sustainability assessment of annex ix feedstocks › ... · • commission proposal (oct 2012): •...
TRANSCRIPT
| Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
Sustainability assessment of Annex IX
feedstocks
Richard Taylor
UK Department for Transport stakeholder workshop
29th November 2013
Delivered under the Framework for Transport-Related Technical and Engineering Advice and Research – Lot 2 Road
E4tech:
Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
• International consulting firm, offices in UK and Switzerland
• Focus on sustainable energy
• Established 1997, always independent
• Deep expertise in technology, business and strategy, market
assessment, techno-economic modelling, policy support…
• A spectrum of clients from start-ups to global corporations
| Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
Policy context
Background and study objectives
What is Annex IX and where did it come from?
4
• Continued debate surrounding ILUC, stalled biofuel uptake
• Recognition that non-food feedstocks and novel conversion technology will
have a role in providing biofuels, but commercialisation has been slow
• Implementation of double counting in the current Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) has been inconsistent, with poorly defined “wastes & residues”
• Therefore, Commission moved to inclusive list approach, to try and support
low ILUC risk feedstocks by multiple counting in the RED proposals
• REFUREC working group classifications in 2010/2011, Annex IX list then
created by Commission in 2012 and many edits since then…
• Opaque process, lists and proposed mechanisms still changing, and definitions
yet to be ironed out
Which feedstocks are in scope?
5
• Bio-fraction of MSW
• Bio-fraction of C&I waste
• Animal manure
• Sewage sludge
• Palm oil mill effluent
• Empty palm fruit bunches
• Crude glycerine
• Bagasse
• Grape marcs
• Wine lees
• Straw
• Cobs
• Husks
• Nut shells
• Bark, branches & leaves (e.g. forest residues)
• Saw dust & cutter shavings
• Black & brown liquor
• Tall oil pitch
• Used cooking oil (UCO)
• Animal fats categories I & II
• Non-food cellulosic material (e.g. miscanthus)
• Ligno-cellulosic material except saw logs and veneer logs
(e.g. short rotation coppice & forestry, small round-wood)
• Micro-algae
• Macro-algae
• Renewable liquids & gases of non-biological origin (e.g.
hydrogen via renewable electrolysis)
• Carbon capture and utilisation (e.g. steel mill waste gases)
• Bacteria
Summary of Commission, Parliament & Council positions
6
• Commission proposal (Oct 2012):
• 2x UCO & animal fats, energy crops. 4x rest of Annex IX
• 5% food cap
• No sub-target
• Parliament vote (Sep 2013):
• 2x UCO & animal fats, 4x algae, bacteria, RE liquids/gases, carbon capture. 1x rest
• 6% food cap to include energy crops
• 2.5% sub-target for 1x and 4x feedstocks
• Council responses (Oct 2013 ongoing):
• 2x all, but no bacteria or carbon capture. 2x towards RES for non-UCO & animal fats
• 7% food cap
• Discretionary (was 1%) sub-target for non-UCO & animal fats
Study objectives
7
• Summarise recent European biofuels policy developments
• Conduct stakeholder interviews on the efficiency of multiple counting
• Assess and compare each Annex IX feedstock on:
• Supply potentials
• Technologies
• Economics
• Competing uses
• Greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability
• Develop a framework criteria and rationale for support
What will the study be used for?
8
• To the best of our knowledge, this study provides for the first time:
• a holistic analysis of the whole Annex IX list
• a defined rationale for including feedstocks within Annex IX
• Evidence for DfT in their Member State negotiations within Europe
• Inform longer-term UK biofuels strategy
• Input to eligibility criteria for the UK advanced biofuel demo competition
• Study started 17th September, findings delivered 5th November, and review
comments received last week. Finalised report being delivered 12th December
• We will take any significant feedback from this workshop into consideration
| Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
Assessment of multiple counting
Synthesis of stakeholder interviews
Effectiveness of multiple counting
10
• Series of interviews conducted to gather industry opinions – asking:
• Impact of double-counting to date: investment, uptake and GHGs?
• Lessons learnt: fraud, inconsistency and price impacts?
