Kansi · Web viewOil as a feedstock includes oil crops rapeseed, sunflower seed, olive kernel etc,...

Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders . IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241

Deliverable 5.7

PRIMES Biomass model projections

E. Apostolaki, N. Tasios, A. DeVita, P. Capros

E3MLab - ICCS

March, 2012

Content

Content.......................................................................................................................................................2

Preface........................................................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................4

2 Context and assumptions........................................................................................................................5

3 Modelling methodology..........................................................................................................................6

3.1 Reference scenario context...................................................................................................................8

3.2 Decarbonisation scenario....................................................................................................................10

4 Overview of scenario results.................................................................................................................11

4.1 Reference scenario and variants.........................................................................................................12

4.2 Decarbonisation scenario and variants...............................................................................................18

4.3 Comparison of scenarios.....................................................................................................................27

5 Conclusive remarks................................................................................................................................44

6 References.............................................................................................................................................46

2

Preface

This publication is part of the BIOMASS FUTURES project (Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders - IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241, www.biomassfutures.eu ) funded by the European Union’s Intelligent Energy Programme.

In order to determine the impacts of policies implemented on the biomass supply system, the economics of supply of biomass/waste for energy purposes were simulated with the updated PRIMES Biomass model. This report presents the modelling result analysis.

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

3

1 Introduction

This report, part of Work Package 5 of Biomass Futures Project, aims at contributing in determining the impacts of policies promoting renewable energy sources and addressing climate change mitigation by simulating the economics of supply of biomass and waste for energy purposes with the PRIMES biomass model. In the course of this project several scenarios were constructed and analysed. Further in the course of this project the database was reviewed and the PRIMES biomass model was fully updated (see deliverable 5.5). The modelling results presented have been carried out with the updated model version.

The PRIMES Biomass Model is a model of the PRIMES family developed at E3Mlab/ICCS of the National Technical University of Athens and is used to complement the main PRIMES model by computing the optimal use of biomass resources for a given demand. The PRIMES Biomass model covers all EU 27 countries separately, as well as computing totals for the EU27, EU15 (old Member States) and NM12 (new Member States); the time horizon of the model is 2050, running by 5-years steps, as the other models of the PRIMES family.

The PRIMES Biomass Model is linked with the PRIMES large scale energy system model and can be solved either as a satellite model through a closed-loop process or as a stand-alone model. It is an economic supply model that computes the optimal use of biomass resources and investments in secondary and final transformation, so as to meet a given demand of final biomass energy products, projected to the future by the rest of the PRIMES model. It performs dynamic projections to the future from 2015 until 2050 in 5-year time period step with 2000 to 2010 as calibration years, it endogenously computes the energy and resource balances to meet a given demand by PRIMES model (or other external source), it calculates investments for technologies, costs and prices of the energy forms as well as the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Furthermore, the PRIMES biomass supply model determines the consumer prices of the final biomass products used for energy purposes and also the consumption of other energy products in the production, transportation and processing of the biomass products. Prices and energy consumption are conveyed to the rest of the PRIMES model. A closed-loop is therefore established. Upon convergence, a complete energy and biomass scenario can be constructed.

For the purpose of the Biomass Futures project several scenarios were constructed: an updated reference scenario run with the new model version, using the demand from the Reference scenario as run by the overall PRIMES model and a Reference scenario variant with the energy demand derived from the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP). Further three scenarios were run within a decarbonisation1 context: the first scenario reran the decarbonisation scenario as used for the ”Low carbon energy roadmap” (EC,2011) with the new model version, the second scenario assumed a very high biomass demand therefore simulating a “maximum biomass” case and a third scenario assumed the same demand as the “standard” decarbonisation scenario, but stricter sustainability criteria with the inclusion of the effect of indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions.

In this report first the assumptions and methodology will be described, then the results of the modelling process will be presented and analysed. Finally, a comparative analysis between the scenarios results will be carried out and conclusive remarks will be presented.

2 Context and assumptions

In the context of the EU legislation for 2020 aiming at reducing GHG by at least 20% below 1990 levels and increasing the use of renewable energy sources (RES) in gross final energy demand to 20%, which includes a minimum share of 10% RES in the transport sectors, the use of bio-energy products is expected to increase considerably compared to current levels. Biomass, in the form of bio-energy

1 The decarbonisation scenario achieves the EU long term GHG emission reduction objective of 80-95% compared to 1990 in 2050

4

products, is expected to be used in all energy sectors, e.g. power generation, end user heating etc. Further for biomass based energy sources the fuel quality directive sets out specific criteria which include minimal emission savings from bio-energy products and minimal criteria for the sustainable production of biofuels.

All the scenarios constructed and analysed within this report assume that the targets set for 2020 in EU legislation therefore 20% emission reduction target, 20% RES in gross final energy demand, 10% RES in the transportation sector, are met. The achievement of the targets is implemented in the PRIMES energy system model and the demand delivered to the PRIMES biomass model therefore already includes these targets. The legislation relating to emission reductions and the sustainability of the biomass and biofuel production is also taken into account. A list of the legislation, common to all scenarios relating to biomass for energy consumption can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of policies relating specifically to biomass common to all scenarios

RES directive 2009/28/EC

Legally binding national targets for RES share in gross final energy consumption are achieved in 2020; 10% target for RES in transport is achieved for EU27, as biofuels can easily be traded among Member States; sustainability criteria for biomass and biofuels are respected; cooperation mechanisms according to the RES directive are allowed and respect Member States indications on their "seller" or "buyer" positions.

Fuel Quality Directive 2009/30/EC

Modelling parameters reflect the Directive, taking into account the uncertainty related to the scope of the Directive addressing also parts of the energy chain outside the area of PRIMES modelling (e.g. oil production outside EU).

Biofuels directive 2003/30/EC

Support to biofuels such as tax exemptions and obligation to blend fuels is reflected in the model The requirement of 5.75% of all transportation fuels to be replaced with biofuels by 2010 has not been imposed as the target is indicative. Support to biofuels is assumed to continue. The biofuel blend is assumed to be available on the supply side.

The PRIMES biomass model takes the demand for bio-energy products split by categories from the overall PRIMES energy system model. The PRIMES energy system model is a partial equilibrium model that simulates the response of energy consumers and the energy supply systems to different pathways of economic development and exogenous constraints and drivers. The PRIMES energy system model 2 has a high level of detail both in supply side (mainly power and steam generation) and in the demand side (including the representation of numerous industrial sectors, detailed residential sector demand and for the tertiary sectors) and provides detailed outputs relating to among others energy consumption by fuel, costs, prices and emissions. For the PRIMES biomass model the energy consumption by fuel for the biomass products is taken and a scenario within the same overall policy context is constructed.

2 A detailed description of the PRIMES energy system model can be found at: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/

5

The updated version of the PRIMES biomass supply model3 is fully updated and calibrated to the years 2000 and 2010 to the latest available statistics and therefore has updated the demand for 2010 compared to the previous projections; this implies that the demand projections from the overall PRIMES model have been updated to the new data. Resulting adjustment factors are also used to adapt the future projections.

3 Modelling methodology

The PRIMES biomass model is a demand driven model, which is designed to take the demand from the PRIMES model, but other exogenous demand assumptions are possible; the model then computes the optimal use of biomass resources and investments in secondary and final transformation, so as to meet the given demand of final biomass energy products. The model computes endogenously the energy and resource balances to meet a given demand by PRIMES model (or other external source), it calculates investments for technologies, costs and prices of the bio-energy forms as well as the emissions of pollutants. For the feedstock prices the model uses cost-supply curves. The model uses exogenous assumptions about land availability; these have been updated in the course of this project and are now based on the land availability estimates found in EEA (EEA,2007). Estimates about yields are also taken into account in the model as exogenous parameters which vary over time; the estimates used in the Reference scenario are based on EEA studies. In the decarbonisation scenarios it is assumed that additional agricultural policies and technology developments may increase the yield of energy crops. The technologies available in the Primes Biomass model for the generation of the final energy products are summarised in Table 2.

The production pathways described include feedstock used, the technology and the end energy product obtained. Starch crops include resources such as maize, wheat, barley etc and sugar crops refer mainly to sugar beet and sweet sorghum. Oil as a feedstock includes oil crops rapeseed, sunflower seed, olive kernel etc, imported palm oil and non agricultural oils, such as waste oil and fat. Woody biomass is an aggregated category which includes lignocellulosic crops, forestry and forest residues, wood waste, ligno-cellulosic part of agricultural residues etc, whereas organic waste refers to biodegradable wastes such as manure, sewage, animal waste, the biodegradable part of municipal waste etc. Regarding ligno-cellulosic crops there is a distinction between pure wood crops, such as poplar, willow etc, and short rotation herbaceous lignocellulosic crops like miscanthus, switch grass, reed etc.

The end products available in the PRIMES biomass model include biofuels for transportation and other bio-energy commodities such as biogas, small scale solid (mainly pellets) and large scale solids (mainly for use in power generation). The PRIMES Biomass model has a large level of detail for the transportation fuels which include diesel and gasoline from biomass, bio-kerosene for aviation and bio-heavy for navigation, as well as biogas. For gaseous products the model differentiates between biomethane, biogas upgraded to pipeline quality and biogas, not upgraded. For gasoline and diesel the model differentiates between non-fungible fuels, equivalent to so called 1st generation biofuels which must be either blended to run on conventional ICE engines, or require engine modifications to be used in pure form, and fully fungible biofuels which derive from processes such as Fischer-Tropsch (FT)-synthesis where the output fuel is fully determined and can therefore be produced in order to be used in existing engines.

Imports and exports of biomass in the Primes Biomass model are both biomass feedstock and end bio-energy products; trade occurs both between EU Member States and with other countries outside the EU. Tradable feedstock considered are pure vegetable oil, which is mainly imported palm oil and solid biomass for further processing. The end products traded are, solid biomass, fungible and non-fungible biodiesel, bio-ethanol and bio-kerosene.

3 A description of the updates in the database carried out within this project are available in deliverable 5.5.

6

The trade that takes place between Europe and the rest of the world includes as main providers for wood CIS and North America, while for sugarcane bio-ethanol Brazil. Imported oil is for the most part palm oil mainly from Indonesia and Malaysia.

For every scenario, the demand for the projected years from 2015 up to 2050 was obtained from the Primes model or was determined through the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP). For the historical years 2000, 2005 and 2010, the model was calibrated so as to be consistent with Eurostat statistical data.

The scenario construction is described in detail below for the five scenarios analysed within this project; the aim of the different scenarios was to assess the economics of the supply of bio-energy commodities under different policy contexts.

