Bio-fraction of municipal solid waste · 2014-02-05 · 4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately...

$Page 1: Bio-fraction of municipal solid waste · 2014-02-05 · 4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located 5 Conversion to biofuel 6 Distribution to refuelling station Transport$
Feasibility:

Data quality is only Medium, as EU and Global figures had to be

split out from total waste arisings (i.e. excluding C&I wastes). UK

figures based on addition of different stream volumes.

Moisture = 50% (garden) up to 70 % (food)

Density = 0.50 g/cm3

Energy content = 6.3 GJ/t

Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)

Current 2020 Current 2020

UK 22 22 68 68

EU 189 147 591 460

Global 861 1,039 2,694 3,253

Definition: Separated household waste subject to recycling targets (paper, metal, plastic and glass) is

currently considered within this category, although may be split out or excluded. Food waste

and green waste (i.e. garden waste) are likely to remain within the definition in all cases, as

might biodegradable plastics and non-separated card and paper (mixed streams).

Basic Information:

Locations: Population centres.

Land used: None, defined as a waste.

Supply chain steps:

1 Collection

2 Transport to processing plant

3 Separation & pre-treatment

4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located

5 Conversion to biofuel

6 Distribution to refuelling station

Transport challenges: Toxicity.

Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and biomethane

upgrading of UK wastes (either for grid injection or pipeline

distribution to dedicated customer).

Bio-fraction of municipal solid waste

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 17 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route

via AD (based on RED typical value) - this equates to an 80% GHG

saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input

electricity to the AD plant and upgrading/compression.

Competing uses

The key waste treatment pathways identified on a volume basis

are landfill, recycling, composting and incineration.

Alternative resources

It is not necessary to consider substitute materials for disposal of

waste to landfill. Where the Waste Hierarchy is applied, materials

of sufficient quality should continue to be recycled where it is

feasible to do so, such that existing capacity is not impacted.

Deviation is allowed if environmentally beneficial, e.g. AD of food

wastes instead of composting (PAS110 certified digestate is a

recyclate, and would meet same fertiliser demands). Coal or

natural gas may be substituted in the heat & power sectors.

Indirect impacts

The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is

assessed as low when diverting material from landfill (likely to be

large benefits). Enforcing the Waste Hierarchy and only allowing

diversion when environmental benefits can be shown will limit

indirect impacts from diverting recycling – fossil fertiliser needs to

be avoided. Increased use of natural gas or coal would have fossil

GHG emissions.

Economics:

Market value = £-41/t (ranging from -46 up to -24, based on UK

prices / WRAP gate fees, i.e. including impact of landfill taxes).

Converting these using their biogas energy potential (not

combustion LHV) gives -£6.5/GJ feedstock. Assumes that

digestate also has zero price. This will be location dependent,

based on local nitrogen loadings.

Whilst there are several competing uses (e.g. composting,

incineration for heat & power), large amounts go to landfill that

could be accessed. Much of the resource is tied up in long-term

contracts (e.g. local authorities); hence impact on market price of

being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Medium.

Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:

• Resource = -13.1

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (feedstock price based

on AD gate fee, i.e. already delivered)

• Biofuel conversion = 27.8 (inc. waste handling)

• Downstream distribution = 3.0

Total biofuel production cost = £18/GJ biomethane for selected

route based on UK MSW.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be

approximately £120/tCO2e, based on the negative feedstock cost

but high conversion costs.

Framework criteria summary:

As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but large volumes go to landfill that could safely be

diverted. Biomethane from MSW has good GHG savings, but despite landfill taxes, is more costly than natural gas. Further policy support

for diversion into biofuels is likely justified in the majority of cases.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/lq

psy

zl

Definition:

This category may encompass a range of waste streams. An indicative, non-exhaustive list includes:

waste paper, cardboard, wood, food waste occurring at the production stage (though some of this,

such as animal fats falls under another category) and also retail stages.

Feasibility:

Data quality is only Medium, as EU and Global figures had to be

split out from total waste arisings (i.e. excluding MSW). UK figures

based on addition of different stream volumes.

Moisture = 10% (paper, wood) up to 60 % (food)





UK 25 25 85 87

EU 133 104 460 359

Global 560 690 1,941 2,390

Bio-fraction of commercial & industrial waste

Sustainability:


via AD (based on proxy RED typical value for MSW) - this equates

to an 80% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity

of the input electricity to the AD plant and

upgrading/compression.

Competing uses

The key waste treatment pathways identified on the basis of

volumes treated are recycling and landfill. Small volumes are

treated by incineration.


It is not necessary to consider substitute materials for disposal of

waste to landfill. Where the Waste Hierarchy is applied, materials

of sufficient quality should continue to be recycled where it is

feasible to do so, such that existing capacity is not impacted. Coal

or natural gas might be substituted if waste is diverted from

generating heat & power.

Indirect impacts


assessed as low when diverting material from landfill (likely to be

large benefits). Enforcing the Waste Hierarchy and only allowing

diversion when environmental benefits can be shown will limit

indirect impacts from diverting recycling. Increased use of natural

gas or coal would have fossil GHG emissions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Population centres and manufacturing facilities.

Land used: None, defined as a waste.

Supply chain steps:

1 Collection


3 Separation & pre-treatment






upgrading of UK wastes (either for grid injection or pipeline


Economics:

Market value = £-41/t (ranging from -46 up to -10, based on UK

prices / WRAP gate fees, i.e. including impact of landfill taxes).

Converting these using their biogas energy potential (not

combustion LHV) gives -£5.9/GJ feedstock. Assumes that

digestate also has zero price. This will be location dependent,

based on local nitrogen loadings.

Whilst there are several competing uses (e.g. incineration for

heat & power), large amounts go to landfill that could be

accessed. Much of the resource is tied up in long-term contracts

(e.g. local authorities); hence impact on market price of being

diverted to biofuels is judged to be Medium.


• Resource = -11.8

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (feedstock price based

on AD gate fee, i.e. already delivered)

• Biofuel conversion = 27.8 (inc. waste handling)



route based on UK industrial wastes.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be

approximately £138/tCO2e, based on the negative feedstock cost

but high conversion costs.


As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but large volumes go to landfill that could safely be

diverted. Biomethane from C&I wastes has good GHG savings, but despite landfill taxes, is more costly than natural gas. Further policy

support for diversion into biofuels is likely justified in the majority of cases.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to

LC ethanol (based on RED typical value) for EU straw – this

equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia

& lime inputs to conversion step, and location of enzyme

production. For US corn stover, GHGs = 16 gCO2e/MJ (81%

saving), due to increased transport distance.

Competing uses

The greatest use is in the livestock sector, for animal bedding and

fodder. Smaller markets include heat & power, horticulture,

mushroom production, and frost protection. Large amounts of

straw are left on field or incorporated into the soil (as fertiliser),

but only a small amount extractible sustainably.


Other animal bedding materials include wood chips, saw dust &

shavings, sand, paper crumb and Miscanthus. New hay/silage

may have to be grown to meet animal fodder demands.

Indirect impacts

Potential negative environmental impacts of straw removal relate

to soil & water quality (mitigated by limiting removal rates).

Social impacts are unlikely. Overall, the likelihood of negative

impacts is assessed as Medium, since there are opportunities to

sustainably increase extraction of forest residues (for bedding).

Economics:

Market value of UK straw = £63/t (ranging from 48 to 75

dependent on location and season), or £4.2/GJ feedstock.

US corn stover = £39/t (average farmer willingness to collect), or

£2.8/GJ feedstock.

Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be

Medium-High risk; since the resource is capped, and there are

already large competing uses (bedding, fodder, heat & power,

horticulture) for this thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 11.1 (UK), 7.4 (US)

• Transport to biofuel plant = 2.1 (UK), 1.2 (US)

• Biofuel conversion = 9.8

• Downstream distribution = 3.5 (UK), 12.6 (US, inc. tariff)

Total biofuel production cost = £26/GJ LC ethanol for selected

route based on UK straw, and £31/GJ LC ethanol for US corn

stover (including import tariffs).

The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately

£104/tCO2e, based on the UK production costs and high GHG

savings, or £178/tCO2e, based on the higher costs and GHG

emissions for US corn stover ethanol to reach the EU.


As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium-High, with limited additional resource available for

sustainable extraction. LC ethanol from straw has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy support for

diversion into biofuels is justified only for regions with additional sustainable resource, or if sustainable bedding alternatives are found.

Feasibility:

Data quality is High, based on cereal and oilseed crop production

residue ratios. Globally, feedstock volumes are expected to

continue to increase in the long-term, as food demands increase,

although EU volumes might peak in 2020.

