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 ...................................................................................................................... 28
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.
1
The decarbonisation scenario achieves the EU long term GHG emission reduction objective of 80-95%
compared to 1990 in 2050
4
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
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
2
A detailed description
http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/
5
of
the
PRIMES
energy
system
model
can
be
found
at:
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.
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 lignocellulosic 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 bioheavy 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.
3
A description of the updates in the database carried out within this project are available in deliverable
5.5.
6
Imports and exports of biomass in the Primes Biomass model are both biomass feedstock and end bioenergy 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.
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
7
HTU process and deoxygenation
Biodiesel/ Bio-kerosene
HTU process, deoxygenation and upgrading
Biogasoline
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
RDF
Waste Solid
Industrial &
Municipal
Waste
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
4
8
See above.
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.
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 bioenergy 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.
9
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.
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.
10
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
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.
11
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
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 2 nd 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)
Demand
2010
2020
2030
2050
Ktoe
Bioethanol
3438
7774
9270
11036
Biogasoline
0
665
1221
325
10894
18905
15733
14143
Biodiesel (fungible)
0
4338
11463
14136
Bio-kerosene
0
0
0
0
Bio heavy
1
1297
2209
3068
4905
7497
7497
7497
0
8777
11745
13721
Waste Gas
4062
5126
5970
7590
Waste Solid
18647
18281
18526
19026
Biodiesel (non fungible)
Biogas
Biomethane
12
Small Scale Solid
36013
38684
34206
30601
Large Scale Solid
44433
74535
76181
80408
122393
185879
194020
201550
Total demand
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.
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
Total Domestic Production
0
0
0
0
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.
13
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
Woody lignocellulosic
192
15107
21128
24342
15274
62634
82472
74553
Total
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
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
44
8905
10618
6739
Woody lignocellulosic
66
6224
7161
6381
8275
27446
30519
21151
Total
In the Reference scenario, demand for bio-energy increases considerably compared to 2010, but worldwide 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
Solid Biomass
1802
16771
20893
24842
Biodiesel
2307
5032
4564
2736
Bioethanol
Bio-energy
1291
3157
2582
1677
Bio-kerosene
0
0
0
0
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
14
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
Net imports
95%
84%
85%
83%
5%
16%
15%
17%
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 2020-20 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
8311
10670
ktoe
Bioethanol
15
3438
7394
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non fungible)
0
1044
2180
691
10894
20436
17653
15682
Biodiesel (fungible)
0
1967
8702
11757
Biokerosene
0
0
0
0
Bio heavy
1
974
1899
2749
4905
10312
10312
10308
0
11414
14500
16476
Waste Gas
4062
5126
5970
7590
Waste Solid
18647
18281
18527
18916
Small Scale Solid
36013
48192
43714
40109
Large Scale Solid
44433
73701
75330
79668
122393
198842
207097
214615
Biogas
Biomethane
Total 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 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.
16
Table 10: Domestic production of feedstock
Domestic Production
2010
2020
2030
2050
ktoe
4F Crops
15274
63727
85079
80201
Forestry
37896
43995
48233
50686
Wastes and Residues
53767
59330
64229
68847
Black Liquor
15077
16422
17403
20662
Aquatic biomass
Total Domestic Production
0
0
0
0
122014
183474
214944
220395
Table 11: Production of energy crops
Energy Crops
2010
2020
2030
2050
ktoe
Starch crops
8056
11588
12617
11003
Sugarbeet
381
3152
6182
6726
Oil crops
6529
7487
8325
5662
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
115
24080
34865
29107
Woody lignocellulosic
192
17420
23090
27703
15274
63727
85079
80201
Total
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
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
44
9013
11209
7329
Woody lignocellulosic
66
7165
7826
7257
8275
28214
31504
22753
Total
Net imports supplement the domestic production, so the projected demand can be met.
17
Table 13 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
Pure vegetable oil
1406
8104
3766
5970
Solid Biomass
1802
23210
23731
28976
Biodiesel
2307
5273
6157
3502
Bioethanol
1291
5096
3756
2043
Bioenergy
Biokerosene
Total Imports
0
0
0
0
6806
41683
37410
40491
Table 14: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities
2010
2020
2030
2050
95%
80%
82%
81%
5%
20%
18%
19%
%
Domestic production
Net imports
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.