Table 2: Production Technologies in Primes Biomass model

FEEDSTOCK TECHNOLOGY END PRODUCT

Starch, Sugar Fermentation Bioethanol

Woody Biomass Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation Bioethanol/ Biogasoline

Woody Biomass Pyrolysis, deoxygenation and upgrading Biogasoline

Woody Biomass Pyrolysis, Gasification, FT and upgrading Biogasoline

Woody Biomass, Black Liquor

Gasification, FT and upgrading Biogasoline

Aquatic Biomass Transesterification, Hydrogenation and Upgrading

Biogasoline

Vegetable Oil Transesterification Biodiesel (non fungible)

Starch, Sugar Enzymatic Hydrolysis and deoxygenation Biodiesel (non fungible)

Vegetable Oil Hydrotreatment of vegetable oil and deoxygenation

Biodiesel (fungible)

Woody biomass Gasification and FT Biodiesel (fungible)/ Bio-kerosene

Aquatic Biomass Transesterification and Hydrogenation Biodiesel (fungible)

Woody biomass Pyrolysis and deoxygenation Biodiesel (fungible)/ Bio-kerosene

Aquatic Biomass Transesterification and Hydrogenation Bio-kerosene

Woody biomass HTU process Bio Heavy Fuel Oil

HTU process and deoxygenation Biodiesel/ Bio-kerosene

HTU process, deoxygenation and upgrading Biogasoline

7

Woody biomass Gasification and methanol Synthesis Biomethanol

Woody biomass Gasification and DME Synthesis BioDME

Woody biomass, Black Liquor

Gasification Biogas/ Biomethane

Woody biomass Enzymatic Hydrolysis Biogas/ Biomethane

Woody biomass Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification Biogas/ Biomethane

Organic Wastes Anaerobic Digestion Biogas/ Biomethane/ Waste Gas

Woody biomass Pyrolysis Bio Heavy Fuel Oil

Black Liquor Catalytic Upgrading of black liquor Bio Heavy Fuel Oil

Landfill, Sewage Sludge

Landfill and sewage sludge Waste Gas

Industrial & Municipal

Waste RDF Waste Solid

Woody biomass Small Scale Solid/ Large Scale Solid

3.1 Reference scenario context

For the Biomass Futures project, aside from the standard Reference scenario which was updated within the course of this project a further variant of the Reference scenario which will be called NREAP variant in the following. The two scenarios differ in the demand of bio-energy products assumed within the scenarios whereas all other aspects, concerning policies and the resulting drivers, are maintained the same. The standard Reference scenario utilises the demand as it results from the PRIMES Energy System model in the Reference scenario as used for Roadmap 2050 (EC, 2011), with updated demand following the 2010 statistics; the variant of the Reference scenario, in the following NREAP variant, assumes the demand derived from the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) that the EU member states submitted in 2010.

3.1.1 Reference scenario

The Reference or baseline case for this study is the so called Reference scenario delivered by the PRIMES model to the European Commission and is fully described in the publication “EU Energy Trends to 2030”.4 The bio-energy products demand used within this study refers to the updated Reference scenario published in the Low Carbon Economy Roadmap (EC, 2011), where the Reference scenario was expanded to include projections up to the year 2050. The biomass scenario presented within this study refers to this updated scenario with projections to 2050. The version presented within this study was quantified with the updated PRIMES biomass model and is fully updated to the statistics up to 2010; therefore the demand from the PRIMES model was adjusted to reflect the newest developments.

4 See above.

8

The Reference scenario assumes the implementation of the entire EU Climate and Energy package for 2020; further it takes into account all policies adopted by the EU until March 2010. The scenario assumes that policies are successfully implemented and that no further policies are introduced. Therefore, the reference scenario achieves a 20% greenhouse gas emission reduction compared to 1990 and the target of 20% RES in gross final energy consumption including the 10% RES in transport target.

Whereas most policies are introduced in the overall energy system context and therefore in the overall PRIMES energy system model, some policies are specifically accounted for in the PRIMES biomass model and these can be found in Table 1.

The split of bio-energy demand by use is undertaken in the PRIMES energy system model, which projects in which sectors and for which uses the bio-energy commodities will be used; the PRIMES biomass model takes the bio-energy products split by bio-energy fuel type (e.g. gas from biomass and waste, biodiesel, solid biomass, etc.), as derived from the overall PRIMES and computes the optimal use of biomass resources and investments in secondary and final transformation.

3.1.2 NREAP variant

The NREAP variant was constructed by adapting the demand as described by the NREAPs to the PRIMES biomass model input. The NREAPs include information about the biomass contribution in the electricity, heating and cooling, and transport sectors in years 2010-2020, therefore include the use of biomass by secondary (heat and power generation) or final energy demand (direct use in final energy demand). The use of biomass thus specified had to be transformed into equivalent amounts of biomass energy commodities as defined by the PRIMES biomass model. Whereas in the transport sector the demand as expressed in the NREAPS already is in the form of biomass energy commodities (i.e. amounts of biodiesel, bio-ethanol, etc. consumption), in the other sectors the amounts of biomass as expressed as final energy commodities, including secondary transformation (e.g. electricity from biomass, rather than inputs into the power generation sector).

To transform the biomass quantities from the NREAPs into the demand as necessary for the input into the PRIMES biomass model the following assumptions had to be taken. The demand resulting from the transport sector was kept as it is expressed in the NREAPs; for 2020 it was assumed that all quantities of biofuels assumed are so-called first generation biofuels and are therefore not fully fungible with current engine technologies in the transport sector.

For the electricity sector the NREAPs state the amount of electricity produced from biomass energy commodities without specifying the source of the biomass or in most cases the efficiency rates assumed for the power plants as conversion from the biomass commodity to the electricity. As this transformation is necessary for the PRIMES biomass model, a conservative approach was taken. Country specific assumptions were made based on expert judgement on the bio-energy commodity used as fuel in the electricity sector; then a conservative efficiency for the electricity conversion was used ranging between 0.28 and 0.34 depending on the country, to transform the electricity of the NREAPs into biomass input into the power plants.

The biomass energy consumption as expressed in the NREAPs is for the year 2020; to determine the bio-energy demand for the years beyond 2020 an adjustment factor was computed and was used to transform the standard Reference scenario demand into a demand which takes into account the expected changes in demand due to the NREAPs.

A demand for the entire projection time period from 2015 to 2050 was thus constructed from the NREAPs and was used as the input to the PRIMES biomass model for the calculation of the feedstock and land-availability implications of the changed demand, as well as the cost implications.

9

3.2 Decarbonisation scenario

The decarbonisation scenario used for the purpose of this study is an updated version of the scenario used for the Low carbon economy roadmap scenario “decarbonisation under effective technology and global climate action” (EC,2011).

The decarbonisation scenario assumes the EU long term target of an 80% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction internally in the EU in 2050 which is considered to be broadly consistent with the target of maintaining global temperatures below a 20C increase compared to pre-industrial levels. The main driver used to achieve the strong reduction in GHG emissions is the carbon value (the shadow value related to the cost of reducing emissions) which is applied uniformly to the ETS and non-ETS sectors; in the ETS sectors the carbon value is equivalent to the carbon price, whereas in the non-ETS sectors the carbon value influences decision making without implying a real cost to the consumers. Further an enhancement of the policies facilitating RES, as well as the availability of commercially mature CCS after 2020 and the availability and development of large scale transport electrification from 2030 onwards is assumed in this decarbonisation scenario. A further important driver in the overall decarbonisation scenario is the change in the international fuel prices compared to the Reference scenario: in a context of global climate action the prices for fossil fuels on the international market are assumed to decrease, whereas the costs for importing biomass products from outside the EU are assumed to increase consistent with the idea that international demand for bio-energy commodities increases whereas the demand for fossil fuels decreases compared to the Reference scenario as a result of the introduction of climate policies internationally. Further details about the decarbonisation scenario under effective technology and global climate action can be found in “Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy” (EC,2011).

The projection of the bio-energy commodity demand, used as input into the PRIMES biomass model, is a result of the modelling with the PRIMES energy system model; as was the case in the Reference scenario the demand from the overall PRIMES model has been updated to take into account the new statistics for the year 2010.

The scenario “decarbonisation under effective technologies and global climate action” quantified for the biomass futures scenario therefore differs from the previous model results because of the use of the updated model version and because of the updating of the demand for 2010 which causes adjustments to the demand throughout the projection period.

3.2.1 Sustainability scenario

Concerns have been raised whether the production of bio-energy commodities from different types of feedstock may finally not lead to the emission reductions expected if emissions resulting from both direct and indirect land use change are not accounted for and strict sustainability criteria (enhanced compared to the current ones) are not met (IFPRI,2011). To verify the impact of the introduction of enhanced sustainability criteria both for direct and indirect emissions resulting from bio-energy commodities the scenario described in the following was constructed.

Based on the decarbonisation scenario under effective technology and global climate action a variant scenario was constructed to test the effect of enhanced sustainability criteria to the biomass commodity prices and production of feedstock. The resulting sustainability scenario therefore shows the effect of the implementation of more stringent sustainability criteria on the bio-energy market. This scenario assumes the same demand as the main decarbonisation scenario but assumes more stringent policies relating to the sustainability criteria for bio-energy commodities.

The sustainability criteria applied in the Reference and main decarbonisation scenarios are as described in the fuel quality directive(EC,2009). In this sustainability scenario the stringency of the sustainability criteria implemented is increased: the savings in terms of GHG emissions from biofuel production is increased from 60% throughout the projection time period in the Reference and main decarbonisation

10

scenarios to 70% in 2020 and 80% in 2030 as well as being extended to solid and gaseous biomass used in electricity and heat sector, which until now are exempted from the sustainability criteria. The sustainability of bio-energy commodity production is further enhanced by including factors representing the effect of indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions; the sustainability criteria of 70% and 80% savings in GHG emissions are now assumed to include the ILUC factor, making it therefore more difficult for the production of bio-energy commodities to comply with such stringent regulation. Further in this scenario the availability of land for the cultivation of biomass feedstock is also reduced to only include land for sustainable biomass production; this land availability estimate has been derived from the lower end projection of the EEA (EEA,2007).

The sustainability scenario therefore assumes that the demand as projected by the overall PRIMES energy system model needs to be met by biomass feedstock and production technologies that meet enhanced sustainability criteria, to reflect concerns about bio-energy products not contributing to overall GHG emission reductions.

3.2.2 Maximum Biomass scenario

A further variant scenario in the context of overall decarbonisation under effective technologies and global climate action to simulate a very high demand for bio-energy products and therefore coming close to a “maximum biomass” scenario was quantified. This scenario is based on the assumption that all biomass potential is available for bio-energy production. In Primes Biomass model, this assumption is interpreted, as described above, as a maximisation of the bio-energy demand.

As the Primes Biomass model is a demand driven model, it takes demand as an input and finds ways to satisfy it by producing and supplying bio-energy to the overall energy system. Hence, the way to maximise biomass in a scenario is to effectively maximise the usage of bio-energy. The maximisation of the biomass demand has been achieved by combining the high biomass demand deriving from the min decarbonisation scenario for all sectors, except transport, with the high demand of biofuels for transportation from a dominant biomass scenario which was quantified in the context of the Clean Technology Systems study with the PRIMES-TREMOVE transportation model.

4 Overview of scenario results

In the following the results of the different scenarios quantified within the Biomass Futures project will be presented.

The scenarios as quantified with the PRIMES Biomass model all result in being feasible from a modelling perspective as in the modelling it is possible to “find enough” technologies and feedstock to fulfil the demand. Nonetheless, as is explained below, potentials may be strained and technologies may be used for which it is unclear whether they will be sufficiently developed to be operational in the time periods suggested by the modelling (e.g. for 2020). Further also the resulting high costs of bio-energy commodities would not make these technologies competitive with other energy commodities, such as fuels derived from fossil fuels, without e.g. state intervention exempting the biofuels from taxes or other forms of subsidy.

4.1 Reference scenario and variants

4.1.1 Reference scenario with Primes demand

The Reference scenario is constructed using the demand as it comes from the PRIMES model, with adjustment to take into account the new statistical data for 2010. The demand is then disaggregated to the several biomass energy commodities, where sufficient disaggregation is not available in PRIMES.

In the Reference scenario, the demand is expected to increase significantly until the year 2020, in order for the 20-20-20 targets to be met. This is depicted in Table 2, which shows the demand for bio-energy

11

commodities; as can be seen an increase in the demand for every commodity is observed. Following the year 2020, a much more modest increase takes place, as it is assumed that no new measures and policies are implemented. The demand for bio-energy commodities increases by 52% between 2010 and 2020, 58% between 2010 and 2030 and 65% between 2010 and 2050.

The Reference scenario assumes that the technologies for the production of 2nd generation biofuels will develop considerably starting from 2020, when the demand for fungible biofuels represents 16% of the total demand for liquid biofuels. Moreover, the use of biofuels is narrowed to road transportation, as development of the technologies for the production of biofuels for aviation is not expected to occur through the projection period.

The same occurs in the case of biogas and bio-methane, where between 2020 to 2050 the demand for bio-methane increases reaching a total share of 48% in the total gas demand (biogas, bio-methane and waste gas) by 2050. The model assumes that the demand for biogas is limited and further use of gas from biomass needs to be met through bio-methane and fed into pipelines.

