Study Report on Reporting Requirements on Biofuels and Bioliquids stemming from the Directive (EU) 2015/1513

This report was commissioned to gather comprehensive information on, and to provide systematic analysis of the latest available scientific research and the latest available scientific evidence on indirect land use change (ILUC) greenhouse gas emissions associated with production of biofuels and bioliquids. The EU mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids do not allow the raw material for biofuel production to be obtained from land with high carbon stock or high biodiversity value. However, this does not guarantee that as a consequence of biofuels production such land is not used for production of raw materials for other purposes. If land for biofuels is taken from cropland formerly used for other purposes, or by conversion of grassland in arable land for biofuel production, the former agricultural production on this land has to be grown somewhere else. And if there is no regulation that this must happen sustainably, conversion of land may happen, which is not allowed to be used under the EU sustainability criteria for biofuels. This conversion may take place in other countries than where the biofuel is produced. This is called indirect land use change (ILUC). According to Article 3 of the European Union’s Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of 9 September 2015, the European Commission has to provide information on, and analysis of the available and the best available scientific research results, scientific evidence regarding ILUC emissions associated to the production of biofuels, and in relation to all production pathways. Besides, according to Article 23 of the revised European Union’s Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive), the Commission also has to provide the latest available information with regard to key assumptions influencing the results from modelling ILUC GHG emissions, as well as an assessment of whether the range of uncertainty identified in the analysis underlying the estimations of ILUC emissions can be narrowed down, and if the possible impact of the EU policies, such as environment, climate and agricultural policies, can be factored in. An assessment of a possibility of setting out criteria for the identification and certification of low ILUCrisk biofuels that are produced in accordance with the EU sustainability criteria is also required

Modelling spatial variation and environmental impacts of land use change in the exploitation of land-based renewable bioenergy crops

Spatial factors are of particular importance to the sustainability of land based energy crops, due both to the need to minimise feedstock transport, and to the importance of cultivation site attributes in determining key environmental impacts. This study uses geographical information system (GIS) mapping to identify sites suitable for the cultivation of Miscanthus or short rotation coppiced (SRC) SRC willow for co-firing with coal or generation of combined heat and power (CHP). Modelling using an adapted version of DayCent was performed for typical sites to assess variation in yield, nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, evapotranspiration (ET) and change in soil organic carbon (SOC) according to soil properties, hydrologic regime and previous land use. Development of the DayCent model as part of this research gave improved simulation of the impacts of tillage on soil porosity, and resultant N2O emissions from soil, and improved simulation of growth of SRC willow following coppicing management, leading to improved yield predictions. For land use change from arable to perennial cultivation, increased SOC was simulated, along with reduced N2O emissions, particularly on soils prone to anoxia. However, in general, benefits of cultivation of Miscanthus and SRC willow for energy are maximised when the crops are grown at sites where high yields are achieved, and used to generate CHP, since this minimises the land area required per unit energy generated. Further model development work and additional field data for model verification are necessary for firmer conclusions on the change in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions following land use change. Additionally, indirect land use change may negate perceived benefits, and locations are difficult to predict or identify in a complex global system. Given the magnitude of identified variations in yields and changes in N2O emissions, spatial variation in benefits of bioenergy cultivation should be a factor in decisions to provide economic support for cultivation. However, calculations suggest that emissions offset by replacing energy generation from fossil fuels may have greater impact on GHG savings per gigajoule (GJ) than cultivation site attributes. Since total energy conversion efficiency may be in the region of 30% for electricity-only generation and up to 90% for CHP generation, planning feedstock supply chains to maximise efficiency of feedstock end use is therefore beneficial

The welfare cost and greenhouse gas emissions effects of sector-specific energy policies

