Methodology report on
quantification of sustainability
standards impacts on
biomass supply
Final D 4.2 Delivery of the
project funded by
prepared by:
Berien Elbersen, Alterra
Uwe R. Fritsche Oeko-Institut
with inputs from Hans Böttcher (IIASA)
Wageningen/Darmstadt, March 2012
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
i
D 4.2: Methodology
Contents
Page
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
2 Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy ........................................... 2
3 Methodology to Analyze Impacts of Sustainability
Standards on Bioenergy Supply ...................................................... 4
4 Key Results of the Analysis.............................................................. 8
References ............................................................................................ 10
Abbreviations ........................................................................................ 13
Annex: Data Background ................................................................... A-1
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
ii
Biomass Futures: Methodology
Preface
This paper was prepared within the Biomass Futures project1 and is based on work of
Alterra and Oeko-Institut in WP 3 and 4. Inputs we also received from project
partners2.
It represents Deliverable D 4.2 of the Biomass Futures project, and the authors hope
that it will provide orientation and beneficial information to those working towards
sustainable bioenergy production and use.
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.
Wageningen/Darmstadt, March 2012
The Authors
1
“Biomass Futures: Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand
and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders” (www.biomassfutures.eu) funded by the Intelligent
Energy Europe programme of the European Commission, DG Energy (IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241).
2
Partners in this work were especially colleagues from IIASA (Hannes Böttcher, Michael Obersteiner), ECN
(Ayla Uslu), and Imperial College (Calliope Panoutsou).
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
1
Biomass Futures: Methodology
1 Introduction
The Biomass Futures project (www.biomassfutures.eu ) work package 4 aims to
provide a comprehensive analysis of sustainability standards for all bioenergy, and
respective sustainable biomass supply potentials regarding availability and costs in
the 2020- 2030 time horizons.
This paper gives an overview on the methodologies used to determine the impacts of
sustainability standards (as developed in BiomassFutures) on the bioenergy supply.
It relies on work of work package 3 (supply) in which the spatially explicit modeling of
bioenergy supply was carried out (Alterra, IIASA 2012; IIASA 2012), and the
methodological and data development in other studies on sustainable bioenergy
prepared in parallel to the Biomass Futures project (EEA 2012; IFEU, CI, OEKO
2012).
In Section 2, the paper briefly describes the background for the sustainability
standards and respective criteria and indicators applied in the analysis.
Section 3 presents and briefly discusses the methodology developed for analyzing
sustainability standards impacts on the bioenergy supply as developed in the Biomass
Futures project.
In Section 4, a summary of the key results is given.
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
2
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
Biomass Futures: Methodology
2 Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy
Since 2007, the landscape of the previously voluntary and manifold sustainability
standards for biomass – from cotton and wood to organic food, flowers, coffee and
"green biopower" – has changed: both the US and European countries and the EU as
a whole developed mandatory standards and criteria for liquid biofuels3.
The EU Renewables Energy Directive (RED) adopted in April 2009 (EC 2009)
established mandatory sustainability requirements for bioenergy carriers used as
transport fuels and for liquid bioenergy carriers in general.
In March 2010, the EU Commission (EC) presented a report on the extension of the
RED to all bioenergy carriers and proposed that the RED criteria could be
voluntarily adopted by the EU Member States to apply to solid and gaseous
bioenergy carriers as well (EC 2010). In 2012, the EC will report on developments in
that regard, noting that several EU countries began introducing broader sustainability
requirements for bioenergy (e.g., BE, DE, NL, UK)4.
Taking into account the developments regarding sustainability standards in other
countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Mozambique as well as Thailand and the
US5,6, among others, and by UN organizations such as FAO and UNEP as well as
UNCTAD and the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)7, the Biomass Futures
project provided an overview and developed a set of “RED plus” criteria and indicators
for all bioenergy (OEKO 2012).
It is important to note that there are yet no binding rules concerning indirect effects
on GHG emissions8 and on positive of negative impacts of increased bioenergy
production on food security, or its (again: positive or negative) social effects.
Thus, the respective criteria and indicators developed by Biomass Futures – which
include indirect effects - are a proposal (see Table 1).
3
In parallel to these statutory provisions, RSPO (www.rspo.org) and RSB (www.rsb.org) are voluntary
sustainability standards – which reach beyond the RED – and the European standardization organization CEN
as well as the global ISO body are also working on own drafts.
