Upload
debbie-buckley
View
98
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Biomass supply curves for the
UK
March 2009
Summary
For DECC
2
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply and imports to the UK
4. Supply curves for UK energy demands
5. Conclusions
3
Scope and aims
3
• In this project, we were asked to develop supply curves for the UK biomass
market, based on
• a range of UK feedstocks and imported feedstocks
• five points in time: 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030
• four scenarios of the supply curve development
• The supply curves and data will be used by DECC in ongoing modelling and
analysis to
• compare the relative costs of biomass and other renewable options in the
electricity, heat and transport sectors
• estimate the costs to the UK of the renewables target
• identify the optimal use of limited biomass resources
• assess the impacts of technology development
• develop consistent incentives across all sectors
1. Introduction
4
Relationship between key parts of the analysis
4
Scenarios
Global supply
curve
UK supply curve
(without imports)
Global demand
levels
Price of imports to
the UK
UK supply curve
(with imports)
Separate UK
supply curves for
different UK
demands
1. The scenarios affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks (land use, yields,
extractability) and global demand (policy, technically viable end uses)
2. The UK supply curve is then built up
3. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported, and the level of
global demand for these feedstocks, is used to determine the price of imports
4. The overall UK supply curve is broken down in to separate supply curves showing
the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies, to meet different
demands
1
2
3
5
1. Introduction
4
5
Introduction to scenarios
5
• Four scenarios were defined:
• Business As Usual (BAU) – a continuation of current trends, without the EU
RED. This includes continued trends in use of first generation biofuels, and in
waste diversion from landfill, and modest technology development in energy
crops and second generation biofuel production
• Central RES – As BAU, but with the introduction of the RED. This results in
an increase in EU demand for bioenergy, and sustainability criteria restricting
land use for energy crops
• High Sustainability –greenhouse gas savings and other sustainability
impacts are prioritised. This leads to lower energy demand through efficiency,
strong technology development, and stronger bioenergy demand side policy.
• High Growth –energy and food demand increase globally, putting increased
pressure on resources. However, the response to this leads to strong
technology development, and a move away from less resource efficient
technologies. Some sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with
Central RES
1. Introduction
6
Feedstocks considered
6
UK feedstocks
Energy crops Short rotation coppice willow or poplar, and miscanthus
Crop residues Straw from wheat and oil seed rape
Stemwood Hardwood and softwood tree trunks
Forestry residues Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood
Sawmill co-product Wood chips, sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood
Arboricultural arisings Stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery
operations
Waste wood Clean and contaminated waste wood
Organic waste Paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant and textiles wastes
Sewage sludge From Waste Water Treatment Works
Animal manures Manures and slurries from cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry
Landfill gas Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites
Global feedstocks
Energy crops Woody short rotation crops, such as eucalyptus and willow
Forestry residues Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood
Wood processing residues Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry
Others – considered in the annex only, not included in supply curves
First generation biofuels Ethanol from sugar and starch crops, and biodiesel from oil crops
Algae Oil and biomass from photosynthetic algae
1. Introduction
7
Deriving supply curves
7
Resource
• Potential
minus technical constraints
minus environmental constraints
minus competing demands for the resource
minus an availability factor for supply constraints
1. Introduction
Costs
• For most feedstocks any remaining resource after competing demands is
available for bioenergy at the cost of production/extraction - no competition with
the competing demand on the basis of price.
• Exceptions :
• Energy crops –includes land rent i.e. all competing uses of land
• Imports – global supply and demand are used to find the global price. This
is assumed to be the price at which the UK can import, i.e. the UK is
assumed to be a price taker
8
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply and imports to the UK
4. Supply curves for UK energy demands
5. Conclusions
9
Introduction to biomass supply curves
9
Cost
Quantity
Negative cost
feedstocks are those
for which there would
be a fee to dispose of
them
Total
available
resource
Positive cost
feedstocks
• This can be for one feedstock,
or can be the sum of the supply
curves for many different types
of biomass feedstocks
2. UK supply
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
10
Supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario over time
10
2. UK supply
Box done
• The potential bioenergy resource is large
• It increases significantly to 2030, mainly due to expansion in
energy crops and increased ability to extract other feedstocks
• There is a large resource at negative cost due to avoided gate
fees: organic MSW, sewage sludge and waste wood
• Positive cost feedstocks include straw, forestry residues,
stemwood and sawmill co-product – but these are small
compared with the potentially large energy crop resource
• Note: these costs do not include landfill tax, transport to plant, or
preprocessing – this is added separately for each demand later
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030 Wastes
BAU 2030 Energy crops
BAU 2030 Forestry
BAU 2030 Agricultural
11
BAU scenario in 2030, broken down by feedstock type
11
2. UK supply
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
Energy crops-8.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0 200 400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
Wastes
ForestryAgricultural
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
12
Supply curve for all feedstocks - all scenarios in 2030
12
2. UK supply
• The total potential is affected strongly by the energy crop potential:
the High Growth scenario has a large land area and highest yields.
This is reduced in the BAU scenario as a result of lower crop yields,
and in the Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios as a
result of greater constraints on the use of abandoned pasture land
• Energy crop potentials in both BAU and High Growth scenarios
remain constrained in 2030 by planting rates
• Energy crop costs are lower in the High Sustainability and High
Growth scenarios, as a result of higher yields
• Potential from wastes is reduced in High Sustainability due to lower
volumes of waste generation, and is increased under High Growth
13
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply and imports to the UK
4. Supply curves for UK energy demands
5. Conclusions
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
14
Deriving import price from global supply and demand - BAU
14
• Feedstocks are forestry and
wood processing residues, and
energy crops – ‘woody biomass’
• Forestry and wood processing
residues are small (7 EJ) in
2030 in comparison with the
energy crop resource (196 EJ)
• The resource increases to 2030
with energy crop yield increases
and planted area
• If we know the global demand
for woody biomass in a
particular year, we can use the
global supply curve to
determine the cost of supplying
that demand
• If the UK is assumed to be a
price taker, this is the price at
which imports are available to
the UK
3. Imports
Global demand of 15 EJ
in 2030 gives a global
price of £3.48 /GJ
(equivalent to £63 /odt)
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
15
Under BAU, import prices fall over time, but remain expensive
15
• The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass - more
than enough to supply UK demand – at the global market price
• However, imports would be high cost
• In 2010, import prices are more expensive than all other UK
resources
• In 2030, imports are only cheaper than the most expensive
straw and energy crops
• These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made,
as transport adds around £2/GJ to most global feedstock costs
2030 import price £3.48 /GJ2010 import price: £6.52 /GJ
3. Imports
16
Supply curves under different scenarios differ
considerably in 2030...
