation when the product is exposed to air (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). During storage, as well as in transport, handling, and application, biochar can also emit PM, including black carbon aerosol (Environment Agency, 2025d). During transportation, emissions from road transport – currently a significant emissions source in the bioeconomy – need to be considered (Scottish Government, 2024). These issues were all corroborated by several stakeholders.

For application, impacts tend to be context specific. For example, biochar application to cultivated soils can decrease surface albedo (how much sunlight is reflected), though this does depend on dosage, application method, land use, and soil moisture content (IPCC, 2022). High experimental doses of biochar can also stimulate microbial activity in the short term, as a small labile fraction of carbon becomes relevant. Emissions are minimised at 5-10 t/ha, then rebound due to stimulation of native soil organic matter decomposition (Han, et al., 2025).

Land-use change

Another environmental concern is the potential impact on land-use change and competition for land (Environment Agency, 2025b; IPCC, 2022; DESNZ, 2025), as strongly emphasised by an NGO stakeholder, who corroborated several of the following points. This is separate to land use concerns from a social perspective as discussed in section 10.5.1. The Scottish Government (2023a) has identified this as a major challenge when virgin feedstock is used. This risks species loss and reduced biodiversity and has a greater land requirement than other carbon removal technologies like BECCS (Scottish Government, 2023a). However, this comparison does not account for the carbon value of heat generated by pyrolysis and electricity required by BECCS. Converting pasture to miscanthus, for example, has been linked to biodiversity loss, particularly for farmland bird species (Environment Agency, 2025b). Negative impacts have also been identified in the conversion of grassland and woodland to biomass crop (Environment Agency, 2025d). It was suggested that impacts on species is an area requiring further research.

If these land requirements cannot be met domestically, raw biomass may need to be imported, transferring potential negative externalities to other countries. This would be highly likely if biochar were to be scaled up. Growing dedicated crops for climate-relevant biochar production is likely to be unfeasible in the UK, as they require significant land and water resources which would have a large environmental footprint (Environment Agency, 2025e).

Impacts on soil and water, including contamination

Biochar has several potential negative impacts on soil and water health, mostly related to its application to soil. As with several other issues relating to biochar, its long-term soil health impact is poorly understood (Environment Agency, 2025b). There are potential – and uncertain – impacts on soil microbiomes (including viruses and protists that affect soil bacteria and fungi), microbial food web interactions, the abundance of microbial genes in the soil (which in turn affects nutrient transformation processes and microbes beneficial to plant growth and health), and interactions with plant roots (Environment Agency, 2025d). Properties of biochar upon application are also not yet fully characterised due to their variability (Arup, 2022). Similarly, large-scale impacts of biochar application on the full GHG-balance of soils have not been explored (IPCC, 2022).

Relating to feedstock growth and biochar production, demands for fertiliser and grid electricity increase, raising risks of acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity (Scottish Government, 2023a). Use of forestry residues as feedstock is feasible, but can risk soil health degradation over time, due to interference with natural nutrient cycling and soil carbon, as corroborated by an NGO interviewee who also raised the threat to soil invertebrates. Concerns have also been raised about the risk of deforestation (Environment Agency, 2025d).

The application of biochar to soil introduces the risk of contaminants (Arup, 2022; Bagaria, et al., 2025; Environment Agency, 2025d; ClimateXChange, 2022). This may include polyethylene terephthalate (SRUC, 2020), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (IPCC, 2022), heavy metals if produced from paper and pulp mill sludge or wood (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d), and plastics if produced from waste (Scottish Executive, 2007). However, multiple stakeholders did emphasise that the temperature of the pyrolysis system, combined with scrubbing abatement systems, can remove plastics and pollutants, and levels of pollutants in the material are always lower after pyrolysis than before.

Additional risks to soil and water health from biochar application include potential increases in plants’ susceptibility to insects and pathogens (IPCC, 2022), and risk of nutrient losses and subsequent deposition through wind and water erosion (Lapwing Energy, n.d.).

All these threats are exacerbated by a risk of overapplication (Environment Agency, 2025d), especially near farms, AD plants, and distilleries (SRUC, 2020), a concern also raised by an NGO stakeholder. High biochar rates of >20 t/ha may reduce soil aggregate stability, negatively affecting soil structure, though evidence we found on this focuses on short-term rather than long-term effects (Han, et al., 2025).

