Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Technologies (and their
role for sustainable bioenergy)
1st Workshop ESSP Bioenergy – Bioenergy and Earth Sustainability.
Escola Superior de Agricultura “ Luiz de Queiroz” Piracicaba - Brazil, July 19-22, 2008.
André FaaijCopernicus Institute - Utrecht University
Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40Member Steering Group BIOPEC Initiative
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Integration…
Pfff, it’s complex…
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Key bioenergy utilisation routes
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Bioenergy today• 45 EJ + 10 EJ total use• 9 EJ + 6 EJ commercial; non-modern• ~ 8 EJ Modern; commercial:
– < 1 EJ electricity– ~ 2.5 EJ heat– ~ 1.5 EJ biofuels (bulk = ethanol; half of that
ethanol sugar cane based)• Main controversy on biofuels from annual
crops and palm oil. • Currently some 20 Mha in use for biofuels
worldwide (compared to 5,000 Mha for food)
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Combustion; workhorse of bio-energy…
Fuel Ash
Air
Fixed bed furnace(grate furnace)
Fuel
Ash
Air
bubbling fluidisedbed furnace
circulating fluidisedbed furnace
Air Air
Fuel
Fuel
dust firing
Efficiency: from 20 – 40%CHP: 60 - <80%Capacity: 20 – 250 MWe …Economics OK with residues
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Power Station Kymijärvi, Lahti Finland
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Future BIG/CC technology
Pre-treatment Gasifier Fuel gas
clean-up
Fuel gasexpander Gas turbine HRSG
Air
Steamturbine
Ash Particles/alkalis
Fluegas
Fuel gascooler
Steam
Poplar wood
Natural gas
AirBurner
Flue gasInert gasGas
cooler
Steam
Air
forpressure lockingDolomite
Hotwater
-> Current status: ~3500 U$/kWe, 30% electrical efficiency, ACFB, ~10 Mwe
-> Future:~1500,- U$/kWe, ~50% efficiency, (ACFB..), >100 MWe
-> Ultimate: <1000 U$/kWe, >55% eff., PCFB, HT gas cleaning >200 MWe
Cost of electricity:~ 10 U$ct/kWh -> 3-4 U$ct/kWh,almost doubling of electrical output
[Faaij, van Ree et al., 1998]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Perennial crops (vs. annual crops)
• Lower costs (< 2 €/GJ)• Planted for 15-25 years• Low(er) intensity
– Can restore soil carbon and structure– Suited for marginal/degraded lands– Requires less inputs (well below key threshold values)
• Wide portfolio of species & production systems– Possibilities for enhancing (bio-) diversity– Adaptable to local circumstances (water, indigenous
species)
• Earlier development stage– Large scale and diverse experience needed– Learning curve to be exploited– Improvement potential
Miscanthus x giganteus
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Yields: perennials ~3x annual
Crop Biomass yield (odt/ha* yr)
Energy yield in fuel (GJ/ha*yr)
Wheat 4 - 5 ~ 50
Corn 5 – 6 ~ 60
Sugar Beet 9 – 10 ~ 110
Soy Bean 1 – 2 ~ 20
Sugar Cane 10 – 11 ~ 180
Palm Oil 10-15 ~ 160
Jathropha 5-6 ~ 60
SRC temperate climate 10 – 15 100 - 180
SRC tropical climate 15 - 30 170 - 350
Energy grasses good conditions 10 - 20 170 – 230
Perennials marginal/degraded lands 3 - 10 30 – 120
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass
1. SHF2. SSF3. SSCF4. CBP
+BIG/CC…
Major demonstrationsIn US/Canada, EU
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Synthetic fuels from biomass
Biomass & coal gasification to FT liquids - with gas turbine
Power
Pre-treatment:
- grinding - drying
feedstock is poplar wood
Gasification:
- air or oxygen- pressurised or atmospheric- direct/indirect
Gas cleaning:
- ‘wet’ cold or ‘dry’ hot
FT liquids
Offgas
Recycle loop
FT synthesis:
- slurry reactor or fixed bed
Gas turbine
Gas processing:
- reforming- shift
- CO2 removal
Major investments in IG-FT capacityongoing in China right now:- Reducing dependency on oil imports!- Without capture strong increase in CO2 emissions…
About 50%of carbon!
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
What are we waiting for?Yueyang Sinopec-ShellCoal gasification project; (China)
Shell gasifier arrivingat site September 2006.