18
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 2nd 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 FischerTropsch 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
Biogasoline
0
780
1657
5889
10894
17063
14682
14235
Biodiesel (fungible)
0
4850
7446
25581
Bio-kerosene
0
0
375
23522
Bio heavy
1
1311
3066
19244
4905
7447
7447
7447
0
8733
13311
17085
Waste Gas
4062
5126
5970
7590
Waste Solid
18647
18281
18590
19271
Small Scale Solid
36013
37863
32758
42108
Large Scale Solid
44433
74293
83744
98000
122393
182561
194469
287224
Biodiesel (non fungible)
Biogas
Biomethane
Total Demand
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
19
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
Wastes and Residues
53767
59672
64360
74875
Black Liquor
15077
16438
17524
20999
0
0
0
11427
122014
189334
221097
322212
Aquatic biomass
Total Domestic
Production
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.
20
Table 17: Energy Crops
Energy Crops
2010
2020
2030
2050
Ktoe
Starch crops
Sugarbeet
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
Woody lignocellulosic
Total
8056
10518
11263
8815
381
4490
5942
6869
6529
7636
7576
6391
115
26542
34919
65071
192
19378
32654
69836
15274
68565
92355
156983
Table 18: Cultivated Land
Cultivated Land
2010
2020
2030
2050
kHa
Starch crops
3625
5213
4873
2508
Oil crops
4466
5413
4512
2727
73
1079
1183
1004
44
9910
10748
13975
66
8117
11036
16602
8275
29731
32351
36815
Sugarbeet
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
Woody lignocellulosic
Total
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
Pure vegetable oil
1406
2862
792
1864
Solid Biomass
1802
8912
10570
26812
Biodiesel
2307
6182
6397
5720
Bioethanol
1291
3008
1014
4950
Bio-energy
21
Bio-kerosene
0
0
0
429
Total Imports
6806
20964
18773
39776
Table 20: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities
2010
2020
2030
2050
%
Domestic production
Net imports
95%
89%
90%
86%
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
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 longterm which is assumed to be more sustainable.
Error! Reference source not found.Table 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
3372
2815
ktoe
Bioethanol
22
3438
5667
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non fungible)
0
1821
3878
10926
10894
11209
4456
5448
Biodiesel (fungible)
0
10213
16296
34173
Bio-kerosene
0
0
368
22020
Bio heavy
1
1309
2965
19482
4905
7490
7490
7490
0
8731
12994
17253
Waste Gas
4062
5126
5970
7590
Waste Solid
18647
18281
18590
19295
Small Scale Solid
36013
35737
31195
39760
Large Scale Solid
44433
74432
81232
101076
122393
180014
188804
287328
Biogas
Biomethane
Total Demand
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.
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
Wastes and Residues
53767
59911
65232
75799
Black Liquor
15077
16588
17585
21174
0
0
0
13271
122014
174648
221039
326321
Aquatic biomass
Total Domestic Production
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.
23
Table 23: Production of energy crops for Sustainability scenario
Energy Crops
2010
2020
2030
2050
1164
635
668
ktoe
Starch crops
8056
Sugarbeet
381
146
176
926
Oil crops
6529
1402
353
712
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
115
27523
46443
79086
Woody lignocellulosic
192
22674
41066
76260
15274
52909
88673
157652
Total
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
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
44
10275
13789
15439
Woody lignocellulosic
66
9574
13773
16669
8275
21268
28089
32754
Total
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
Pure vegetable oil
1406
3345
0
0
Solid Biomass
1802
19305
17966
34652
Biodiesel
2307
5925
1186
2444
Bioethanol
1291
5479
732
1862
Bioenergy
24
Bio-kerosene
0
0
0
1715
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
%
Domestic production
Net imports
95%
81%
89%
86%
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,
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
Biodiesel (non fungible)
10894
18600
20268
20068
Biodiesel (fungible)
0
4826
14261
37791
Bio-kerosene
0
0
396
26894
Bio heavy
1
1306
3275
20250
25
Biogas
Biomethane
4905
7484
7484
7470
0
8617
14687
21585
Waste Gas
4062
5126
5970
7590
Waste Solid
18647
18281
18623
19320
Small Scale Solid
36013
35794
38389
58854
Large Scale Solid
44433
73758
89286
126083
122393
181995
224485
373009
Total Demand
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.
Table 28: Domestic production of feedstock
Domestic Production
2010
2020
2030
2050
Ktoe
4F Crops
15274
70164
106197
169220
Forestry
37896
44951
49962
58970
Wastes and Residues
53767
59859
65790
76044
Black Liquor
15077
16589
17537
20578
0
0
0
15875
122014
191563
239486
340687
Aquatic biomass
Total Domestic Production
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
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
115
26795
47756
81488
Woody lignocellulosic
192
19660
34144
66902
15274
70164
106197
169220
Total
26
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.