Legal considerations

Relating to feedstock and waste

Legal definitions and classifications create constraints on the effective use of available of feedstocks. In particular, waste regulations can limit the ability to rely on exemptions and introduce additional compliance requirements.

Guidance on the waste status of relevant feedstocks remains unclear, increasing regulatory uncertainty for biochar producers and increase costs ( (Lapwing Energy, n.d.; PyroCore, et al., 2021). For example, forest residues are not legally classified as waste according to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and there is currently no specific exemption permitting the use of certain waste materials in biochar applications (Scottish Executive, 2007; SEPA, 2012). Additional clarification is also required for materials such as biosolids and less conventional waste streams, including distillery residues (SRUC, 2020). Legal frameworks that require biowaste and farm wastes to be collected instead of going to landfill or energy recovery could present a significant opportunity for biochar, if the guidance regarding status and classification could effectively be improved (SEPA, n.d.).

Biochar’s classification as a waste material also limits its use and results in greater investment needs, permitting related costs and longer implementation times (Arup, 2022).

In Scotland, biochar manufacture is legally treated as a waste management activity. While the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s 2012 Position Statement allows small-scale production from certain woody forestry and agricultural wastes (codes 02 01 03 and 02 01 07) without a licence, this remains a temporary position pending formal exemption (SEPA, 2012). Facilities producing above 50 kilograms/hour fall outside this small-scale threshold and face full regulatory requirements, which constrains commercial investment and limits scale-up (Arup, 2022). One interviewee also noted that current regulations restrict producers from experimenting with biomass feedstocks beyond the waste categories currently permitted, including coffee grains and sewage sludge for example.

Similar ambiguity exists across the wider UK framework (Štrubelj & Singh Ghaleigh, 2025). Biochar is generally treated as waste because it is derived from discarded biomass, unless produced from purpose-grown or otherwise non-waste materials such as wood pellets or virgin timber offcuts. This creates uneven incentives: producers may avoid residual biomass streams that attract regulatory controls and instead rely on dedicated feedstocks, contrary to circular economy principles.

These regulatory bottlenecks were consistently reflected in our stakeholder interviews. Industry actors and local authorities identified waste classification, end-of-waste criteria and recycling definitions as key sources of confusion, directly affecting implementation timelines and investment decisions. End-of-waste criteria, particularly, was raised as a major barrier by majority of the stakeholders interviewed. Finally, more clarity or guidance is needed on pyrolysis use in waste processing (DESNZ, 2025).

Another legal barrier is the lack of guidelines regarding the agricultural and soil-related applications and impacts of biochar (Bagaria, et al., 2025). As highlighted in earlier sections, biochar’s benefits to soil quality could be leveraged if regulations enabled biochar created from sewage sludge to be returned to the soil (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Standards, certification and regulation relating to product use

There are significant concerns about the standardisation of biochar quality and composition analysis across the UK and internationally (Schmidt, et al., 2021). This includes complexities around selling carbon credits as a source of income for biochar producers.

Biochar producers are expected to align their activities with reputable carbon credit certification standards and comply with those standards’ requirements. Six international carbon certification standards allow biochar producers to issue carbon credits. Each standard sets different requirements for certification, eligible feedstocks, approved technologies, end use, tracking, leakage assessment, testing, and permanence criteria such as hydrogen to carbon ratios (IBI, 2025). Due to regulatory and commercial barriers, only 47% of global biochar producers certify the carbon removals (IBI, 2023).

Governance mechanisms are needed for unified industry standards and market development. Guidance could be on but not limited to: labelling standards, sustainability certification schemes and regulation of biochar production and use, such as limits on contaminant/pollutant concentration or data monitoring requirements, for Scottish biochar developers, which could help with reducing the risks of adverse outcomes and developers to understand application of standards tailored to Scottish context, with easier transition to adapt international carbon crediting requirements (IPCC, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025d). There are currently no UK-specific certification standards governing the use of biochar for carbon offsetting (Arup, 2022). An industry interviewee highlighted that, in the absence of unified certification or standards, lower quality biochar would enter the market alongside higher quality products. This could create trade-offs between quality and scale, creating disincentives for producers investing in higher standards.