• Will proposed multiple counting stimulate deployment and use in EU?
• Is there support for 4x counting?
• Effectiveness of sub-target for new conversion technologies – what is achievable?
• How important is multiple counting vs. targets and framework for 2030?
• We encourage you to provide further input regarding these questions in the
forthcoming Call for Evidence
UCO and animal fat biodiesel have seen strong EU uptake
11
• 2x counting under current RED has seen
a large rise in the collection & conversion
of UCO & animal fats into biodiesel
• A key compliance option for national
mandates, and high GHG savings
• UK largest market for UCO. Duty
differential has also played a role
• Sharp price rises for UCO and animal
fats, e.g. UCO was at 25-50% discount to
virgin veg oils, now at 5-20% premium.
Animal fat users also impacted
• Fraud has presented problems, chain of
custody certification is improving
Share of EU biodiesel demand from animal fats & UCO (USDA, 2013)
Animal fat & UCO biodiesel reported under the UK RTFO
(DfT, as of 7th Nov 2013)
UK
EU
But slow uptake of novel conversion technologies
12
• To date, little evidence of double counting triggering investment in more novel
conversion technologies (e.g. LC ethanol, BTL) that are trying to bridge the
‘valley of death’ towards commercialisation
• Pricing at 2x the price difference between conventional biofuels and fossil
fuels means that 2x counting amplifies product price volatility
• Only applies to 2020, and full-scale plants will take several years to construct
and will be operating for 20+ years
• Cannot be valued or reliably factored in when making high capital cost
investment decisions
• Lack of technical progress and tough financing environment are also
contributing factors
• Many interviewees stated multiple counting is not an effective mechanism to
achieve uptake of novel conversion technologies
Objectives of multiple counting are not clear
13
• Opinions on the efficacy of double counting vary due to a lack of defined or
quantified objectives
• Commission wanted to stimulate the uptake of more sustainable feedstocks
(diversify the feedstock base), leading to greater market penetration of low
ILUC risk biofuels
• Multiple counting will continue to support UCO and animal fat biodiesel
• Energy targets are effectively lowered and realised GHG savings are reduced
by multiple counting – for these reasons, plus heightened risks of fraud and
market distortions, there is very little support for 4x counting within Europe
Alternative mechanisms
14
• Sub-targets seen as a better mechanism for securing the deployment of novel
conversion technologies, as provides a more certain market demand
• Targets of 0.5 - 1.5% of EU transport energy cited as being achievable by 2020,
but 2.5% seen as too high
• Stakeholders have said only novel conversion technologies ought to be
included within a sub-target - i.e. UCO & animal fat biodiesel should not
qualify as ‘advanced’ biofuels. However, we note this could neglect
conventional technologies processing novel feedstocks (e.g. algal routes)
• Policy uncertainty in the EU is a major concern for industry stakeholders, and
will continue to stifle investment unless a clear and stable framework is set
out. Interviewees stated that biofuel, or renewable (or GHG) transport targets
to at least 2030 are imperative for novel routes to develop: a sub-target for
only 2020 will not be enough
| Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
Feedstock analysis
Supply, technology, economics, competing uses
and sustainability
Data gathering on 28 feedstocks
16
• Based on best evidence publically available that could be gathered within the
short duration of the study
• For a more detailed picture, or regional focus, market analyses for individual
feedstocks will be required
• The full report highlights where the evidence is most uncertain and additional
information or research is needed
• Please note – the following slides contain important information on all 28
feedstocks, presented together for comparison purposes. We have made the
slides as legible as possible!
