Sustainable biomass supply in the EU Dr. Berien Elbersen, Alterra

June 2009- December 2011- EIE/08/653 30/4/2010

1

Sustainable biomass supply in the EU

Dr. Berien Elbersen, Alterra

Presented at the Biomass Futures-FNR Workshop Biomass sustainability criteriaNovember 30, 2010 in Berlin


Outline • Environmentally sustainable biomass availability• Estimates of different biomass potentials and

related sustainability considerations– Waste– By-products agriculture– Dedicated cropping

• Cost-supply relations• Conclusions and further steps

2


Biomass categories included

3

• Biomass from waste– Waste biomass– Primary, secondary, tertiary residues

• Biomass from agriculture– Dedicated cropping– Primary residues (straw, prunnings, manure)

• Biomass from forestry– Round wood production– Additionally harvested wood– Primary forestry residues– Secondary forestry residues


Environmental constraints • Different biomass resources have different

sustainability considerations:

– Waste products – By-products – Forestry products– Dedicated cropping

4

No sustainability constraints

Many sustainability constraints


Wastes

Source: Eurostat waste statistics (year 2008).


Present recovery of which some going to bioenergy


Verge grass

EU: 1.9 mln TOE(2% of total potential)


Summary for wastes

Waste categories

Potential mln

TOE% of total potential

Present recovery rate

Verge grass 1.9 1 Unknown

Wood waste 32.3 23Very high in most

countries

Animal waste from food industry 2.8 2

High in some countries

Organic waste from households and industry 25.7 18

High in some countries

Paper cardboard 50.4 36Very high in most

countries

Common sludges 3.7 3 Low


Conclusions on waste potential

• Overall large potential, but other competing uses, especially for cardboard and wood-wastes

• Practically no sustainability problems related to the use

• Present collection systems different in EU• In principle cheap resource, but still many

logistical problems related to collection• EU wide data on availability unreliable


Agricultural by-products

• Manure• Straw• Prunings


ManureFactors determining potential:• Type and animal numbers (LSU/ ha forage area)• Sustainability constraints:

– Loss of soil fertility (over-exploitation of manure)– Abandonment of grazing (abandonment of land) to move

to housing system and collect manure• Therefore the sustainable potential is only the the

surplus manure (surplus= >170 kgN/ha)• Source data used: Eurostat FSS, NVZ maps, own

elaborations


Manure available (2005)

EU: 6.7 mln TOE (4.8% of total potential) EU: 1.6 mln TOE (1.1% of total potential)


Straw

• JRC approach• Sources of straw: all cereals, maize (straw of corn),

rapeseed, sunflower• Sustainability constraints:

– too much straw removal could lead to soil fertility (Soil C) loss

• Therefore estimated sustainably harvested potential (40% for cereals and 50% for rest)

• Minus competing uses (animal bedding, mushroom production)


Straw

EU: 16 mln TOE (12% of total potential) EU: 28 mln TOE (based on CAPRI baseline scenario 2020)


By-products from pruning and clearing

Factors determining potential:• Permanent cropping area (e.g. vineyards, fruit trees,

nuts and berries, olives and citrus)• Sustainability constraints:

– Some risk of soil compaction, if heavy machinery used– Loss of soil carbon when roots removed of old plantations,

certainly when ploughed up after many years

• Source data used: Eurostat FSS, own elaborations


Pruning material available (2005)


Total pruning material (2005)

EU: 6.7 mln TOE

(5% of the total present potential)


Dedicated cropping: sustainability

GHG-emission BiodiversityArable land used for feed and food production is displaced for production of biomass

Usually positive as long as it does not lead to high input use

Usually positive as long as it does not lead to more intensive land use and large loss of fallow land

Leads to production of displaced food in other place where it may lead to the conversion of natural ecosystems into arable land. This may lead to important biodiversity loss and huge GHG emissions

Idle land is used for biomass production

Often negative. Ploughing-up idle land usually leads to enormous release of carbon stock (depends on land + practice)

Positive or negative, depends on what type of idle land is used

No effect

Direct effects Indirect effects


Biomass cropping/harvesting effects on environment through:

- Land use change effect (including iluc)- Conversion of natural/semi-natural land use categories

(e.g. tropical forests, extensive grasslands) - Conversion of degraded land - Conversions in existing arable land (e.g. from annual to

perennial)- Intensification/extensification effect in existing

agricultural lands because of an overall change in practice (e.g. crops, input use)