16
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
• The main difference between
the scenarios is the energy
crop resource
• High Sustainability has the
greatest potential and the
lowest costs as a result of
• more abandoned agricultural
land
• potentially better quality
agricultural land may be
abandoned
• high energy crop
management factor
• In High Growth, extra food
demand requires more
agricultural area, and hence
less is available for energy
crops, and poorer non
agricultural land is used
3. Imports
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
17
...but lead to a similar (and high) import price
17
BAU, Central RES and High Growth
import price £3.48 /GJ
• Under BAU, Central RES and High Growth the import price of
3.48 £/GJ is more expensive than nearly all UK energy crops
and straw
• Under High Sustainability, the import price is lower at 3.13
£/GJ, as the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is
cheaper. However, UK energy crops are also cheaper, hence
imports are still more expensive than 95% of the UK’s
resources
High Sustainability import price £3.13 /GJ
3. Imports
18
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply and imports to the UK
4. Supply curves for UK energy demands
5. Conclusions
19
Building appropriate supply curves for different demands
19
• Deciding which feedstocks to combine on supply curves for biomass conversion
can be complex, and depends on how they will be used.
• All of the resources on the supply curve must be suitable feedstocks for the
conversion technology being considered, in terms of
• Need for wet or dry feedstocks
• Sizing or other pretreatment requirements e.g. chipping, pelletising
• Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks
• Likely transport distances for feedstocks, and the form in which the feedstock
is transported
• We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion
technologies. We then merged these into 5 groups, with very similar feedstock
requirements
• The supply curves show total available resources suitable for that demand group.
No assumptions are made on the share of resources used for each one, and so
no resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered.
4. UK demands
20
Demand groups
20
Demand
groupTypes of plants Feedstock types and requirements
Large thermal
• Dedicated medium and large
thermal electricity/CHP plant
• Co-firing
• Commercial and industrial scale
heat/CHP
• Most wood resources, energy crops, straw, dry
manures and sewage sludge
• Chipped or dried where necessary
• 50 km UK transport
• Imported chips
Domestic
heat/CHP• Domestic boilers, stoves and CHP
• Most wood resources and energy crops
• Pelletised or as logs
• Imported pellets
• 50 km UK transport
Anaerobic
digestion• Anaerobic digestion plants
• All wet resources: wet manures, sewage sludge
and MSW. Landfill gas is not included
• No pretreatment
• 10 km UK transport, zero for sludge
Waste&fuels
• Energy from waste plants using
thermal technologies
• 2nd generation biofuels production
• SNG via gasification
• All resources except wet manures and landfill gas
• Chipped, chopped or dried where necessary
• 50 km UK transport for most, 10km for wastes
• Imported chips
Landfill gas • Gas engines, turbines
• Landfill gas only
• No imports
• No treatment or transport
4. UK demands
21
Example: Large thermal plant – BAU over time
21
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
• This supply curve is
suitable for medium and
large electricity/
CHP/heat plant and co-
firing
• It includes forestry,
arboricultural and wood
processing residues,
energy crops, straw, dry
manures, dried sewage
sludge and clean waste
wood.
• Imported chips, including
50km UK transport are
available at the prices
shown
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030Import price
£/GJ7.28 7.09 5.14 4.41 4.04
4. UK demands
22
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply and imports to the UK
4. Supply curves for UK energy demands
5. Conclusions
23
There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at
reasonable cost
23
• The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary
energy demand by 2030, at a cost of less than £5/GJ
• The resource in earlier years is much smaller, due to a lower resource potential, and each
the sector’s capability to extract or grow the feedstock
• The key factors affecting biomass resources and costs are
• Land availability for energy crops
• Energy crop yields
• Waste generation and management
• Biomass supply and demand should be considered globally, rather than focusing supplies
from within the UK or within the EU
• Global woody biomass resources could potentially be very large, even after demands
for land for food and 1st generation biofuel feedstocks are supplied first, if there is a
fast ramp up of energy crop planting
• However, the global price may be higher than most indigenous UK feedstocks. Prices
could be lower before a global commodity market develops or with lower transport
costs
• Supply curves suitable for different UK demands have been provided, including additional
UK transport and processing costs. Most resources can be used to generate either
electricity, heat, or transport fuels, via a range of conversion technologies.
5. Conclusions
24
Biomass supply curves for the
UK
March 2009
Final report
For DECC
Full slide pack
25
How to use this document
25
• This document gives the approach, results, and supporting data for the biomass supply
analysis conducted during this project
• The main body of the slides is a summary of the results
• Given that we have modelled 4 scenarios across 5 points in time, and many
feedstocks, detailed data is not provided for every permutation in this pack
• For both UK and global supply, we have given two graphs: the BAU scenario in each
year, and all scenarios in 2030
• We also provide supporting slides, summarising the assumptions behind the derivation
of the supply curve for each group of resources
• The annexes give more details on the assumptions for each feedstock, and for the global
demand assessment
• Throughout the document summaries and conclusions are shown in blue boxes to
distinguish them from analysis and supporting assumptions
26
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
27
Scope and aims
27
• In this project, we were asked to develop supply curves for the UK biomass market, based
on
• a range of UK feedstocks and imported feedstocks
• five points in time: 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030
• four scenarios of the supply curve development, varying in their assumptions of energy
and food demand, technology development, policy requirements and sustainability
criteria.
• The supply curves and data will be used by BERR in ongoing modelling and analysis to
• compare relative costs of biomass and other renewable options in the electricity, heat
and transport sectors
• estimate the costs to the UK of the renewables target
• identify the optimal use of limited biomass resource
• assess impacts of technology development
• develop consistent incentives across all sectors
1. Introduction
28
Relationship between key parts of the analysis
28
Scenarios
Global supply
curve
UK supply curve
(without imports)
Global demand
levels
Price of imports to
the UK
UK supply curve
(with imports)
Separate UK
supply curves for
different UK
demands
1. The scenarios are defined first, as these affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks
(land use, yields, extractability) and global demand (policy, technically viable end uses)
2. The UK supply curve is then built up, based on the availability and cost of each feedstock
3. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported to the UK, and the level of
global demand for these feedstocks, is used to determine the price of imports
4. The overall UK supply curve can then be broken down in to separate supply curves showing
the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies, to meet different demands
1
2
3
5
1. Introduction
4
29
Introduction to scenarios
29
• Four scenarios were defined. These were designed to represent different potential futures,
and also to give differing impacts on biomass supply and demand.