Table 30: Cultivated Land
Cultivated Land
2010
2020
2030
2050
kHa
Starch crops
3625
5299
4053
2431
Oil crops
4466
5632
4384
2188
Sugarbeet
73
1202
1358
1040
Herbaceous lignocellulosic
44
10013
14566
17248
Woody lignocellulosic
66
8259
11544
15699
8275
30404
35904
38607
Total
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 bioenergy 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
Pure vegetable oil
1406
3326
7922
37644
1802
5606
12868
47698
Bio-energy
Solid Biomass
27
Biodiesel
2307
6967
11544
17225
Bioethanol
1291
2883
3883
8679
Bio-kerosene
0
0
91
3001
Total Imports
6806
18781
36307
114246
Table 32: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities
2010
2020
2030
2050
%
Domestic production
Net imports
95%
90%
84%
71%
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.
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 bioenergy 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.
28
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
Ref
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
ktoe
Bioethanol
2050
2030
Ref
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
ktoe
Ref
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
ktoe
7774
-5%
9270
-10%
11036
-3%
665
57%
1221
79%
325
113%
18905
8%
15733
12%
14143
11%
4338
-55%
11463
-24%
14136
-17%
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%
185879
7%
194020
7%
201550
6%
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
Biodiesel (fungible)
Biokerosene
Total
Table 34: Comparison for domestic production of feedstock for the Reference and the Reference
NREAPs scenario
Domestic Production comparison with Reference scenario
2020
Ref
ktoe
Starch crops
29
11000
2050
2030
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
5%
Ref
ktoe
12136
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
4%
Ref
ktoe
10671
Ref NREAPs
% diff. to
Ref.
3%
Sugarbeet
4720
-33%
6770
-9%
6617
2%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
7886
-5%
9157
-9%
5830
-3%
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%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
181956
1%
209734
2%
212849
4%
Aquatic biomass
Total
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! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.Error!
Reference source not 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.
Table 35: Comparison of cultivated land for the Reference and the NREAP scenario
Cultivated land comparison with Reference scenario
2020
Ref NREAPs
Ref
Ref NREAPs
Ref
Ref NREAPs
kHa
% diff. to Ref.
kHa
% diff. to Ref.
kHa
% diff. to Ref.
5551
Sugarbeet
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
Total
2050
Ref
Starch crops
Woody lignocellulosic
2030
6%
5500
6%
3819
5%
5631
-4%
5824
-9%
3052
-2%
1136
-34%
1417
-8%
1161
1%
8905
1%
10618
6%
6739
9%
6224
15%
7161
9%
6381
14%
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
Ref
2030
NREAPs
Ref
2050
NREAPs
Ref
NREAPs
%
Domestic
30
84%
80%
85%
82%
83%
81%
production
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
Ref
2020
NREAPs
Ref
2030
NREAPs
2050
Ref
NREAPs
Ref
NREAPs
126050
139061
122289
133566
M€
Total Cost
61584
61584
117714
129013
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
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
Ref
2030
NREAPs
Ref
2050
NREAPs
Ref
NREAPs
€/toe
Biodiesel (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
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
Bio-kerosene
31
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%. 2nd
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.
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
Ref
ktoe
Bioethanol
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
2030
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
2050
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
7774
-12%
9270
-42%
11036
-34%
665
17%
1221
36%
325
1713%
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%
185879
-2%
194020
0%
201550
43%
Total
32
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
Ref
ktoe
Starch crops
2030
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
2050
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
11000
-4%
12136
-7%
10671
Sugarbeet
4720
-5%
6770
-12%
6617
4%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
7886
-3%
9157
-17%
5830
10%
23921
11%
33281
5%
27093
140%
Woody lignocellulosic
15107
28%
21128
55%
24342
187%
Forestry
43745
2%
46330
1%
49549
17%
Wastes and Residues
59154
1%
63528
1%
68086
10%
Black Liquor
16422
0%
17403
1%
20662
2%
181956
4%
209734
5%
212849
51%
Total
-17%
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.
33
Table 41: Cultivated land comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario
Cultivated Land comparison with Reference scenario
2020
Ref
2030
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
kHa
Ref
2050
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
kHa
Ref
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
kHa
Starch crops
5551
-6%
5500
-11%
3819
-34%
Sugarbeet
5631
-4%
5824
-23%
3052
-11%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
1136
-5%
1417
-17%
1161
-14%
8905
11%
10618
1%
6739
107%
Woody lignocellulosic
6224
30%
7161
54%
6381
160%
27446
8%
30519
6%
21151
74%
Total
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.
