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 3.5:
Biomass availability & supply analysis
Summary of main outcomes for policy makers
Authors:
IIASA:
Alterra:
CRES:
Hannes Böttcher
Berien Elbersen
Efthimia Alexopoulou
July, 2011
Content
Content ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Preface.......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Review of previous studies (WP3.2 and 3.3) .......................................................................................... 4
2.2 Predicting the availability of biomass and modelling biomass supply (WP3.4, 3.5) .............................. 4
2.3 List of deliverables .................................................................................................................................. 6
3 Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Review of biomass studies ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Assesment of 4F crops (Efi) .................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Assessment of availability (Berien) ......................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Modelling biomass supply .................................................................................................................... 12
4 Overall conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 12
5 References .............................................................................................................................................. 12
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.
[Text about this publication]
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
The aim of Work Package 3 (WP3) of the Biomass Futures project is to provide a comprehensive
strategic analysis of biomass supply options and their availability in response to different demands in a
timeframe from 2010- 2030. This is achieved by making a comparative inventory of existing studies, and
synthesising the results in terms of economic supply estimates that are most realistic and likely given
various policy and development scenarios as specified in WP7. Supply of biomass as addressed by WP3
includes existing biomass streams (including waste) and potential new streams from non food crops and
4F crops, i.e. crops for producing food, feed, fiber and fuel as raw materials for energy and industrial
applications. This report concisely summarises the approach and results of the modelling of biomass
supply under WP 3 for policy makers and other stakeholders 1. The output provided by WP3 can be
summarised in four points:




Overview of the main factors influencing the biomass potential and availability under different
regional circumstances for a variety of feedstocks.
Prediction and spatial distribution of biomass potentials for EU per region including economic
supply curves as input for WP7.
Competitive biomass supply patterns for different biomass chains and different scenarios.
An assessment of impacts of biomass use under different scenarios on trade patterns and
environmental parameters.
2 Methodology
2.1 Review of previous studies (WP3.2 and 3.3)
Biomass Futures builds on the results of previous studies (EUBIONET, RENEW, REFUEL, BEE, Elobio, 4F
crops, etc.). Biomass Futures reviews the main biomass potential studies performed at national, EU27
and global levels scrutinizing the existing assessment studies in terms of assumptions, data and
definitions used. The methodology for the assessment of selected biomass studies foresees a
categorization into different types of studies to make the studies more comparable. The assessment
distinguishes further between technical, economic, competitive economic and implementation
potentials given various policy and environmental constraints.
As different sectors - food, feed, fibre and fuels – compete for land, biomass crops have to be used as
efficiently as possible in order to minimize the competition for land. Energy crops (or non-food crops)
can be converted into a number of different products. Many crop species are multipurpose and yield
more than one product, for example hemp (both oil and soil biomass or oil and fibres) and cereals
(ethanol and soil biomass from straw or ethanol and straw as a feed product).
Within Biomass Futures, we consider the following common energy crops : oil crops, cereals, starch and
sugar crops, cellulose crops, and solid energy crops or lignocellulosic crops. The options of ‘4F crops in
EU27 are reviewed in terms of land availability/ suitability, rotation possibilities, yields, biomass quality
characteristics, and options of yield improvement through biotechnology.
2.2 Predicting the availability of biomass and modelling biomass supply (WP3.4, 3.5)
Land availability and related biomass availability and the availability of by- and waste products are
steered by a range of key factors, such as current and future land use, accessibility, recovery rates, costs,
competing uses, etc.. Taking such factors into account is essential for the estimation and mapping of
potentials and the translation into realistic supplies. Biomass Futures identifies the main factors
1
Readers that are interested in more detailed descriptions of our work can find the extensive
deliverables
report
summarised
here
at:
http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/work_packages.html.
4
determining potential and supply of different biomass sources and based on these quantifies biomass
potentials and maps them spatially. As part of this process we consider basic sustainability constraints
that are informed by work under WP4. This task is central for the completion of other tasks in WP3 but
also other WPs. An iterative process with several steps of internal and external review ensures that
maps and potential are not only realistic but also appropriate for further analyses and assessments
within Biomass Futures. Following this methodology, Biomass Futures delivers a spatially detailed and
quantified overview of EU biomass potentials mapping the technical potentials of the different
feedstocks at Nuts 2 level and synthesising the results in terms of economic supply estimates (costsupply curves).