• The scenarios are:
• Business As Usual (BAU) – a continuation of current trends, without the EU
Renewable Energy Directive (RED). This includes continued trends in use of first
generation biofuels, and in waste diversion from landfill, and modest technology
development in energy crops and second generation biofuel production
• Central RES – As BAU, but with the introduction of the RED. This results in an
increase in EU demand for bioenergy, and sustainability criteria restricting land use for
energy crops
• High Sustainability – here greenhouse gas savings and other sustainability impacts
such as conservation of biodiversity are prioritised. This leads to lower energy demand
through efficiency, strong technology development, and stronger bioenergy demand
side policy.
• High Growth – here energy and food demand increase globally, putting increased
pressure on resources. However, response to this leads to strong technology
development, and a move away from less resource efficient technologies. Some
sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with Central RES
1. Introduction
30
Scenarios summary
BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth
UK power, heat and
fuels policy
Existing as in White
Paper, constant to
2030
To meet 2020 RED.
Constant generation
level after
Extended RED to
2030
To meet 2020 RED.
Constant generation
level after
Global bioenergy
policyCurrent policy Current policy + RED
Extended RED to
2030 + Increased 2G
biofuels targets
globally
RED + Increased 2G
biofuels targets
globally
Global food
demandCentral projection Central projection Central projection Increased projection
Global energy
demandIEA BAU projection IEA BAU projection
IEA BAU projections
-12.5%
IEA BAU projections
+12.5%
Land use for 1G
biofuel feedstocksContinued expansion Continued expansion Reduced expansion Increased expansion
Land use for
energy cropsCentral Restricted Restricted Central
UK waste
generation Current trend Current trend
Growth rates reduced
by 0.75%
Growth rates
increased by 0.25%
Technology
development and
resource extraction
Mid Mid High High
30
1. Introduction
31
Deriving supply curves – feedstocks considered
31
UK feedstocks
Energy crops Short rotation coppice willow or poplar, and miscanthus
Crop residues Straw from wheat and oil seed rape
Stemwood Hardwood and softwood tree trunks
Forestry residues Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood
Sawmill co-product Wood chips, sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood
Arboricultural arisings Stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations
Waste wood Clean and contaminated waste wood
Organic waste Paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant and textiles wastes
Sewage sludge From Waste Water Treatment Works
Animal manures Manures and slurries from cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry
Landfill gas Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites
Global feedstocks
Energy crops Woody short rotation crops, such as eucalyptus and willow (species not specified)
Forestry residues Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood
Wood processing residues Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry
Others – considered in the annex only, not included in supply curves
First generation biofuels Ethanol from sugar and starch crops, and biodiesel from oil crops
Algae Oil and biomass from photosynthetic algae
1. Introduction
• The scope of feedstocks considered was agreed at the start of the project, based on consideration of the
mostly likely UK and imported sources in the long term
32
Deriving supply curves – resource
32
• We followed a broadly similar approach to estimating the potential for each resource. In most cases, this
takes the form of
Potential
minus technical constraints
minus environmental constraints
minus competing demands for the resource
minus an availability factor for supply constraints e.g. planting rate, extraction ramp up
• The competing demand for the resource are assumed to be supplied before any use for bioenergy. This
means:
• for energy crops, land needs for food are supplied first
• for wood processing residues, the wood product industry's needs are supplied first
• for straw, feed and bedding needs are supplied first
• for wastes, recycling is supplied first
• The competing demands change over time, and between scenarios
• Alternative disposal routes for wastes e.g. composting, are not treated as competing demands
1. Introduction
33
Deriving supply curves – cost
33
• As competing demands for the resource are supplied first, for most feedstocks any
remaining resource is available for bioenergy at the cost of production/extraction. This
means that there is no competition with the competing demand on the basis of price.
• The exceptions to this are:
• Energy crops – a cost of production is used, which includes a land rent (price) which
takes into account all competing uses of land (i.e. not only the use of land for food,
which has already been excluded)
• Imports – a global supply curve based on costs, as above, is used with global demand
levels to find the global price. This is assumed to be the price at which the UK can
import, i.e. the UK is assumed to be a price taker
• An alternative approach would be to include price competition with competing uses.
However, this would entail deriving demand curves for each competing demand for each
feedstock, in many different sector, which would be difficult and time-consuming, particularly
at a global level, and in future years.
1. Introduction
34
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
35
Introduction to biomass supply curves
35
Cost
Quantity
Negative cost feedstocks
are those for which there
would be a fee to dispose
of them
Total available
resource
Positive cost feedstocks
• This can be for one feedstock, or
can be the sum of the supply curves
for many different types of biomass
feedstocks
2. UK supply
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
36
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario over time
36
2. UK supply
Box done
• The potential bioenergy resource is large. UK primary energy demand is
currently around 10 EJ (10,000 PJ)
• It increases significantly to 2030, mainly due to expansion in energy crops
and increased ability to extract other feedstocks
• There is a large resource at negative cost due to avoided gate fees:
organic MSW, sewage sludge and waste wood
• Positive cost feedstocks include straw, forestry residues, stemwood and
sawmill co-product – but these are small compared with the potentially
large energy crop resource
• Note that these costs do not include transport to the plant, or
preprocessing: this is added separately for each demand in section 5
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030 Wastes
BAU 2030 Energy crops
BAU 2030 Forestry
BAU 2030 Agricultural
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost
(£/G
J) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
37
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario 2030
37
2. UK supply
Energy crops-8.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0 200 400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
Wastes
ForestryAgriculturalThe supply curve for each of the four
categories is given in the following slides
• The overall supply curve can be disaggregated into four categories of feedstocks
• These four categories are for explanation and comparison – a different split based on potential end uses
will be given in section 5 to feed into demand assessment
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
38
Energy crops are the largest potential resource
38
• Energy crops are the largest of the
potential UK resources in 2030.
These are planted on land released
from food production, and on
pasture land
• The model assumes that on each
area of land, either SRC willow,
SRC poplar, or miscanthus is
planted, depending on their relative
production costs
• The resource increases over time
as more land becomes available,
and as more of this area is planted.
• The resource is significantly limited
by planting rates until the mid 2020s
(see next slide). After this it is
limited by land area – 2.2Mha in
2030
• Costs decrease to 2030 with yield
increases, but remain predominantly
at £2-3.5 /GJ (£35-60 /odt), without
subsidies
2. UK supply
Note: costs shown are for chipped
SRC and baled miscanthus
39
Energy crops are limited by planting rates
39
Add planting
rates graph
DONE
2. UK supply
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
• The dotted lines show the energy
crop potential assuming all available
land area is planted in each year
• The solid lines show the effect of
planting rates: these significantly
limit the potential until after 2020
• In the BAU scenario and High
Growth scenarios, the 2030
potential is still limited by the
planting rate
• In the Central RES and High
Sustainability scenarios, the full
available area is planted from 2022,
as less land is available
• Note that a spread of land types is
planted each year – we do not
assume that the best or worst land
is planted first
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2008
BAU 2008 no planting constraintsBAU 2010
40
Reducing the maximum planting rate reduces 2030
potential significantly in some scenarios
40
2. UK supply
• In this graph, the maximum planting rate of
150kha/yr is reduced to 100kha/yr
• Before 2016, the results are the same as
the previous slide, as the planting rate is
still ramping up
• In all scenarios the resource from 2016 to
mid 2020s is constrained by the planting
rate, with the lower planting rate reducing
the potential by around 25% in 2020
• Changing the maximum planting rate does
not affect High Sustainability and Central
RES to 2030 because they are then
constrained by the available land area.
