Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of cultivated land and pastures,Part II: Land use scenarios

Europe's agricultural land (including Ukraine) comprise of 164 million hectares of cultivated land and 76 million hectares of permanent pasture. A “food first” paradigm was applied in the estimations of land potentially available for the production of biofuel feedstocks, without putting at risk food supply or nature conservation.Three land conversion scenarios were formulated: (i) A base scenario, that reflects developments under current policy settings and respects current trends in nature conservation and organic farming practices, by assuming moderate overall yield increases; (ii) an environment oriented scenario with higher emphasis on sustainable farming practices and maintenance of biodiversity; and (iii) an energy oriented scenario considering more substantial land use conversions including the use of pasture land.By 2030 some 44–53 million hectares of cultivated land could be used for bioenergy feedstock production. The energy oriented scenario includes an extra 19 million hectares pasture land for feedstocks for second-generation biofuel production chains. Available land is foremost to be found in Eastern Europe, where substantial cultivated areas can be freed up through sustainable gains in yield in the food and feed sector.Agricultural residues of food and feed crops may provide an additional source for biofuel production. When assuming that up to 50% of crop residues can be used without risks for agricultural sustainability, we estimate that up to 246 Mt agricultural residues could be available for biofuel production, comparable to feedstock plantations of some 15–20 million hectares.     

Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane

Production costs of bio-ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil have declined continuously over the last three decades. The aims of this study are to determine underlying reasons behind these cost reductions, and to assess whether the experience curve concept can be used to describe the development of feedstock costs and industrial production costs. The analysis was performed using average national costs data, a number of prices (as a proxy for production costs) and data on annual Brazilian production volumes. Results show that the progress ratio (PR) for feedstock costs is 0.68 and 0.81 for industrial costs (excluding feedstock costs). The experience curve of total production costs results in a PR of 0.80. Cost breakdowns of sugarcane production show that all sub-processes contributed to the total, but that increasing yields have been the main driving force. Industrial costs mainly decreased because of increasing scales of the ethanol plants. Total production costs at present are approximately 340 US$/m_ethanol³ (16 US$/GJ). Based on the experience curves for feedstock and industrial costs, total ethanol production costs in 2020 are estimated between US$ 200 and 260/m³ (9.4–12.2 US$/GJ). We conclude that using disaggregated experience curves for feedstock and industrial processing costs provide more insights into the factors that lowered costs in the past, and allow more accurate estimations for future cost developments.     

Options of biofuel trade from Central and Eastern to Western European countries

Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) have a substantial biomass production and export potential. The objective of this study is to assess whether the market for biofuels and trade can be profitable enough to realize a supply of biofuels from the CEEC to the European market and to estimate the cost performance of the energy carriers delivered. Five NUTS-2 (Nomenclature d'Unités Territoriales Statistiques) regions with high biomass production potentials in Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic were analysed for biofuel export options. From these regions pellets from willow can be provided to destination areas in Western European countries (WEC) at costs of 105.2–219.8 € t^?1. Ethanol can be provided at 11.95–20.89 € per GJ if the biomass conversion is performed at the destination areas in the WEC or at 14.84–17.83 € GJ^?1J if the biomass to ethanol conversion takes place (at small scale) at the CEEC region where the biomass is produced. Short sea shipping shows most cost advantages for longer distance international transport compared to inland waterway shipping and railway. Another reason for lower biofuel supply costs are shorter distances between the regions of biomass production and the destination areas. Therefore the Szczecin region in Poland, closely located to the Baltic Sea, shows a better economic performance for long distance trade of biomass production than the selected region in Hungary (‘land-locked’). It is concluded that in future key CEEC regions can supply (pre-treated) biomass and biofuels to the European market at cost levels, which are sound and attractive to current and expected diesel and gasoline prices.     

Implications of technological learning on the prospects for renewable energy technologies in Europe

The objective of this article is to examine the consequences of technological developments on the market diffusion of different renewable electricity technologies in the EU-25 until 2020, using a market simulation model (ADMIRE REBUS). It is assumed that from 2012 a harmonized trading system will be implemented, and a target of 24% renewable electricity (RES-E) in 2020 is set and met. By comparing optimistic and pessimistic endogenous technological learning scenarios, it is found that diffusion of onshore wind energy is relatively robust, regardless of technological development, but diffusion rates of offshore wind energy and biomass gasification greatly depend on their technological development. Competition between these two options and (existing) biomass combustion options largely determines the overall costs of electricity from renewables and the choice of technologies for the individual member countries. In the optimistic scenario, in 2020 the market price for RES-E is 1 €ct/kWh lower than in the pessimistic scenario (about 7 vs. 8 €ct/kWh). As a result, total RES-E production costs are 19% lower, and total governmental expenditures for RES-market stimulation are 30% lower in the optimistic scenario.     