15 licences in China at present…
Courtesy of Shell
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Economic performance 2nd generation biofuels s.t. & l.t.; 3
Euro/GJ feedstock
[Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
GHG Balances (without indirect land-use
changes)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Wastes (Waste Oil,Harvest Residues,
Sewage)Fibers (Switchgrass,
Poplar)Sugars (Sugar Cane,
Beet)Starches (Corn,
Wheat)
Vegetable Oils(Rapeseed, Sunflower
Seed, Soybeans)
Red
uct
ion
in C
O2
Eq
uiv
alen
t E
mis
sio
ns
(Per
cen
t)
Source: IEA
IEA – Fulton, 2004
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Composing chains…
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
L o g s C h i p s B a l e sB a l e sL o g s
B a l e sL o g s
R o a d s i d e
1 0 0 k m
1 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e
C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
C G P C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
E M
E M
E M
E M
C G P
E M
E M
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
C G P C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
C G PC G P =T e r m i n a l
C G PC G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
P l a n t
E M
E M
M
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
M
P P
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
1 5 0 k m 5 0 k m
H a r b o u r T e r m i n a l
1 1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
P l a n t1 0 0 k m
EP M
EP M
1 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
1 0m m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
> > M e O HB a l e sL o g s > P y r o
P e l l e t sB r i q u e t t e s
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
L o g s C h i p s B a l e sB a l e sL o g s
B a l e sL o g s
R o a d s i d e
1 0 0 k m
1 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e
C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
C G P C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
E MEEE MM
E MEEE MM
E MEEE MM
E MEEE MM
C G P
E MEEE MM
E MEEE MM
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
C G P C G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r
H a r b o u r
P l a n t
P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m D e d i c a t e d 5 0 k m
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
C G PC G P =T e r m i n a l
C G PC G P =T e r m i n a l
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
P l a n t
E MEE M
E MEE M
MMM
1 0 0 k m 1 1 0 0 k m
H a r b o u r P l a n t
1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
MMM
PPP PPP
R o a d s i d e R o a d s i d e
1 5 0 k m 5 0 k m
H a r b o u r T e r m i n a l
1 1 0 0 k m
P l a n t
P l a n t1 0 0 k m
EP MEEP MM
EP MEEP MM
1 0m m1 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
1 0m m1 0m m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
1 1 0 0 - 1 1 , 5 0 0 k m
> > M e O HB a l e sL o g s > P y r o
P e l l e t sB r i q u e t t e s
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
3 0m m
P P M M
E E
L e g e n d
H a r v e s t o r c o l l e c t i o n T r a n s p o r t p e r t r u c k ( s o l i d s ) . . . p e r t r a i n … p e r s h i p … o f l i q u i d s
L o o s e b i o m a s s L o g s o r b a l e s C h i p s 3 0 m m F i n e s 1 0 m m P e l l e t s o r b r i q u e t t e s
S t o r a g e o f l o g s o r b a l e s . . . o f c h i p s o r f i n e s …
o f l i q u i d s ( i n t a n k ) i n a s i l o . . .
D r y i n g c h i p s
C o n v e r s i o n E l e c t r i c i t y P y r o l y s i s o i l M e t h a n o l
Sou
rce:
Ham
elin
ck,
Faa
ij, 2
005
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Technological learning; improvement potentials and
development pathways.• Detailed bottom –up analyses of
bio-energy systems.• Breakdown of factors in
conversion, supply lines and biomass (crop) production.
• Essential for implementation• Many case studies, methodology
development & applied research.
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Cost reduction potential in 2nd generation technologies.
[Wit, Junginger, Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Total learning system for biomass-fuelled power plants producing
electricity Experience curve on investment cost
Experience gained with plant operation
Experience curve on fuel supply
Investment in biomass fuelled plants
Main components: Fuel feeding system Boiler Generator Turbine Heat exchange Flue gas cleaning Etc.
Fuel Supply Chain Harvesting Forwarding Comminution Transportation Etc.
Operation and maintenance of the plant
Input: (€)
Output: Capacity (kWe)
Output: Full-load hours (h)
Output: Fuel (MJth)
Input: (€)
Input: (€)
Production of electricity from biofuelled power plants
Experience curve on electricity production costs
Input: (€) Output: Electricity (kWhe)
Sou
rce:
Jun
ging
er,
Faa
ij et
al.,
200
5
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Experience curve for primary forest fuels in Sweden and Finland (1975
and 2003).