Moisture = 15%





UK 7.4 – 11 7.4 – 11 52 52

EU 72 155 405 870

Global 885 934 4,963 5,240

UK range given due to conflicting opinions over sustainable extractable fractions

(HGCA 60%, Ecofys /JRC 40%). For biofuel production values, we take the average

Definition: Straw refers to the dry stalks of crops that remain following the

removal of the grain and chaff during the harvesting process and

can encompass cereal straw (e.g. from wheat, barley, rye, oats),

maize stover (but not cobs), oilseed rape straw, rice straw.

Straw

Basic Information:

Locations: Arable farmland following crop distribution patterns

Land used: Cereal and oilseed crops are typically grown on prime

agricultural land. Straw is not land-using, but is classified as an

agricultural residue (hence need to meet RED land criteria).

Supply chain steps:

1 Bailing and collection from field

2 Transport to biofuel plant



Transport challenges: Low density.

Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from UK straw.

Lignocellulosic ethanol from US corn stover (maize straw) was

also modelled

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/lcn

kxr

5

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/lw

9v

8ta

Feasibility:

Data quality is high for all regions. Feedstock volumes are

expected to increase slowly over time, in line with livestock

production responses to population and diet. Feedstock

characteristics based on wet manure, as this dominates.

Moisture = 90% for wet slurries, down to 35% for chicken litter


for wet slurries

Energy content = 1.3 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield) for wet slurries



UK 68 68 43 43

EU 1,521 1,340 969 853

Global 16,202 18,866 10,320 12,016

Definition: Animal manure includes liquid manure and slurry as well as solid manure and dung, produced from cows,

horses, pigs, chickens, sheep and other animals, birds and pets. Solid manures and dungs often contain a

high proportion of straw, given its use in animal bedding.

Animal manure

Sustainability:


via AD (based on RED typical value) - this equates to an 84% GHG


electricity to the AD plant and upgrading/compression.

Competing uses

Typically spread direct onto agricultural land where it has value as

a source of nutrients. A small fraction is already treated by AD

prior to application of digestate to land (0.3 Mt/yr), and some

chicken litter is used for power generation (0.67 Mt/yr).

Substitute resources

Digestate may supply the same fertiliser market, with the added

benefit that nutrients are more readily available in digestate than

raw manure. Substitute materials are unnecessary.

Indirect impacts

The likelihood of negative environmental impacts such as

biodiversity, soil and water quality, is assessed as low, especially

where diverted form land spreading, as digestate may provide

enhanced environmental services. Social impacts may include

increased transport/local road use.

Basic Information:

Locations: Highest resource availability in regions with intensive

livestock sectors (e.g. North-West Europe), particularly those with

restrictions on nitrogen application to land.

Land used: Livestock and poultry are typically reared on pasture

or indoors (agricultural land). Animal manure is not land-using,

but is classified as an agricultural residue (hence need to meet

RED land criteria).

Supply chain steps

1 Transport of manure to digester

2 Conversion to biogas, upgrading to biomethane

3 Transport of digestate back to farm for land application

4 Distribution of biomethane via pipeline

Transport challenges for manure: Odour, high water content,

pathogen control.


upgrading of UK manure (either for grid injection or pipeline


Economics:

Market value = £0/t (up to £34/t), i.e. £0/GJ feedstock (European

price assumption by Bioenergy Futures). Assumes that digestate

also has zero price. This will be location dependent, based on local

nitrogen loadings.

There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market

price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.

However, we note large additional supplies could be accessed,

there are few competing uses in a minimally traded resource, and

the digestate created via AD can meet the same fertiliser

demands.


• Resource = 0.0

• Transport to biofuel plant = 2.2

• Biofuel conversion = 33.3 (small farm scale)



route based on UK wet manures.


£406/tCO2e, based on the high conversion costs.


As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant additional supplies available. Biomethane

from manure has high GHG savings, although is much more costly than natural gas (especially for small AD + upgrading systems). Further

policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified in the majority of cases.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Sustainability:


via AD (based on proxy RED typical value for manure) - this

equates to an 81% GHG saving versus natural gas. The key

sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input electricity.

Competing uses

Around 66% of UK sewage sludge is currently treated by AD with

the biogas used for heat and/or power within the water

treatment works. 18% is incinerated with energy recovery, and

only a small proportion is spread to land without AD (e.g. areas

where waste water treatment is not economical, or treatment

capacity is limited).


If accessing the resource currently spread to land directly, then

the AD digestate may be applied to land instead, hence no

substitute necessary. However, if diverting the resource currently

used for heat & power (AD or incineration), natural gas would be

the most likely substitute for meeting power & heat demands.

Indirect impacts

AD is an established waste water treatment technology, and the

likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is

assessed to be low. However, use of natural gas will have indirect

GHG emissions from increased fossil fuel use.

Economics:

Market value = £0/t (from -£41/t to £0/t), i.e. £0/GJ feedstock,

based on UK gate fees or internal waste water works use.

Assumes that digestate also has zero price.



However, we note few additional supplies could be accessed

(small % spread to land), and there are many competing uses

(heat & power) already established.


• Resource = 0.0

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (used on-site)




route based on UK sewage sludge.


£240/tCO2e, based on the high conversion cost.

Feasibility:

Data quality is high at UK and EU level, but missing some

countries globally (data only available from a list of 17 major

producing countries).

Moisture content = 96 %

Volumetric density = 1.00 g/cm3

Energy content = 0.5 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield)



UK 35 37 9 9.5

EU 632 648 161 165

Global 1,069 1,183 272 301

Definition: Sewage sludge is the watery residual and semi-solid material left from

industrial wastewater or sewage treatment processes.

Sewage sludge

Basic Information:

Locations: Waste water treatment facilities are typically

downstream of large population centres in more developed

countries.

Land used: None, classified as a waste.

Supply chain steps

1 Collection within waste water treatment works

2 Conversion to biogas, upgrading to biomethane

3 Transport of digestate to local farms for land application

4 Distribution of biomethane via pipeline

Transport challenges: Odour, high water content, pathogen

control.


upgrading of UK sewage sludge (either for grid injection or

pipeline distribution to dedicated customer).


As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are High, with much of the resource already used for Heat & Power

(although some efficiency gains may be possible). Biomethane from sludge has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than natural

gas. Further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified for under-utilised fractions (avoiding natural gas substitution).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/m3

axd

p3

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/msu

vk

ub

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

Feasibility:

Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from palm oil

production and a residue factor. Feedstock volumes are expected

to continue to increase in the long-term in line with oil demands.

Moisture = 96 %





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0 0 0 0

Global 159 338 60 127

Definition: Palm oil mill effluent (POME) is a by-product of the palm oil processing industry – an oily

acidic liquid with high concentrations of organic solids and fertiliser nutrients. Typically, for

every tonne of fresh palm bunches processed, 0.65 tonnes of POME will be produced.

Palm oil mill effluent

Sustainability:

GHG emissions were not calculated, since biogas from POME is

most likely to be used onsite or in local markets and not exported

to EU.

Competing uses

Because of its high chemical and biological oxygen demands,

POME is typically released into open-air holding ponds for

remediation. Increasingly, mills are starting to look at energy

generation from POME, by using AD to produce biogas, and then

a gas engine to generate power and heat onsite.


No substitute required where POME is diverted from open

pooling and discharge. Palm oil mills may use biogas generated

from POME for their electricity or heat requirements, hence an

alternative fuel would be natural gas.

Indirect impacts


assessed to be low, as current remediation releases carbon

dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide to the air, treatment by

AD will mitigate some of the environmental impacts of current

treatment. Substitution by natural gas has fossil GHG emissions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Tropical palm oil growing regions (e.g. SE Asian

countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia).

Land used: None, defined as process residue.

Supply chain steps

1 Pre-treatment of POME (recovery of oil contents)

2 Transport to advanced biofuel plant, if separately located

3 Conversion to biogas

Transport challenges: High acidity, water content.

Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion to biogas from

South-East Asian palm oil mills. Unlikely to reach EU.

Economics:

Market value = £0/t, or £0/GJ feedstock (IFC assumption).



However, we note additional supplies are large, although

competing uses in heat & power are increasing. Digestate value

after AD not considered.


• Resource = 0.0

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed same site)

• Biofuel conversion = NA, biogas only used for heat &

power, no transport fuel made

• Downstream distribution = NA, as unlikely to be

transported to Europe from SE Asia

Total biogas production cost is only relevant for SE Asia – this is

not a likely route for EU consumption, hence was not modelled

further.


As a process residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Palm oil mill competing uses are generally Low (some converted to biogas

and inefficiently used in heat & power). GHG savings and cost competitiveness were not calculated, since POME or the biogas produced

is unlikely to ever reach the EU. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels has therefore not been evaluated.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/k7

5d

p6

x

Feasibility:

Data quality is High, based on palm oil production residue ratios.

Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in the

long-term, as vegetable oil demands increase.