• BAU and High Growth are constrained by
planting rates, and so reducing the planting
rate reduces the potential in 2030 by
167PJ, or 31% under BAU, and by 208PJ,
or 31% in High Growth.
• This reduces total BAU potential from
around 1,150PJ to around 1,000PJ
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
Slide added March 2009
41
Energy crop subsidies
41
• Energy crop subsidies have
been included in the
dashed curves
• Energy crop scheme
establishment grants
of £1000 /ha for SRC
and £800 /ha for
miscanthus
• EU area payments of
£30/ha/yr
• These reduce the costs of
energy crops by around
£0.6/GJ under the BAU
scenario
2. UK supply
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 with subsidies
BAU 2010 with subsidies
BAU 2015 with subsidies
BAU 2020 with subsidies
BAU 2030 with subsidies
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 with subsidies
BAU 2010 with subsidies
BAU 2015 with subsidies
BAU 2020 with subsidies
BAU 2030 with subsidies
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 with subsidies
BAU 2010 with subsidies
BAU 2015 with subsidies
BAU 2020 with subsidies
BAU 2030 with subsidies
42
Energy crops – summary of assumptions
Resource
• Energy crops are planted on arable and pasture land no longer needed for food production. Projections of this
for 2030 were taken from scenarios from the EU Refuel project, and a linear ramp up to this assumed based on
Refuel and ADAS data on current land availability.
• All abandoned arable land is assumed to be available (1.1mha in BAU and Central RES in 2030)
• In BAU and High Growth scenarios, all abandoned pasture is used (1.2mha in 2030), assuming that
planting is no-till, to avoid land use change emissions. In the other scenarios, biodiversity restrictions are
applied (10% of land is used in Central RES and High Sustainability)
• Planting rate: Current area of 8,000ha is assumed to increase by 1000ha in 2010, with the annual rate then
doubling each year until it reaches a maximum of 150,000 ha/year in 2017
• Yields from a model developed by Pepinster (2008), based on spatial models from Southampton University and
Rothamsted Research. This includes distribution of energy crop yields across England, on arable and improved
grassland, assuming planting of the highest yielding SRC willow, SRC poplar, or miscanthus on each grid
square
• Yields were increased by 1% or 2% p.a. depending on scenario
Costs
• Costs are calculated using a land rent (i.e. a price of land that takes into account competing land uses).
However, effects on the price as a result of competing uses for the product are not considered
• 2008 energy crop cost from Alberici (2008), based on a review of literature and industry views on energy crop
costs, adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. This considers the land rent and production cost on each
grid square
• Future cost reduction was assumed to be a function of yield increase only, not reduction in management costs
42
2. UK supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex A
-8.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0 200 400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
43
Wastes are a large resource at negative cost
43
2. UK supply
• Wastes are: wood wastes, paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant, textiles,
sewage sludge and landfill gas
• Resources currently going to alternative disposal routes (landfill, incineration,
AD or composting) are used, but not those being recycled
• The resource is large, with landfill gas being the largest resource in 2008,
when most other resources are limited by separability. Ramp up in the ability
to separate wastes leads to a large wood waste resource by 2015, and large
resources of other wastes by 2030
• Most of the resource is at negative cost, as a result of the gate fee for waste
disposal (£21/t in all scenarios), although landfill tax is not included. The
lowest energy content wastes have the lowest cost, as gate fees are charged
per tonne
44
Costs decrease if landfill tax is included
44
2. UK supply
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
0 200 400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
• Here, avoided landfill tax is also included in the resource costs. The
landfill tax increases from £24 to £48 by 2011 in all scenarios
• In High Sustainability and High Growth the current landfill tax escalator
of £8/yr is continued to 2030, significantly reducing the costs. This
reduces the cost of the lowest cost resources by around £5/GJ by 2030
• Including landfill tax changes the cost of each resource, and also the
merit order of the resources - wet food and garden wastes become
lower cost than sewage sludge
45
Wastes – summary of assumptions
Wood
wastes
• Resource from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Commercial & Industrial (C&I) and Construction & Demolition (C&D) is
given by WRAP (2005). Sector growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used to forecast total arisings.
Growth rates were reduced by 0.75% for High Sustainability, and increased by 0.25% for High Growth
• One third of the total resource is clean wood, the rest is contaminated (WRAP 2008)
• Competing uses for clean wood: use by the wood panel industry increases up to 2010, and remains flat afterwards in
BAU and Central RES (WRAP 2008). Under High scenarios, wood panel industry use increases to 2013
• Currently, 15% is separable for energy recovery, increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central RES, or by 2015 in
High Sustainability and High Growth
• Costs: avoided landfill costs for contaminated wood, gate fee of £8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood
Paper/card
Garden/plant
Food/kitchen
Textiles
• Resource from MSW, C&I arisings from ERM Golder 2006. Growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used
to forecast future total arisings. Rates were reduced by 0.75% for High Sustainability, and increased by 0.25% for High
Growth
• Recycled material was considered not to be available for energy. Increases in recycling volumes over time from WRAP
were used for BAU and Central RES. These were scaled up by extra growth in arisings in High Growth, but held the
same for High Sustainability even with lower arisings.
• Current separation is 48% for paper/card and 19% for textiles (for recycling); 17% for food/kitchen and 26% for
garden/plant (AD/composting). Separability is assumed to increase above rates of recycling/composting by 2% a year
under BAU and Central RES, or 4% a year under High scenarios, until a 90% maximum is reached, based on
international experience (ERM Golder)
• Costs: avoided landfill costs
Sewage
sludge
• Arisings increase to 2010, then slower annual growth with population afterwards (National Grid)
• Extraction rates: 90% is extractable as this is already used for energy via AD and incineration, 100% by 2010
• Costs: cost of dewatering, minus the gate fee for disposal/AD treatment of £45/tonne (Strathclyde University)
Landfill gas
• The above biodegradable wastes are available for energy if separable. If they are used for energy, they will not be
landfilled, and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. As a simplification, we have assumed no new waste is
landfilled from 2008. Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay (Enviros), assuming no new
capture installations.