Supply potentials show large resource availability – but
some feedstocks available nearer 2030 or always niche
17
UK EU Globa l UK EU Globa l UK EU Global
Renewable electricity (Mtoe) 2.2 51 403 235 2,455 17,316 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
Bio-fraction of C&I waste 25 133 560 87 359 2,390 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Bio-fraction of MSW 22 189 861 68 460 3,253 ↓ ↓ ↑↑
Animal manure 68 1,521 16,202 43 853 12,016 ↔ ↑ ↑↑
Straw 7.4 - 11 72 885 52 870 5,240 ↔ ↓ ↑↑
Bark, branches, leaves 3.4 127 317 15 532 1,376 ↔ ↔ ↑
Small round-wood 3.3 333 829 14 1,320 3,282 ↔ ↑ ↑
Sewage sludge 35 632 1,069 9.5 165 301 ↑↑ ↑ ↑↑↑
Saw dust & cutter shavings 1.6 37 104 8.5 221 614 ↔ ↑↑ ↑↑
UCO 0.13 1.1 2.8 6.6 102 266 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Animal fats Cat I & II 0.12 1.2 3.5 3.7 39 119 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Waste carbon gases 0.9 10 101 3.3 37 511 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Black and brown liquor 0.3 66 200 1.9 498 1,714 - ↑ ↑
Miscanthus 0.12 0.9 1.2 1.8 21 24 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
Short rotation coppice 0.04 0.3 9 0.46 5.6 47 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
Crude glycerine 0.03 1.0 2.9 0.36 12 42 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Grape marcs 0.02 4.1 7.7 0.05 9.5 20 ↔ ↔ ↑
Cobs 0.01 3.6 36 0.04 17 185 ↔ ↔ ↑↑
Tall oil pitch 0.001 0.16 0.4 0.02 6.6 17 - ↑↑ ↑↑
Wine lees 0.004 0.8 1.5 0.01 2.6 5.4 ↔ ↔ ↑
Macro-algae 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.24 2.2 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
Nut shells 0 0.8 10 0 4.5 61 - ↔ ↑↑
Husks inc. in s traw 0.5 120 0 2.3 645 - ↔ ↑↑
Micro-algae 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.51 - ↑↑ ↑↑↑
Palm oil mill effluent 0 0 159 0 0 127 - - ↑↑↑
Empty palm fruit bunches 0 0 51 0 0 172 - - ↑↑↑
Bagasse 0 0 413 0 0 1,748 - - ↑↑↑
Short rotation forestry 0 0 0 0 0 0 ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
2020 transport fuel production potential (PJ/yr)Feedstock
Current feedstock supply (wet Mt/yr) Expand post 2020?
Numerous potential conversion pathways exist
18Principal pathway for each feedstock shown by bolder lines. Feedstocks are colour-coded by finished biofuel type
Technologies are at different levels of commercial
maturity – only some can have a large impact by 2020
19
Feedstock prices & biofuel production costs (£/GJbiofuel)
20
FeedstockRegion
selected
Current price
(£/t)
Resource
(£/GJ biofuel)
Drying,
chipping
Transport
to plant
Biofuel
conversion
Conversion
efficiencyTechnology
Transport
to EU
Import
tariffs
Transport,
filling station
Total delivered
biofuel
Bio-fraction of MSW UK -41 (-46 to -24) -13.1 - 27.8 49% AD + upgrade - - 3.0 18
Bio-fraction of C&I waste UK -41 (-46 to -10) -11.8 - 27.8 49% AD + upgrade - - 3.0 19
Tall oil pitch EU 420 12.4 0.8 3.6 89% HVO - - 2.9 20
Animal fats Cat I & II UK 480 15.6 0.1 0.5 94% FAME - - 3.5 20
Waste carbon gases EU 42 11.1 - 7.9 60% Eth ferment - - 3.5 23
Bagasse Brazi l 8.5 (2.8 to 34) 2.9 0.2 - 9.8 37% LC ethanol 3.2 4 4.8 24
UCO UK 724 21.3 0.1 0.5 98% FAME - - 3.5 25
Bark, branches, leaves EU 39 (34 to 44) 3.2 1.8 3.9 14.6 35% FT diesel - - 2.9 26
Sewage Sludge UK 0 (-41 to 0) 0.0 - 23.7 49% AD + upgrade - - 3.0 27
Straw UK 63 (48 to 75) 11.1 2.1 9.8 37% LC ethanol - - 3.5 27
Empty palm fruit bunches SE As ia 3 (2 to 4) 2.0 4.2 14.6 35% FT diesel 1.5 1.4 3.6 27
Miscanthus UK 53 10.6 2.8 9.8 37% LC ethanol - - 3.5 27