At present climate and energy policy in the US consists of a patchwork of technology and performance standards implemented in different economic sectors and at different levels of government, rather than a more efficient economy-wide carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy. This is evidenced by policies such as state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs), national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and the recently finalized EPA rule for power plants: the Clean Power Plan (CPP). These sector-specific policies when implemented jointly can interact with each other in ways that are synergistic or competitive and affect the mix of renewable energy, fossil fuels and prices in the electricity, transportation and agricultural sectors. The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of these overlapping policies on greenhouse gas reduction and welfare costs for the electricity, transportation, and agricultural sectors relative to levels that would have been achieved by each of these policies individually. Joint implementation of the RFS and the RPSs can increase the cost of bio-electricity and biofuels by competing for biomass and shift the mix and spatial pattern of production of renewable fuels used for compliance; on the other hand, renewable electricity generated as a co-product of the cellulosic ethanol refining process could lower the cost of complying with the RPSs but not add significantly to the greenhouse gas reductions achieved by the RPS. Similarly, implementing the CPP and the RPSs together could result in more renewable and low carbon electricity and greenhouse gas reduction than with either policy alone but at higher welfare costs than with either policy alone or with a cross-sector carbon tax. This research seeks to disentangle the complex and multi-sectoral spillover effects of these policies by developing an integrated, dynamic, open economy model of the US electricity, transportation and agricultural sectors. It contributes to the literature that has focused on analyzing these policies in isolation and using single sector models. In the first paper I quantify the effects of concurrent implementation of the RFS and RPSs on the spatial pattern of biomass prices and production, the level and price of bio-electricity, and carbon intensity of electricity over the 2007-2030 time period. I find that spatial pattern of bio-electricity is changed by implementation of the RFS, where it is used less intensively in RPS states and no longer used is some non-RPS states, though the carbon intensity of biomass feedstock is decreased. In the second paper I examine the welfare and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission effects of the state level RPSs and the RFS both individually and when implemented jointly, in order to quantify the policy interactions and spillovers. I also compare the effects of the jointly implemented RFS and RPS to an economy-wide carbon tax that achieves equivalent GHG emissions reductions to measure the welfare cost. I find that the RFS & RPSs jointly implemented cause spillovers that increase welfare cost of the two policies by 7 billion dollars relative to the sum of what each attains independently; and that their welfare cost relative to a GHG-equivalent carbon tax is 109 billion dollars. I also find that a national RPS could achieve an equivalent share of renewables to the state-level RPSs at a 62 billion dollars lower welfare cost for the electricity, transportation and agricultural sectors combined. In the third paper I shift focus to the CPP in order to consider how the welfare cost and its distribution changes based on whether the state-level targets are implemented as rate-based or mass-based standards and how they compare to a hypothetical national emissions cap that achieves equivalent emissions reductions. I find that a mass-based CPP is a more efficient in achieving GHG reductions than a rate-based CPP, but also leads to larger electricity price increases. A national electricity sector emission cap with permit trading, which would achieve the same economic outcome as a carbon tax, could achieve equivalent GHG reductions at 57 billion dollars or 36 billion dollars lower cost than the state-level rate-based or mass-based standards, respectively. The state-level RPSs are not obviated by the implementation of either a rate-based or mass-based CPP as they still lead to greater levels of electricity generation from renewable sources and lower cumulative GHG emissions. The RPSs, which also lead to a lower average consumer electricity price, reduce the magnitude of the electricity price increase found from the CPP. These results suggest that implementing energy policy with a sector-specific or region-specific approach can results in significantly higher welfare cost and reduced effectiveness of policies that should be considered in decision making

PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews of the Bioethanol Sector

The bioethanol sector is an extremely complex set of actors, technologies and market structures, influenced simultaneously by different natural, economic, social and political processes. That is why it lends itself to the application of system dynamics modelling. In last five years a relatively high level of experience and knowledge has accumulated related to the application of computer-aided system modelling for the analysis and forecasting of the bioethanol sector. The goal of the current paper is to offer a systematic review of the application of system dynamics models in order to better understand the structure, conduct and performance of the bioethanol sector. Our method has been the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), based on English-language materials published between 2015 and 2020. The results highlight that system dynamic models have become more and more complex, but as a consequence of the improvement in information technology and statistical systems, as well as the increasing experience gained they offer an efficient tool for decision makers in the business and political spheres. In the future, the combination of traditional system dynamics modelling and agent-based models will offer new perspectives for the preparation of more sophisticated description and forecasting

Aviation Biofuel Production in Sweden

Civil Aviation is one of the fastest growing sectors on earth, for which emissions currently account for between 2 and 3% of the global total (International Air Transport Association, 2013). Decarbonising the aviation sector is a key challenge on the international agenda, for which sustainable alternative fuels stand as playing a future role. Biofuels for aviation (biojet) have shown to be energy efficient, safe and generate significant emissions savings (Faaij & van dijk, 2012). Efforts are currently underway to accelerate biojet fuel development through establishing global and regional supply chains for commercial production, yet high production costs, relative to fossil based fuel production stands as the fundamental hurdle preventing commercial scale production. The Nordic region is characterised as having good potential for biofuel production, prompting studies throughout Norway, Finland and Denmark. Similar environmental conditions are found within Sweden, yet a Swedish regional investigation into biojet production opportunities is yet to be carried out. This research identifies key opportunities and barriers to establishing a biojet production system within Sweden using available forestry biomass as a feedstock. Findings indicate that the availability of forestry biomass resources, infrastructure and knowledge present within the Swedish system could support the establishment of a biojet system, yet high production costs and a lack of policy support create unfavourable market conditions. Future efforts to establish biojet uptake in Sweden may include lobbying for policy change at the national level to recognize aviation emissions when setting policy targets. The process of facilitating collaboration through linking actors in the field, both within Sweden and throughout the wider Nordic region, is an essential non-technical component to streamline future potential supply chain pathways