Spatial variation of environmental impacts of regional biomass chains

In this study, the spatial variation of potential environmental impacts of bioenergy crops is quantitatively assessed. The cultivation of sugar beet and Miscanthus for bioethanol production in the North of the Netherlands is used as a case study. The environmental impacts included are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (during lifecycle and related to direct land use change), soil quality, water quantity and quality, and biodiversity. Suitable methods are selected and adapted based on an extensive literature review. The spatial variation in environmental impacts related to the spatial heterogeneity of the physical context is assessed using Geographical Information System (GIS). The case study shows that there are large spatial variations in environmental impacts of the introduction of bioenergy crops. Land use change (LUC) to sugar beet generally causes more negative environmental impacts than LUC to Miscanthus. LUC to Miscanthus could have positive environmental impacts in some areas. The most negative environmental impacts of a shift towards sugar beet and Miscanthus occur in the western wet pasture areas. The spatially combined results of the environmental impacts illustrate that there are several trade offs between environmental impacts: there are no areas were no negative environmental impacts occur. The assessment demonstrates a framework to identify areas with potential negative environmental impacts of bioenergy crop production and areas where bioenergy crop production have little negative or even positive environmental impacts.     

Competition between biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time

A key aspect in modeling the (future) competition between biofuels is the way in which production cost developments are computed. The objective of this study was threefold: (i) to construct a (endogenous) relation between cost development and cumulative production (ii) to implement technological learning based on both engineering study insights and an experience curve approach, and (iii) to investigate the impact of different technological learning assumptions on the market diffusion patterns of different biofuels. The analysis was executed with the European biofuel model BioTrans, which computes the least cost biofuel route. The model meets an increasing demand, reaching a 25% share of biofuels of the overall European transport fuel demand by 2030. Results show that 1st generation biodiesel is the most cost competitive fuel, dominating the early market. With increasing demand, modestly productive oilseed crops become more expensive rapidly, providing opportunities for advanced biofuels to enter the market. While biodiesel supply typically remains steady until 2030, almost all additional yearly demands are delivered by advanced biofuels, supplying up to 60% of the market by 2030. Sensitivity analysis shows that (i) overall increasing investment costs favour biodiesel production, (ii) separate gasoline and diesel subtargets may diversify feedstock production and technology implementation, thus limiting the risk of failure and preventing lock-in and (iii) the moment of an advanced technology's commercial market introduction determines, to a large degree, its future chances for increasing market share.     

Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices

Bio-energy is seen as one of the key options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and substitute fossil fuels. This is certainly evident in Europe, where a kaleidoscope of activities and programs was and is executed for developing and stimulating bio-energy.     

Pre-treatment technologies,and their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction,fast pyrolysis and pelletisation

The pre-treatment step has a significant influence on the performance of bioenergy chains, especially on logistics. Torrefaction, pelletisation and pyrolysis technologies can convert biomass at modest scales into dense energy carriers that ease transportation and handling.     

Technological learning and cost reductions in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden

With its increasing use, the production costs of primary forest fuel (PFF) have declined over the last three decades in Sweden. The aims of this study are to quantify cost reductions of PFF production as achieved in Sweden over time, to identify underlying reasons for these reductions, and to determine whether the experience curve concept can be used to describe this cost reduction trend. If applicable, the suitability of this concept for future cost reduction analysis and for use in other countries is explored. The analysis was done using average national PFF price data (as a proxy for production costs), a number of production cost studies and data on annual Swedish production volumes. Results show that main cost reductions were achieved in forwarding and chipping of PFF, largely due to learning-by-doing, improved equipment and changes in organization. The price for wood fuel chips does follow an experience curve from 1975 to 2003 (over nine cumulative doublings). The progress ratio (PR) is calculated at 87%. However, given the uncertainty in data on PFF price and annual production volumes, the PR may range between 85% and 88%. It is concluded that in combination with the available supply potential of PFF and with bottom-up assessment of cost reduction opportunities, experience curves can be valuable tools for assessing future PFF production cost development in Sweden. A methodological issue that needs to be further explored is how learning took place between Sweden and other countries, especially with Finland, and how the development of technology and PFF production in these countries should be combined with the Swedish experiences. This would allow the utilization of the experience curve concept to estimate cost developments also in other countries with a large potential to supply PFF, but with less developed PFF supply systems.     

A comparison of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage. Part A: Review and selection of promising conversion and capture technologies

We performed a consistent comparison of state-of-the-art and advanced electricity and hydrogen production technologies with CO₂ capture using coal and natural gas, inspired by the large number of studies, of which the results can in fact not be compared due to specific assumptions made. After literature review, a standardisation and selection exercise has been performed to get figures on conversion efficiency, energy production costs and CO₂ avoidance costs of different technologies, the main parameters for comparison. On the short term, electricity can be produced with 85–90% CO₂ capture by means of NGCC and PC with chemical absorption and IGCC with physical absorption at 4.7–6.9 €ct/kWh, assuming a coal and natural gas price of 1.7 and 4.7 €/GJ. CO₂ avoidance costs are between 15 and 50 €/t CO₂ for IGCC and NGCC, respectively. On the longer term, both improvements in existing conversion and capture technologies are foreseen as well as new power cycles integrating advanced turbines, fuel cells and novel (high-temperature) separation technologies. Electricity production costs might be reduced to 4.5–5.3 €ct/kWh with advanced technologies. However, no clear ranking can be made due to large uncertainties pertaining to investment and O&M costs. Hydrogen production is more attractive for low-cost CO₂ capture than electricity production. Costs of large-scale hydrogen production by means of steam methane reforming and coal gasification with CO₂ capture from the shifted syngas are estimated at 9.5 and 7 €/GJ, respectively. Advanced autothermal reforming and coal gasification deploying ion transport membranes might further reduce production costs to 8.1 and 6.4 €/GJ. Membrane reformers enable small-scale hydrogen production at nearly 17 €/GJ with relatively low-cost CO₂ capture.