The availability maps, cost information and basic sustainability constraints are fed into an integrated
economic land use model (GLOBIOM). By doing this, the static supply curves of individual feedstocks are
brought into competition and contrasted with the demand scenarios. Only by integrating the static
supply curves into a dynamic model of land use, issues of future land use change, trade, leakage,
indirect land use effects and economic viability related to biomass supply can be assessed. In addition to
the basic (supply related) sustainability criteria that already underlie the static supply maps, more
complex sustainability constraints can be assessed in the integrated land use model. These include
economic indicators (such as the development of food price indices) and sustainability issues related to
land use change. This approach builds an important bridge between the static supply maps and the
energy demand models of WP5. Figure 1 describes this interplay between the different work packages.
Figure 1: Flow chart of Biomass Futures modeling work. Legend: Steps of the analysis 1.Market and
demand analysis (WP2), 2.Scenarios of bioenergy demand (WP 5), 3.Availability maps and technical
potential (WP3.4), 4.Cost supply curves for biomass feedstocks (WP3.4), 5.Demand projection by
feedstock (WP 5), 6.Assessment of technical impacts of technology mix (WP 5), 7.Assessment of
technical potential (WP 3.4), 8.Assessment of economic potential (WP 3.5), 9.Assessment of
sustainable potential (WP 4, 3.5). Exchange with stakeholders on model assumptions in workshops
(WP6, 7) includes the topics Demand (A), Availability (B), Sustainability (C), and Supply (D). The
brought white arrowws between the models symbolise the harmonisation of model assumptions.
5
2.3 List of deliverables





D 3.1 Database with a systematic overview of the main characteristics of the main biomass
resource studies and their main differences and similarities in terms of types of biomass
feedstock assessed, and type of assumptions made.
D 3.2 Report on the role of 4F cropping options in determining future biomass potentials,
including sustainability and policy related issues.
D 3.3 Spatially detailed and quantified overview of EU biomass potential taking into account the
main criteria determining biomass availability from different sources.
D 3.4 Biomass supply patterns for the different biomass types at EU27 and Member States
levels.
D 3.5. Report summarizing the main outcomes of the WP relevant for policy makers.
3 Findings
3.1 Review of biomass studies
The methodology for the assessment of selected biomass studies foresees a categorization into different
types of studies to make the studies more comparable. The review of BEE and Biomass Futures of the
selected studies resulted in categories for biomass types (Biomass from forestry, Energy crops, Biomass
from agricultural residues, Biomass from waste, Total resource assessments) and potential types
(Theoretical potential, Technical potential, Economic potential, Sustainable potential) and method types
(Resource focussed statistical methods, Resource focussed spatially explicit methods, Demand driven
cost supply methods, Demand driven energy and/or economic modelling methods and integrated
assessments). After categorization remaining differences between studies are likely to originate from
different input data used, scenario assumptions made and tools applied. More categories were planned
for comparing scenarios assumptions (especially on markets, technologies etc.). However, no further
categorizations for a detailed comparison of studies could be achieved. This is mainly due to the fact
that detailed assumptions were not always displayed by the authors of the respective studies. If
provided, the assumptions were too distinct for each study so that a categorization was not appropriate.
A major conclusion of the Biomass Futures review of biomass assessments at EU country level is that
parts of the differences between studies can be explained by an appropriate categorization of studies
according to method, biomass type and potential types. Remaining discrepancies can be assessed by
comparing individual studies only but not in a systematic manner due to lack of information provided by
authors and individuality of assumptions.
The original data base compiled in the review and a short description of methods and results con be
found at the Biomass Futures webpage.
3.2 Assessment of 4F crops
The current market demand for biofuels is covered by conventional crops like oilseeds and grains with
limited quantities from lignocellulosic energy crops being used for heat and electricity, mainly in cofiring plants (UK, Finland, etc.).