Moisture = 64%





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0 0 0 0

Global 51 109 81 172

Definition: Empty palm fruit bunches are by-products of the palm oil processing industry. Typically, for

every tonne of fresh palm bunches processed, around 0.2-0.22 tonnes of empty fruit bunches,

the residues remaining after threshing the fresh fruit bunches.

Empty palm fruit bunches

Sustainability:


via FT diesel (based on adapted RED typical value) – this equates

to an 88% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the conversion step

energy balance, and transport distance to EU.

Competing uses

Empty palm fruit bunches are typically combusted for onsite heat

& power production, or simply incinerated without energy

recovery. Some are also composted or used in paper and board

production.


No substitute required where EPFBs are diverted from

incineration without energy recovery, or boiler efficiencies are

improved. However, diversion from heat & power demands could

lead to substitution with coal, natural gas or other more

sustainable wood and straw resources.

Indirect impacts

The main environmental impact associated with the use of coal or

natural gas is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts

may include local energy prices. Overall, risks are relatively low,

given the size of the under-utilised resource, although will

depend on local resource availability and conditions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Tropical palm oil growing regions (e.g. SE Asian

countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia).

Land used: None, defined as a process residue.

Supply chain steps:

1 Pre-treatment to reduce water content

2 Collection from palm oil mill

3 Transport to advanced biofuel plant




Selected biofuel route: Fischer Tropsch diesel from SE Asia

Economics:

Market value = £3/t (ranging from 2 to 4 dependent on location

and local demands), or £0.7/GJ feedstock.


Low risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed, and

there are few competing uses in a thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 2.0



• Downstream distribution = 6.5 (inc. import tariffs)

Total biofuel production cost = £27/GJ FT diesel for selected

route based on SE Asian empty palm fruit bunches.


£109/tCO2e, based on the production cost and low emissions.


As a processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Low, and significant resource is either openly burnt or

inefficiently used (many boilers have efficiency improvement potential). FT diesel from EPFBs has high GHG savings, although will be

more expensive than current fuels. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified for under-utilised fractions.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

ww

w.e

taw

au

.co

m/O

ilP

alm

/Im

ag

es/

EFB

01

.jp

g

Feasibility:

Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from crude tall oil

production and a residue factor. Feedstock volumes are expected

to continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line with

paper/pulp demands.

Moisture content = 0.2 %





UK 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.02

EU 0.16 0.19 5.3 6.6

Global 0.41 0.51 14 17

Definition: Tall oil pitch is a highly viscous residue from the distillation of crude tall oil. Crude tall oil is a by-

product of the conifer based paper pulp making process, and stems from crude sulphate soap

(skimmed off from weak black liquor)

Tall oil pitch

Sustainability:


HVO - this equates to a 90% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the

amount and carbon intensity of the input hydrogen for

hydrogenation (bio-hydrogen would be much lower emission

than fossil hydrogen).

Competing uses

Used for internal process heat and power within pulp mills in

almost all cases.


Wood fuel or fossil heating oil may be used depending on existing

boilers or CHP and local resource availability.

Indirect impacts

The impact of substituting with fossil heating oils is increased

GHG emissions, and potential local energy price rises. Potential

negative impacts of substituting for wood fuel relate to reduced

biodiversity, and soil degradation. The likelihood of these

negative environmental impacts is assessed as medium as there is

potential to increase forest residue removal without triggering

negative impacts.

Basic Information:

Locations: Produced at crude tall oil refineries, usually found at or

close to pulp/paper mills, hence key regions are North America,

Northern Europe, East Asia and Brazil.

Land used: None, classified as a process residue.

Supply chain steps

1 Collection of tall oil pitch



3 Downstream distribution


Selected biofuel route: HVO diesel from EU tall oil pitch.

Economics:

Market value = £420/t, or £11.1/GJ feedstock (European industry

price).

Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially

High risk; since the resource potential is only rising slowly, it is

easily traded, and there are very significant competing uses (heat

& power).


• Resource = 12.4


• Biofuel conversion = 3.6 (including naphtha revenues)


Total biofuel production cost = £20/GJ HVO diesel for selected

route based on EU pulp mills and HVO conversion in Finland or

Rotterdam.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be as low as £ 12/tCO2e,

based on the low production cost and low emissions.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for onsite heat & power are high, and substitution with liquid fossil

fuels is a risk. HVO diesel from tall oil pitch has very high GHG savings, and is cost competitive with current fuels. However, further policy

support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency improvements release resource).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Feasibility:

Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from FAME

biodiesel production and a residue factor. Globally, volumes are

expected to continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line

with FAME biodiesel demands.

Moisture = 10 %





UK 0.03 0.04 0.25 0.36

EU 1.0 1.4 8.3 12

Global 2.9 4.9 25 42

Definition: Crude glycerine (also crude glycerol) is a by-product of biodiesel production and the processing of

animal and vegetable fats and oils. Biodiesel production yields around 10% crude glycerine output.

Crude glycerine can be upgraded or refined to yield glycerine, removing methanol and other impurities.

Crude Glycerine

Sustainability:


methanol (based on actual UK data) - this equates to a 70% GHG

saving. Key sensitivity is the energy balance of the conversion

step, and carbon intensity of any inputs (e.g. natural gas).

Competing uses

May be upgraded (quality allowing) for the manufacture of high-

value food additives, anti-freeze, pharmaceutical and cosmetic

products. Lower value uses are in heat & power, AD, animal feed

or waste water treatment. Note that using UCO for biodiesel

results in crude glycerine that is harder/impossible to refine.


Refined glycerine can be synthetically derived from crude oil (if

economic). In fuel markets, crude glycerine may be substituted by

fossil heating oil. In animal feed markets, might be substituted by

corn, other starches and/or sugars (although highly complex).

Indirect impacts

The impact of substituting by fossil heating oils is increased GHG

emissions. Increased demand for starch/sugar crops risks ILUC

and food prices issues, plus reduced biodiversity, soil

degradation, and increased water demand (although the extent

of the impacts will depend on local land management practices).

The likelihood of negative impacts is assessed as medium/high.

Supporting glycerine may also improve 1G biodiesel economics,

promoting increased vegetable oil use and ILUC.

Basic Information:

Locations: FAME biodiesel plants (e.g. EU, US).


Supply chain steps

1 Collection from FAME plant

2 Transport to 2G biofuel plant, if separately located



Transport challenges: None

Selected biofuel route: Gasification & methanol synthesis from

EU crude glycerine (e.g. BioMCN process)

Economics:

Market value = £253/t, or £17.9/GJ feedstock (European FOB

traded price).


High risk; since the resource is limited, it is easily traded, and

there are very significant competing uses (industrial upgrading,

heat & power) that have strongly rising demands.


• Resource = 29.8

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed at port)



Total biofuel production cost = £38/GJ methanol for selected

route based on EU crude glycerine and methanol conversion in

the Netherlands. Highly dependent on glycerine price, which has

increased significantly in recent years.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £

331/tCO2e, based on the high production cost and significant

GHG emissions.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for upgrading, heat & power and animal feed are high, and ILUC or

fossil emissions are a significant risk. Methanol from crude glycerine has modest GHG savings, and is expensive. Further policy support

for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to multiple risks of negative indirect impacts and rising competing demands. Any new

unrefinable volumes would still require low risk, sustainable replacements for their lower value markets (most substitutes are high risk).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mxp

lf8

h

Feasibility:

Data quality is High, based on sugarcane production residue

ratios. Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in

the long-term, as sugar (and/or ethanol) demands increase.

Moisture = 48 %





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0 0 0 0

Global 413 599 1,205 1,748

Definition: Bagasse is the fibrous residue from the sugarcane crushing process, after the removal of sugar

juices. It is typically around 13% of the wet unprocessed sugarcane (with the accessible sugar

content being around 14%).

Bagasse

Sustainability:


LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this equates to

a 73% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia & lime

inputs to conversion step, and transport distance to EU.

Competing uses

As a fuel for on-site heat and power (50%), incinerated without

energy recovery (40%), or in paper and board manufacture (10%).


No substitute required where bagasse is diverted from

incineration without energy recovery, or boiler efficiencies are

improved. Heat & power demands could be met by the

sustainable extraction of cane trash (currently left on fields), or

other wood and straw resources.

Indirect impacts

The impacts of diverting bagasse relate to the GHG emissions

associated with any fossil fuel replacements, or environmental

impacts from cane trash extraction. Overall, risks are relatively

low, given the number of potential alternative agricultural

residues, although will depend on local resource availability and

conditions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Tropical sugarcane growing regions (e.g. Brazil, India).

Land used: Technically a processing residue (so no land used), but

RED has defined it as an agricultural residue.

Supply chain steps:

1 Collection from sugarcane mill

2 Transport to cellulosic biofuel plant, if separately located


4 Distribution to refuelling station (truck in Brazil, ship to EU,

truck in EU)


Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from Brazilian

Centre-South

Economics:

Market value = £8.5/t (ranging from 2.8 to 34 dependent on

location and local demands), or £1.1/GJ feedstock.