Wine lees EU 54 15.9 1.5 9.1 54% 1G ethanol - - 3.5 30
Nut shells EU 67 (49 to 85) 11.7 0.7 14.6 35% FT diesel - - 2.9 30
Corn stover US 39 7.4 1.2 9.8 37% LC ethanol 4.5 4 4.8 31
Saw dust & cutter shavings EU 67 12.7 1.1 14.6 35% FT diesel - - 2.9 31
SRF/small round-wood UK 42 9.9 1.9 1.9 14.6 35% FT diesel - - 2.9 31
SRF/small round-wood US 32 7.0 1.7 1.4 9.8 37% LC ethanol 2.8 4 4.8 31
Black and brown liquor EU 112 (0 to 175) 16.1 - 12.9 58% DME - - 3.0 32
Husks UK 97 (80 to 110) 10.4 9.6 9.8 37% LC ethanol - - 3.5 33
Short rotation coppice UK 50 11.5 1.8 1.9 14.6 35% FT diesel - - 2.9 33
Cobs US 57 (46 to 68) 12.3 1 9.8 37% LC ethanol 4.5 4 4.8 36
Grape marcs EU 54 23.4 1.7 9.8 37% LC ethanol - - 3.5 38
Crude glycerine EU 253 29.8 - 4.9 60% Methanol - - 3.7 38
Animal manure UK 0 (0 to 34) 0.0 2.2 33.3 49% AD + upgrade - - 3.0 39
Renewable electricity UK £95/MWh 36.7 - 7.8 72% El ectrolys is - - 10.3 55
Micro-algae US 1,710 50.4 1 0.5 98% FAME 1.2 3.3 4.2 60
Macro-algae UK 48 48.2 1.2 11.5 49% AD + upgrade - - 3.0 64
Palm oil mill effluent SE Asia 0 0.0 AD biogas Not imported, hence not analysed further
Sustainability assessment methodology
21
• We conducted a “risk screening” exercise, in order to highlight if there are
certain factors that could be problematic for a particular feedstock:
• Identify (and quantify flows into) competing uses
• Determine the most likely substitute resources for these competing uses if the
feedstock was to be diverted to biofuels conversion, or the land types used if new
feedstock is grown
• Indicate the risk of significant indirect GHG emissions associated with these
substitutes
• Assess other associated direct and indirect environmental and social impacts
• Indicate the risk of the diversion having a significant impact on feedstock prices
• Estimate the direct GHG emissions associated with using the feedstock for biofuel
production
Summary of competing uses and likely substitute
resources
22
Region Disposal Left/spread to land Heat and/or power Compost Animal feed & bedding Industrial uses Other
Bio-fraction of MSW UK None Na tural ga s , wood chipPea t, ferti l i s er,
AD diges tate
Bio-fraction of C&I waste UK None Na tural ga s , wood chip More wood chip
Straw UK None i f extract s us tHay/s i lage for feed,
s awdust /chip for bed
Animal manure UK Diges tate pos t-AD
Sewage sludge UK Diges tate pos t-AD Na tural ga s
Palm oil mill effluent SE Asia None
EPFBs SE As ia None
Tall oil pitch EU Fuel oi l , wood chip
Crude glycerine EU Fuel oi l , wood chip Corn, suga rs Foss i l crude oi l
Bagasse Brazi l None Cane tras h i f extract s us t
Grape marcs & wine lees EUPea t, ferti l i s er,
AD diges tateMore grapes ?
Nut shells EU Coal , wood, s tra w
Husks UK Coal , wood, s tra w
Cobs US None i f extract s us t Hay/s i lage for feed
Bark, branches, leaves EU None i f extract s us t
Saw dust & cutter shavings EU More wood chip/pel let More wood chip, straw More wood chip, stra w
Black & brown liquor EU Fuel oi l , wood chip
UCO UK None
Animal fats Cat I and II UK Fuel oi l , wood chip
Miscanthus UK Likely agri c. land
Short Rotation Coppice UK Likely agri c. land
Short Rotation Forestry UK Land us ed
Small round-wood UK None i f extract s us t More wood chip
Micro-algae US Likely ba rren, s mal l
Macro-algae UK At s ea
Renewable electricity UK Marginal electrici ty Minimal area
Waste carbon gases EU None Na tural ga s
Potential price impacts of diversion to biofuels
23
Feedstock RegionGrowth in theoretical
potential?Additional sustainable collection?