Apart from those, the demand for solid biomass, namely small and large scale solid and waste solid, is projected to grow until year 2020 and remains relatively stable over the remaining projection period, whereas a big rise occurs in the demand for bio-heavy fuel oil.

Table 3: Demand for bio-energy (source: PRIMES model)

Demand2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Bioethanol 3438 7774 9270 11036

Biogasoline 0 665 1221 325

Biodiesel (non fungible) 10894 18905 15733 14143

Biodiesel (fungible) 0 4338 11463 14136

Bio-kerosene 0 0 0 0

Bio heavy 1 1297 2209 3068

Biogas 4905 7497 7497 7497

Biomethane 0 8777 11745 13721

Waste Gas 4062 5126 5970 7590

Waste Solid 18647 18281 18526 19026

Small Scale Solid 36013 38684 34206 30601

Large Scale Solid 44433 74535 76181 80408

Total demand 122393 185879 194020 201550

The feedstock utilized for the bio-energy production is domestically produced in the 27 EU Member States and/or imported from the rest of the world. Table 4 shows domestic production. Characterised as 4F Crops are crops dedicated for food, feed, fibre and fuel, namely starch, sugar and oil crops, in this case cultivated for energy purposes.

12

As expected, following the demand, the amount of energy crops increases, and a broad development of ligno-cellulosic crops is observed, so that the demand for the 2nd generation biofuels can be met. Forestry resources, referring to the wood obtained from forest management and forest residues, and wastes and residues increase in year 2020 and increases more slowly thereafter, as the potential for these products is assumed to be almost fully exploited to satisfy the 2020 demand.

Table 4: Domestic Production of Feedstock

Domestic Production

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

4F Crops 15274 62634 82472 74553

Forestry 37896 43745 46330 49549

Wastes and Residues 53767 59154 63528 68086

Black Liquor 15077 16422 17403 20662

Aquatic biomass 0 0 0 0

Total Domestic Production 122014 181956 209734 212849

A closer look at the energy crop production in EU is presented in Table 5. The starch and oil crops peak in 2030 and decrease again thereafter; the only 4F crop to remain stable beyond 2030 are sugar crops as the production of bio-energy commodities from sugar crops is assumed to be more sustainable. The drop in the production of 4F crops in 2050 is due to the fact that less oil crops are being produced, as the technological developments and policies related to sustainability make second generation biofuels from lingo-cellulosic feedstock more competitive. Furthermore, the land yields are assumed to increase overtime due to technological progress, resulting to more effective use of land.

The most noteworthy aspect in the energy crops development is the projected increase in the lignocellulosic crop cultivation. In 2050, 2nd generation biodiesel has a 50% share in the total biodiesel mix. This increase implies a consistent increase of lignocellulosic crops. In 2020, a big increase in the amounts of the herbaceous lignocellulosic crops occurs, giving them a 61% share in lignocellulosic crops and a 38% share in the total amount of the energy crops. The raise continues in 2030 and they stabilise afterwards, until 2050 where a decrease can be observed. Woody lignocellulosic crops show a substantial increase as well, but a more modest one than herbaceous crops. However the increase steadily continues over the projection period and in 2050 the share of woody lignocellulosic in total lignocellulosic crops is 47%.

The cultivated land increases strongly in 2020 to achieve the 20-20-20 targets. Almost 70% of land considered available for the production of energy crops is used (this potential is considered not to have adverse effects on other uses of land and food production) .Land use, as expected, increases until 2030 and decreases afterwards to reach a total of 21151 kHa cultivated in 2050. The decrease that occurs towards 2050 stems from the fact that higher yield rates are achieved, as the model assumes that crop yields increase in time due to improvements in the agricultural sector.

Table 5: Production of energy crops

Energy Crops

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Starch crops 8056 11000 12136 10671

Sugarbeet 381 4720 6770 6617

Oil crops 6529 7886 9157 5830

Herbaceous lignocellulosic 115 23921 33281 27093

13

Woody lignocellulosic 192 15107 21128 24342

Total 15274 62634 82472 74553

Table 6: Cultivated Land

Cultivated Land

2010 2020 2030 2050

kHa

Starch crops 3625 5551 5500 3819

Oil crops 4466 5631 5824 3052

Sugarbeet 73 1136 1417 1161



Total 8275 27446 30519 21151

In the Reference scenario, demand for bio-energy increases considerably compared to 2010, but world-wide demand is not expected to increase substantially, as it is assumed that the rest of the world does not implement actions beyond the Copenhagen pledges. Imports are expected to supplement the domestic production to satisfy the projected demand. Table 7 shows that EU imports mostly solid biomass and to a lesser extent vegetable oil, biodiesel and bioethanol.

Table 7: Net imports in EU27

Net Imports

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Biomass Feedstock

Pure vegetable oil 1406 5889 1633 4618

Bio-energy

Solid Biomass 1802 16771 20893 24842

Biodiesel 2307 5032 4564 2736

Bioethanol 1291 3157 2582 1677


Total Imports 6806 30849 29673 33873

In Table 8 the share of domestic production and net imports represented as final energy products is shown. In 2010 almost all of the bio-energy commodities produced in the EU are produced from domestic feedstock. With the increase in demand that takes place in the following time periods, the share of imports to the total bio-energy demand increases by 11% and remains at the same level throughout the projection period.

Table 8: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities

2010 2020 2030 2050

%

Domestic production 95% 84% 85% 83%

Net imports 5% 16% 15% 17%

14

4.1.2 NREAP variant

This scenario, as explained above, is a variant of the Reference scenario and differs from the latter in the demand used as input to the model. The demand projections submitted by the Member States in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPS) are used in this scenario, instead of the demand that comes from the PRIMES model.

For historical years, the PRIMES Biomass model is calibrated to Eurostat statistical data. In the cases where the NREAP data did not comply with Eurostat data for 2010, i.e demand in the NREAPs was lower than the 2010 statistics, adjustments have been made to normalise the deviations. Since the NREAPs provide information only until 2020, for the following years, the demand for bio-energy from PRIMES was adjusted with an adjustment factor equal to the difference of the PRIMES and NREAPs demand for the year 2020.

Table 9 shows the demand for bio-energy commodities. Consistent with the Reference scenario with PRIMES demand, this scenario shows a big rise in demand for end energy products for the year 2020, in order to achieve the targets of the ‘climate and energy package’ of the European Union. Total demand for bio-energy rises between 2010 and 2020 by 62%. Smaller increases follow for the years 2030 and 2050, as no new measures are assumed. Specifically, the demand of the year 2030 is 4% higher than the 2020 demand and a further increase of 4% follows for 2050.

The demand for road transport liquid biofuels in 2020 is projected to grow by 115% to achieve the 20-20-20 targets. Compared to the reference, demand for biofuels is 3% lower, resulting in lower demand for 2nd generation biofuels, as this is computed endogenously in PRIMES Biomass model.

The demand for gaseous biomass, meaning biogas, biomethane and waste gas, is substantially higher compared to the Reference scenario, by approximately 25%. The demand for waste gas is assumed to be the same in the two cases, as waste potential is finite.

Concerning solid biomass, namely small scale, large scale and waste solid, large scale solid represents more than half of the total demand for solid biomass. Demand is projected to grow strongly until year 2020 and remain relatively stable over the remaining projection period. Solid biomass represents approximately the 2/3 of the total demand for bio-energy.

In this scenario, same as in the Reference, the technologies for the production of biofuels for aviation are not expected to develop.

Table 9: Demand for Bio-energy (Source: NREAPS and PRIMES model)

Demand

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

Bioethanol 3438 7394 8311 10670




Biokerosene 0 0 0 0

Bio heavy 1 974 1899 2749

Biogas 4905 10312 10312 10308

Biomethane 0 11414 14500 16476

Waste Gas 4062 5126 5970 7590

Waste Solid 18647 18281 18527 18916

15



Total Demand 122393 198842 207097 214615

The demand for biogas projected by the NREAPs is considerably higher than in Reference scenario,straining the potential of feedstock used for the production of biogas. The vast majority of MemberStates exploits existing waste potential to their full extent. As feedstock originating from waste andresidues is used to the utmost, more expensive kinds of feedstock are also utilised, making the supply ofthe biomass system with feedstock for the biogas production more costly and effort consuming for theMS. shows the domestic production of feedstock in EU27. Feedstock originating from forestry resources increases by 16% in year 2020 and show a slower increase thereafter, as the potential for these products is assumed to be almost fully exploited to satisfy the 2020 demand. The same applies in the case of wastes and residues, which increase by 10%, 8% and 7% in 2020, 2030 and 2050 respectively. Black liquor consumption continues increasing until 2050, similarly to the Reference scenario where the potential was also largely exploited.

Regarding energy crops, the cultivation of starch, sugar and oil crops, similarly to the Reference scenario, increases by 49% in 2020 and by 22% in 2030 and decreases afterwards by 14%. This reduction is due to oil crops that reduce since imported oil feedstock increases, as shown in Table 11, which provides an analytical view of energy crops.

Lignocellulosic crops increase remarkably in this scenario as well towards 2020, to meet the increased demand.

The demand for biogas projected by the NREAPs is considerably higher than in Reference scenario, straining the potential of feedstock used for the production of biogas. The vast majority of Member States exploits existing waste potential to their full extent. As feedstock originating from waste and residues is used to the utmost, more expensive kinds of feedstock are also utilised, making the supply of the biomass system with feedstock for the biogas production more costly and effort consuming for the MS.

At the same time, a strong intensification of the use of landfill gas and sewage, used as feedstock for waste gas, has to take place in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Italy). Overall, the available landfill and sewage potential has to be exploited to the maximum by almost every member state so as the demand for gaseous biomass to be met; whether this is possible in the time horizon to 2020 remains to be seen.

Table 10: Domestic production of feedstock

Domestic Production

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

4F Crops 15274 63727 85079 80201

Forestry 37896 43995 48233 50686


Black Liquor 15077 16422 17403 20662



Table 11: Production of energy crops

Energy Crops

16

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

Starch crops 8056 11588 12617 11003

Sugarbeet 381 3152 6182 6726

Oil crops 6529 7487 8325 5662



Total 15274 63727 85079 80201

The land used for energy crops presents a significant increase in 2020, since 241% more land is cultivated compared to 2010. This large increase is at the most part resulting from the major growth of the lignocellulosic crops. The rise in the land used continues for 2030, when land is increased by 12% and in 2050 a drop of 28% is noticed. Combined with the fact that the respective energy crops production for 2050 has dropped by only 6%, energy crops are cultivated on land with higher yield rates, as it is more sustainable and cost effective.

Table 12: Cultivated land

Cultivated Land

2010 2020 2030 2050

kHa

Starch crops 3625 5908 5845 3995

Oil crops 4466 5381 5324 2995

Sugarbeet 73 747 1300 1178



Total 8275 28214 31504 22753

Net imports supplement the domestic production, so the projected demand can be met. shows the amount of net imports in EU27. Similar to the Reference scenario, the EU imports mostly solid biomass and to a lesser extent vegetable oil, biodiesel and bioethanol in this scenario as well.

The share of imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities to the total is presented in Table 14. In 2020, following the overall increase in the demand for bio-energy, imports increase to represent 20% of the total bio-energy commodities and remain relatively stable thereafter.

Table 13: Net Imports in EU27

Net Imports

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

Biomass Feedstock

17


Bioenergy

Solid Biomass 1802 23210 23731 28976

Biodiesel 2307 5273 6157 3502

Bioethanol 1291 5096 3756 2043

Biokerosene 0 0 0 0

Total Imports 6806 41683 37410 40491


2010 2020 2030 2050

%


Net imports 5% 20% 18% 19%

4.2 Decarbonisation scenario and variants

4.2.1 Decarbonisation scenario

In this scenario the demand is expected to be higher than in the Reference scenario and its variant, as a much wider exploitation of biomass resources is expected to take place in order for the strong emission reductions to occur. However, the projections of the demand for 2020 remain approximately at the same levels as in the Reference scenario, as up to 2020 no new measures are expected to be implemented, so the large changes in the scenario occur beyond 2030; demand for bio-energy is expected to grow by 135% by 2050 compared to 2010, when the total demand of the decarbonisation scenario is 43% higher than the Reference scenario (Table 15). Biomass is assumed to make a large contribution to decarbonisation as the emissions from sustainably produced biomass are, as in Eurostat, defined to be 0 when used, following Eurostat conventions.