It is expected that during the next decade, tailored crop solutions will be more dominant in the
bioenergy and biofuels markets as they can provide bioenergy products with characteristics that match
the conventional (i.e. fossil based) end-products they replace. In addition, systems will make better use
of existing bio-based resources through increasing their added value for fuel and products.
Lignocellulosic crops have been under research & development for more than a decade. During the last
two decades several lignocellulosic crops have been under research but so far only miscanthus and reed
canary grass are being cultivated in EU27. Research has focused on improving specific traits and meet
specific ecological and technology related requirements (i.e. adapt to arid climates, provide certain
quality outputs, etc.). In the REFUEL study mentioned above, it is stressed that the introduction of 2nd
generation biofuels form lingo-cellulosic feedstocks is hampered by the high initial investment costs and
corresponding biofuel production costs of the first installations.
6
In 4FCrops five lignocellulosic crops have been selected for EU27 reed canary grass, miscanthus,
switchgrass, giant reed and cardoon (the land allocation of five selected perennial crops in Europe that
prepared in 4FCrops presented in Figure 2. Switchgrass is the only of the selected crops that can be
successfully cultivated in all climatic zones apart from Nemoral one. Miscanthus has also has been
proposed for most climatic zones apart from Nemoral and Mediterranean South. Giant reed and
cardoon introduced as very promising energy crops for Mediterranean north and south, while reed
canary grass is proposed as an appropriate crop for Nemoral and Continental climatic zone.
Climatic zones and perennial grasses
Atlantic north:
Miscanthus and
switchgrass
Nemoral:
reed canary
grass
Continental:
miscanthus,
reed canary
grass,
switchgrass
Lusitanian:
miscanthus,
switchgrass
Atlantic
central:
Miscanthus and
switchgrass
Mediterranean
north:
miscanthus,
giant reed,
switchgrass
Mediterranean
south:
Giant reed,
cardoon,
switchgrass
Figure 2: Climatic zones and perennial energy crops (source: www.4FCrops.eu)
Reed canary grass and miscanthus have been inserted to European agriculture and the area of
cultivation presented in detail in Figure 3. Reed canary grass is being cultivated in Finland and Sweden,
while miscanthus is being cultivated in Austria, Germany, UK, France and Poland. In 4FCrops the yields
of the five selected crops have been estimated in both agricultural and marginal land as well as when
they cultivated with high and low inputs (Figure 4).
7
30000
25000
20000
miscanthus
reed canary grass
15000
10000
5000
0
Austria
Germany
UK
France
Poland
Sweden
Finland
EU27
Figure 3:Area of cultivation of miscanthus and reed canary grass in EU27.
40
Giant reed
Marginal land & high inputs
Marginal land & low inputs
36
32
Yields (t/ha)
28
Agricultural land & high inputs
Agricultural land & low inputs
reed
canary
grass
Cardoon
Switchgrass
24
20
16
12
8
4
Meditteranean
south
Mediterranean
south
Mediterranean
north
Atlantic north
Atlantic central
Mediterranean
north
Lusitanean
Atlantic north
Atlantic central
Continental
Nemoral
0
Climatic area
Figure 4: Biomass yields (t/ha) of the selected perennial energy crops in each climatic zone (on both
agricultural and marginal land as well as with high and low inputs).
Based on this analysis, it is expected that these crops will have the major share of the market from 2020
to 2030 as genetic improvements and breeding take long time to become evident in crop production. As
mentioned at the beginning of this report, this chapter is to be updated in the following months and at
the end of the project, based on the discussions with the Supply and Policy stakeholder groups.
3.3 Assessment of availability
Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide a summary of the relative contribution every category can make to the
total potential and the contribution of every country to the whole EU potential. It becomes clear from
Figure 5 that the forest (41%) and waste (38%) sectors can contribute the lion share of the potential.
8
The remaining 21% are estimated to come from the agricultural sector and are scattered over many
different smaller categories. Within the agricultural group the largest contribution is anticipated to
come from straw, dedicated cropping and prunings. It should be noted that some of the waste resources
such as paper cardboard waste have competing uses. Their use as bioenergy feedstock is therefore less
likely; rather the contrary is the case for the primary and secondary agricultural and forest products.