- Climate change effect, mitigation (?) reduces adverse effects on biodiversity


Dedicated bioenergy crops 2008

Maize OSR Sugarbeet Sunflower Cereals Perennials Total

AT 53.0 11.5 0.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 72.6

BG 0.0 0.0 0.0 243.5 0.0 0.0 243.5

BE 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 7.3

CZ 0.0 122.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.0

DE 399.5 1800.9 2.4 0.0 253.5 3.6 2459.8

DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 170.5 8.5 179.0

GR 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 9.3

ES 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.9 28.0 0.1 96.9

FI 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 79.2 80.3

FR 53.9 1378.1 52.4 68.2 622.6 14.9 2190.1

HU 0.0 11.8 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 24.5

IE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 6.9

IT 0.0 5.3 0.0 54.0 0.0 73.6 132.9

NL 1.2 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7

PL 0.0 1477.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.6 1594.6

PT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

RO 0.0 13.8 0.0 493.3 0.0 0.0 507.0

SE 0.0 61.5 0.0 0.0 55.2 45.0 161.7

UK 0.0 427.2 0.0 0.0 32.9 21.7 481.8

Total 508.8 5318.6 54.8 955.8 1168.8 371.1 8378.1

% 0.4% 4.4% 0% 0.8% 1% 0.3% 6.9%

Present situation


Land & water requirements bioenergy: presentSituation 2005-

2008 main feedstockArea biofuel crop

(mln ha.)% total cropped

area% total irrigation

withdrawals

Brazil Sugarcane 2.4 5 3.5

USA Maize 3.8 3.5 2.7

Canada Wheat 0.3 1.1 1.4

Germany Wheat& OSR 1.6 10 0

France Sugarbeat &OSR 1.5 8 0

Italy Wheat 0.1 1.7 0

Spain Wheat 0.3 2.2 0

Sweden Wheat 0 1.3 0

UK Sugarbeet 0.1 2.4 0

China Maize 1.9 1.1 2.2

India Sugarcane 0.3 0.2 1.2

Thailand Sugarcane 0 0.3 1.9

Indonesia Sugarcane 0 0.1 1.2

S. Afrika Sugarcane 0.1 1.1 9.8

World total 12.4 1 1.1

Source: De Fraiture et al., 2007 and Eurostat, own adjustments


Future situation?

• Biofuel crops• Perennial crops


2020 CAPRI biofuel cropping EUProduct coverage in the CAPRI 2020 biofuel module: BAS scenario

BiofuelFeedstock By-product

Ethanol WheatCoarse grains (maize, barley, oats, sorghum)Sugar

DDGSGluten feed

Biodiesel Oilseeds (rapeseed, sunflower), palm oil

Oil meals and cakes

Shock: EU biofuel demand in 2020

Baseline (RED)Counterfactual (No-RED)

Ethanol Biodiesel Ethanol Biodiesel

Production (million litres) 17790 24243 6192 1664

Consumption (million litres) 21239 28196 6680 1995

From first generation biofuels 17935 23220 6680 1995

From second generation biofuels 3304 4976 0 0

Source: IPTS (2010) CAPRI derived these from AGLINK-COSIMO simulations.


CAPRI supply distribution 2020 RED

EU-production % Imports % Amount (1000 ton)

MAIZ 85.9 14.1 68838

RAPE 66.8 33.2 13876

SUNF 64.4 35.6 8066

SOYA 0.0 100.0 1492

SUGB 100.0 0.0 118969

CERE 2.4 97.6 316817

OILS 0.0 100.0 23434

But demand for imported biodiesel and bioethanol not included!


CAPRI-2020 RED

• Net change in:– Land use (cropping pattern)– Livestock (numbers+types)

• This effect was assessed within EU in EEA study– Soil N2O emissions– Changes in Soil C– N-Leaching (inside and outside HNV farmland)


Effect: Soil N2O emissions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Austria

Bulgaria

Belgium

Czech

Republic

German

y

Denmark

Estonia

GreeceSp

ain

Finlan

dFra

nce

Hungary

Ireland Ita

ly

Lithua

niaLa

tvia

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Portuga

l

Romania

Sweden

Slove

nia

Slova

kia

United Ki

ngdom

EU27

Soil

N2O

em

issi

on (k

g N

2O-N

/ha)

2003

2020 RED

2020 no RED


Net impact of Soil C (2004-2020 compared)


Change in N-surplusHNV +

RED

HNV +

NO RED

NO HNV +

RED

NO HNV+

NO RED


Future dedicated cropping with perennials

• Based on land availability and cropping mix as predicted by CAPRI in baseline scenario

• 3 options:– High support for cropping, competes with arable crops on

good-medium productive arable lands– Some cropping support, is economic on fallow land and

former olives and vineyards i.e. the lower productive lands– Some support for establishment and bringing back into

production of abandoned land in areas with large abandoned land resource


On good-medium productive arable lands

• Assumption of 5% of 2020 good-medium quality land

• High yield per hectare

• Very large indirect land effects

• Southern Europe large pressure on scarce water resources

• Largest potential: 30 Mln TOE


On low productive arable lands• Assumption: 10% of

2020 fallow, olive and vineyards

• Medium-low yield per hectare

• Limited indirect land effects

• Large adverse effects on biodiversity

• Lowest potential: 10 mln TOE


On former abandoned lands

• Estimate: regional abandoned land share 5%-10% of UAA. Of this 5% used for dedicated biomass cropping

• Low yield per hectare• No indirect land effects• Some negative effects on

biodiversity• Effect on soil C: tbd• Average potential:

15.5 mln TOE


Conclusions dedicated cropping

• Present dedicated cropping area still relatively small both inside and outside EU.