Indicative current
competition in the
example region?
Of the competing uses,
what % are energy uses?Traded resource?
Potential price
impacts?
Tall oil pitch EU Smal l ri s e Minimal 100% 100% Yes Hi gh
Crude glycerine EU Smal l ri s e Li mited 90% 10% Yes Hi gh
Grape marcs EU Flat Minimal 100% 0% Partia l ly Hi gh
Wine lees EU Flat Minimal 100% 0% Partia l ly Hi gh
Nut shells EU Flat Minimal 100% 50% Yes Hi gh
Husks EU Flat Minimal 100% 50% Partia l ly Hi gh
Sawdust & cutter shavings EU Smal l ri s e Minimal 100% Medium Yes Hi gh
Animal fats (Cat I and II) UK Smal l ri s e Minimal 70% 100% Yes Hi gh
Straw UK Flat Potentia l l y l imited (left on ground) 70-90% 5-10% Partia l ly Medium-High
Bio-fraction of MSW UK Flat Large (landfi l l ) 60% 40% Contract tie up Medium
Bio-fraction of C&I waste UK Flat Large (landfi l l ) 40% 40% Contract tie up Medium
Bagasse Brazi l Large rise Large (burning) 60% 80% Partia l ly Medium
Cobs US Smal l ri s e Large (left on ground) 50% Low Partia l ly Medium
Small round-wood UK Flat Medium (left un-harves ted) 30% 0% Yes Medium
UCO EU Large rise Medium (dis posa l ) 10% 0% Yes Medium
Empty palm fruit bunches SE As ia Large rise Large (burning) Low Low Partia l ly Low
Bark, branches, leaves EU Smal l fa l l Large (left on ground) 10% Low Partia l ly Low
Miscanthus UK New growth Large 0% NA Partia l ly Low
Short rotation coppice UK New growth Large 0% NA Partia l ly Low
Short rotation forestry UK New growth (>2030) Large 0% NA Yes Low
Micro-algae US New growth Large 0% NA Yes in future Low
Macro-algae UK New growth Large 0% NA No Low
Renewable electricity UK New growth Large 100% 100% Yes Low
Animal manure UK Flat Large (spread) 15% 90% Minimal NA
Sewage sludge UK Smal l ri s e Limited (spread) 90% 100% Minimal NA
Palm oil mill effluent SE As ia Large rise Large (dis charge) Low Hi gh No NA
Black & brown liquor EU Rise Li mited 100% 100% No NA
Waste carbon gases EU Flat Medi um (some mi l l s flare/vent) 50% 100% No NA
Many Annex IX biofuel routes are capable of >80% GHG
savings, and all >60%
24
Feedstock Fuel RegionGHG emissions
(gCO2e/MJ)Key sensitivities GHG saving
Cost of saving
(£/tCO2e)
Black & brown liquor Bio-DME EU 1 Convers ion s tep = 0 i n RED 99% 159
Nut shells FT diesel EU 4 Convers ion s tep = 0 i n RED 95% 138
Bark, branches, leaves FT diesel EU 4 Convers ion s tep = 0 i n RED 95% 94
Saw dust & cutter shavings FT diesel EU 4 Convers ion s tep = 0 i n RED 95% 155
Short rotation coppice FT diesel UK 6 Yields , Convers ion s tep = 0 in RED 93% 178
SRF/small round-wood FT diesel UK 6 Convers ion s tep = 0 i n RED 93% 157
Tall oil pitch HVO EU 9 H2 requirements and means of H2 production 90% 12
Renewable electricity Hydrogen UK 9 H2 compres s ion and transport mode 89% 376
Empty palm fruit bunches FT diesel SE As ia 10 Transport dis tances/modes . Convers ion = 0 in RED 88% 109
Grape marcs LC ethanol EU 11 Ammonia & l ime inputs 87% 266
Husks LC ethanol EU 11 Ammonia & l ime inputs 87% 196
Miscanthus LC ethanol UK 11 Cultivation (diesel ), yiel ds , ammoni a & l ime inputs 87% 107
Straw LC ethanol UK 11 Ammonia & l ime inputs , enzymes made ons i te 87% 104
Animal manure Bio-methane UK 13 Carbon intens i ty of electrici ty 84% 406