Sou
rce:
Jun
ging
er F
aaij
et a
l., 2
005
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Experience curve for the average and marginal production cost of electricity
from Swedish biofuelled CHP plants from
1990-2002
Cumulative electricity production (MWh)
1 10 100 1000 10000
Ele
ctric
ity p
rodu
ctio
n co
sts
(Eur
o(20
02)/
kWh)
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
Average electricity production costs Marginal electricity production costs
PR = 92% R2 = 0.88
PR = 91% R2 = 0.85
1990
1991
1992 1993
1994
1995
2002
1997
1999
Sou
rce:
Jun
ging
er,
Faa
ij et
al.,
200
5
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Cumulative national sugarcane production [106 TC]
1000 2000 4000 8000
Sug
arca
ne p
rodu
ctio
n co
sts
[US
$(20
05)/
TC
]
40
20
10
Average production costs (1975-1998) and prices (1999-2004)PR = 0.68 + 0.03 (R2 = 0.81)
19851980
1990 2001
1975
1999
Cumulative national ethanol production [106m3]
10 20 40 80 160 320
Pro
duct
ion
cost
s [U
S$(
2005
)/m
3H
YD)
400
200
100
50
Industrial costs (excl. feedstock)PR = 0.81 + 0.02 (R2 = 0.80)
197
7
1984
1981
1989
1998
2000
2003
Experience curve of sugarcane production 1975 – 2004
Experience curve for total hydrated ethanol (1975- 2004) excluding feedstock
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Examples of various sugarcane cost breakdowns in Sao Paulo
1976-2005 Sugarcane production cost breakdowns
1976 1980 1987 1995 1997 2000 2005
Pro
duct
ion
cost
s[U
S$(
2005
)/T
C]
0
10
20
30
40
50
LandSoil preparationCrop maintenanceHarvest (cutting and loading)Cane transportationAverage cane production cost(as presented earlier)
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Cost breakdowns of industrial ethanol production process excl.
feedstock
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Eth
anol
pro
duct
ion
cost
s [U
S$/
m3 ]
0
100
200
300
400
500
Investment costsOperational costsOther costs (taxes, administration, etc.)Total industrial costs (excl. feedstock)
120 m3/day120 m3/day
240 m3/day
1000 m3/day
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Estimated future costs of sugarcane and ethanol
production assuming 8% annual growth
Cumulative sugarcane production [106 TC]1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000P
rodu
ctio
n co
sts
suga
rcan
e [U
S$/
tonn
e] a
nd e
than
ol [
US
$/m
3]
10
20
40
200
400
800
10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280
SugarcaneEthanol prod. cost (excl. feedstock)Expected range of cane prod. costs in 2020Expected range of ethanol prod. costs in 2020
PR = 0.68 + 0.03
PR = 0.81 + 0.02
2020
2020
Cumulative ethanol production [106 m3]
Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcaneJ.D. van den Wall Bake, M. Junginger, A. Faaij, T.Poot, A. da Silva WalterBiomass & Bioenergy, 2008
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Ethanol plants US (status 2006)
Source: John Urbanchuk (data for Oct 31 2006; green =
operating, red = under construction)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
U.S
. Eth
an
ol p
rod
uct
ion
[mill
ion
ga
llon
s]
U.S. BrazilU.S. projected WorldRFS
Global ethanol
Production &
outlook
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Corn production costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Ann
ual c
orn
prod
uctio
n co
sts
[$(2
005)
/bu]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Ann
ual c
orn
prod
uctio
n [b
illion
bus
hel]
Corn production Corn production costs
Source: ERS-USDA, NASS -USDA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Annual c
orn
pro
ductio
n c
osts
[$(2
005)/
bu]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Annual c
orn
pro
ductio
n [billio
n b
ushel]
Corn production Corn production costs (yield is f ixed)Corn production costs per bushel
60% reduction in costs per bushel
Still 38% reduction in costs per acre(so without yield increase influences)
[Hettinga, 2007]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Corn production costs
Corn production costs per bushel
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
Pro
du
ctio
n c
ost
s [$
(20
05
)/b
u]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Yie
ld [
bu
/acr
e]
Cash expenses Capital costs Other
Corn price Yield [bu/acre] right axis
-64%
-46%
-63%
+171%
[Hettinga, 2007]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Source: Adapted from Pioneer, NCGA (ProExporter Network)
Development: yield increase
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Yie
ld [
bu
/ac
re]
Open pollinated
Hybrids
Single cross hybrids
Genetic modification?