In this context, the demand for fungible biofuels is much higher, with fungible biodiesel reaching a 64% share in the total amount of biodiesel in 2050. The same applies to bio-ethanol and bio-gasoline, where bio-gasoline achieves a 45% share. Additionally, in 2030 the production of bio-kerosene is assumed to be possible and therefore the demand for it increases strongly. Overall, the demand for 2 nd generation biofuels reaches 59% of total demand for liquid biofuels in 2050. Biofuels for aviation are expected to be strongly developed from 2030 onwards; these fuels are produced through gasification with Fischer-Tropsch technology and use mainly lignocellulosic crops as a basis.

Table 15: Demand for bio-energy (source: PRIMES model)

Demand

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Bioethanol 3438 6814 5422 7253

18





Bio heavy 1 1311 3066 19244

Biogas 4905 7447 7447 7447

Biomethane 0 8733 13311 17085

Waste Gas 4062 5126 5970 7590

Waste Solid 18647 18281 18590 19271



Total Demand 122393 182561 194469 287224

In order for the increased demand for bio-energy to be met, a higher and better exploitation of the resources of forestry, of wastes and residues needs to take place, while black liquor being a cheap raw material is already used to a large extent in the Reference scenario, so it isn’t expected to increase. The total production of domestic feedstock amounts to 320Mtoe in 2050; this amount is mainly composed of annual and perennial lignocellulosic crops which account for 42% of the total production. Feedstock originating from forestry represents 18%, having increased by 53% compared to 2010. Waste and residues account for 33% of total production

In 2050, when the demand for bio-energy is very high, having increased 135% compared to 2010 levels, even aquatic biomass is used and represents 3.5% of total domestic feedstock production.

Table 16: Domestic Production of Feedstock

Domestic Production

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

4F Crops 15274 68565 92355 156983

Forestry 37896 44658 46858 57929


Black Liquor 15077 16438 17524 20999


19


The production of crops such as starch, sugar and oil crops are increasing to reach the 2020 targets, but towards 2050 there is a reduction in starch and oil crops due to sustainability factors. Lignocellulosic crops rapidly increase throughout the projection period; by 2050 woody crops have a slightly larger share than herbaceous. Lignocellulosic crops, both herbaceous and woody crops increase greatly in 2020, but herbaceous crops show a bigger growth rate than woody, due to fact that they are less expensive. For the following years, they both continue to increase, but woody crops increase faster and end up having a 52% share to the total of lignocellulosic crops in 2050. This is due to the fact that woody crops have lower emissions in production than herbaceous, as their nutrient uptake is significantly smaller. The great development in cultivation of lignocellulosic crops is mirrored in the increase of land use compared to the Reference scenario. The cultivated land dedicated to lignocellulosic crops in the year 2030 shows a minor increase, due to woody crops, but in 2050 the total of lignocellulosic crops is more than doubled compared to the Reference scenario, whereas the total land used is 74% more than in the Reference scenario.

The land use increases throughout the projection period reaching a maximum of 36815kHa which is straining the use of land strongly, although numerous studies still claim that such a use of land is possible as the majority of the land is used for lignocellulosic crops which do not require high quality land. Land dedicated to starch, sugar and oil crops, as expected rises in 2020. In 2030 starch and oil crops occupy more or less the same amount of land as before, whereas land for sugar crops increases. What is unexpected is the fact that acreage for sugar crops in 2050 remains at the same levels, even slightly decreases, since the production of sugar increases for the same year. This is attributed to the fact that the energy crops have higher yields, as the decarbonisation scenario is constructed to assume that additional agricultural policies and technology developments increase the yield of energy crops. Furthermore, sustainability constraints and carbon value policies implemented lead to the usage of the most productive pieces of land, rather than land with lower yield rates, to have lower emissions and comply with the sustainability criteria.

Table 17: Energy Crops

Energy Crops

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Starch crops 8056 10518 11263 8815

Sugarbeet 381 4490 5942 6869

Oil crops 6529 7636 7576 6391Herbaceous lignocellulosic 115 26542 34919 65071


Total 15274 68565 92355 156983


Cultivated Land

2010 2020 2030 2050

kHa

Starch crops 3625 5213 4873 2508

Oil crops 4466 5413 4512 2727

Sugarbeet 73 1079 1183 1004Herbaceous lignocellulosic 44 9910 10748 13975

20


Total 8275 29731 32351 36815

It is assumed that the prices of imports of biofuels increase in this scenario compared to the Reference, as global demand for biomass is expected to increase in the context of global climate action

Almost all imports are in the form of final bio-energy commodities. Solid biomass, mainly imported from CIS and North America, represents 2/3 of the total imported products mix; biodiesel accounts to 14% and bio-ethanol to 12% of total. This amount is theoretically available worldwide considering potential productions, but the price of the biomass strongly depends on the bio-energy demand of other world regions. In 2050, when the demand is substantially higher, the net import amount for solid biomass increases greatly and even bio-kerosene is imported. The share of imports to the total bio-energy commodities doubles for the years 2020 and 2030, compared to 2010 levels, and increases further in 2050, when almost 40 Mtoe are imported.

Table 19: Net imports into EU27

Net Imports

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Biomass Feedstock


Bio-energy

Solid Biomass 1802 8912 10570 26812

Biodiesel 2307 6182 6397 5720

Bioethanol 1291 3008 1014 4950


Total Imports 6806 20964 18773 39776


2010 2020 2030 2050

%


Net imports 5% 11% 10% 14%

4.2.2 Sustainability scenario variant

The sustainability scenario assumes by construction the same demand for bio-energy as in the decarbonisation scenario, but it has to be satisfied meeting more stringent sustainability criteria. This implies that the model shifts between the production methodologies: this is particularly visible for fuels for transportation where a shift towards 2nd generation biofuels is observed. Although demand is given by PRIMES, shifts between the demand for 1st and 2nd generation biofuels can be decided endogenously by the PRIMES Biomass model, so that the strict sustainability criteria can be met. Thus, the demand for fungible biofuels is expected to rise greatly, opposed to non fungible, where a substantial reduction is due.

The sustainability scenario is used to verify the impacts of stricter sustainability criteria both on the achievement of the 20-20-20 targets and on the achievement of the long-term GHG emission reduction objectives; for this reason this scenario has been constructed within a decarbonisation scenario context. The changes between Reference and decarbonisation for the year 20-20-20 are minimal and therefore the impacts can thus be verified. The long term decarbonisation targets for the long term

21

decarbonisation are postulated to be easier to achieve, even under stricter sustainability criteria, as the main decarbonisation scenario already uses substantial amounts of lignocellulosic feedstock in the long-term which is assumed to be more sustainable.

Error: Reference source not foundTable 21 shows the demand for bio-energy products. The effect of the stricter sustainability criteria starts to show in 2020 and particularly effects the production of biofuels. Due to the stricter sustainability criteria the model shifts from 1 st to 2nd generation biofuels, as the first cannot be further produced under stricter sustainability criteria. A strong development of the 2nd

generation biofuels production technologies is essential to take place in order for the targets for 2020 to be successful under the assumption of strict sustainability criteria.

The rest bio-energy commodities show minor differentiations compared to the main decarbonisation scenario. Bio-kerosene production starts in 2030 and increases rapidly until 2050, when it reaches 7% of the total bio-energy demand. A steep increase is also noted in the case of demand for bio heavy. The demand for biogas is limited and further use of gas from biomass needs to be met through bio-methane. Hence, demand for biomethane, which appears in 2020, rises over the years, to reach 53% of gaseous bio-energy products mix (biogas, bio-methane, waste gas). Concerning solid biomass, large scale solid represents 63% of the total demand for solid biomass. The demand for waste originated bio-products, such as waste gas and waste solid, is identical to the respective demand of Decarbonisation and Reference scenario.

Table 21: Demand for bio-energy for Sustainability scenario

Demand

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

Bioethanol 3438 5667 3372 2815

Biogasoline 0 1821 3878 10926




Bio heavy 1 1309 2965 19482

Biogas 4905 7490 7490 7490

Biomethane 0 8731 12994 17253

Waste Gas 4062 5126 5970 7590

Waste Solid 18647 18281 18590 19295



Total Demand 122393 180014 188804 287328

Table 22 presents the domestic production of feedstock in EU27. Similarly to the decarbonisation scenario, higher demand for bio-energy commodities requires higher and better exploitation of existing resources. However, there isn’t room for further exploitation compared to the decarbonisation scenario, as the potential for forestry, black liquor and wastes/residues are finite. The domestic production of feedstock in 2020 increases by 43% compared to 2010. Compared to the reference scenario and the decarbonisation scenario, overall production of feedstock has decreased, due to the fact that starch, sugar and oil crops in this scenario decrease strongly, because of the sustainability criteria.

In 2050, with the demand increasing by 135% compared to 2010 levels, the use of aquatic biomass begins; in 2050 aquatic biomass represents 4% of total domestic feedstock production.

22

Table 22: Domestic Production of feedstock for Sustainability scenario

Domestic Production

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

4F Crops 15274 52909 88673 157652

Forestry 37896 45240 49548 58425


Black Liquor 15077 16588 17585 21174



The stringent sustainability criteria applied, that include consideration of emissions from displacement effect, has lead to great changes in the energy crops production. Table 23 provides an analytical view for the energy crops cultivation in EU27. Starch, sugar and oil crops reduce dramatically in 2020, as they cannot achieve the strict targets for the GHG emissions savings. Lignocellulosic crops, on the other hand, present a notable rise after 2010 and represent almost 95% of all energy crops already in 2020. As a result, in 2020 the land for starch, sugar and oil crops is 83% less than in 2010, whereas the land dedicated to lignocellulosic crops represents 93% of the total land used in the EU for the production of energy crops.

In 2050, the starch, sugar and oil crops production reduces even further compared to 2010, whereas lignocellulosic crops represent 98% of total energy crops. The same picture for the year 2050 is presented in Table 24 regarding land dedicated to energy crops is presented in Table 24. Land used for starch, sugar and oil crops shows a sizeable decrease over the years, as opposed to land for woody and herbaceous crops that increases. As a result, in the total of 32754 kHa used for dedicated energy crops in EU27, 98% is used for lignocellulosic crops in 2050.

Table 23: Production of energy crops for Sustainability scenario

Energy Crops

2010 2020 2030 2050

ktoe

Starch crops 8056 1164 635 668

Sugarbeet 381 146 176 926

Oil crops 6529 1402 353 712



Total 15274 52909 88673 157652

Table 24: Cultivated land for Sustainability scenario

Cultivated Land

2010 2020 2030 2050

kHa

Starch crops 3625 497 294 204

Oil crops 4466 891 201 312

Sugarbeet 73 31 33 130


23


Total 8275 21268 28089 32754

The imports for the sustainability scenario are described in Table 25 and Table 26. The stricter sustainability criteria are assumed to apply to the imported products as well. As a result of that, imported palm oil stops being imported, as it is assumed not to comply with strict sustainability criteria, after 2020. Biodiesel and bioethanol imports, that include both fungible and non fungible fuels, increase in 2020, in order for the high demand to be met. After 2020, the imports of bioethanol and biodiesel decrease significantly, as, for the most part, 1st generation biofuels for road don’t comply with the strict sustainability applied and mainly 2nd generation biofuels are imported. In 2050 the first amounts of biofuels for aviation are being imported.