As biochar capacity increases, stronger carbon permitting frameworks and waste regulations are likely to be introduced to prevent environmental releases and manage impacts (Scottish Government, 2023a). While these measures are important for environmental protection, they may also increase compliance costs and administrative requirements for producers seeking to expand. As biomass availability is already a potential barrier, and imported biomass already constitutes a significant share of biomass used in Scotland, scaling biochar operations could introduce additional legal and governance complexities. In particular, concerns have been raised that imported biomass may not be subject to equivalent environmental regulation or robust carbon accounting frameworks in the country of origin. In the context of limited governance and standardisation for biochar, these uncertainties have contributed to UK farmers’ caution regarding the use of imported biomass in certified biochar production.

How to cite this publication:

Pendlebury, T., Watkins, E., Hill, D., Aycan, D., Gathorne-Hardy, A., Leake, A., Sohi, S. (2026) ‘Scoping the Potential for Biochar in a Scottish Context’, ClimateXChange. https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7561

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026

Prepared by Logika and Edinburgh Innovations on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

1. Carbon farming is a set of agricultural practices designed to sequester atmospheric CO₂ into the soil and plant biomass, thereby using farms as carbon sinks. ↑
   

2. The six-tenths or 0.6 rule is an economic scaling method used to estimate changes in capital costs relative to scale, i.e. that a change in capacity will change the capital cost by 0.6 times the capacity ratio. ↑
   

   
   

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and storing them permanently is important for achieving net zero. Biochar – a solid carbon material similar to charcoal – is one of the most widely used carbon removal methods worldwide.

Biochar is made by heating biological material, usually plant material, to very high temperatures in a process called pyrolysis. The resulting material can store carbon for long periods.

This report assesses the potential for biochar in Scotland. It examines the availability of materials for biochar production, its potential impacts on carbon storage, soil health and crop yields, lessons from other countries, potential uses in Scotland, and the main barriers and opportunities to its wider use.

Key findings

• Barriers and opportunities: Waste management rules, high and variable costs, and limited support for scaling up production are major barriers to investment. Carbon credit income and stronger, independent evidence from Scotland could help build confidence among farmers and investors.
• Feedstock sources: Scotland has plenty of biomass that could be used to make biochar, including forestry, farming and whisky production waste. More research is needed to assess the potential of major sources such as farm waste, sewage sludge and waste wood.
• Carbon storage: Biochar can store carbon for a long time, with forestry waste offering strong potential in Scotland. Scotland’s cool climate and mineral soils may also help it remain stable in the ground.
• Soil health, crop yields and climate resilience: Early research suggests biochar could increase crop and grass yields when used with organic fertiliser, improve soil quality and reduce some greenhouse gas emissions. However, evidence from Scotland is limited, and biochar should not currently be used on peat because of concerns about emissions.
• Lessons from other countries: Scotland can learn from countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany, which have taken different approaches to supporting biochar. Their experience shows that government support, funding and clear regulations can help develop the sector, but do not always lead to widespread use.
• How biochar could be used in Scotland: Seven potential uses for biochar in Scotland have been identified. Using it on farmland, particularly alongside organic fertilisers, offers the greatest potential for carbon storage while requiring little change to existing practices.

Areas for future action

• Support early commercial projects: Provide targeted funding to help biochar projects move from demonstration to commercial production, filling a gap in current funding.
• Clarify regulations: Work with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to develop clear rules for when biochar can be treated as a product rather than waste.
• Build the Scottish evidence base: Run field trials across Scottish soils and feedstocks to test realistic application rates and monitor the long-term effects on carbon storage and soil health.
• Identify opportunities for production: Map where biochar production could work best in Scotland, considering available materials, transport, infrastructure and potential uses for the heat produced.
• Compare environmental impacts: Assess the environmental impacts of different Scottish feedstocks and supply chains, including how biochar compares with other uses of the same materials.
• Develop common standards: Establish consistent standards for testing, tracking and monitoring biochar, including carbon claims and environmental safeguards.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Page image by Nora Jane Long on Unsplash