• Zero costs assumed
45
2. UK supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex A
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 20 40 60 80
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
46
Forestry resources are relatively small, but are low cost
46
• Forestry resources are: arboricultural arisings, sawmill co-products, forestry
residues, and soft and hard stemwood
• The resource is small, but increases up to a peak in 2020 as forests reach maturity
and forest residue collection increases
• The largest potential resource is currently arboricultural arisings (6.1 PJ), but this is
quickly overtaken by forestry residues, which grow to 19 PJ by 2020
• The costs of most feedstocks are a result of collection and chipping only
• Some arboricultural arisings are available at negative costs, as they are currently
landfilled
2. UK supply
47
Forestry – summary of assumptions
Forestry
residues
• The resource consists of poor quality stemwood, branches and tips, with environmental, biological and
operational constraints (McKay, 2003). Additional resources from 1M odt/yr of under-managed English
forest will be available by 2020.
• Long tree growth times mean fixed forecasts regardless of scenario
• None of this resource is currently extracted. Extraction is assumed to be 10% in 2010, 75% in 2015 (50%
for BAU and Central RES), and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios
• Costs: forwarding and chipping at the roadside
Stemwood
• The resource to 2025 is taken from the Forestry Commission softwood forecast, extrapolated to 2030
• Competing uses: Sawmills always take the largest timber. Other competing uses remain at current volumes.
• Costs: tree felling and extraction
Sawmill
co-product
• Sawmills use the largest timber, as above. 51% of this becomes co-product – sawdust, chips and bark
• The competing uses are the panelboard industry, paper and pulp, exports and fencing. These are all
assumed to take the same volume in the future as they do now, under all scenarios
• Costs are very low: handling and storage at the sawmill
Arboricultural
arisings
• Arboricultural arisings are stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery
operations
• The resource was taken from a survey by McKay (2003), and kept unchanged over time and scenario
• The only competing use considered was the wood industry, using 16% of the resource. The remainder, that
is currently used for energy, landfilled or left on site, can be used
• 78% of the resource can be collected now (landfilled and woodfuel), increasing to100% by 2010
• Costs: collection and handling, or avoided landfill costs for material that is currently landfilled.
47
2. UK supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex A
48
Agricultural residues are limited by collection
48
• Agriculture feedstocks are:
wet and dry manures, and
straw
• The resource is reasonably
large, but limited before
2020 as a result of the slow
build up of collection of the
resources
• The zero cost resource is
manure. The slight
decrease in resource
between 2020 and 2030 is
a result of the livestock
herd decreasing
• The straw resource (69 PJ
in 2030) is available
between a cost of 2.3-4.5
£/GJ (38-76 £/odt)
2. UK supply
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 50 100 150 200
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
49
Agriculture – summary of assumptions
Straw
• The resource is based on a CSL study (2008) which considers the UK straw resource from all crops, taking into
account the extractability from the field, and competing uses such as feed and bedding. The bulk of the
remaining resource is oil seed rape straw, with some wheat straw. This is unchanged over time
• This is limited by the assumed ramp up of additional straw collection: 10% of this can be collected now, 20% in
2010, 50% in 2015, and 100% from 2020 in all scenarios. This rate is relatively slow, as oil seed rape straw is
not currently extracted in large quantities , and is more difficult to handle than wheat and barley straw.
• Cost: a four point cost curve was derived from ADAS (2008) on the price needed to persuade farmers to extract
additional residues, based on harvesting costs, costs of fertiliser replacement and a profit margin
Manure
• The resource was calculated based on ADAS livestock numbers for all types of livestock. These were combined
with excreta rates, time housed and manure management method
• Some resource is excluded – from farms where manure is spread to land without storage
• Extraction rates were considered to be 18% for dry poultry litter now, 50% in 2010 and 100% in 2015. For wet
manures, the rate was assumed to be lower, at 1% now, 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020
• Costs: Since digestate has a higher nutrient value than manure, farmers are likely to provide manure at zero
cost in exchange for returned digestate – which needs to be spread to land
49
2. UK supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex A
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
50
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - all scenarios in 2030
50
2. UK supply
• The total potential is affected strongly by the energy crop potential: the High
Growth scenario has a large land area and highest yields. This potential is
reduced in the BAU scenario as a result of lower crop yields, and in the
Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios as a result of greater
constraints on the use of abandoned pasture land
• Energy crop potentials in both BAU and High Growth scenarios remain
constrained in 2030 by planting rates
• Energy crop costs are lower in the High Sustainability and High Growth
scenarios, as a result of higher yields
• Potential from wastes is the same under BAU and Central RES scenarios, is
reduced in High Sustainability due to lower volumes of waste generation, and
is increased under High Growth
51
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
52
Global supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU over time
52
• Global feedstocks are forestry and
wood processing residues, and
energy crops - those that are
most likely to be imported in large
quantities. We have termed these
‘woody biomass’ for the rest of
this report
• Forestry and wood processing
residues are small (7 EJ) in 2030
in comparison with the energy
crop resource (196 EJ)
• The resource increases to 2030
with energy crop yield increases
and planted area (see next slide)
• Costs include processing required
for transport, and an assumed
average distance for road
transport in the country of origin
and international shipping. They
do not include transport within the
UK
3. Global supply
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
53
Planting rates have the greatest impact on global resources
53
Graph done –
check box
3. Global supply
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 100 200 300
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 100 200 300
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 100 200 300
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints
BAU 2020 no planting constraints
BAU 2030 no planting constraints
• The unconstrained energy crop
potential, as shown by the dashed
lines, increases over time as more
land area becomes available, and
yields increase
• When planting rates are
considered, the available resource
is significantly reduced, as shown
by the solid lines
• Planting rates are initially low, and
it takes until 2017 for the
maximum planting rate of
48Mha/yr to be reached, as the
sector ramps up
• In all scenarios, the 2030 potential
remains limited by the planting
rate
• Most of the planted area is
abandoned agricultural land, with
non-agricultural land only being
planted in the late 2020s
54
Global energy crops – assumptions
Resource
Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008), which:
• considers the potential from woody energy crops (e.g. willow, poplar, eucalyptus)
• gives the potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios, of which 2 are used as a basis for our scenarios
• considers two main types of Available Area
• abandoned agricultural land – released as agricultural technology and food demand changes.
• non-agricultural land – extensive grassland, and abandoned pasture, excluding nature reserves.
We then estimated the potential resource to 2030 by:
• backcasting Hoogwijk’s available area and productivity from 2050 to 1995 to give a 1995 potential
• forecasting to 2030, using
• available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk, modified to remove land needed for 1G
biofuels, and to remove extra land needed for food in the High Growth scenario
• a proportion of the (constant) non-agricultural land area: 50% in BAU and High Growth, and 10% in Central
RES and High Sustainability, based on Hoogwijk’s assumptions.