4
On extending the RED to solid bioenergy see http://www.iinas.org/Work/Projects/REDEX/redex.html
5
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) 2010: Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2): Program Amendments;
Washington DC http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm
6
CARB
(California
Air
Resources
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm
7
GBEP is a partnership of the G8+5 (G8 states plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) founded at
the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005; its Secretariat is hosted by the FAO in Rome. Meanwhile, more
international institutions including FAO, UNEP and UNIDO as well as industrialized and developing countries
have joined GBEP. For the bioenergy sustainability indicators developed and agreed by GBEP, see GBEP
(2011) More information on GBEP is given at www.globalbioenergy.org
8
with the noteworthy exception of the mentioned US EPA rulemaking for the RFS-2 and the LCFS in California,
see footnotes 5 and 6.
Board)
2010:
Low
Carbon
Fuel
Standard
(LCFS)
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
3
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
Table 1
Biomass Futures Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Bioenergy
Criterion
Sustainable
Use
Biomass Futures: Methodology
Indicator
Resource Land Use Efficiency*
Biodiversity
Secondary Resource Use Efficiency*
Metrics
GJbio/ha
%
Conservation of land with significant no-go areas
biodiversity values
Land management without negative sustainable
effects on biodiversity
applied
Climate Protection
practices
Life cycle GHG emissions incl. direct 75%
land use changes
Inclusion of GHG effects from indirect 3.5 t CO2/ha/year
land use changes9
Soil Quality
Water Use and Quality
Airborne Emissions
Erosion
zero erosion cultivation
systems and practices
Soil Organic Carbon
maintain SOC
Soil Nutrient Balance
soil maps identifying
“go” areas10
Water Availability and Use Efficiency
TARWR11
Water Quality
N, P and BOD
pesticide loadings
SO2 equivalents12
g/GJbioenergy
Particulate Emissions PM10
g/GJbioenergy
Food Security
Price and supply of national food €/t, t/a
basket
Social Use of Land
changes in land tenure and access
Healthy Livelihoods and Adherence to ILO Principles
Labor Conditions
+
evidence13
evidence
Source: compiled from OEKO (2012); * = considering by- and co-products of bioenergy life cycles
9
Data for 2020; until 2030, a revised ILUC factor should be determined which reflects progress regarding
international policies to contain or reduce LUC effects
10 See http://www.iinas.org/Work/Projects/REDEX/redex.html
11 new bioenergy cropping and conversion facilities placed outside of areas with severe water stress
12 calculated for life cycles, should be lower than fossil benchmark
13 Degree of legitimacy of the process related to the transfer (i.e. change in use or property rights) of land for new
bioenergy production, and extent to which due process is followed in the determination of the new title
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
4
Biomass Futures: Methodology
3 Methodology to Analyze Impacts of Sustainability Standards on
Bioenergy Supply
The overall land use and forestry potentials in the EU27 have been analysed in Work
Package 3 of Biomass Futures (Alterra, IIASA 2012) and established the baseline
(reference) cases for 2020 and 2030. These potentials take into account only the
current RED sustainability requirements (i.e. only GHG emissions from life-cycles and
direct LUC, some biodiversity constraints) for liquid biofuels and bioliquids.
To factor in the “RED plus” criteria developed in Biomass Futures Work Package 4
(OEKO 2012), the reference potentials were re-calculated applying additional
constraints which reduce the overall availability of biomass.
For this, the estimated land use for domestic biofuel feedstock production on future
unused/released land potential (as compared to 2004) that may be used for dedicated
biomass cultivation using annual or perennial crops were screened with additional
scenario assumptions (see scheme in Figure 2) :



High-biodiverse land was “forbidden” (permanent grasslands, HNV farmland as
additional “no-go” areas)
Life-cycle GHG reduction requirements – taking into account ILUC – were
increased
Water and soil restrictions due to slope and bioclimatic conditions were applied.
Figure 1:
Approach for Regionalized Sustainable Bioenergy Potentials
Source: Alterra, IIASA (2012)
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
5
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
Biomass Futures: Methodology
The criteria used to derive the sustainable potentials are listed in the following table.
Table 2:
Sustainability Criteria in Biomass Futures Potential Analysis
Scenario
GHG
mitigation GHG
mitigation Other
sustainability
criteria 2020
criteria 2030
constraints 2020 and
2030
Reference
Only for biofuels and bioliquids
Only for biofuels and bioliquids
Only
consumed in EU a GHG
consumed
GHG
consumed in EU limitations on the
mitigation
of
50%
in
EU
a
for
biofuels
and
bioliquids
as
mitigation of 50% as compared
use of biomass from biodiverse land
compared to fossil fuel is
to fossil fuel is required. This
or land with high carbon stock.
required.
excludes
This
compensation
excludes
for
iLUC-
compensation
for
iLUC-related GHG emissions.
related GHG emissions.