The share of imports in the total bio-energy is 19%, 11% and 14% for the years 2020, 2030 and 2050. The drop in 2030 share is due to the reduction in imports caused by sustainability, whereas the rise that follows in 2050 is caused by the increase in solid biomass imports so that the increased demand can be met.

Table 25: Net Imports in EU27 for Sustainability scenario

Net Imports

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Biomass Feedstock


Bioenergy

Solid Biomass 1802 19305 17966 34652

Biodiesel 2307 5925 1186 2444

Bioethanol 1291 5479 732 1862


Total Imports 6806 34055 19885 40673

Table 26: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for Sustainability scenario

2010 2020 2030 2050

%


Net imports 5% 19% 11% 14%

4.2.3 Maximum Biomass scenario variant

For the maximum biomass scenario the hypothesis of maximisation of the demand for bio-energy was made. This scenario represents a projection in which the development of electric vehicles is slowed down and therefore the transport sector has to rely strongly on the use of biofuels also for private passenger cars. Also, a maximisation of the use of RES in all sectors is assumed achieving approx. a 90% RES share in gross final consumption in the EU. An increase in liquid biofuel demand of 60% in 2050 is assumed, compared to the main decarbonisation scenario, whereas total bio-energy commodity demand increases by 30% compared to the main decarbonisation scenario.

Hence, the demand in 2020 remains at the same levels as in decarbonisation, so as to achieve the 2020 targets, while in 2030 and in 2050 there is a rise in total demand for bio-energy compared to the Decarbonisation scenario. Therefore, in these years a respective rise in the production of bio-energy,

24

which implies increases in imports and feedstock production can be observed. The sustainability criteria implemented are the same as in the decarbonisation scenario.

In 2050 the demand for final bio-energy commodities is projected to triple compared to 2010 levels. 2nd

generation biofuels have to meet a great demand in years following 2020, as biogasoline represents a 32% and 41% of the total biogasoline-bioethanol mix, and fungible biodiesel has a 41% and 65% of total, in 2030 and 2050 respectively.

Demand for biokerosene starts appearing in 2030 and increases dramatically by 2050. A substantial increase takes place for bio-heavy as well, as the demand in 2050 is 6 times higher than in 2030. The demand for biogas is limited from 2020. Beyond 2020 the demand for bio-methane increases considerably and is triple the amount of biogas demand in 2050.

As far as solid biomass demand is concerned, waste solid remains rather constant as there is finite amount of waste potential; on the contrary the demand for small scale solid, mainly for heating purposes, increases strongly in 2050. Large scale solids present a much higher increase in demand.

Table 27: Demand for Bio-energy (source: PRIMES biomass model)

Demand

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Bioethanol 3438 6298 8037 16105

Biogasoline 0 1905 3809 11000




Bio heavy 1 1306 3275 20250

Biogas 4905 7484 7484 7470

Biomethane 0 8617 14687 21585

Waste Gas 4062 5126 5970 7590

Waste Solid 18647 18281 18623 19320



Total Demand 122393 181995 224485 373009

The large rise in the demand leads to a rise in domestic production of feedstock, mainly for the years 2030 and 2050. Forestry and wastes/residues account for 17% and 22% of total domestic production in 2050 respectively, however their potential, as well as the one black liquor are assumed to be used in almost maximum extent in the main decarbonisation scenario, therefore there isn’t room for further exploitation. The great increase of domestic production therefore takes place in lignocellulosic crops. Yet, land limitations don’t permit excessive increase in crops.

In order for the very high demand in 2050 to be met, the domestic production of every feedstock is increased, following demand and the assumption that due to policies in the agricultural sector and R&D yields will increase. Furthermore technologies using aquatic biomass as feedstock are assumed to have developed, leading to strong use of aquatic biomass, which accounts for 5% of total domestic production.

25

Table 28: Domestic production of feedstock

Domestic Production

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

4F Crops 15274 70164 106197 169220

Forestry 37896 44951 49962 58970


Black Liquor 15077 16589 17537 20578



Table 29: Energy Crops

Energy Crops

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Starch crops 8056 10669 9946 8498

Sugarbeet 381 5004 6833 7089

Oil crops 6529 8036 7517 5244



Total 15274 70164 106197 169220

This scenario uses almost the complete potential land availability assumed for bio-energy cultivation, as in 2050 38,6MHa are being cultivated, almost 85% of available land is used. The total cultivated land for the production of energy crops increases significantly in 2020, compared to 2010 levels, to 30MHa. Further rise occurs during the following years, as in 2030 the hectares used have increased by 18% compared to 2020 and in 2050 by an additional 8%. The degree of land use in the Maximum Biomass scenario is similar to the respective one of the Decarbonisation scenario for the years up to 2020. In 2030 and 2050 the Maximum Biomass scenario demands an 11% and 5% further land exploitation respectively.

The production of energy crops shown earlier is reflected in the land use for energy crops. Hence, the amount of land dedicated to starch and oil crops drops after 2020. A small drop is noticed in land for sugar beet as well after 2030. This can also be attributed to sustainability factors, as, sustainability criteria and carbon prices force producers to abandon pieces of land with low yield rates and move to more productive ones. This explains the fact that even though land has decreased by 23% in 2050 compared to 2030, the respective production of sugar beet has increased by 4%.

The high growth of lignocellulosic crops is also noticed in the cultivated land aspect, where herbaceous crops occupy more land than woody crops. The share of herbaceous crops in the total land dedicated to lignocellulosic crops in 2050 is 52%. Compared to the main decarbonisation scenario, in 2050 the land dedicated to lignocellulosic crops is increased by 8% in the Maximum Biomass scenario.


Cultivated Land

2010 2020 2030 2050

26

kHa

Starch crops 3625 5299 4053 2431

Oil crops 4466 5632 4384 2188

Sugarbeet 73 1202 1358 1040



Total 8275 30404 35904 38607

While most domestic resources are exploited to the greatest extent, the rest of the demand is satisfied by imports. Therefore, the contribution of imports to the total mix of bio-energy commodities is rising dramatically, so as to satisfy the remaining demand. In 2010 the share of imports to the total final bio-energy products was 5% and it grows to reach a 29% share in 2050.

The imports increase for every product traded, with the more noticeable raise occurring in pure

vegetable oil. The amount of imported bio-energy products increase by 187% compared to the main decarbonisation scenario for the year 2050.

Table 31: Net imports in EU27

Net Imports

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ktoe

Biomass Feedstock


Bio-energy

Solid Biomass 1802 5606 12868 47698

Biodiesel 2307 6967 11544 17225

Bioethanol 1291 2883 3883 8679


Total Imports 6806 18781 36307 114246


2010 2020 2030 2050

%


Net imports 5% 10% 16% 29%

4.3 Comparison of scenarios

The current section provides a comparison of the scenarios run in the context of Biomass Futures project. The first section provides a comparison between the Reference scenario and the reference variant that utilises the demand derived from the NREAPs. Since the NREAPs project the demand for bio-energy commodities up to 2020, the comparison of the two scenarios is interesting for 2020.

27

In the second section the results of the reference and the decarbonisation scenario are compared. As no additional policies are implemented up to 2020 in the two scenarios, the differences in the two cases examined are most interesting in 2050, when the long term goals of the decarbonisation scenario are set to be achieved.

The third section scopes the results of the Sustainability scenario compared to both the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenario. The Sustainability scenario provides information on the way stricter sustainability criteria applied would affect the achievement of the 2020 targets, hence in 2020 the comparison is amongst the Sustainability and the Reference scenario. As the Sustainability is nonetheless constructed as a decarbonisation variant scenario, its results are compared with the decarbonisation scenario results in 2050, in order to obtain more information about the effect of the stringent sustainability criteria on the long term decarbonisation targets.

The Maximum Biomass scenario is a decarbonisation variant and simulates the hypothesis of a very high demand for bio-energy products, based on the assumption that all biomass potential is available for bio-energy production. In the last section of the comparison of scenarios the results of the Maximum Biomass scenario are compared with the results of the main Decarbonisation scenario.

4.3.1 Reference scenario vs. NREAPs variant scenario

As mentioned earlier, the NREAPs scenario differs from Reference in the demand for bioenergy commodities only. In the Reference scenario demand comes from PRIMES model, while Reference NREAP scenario uses the demand derived from the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) submitted by EU member states. None the less, all the measures and policies assumed in the two scenarios are the same.

The technology development occurring in both scenarios is similar. Most bio-energy commodities are produced with technologies which are commercially available today such as transesterification, fermentation and anaerobic digestion and only for the limited amount of 2nd generation biofuels is it necessary to develop new technologies such as Fischer-Tropsch.

Error: Reference source not found shows the demand for bio-energy commodities for the Reference scenario, as presented in the overview of the scenarios results, and the respective percentage difference of the NREAPs scenario demand compared to Reference. The total demand in the NREAPs scenario is higher than the one of Reference. For liquid biofuels the projected demand is expected to be 3% lower than in the Reference scenario.

A closer look at each commodity separately reveals that great differences exist in the demand for some commodities. The most noteworthy difference between the two scenarios is in the demand for gaseous bioenergy commodities. While waste gas has identical demand in both cases, demand for biogas and biomethane, are higher in the NREAPs scenario. The demand for gaseous bioenergy commodities as a total (biogas, bio-methane and waste gas), is higher by 25%, 22% and 19% respectively for years 2020, 2030 and 2050, in the NREAP scenario.

Concerning solid biomass, the demand for large scale and waste solid is similar, whereas the demand for small scale solid which is higher. As a total, the projected demand for solid biomass is higher than the demand from PRIMES by 7% in 2020 and therefore for the entire projection period due to scenario construction.

Table 33: Comparison for demand for bio-energy for the Reference and the Reference NREAPs scenario (source: NREAPs, PRIMES model)

Demand comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs

28

ktoe% diff. to

Ref. ktoe% diff. to

Ref. ktoe% diff. to

Ref.

Bioethanol 7774 -5% 9270 -10% 11036 -3%

Biogasoline 665 57% 1221 79% 325 113%Biodiesel (non fungible) 18905 8% 15733 12% 14143 11%

Biodiesel (fungible) 4338 -55% 11463 -24% 14136 -17%

Biokerosene 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Bio heavy 1297 -25% 2209 -14% 3068 -10%

Biogas 7497 38% 7497 38% 7497 37%

Biomethane 8777 30% 11745 23% 13721 20%

Waste Gas 5126 0% 5970 0% 7590 0%

Waste Solid 18281 0% 18526 0% 19026 -1%

Small Scale Solid 38684 25% 34206 28% 30601 31%

Large Scale Solid 74535 -1% 76181 -1% 80408 -1%

Total 185879 7% 194020 7% 201550 6%

Table 34: Comparison for domestic production of feedstock for the Reference and the Reference NREAPs scenario

Domestic Production comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs

ktoe% diff. to

Ref. ktoe% diff. to

Ref. ktoe% diff. to

Ref.

Starch crops 11000 5% 12136 4% 10671 3%

Sugarbeet 4720 -33% 6770 -9% 6617 2%

Oil crops 7886 -5% 9157 -9% 5830 -3%Herbaceous lignocellulosic 23921 1% 33281 5% 27093 7%

Woody lignocellulosic 15107 15% 21128 9% 24342 14%

Forestry 43745 1% 46330 4% 49549 2%

Wastes and Residues 59154 0% 63528 1% 68086 1%

Black Liquor 16422 0% 17403 0% 20662 0%

Aquatic biomass 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 181956 1% 209734 2% 212849 4%

The feedstock produced domestically in the EU27 is slightly higher in the NREAPs scenario, compared to the Reference. Table 34 shows how the NREAPs scenario production varies compared to Reference. While the overall differences are not noteworthy, since total domestic production is similar in both scenarios, more lignocellulosic crops are cultivated in the context of the NREAPs scenario for the years 2030 and 2050, as the total lignocellulosic crops are higher by 7% and 10%. This difference in lignocellulosic crops is attributed to the increase of the demand for solids in this scenario, as well as to the fact that more woody biomass is used compared to the Reference for the production of biogas and biomethane, as the demand for gaseous biomass is increased. This difference is reflected in the acreage of land cultivated for energy crops, shown in Error: Reference source not foundError: Reference sourcenot found. The land cultivated in the context of the NREAPs scenario is more than the one for the Reference by 8% in the year 2050. Land for the cultivation of the lignocellulosic crops is more in the NREAP scenario by 7% in 2020 and by 11% in 2050.