• management factors adapted from Hoogwijk to reflect our scenarios
The resource is then limited by a planting rate
• A global planting rate was estimated by scaling up the UK planting rate in proportion to the relative arable areas.
The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0.32Mha in 2009, with the rate then doubling each year until 2017 when
the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr is reached (48Mha is 3% of current global arable area).
• We assume that abandoned agricultural land is planted first.
Cost
• Energy crop costs reduce with increased yield and improved management over time.
• Hoogwijk gives supply cost curves for each land type in 2050, up to a cost of $5/GJ. We assumed that the
distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years, and therefore derived a new
supply curve using our resource and costs data.
• We assume that a spread of land is planted in each year, rather than the cheapest being planted first.
54
3. Global supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex B
55
Global energy crops – scenario variation
55
BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth
Hoogwijk’s
Scenario
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
B1 Global-Socio-
environmental
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population
Growth – 8.3 billion in
2030
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population
Growth – 8.3 billion in
2030
Low Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture –
but less fertilisation
Medium Population
Growth – 8.3 billion in
2030
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population
Growth – 8.3 billion in
2030
Adjusted food
demandNone None
None – already in B1
scenario above
Agricultural area factored
up according to UN high
population projection –
8.9 billion in 2030
Adjusted
Management
Factor
Annual growth: 1.4%
Maximum: 1.3
Annual growth: 1.4%
Maximum: 1.3
Annual growth: 1.6%
Maximum: 1.5
Annual growth: 1.6%
Maximum: 1.5
Land types
possible
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 50% of Non-
agricultural Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 10% of Non-
agricultural Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 10% of Non-
agricultural Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 50% of Non-
agricultural Land
3. Global supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex B
56
Global wood residues – assumptions
Wood
processing
residues
• Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture, which we projected
using the recent trend in global per capita demand for wood products.
• Residue generation factors were then applied
• Pulp and panel industry raw material requirements are supplied first. These also follow the
recent trend in per capita demand for pulp and paper with a residue demand coefficient.
• We assumed that all of the remaining resource is available now, in all scenarios – i.e. there is
no restriction on extraction
• A small collection cost is assumed, consistent with UK costs
Forestry
residues
• Residue production is proportional to roundwood production. Future demand for roundwood
follows the recent trend in global per capita roundwood demand.
• To this, we applied a sustainable residue harvest ratio – this is the ratio of residues (tops,
branches and undergrowth) to stemwood that can be removed sustainably. Values of 0.1-0.3
are used, with higher values for the High Growth scenario assuming that the forest is
fertilised, e.g. through ash recycling, rather than through leaving the residues on the ground
• There are no competing uses – current collection and use is primarily for energy
• Currently, around 7% of the total residues, which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable
harvest (or 28% in High Growth), are extracted. We assumed that this increases to 100% by
2020 in each scenario
• Costs are for forwarding, roadside chipping and management
56
3. Global supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex B
57
Global processing and transport assumptions
Processing
• Each feedstock must be in a suitable form for transport
• Wood processing residues:
• chips do not need further processing
• sawdust is pelletised
• other loose material is chipped at a centralised plant
• Forestry resides are already chipped at roadside
• Energy crops are in the form of willow and eucalyptus stems, and are chipped
International
transport
• Wood processing residues originate at a plant/sawmill, forestry residues at the nearest
roadside, whereas energy crop costs already include 50km road transport to a centralised point
(included in Hoogwijk model)
• We then added an estimated average transport distance for global woody biomass resources,
as set out below. In reality, many resources would be used close to the source of production,
and many transported much further.
• After any necessary processing, each resource is transported a distance of 200km by
road in the country of origin.
• Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km.
57
3. Global supply
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex D
58
Global curve - scenarios in 2030
58
3. Global supply
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
• The main difference between the
scenarios is the energy crop resource
• High Sustainability has the greatest
potential and the lowest costs as a
result of
• more abandoned agricultural land
• potentially better quality agricultural
land may be abandoned, due to
changing diets (e.g. lower meat
consumption) under Hoogwijk’s B1
scenario rather than the A1
scenario
• high energy crop management
factor
• In High Growth, extra food demand
requires more agricultural area, and
hence less is available for energy
crops, and poorer non agricultural
land is used
59
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
60
Estimating global demand for woody biomass
60
• The previous section gave the global supply of woody biomass (forestry and wood processing residues,
and energy crops)
• We have estimated the global demand for woody biomass for energy under the different scenarios, to
2030
• This involves making a large number of assumptions, for many of which there is very limited
supporting data
• We have started with IEA projections for biomass and waste demand and biofuels demand, and
then estimated how much of this is from woody biomass in each sector, based on current data and
likely trends
• No non-energy demands e.g. for chemicals and materials production, are included
• A summary of these assumptions is given in the annex
• Using these global demand results, we can use the global supply curve to find the global price
Scenario 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
BAU 6.4 6.8 7.8 9.9 15.1
Central RES 6.4 7.1 8.9 11.7 16.3
High Sustainability 6.4 7.0 8.8 11.6 16.2
High Growth 6.4 7.1 9.5 13.3 20.1
Woody biomass demand for energy (EJ)
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex C
4. Imports
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Co
st (
£/G
J)
Supply (EJ)
BAU Global supply curves
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
61
Deriving import price from global supply and demand
61
• If we know the global demand for
woody biomass in a particular year, we
can use the global supply curve to
determine the cost of supplying that
demand, as shown here
• In BAU 2030, the global woody biomass
demand of 15 EJ gives a global price of
£3.48 /GJ (equivalent to £63 /odt)
• In BAU 2010, the global woody biomass
demand of 6.8 EJ gives a global price
of £6.52 /GJ (equivalent to £117 /odt)
• If the UK is assumed to be a price taker,
this is the price at which imports are
available to the UK
• Note that energy crops must be planted
in order to meet the global demand
• Note that as before, the feedstock
import price includes processing and
international transport, but no transport
within the UK – therefore is equivalent
to the price at a UK portGlobal woody
biomass demand
in 2030
4. Imports
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
62
Under BAU, import prices fall over time, but remain expensive
62
• The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass - more than enough to supply
UK demand – at the global market price
• However, imports would be high cost
• In 2010, import prices are more expensive than all other UK resources
• In 2030, imports are only cheaper than the most expensive straw and energy crops
• The 2010 price given is comparable with current pellet import prices of €135-155/tonne, or
around £7.2/ GJ (European Pellet Centre for March 2008)
• These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made, as transport adds
around £2/GJ to most global feedstock costs
2030 import price £3.48 /GJ2010 import price: £6.52 /GJ
4. Imports
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
63
This remains the case under other scenarios in 2030
63
BAU, Central RES and High Growth import
price £3.48 /GJ
• Under BAU, Central RES and High Growth the import price of 3.48
£/GJ is more expensive than nearly all UK energy crops and straw
• Under High Sustainability, the import price is lower at 3.17 £/GJ, as
the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is cheaper.