Sustainability
For all bioenergy consumed in
For all bioenergy consumed in
For all bioenergy consumed in EU
the EU the following mitigation
the EU the following mitigation
limitations on the use of biomass
requirements are set:
requirements are set:
from biodiverse land or land with high
Biofuel/bioliquids:
mitigation as
70%
compared to
Biofuel/bioliquids: 80% mitigation
as
compared
to
fossil
fuel
fossil fuel (comparator EU
(comparator EU average diesel
average
and petrol emission 2030)
diesel
and
petrol
emissions 2020).
Bioelectricity
and
heat:
80%
Bioelectricity and heat: 70%
mitigation as compared to fossil
mitigation as
compared to
energy
(comparator
(comparator
specific
depending
fossil
energy
country specific depending on
2020 fossil mix) .
iLUC
related
country
on
2030
fossil mix)
This includes compensation for
This includes compensation
for
carbon stock.
iLUC related GHG emissions.
GHG
emissions.
Source: Alterra, IIASA (2012)
The most important criteria for the sustainable potentials is the minimum GHG
reduction requirement:
For biofuels, it should include a compensation for iLUC related emissions, and reach
70% (by 2020) and 80% (by 2030).
This was also applied for cultivated biomass used for heat and electricity production.
For the estimation of the minimum GHG reduction, the approach developed in the
EEA (2012) study was used which includes GHG emissions from iLUC effects and
taking into account the type of feedstock and related downstream bioenergy
pathways.
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
6
Biomass Futures: Methodology
From this, the GHG reduction efficiency was derived in three steps:
1. Direct LUC emissions from the cultivation stage which are strongly linked to
input and output levels which differ per EU region (NUTS 2 level)
2. The downstream emissions of the biomass feedstock conversion routes
3. The iLUC GHG emission factor (if previous land use is displaced).
For Steps 1 and 2, the following figure shows the overall data flows of the calculation.
Figure 2:
Data Flows for the Sustainability Analysis of Bioenergy Systems
Source: own compilation by Alterra and Oeko-Institut
This approach is more spatially disaggregated than the GLOBIOM model used in
Biomass Futures to determine global impacts14.
14 See IIASA (2012) for details. GLOBIOM was used in Work Package 3 to analyze the potential global GHG and
biodiversity effects of biomass imports, i.e. impacts occurring outside of the EU27.
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
7
Biomass Futures: Methodology
The emissions from cultivation and LUC were calculated using the Miterra-Europe
model which assesses the impact of measures, policies and land-use changes on
environmental indicators at the NUTS-2 and Member State level in the EU27 (Veldhof
2009).
A description of the calculation is given elsewhere (Alterra, IIASA 2012; EEA 2012).
The emissions of the downstream part of the bioenergy pathways and of the fossil
comparators are based on GEMIS15
For Step 3, a simplified approach towards iLUC-related GHG emissions was applied
using an “ILUC factor” for the different bioenergy systems which was taken from the
EEA (2012) study. With that, an average iLUC GHG factor was calculated to estimate
the GHG reduction for each bioenergy pathway.
For the sustainable potentials, stricter sustainability criteria apply than in the
reference, and these were also applied to solid and gaseous biomass sources.
15 See www.gemis.de for details. Data on the life-cycle GHG emissions calculated for Biomass Futures are given
in Deliverable D 3.4 (Alterra, IIASA 2012) and the EEA (2012) study.
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
8
Biomass Futures: Methodology
4 Key Results of the Analysis
The spatially disaggregated bioenergy potentials which used the sustainability criteria
are given in Deliverable 3.3 (Alterra, IIASA 2012), and summarized in the following
figure for the EU27 aggregation.
Figure 3:
Reference and Sustainable Bioenergy Potentials in the EU27
Source: Alterra, IIASA (2012)
The results of the cost-supply curves (see Figure 3) can be translated into cost
differences between the reference and the sustainable bioenergy potentials, as shown
in the following figure.
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
Figure 4:
9
Biomass Futures: Methodology
Cost Differences between the Reference and Sustainable Bioenergy
Potentials in the EU27 in 2020
Source: Alterra, OEKO (2012)
These results indicate that the total sustainable bioenergy potential in the EU27 will be
slightly lower, but also less costly:
Due to the sustainability restrictions which especially disfavor annual bioenergy crops,
the costly options available in the reference potentials are not part of the sustainable
potential, thus reducing the total cost.