29

Table 35: Comparison of cultivated land for the Reference and the NREAP scenario

Cultivated land comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050

Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs Ref Ref NREAPs

kHa % diff. to Ref. kHa % diff. to Ref. kHa % diff. to Ref.

Starch crops 5551 6% 5500 6% 3819 5%

Sugarbeet 5631 -4% 5824 -9% 3052 -2%

Oil crops 1136 -34% 1417 -8% 1161 1%Herbaceous lignocellulosic 8905 1% 10618 6% 6739 9%


Total 27446 3% 30519 3% 21151 8%

As the production of feedstock is relatively similar for the two scenarios, the difference in demand is to be covered by imports, in the case of the NREAPs scenario, therefore imports are expected to be increased compared to the Reference scenario. The following table shows that the share of imports in the scenario with the demand projection from the NREAP is higher.

Table 36: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for the Reference and the Reference NREAPs scenario

Domestic Production vs. Net Imports

2020 2030 2050

Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs

%Domestic production 84% 80% 85% 82% 83% 81%

Net imports 16% 20% 15% 18% 17% 19%

Table 37 shows the total cost of the biomass supply system for the two scenarios expressed in M€. The cost of the supply chain of biomass includes the cost of the production of feedstock, the cost of processing, transportation costs and the cost of the imports and exports activity.

Table 38 gives a scope on the commodity prices of final bio-energy products. Total cost in both scenarios increases in 2020, due to the increase of the demand for bio-energy, by 91% and 109% for Reference and NREAPs scenarios respectively.

Table 37: Total Cost of Biomass Supply for the Reference scenario and the Reference NREAPs scenario

Total Cost of Biomass Supply

2010 2020 2030 2050

Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs

M€

Total Cost 61584 61584 117714 129013 126050 139061 122289 133566

The comparison between costs in the two scenarios reveals that the NREAP scenario has higher costs that Reference for the years 2020, 2030 and 2050 by approximately 10%, which is expected since the NREAP scenario has higher demand for bio-energy compared to Reference.

The price for biogas in NREAP scenario is higher by 18% compared to Reference in 2020 and continues to be until 2050, by 8% in 2030 and by 7% in 2050, because the demand for overall biomass based gas is

30

significantly higher. The price for bio heavy is lower than in reference scenario by 13% in 2020, as the demand for bio heavy in this scenario is lower than in Reference, and rises to reach Reference scenario levels by 2050, as the demand for bio heavy increases. The price of fungible biodiesel, on the other hand, is higher in the Reference scenario by 7% in 2020, as the demand is higher in the NREAPs scenario. Towards 2050 the prices converge due to technological progress.

Table 38: Commodity prices for the Reference scenario and the Reference NREAPs scenario

Commodity Prices

2020 2030 2050

Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs Ref NREAPs

€/toeBiodiesel (non fungible) 1055 1049 1147 1137 1189 1202

Biodiesel (fungible) 1401 1297 1333 1446 1346 1344

Bioethanol 1321 1305 1287 1289 1308 1323

Biogasoline 1391 1359 1425 1471 1497 1540

Bio-kerosene 0 0 0 0 0 0

BioHeavy 906 786 956 870 928 891

Small Scale Solid 645 680 818 812 844 844

Large Scale Solid 625 662 636 708 558 594

BioGas 487 573 451 485 425 453

Biomethane 623 661 516 521 485 495

Waste Solid 193 197 206 207 213 214

Waste Gas 298 293 328 320 351 351

4.3.2 Reference scenario vs. Decarbonisation scenario

The demand for bio-energy in the Reference scenario increases significantly until 2020, so that the goals of the EU Climate and Energy package can be achieved, and remains relatively stable thereafter. In the context of the decarbonisation, the demand in 2020 remains approximately at the same levels as in Reference, as no new measures besides the ones implemented in the Reference scenario are expected to apply until that time. Substantial changes in decarbonisation scenario are expected to occur beyond 2030, when much wider exploitation of biomass resources is to take place, in order for the strong emission reductions of 80-95% compared to 1990 envisaged in the decarbonisation scenario to be accomplished.

Table 39 shows the demand of the decarbonisation compared to the Reference scenario for the various bio-energy commodities. As expected, the total demand between the scenarios in 2020 is at the same level, since no further policies and measures are assumed in the context of the decarbonisation scenario beyond the ones implemented in Reference up to 2020.

In 2050 the total demand for the decarbonisation scenario is higher than in the Reference by 42.5%. 2 nd

generation biofuels have an increased share to the total biofuels demand in decarbonisation scenario in 2050, as they represent 59% of total biofuels for road transportation. The demand for fungible biofuels is 118% more than in Reference scenario, implying that the development of the production pathways for fungible biofuels has to be substantial, in order for the demand to be met.

The demand for bio heavy in the decarbonisation scenario is more than 6 times bigger, and the demand for solid and gaseous biomass is substantially increased compared to reference in 2050.

31

Contrary to the Reference scenario, the technologies for the production of biofuels for the aviation sector are considered to develop in decarbonisation scenario and demand for bio-kerosene develops from 2030 onwards.

Table 39: Demand comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario (source: PRIMES model)

Demand comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050

Ref Decarb Ref Decarb Ref Decarb

ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref

Bioethanol 7774 -12% 9270 -42% 11036 -34%

Biogasoline 665 17% 1221 36% 325 1713%Biodiesel (non fungible) 18905 -10% 15733 -7% 14143 1%

Biodiesel (fungible) 4338 12% 11463 -35% 14136 81%

Bio heavy 1297 1% 2209 39% 3068 527%

Biogas 7497 -1% 7497 -1% 7497 -1%

Biomethane 8777 0% 11745 13% 13721 25%

Waste Gas 5126 0% 5970 0% 7590 0%

Waste Solid 18281 0% 18526 0% 19026 1%

Small Scale Solid 38684 -2% 34206 -4% 30601 38%

Large Scale Solid 74535 0% 76181 10% 80408 22%

Total 185879 -2% 194020 0% 201550 43%

The key feature for the domestic production of feedstock, noticeable in the decarbonisation, when compared to Reference scenario, is the great increase in lignocellulosic crops. The production of feedstock in 2020 is 4% higher in the decarbonisation scenario compared to reference. Lignocellulosic crop production in the decarbonisation scenario increases by 18% compared to reference.

In 2050 total domestic production of feedstock in the decarbonisation scenario is higher by 51%. The production of lignocellulosic crops is even more intense, as it increases by 162% compared to the Reference. Feedstock produced from forestry, and waste is substantially more since their potential is now exploited almost to the full potential. In the context of the decarbonisation scenario, the production pathways using algae as feedstock are assumed to have developed by 2050; aquatic biomass starts being produced and accounts for 3.5% of the total domestic production.

Table 40: Domestic production of feedstock comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario

Domestic production comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050


ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref

Starch crops 11000 -4% 12136 -7% 10671 -17%

Sugarbeet 4720 -5% 6770 -12% 6617 4%

Oil crops 7886 -3% 9157 -17% 5830 10%

Herbaceous 23921 11% 33281 5% 27093 140%

32

lignocellulosic


Forestry 43745 2% 46330 1% 49549 17%


Black Liquor 16422 0% 17403 1% 20662 2%

Total 181956 4% 209734 5% 212849 51%

In all scenarios run in the course of Biomass Futures project, the land use for energy purposes increases strongly in 2020, in order to achieve the 20-20-20 goals, compared to 2010.

The differentiations presented in the domestic production of feedstock, concerning the energy crops, are also reflected in the comparison between the scenarios, regarding the acreage of land cultivated for energy crops production. Table 41 presents the differences between Reference and decarbonisation scenarios. In the decarbonisation scenario land dedicated to starch, sugar and oil crops reduces, while land for lignocellulosic crops increases compared to the reference. Altogether, in the context of the Decarbonisation scenario in 2050 74% more land is used for energy crops than in Reference, with lignocellulosic crops accounting for 83% of total land dedicated to energy crops in EU.

Table 41: Cultivated land comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario

Cultivated Land comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050


kHa% diff. to

Ref kHa% diff. to

Ref kHa% diff. to

Ref

Starch crops 5551 -6% 5500 -11% 3819 -34%

Sugarbeet 5631 -4% 5824 -23% 3052 -11%



Total 27446 8% 30519 6% 21151 74%

Imports supplement the domestic production to satisfy the projected demand. In the EU solid biomass is the most imported bio-product and vegetable oil, biodiesel and bioethanol are imported to a lesser extent.

The imports are higher in the Reference scenario for all the years than in Decarbonisation, as a much more intensive production of feedstock and end bio-energy products takes place in the context of the Decarbonisation. In 2020, total imports in reference scenario are higher by 32% than in decarbonisation. In 2050, imports in the decarbonisation scenario are more by 17%, as the demand for bio-energy products is increased in order for the long term goals of the scenario to be met.

33

Table 42: Net imports comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario

Net Imports comparison with Reference scenario

2020 2030 2050


ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref ktoe% diff. to

Ref

Biomass Feedstock

Pure vegetable oil 5889 -51% 1633 -51% 4618 -60%

Bioenergy

Solid Biomass1677

1 -47% 20893 -49% 24842 8%

Biodiesel 5032 23% 4564 40% 2736 109%

Bioethanol 3157 -5% 2582 -61% 1677 195%

Biokerosene

Total3084

9 -32% 29673 -37% 33873 17%

Table 43 shows the total cost of the biomass supply system for the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios. The cost for the years 2020 and 2030 doesn’t vary much compared to the Reference scenario, as the total demand is quite similar. Beyond 2030 and in particular in 2050, though, total cost increases as the demand rises significantly, and is 92% higher in the decarbonisation scenario compared to the Reference.

Table 43: Total cost of biomass supply of the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios

Total cost of biomass supply

2020 2030 2050


M€

Total Cost 117714 119748 126050 125707 122289 235198

The prices of the end bio-energy commodities, as emerged from PRIMES Biomass model, are presented in . The prices of fungible biofuels are the highest in both scenarios. In 2050, due to the increased demand, the prices in the decarbonisation scenario are higher. Prices increase by 10 and 40% for biofuels and by 20% for biogas, whereas prices increase more moderately for solid biomass.

Table 44: Commodity prices for the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios

Commodity Prices

2020 2030 2050




Bioethanol 1321 1341 1287 1207 1308 1413

Biogasoline 1391 1370 1425 1421 1497 1614

Bio-kerosene 0 0 0 1588 0 1468

34

BioHeavy 906 926 956 901 928 1070



BioGas 487 502 451 482 425 509

Biomethane 623 612 516 501 485 562

Waste Solid 193 193 206 204 213 217

Waste Gas 298 296 328 315 351 383

4.3.3 Changes in the Sustainability scenario

The Sustainability scenario is a scenario analysing and quantifying how stricter sustainability criteria than the ones implemented by the RES Directive would affect the Biomass supply system in 2020 and in the longer term also to 2050.

The total demand of the sustainability scenario in 2020 is identical to the decarbonisation scenario and very similar to the Reference scenario as both scenarios achieve the 20-20-20 targets. However, substantial differences lay in the allocation of the demand for liquid biofuels in the Sustainability scenario. The stricter sustainability criteria applied lead to a strong increase in the production of 2nd

generation fuels compared to 1st generation since also indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions are accounted for. Overall, this significant difference implies that in order for the 20-20-20 targets to be met under enhanced sustainability criteria, a very strong development of the production technologies for fungible biofuels needs to take place by 2020.