Integrated Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Analyses of Biomass Utilization for Value-Added Bioproducts in the Northeastern United States

A multi-stage spatial analysis was first conducted to select locations for lignocellulosic biomass-based bioproduct facility, using Geographical Information System (GIS) spatial analysis, multi-criteria analysis ranking algorithm, and social-economic assessment. A case study was developed to determine locations for lignocellulosic biorefineries using feedstocks including forest residue biomass and three energy crops for 13 states in the northeastern United States. In the entire study area, 11.1% of the counties are high-suitable, 48.8% are medium-suitable for biorefinery siting locations. A non-parametric analysis of cross-group surveys showed that preferences on biorefinery siting are homogeneous for experts in academia and industry groups, but people in government agencies presented different opinions. With the Maximum Likelihood test, parameters of distributions and mean values were estimated for nine weighted criteria. Social asset evaluation focusing on degree of rurality and social capital index further sorted counties with higher community acceptance and economic viability. A total of 15 counties were selected with the highest potential for biorefinery sites in the region. A mixed-integer linear programming model was then developed to optimize the multiple biomass feedstock supply chains, including feedstock establishment, harvest, storage, transportation, and preprocessing. The model was applied for analyses of multiple biomass feedstocks at county level for 13 states in the northeastern United States. In the base case with a demand of 180,000 dry Mg/year of biomass, the delivered costs ranged from $67.90 to$86.97 per dry Mg with an average of $79.58 /dry Mg. The biomass delivered costs by county were from$67.90 to 150.81 per dry Mg across the northeastern U.S. Considered the entire study area, the delivered cost averaged $85.30 /dry Mg for forest residues,$84.47 /dry Mg for hybrid willow, $99.68 for switchgrass and$97.87 per dry Mg for Miscanthus. Seventy seven out of 387 counties could be able to deliver biomass at $84 per dry Mg or less a target set by US DOE by 2022. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to evaluate the effects of feedstock availability, feedstock price, moisture content, procurement radius, and facility demand on the delivered cost. Our results showed that procurement radius, facility capacity, and forest residue availability are the most sensitive factors affecting the biomass delivered costs. An integrated life cycle and techno-economic assessment was carried out for three bioenergy products derived from multiple lignocellulosic biomass. Three cases were studied for production of pellets, biomass-based electricity, and pyrolysis bio-oil. The LCA was conducted for estimating environmental impacts on cradle-to-gate basis with functional unit of 1000 MJ for bioenergy production. Pellet production had the lowest GHG emissions, water and fossil fuels consumption, for 8.29 kg CO2 eq, 0.46 kg, and 105.42 MJ, respectively. Conversion process presented a greater environmental impact for all three bioenergy products. With producing 46,926 tons of pellets, 260,000 MWh of electricity, and 78,000 barrels of pyrolysis oil, the net present values (NPV) for all three cases indicated only pellet and biopower production cases were profitable with NPVs$1.20 million for pellet, and $81.60 million for biopower. The pellet plant and biopower plant were profitable only when discount rates are less than or equal to 10A study evaluated the environmental and economic impacts of activated carbon (AC) produced from lignocellulosic biomass was evaluated for energy storage purpose. Results indicate that overall “in-plant production” process presented the highest environmental impacts. Normalized results of life cycle impact assessment showed that the AC production had environmental impacts mainly on carcinogenics, ecotoxicity, and non-carcinogenics categories. We then further focused on life cycle analysis from raw biomass delivery to plant gate, the results showed “feedstock establishment” has the most significant environmental impact, ranging from 50.3$6.66 million, and annual operation cost was $15.46 million. The AC required selling price (RSP) was$16.79 per kg, with the discounted payback period (DPB) of 9.98 years. Alternative cases of KOH-reuse and steam processes had GHG emission of 15.4 kg CO2 eq, and 10.2 kg CO2 eq for every 1 kg activated carbon, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation showed 49.96% of the probability for an investment to be profitable in activated carbon production for supercapacitor electrodes