A similar effect exists for the additional roundwood extraction: this would be available
in the reference potential – but at a high-cost – and avoided in the sustainability case.
Thus, the impact of the sustainability criteria for the European bioenergy potential is
twofold:


The overall availability of bioenergy is reduced by some 10% until 2030
The average cost is slightly reduced in parallel.
It should be noted, though, that the spatially disaggregated results (Member State and
NUTS-2 levels) differ significantly so that policy considerations should be based on the
refined results given in Deliverable 3.3 (Alterra, IIASA 2012).
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
10
Biomass Futures: Methodology
References
Alterra 2012: Working paper on results of the bottom- up analysis of sustainability
constraints for regionalised biomass potentials; Deliverable 4.3 of the Biomass
Futures project: Elbersen B et al.; Wageningen
Alterra, IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) 2012: Atlas of EU
biomass potentials - Deliverable 3.3: Spatially detailed and quantified overview
of EU biomass potential taking into account the main criteria determining
biomass availability from different sources; Elbersen B et al.; Wageningen
http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/WP3%20Supply/D_3_3__Atlas_
of_technical_and_economic_biomass_potential_FINAL_Feb_2012.pdf
Börjesson P, Tufvesson L 2011: Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource efficiency
and environmental performance including direct land use changes; in: Journal
of Cleaner Production vol. 19 pp. 108-120
Boettcher H et al. 2012: Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate
change; in: Carbon Balance and Management 2012, 7:5
Bringezu S, O’Brien M, Schütz H 2012: Beyond biofuels: Assessing global land use for
domestic consumption of biomass - A conceptual and empirical contribution to
sustainable management of global resources; in: Land Use Policy vol. 29 pp.
224– 232
EC (European Commission) 2009: Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC; OJ June 5, 2009 L 140 pp. 16-62
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF
EC (European Commission) 2010a: Report from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and
gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling; SEC(2010)
65/SEC(2010) 66; Brussels
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/2010_report/com_2
010_0011_3_report.pdf
EC (European Commission) 2010b: Report from the Commission on indirect land-use
change related to biofuels and bioliquids; COM(2010) 811 final; Brussels
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/land-usechange/com_2010_811_report_en.pdf
EP (European Parliament) 2012: Proceedings of the EP ILUC Workshop, Jan 25,
2012 in Brussels
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocume
nt=EN&file=67431
GBEP (Global Bio-Energy Partnership) 2011: The GBEP Sustainability Indicators for
Bioenergy; Rome
http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/Indicators/Re
port_21_December.pdf
IEA (International Energy Agency) 2012: Technology Roadmap – Bioenergy for
electricity and heat; Paris
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
11
Biomass Futures: Methodology
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/bioenergy.pdf
IFEU (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research), CI (Copernicus Institute),
OEKO (Oeko-Institut - Institute for applied ecology) 2012: Global Assessments
and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing
Countries; GEF Targeted Research Project executed by UNEP/FAO/UNIDO;
Heidelberg/Utrecht/Darmstadt
http://www.unep.org/bioenergy/Portals/48107/doc/activities/GEF%20Liquid%20
Biofuel%20Project.pdf
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) 2011: Assessing the Land Use
Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies; prepared for EC DG
TRADE; Washington DC
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148289.pdf
IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) 2012: Deliverable 3.4:
Biomass availability & supply analysis; Böttcher H et al.; Laxenburg
http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/WP3%20Supply/Biomass%20Fu
tures%20WP3%20Del34_draft_for_stakeholders.pdf
JRC-IE (EC Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy) 2010: Indirect Land Use
Change from increased biofuels demand - Comparison of models and results
for marginal biofuels production from different feedstocks; Edwards R, Mulligan
D, Marelli L; Ispra
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp/download/ILUC_modelling_comparison.pdf
JRC-IE (EC Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy) 2011a: Critical issues in
estimating ILUC emission - Outcomes of an expert consultation 9-10 November
2010, Ispra (Italy); Marelli, Luisa/Mulligan, Declan/Edwards, Robert; report JRC
64429/EUR 24816 EN; Ispra
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EU_report_24816.pdf
JRC-IE (EC Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy) 2011b: Estimate of GHG
emissions from global land use change scenarios, Marelli, L. et al.; report JRC