Medium risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed,

although there are competing uses (heat & power, materials).


• Resource = 3.1

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0 (on-site)


• Downstream distribution = 12.0 (inc. import tariffs)


route based on Brazilian bagasse.


£86/tCO2e, based on the low production cost.


As a processing residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but significant cane trash is available to meet H&P

demands, and many boilers have efficiency improvement potential. Bagasse ethanol has reasonably high GHG savings, and should be

near cost competitive with current fuels. Further policy support for biofuel diversion is justified for under-utilised fractions.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/ka

8o

mf9

Feasibility:

Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from wine

production and a residue factor. However, availability is highly

seasonal. Volumes are expected to continue to increase slowly in

the long-term in line with wine demands.

Moisture = 65 %





UK 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05

EU 4.1 4.1 9.5 9.5

Global 7.7 8.5 18 20

Definition: Grape marc, also known as ‘pomace’, is the residue that remains

after the pressing of fresh grapes to extract juice for wine making.

Grape marc contains skins, pulp, seeds and stems.

Grape marcs

Sustainability:


LC ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value) – this equates to an

87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia & lime inputs,

and any drying in the conversion step.

Competing uses

Previously used as mulch, organic fertiliser or ensilage for animal

feed. However, increasingly used in high value markets, including

production of other wine products & spirits (e.g. grappa), grape

seed oil, food colourings, sweeteners, preservatives, and health

products. EU legislation states that all grape marcs should be

treated via ethanol fermentation.


High value markets (e.g. spirits) have no alternative resources,

and would likely require more grapes to be grown. Mulch

composting may be replaced by fossil fertilisers, peat, manures or

AD digestate, depending on local agricultural practice.

Indirect impacts

Additional grape production would require more valuable land,

leading to ILUC and food price issues. Alternatively, lower

production of e.g. spirits could have significant economic and

social impacts on these small-scale industries. Alcohol also has

calories for human consumption, i.e. direct competition with

“food”. For mulch/ composting, impacts may include increased

GHGs of fertiliser production, and water contamination.

Basic Information:

Locations: Wine growing regions (e.g. Mediterranean).


Supply chain steps

1 Collection from winery




Transport challenges: High water content.

Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from EU grape

marc.

Economics:

Market value = £54/t (delivered dry), or £9.4/GJ feedstock.


High risk; since additional resource potential is limited, and there

are very significant competing uses (spirits and high-value

industries) for a thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 23.3





route based on EU grape marcs.


£266/tCO2e, based on the high production cost.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for high value industries (e.g. spirits) are high, and ILUC or social

impacts are a significant risk. LC ethanol from grape marc has high GHG savings, but expensive compared to current fuels. Further policy

support for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to competition with human consumption and impacts on existing industries.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Feasibility:

Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from wine

production and a residue factor. Volumes are expected to

continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line with wine

demands.

Moisture = 65 %





UK 0.004 0.004 0.01 0.01

EU 0.8 0.8 2.6 2.6

Global 1.5 1.6 4.9 5.4

Definition: Wine lees refer to the sediment remaining in the vessels used in wine

production, consisting of dead yeasts and other solid particles precipitated

during the wine fermentation process. Often mixed in with grape marc

Wine Lees

Sustainability:


via 1G ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value) – this equates

to an 76% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the amount and form

of drying in the conversion step (e.g. natural gas).

Competing uses

Previously used as mulch, organic fertiliser or ensilage for animal

feed. However, increasingly used in high value markets, including

production of other wine products & spirits (e.g. Ripasso), food

colourings, sweeteners, preservatives, and health products. EU

legislation states that all wine lees should be treated via ethanol

fermentation.


High value markets (e.g. spirits) have no alternative resources,

and would likely require more grapes to be grown. Mulch

composting may be replaced by fossil fertilisers, peat, manures or

AD digestate, depending on local agricultural practice.

Indirect impacts

Additional grape production would require more valuable land,

leading to ILUC and food price issues. Alternatively, lower

production of e.g. spirits could have significant economic and

social impacts on these small-scale industries. Alcohol also has

calories for human consumption, i.e. direct competition with

“food”. For mulch/ composting, impacts may include increased

GHGs of fertiliser production, and water contamination.

Basic Information:

Locations: Wine growing regions (e.g. Mediterranean).


Supply chain steps

1 Collection from winery





Selected biofuel route: Ethanol fermentation from EU wine lees

(effectively a 1G ethanol route, as starch/sugar based with

minimal lignocellulosic content).

Economics:

Market value = £54/t (delivered dry), or £9.4/GJ feedstock.

Estimate based on the value of grape marcs, as no data available

for wine lees.



are very significant competing uses (spirits and high-value

industries) for a thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 15.9




Total biofuel production cost = £30/GJ 1G ethanol for route based

on EU wine lees.


£173/tCO2e, based on the high GHG emissions.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for high value industries (e.g. spirits) are high, and ILUC or social

impacts are a significant risk. 1G ethanol from wine lees has modest GHG savings, and is most costly than current fuels. Further policy

support for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to competition with human consumption and impacts on existing industries.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/m5

xgg

wh

Feasibility:

Data quality is good for UK and EU, but only Medium for global

figures, since these are estimated based on ratio of EU vs. global

agricultural residues, due to lack of available data.

Moisture = 10 %





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0.8 0.8 4.5 4.5

Global 10 11 55 61

Definition: Nut shells are the outer hard casing of nuts. This category is

understood to include almond shells, but the RED proposals do not

specify this. The largest source of nutshells in the EU is from almond,

walnut and hazelnut production.

Nut shells

Sustainability:


FT diesel (based on proxy RED typical value for waste wood) – this

equates to a 95% GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion

step energy balance.

Competing uses

Industrial uses including deburring, corrosion removal, and

polishing, and in the manufacture of cosmetics, dynamite, and

paint. They are also combusted for heat and/or power – this low

value market is assumed the key competing use.


Other dry agricultural residues, wood fuel, coal or fossil heating

oil may be used depending on existing boilers and local resource

availability.

Indirect impacts

Increased forest and agricultural residue extraction may impact

biodiversity, soil and water quality. The likelihood of negative

impacts is assessed as medium, since there is some potential to

increase extraction rates without triggering negative impacts.

Social impacts relate to the economic sustainability of existing

industries. The major environmental impact associated with the

use of coal of heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released.

Basic Information:

Locations: Nut-growing regions (US, Mediterranean, SE Asia)

Land used: Most nuts are de-shelled in a processing plant, so

technically are processing residues (so no land used), but RED has

defined them as agricultural residues.

Supply chain steps

1 Collection from factory





Selected biofuel route: Gasification & Fischer Tropsch synthesis

to diesel, from EU nut shells

Economics:

Market value = £67/t (at factory gate, ranging from 49 to 85

dependent on location and local demands), or £4.1/GJ feedstock.


High risk; since the resource potential is flat with no additional

supplies available, it is easily traded, and there are very significant

competing uses (heat & power, industrial uses).


• Resource = 11.7





route based on EU nut shells.


£138/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but low

emissions.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and industry are high, and substitution with fossil

fuels is possible. FT diesel from nut shells has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for

biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mk

5a

vk

w

Feasibility:

Data for in-field agricultural residues are given within the Straw

category. Only processing residues, such as rice husks, are given

below. Data quality is therefore Medium, with EU resource scaled

down from global figure based on rice production.

Moisture = 10 %





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0.5 0.5 2.3 2.3

Global 120 133 583 645

Definition: Husks are the protective outer coating of seeds, nuts, grains or fruit. Grain husks are typically

separated from the kernel during threshing, becoming part of the chaff – hence regarded as an

agricultural residue (within “Straw”). “Nut shells” are also separately counted. A wider definition

of husks and hulls could include other processing residues such as olive pits and pulp.

Husks

Sustainability:


LC ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value for wheat straw) –

this equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the

ammonia & lime inputs to conversion step, and husk transport

distances.

Competing uses

Global uses include process heat and power, domestic fuel, whole

crop silage for animal feed or AD, and industrial uses (including as

a silica substitute and fertiliser). Heat and power applications are

the most relevant competing uses.


Other dry agricultural residues, wood fuel, coal or fossil heating

oil may be used depending on existing boilers and local resource

availability.

Indirect impacts






industries. The major environmental impact associated with the

use of coal of heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released.

Basic Information:

Locations: Arable farmland following crop distribution patterns,

as well as processing plants, e.g. for rice in China & SE Asia.

Land used: Husks generated in the field as part of the harvesting

process would count as agricultural residues, hence RED land

criteria apply. No land would be used if the husks arise as

processing residues.