Those countries with large forest areas, population and/or agricultural sectors contribute most to the
overall EU27 potential (see Figure 6).
Total potential (KTOE)
dry manure
wet manure
1% 3%
6%
7%
straw
0%
3%
verge grass
1%
prunings
26%
12%
animal waste
Organic waste from households and
industry
paper cardboard waste
common sludges
dedicated cropping
12%
23%
4%
Additional harvestable roundwood
Primary forestry residues
2%
Black Liquor
Figure 5: Summary of present EU biomass potential (KTOE) over categories.
9
AT
Relative potential (KTOE) per EU country
SI
1%
SK
1%
AT
3%
UK
7%
BG
BL
1%
2%
SE
8%
BG
BL
CY
0%
CY
CZ
CZ
2%
DE
DK
DE
15%
EE
EL
ES
RO
5%
DK
1%
FR
HU
PT
2%
EE
1%
EL
1%
PL
7%
ES
5%
IR
IT
LT
LV
MT
NL
NL
3%
MT
0%
LV
1%
FI
PL
FI
7%
PT
RO
SE
LT
1%
IT
13%
SI
IR HU
0% 1%
FR
11%
SK
UK
Figure 6: Overview of total EU potential per country.
Biomass Futures combines the findings from the potential analysis with cost levels at which these are
expected to be available. After all, the price-supply combination will eventually determine what the
most interesting potential categories are. At the EU level, the biggest potential of around 200,000 KTOE
biomass is available at a price ranging from 40 to around 200 Euro/TOE (see Figure 7 and Table 1). The
cheapest biomass materials characterised by large potentials are wood waste, paper cardboard waste,
biodegradable waste from households and industry, primary forestry residues and straw. The most
expensive biomass feedstocks are biofuel crops and harvested wood. Maize and dedicated perennial
energy crops are in the middle range.
The above picture applies to the average EU situation. On a Member State level we have found large
differences in price levels and types of feedstock available. This is reflected in the country specific costsupply curves provided in deliverable D3.3. When interpreting these it should be kept in mind that
prices represent averages. This particularly applies to manure and straw prices whose levels are very
much determined by scarcity, hence increasing in regions of limited supply while prices are zero or very
low in regions of excess supply. In a country like e.g. Italy the average national price is still relatively
high, while huge excess manure production exists in the Po-valley. The same applies to potentials; these
are usually not evenly spread over countries. Especially for large countries like France, Germany, Poland
etc., the national totals and averages can provide a misleading picture. However, for almost all
potentials presented regional data are also available in this project. Further analysis of the results
presented here will build on the regional figures.
10
EU cost-supply
300000
250000
KTOE
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Euro/TOE
Figure 7: Cost-supply of biomass potentials at EU-27 level.
Table 1: Overview of biomass supply for whole EU at average prices.
Euro/TOE
Accumulated total KTOE
Verge grass
36
1092
1092.4
0.5%
Wood-waste
41
19521
18429.1
7.7%
Common sludges
42
23220
3698.9
1.5%
Paper cardboard
42
73634
50413.4
21.0%
Dry manure
58
75239
1605.6
0.7%
animal waste
96
78002
2762.8
1.2%
Biodegradable municipal waste
96
103658
25656.0
10.7%
prunings
118
110392
6733.9
2.8%
Primary forestry residues
156
167629
57237.1
23.9%
Straw
167
184096
16466.9
6.9%
Perennials 2008
168
184460
364.2
0.2%
Maize 2008
216
184969
508.8
0.2%
Black liquor
217
198678
13708.7
5.7%
wet manure
280
205406
6728.2
2.8%
Additional Harvestable Roundwood
326
232003
26597.0
11.1%
Sunflower 2008
399
232959
955.8
0.4%
Cereals
413
234128
1168.8
0.5%
Sugarbeet 2008
422
234182
54.8
0.0%
RAPE 2008
605
239501
5318.6
2.2%
11
KTOE
% total KTOE
3.4 Modelling biomass supply
To be added when results of scenarios are available
4 Overall conclusions
To be added when results of scenarios are available
NOTE: This summary will be updated by October 30, 2011 to include the final results of the
modelling on the specified scenarios.
12