64430/EUR 24817 EN; Ispra
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Technical_Note_EU24817.pdf
NNFCC (UK National Centre for Biorenewable Energy, Fuels and Materials) 2011:
Evaluation of Bioliquid Feedstocks & Heat, Elec. & CHP Technologies; report
NNFCC 11-016; Heslington http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/evaluation-of-bioliquidfeedstocks-and-heat-electricity-and-chp-technologies-nnfcc-11016/at_download/file
OEKO (Oeko-Institut - Institute for Applied Ecology) 2011: Indirect Land Use Change
and Biofuels; Fritsche U, Wiegmann K; study prepared for the European
Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety;
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2010-15; Brussels
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?langu
age=en&file=35128
OEKO (Oeko-Institut - Institute for Applied Ecology) 2012: Sustainable Bioenergy: Key
Criteria and Indicators - Deliverable D 4.1 of the Biomass Futures project;
Fritsche, U et al.; Darmstadt
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), OEKO (Oeko-Institut - Institute for
applied ecology), IEA BioT43 (IEA Bioenergy Task 43) 2011: The Bioenergy
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
12
Biomass Futures: Methodology
and Water Nexus - Full Report; Paris
http://www.unep.fr/energy/bioenergy/documents/pdf/Assessing%20Biofuelsfull%20report-Web.pdf
Whittaker C et al. 2011: Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of forest
residues for bioenergy production in the UK; in: Biomass and Bioenergy vol. 35
no. 11, pp. 4581-4594
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
13
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
Biomass Futures: Methodology
Abbreviations
BSI
Better Sugarcane Initiative
CBD
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
CI
Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University
EC
European Commission
EEA
European Environment Agency
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FCCC
Framework Convention on Climate Change
FSC
Forest Stewardship Council
GBEP
Global Bioenergy Partnership
GHG
greenhouse gas(es)
IEA
International Energy Agency
iLUC
indirect land use changes
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources
IWMI
International Water Management Institute
LUC
land use changes
PEFC
Pan-European Forest Certification
RED
EU Directive for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources
REDD
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
RSB
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
RSPO
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
RTFO
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
RTRS
Roundtable on Responsible Soy
SEI
Stockholm Environment Institute
UK
United Kingdom
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP-WCMC
United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation
Monitoring Centre
WBGU
German Advisory Council on Global Change
WWF
World-Wide Fund for Nature
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply
Annex: Data Background
Table 3
Data for land use from electricity generation in the EU, year 2030
land use
m2/GJel
0,29
0,10
0,06
0,04
0,02
0,03
0,26
2,7
1,9
1,2
electricity from
el-mix EU27
lignite
coal
nuclear
natural gas
hydro
wind onshore
solar-PV
solar-CSP
geothermal
biogas-maize ICE
106
SRC cogen
112
bio-SNG SRC cogen
bio-SNG SRC CC
164
128
Note
Excluding transmission and distribution
Lignite in Germany, new steam-turbine powerplant
import coal (surface mining), new steam-turbine powerplant
German supply mix, steam-turbine powerplant
EU supply mix incl. imports, new combined-cycle powerplant
100 MW el run-of-river plant
10 x 2 MW el onshore wind park
1 kW el (peak) system, full land use
80 MW el concentrating solar power system in Southern Spain
1 MW el ORC system
Biogas from maize in internal combustion engine cogeneration
plant (energy allocation)
Woodchips from short-rotation coppice in steam-turbine
cogeneration plant (energy allocation)
Biomethane from short-rotation coppice in gas-turbine
cogeneration plant (energy allocation)
Biomethane from SRC in CC powerplant
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8; ORC= organic rankine cycle; ICE = internal combustion
engine; SRC = short-rotation coppice; CC = combined-cycle
Table 4
Data on land productivity for bioenergy systems, year 2030
feedstock (EU production)
bioenergy output
land productivity GJbio/ha
rapeseed
1G biodiesel
87
short-rotation coppice
2G biodiesel (BtL)
116
switchgrass
2G biodiesel (BtL)
75
wheat (grain)
1G EtOH
128
switchgrass
2G EtOH
80
short-rotation coppice
pellets
183
switchgrass
pellets
198
short-rotation coppice
biomethane
126
sugarcane
1G EtOH
207
palm
1G biodiesel
154
for comparison: non-EU production
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8; calculated using energy allocation for by- and co-products;
1G = 1st generation; 2G = 2nd generation; BtL = biomass-to-liquid; EtOH = ethanol
Sustainable Bioenergy: Key Criteria and Indicators - Annex
Alterra/Oeko-Institut
2
Biomass Futures: Methodology
Biomass Futures D 4.2: Methodology report on quantification of impacts of sustainability standards
on biomass supply