Supply chain steps

1 Collection from factory




Transport challenges: Very low density

Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from EU husks

Economics:

Market value = £97/t (CIF traded, ranging from 80 to 110

dependent on location and local demands), or £7.5/GJ feedstock.



are very significant competing uses (heat & power, industrial

uses) for a thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 10.4





route based on EU husks.




As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and industry are high, and substitution with fossil

fuels is possible. LC ethanol from husks has high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for biofuel

diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/m2

69

k5

c

Sustainability:


via LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this

equates to an 81% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia

& lime inputs to conversion step, and transport distance to EU.

Competing uses

Minor use in heating, some goes to whole crop silage for animal

feed and AD, plus there are various niche industrial uses (e.g.

furfural, deburring, corrosion removal, polishing, thickeners,

activated carbon and charcoal). Most is left on land or

incorporated into the soil.


No substitute required where cobs are sustainably collected from

supplies left on the field. For replacing animal feed, more

hay/silage crops may need to be grown. Selection of substitute

industrial materials will depend on local conditions and markets,

and may include grass, cereal crops, and distillery by-products.

Indirect impacts

Potential impacts include reduced biodiversity where crop

cultivation is increased; soil degradation & erosion due to

increased straw removal; and water contamination by top-soils &

chemical fertilisers. Increased demand for land may affect food

prices. The likelihood of negative environmental and social

impacts is assessed to be medium, as it is possible to increase

agricultural residue removal avoiding negative impacts.

Economics:

Market value = £57/t (ranging from 46 to 68 dependent on

farmer willingness), or £4.6/GJ feedstock.


Medium risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed,

but there are competing uses (fertiliser, feed) for this thinly

traded resource.


• Resource = 12.3





route based on US cobs.



Feasibility:

Data quality is High, based on corn production residue ratios.

Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in the

long-term, as food demands increase.

Moisture = 20 %





UK 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04

EU 3.6 3.6 17 17

Global 36 40 167 185

Definition: A cob is the central, fibrous core of a maize ear to which kernels or grains are attached. Isolated

cobs are a by-product from the harvesting of grain maize kernels, typically separated and left in

the field by combine harvesters.

Cobs

Basic Information:

Locations: Temperate arable land (e.g. US, China, Brazil)

Land used: Maize is typically grown on prime agricultural land.

Cobs are not land-using, but are classified as an agricultural

residue (hence need to meet RED land criteria).

Supply chain steps:

1 Collection from field





Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from US corn belt


As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium, but significant resource is left on field and available for

sustainable extraction. LC ethanol from cobs has reasonably high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy

support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mu

5ty

6f

Feasibility:

Data quality is High for UK and EU, but only Medium for global

figures, since these are split out of total wood residue production

(i.e. excluding sawmill co-products, black liquor, waste wood).

Moisture = 30 % after natural drying





UK 3.4 3.4 15 15

EU 127 122 554 532

Global 317 316 1,377 1,376

Definition: This covers primary woody residues, principally forest biomass (from

thinning or harvesting operations) as well as woody biomass on non-forest

land, such as prunings and cuttings from permanent crops (e.g. olives,

vines), orchards and arboricultural arisings.

Bark, branches and leaves

Sustainability:


FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 95%

GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance.

Competing uses

Forest residues are almost always left in the forest during forest

management operations (97% across EU). Collected branches

may be used for heat and power, wood pulp, panel board

production, mulch, animal bedding, and landscaping.


Potential to increase resource extraction is large; impact on

existing industries is minimal. Fertiliser use may need to increase

depending on extraction rates and local conditions.

Indirect impacts

Potential impacts of forest residue removal include reduced

biodiversity as slash on the ground provides habitat for species

and promotes regeneration; and soil degradation and erosion.

The likelihood of negative impacts is assessed as medium as there

is opportunity to increase extraction without triggering negative

impacts.

Basic Information:

Locations: Existing forest (North America, Russia, Northern EU)

Land used: Forestry grown on land. Bark, branches and leaves are

not land-using, but are classified as a forestry residue (hence

need to meet RED land criteria).

Supply chain steps

1 Extraction to road-side

2 Natural drying

3 Transport of bales to chipping plant

4 Chipping

5 Transport of chips to biofuel plant, if separately located




Selected biofuel route: Gasification and Fischer Tropsch

synthesis to FT diesel, using EU forestry residues.

Economics:

Market value = £39/t (delivered to buyer, ranging from 34 to 44

dependent on location), or £3.1/GJ feedstock. Taking off

transport and chipping gives a roadside price of ~£14/t feedstock.


Low risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed, and

there are few competing uses for this thinly traded resource.


• Resource = 3.2

• Natural drying = 0.1

• Transport to chipper = 3.9

• Chipping = 1.8

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (chipper onsite)




route based on EU forestry residues.


£94/tCO2e, based on the low GHG emissions.


As a forestry residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant resource left on the ground and available for

sustainable extraction. FT diesel from forest residues has very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy

support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kjm

qu

j4

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/ko

48

zhh

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mk

4g

4td

Feasibility:



(i.e. excluding forest residues, black liquor, waste wood).

Moisture = 20% (assuming starting timber is dried)





UK 1.6 1.6 8.5 8.5

EU 37 42 199 221

Global 104 115 552 614

Definition: This category covers secondary residues from the processing of dried timber

and small round-wood, such as saw dust and cutter shavings.

Sawmill co-products

Sustainability:


FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 95%


Competing uses

Process heat & power, mulch, animal bedding, panel board

production and other building applications. Heat and power, and

panel board manufacture are the major competing uses.


Most likely to substitute with forest residues (more chips/pellets)

or dry agricultural residues. Use of coal or heating oil is unlikely.

Indirect impacts






industries.

Basic Information:

Locations: Forest industry and timber processing (sawmills),

hence key regions are North America, Northern EU, Russia, Brazil.

Land used: None, classified as a process residue

Supply chain steps

1 Collection




Transport challenges: None.


to diesel from EU sawmill co-products.

Economics:

Market value = £67/t (EU ex-works sale price), i.e. £4.4/GJ

feedstock.


High risk; since the resource potential is only rising slowly with

minimal additional supplies available, it is easily traded, and there

are very significant competing uses (heat & power, animal

bedding, panel board).


• Resource = 12.7





route based on EU sawmills.


£155/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but low

emissions.


As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and panel board are high, although most likely

substitution is with forestry residues. FT diesel from sawdust co-products has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels.

Further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/k4

7cf

4e

.jp

g

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kq

are

te

Feasibility:



(i.e. excluding forest residues, sawmill co-products, waste wood).

Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase slowly in

the long-term in line with paper/pulp demands.

Moisture = 25 %





UK 0.28 0.28 1.9 1.9

EU 66 72 459 498

Global 200 246 1,392 1,714

Definition: Black liquor is the spent cooking liquor from the kraft process when digesting pulpwood into paper pulp

removing lignin, hemicelluloses and other extractives from the wood to free the cellulose fibres. The

equivalent spent cooking liquor in the sulfite process is usually called brown liquor, but the terms red

liquor, thick liquor and sulfite liquor are also used.

Black and brown liquor

Sustainability:


DME - this equates to a 99% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the

energy balance in the conversion plant (assumed self-sufficient by

using more feedstock).

Competing uses

Almost all used for process heat and power. Pulping operations

also use these boilers to recover inorganic salts in the liquor for

recycling back into the pulping process – this limits the likelihood

that biofuels conversion would occur offsite (since then would

have to transport the recovered salts back to the mill).


Wood fuel or fossil heating oil may be used depending on existing

boilers or CHP and local resource availability.

Indirect impacts

Fossil heating oil use would result in increased GHG emissions,

and may impact local energy prices. Potential negative impacts of

substituting with wood fuel relate to reduced biodiversity, and

soil degradation, however, the likelihood of these negative

environmental impacts is assessed as medium as there is

potential to increase forest residue removal without triggering

negative impacts. Other environmental impacts will be minimised

provided closed-loop recycling of inorganics salts is maintained.

Basic Information:

Locations: Pulp and paper mills, hence key regions are North

America, Northern Europe, East Asia and Brazil

Land used: None, classified as a process residue

Supply chain steps

1 Collection of liquor




Transport challenges: Corrosion, toxicity.

Selected biofuel route: Gasification & DME synthesis from EU

pulp mills

Economics:

Market value = £112/t (ranging from 0 to 175 based on location

and demands), or £9.3/GJ feedstock (European energy value).



However, we note additional supplies are limited, and there are

very significant competing uses in the heat & power sectors.


• Resource = 16.1

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed same site)



Total biofuel production cost = £32/GJ DME for selected route

based on EU pulp mills, e.g. in Sweden.


£159/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but very low

emissions.


As a process residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses for onsite heat & power are high, and substitution with liquid

fossil fuels is a risk. DME from black liquor has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for

biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency improvements release resource).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

ww

w.h

yb

rid

cars

.co

m/f

ile

s/B

lack

Liq

uo

r1.j

pg

Economics:

Market value = £724/t, or £20.1/GJ feedstock (European FOB

traded price).