In 2050, the total demand for bio-energy commodities of the sustainability scenario is the same as in the main decarbonisation scenario, and is consequently 43% higher than in reference. The demand has the same characteristics as in year 2020, namely a much higher demand for 2 nd generation fuels and a respective drop in the demand for 1st generation biofuels. Compared to the main decarbonisation scenario, the demand for 2nd generation biofuels is projected to be 43% higher, as they represent 85% of the total biofuels mix for road transportation.

Contrary to the Reference scenario, the technologies for the production of biofuels for the aviation sector are considered to develop, as in decarbonisation scenario and demand for bio-kerosene develops from 2030.

Table 45: Demand comparison of Sustainability with Decarbonisation scenario (source: PRIMES model)

Demand comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050

Decarb Sus Decarb Sus Decarb Sus

ktoe% diff to decarb ktoe

% diff to decarb ktoe

% diff to decarb

Bioethanol 6814 -17% 5422 -38% 7253 -61%

Biogasoline 780 133% 1657 134% 5889 86%Biodiesel (non fungible) 17063 -34% 14682 -70% 14235 -62%

Biodiesel (fungible) 4850 111% 7446 119% 25581 34%

Biokerosene 0 0% 375 -2% 23522 -6%

Bio heavy 1311 0% 3066 -3% 19244 1%

Biogas 7447 1% 7447 1% 7447 1%

Biomethane 8733 0% 13311 -2% 17085 1%

Waste Gas 5126 0% 5970 0% 7590 0%

35

Waste Solid 18281 0% 18590 0% 19271 0%

Small Scale Solid 37863 -6% 32758 -5% 42108 -6%

Large Scale Solid 74293 0% 83744 -3% 98000 3%

Total 182561 -1% 194469 -3% 287224 0%

For 2020 the domestic production of feedstock is 4% and 8% lower compared to the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios respectively. The production of starch, sugar and oil crops, which are not found to comply with the stricter sustainability criteria, presents a significant drop of 89% compared to the reference, since the sustainability criteria applied are stricter. Road transport biofuels are produced from lignocellulosic biomass; hence, production of lignocellulosic crops is 29% higher compared to Reference and 9% higher compared to the main decarbonisation scenario in 2020.

Error: Reference source not found shows the domestic production of feedstock of the sustainability and the main decarbonisation scenarios. The production of starch, sugar and oil crops is significantly lower. In 2050, the production of these crops is 90% lower compared to the decarbonisation, while the production of lignocellulosic crops is 15% higher. Feedstock produced from forestry, and wastes is produced to the same extent in the two scenarios, as these resources are finite and are assumed to be exploited to almost full extent in the main decarbonisation scenario.

Aquatic biomass, which enters the scene in 2050, represents 3.5% and 4% of the total production in the decarbonisation and the sustainability scenarios respectively. In the sustainability scenario 16% more algae is produced than in decarbonisation.

36

Table 46: Domestic production of feedstock comparison of Sustainability with Decarbonisation scenario

Domestic Production comparison with decarbonisation

2020 2030 2050


ktoe

% diff to

decarb ktoe

% diff to

decarb ktoe

% diff to

decarb

Starch crops 10518 -89% 11263 -94% 8815 -92%

Sugarbeet 4490 -97% 5942 -97% 6869 -87%



Forestry 44658 1% 46858 6% 57929 1%


Black Liquor 16438 1% 17524 0% 20999 1%


Total 189334 -8% 221097 0% 322212 1%

The differentiations presented in the domestic production of feedstock, concerning the energy crops, are also reflected in the comparison between the scenarios, regarding the acreage of land cultivated for energy crops. The total land dedicated to energy cultivations in the Sustainability scenario in 2020 is decreased compared to the Reference by 23%, due to the fact that less starch, sugar and oil crops are being produced. Land for these crops has decreased by 88.5% and land for lignocellulosic crops increases by 31% compared to the reference.

In 2050 the share of land dedicated to lignocellulosic crops to the total acreage of land cultivated for energy crops production is 98% and it is more than in the main decarbonisation scenario by only 5% as large scale development of lignocellulosic production already occurs in the decarbonisation. As a total, land use in the sustainability scenario is 11% lower compared to the main decarbonisation scenario.

Table 47: Cultivated land comparison of the Sustainability with the Decarbonisation scenario

Cultivated Land comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050


kHa

% diff to

decarb kHa

% diff to

decarb kHa

% diff to

decarb

Starch crops 5213 -90% 4873 -94% 2508 -92%

Oil crops 5413 -84% 4512 -96% 2727 -89%

Sugarbeet 1079 -97% 1183 -97% 1004 -87%Herbaceous lignocellulosic 9910 4% 10748 28% 13975 10%


Total 29731 -28% 32351 -13% 36815 -11%

37

In 2020 the imports in the sustainability scenario are 10% higher compared to the reference and 62% compared to the decarbonisation scenario. The increase is due to the fact that less feedstock is produced for the production of biofuels in the context of the sustainability scenario. The amount of palm oil imported is 43% lower since the sustainability criteria are applied to the imported bio-energy products as well. The share of imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities increases compared both to reference and to the main decarbonisation scenario, because of the increased amount of solid biomass imported.

Pure vegetable oil stops being imported beyond 2030 since it is subject to the sustainability restrictions. On the other hand, wood imports increase, compared to the other scenarios, to satisfy the demand for solid biomass, since a large amount of the domestic wood feedstock is used for the production of 2 nd

generation biofuels.

Table 48: Net Imports comparison of Sustainability with Decarbonisation scenario

Net Imports comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050




% diff to decarb

Biomass FeedstockPure vegetable oil 2862 17% 792 -100% 1864 -100%

Bioenergy

Solid Biomass 8912 117% 10570 70% 26812 29%

Biodiesel 6182 -4% 6397 -81% 5720 -57%

Bioethanol 3008 82% 1014 -28% 4950 -62%

Biokerosene

Total 20964 62% 18773 6% 39776 2%

Table 49: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for the Sustainability and the Decarbonisation scenario


2020 2030 2050



Net imports 11% 19% 10% 11% 14% 14%

Table 50 shows the total cost of the biomass supply system for the decarbonisation and the sustainability scenarios. The total cost in the context of the Sustainability scenario is higher by 3% compared to the reference scenario and by 4% compared to the decarbonisation, due to the fact that the sustainability scenario requires stronger development of the 2nd generation biofuel production technologies.

In 2050, when the demand for biomass is higher, the cost of the sustainability scenario is higher by 170% compared to the reference, but costs are comparable with the main decarbonisation scenario.

38

Table 50: Total cost of biomass supply for the Sustainability and the Decarbonisation scenario


2020 2030 2050


M€Total Cost 119748 124936 125707 133370 235198 242081

The prices of the end bio-energy commodities, as emerged from PRIMES Biomass model, are presented in Table 51Error: Reference source not found. In the Sustainability scenario, the prices of commodities increase between 5 and 25% for biofuels and biogas for the year 2020, whereas prices increase more moderately for solid biomass.

In 2050 the prices compared to the main decarbonisation scenario increase, but more moderately because most bio-energy is produced through ligno-cellulosic material already in the main decarbonisation scenario. If high ILUC emissions are found to be applicable also to ligno-cellulosic crops, prices would increase considerably and it may not be possible to satisfy the demand for the decarbonisation scenario.

Table 51: Commodity prices for the Decarbonisation and the Sustainability scenario

Commodity Prices

2020 2030 2050




Bioethanol 1341 1403 1207 1485 1413 1305

Biogasoline 1370 1366 1421 913 1614 2071

Bio-kerosene 0 0 1588 1644 1468 1500

BioHeavy 926 914 901 953 1070 1094



BioGas 502 622 482 562 509 515

Biomethane 612 706 501 597 562 559

Waste Solid 193 190 204 211 217 218

Waste Gas 296 288 315 316 383 349

The sustainability scenario shows large differences compared to both the Reference and the main decarbonisation scenario in 2020; the effects in 2020 are large because the production of, in particular biofuels, in 2020 is largely dependent on starch, sugar and oil crops which are mostly reduced hen imposing stricter sustainability criteria. In 2050 the difference compared to the main decarbonisation are smaller because the system relies to a greater extent on lignocellulosic biomass which is assumed to be less influenced by stricter sustainability criteria due to its better performance in terms of GHG emission savings.

39

4.3.4 Decarbonisation scenario vs. Maximum biomass scenario

The Maximum biomass scenario represents a projection in which the development of electric vehicles is slowed down and therefore the transport sector has to rely strongly on the use of biofuels also for private passenger cars.

The demand in 2020 remains at the same levels as in the decarbonisation scenario, so as to achieve the 2020 targets, while in 2030 and in 2050 there is a rise in total demand for bio-energy of 15% and 30% respectively compared to the Decarbonisation scenario. Therefore, in these years a respective rise in the production of bio-energy, which implies increases in imports and feedstock production can be observed. The sustainability criteria implemented are the same as in the main decarbonisation scenario.

In 2030, total demand in the Maximum Biomass scenario is higher by approximately 15% compared to the decarbonisation scenario, as the scenario is constructed under the assumption of maximisation of demand for bio-energy. Furthermore, the demand for 2nd generation biofuels is almost double. The technologies for the production of biofuels for the aviation sector are considered to have developed in this scenario as well and demand for bio-kerosene starts in 2030. Compared to the Decarbonisation scenario for the year 2030, in the Maximum Biomass scenario, the demand for solid biomass is 8% higher, while the demand for gaseous biomass is 5% higher.

The Maximum Biomass scenario pursues maximisation of bio-energy demand, resulting in increased total demand, compared to Reference, by 85% and compared to the decarbonisation scenario by 30%, in 2050. The demand for 2nd generation biofuels for road transportation in 2050 is 55% higher than in the main decarbonisation. The demand for solid biomass, namely small scale solid, large scale solid and waste solid, is approximately 30% higher, while the demand for biomethane is 26% higher.

Table 52: Demand comparison of Maximum Biomass with Decarbonisation scenario

Demand comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050

Decarb Max biom Decarb Max biom Decarb Max biom



% diff to decarb

Bioethanol 6814 -8% 5422 48% 7253 122%

Biogasoline 780 144% 1657 130% 5889 87%Biodiesel (non fungible) 17063 9% 14682 38% 14235 41%

Biodiesel (fungible) 4850 0% 7446 92% 25581 48%

Biokerosene 0 0% 375 6% 23522 14%

Bio heavy 1311 0% 3066 7% 19244 5%

Biogas 7447 0% 7447 0% 7447 0%

Biomethane 8733 -1% 13311 10% 17085 26%

Waste Gas 5126 0% 5970 0% 7590 0%

Waste Solid 18281 0% 18590 0% 19271 0%

Small Scale Solid 37863 -5% 32758 17% 42108 40%

Large Scale Solid 74293 -1% 83744 7% 98000 29%

Total 182561 0% 194469 15% 287224 30%

Table 53 shows the comparison of the domestic production in the Maximum Biomass scenario with decarbonisation scenario. In 2020 the production of feedstock in the context of the Maximum Biomass scenario increases by 5% compared to Reference and by 1% compared to the decarbonisation scenario, as no additional policies and measures are implemented up to 2020.

40

In 2030 total production is 8% higher than in decarbonisation. In 2050, the Maximum Biomass scenario has 60% more production of biomass feedstock compared to Reference and 6% more compared to Decarbonisation. The production of lignocellulosic crops increases even more, as it is 202% and 10% higher compared to the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios respectively. Feedstock produced from forestry, and wastes is only 2% higher since their potential is currently exploited almost to its full extent. Aquatic biomass represents 5% of the total domestic production in 2050.