Sewage Sludge Bio-methane UK 13 Carbon intens i ty of electrici ty 84% 240
UCO FAME UK 15 Methanol input. Based on actua l UK data 82% 96
Animal fats Cat I & II FAME UK 15 Methanol input. Based on actua l UK data 82% 12
Cobs LC ethanol US 16 Ammonia & l ime inputs , trans port dis tances 81% 246
Corn Stover LC ethanol US 16 Ammonia & l ime inputs , trans port dis tances 81% 178
Bio-fraction of MSW Bio-methane UK 17 Carbon intens i ty of electrici ty 80% 120
Bio-fraction of C&I waste Bio-methane UK 17 Carbon intens i ty of electrici ty 80% 138
Wine lees 1G ethanol EU 20 Natura l gas use for drying 76% 173
SRF/small round-wood LC ethanol US 20 Ammonia & l ime inputs , trans port dis tances/modes 76% 187
Bagasse LC ethanol Brazi l 23 Ammonia & l ime inputs , trans port dis tances/modes 73% 86
Crude glycerine Methanol EU 25 Natura l gas for cracking. Based on actua l UK data 70% 331
Waste carbon gases Ethanol EU 25 Power and s team inputs to convers ion process 70% 62
Macro-algae Bio-methane UK 17-34 Biomass yield & harvesting energy. Uncerta in 60-80% 809 -1,085
Micro-algae FAME US 31-36 Energy input, oi l yield & productivi ty. Uncerta in 58-63% 786 - 859
Palm oil mill effluent Bio-methane SE Asia
Overview of key results for cross-comparison
25
FeedstockLHV
(GJ/t)
Global 2020
feedstock pot.
(PJbiofuel/yr)
Feedstock
price (£/GJ)
Biofuel
production cost
(£/GJ)
Key competing uses and substitute resourcesPotential price
impact?
% GHG
savings
Cost of GHG
saving (£/tCO2e)
Renewable electricity NA 17,316 26.4 55 New growth as sumed (wind-farm, solar PV) Low 89% 376
Animal manure 1.3* 12,016 0.0* 39 Spreading to land (diges tate) NA 84% 406
Straw 15 5,240 2.8-4.2 26-31 Soi l (extract s ust), animal feed (hay), bedding (wood) Med-High 81-87% 104-178
Small round-wood 12.3 3,282 2.6 31 Soi l (extract s ust), paper & panel (more wood) Medium 76-93% 187
Bio-fraction of MSW 6.3 3,253 -6.5* 18 Landfi l l (none), H&P (nat gas , chip), compost (fert, peat, digest.) Medium 80% 120
Bio-fraction of C&I waste 7 2,390 -5.9* 19 Landfi l l (none), H&P (nat gas , chip) Medium 80% 138
Bagasse 7.8 1,748 1.1 24 Burning (none), H&P (extract s ust trash) Medium 73% 86
Black & brown liquor 12 1,714 9.3 32 H&P (HFO, chip) NA 99% 159
Bark, branches, leaves 12.4 1,376 3.1 26 Soi l (extract s ust) Low 95% 94
Husks 13 645 7.5 33 H&P (coa l , wood, s traw) High 87% 196
Sawdust & cutter shavings 15.2 614 4.4 31 H&P, bedding, paper, panel (a l l more wood, straw) High 95% 155
Waste carbon gases 6.2 511 6.7 23 Flare (none), H&P (nat gas ) NA 70% 62
Sewage sludge 0.5* 301 0.0* 27 AD & incinerate (nat gas), spread (digestate) NA 84% 240
UCO 36 266 20.1 25 Hous ehold dis posa l (none) Medium 82% 96
Cobs 12.4 185 4.6 36 Soi l (extract sus t), animal feed (hay) Medium 81% 246
Empty palm fruit bunches 4.5 172 0.7 27 Burning (none), H&P (nat gas , chip), compos t (fert) Low 88% 109
Palm oil mill effluent 0.8* 127 0.0* No import Open pond dis charge (none) NA
Animal fats (Cat I and II) 36 119 14.7 20 H&P (HFO, chip) High 82% 12
Nut shells 16.4 61 4.1 30 H&P (coa l , wood, s traw) High 95% 138
Short rotation coppice 12.3 47 4 33 New growth as sumed (agric. land) Low 93% 178
Crude glycerine 14.2 42 17.9 38 Refining (foss i l ), H&P (HFO, chip), animal feed (s ugar, corn) High 70% 331