Low risk; since although the feedstock is widely traded, biodiesel

is already the primary use (few competing uses for UCO), and

large additional supplies could be accessed.


• Resource = 21.3


• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (including glycerine revenues)


Total biofuel production cost = £25/GJ FAME for selected route

based on UK collected UCO.


£96/tCO2e, based on the low production cost and low emissions.


As a waste/processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant additional supplies

available. FAME biodiesel from UCO has high GHG savings, and should be near cost competitive with current fuels. Further policy

support for biofuel diversion is likely justified for sourcing new sustainable supplies (especially if infrastructure investment is needed).

Feasibility:

Data quality is high for UCO at UK and EU level, but globally only

individual country/region data is available. Feedstock volumes are

expected to increase significantly in the short-term, as domestic

sources are collected.

Moisture content = 0 %





UK 0.13 0.19 4.3 6.6

EU 1.1 3.0 37 102

Global 2.8 7.8 94 266

Definition: Used cooking oil (UCO) is typically collected from catering establishments and industrial food

processors as a waste from food production. It may also be collected from domestic households

where a collection infrastructure exists.

Used Cooking Oil

Sustainability:


FAME (based on actual UK data) - this equates to an 82% GHG


methanol (bio-methanol would be much lower emission than

fossil methanol).

Competing uses

Biodiesel manufacture is the major market (90% in EU), other

small uses include for oleochemicals and animal feed.


There is significant potential to increase collection and supply (by

~2.5 Mt/yr in EU) without impacting existing industries, mainly

from accessing domestic supplies. Alternatively pure plant oils

may substitute in existing industries.

Indirect impacts

The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts

associated with the separate collection of UCO is assessed as low,

as if not used for biodiesel, then the material would be

discharged to drains, landfill or digested in AD as a component of

food waste streams.

Basic Information:

Locations: Population centres and food manufacturing facilities.

Land used: None, defined as a processing residue (for commercial

establishments) or a waste (for households).

Supply chain steps:

1 Collection from commercial/domestic property


2 Cleaning (centrifuge, washing, de-acidification)




Transport challenges: No particular issues.

Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from UK UCO. The main

technical restriction with processing UCO is water content.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kb

6a

va

k

Sustainability:


FAME (based on actual UK data) - this equates to an 82% GHG


methanol (bio-methanol would be much lower emission than

fossil methanol).

Competing uses

Category I animal fats are only permitted for fuel use, and

primarily used as process fuel in the rendering process. Category

II animal fats may also be used for technical uses, however these

are not produced separately from Category I materials in the UK.

Category III is primarily used for soap and oleochemicals, pet food

and animal feed.


Heating oil is most likely to be used as a process fuel substitute.

Natural gas, wood or other sustainable fuel sources are possible

alternatives if rendering plant boilers are changed.

Indirect impacts

The major environmental impact associated with the use of

heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts

may include local energy prices.


As a processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses from the Heat & Power sector are high, with fossil fuel oil

the most likely substitute resource (risk of GHG emissions). FAME biodiesel from animal fats have high GHG savings, and should be cost

competitive with current fuels. However, further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel.

Feasibility:

Data quality is high for Animal Fats overall (Categories I, II and III

combined), however, splits into Cat I & II vs. Cat III only exist for

the UK. Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase

slowly in the long-term, as animal fat production is set by demand

for meat.

Moisture content = 0.3 %





UK 0.12 0.12 3.7 3.7

EU 1.2 1.3 38 39

Global 3.5 3.8 107 119

Definition: Animal fats are obtained by the rendering (crushing and heating) of animal by-products:

Category I carries a health risk (e.g. BSE/TSE) which cannot be safely treated with sterilisation, such as

spinal and brain material, and hence cannot enter food or feed chains

Category II is lower risk material such as digestive tracts or animals that have died on-farm

Category III could enter the food chain – i.e. fit for human consumption, but not economical

Animal fats (Categories I and II)

Economics:

Market value = £480/t, or £12.6/GJ feedstock (European traded

price).


High risk; since the resource potential is flat, few additional

supplies can be collected, and there are significant competing

uses (heat & power) for this well traded material.


• Resource = 15.6


• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (including glycerine revenues)


Total biofuel production cost = £20/GJ FAME for selected route

based on UK animal fats.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be as low as £12/tCO2e,

based on the low production cost and low emissions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Livestock rendering plants. Concentrated in regions

with high livestock intensity, such as North-West Europe.


Supply chain steps

1 Transport from renderer to processing plant

2 Cleaning (centrifuge, washing, de-acidification)




Transport challenges: Toxicity, pathogen control.

Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from UK animal fats. The

main technical restrictions with processing animal fat wastes are

their relatively high free fatty acid content (ranging from 5% to

30%) and water content.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

IEE

P (

20

13

)

Feasibility:

Current data is good, but data quality for 2020 is Medium, due to

very large uncertainty regarding how quickly the industry will

develop and ramp-up in different regions. Further expansion

potential in the long-term is very high.

Moisture = 16% (if harvested at correct time of year)





UK 0.12 0.36 0.6 1.8

EU 0.9 4.1 4.6 21

Global 1.2 4.7 6.2 24

Definition: Non-food, dedicated grassy energy crops such as miscanthus, switchgrass,

giant cane, sorghum and hemp. Typically established with rhizomes, and

harvested every year. This category excludes woody crops with high lignin

content (SRC).

Non-food cellulosic material

Sustainability:


via LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this

equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are cultivation

inputs (diesel, fertiliser), yields achieved, and the ammonia & lime

inputs to conversion step.

Competing uses

Required volumes of Miscanthus would be grown specifically for

biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be considered.

Current small volumes grown are used in heat & power, animal

bedding and biomaterials industries.


No substitutes required as Miscanthus is a “new growth”

feedstock.

Indirect impacts

The impact of grassy energy crop establishment will depend on

local markets and previous land use. Conversion of agricultural

land or semi-natural habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity,

water and soil quality. Water consumption may also be

significant. The likelihood of negative impacts is highly variable

depending on which in region establishment occurs. Miscanthus

could also lead to increase food competition via ILUC given its

likely establishment on arable land.

Basic Information:

Locations: Arable land in temperate climates, avoiding frosts

(most development in Western EU or US). Many species are

adapted from tropical origins.

Land used: Yes, grassy energy crops are the main product (hence

need to meet RED land criteria and allocation of GHGs).

Supply chain steps

1 Planting & maintenance

2 Harvesting (bales)





Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from UK

Miscanthus

Economics:

Market value = £53/t (UK Miscanthus ex-farm contract price), or

£4.0/GJ feedstock.

Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource

is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion).


• Cultivation & harvesting = 10.6





route based on UK Miscanthus.


£107/tCO2e, based on the low GHG emissions.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as Miscanthus would be grown specifically, but indirect

land impacts could be significant. LC ethanol from Miscanthus has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further

policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/lk

jh5

2o

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mf2

mv

lr

Feasibility:

Current data is good, but data quality for 2020 is Medium, due to

very large uncertainty regarding how quickly the industry will

develop and ramp-up in different regions. Further expansion

potential in the long-term is very high.






UK 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.46

EU 0.3 1.3 1.2 5.6

Global 9 11 39 47

Definition: Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) is a dedicated woody energy crop,

such as willow, poplar or eucalyptus. Coppicing encourages multiple

stems, with harvesting then on a 2-5 year cycle, typically using

specialist machinery.

Short rotation coppice

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 6 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK biofuel route

to FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 93%


Competing uses

Required volumes of SRC would be grown specifically for biofuels,

hence no competing uses need to be considered. Current tiny

volumes grown are used in heat & power.


No substitutes required as SRC is a “new growth” feedstock.

Indirect impacts

The impact of SRC establishment will depend on local markets

and previous land use. Conversion of grasslands or semi-natural

habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity, water and soil quality.

Water consumption may also be significant. The likelihood of

negative impacts is highly variable depending on which in region

establishment occurs. SRC could also lead to increase food

competition via ILUC if on agricultural land.

Basic Information:

Locations: Typically grown on grasslands, flood plains, reclaimed

land. High moisture/water availability is key.

Land used: Yes, SRC is the main product (hence need to meet RED

land criteria and include cultivation GHG emissions).

Supply chain steps

1 Planting & maintenance

2 Harvesting (billets)

3 Natural drying

4 Chipping






to diesel, using UK SRC.

Economics:

Market value = £50/t (UK ex-farm contract price), or £4.0/GJ

feedstock.






• Chipping = 1.7





route based on UK SRC.