• In 2020 net environmental effect of biofuel dedicated cropping in EU still relatively small, not very large difference with No-RED situation.

• But environmental effect is expected to be much larger outside EU (cereal, sugar, soya, palm-oil demand).

• Environmental effects of dedicated cropping with perennials could be diverse depending on stimulation methods. Abandoned lad option should be investigated further.

33


Cost-supply


Elasticity price FR

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Cost-supply France

35

FRANCEprice

(€/ktOE) Kton priceCum. Kton

animal waste -42 1594 -42 1594

Organic waste Industry+HH -42 4885 -42 6478

common sludges -42 1326 -42 7805

wet manure 0 17138 0 24943

Verge grass 21 719 21 25662

paper cardboard 21 10993 21 36655

wood-waste 39 8610 39 45265

OSR 2008 50 2634 50 47899

Sunflower 2008 50 130 50 48029

straw_2020 75 22269 75 70298

dry manure 84 224 84 70522

straw_2004 100 8920 100 79441

prunings 123 2911 123 82352

Perennials 2008 130 31 130 82384

Maize 2008 214 351 214 82735

Cereals 411 1936 411 84671

Sugarbeet 2008 415.9 1150.2 416 85821


Cost-supply Netherlands

36

Elasticity price NL

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NETHERLANDS price (€/ktOE) Kton priceCum. Kton

animal waste -42 507 -42 507

Organic waste from

industry+HH -42 10253 -42 10760


dry manure -21 404 -21 11833

wet manure 0 24834 0 36667

verge grass 21 136 21 36804


wood-waste 27 2113 27 42548

OSR 2008 50 12 50 42561

prunings 126 40 126 42601

straw_2004 130 99 130 42700

straw_2020 136 136 136 42836

Maize 2008 300 8 300 42844

Sugarbeet 2008 0 42844

Sunflower 2008 0 42844

Cereals 0 42844

Perennials 2008 0 42844


Cost-supply Germany

37

Germanyprice

(€/ktOE) Kton priceCummulative Kton

animal waste -42 333 -42 333

bmw -42 10792 -42 11126


dry manure 0 88 0 11743

wet manure 0 13785 0 25528

bermgras 21 675 21 26202


OSR 2008 50 3442 50 52246

wood-waste 64 9473 64 61719

straw_2004 93 13142 93 74861

straw_2020 98 15559 98 90420

prunings 110 417 110 90836

Perennials 2008 148 8 148 90844

Maize 2008 218 2601 218 93444

Cereals 416 788 416 94233

Sugarbeet 2008 562.4157549 52.689 562 94285


Elasticity price DE

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600


Elasticity price PL

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cost-supply Poland

38

POLANDprice

(€/ktOE) Kton priceCummulative Kton

animal waste -42 2138 -42 2138

bmw -42 20103 -42 22241


dry manure 0 2 0 22814

wet manure 0 363 0 23177

wood-waste 18 5319 18 28496


bermgras 21 206 21 38109

prunings 47 668 47 38777

OSR 2008 50 2823 50 41600

straw_2020 100 8719 100 50319

straw_2004 105 4830 105 55150

Perennials 2008 148 248 148 55397

Maize 2008 0 55397

Sugarbeet 2008 0 55397


Cereals 0 55397


Total cost-supply EU 2008

39

Elasticity of biomass price in EU27

0

200000

400000

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Price (€/KTOE)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

am

ou

nt

of

bio

ma

ss

(k

ton

/ye

ar)

-Very large potential at very low price:

1)>50% industrial + household wastes, but now mostly unused or not for bioenergy

2) By-products agriculture (straw, prunings)


Conclusions

• Largest cheap potential in waste. Improved organisation of collection, treatment, logistics will increase access to this resource

• By-products from agriculture also have important potential, now still underutilized

• Sustainability constraints on dedicated cropping are significant both inside and outside EU and will have important effects on economic availability

• Forestry potential should be included. Will certainly add importantly


Future work • Draft results need further critical review and

improvements• Scenario application to extrapolate present

potentials to future technical-economic and sustainable potential

• Forestry potential still to be included (updated EFI work)

• Cuttings/pruning from landscape elements, recreational and nature conservation areas should still be mapped (but difficult)

41

Sustainable biomass supply in the EU Dr. Berien Elbersen, Alterra

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable biomass supply in the EU Dr. Berien Elbersen, Alterra