Miscanthus 13.4 24 4 27 New growth as sumed (agric. land) Low 87% 107
Grape marcs 7.8 20 9.4 38 Wine (more grape), compos t (fert, peat, diges tate) High 87% 266
Tall oil pitch 38 17 11.1 20 H&P (HFO, chip) High 90% 12
Wine lees 6.2 5.4 9.4 30 Wine (more grape), compos t (fert, peat, diges tate) High 76% 173
Macro-algae 2.0* 2.2 23.8* 62 New growth as s umed (coasta l seas ) Low 60-80% 809 -1,085
Micro-algae 36 0.51 47.5 60 New growth as sumed (barren land) Low 58-63% 786 - 859
Short rotation forestry 12.3 0 3.5 31 New growth ass umed (land) Low 93% 157
| Strategic thinking in sustainable energy
Framework criteria
Which feedstocks justify additional support?
Analytical framework for decision making –
a hierarchy of questions
27
• For a given material – if it is land using (not a waste/processing residue), has
the use of high biodiversity, high carbon stock or peat land been avoided?
• What are the key competing uses, and potential substitute resources?
• Would diversion to biofuels give a high risk of unacceptable carbon, cost, social or
environmental impacts – e.g. substitution by fossil fuels or use of more land? Or
could productivity improvements release material?
• For new non-food crops, is there likely competition with food via ILUC?
• Are lifecycle GHG savings of producing biofuel from the feedstock high enough
(vs. a fossil comparator) to be supported? At least >60%?
• Would the biofuel route be economically viable without support? Or would
deployment only occur with support, due to the lack of commercial readiness
of the conversion technology, infrastructure investments required or other
reasons? i.e. support is additional? How does the £/tCO2e saved compare?
Simplified decision tree (please see full version in report)
28
Yes
NO
SUPPORT
No
YesNo
NO
SUPPORT
NoNoYes
Not
collected
NO
SUPPORT
No = processing residue
Competing uses
What would otherwise happen to the material - if not used as a feedstock for biofuels production?
Re-use, recycling or
composting
Landfill, open
burn, discharged
GHG emission savings
Are the GHG savings associated with biofuel production (using most likely supply chain) above a desired threshold?
Replacement options are high
carbon, high cost, land using or
other determental impacts?
Used for energy , industrial
& material applications
Yes
Additionality
Would the biofuel route only be economically viable and commercially deployed with support?
SUPPORT NOT
NEEDED
Yes
SUPPORT
JUSTIFIED
Risk that growing the
feedstock will cause ILUC
via competition with food?
No
Yes
No = product/co-product
Is it a waste?No
Yes
Is it an agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries or
forestry residue? Yes
START Is it a residue?
No
NO
SUPPORT
Can biofuel be made whilst
providing the same services?
e.g. dewatered AD digestate
better than raw compost
Used for food
or animal
feed
NO
SUPPORT
No
NO
SUPPORT
Growing/collecting has
unacceptable enviro. or
social impacts?
YesNO
SUPPORT
From land with high biodiversity value,
high carbon stock or peat land?
Not
grown
Yes
Many feedstocks meet the criteria, others partially (if
uncollected or avoiding fossil substitution). Some too risky
29
Feedstock ClassificationILUC food
comp risk?