The cost of GHG savings saved in the UK could be approximately

£178/tCO2e, based on the high production costs.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as SRC would be grown specifically, but indirect land

impacts could be significant. FT diesel from SRC has very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy

support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/ltm

gp

3o

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mo

oq

hv

s

Feasibility:

All forestry in existence today classified as small round-wood or

higher-value timber. SRF only covers new plantations, which

would be available for harvest in the 2030s at the earliest. Large

expansion expected in the very long-term.






UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0 0 0 0

Global 0 0 0 0

Definition: Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) is the practice of cultivating fast-growing

trees that reach their economically optimum size between 15-20 years old

(compared to 40-60 years for standard forestry). Faster growing species,

e.g. Eucalyptus, are considered under the Short Rotation Coppice category.

Short rotation forestry

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK route to FT

diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 93% GHG

saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance. For

US small round-wood to LC ethanol, GHGs = 16 gCO2e/MJ (81%

saving), due to increased transport distance and ammonia & lime

inputs to the LC ethanol conversion step (RED typical value).

Competing uses

Required volumes of SRF would be grown specifically for biofuels,

hence no competing uses need to be considered.


No substitutes required as SRF is a “new growth” feedstock.

Indirect impacts

The impact of SRF establishment will depend on local markets

and previous land use. Conversion of grasslands or semi-natural

habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity, water and soil quality.

Water consumption may also be significant. The likelihood of

negative impacts is highly variable depending on which in region

establishment occurs. SRF could also lead to increase food

competition via ILUC, although in the UK planting is likely to occur

on lower-grade agricultural land, previously forested land or

reclaimed land.

Basic Information:

Locations: Similar areas to existing forest (North America, Russia,

Northern EU, Brazil)

Land used: Yes, SRF is the main product (hence need to meet RED

land criteria and include cultivation GHG emissions).

Supply chain steps

1 Planting & maintenance (thinning)

2 Harvesting

3 Natural drying

4 Chipping






synthesis to FT diesel, using UK SRF. We also modelled the

economics and GHG emissions for US SRF to Lignocellulosic

ethanol – all based off small round-wood values.

Economics:

UK market value = £42/t (at roadside), or £3.5/GJ feedstock.

US market value = £32/t (at roadside), or £2.6/GJ feedstock.


Medium risk; since although some un-harvested additional

supplies could be accessed, but there are competing uses (wood

products industry) for this traded resource.

Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step. UK values are

for FT diesel, and US values for LC ethanol:

• Cultivation & harvesting = 9.9 (UK), 7.0 (US)


• Chipping = 1.7 (UK), 1.6 (US)


• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (UK), 9.8 (US)



route based on UK small round-wood. For US resources, total

production costs = £31/GJ LC ethanol (including import tariffs).


£157/tCO2e, based on the high production costs. US savings could

be £187/tCO2e due to the larger emissions.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as SRF would be grown specifically, but indirect land

impacts could be significant. FT diesel or LC ethanol from SRF has high to very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current

fuels. Further policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/lg

qll

dm

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kb

jqzv

f

Feasibility:

Data quality is High, based on existing forestry data. Feedstock

volumes are expected to slowly increase after 2020.






UK 3.3 3.3 14 14

EU 333 310 1,417 1,320

Global 829 772 3,523 3,282

Definition: Small diameter trees and pulp-wood that have been grown specifically for

the forestry products sector (e.g. paper, panel-board, fencing industries).

Existing assets ready to harvest (unlike Short Rotation Forestry). Excludes

saw logs and veneer logs, i.e. high value, large diameter timber.

Small round-wood

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK biofuel

route to FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a

93% GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy

balance. For US small round-wood to LC ethanol, GHGs = 16

gCO2e/MJ (81% saving), due to increased transport distance and

ammonia & lime inputs to the LC ethanol conversion step (RED

typical value).

Competing uses

Main use in paper and board production, and higher value

fencing, furniture, and building materials.


No substitute required where wood is sustainably collected from

un-harvested supplies. Lower value markets may switch to forest

and sawmill residues. Higher value markets will need additional

resource from increased planting, but long establishment times

will constrain supply, hence not valid for this analysis (see SRF).

Indirect impacts

Increased forest residue removal needs to avoid reductions in

biodiversity and regeneration, plus soil degradation and erosion.

See SRF sheet for impacts of new establishment.

Basic Information:

Locations: Existing forest (US, Canada, Russia, North EU, Brazil)

Land used: Yes, small round-wood is the main product (hence

need to meet RED land criteria and include cultivation GHG

emissions).

Supply chain steps

1 Planting & maintenance (thinning)

2 Harvesting

3 Natural drying

4 Chipping






synthesis to FT diesel, using UK small round-wood. We also

modelled the economics and GHG emissions for US small round-

wood to Lignocellulosic ethanol

Economics:

UK market value = £42/t (at roadside), or £3.5/GJ feedstock.

US market value = £32/t (at roadside), or £2.6/GJ feedstock.


Medium risk; since although some un-harvested additional

supplies could be accessed, but there are competing uses (wood

products industry) for this traded resource.

Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step. UK values are

for FT diesel, and US values for LC ethanol:

• Cultivation & harvesting = 9.9 (UK), 7.0 (US)


• Chipping = 1.7 (UK), 1.6 (US)


• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (UK), 9.8 (US)


Total biofuel production cost = £31/GJ FT diesel for selected route

based on UK small round-wood. For US resources, total

production costs = £31/GJ LC ethanol (including import tariffs).


£157/tCO2e, based on the high production costs. US savings could

be £187/tCO2e due to the larger emissions.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium, with some resource left un-harvested and available for

sustainable extraction. FT diesel or LC ethanol from small round-wood has high to very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than

current fuels. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kxu

7p

m4

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/k3

gzf

zz

Feasibility:

Current production is negligible (for niche markets). Data quality

for 2020 is Medium, due to very large uncertainty regarding how

quickly the industry will develop and ramp-up in different regions.

Further expansion potential in the long-term is very high

Moisture of oil = 0 %





UK 0 0 0 0

EU 0 0.0001 0 0.002

Global 0 0.015 0 0.51

Definition: Photosynthetic single-cell organisms, grown in open ponds or closed

photo-bioreactors. Their lipid, carbohydrate and protein compositions

vary by species and conditions. Typically after harvesting and drying,

lipids are extracted for further processing.

Micro-algae

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 31-36 gCO2e/MJ for selected US route to

FAME biodiesel (based on E4tech data) – this equates to a 58-63%

GHG saving. Uncertain as no commercial production yet, but key

sensitivities are the biomass yields, harvesting energy used, and

methanol input to conversion step.

Competing uses

Required volumes of micro-algae would be grown specifically for

low-value biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be

considered. Micro-algae are currently produced in tiny volumes

to supply niche high-value markets, e.g. food & feed,

pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.


No substitutes required as micro-algae is a “new growth”

feedstock.

Indirect impacts

There is uncertainty around the environmental impacts of micro-

algae cultivation in terms of inputs, including energy, water and

nutrients. This is the subject of ongoing research, however it may

be assumed that the likelihood of negative environmental and

social impacts are low or medium depending on practices and

location. Given fertile land is not required, the risk of food price

impacts via ILUC is very low.

Basic Information:

Locations: Using atmospheric CO2, grows fastest in hot, sunny

climates (MENA, US Gulf). Accelerated growth if CO2 is added

(e.g. power plant CO2 capture), but this would classify the

feedstock as waste carbon gases.

Land used: Yes, macro-algae is the main product (hence need to

meet RED land criteria and allocation of GHGs). However, can be

grown on barren land or desert

Supply chain steps

1 Cultivation

2 Harvesting, drying, extraction of oil


4 Biofuel conversion

5 Downstream distribution (truck to US port, ship to EU, truck in

EU)

Transport challenges: None for the oil.

Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from micro-algae grown

in the US Gulf.

Economics:

Market value = £1,710/t algal oil (based on estimated US current

large-scale production costs with profit margin), or £47.5/GJ oil.





• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.0 (minimal distance)

• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (inc. glycerine revenues)

• Downstream distribution = 8.7 (inc. tariffs)

Total biofuel production cost = £60/GJ FAME biodiesel for

selected route based on US micro-algae. This is very high, due to

cultivation nutrients and harvesting energy.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £786-

859/tCO2e, based on the very high production costs and modest

GHG savings.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as micro-algae would be grown specifically for biofuels,

but with minimal risk of ILUC on barren land. FAME biodiesel from micro-algae has threshold GHG savings, and is very expensive. Further

policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is therefore justified (to improve GHGs and costs).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kg

33

9u

r

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/mrs

thn

q

Feasibility:

Current production is minimal (for niche markets). Data quality for

2020 is Medium, due to very large uncertainty regarding how

quickly the industry will develop and ramp-up in different regions.

Further expansion potential in the long-term is very high.