Table 53: Domestic production of feedstock comparison of Maximum Biomass with Decarbonisation scenario

Domestic production comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050

Decarb Max Biom Decarb Max Biom Decarb Max Biom



% diff to decarb

Starch crops 10518 1% 11263 -12% 8815 -4%

Sugarbeet 4490 11% 5942 15% 6869 3%

Oil crops 7636 5% 7576 -1% 6391 -18%Herbaceous lignocellulosic 26542 1% 34919 37% 65071 25%

Woody lignocellulosic 19378 1% 32654 5% 69836 -4%

Forestry 44658 1% 46858 7% 57929 2%


Black Liquor 16438 1% 17524 0% 20999 -2%


Total 189334 1% 221097 8% 322212 6%

In all scenarios run in the course of Biomass Futures project, the land use for energy crops cultivation increases strongly in 2020, in order to achieve the 20-20-20 goals, compared to 2010. Overall, the highest land use occurs in Maximum Biomass scenario, as 83% more land compared to Reference scenario and 5% more compared to the main decarbonisation is used in 2050. Land for lignocellulosic crops is 8% more than in the decarbonisation scenario.

In total the highest land use amongst all the scenarios run in the course of Biomass Futures project is cultivated in the context of the Maximum Biomass scenario, as all available potential has to be used in order for the high demand to be met. Furthermore, in decarbonisation scenario and its variants land dedicated to starch, sugar and oil crops reduces over time, whereas land for lignocellulosic crops increases substantially, compared to Reference.

41

Table 54: Cultivated land comparison of Maximum Biomass with Decarbonisation scenario

Cultivated Land comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050


kHa% diff to decarb kHa

% diff to decarb kHa

% diff to decarb

Starch crops 5213 2% 4873 -17% 2508 -3%

Sugarbeet 5413 4% 4512 -3% 2727 -20%

Oil crops 1079 11% 1183 15% 1004 4%Herbaceous lignocellulosic 9910 1% 10748 36% 13975 23%

Woody lignocellulosic 8117 2% 11036 5% 16602 -5%

Total 29731 2% 32351 11% 36815 5%

The share of imports, expressed as final bio-energy commodities, in the Maximum Biomass scenario is higher than in any other scenario, after 2020. In 2050, the share of imports represents approximately 30% of the total. Net imports are increased by 187% compared to the main decarbonisation scenario in the same year.

The sustainability of the Maximum Biomass scenario is debatable, due to the high amount of imports.

Table 55: Net imports comparison of Maximum Biomass with Decarbonisation scenario

Net Imports comparison with Decarbonisation scenario

2020 2030 2050Decar

b Max Biom Decarb Max Biom Decarb Max Biom



% diff to decarb

Biomass Feedstock

Pure vegetable oil 2862 16% 792 900% 1864 1919%

Bioenergy

Solid Biomass 8912 -37% 10570 22% 26812 78%

Biodiesel 6182 13% 6397 80% 5720 201%

Bioethanol 3008 -4% 1014 283% 4950 75%

Biokerosene 0 0% 0 0% 429 600%

Total 20964 -10% 18773 93% 39776 187%

42

Table 56: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for the Maximum Biomass and the Decarbonisation scenario


2020 2030 2050Decar

b Max Biom Decarb Max Biom Decarb Max Biom


Net imports 11% 10% 10% 16% 14% 29%

Table 57 shows the total cost of the biomass supply system for the Maximum Biomass and the decarbonisation scenarios. The Maximum Biomass scenario, with the exception of the year 2020, has a much higher demand than the Reference, resulting to increased total cost by 25% in the year 2030 and 162% in 2050, when the increase in demand is maximum. Compared to the main decarbonisation scenario the cost is higher by 41% in 2050.

Table 57: Total cost of biomass supply for the Maximum Biomass and the Decarbonisation scenario


2020 2030 2050


M€Total Cost 119748 121082 125707 158085 235198 330472

The prices of the end bio-energy commodities, as emerged from PRIMES Biomass model, are presented in Table 58Error: Reference source not found. The prices of bio-energy commodities in Maximum Biomass scenario in 2050 are between 13 and 25% higher than in the reference scenario. The difference in pricing compared to the decarbonisation scenario is due to shifts between domestic production and imported goods.

Table 58: Commodity prices for the Maximum Biomass and the Decarbonisation scenario

Commodity Prices

2020 2030 2050




Bioethanol 1341 1311 1207 1181 1413 1249

Biogasoline 1370 1366 1421 1452 1614 1673

Bio-kerosene 0 0 1588 1569 1468 2106

BioHeavy 926 918 901 901 1070 1037



BioGas 502 506 482 445 509 493

Biomethane 612 612 501 488 562 557

43

Waste Solid 193 192 204 200 217 211

Waste Gas 296 301 315 313 383 347

5 Conclusive remarks

The aim of the E3MLab project work was to quantify scenarios in order to determine the impacts of policies implemented that promote renewable energy sources and address climate change mitigation by simulating the economics of supply of biomass and waste for energy purposes with the PRIMES Biomass model. In the course of this project the PRIMES biomass model was fully updated and harmonised to the information provided by the partners in the Biomass Futures project.

Five scenarios in total were constructed and analysed. An updated reference scenario run with the new model version, using the demand from the Reference scenario as run by the overall PRIMES model and a Reference scenario variant with the energy demand derived from the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) was run. Further three scenarios were run within a decarbonisation context: the first scenario reran the decarbonisation scenario as used for the Roadmap 2050 with the new model version, the second scenario assumed a very high biomass demand therefore simulating a “high biomass” case and a third scenario assumed the same demand as the “standard” decarbonisation scenario, but stricter sustainability criteria, including the effect of indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions.

The quantification of the impacts of the policies and measures implemented in the context of the Reference scenario revealed that most bio-energy commodities are produced with technologies which are commercially available today. However, the demand for 2nd generation biofuels in 2020 accounts for 16% of the total liquid biofuels demand, thus the development of 2nd generation production technologies, such as Fischer Tropsch, close to 2020 is important for the achievement of the 20-20-20 targets set out in the Climate and Energy package. In order for the demand for bio-energy commodities to be met, a strong increase in the land use for the cultivation of energy crops has to occur up to 2020.

Similar conclusions can be deducted from the NREAP scenario analysis. The demand projected by the NREAP for 2020 is higher than the Reference demand by 7%, but is in general considered achievable. The technology development in this scenario is similar to the one of the Reference, as most of end bio-energy products are produced with already mature technologies; however the promotion of technologies for fungible biofuels has to take place in this scenario as well, so as to facilitate the achievement of the climate and energy policy targets of the EU. In this scenario, the demand for biogas is considerably higher than in Reference scenario, straining assumed potentials to a great extent , whereas the demand for 2nd generation biofuels is lower than in Reference by almost 40% in 2020.

The projected demand for bio-energy in the decarbonisation scenario under effective technologies and global climate action used for the purpose of this study is not expected to differ from Reference’s demand for the year 2020, as no complementary policies are assumed to be implemented until then. The targets set for 2020 and the 2050 decarbonisation targets are both achievable, on condition that a strong development of the technologies for the production of 2nd generation biofuels takes place. In the context of the decarbonisation scenario, the use of land is strained in order for the demand to be met.

The Sustainability scenario quantified in the course of this project was based on the decarbonisation scenario and was constructed in order to test the effect of enhanced sustainability criteria to the biomass commodity prices and production of feedstock, but, as it achieves the 20% targets has been used to analyse the effects of strict sustainability criteria to 2020. The sustainability criteria applied in this scenario are more stringent. The GHG mitigation required to occur is increased from 60% to 70% in 2020 and to 80% in 2030 and is extended to apply to solid and gaseous bio-energy products used the electricity and heat sectors. Moreover, the calculation of the emissions is now assumed to include the emissions resulting from indirect land use changes. In the context of this scenario, the demand for 2nd

generation biofuels is evidently highly increased, being 42% of the total liquid biofuels mix in 2020 and 85% in 2050, when fungible biofuels are assumed to replace 1st generation biofuels to a high extent. Obviously, such a sustainability scenario is only possible given that technologies using ligno-cellulosic

44

crops as a feedstock, for the production of biofuels, develop rapidly and that the cultivation of ligno-cellulosic crops is done on land which causes few ILUC related emissions.

The project also studied the hypothesis of a high exploitation of biomass resources in order for an increased demand for bio-energy to be satisfied. The sustainability criteria used for this scenario were the same as the ones of the main decarbonisation scenario. This scenario assumes that the development of electric vehicles is slowed down, and so the transport sector has to rely on the use of biofuels. Therefore, the biofuels demand in this scenario is higher by 60% compared to the decarbonisation scenario for the year 2050 and the total demand is higher by 30% compared to decarbonisation scenario for the same year. In order for the increased demand to be satisfied, the land use is strained to the most excessive degree; almost 85% of available land is cultivated in 2050. Additionally, the amount of imported bio-energy products has to increase as well for the demand to be met. The high level of imports, along with the excessive land use make the sustainability of this scenario questionable, as the implementation of more stringent criteria would make the success of the scenario doubtful.

The main results from the modelling can be summarised as follows:

- The Reference and the NREAP scenarios demand for 2020 can be met mainly with current technologies and the development of new production technologies is necessary only for the limited amount of 2nd generation biofuels for road transportation

- The decarbonisation scenario demand is also achievable assuming a strong development of fuel production from lignocellulosic feedstock and also significant amounts of imports

- Under strict sustainability criteria, the 2020 targets are achievable only under the condition that the technologies for the production of 2nd generation biofuels for road transportation will develop strongly, as they represent 42% of the liquid biofuels for road transportation.

- The long-term decarbonisation targets of the Sustainability scenario are also achievable, since even the standard decarbonisation scenario strongly depends on the development of lignocellulosic energy crops and the 2nd generation biofuels production technologies, which are already assumed to take place in order for the 2020 targets to be met

- The provision of very high amounts of biomass in case of slower development in electric vehicles for the transport sector is possible by using almost all available land and increasing substantially the amount of imports. As with all scenarios, strong development of 2nd

generation fuel production is necessary. However, the sustainability of this scenario is debatable, due to the high land use and the high level of imports.

45

6 References

Aebiom,2011. 2011 Annual statistical report on the contribution of biomass to the energy system in the EU27

Bauen A. et al., 2009. Bioenergy – a Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source. IEA Bioenergy

Beurskens L.W.M et al., 2011. Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European Member States

De Wit M.P. et al., 2008. Biomass Resources Potential and Related Costs. Refuel project

E3MLAB, “The PRIMES Energy System Model: Reference Manual”, available on line at: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/

EC, 2003. Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or another renewable fuels for transport http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0088:0113:EN:PDF

EC, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF

EC, 2009. Directive 2009/30/EC as regards the specification of petrol,dieseland gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce grenhouse gas emissions http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0088:0113:EN:PDF

EC, 2011. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050

EEA, 2006. How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment?

EEA, 2007. Estimating the environmentally compatible bioenergypotential from agriculture

EuropeanEnvironmentalBureau, TransportandEnvironment BirdLifeInternational,. “Bioenergy a carbon accounting time bomb.” 2010

Eurostat, European Commission, http:// epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/Eurostat/home

FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http:// faostat.fao.org

Fischer G. et al., 2007. Assessment of biomass potentials for fuel feedstock production in Europe: Methodology and results. IIASA for Refuel project

Fritsche U.R. et al., 2010. The “ILUC Factor” as a Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change, OEKO

IEA, International Energy Agency. http://www.iea.org/

IFPRI, 2011. Assesing the land use change consequenses of European biofuels policies

Mantau U. et al., 2008. Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests, EUwood

National Renewable Energy Plans for EU27. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/action_plan_en.htm

46

http://www.iea.org/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF

http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/

Nielsen J. et al., 2008. The future of biogas in Europe: Visions and Targets until 2020

Ragettli M., 2007. Cost outlook for the production of biofuels. ETH

RHC, 2010. Biomass for heating & cooling

Searchinger T. et al., 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change

UN/ UNECE/ FAO, 2011. The European forest sector outlook study 2010-2030

Zanchi, Giuliana, Naomi Pena, and Neil Bird. “The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy.” Joanneum Research, 2010

47

Date post:	18-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Kansi · Web viewOil as a feedstock includes oil crops rapeseed, sunflower seed, olive kernel etc,...

Documents