Table 42: Net imports comparison of Decarbonisation with the Reference scenario
Net Imports comparison with Reference scenario
2020
Ref
ktoe
2030
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
2050
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Ref
ktoe
Decarb
% diff. to
Ref
Biomass Feedstock
Pure vegetable oil
5889
-51%
1633
-51%
4618
-60%
16771
-47%
20893
-49%
24842
8%
Biodiesel
5032
23%
4564
40%
2736
109%
Bioethanol
3157
-5%
2582
-61%
1677
195%
30849
-32%
29673
-37%
33873
17%
Bioenergy
Solid Biomass
Biokerosene
Total
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.
34
Table 43: Total cost of biomass supply of the Reference and the Decarbonisation scenarios
Total cost of biomass supply
2020
Ref
2030
Decarb
Ref
2050
Decarb
Ref
Decarb
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
Table 44. 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
Ref
2030
Decarb
Ref
2050
Decarb
Ref
Decarb
€/toe
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
1055
1137
1147
1150
1189
1314
Biodiesel (fungible)
1401
1398
1333
1469
1346
1907
Bioethanol
1321
1341
1287
1207
1308
1413
Biogasoline
1391
1370
1425
1421
1497
1614
0
0
0
1588
0
1468
BioHeavy
906
926
956
901
928
1070
Small Scale Solid
645
688
818
901
844
1022
Large Scale Solid
625
651
636
649
558
585
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
Bio-kerosene
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 2 nd
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.
35
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
Decarb
Sus
% diff to
decarb
ktoe
Bioethanol
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
Biodiesel (fungible)
Biokerosene
2030
Decarb
ktoe
2050
Sus
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
Sus
% diff to
decarb
6814
-17%
5422
-38%
7253
-61%
780
133%
1657
134%
5889
86%
17063
-34%
14682
-70%
14235
-62%
4850
111%
7446
119%
25581
34%
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%
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%
182561
-1%
194469
-3%
287224
0%
Total
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.
36
Table 46Error! 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.
37
Table 46: Domestic production of feedstock comparison of Sustainability with Decarbonisation
scenario
Domestic Production comparison with decarbonisation
2020
Decarb
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
ktoe
Starch crops
2030
Decarb
2050
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
ktoe
Decarb
ktoe
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
10518
-89%
11263
-94%
8815
-92%
Sugarbeet
4490
-97%
5942
-97%
6869
-87%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
7636
-82%
7576
-95%
6391
-89%
26542
4%
34919
33%
65071
22%
Woody lignocellulosic
19378
17%
32654
26%
69836
9%
Forestry
44658
1%
46858
6%
57929
1%
Wastes and Residues
59672
0%
64360
1%
74875
1%
Black Liquor
16438
1%
17524
0%
20999
1%
0
0%
0
0%
11427
16%
189334
-8%
221097
0%
322212
1%
Aquatic biomass
Total
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
Decarb
kHa
2030
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
Decarb
kHa
2050
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
Decarb
kHa
Sus
% diff
to
decarb
Starch crops
5213
-90%
4873
-94%
2508
-92%
Oil crops
5413
-84%
4512
-96%
2727
-89%
Sugarbeet
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
1079
-97%
1183
-97%
1004
-87%
9910
4%
10748
28%
13975
10%
Woody lignocellulosic
8117
18%
11036
25%
16602
0%
29731
-28%
32351
-13%
36815
-11%
Total
38
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
Decarb
Sus
% diff to
decarb
ktoe
Biomass
Feedstock
Pure vegetable
oil
2030
Decarb
ktoe
2862
17%
792
Solid Biomass
8912
117%
Biodiesel
6182
-4%
Bioethanol
3008
20964
2050
Sus
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
Sus
% diff to
decarb
-100%
1864
-100%
10570
70%
26812
29%
6397
-81%
5720
-57%
82%
1014
-28%
4950
-62%
62%
18773
6%
39776
2%
Bioenergy
Biokerosene
Total
Table 49: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for the
Sustainability and the Decarbonisation scenario
Domestic Production vs. Net Imports
2020
Decarb
2030
Sus
Decarb
2050
Sus
Decarb
Sus
%
Domestic
production
89%
81%
90%
89%
86%
86%
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 2 nd 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.