Moisture = 85 %





UK 0 0.01 0 0.01

EU 0 0.24 0 0.24

Global 0.01 2.2 0.01 2.2

Definition: Macro-algae (seaweeds) are multicellular plant-like organisms, harvested

from wild coastal stocks or cultivated at sea. Their composition varies

according to species (brown, red or green), location, salinity and season –

tend to be high in complex carbohydrates and ash, low in lipids.

Macro-algae

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 17-34 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route

via AD (based on DfT Modes data) – this equates to a 60-80%

GHG saving. Uncertain as no commercial production yet, but key

sensitivities are the biomass yields, harvesting energy used, and

conversion plant power inputs.

Competing uses

Required volumes of macro-algae would be grown specifically for

low-value biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be

considered. Seaweed is currently farmed to supply a range of

niche high-value markets, including for food & feed,

pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.


No substitutes required as macro-algae is a “new growth”

feedstock.

Indirect impacts

There is uncertainty around the environmental and social impacts

of seeding and harvesting macro-algae at sea, which is the subject

of ongoing research. It is assumed that the likelihood of negative

environmental and social impacts are low or medium depending

on practices and location. Given land is not used, the risk of food

price impacts via ILUC is negligible.

Basic Information:

Locations: Most productive in nutrient-rich coastal waters (NW

Europe, Eastern Asia, Chile).

Land used: None. Although seaweed is the main product, it is

grown at sea or near-shore tidal zones, so RED land criteria may

not apply.

Supply chain steps

1 Installation & maintenance

2 Harvesting

3 Transport to shore and then biofuel plant

4 Conversion to biofuels



Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and upgrading to

biomethane, from UK seaweed

Economics:

Market value = £48/t (based on estimated UK current large-scale

production costs with profit margin). Converting this using the

biogas energy potential (not combustion LHV) gives £23.8/GJ

feedstock.





• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.2 (minimal distance)

• Biofuel conversion = 11.5 (large scale AD)



route based on UK seaweed. This is very high, due to energy and

labour intensive cultivation and harvesting.

The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £809-

1,085/tCO2e, based on the very high production costs and modest

GHG savings.


As a main product, but grown at sea, RED land criteria may not apply. Competing uses are not considered, as seaweed would be grown

specifically for biofuels, with no risk of ILUC. Biomethane from seaweed has threshold GHG savings, and is very expensive. Further policy

support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is therefore justified (to improve GHGs and costs).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kg

3p

63

3

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kq

4td

hv

Feasibility:

Data quality is High, with reliable 2020 forecasts for renewables

industry ramp ups. Note that renewable electricity is the

feedstock, and hydrogen is the final transport fuel. Feedstock

availability is therefore given in Mtoe/yr for the whole sector (and

excludes renewable electricity from biomass, as this would be

double counting e.g. wood, straw feedstocks). This does not

estimate the amount that will be dedicated to H2 production.

Moisture = N/A (electricity)

Density = N/A (electricity)

Energy content = N/A (electricity)

Feedstock supply (Mtoe/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)


UK 2.2 7.8 67 235

EU 51 82 1,536 2,455

Global 403 575 12,142 17,316

Definition: Gaseous or liquid fuels whose energy content comes from renewable energy

sources other than biomass and which are used in transport. This will presumably

cover hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable electricity, and potentially more

complex synthetic molecules in the future.

Renewable non-bio liquids & gases

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 9 gCO2e/MJ for wind to renewable

electrolysis (based on JEC data) – this equates to an 89% GHG

saving. Key sensitivities are H2 compression and distribution.

Competing uses

All the renewable electricity currently generated is used in the

power sector (distributed onto the grid or consumed onsite).

There is currently no commercial production of renewable liquids

and gases of non-biological origin. Niche volumes of renewable H2

are used in transport (fuel cell electric vehicle pilots).


Assuming additional renewable generating capacity is built to

supply the facility, it is not necessary to consider a substitute or

alternative resource. If diverting existing renewable output to

transport fuels, then would need to substitute with grid mix.

Indirect impacts

Potential environmental and social impacts relate to the

renewable generating capacity, and will vary widely depending on

the technology, scale and location. Impact of wind turbines and

solar PV panels are covered in great detail elsewhere. Minimal

land area used, hence low ILUC risk. Substituting with grid mix

would indirectly increase fossil emissions from coal & gas power

plants (although this would improve as grids decarbonise).

Basic Information:

Locations: Regions with high deployment of renewables are most

likely to build additional capacity (e.g. EU, US, China).

Land used: Yes, renewable electricity is the main product (hence

need to meet RED land criteria and include “cultivation”/

generation GHG emissions). However, minimal area usually

required, and co-use is possible (e.g. farming around wind turbine

bases).

Supply chain steps

1 Construction and generation of renewable electricity

2 Distribution of power, if electrolyser separately located

3 Conversion to transport fuel


Transport challenges: For the electricity, grid balancing at local

level and capacity constraints. For the hydrogen, low density

requires specialist pipelines and refuelling infrastructure.

Selected transport fuel route: Onsite electrolysis of UK onshore

wind power to hydrogen

Economics:

Market value = £95/MWh of electricity (UK onshore wind strike

price), i.e. £26.4/GJ of electricity.


is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion), i.e.

installation of a new wind or solar farm to produce H2.

Production costs (£/GJ renewable fuel), by production step:

• Renewable electricity = 36.7

• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (electrolyser onsite)

• Renewable fuel conversion = 7.9


Total biofuel production cost = £55/GJ hydrogen for selected

route based on UK onshore wind power. This is very high, due to

wind power price, electrolyser capex and H2 distribution.


£376/tCO2e, due to the very high production costs but excellent

GHG savings and high price of the comparator fossil hydrogen.


As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as renewable electricity capacity would be specifically

built (diversion to transport would lead to grid mix emissions). H2 from onshore wind has very high GHG savings, but is very expensive.

Further policy support for renewable capacity building and conversion to transport fuel is therefore justified, but for new sites only.

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/kvm

eq

3o

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/ma

rojs

a

Feasibility:

Data quality is Medium. Good data exists for regional steel

production, but conversion to available syngas volumes relies on

reliable numbers for % of furnaces equipped with gas recovery

equipment, and the syngas ultimate use (much harder to obtain).

Moisture = 0 %





UK 0.9 0.9 3.3 3.3

EU 10 10 36 37

Global 101 138 375 511

Definition: Carbon Capture and Utilisation is defined in the RED as a process that captures carbon (CO/CO2) rich

waste and residues gas streams from non-renewable energy sources and transforms them into fuels

that are used in the transport sector. Initially the “feedstock” will mainly be steel mill (basic oxygen

furnace) gases, with subsequent syngas fermentation to ethanol.

Waste carbon gases

Sustainability:

Lifecycle direct GHGs = 25 gCO2e/MJ for selected fuel route via

syngas fermentation (based on Lanzatech public data) – this

equates to a 70% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the power

&steam inputs to conversion step.

Competing uses

Steel mills typically combust carbon monoxide containing gasses,

either with or without energy recovery, or vent to atmosphere.

Pure CO2 streams may find application in the food & drink sector,

but the vast majority is emitted to atmosphere in dilute form.


No substitute required where syngas is diverted from venting or

flaring (without energy recovery), or if efficiencies are improved

(energy recovery from steel mills is reported to have a low net

electrical efficiency of ~10%). However, diversion from heat &

power demands is likely to lead to natural gas substitution.

Indirect impacts

The main environmental impact associated with the use of

natural gas is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts

may include local energy prices. Overall, risks are modest, given

the size of the under-utilised resource, although will depend on

local resource availability and conditions.

Basic Information:

Locations: Initial resource focused on steel mill syngas (e.g. China,

Europe, Japan). Future CO2 resources could be available from

large-scale power plants (via carbon capture, once

commercialised).

Land used: None, since either classified as a waste or process

residue (depending on the final use).

Supply chain steps:


2 Conversion to transport fuel


Transport challenges: Auto-combustion.

Selected biofuel route: Syngas fermentation to ethanol (e.g.

Lanzatech process), based on EU steel mills.

Economics:

Market value = £42/t (UK focus), or £6.7/GJ feedstock



However, we note additional supplies are limited, and there are

competing uses in the heat & power sectors.


• Resource = 11.1




Total biofuel production cost = £23/GJ ethanol for selected route

based on fermentation of EU steel mill syngas.


£62/tCO2e, based on the low production cost.


As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Steel mill gas competing uses are generally Low (some inefficiently used in power),

although the resource is constrained by steel output. Syngas fermentation to ethanol has modest GHG savings, but is cost competitive

with current fuels. Additional support for diversion into biofuels is justified for under-utilised fractions (especially other CO2 streams).

Ima

ge

so

urc

e:

htt

p:/

/tin

yu

rl.c

om

/m6

4s9

lz

Date post:	25-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Bio-fraction of municipal solid waste · 2014-02-05 · 4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately...

Documents