However, UK energy crops are also cheaper, hence imports are
still more expensive than 95% of the UK’s resources
• Again, these results depend heavily on the transport assumptions
made, as transport adds around £2/GJ to most global feedstock
costs
High Sustainability import price £3.13 /GJ
4. Imports
64
Uncertainties in import price calculations
64
• The principal uncertainties in deriving the global supply curve and global demand to get the price of
imports, and in assessing the relationship with UK resource costs are:
• Global demand estimates – these are necessarily uncertain, as there is poor data availability on the
current use of each feedstock, and on likely future demand
• Yield and cost assumptions for energy crops - Different assumptions are made in the global energy
crop model, as this was related to Hoogwijk’s model, compared with the UK approach.
• Manipulation of Hoogwijk’s model – we modified Hoogwijk’s model by changing management factors
and backcasting, without access to the underlying model.
• 1G biofuels demand – land needed for 1G biofuel crops reduces the land area for energy crops, and
therefore has a large effect on potential. 1G biofuels are also assumed to be grown on a spread of
the economically viable land. The potentials seen in some scenarios rely on a switch away from 1G
production
• Planting assumptions – the most economically viable land is not assumed to be planted first, rather
a mix of the economically viable land (less than $5/GJ) is planted in each year. Since the most
economically viable land is distributed worldwide, this assumption is more reasonable than
assuming that the very cheapest land is planted first. Also, abandoned agricultural land is assumed
to be planted before non-agricultural land
• Transport assumptions – we assumed an average transport distance for all globally traded
feedstocks, but this could vary considerably. Furthermore, shipping costs can vary considerably e.g.
depending on oil price
• Import prices could be lower than this before a global commodity market develops, it may be possible to
access lower cost feedstocks
4. Imports
65
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
66
Building appropriate supply curves for different demands
66
• The results of this work will be used as an input to supply and demand modelling for biomass and other
energy technologies in the UK
• Deciding which feedstocks to combine on supply curves for biomass conversion can be complex, and
depends on how they will be used. Here we provide supply curves suitable for different UK bioenergy
demands
• All of the resources on the supply curve must be suitable feedstocks for the demand being considered,
and have similar costs of conversion. This is complicated by the characteristics and requirements of
conversion technologies in terms of
• Need for wet or dry feedstocks
• Sizing or other pretreatment requirements e.g. chipping, pelletising
• Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks
• Likely transport distances for feedstocks, and the form in which the feedstock is transported
• We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion technologies. We then
merged these into 5 groups, where each group has very similar feedstock requirements (see next slide)
• The supply curve for each demand group is given in the following slides in this section. It is important to
note that the supply curves show total available resources suitable for that demand group. No
assumptions are made on the share of resources that can be used for each demand group, and so no
resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered.
5. UK demands
67
Demand groups
67
Demand group Types of plants Feedstock types and requirements
Large thermal
• Dedicated medium and large thermal
electricity/CHP plant
• Co-firing
• Commercial and industrial scale
heat/CHP
• Most wood resources, energy crops, straw, dry manures
and sewage sludge
• Chipped or dried where necessary
• 50 km UK transport
• Imported chips
Domestic
heat/CHP• Domestic boilers, stoves and CHP
• Most wood resources and energy crops
• Pelletised, except for the proportion of stemwood and
arboricultural arisings that are logs, and can be used directly
• Imported pellets
• 50 km UK transport
Anaerobic
digestion• Anaerobic digestion plants
• All wet resources: wet manures, sewage sludge and MSW.
Landfill gas is not included
• No pretreatment
• 10 km UK transport, zero for sludge
Waste/fuels
• Energy from waste plants using thermal
technologies
• Second generation biofuels production:
lignocellulosic ethanol and FT biodiesel
• Synthetic natural gas via gasification
• All resources except wet manures and landfill gas
• Chipped or chopped where necessary, plus drying for
sewage sludge
• 50 km UK transport for most, 10km for wastes
• Imported chips
Landfill gas • Gas engines, turbines
• Landfill gas only
• No imports
• No treatment or transport
A full list of data sources and
assumptions is given in Annex D
5. UK demands
68
Large thermal plant – BAU over time
68
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
• This supply curve is suitable for
• Dedicated medium and large
thermal electricity/CHP plant
• Co-firing
• Commercial and industrial
scale heat/CHP
• It includes forestry, arboricultural and
wood processing residues, energy
crops, straw, dry manures, dried
sewage sludge and clean waste
wood.
• These are chipped or dried where
necessary, and 50 km UK transport is
added for all resources
• Imported chips, including 50km UK
transport are available at the prices
shown
• Note that other potential co-firing
feedstocks such as vegetable oils
and other agricultural residues (olive
pits, palm kernel expeller etc) are not
included. The availability and price of
residues in the future will be highly
dependent on food production and
their use in the country of origin.
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
Import price £/GJ 7.28 7.09 5.14 4.41 4.04
5. UK demands
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
69
Large thermal plant – all scenarios in 2030
69
• This supply curve is
suitable for
• Dedicated medium
and large thermal
electricity/CHP plant
• Co-firing
• Commercial and
industrial scale
heat/CHP
• It includes forestry,
arboricultural and wood
processing residues,
energy crops, straw, dry
manures, dried sewage
sludge and clean waste
wood.
• These are chipped or
dried where necessary,
and 50 km UK transport
is added for all
resources
• Imported chips,
including 50km UK
transport are available
at the prices shown
ScenarioImport
price £/GJ
BAU 4.04
Central RES 4.04
High Sustainability 3.69
High Growth 4.04
5. UK demands
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
70
Domestic heat/CHP – BAU over time
70
• This supply curve is suitable
for domestic boilers, stoves
and CHP
• It includes forestry,
arboricultural and wood
processing residues, (except
bark) energy crops, and clean
waste wood.
• All feedstocks are pelletised,
except for the proportion of
stemwood and arboricultural
arisings that are logs, and so
can be used directly
• 50 km UK transport is added
for all resources
• We assume that the UK can
import pellets at the same price
as other global imports.
Imported pellets, including
50km UK transport are
available at the prices shown.