[Hettinga, 2007]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Op
era
ting
co
sts
[$(2
00
5)/
ga
l]
Operating costs (excl energy) Trendline (R2= 45%)
Ethanol operating costs
-75% ?
[Hettinga, 2007]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Experience curve: operating costs
y = 1.1428x-0.1281
R2 = 0.3381PR = 0.92
y = 2.8318x-0.2118
R2 = 0.3722PR = 0.86
0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000 100000
Cumulative ethanol production [million gallon]
Ope
ratin
g co
sts
min
us e
nerg
y [$
(200
5)/g
al]
worst case best caseTrendline (worst case) Trendline (best case)
[Hettinga, 2007]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
Yield developments in Europe
y = 0.0764x - 147.16
R2 = 0.9468
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
Historic yield development example: wheat
Average yields plotted for The Western European CountriesThe Central and Eastern European Countries
Significant difference!
y = 0.0764x - 147.16
R2 = 0.9468
y = 0.0377x - 71.637
R2 = 0.497
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
0
12
3
45
6
7
89
10
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
Observed historic yields
Yield projections EuropeObserved yield
CEEC and WEC
Linear extrapolation of
historic trendsWidening yield gap
Applied scenariosLow, baseline and high
0
12
3
45
6
7
89
10
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
Observed historic yields Projections
0
12
3
45
6
7
89
10
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Yie
ld [t
on
/ha
]
Source FAOSTAT
Observed historic yields Projections
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Results - spatial production potential
Arable land available for dedicated bio-energy crops divided by thetotal land
Countries
Low potential
High potential
Moderate potential
< 6,5%
NL, BE, LU, AT, CH, NO, SE and FI
Potential
6,5% - 17%
FR, ES, PT, GE, UK, DK, IE, IT and GR
> 17% PL, LT, LV, HU, SL, SK, CZ, EST, RO, BU and UKR
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Results - spatial cost distribution
Production cost (€ GJ-1) for Grassy crops
PL, PT, CZ, LT, LV, UK, RO, BU, HU, SL, SK, EST, UKR
FR, ES, GE, IT, SE, FI, NO, IE
NL, BE, LU, UK, GR, DK, CH, AT
< 2,00 Low Cost
Moderate Cost
2,00 – 3,20
> 3,20 High Cost
Potential Countries
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Results – cost-supply curves
Production costs vs. supply potentialfor 2010, 2020 and 2030
Variation areas indicated around the curves represent uncertainties and scenario variables.
Only CEEC cost level increases
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
1 EJ (ExaJoule) = 24 Mtoe
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J)
Oil
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J) Starch
Oil
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J) Starch
OilSugar
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J)
Wood
Starch
OilSugar
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J)
GrassWood
Starch
OilSugar
Summary baseline 2030
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)
Pro
duct
ion
Cos
ts (
€/G
J)
GrassWood
Starch
OilSugar
GrassWood
1st generation
2nd generation
Crop specific supply curves
• Feedstock potentials Produced on 65 Mha arable and 24 Mha on pastures (grass and wood)
• Significant difference between ‘1st and 2nd generation crops’
• Supply potentials high compared to demand
2010 (0,78 EJ/yr) and 2020 (1,48 EJ/yr)
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Development in net feedstock use for biofuels (REFUEL project; example
scenario)
[www.refuel.org, 2008]
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Closing remarks• Technological and management improvements
key factor:– Agricultural (and livestock) management!– Energy cropping & supply systems– Conversion.
• Technological learning and improvement potentials still fairly poorly covered in analyses around bioenergy (potentials & projections), agriculture a.o (especially 2nd generation and beyond!).
• Combination of bottom-up engineering work and modelling generally gives good results.
• Takes considerable effort.
Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation Management
Thanks for your attention
For more information, see e.g. IEA Task 40:
www.bioenergytrade.org:
Key References:• Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005• Smeets et al., 2007, Progress in Energy & Combustion
Science,• Hoogwijk et al., 2005 & 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy• Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy• Dornburg et al.,2008 Biomass Assessment WAB• Wicke et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy• Wall Bake et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy• Wit & Faaij, 2008, REFUEL – (Forthcoming)• Hettinga et al., 2009 (forthcoming).