Biodiverse, C stock,
peat land?
Competing
uses?Indirect risks GHG savings Economic viability Additional support justified?
Renewable electricity Product Minimal Unl ikely a concern - - Excel lent Expensive Yes for new s ites
Animal manure Agric res idue - Unl ikely a concern Low Low Good Expensive Yes
Bio-fraction of MSW Was te - - Medium Nat ga s (H&P), fert (compos t) Good More cos tly
Bio-fraction of C&I waste Was te - - Medium Nat ga s (H&P), fert (compos t) Good More cos tly
Micro-algae Product Negl igible Unl ikely a concern - - Threshold Expensive
Macro-algae Product Negl igible Not a concern - - Threshold Expensive
Bark, branches, leaves Forest res idue - Avoid convers ion Low Low Excel lent More cos tly
Small round-wood Product - Avoid convers ion Medium Low i f more wood i s s us t. Good More cos tly
UCO Proces s res idue - - Low-Medium Low Excel lent Competi tive
Straw Agric res idue - Avoid convers ion Medium-High Hay (feed) Excel lent More cos tly
Cobs Agric res idue - Avoid convers ion Medium Hay (feed) Good More cos tly
Empty palm fruit bunches Proces s res idue - - Low Low Excel lent More cos tly
Bagasse Proces s res idue - - Medium Low Good Competi tive
Waste carbon gases Proces s res idue - - Low Natura l gas (H&P) Good Competi tive
Sewage sludge Was te - - High Natura l gas (H&P) Good More cos tly
Black & brown liquor Proces s res idue - - High Fuel oi l (H&P) Excel lent More cos tly
Tall oil pitch Proces s res idue - - High Fuel oi l (H&P) Excel lent Competi tive
Nut shells Proces s res idue - - High Coa l (H&P) Excel lent More cos tly
Husks Proces s res idue - - High Coa l (H&P) Excel lent More cos tly
Sawdust & cutter shavings Proces s res idue - - High Low i f more wood i s s us t. Excel lent More cos tly
Animal fats (Cat I and II) Proces s res idue - High Fuel oi l (H&P) Excel lent Competi tive
Miscanthus Product Yes Avoid convers ion - - Excel lent More cos tly
Short rotation coppice Product Yes Avoid convers ion - - Excel lent More cos tly
Short rotation forestry Product Yes Avoid convers ion - - Excel lent More cos tly
Grape marcs Proces s res idue - - High More grape needed Excel lent Expensive
Wine lees Proces s res idue - - High More grape needed Good More cos tly
Crude glycerine Proces s res idue - - High Multiple (H&P, feed, indus t) Good Expensive Likely too ma ny ri s ks
Palm oil mill effluent Was te - - Low Low Excel lent Bioga s unl ikely to reach EU
Bacteria Product? Low? Not a concern? ? ? ? Expens ive? Unknown, too ri s ky. Add in future?
Only i f the feeds tock i s replaced
with a s us ta ina ble fuel (s ectors
remain decarbonis ed)
Only i f ILUC ri sk can be mitigated, i .e.
through enforcement of land
protection, yield increa ses
Indus try impact l i kely too high
Yes for extracting sust. addi tional
res ource, no dis placing a nima l feed
Yes , depends on convers ion tech and
landfi l l tax
Yes
Yes for extracting susta inable
a ddi tional resource
Yes for under-uti l i s ed fra ction
Conclusions and recommendations
30
• Many Annex IX feedstocks meet the criteria to justify additional support – or
could do so where only uncollected fractions are considered, significant
productivity improvements are possible to release material, or when fossil fuel
substitution can be avoided
• Novel conversion technologies using these feedstocks still need to be
commercialised. Few routes are currently economically competitive, despite
attractive GHG savings on offer
• Ongoing European policy negotiations need to base the final Annex IX lists on
robust evidence, incorporating clear guidelines and definitions
• Hopefully, the risk screening approach in this study is a useful tool to help
move the debate in this direction, and support the deployment of low risk,
sustainable biofuels