39
Table 50: Total cost of biomass supply for the Sustainability and the Decarbonisation scenario
Total cost of biomass supply
2020
Decarb
2030
Sus
Decarb
2050
Sus
Decarb
Sus
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
Decarb
2030
Sus
Decarb
2050
Sus
Decarb
Sus
€/toe
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
1137
1145
1150
1056
1314
1234
Biodiesel (fungible)
1398
1631
1469
1644
1907
1758
Bioethanol
1341
1403
1207
1485
1413
1305
Biogasoline
1370
1366
1421
913
1614
2071
0
0
1588
1644
1468
1500
BioHeavy
926
914
901
953
1070
1094
Small Scale Solid
688
742
901
957
1022
1032
Large Scale Solid
651
648
649
707
585
605
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
Bio-kerosene
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.
40
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
Decarb
ktoe
Bioethanol
2030
Max biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
2050
Max biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
Max biom
% diff to
decarb
6814
-8%
5422
48%
7253
122%
780
144%
1657
130%
5889
87%
17063
9%
14682
38%
14235
41%
4850
0%
7446
92%
25581
48%
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%
182561
0%
194469
15%
287224
30%
Biogasoline
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
Biodiesel (fungible)
Biokerosene
Total
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.
41
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
Decarb
ktoe
Starch crops
2030
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
2050
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
10518
1%
11263
-12%
8815
Sugarbeet
4490
11%
5942
15%
6869
3%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
7636
5%
7576
-1%
6391
-18%
26542
1%
34919
37%
65071
25%
Woody lignocellulosic
19378
1%
32654
5%
69836
-4%
Forestry
44658
1%
46858
7%
57929
2%
Wastes and Residues
59672
0%
64360
2%
74875
2%
Black Liquor
16438
1%
17524
0%
20999
-2%
0
0%
0
0%
11427
39%
189334
1%
221097
8%
322212
6%
Aquatic biomass
Total
-4%
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.
42
Table 54: Cultivated land comparison of Maximum Biomass with Decarbonisation scenario
Cultivated Land comparison with Decarbonisation scenario
2020
Decarb
2030
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
kHa
Decarb
2050
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
kHa
Decarb
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
kHa
Starch crops
5213
2%
4873
-17%
2508
-3%
Sugarbeet
5413
4%
4512
-3%
2727
-20%
Oil crops
Herbaceous
lignocellulosic
1079
11%
1183
15%
1004
4%
9910
1%
10748
36%
13975
23%
Woody lignocellulosic
8117
2%
11036
5%
16602
-5%
29731
2%
32351
11%
36815
5%
Total
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
Decarb
ktoe
2030
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
2050
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
Decarb
ktoe
Max Biom
% diff to
decarb
Biomass Feedstock
Pure vegetable oil
2862
16%
792
900%
1864
1919%
Solid Biomass
8912
-37%
10570
22%
26812
78%
Biodiesel
6182
13%
6397
80%
5720
201%
Bioethanol
3008
-4%
1014
283%
4950
75%
0
0%
0
0%
429
600%
20964
-10%
18773
93%
39776
187%
Bioenergy
Biokerosene
Total
43
Table 56: Domestic Production vs. Net Imports expressed as final bio-energy commodities for the
Maximum Biomass and the Decarbonisation scenario
Domestic Production vs. Net Imports
2020
Decarb
2030
Max Biom
Decarb
2050
Max Biom
Decarb
Max Biom
%
Domestic
production
89%
90%
90%
84%
86%
71%
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
Total cost of biomass supply
2020
Decarb
2030
Max Biom
Decarb
2050
Max Biom
Decarb
Max Biom
235198
330472
M€
Total
Cost
119748
121082
125707
158085
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
Decarb
2030
Max Biom
Decarb
2050
Max Biom
Decarb
Max Biom
€/toe
Biodiesel (non
fungible)
1137
1138
1150
1190
1314
1444
Biodiesel (fungible)
1398
1464
1469
1462
1907
1571
Bioethanol
1341
1311
1207
1181
1413
1249
Biogasoline
1370
1366
1421
1452
1614
1673
0
0
1588
1569
1468
2106
BioHeavy
926
918
901
901
1070
1037
Small Scale Solid
688
691
901
917
1022
1052
Large Scale Solid
651
657
649
684
585
631
BioGas
502
506
482
445
509
493
Biomethane
612
612
501
488
562
557
Waste Solid
193
192
204
200
217
211
Bio-kerosene
44
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 bioenergy 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 2 nd 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 2 nd
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 1 st generation biofuels to a high extent.
Obviously, such a sustainability scenario is only possible given that technologies using ligno-cellulosic
45
crops as a feedstock, for the production of biofuels, develop rapidly and that the cultivation of lignocellulosic 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:
-
-
-
-
46
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.
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
Nielsen J. et al., 2008. The future of biogas in Europe: Visions and Targets until 2020
47
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
48