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
Import price £/GJ 6.90 6.71 4.76 4.03 3.66
5. UK demands
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
71
Domestic heat/CHP – all scenarios in 2030
71
ScenarioImport
price £/GJ
BAU 3.66
Central RES 3.66
High Sustainability 3.32
High Growth 3.66
• This supply curve is
suitable for domestic
boilers, stoves and CHP
• It includes forestry,
arboricultural and wood
processing residues,
(except bark) energy
crops, and clean waste
wood
• All feedstocks are
pelletised, except for
the proportion of
stemwood and
arboricultural arisings
that are logs, and so
can be used directly
• 50 km UK transport is
added for all resources
• We assume that the UK
can import pellets at the
same price as other
global imports. Imported
pellets, including 50km
UK transport are
available at the prices
shown.
5. UK demands
72
AD – BAU over time
72
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
0 100 200 300 400
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
• This supply curve is suitable for
anaerobic digestion plants.
• All wet resources are included: wet
manures, sewage sludge and
MSW.
• Landfill gas is not included
• Sludge is dewatered
• 10 km UK transport is added for
wastes and manures, zero for
sludge
• No imports are included
• It is also possible to use energy
crops for AD, however, these are
crops such as silage maize, rather
than the predominantly woody
crops modelled here
• Silage maize is cheaper than the
energy crops modelled here, at a
typical price of £25 /t, with 30%
moisture content (Nix 2007). This
equates to £1.98/GJ. The price
range can be as large as £1.04-
3.37/GJ
5. UK demands
73
AD – all scenarios in 2030
73
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Co
st (£
/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
• This supply curve is suitable for anaerobic digestion plants.
• All wet resources are included: wet manures, sewage sludge
and MSW.
• Landfill gas is not included
• Sludge is dewatered
• 10 km UK transport is added for wastes and manures, zero
for sludge
• No imports are included
5. UK demands
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
0 500 1,000
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
74
Waste & Fuels – BAU over time
74
• This supply curve is suitable for
• Energy from waste plants
using thermal technologies
• Second generation biofuels
production: lignocellulosic
ethanol and FT biodiesel
• Synthetic natural gas via
gasification
• It includes all resources except wet
manures and landfill gas
• These are chipped, chopped or
dried where necessary
• 50 km UK transport is added for
dry resources. 10k transport is
added for wastes, manures and
sewage sludge
• Imported chips, including 50km UK
transport are available at the prices
shown
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
Import price £/GJ 7.28 7.09 5.14 4.41 4.04
5. UK demands
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Co
st (£
/GJ) Supply (PJ)
BAU 2030
Central RES 2030
High sustainability 2030
High growth 2030
75
Waste & Fuels – all scenarios in 2030
75
ScenarioImport
price £/GJ
BAU 4.04
Central RES 4.04
High Sustainability 3.69
High Growth 4.04
• This curve is suitable for
• Energy from waste plants
using thermal
technologies
• Second generation
biofuels production:
lignocellulosic ethanol
and FT biodiesel
• Synthetic natural gas via
gasification
• It includes all resources
except wet manures and
landfill gas
• These are chipped ,
chopped or dried where
necessary
• 50 km UK transport is
added for dry resources.
10k transport is added for
wastes, manures and
sewage sludge
• Imported chips, including
50km UK transport are
available at the prices
shown
5. UK demands
76
Landfill gas
76
• Landfill gas is given separately from the other resources as there are no other gaseous
feedstocks. Anaerobic digestion of other resources to form biogas will entail additional cost.
• We have assumed that landfill gas is available at zero cost, and therefore there is no supply
curve for this feedstock.
• The resource is the same in all scenarios
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
Resource (PJ) 61 54 39 29 15
5. UK demands
77
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
78
There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at
reasonable cost
78
• The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary energy demand by
2030, at a cost of less than £5/GJ
• Nearly half of the resource in each year has a negative cost, as a result of the availability of large
quantities of waste materials, which would otherwise require disposal
• Energy crops make up around 80% of the positive cost resource. Achieving this potential requires a
significant ramp up in planting rates
• The resource in earlier years is much smaller. For example, the resource in 2020 is around 60% of the 2030
resource. This is partly due to a lower resource potential, but for many feedstocks the resource is significantly
limited by the sector’s capability to extract or grow the feedstock
• For each feedstock, we estimated how much of the resource could be extracted now using current
capabilities, labour and machinery and considering existing practices
• This was then ramped up to the full resource, using estimates of how fast each sector could develop.
These assumed that each in sector the potential for bioenergy was recognised now, e.g. through an
obvious market or policy support, and changed as fast as possible to meet the demand. No specific policy
measures or markets were considered
• Scenario analysis showed that the key factors affecting biomass resources and costs are
• Land availability for energy crops: restriction of the use of pasture land for energy crops to 10% in Central
RES and High Sustainability scenarios, rather than the 50% used in other scenarios, reduces the energy
crop potential by around a half. It is not yet known exactly how the sustainability restrictions on use of
grassland included in the RED will be applied, but these could have a large impact on energy crop
potential
• Energy crop yields: crop development can lead to lower costs (£0.5-1/GJ) and higher resources
• Waste generation and management: increased waste reduction and recycling reduce bioenergy potential
6. Conclusions
79
Imports provide a high cost, but very large resource
79
• Several biomass types are already traded internationally. As supply and demand for bioenergy increases
worldwide, it is likely that a global market will develop, and biomass will increasingly become an internationally
traded commodity
• As a result, biomass supply and demand should be considered globally, rather than focusing supplies from
within the UK or within the EU
• In the analysis, we assumed that woody biomass feedstocks, which are a relatively homogenous group of
resources, with a large potential, will become a commodity. If the UK is assumed to be a price taker, the import
price can be found
• The analysis showed that global woody biomass resources could potentially be very large. This considers that
they are grown predominantly on abandoned agricultural land, with demands for land for food and for first
generation biofuel feedstocks being supplied first. Achieving this potential would rely on a fast ramp up of
energy crop planting
• However, this analysis finds that the global price may be higher than most indigenous UK feedstocks.
Supplying world woody biomass demand at the levels projected would require use of energy crops, as well as
lower cost feedstocks. Adding transport costs to the global price results in higher prices than UK feedstocks.
• Import prices could be lower than this in some cases:
• Before a global commodity market develops, it may be possible to access lower cost feedstocks -
imported residues at £2-3 /GJ would increase supply while UK energy crop supplies are limited
• If transport costs are lower than the average transport costs included here – through import of more
easily accessed resources
6. Conclusions
80
There may be more competition for feedstocks
between some demands than others
80
• We have provided supply curves suitable for different UK demands, as different conversion technologies have
different acceptable feedstocks, and pretreatment and transport requirements. Note that the costs for these are
higher than in the general curves, as UK transport and processing is added
• These curves show all of the feedstocks suitable for each demand, rather than making assumptions on how the
demands compete with each other
• Most resources can be used to generate either electricity, heat, or transport fuels, via a range of conversion
technologies*
• However, it is likely that some feedstocks will generally be used in particular types of plant, whereas others are
more flexible. As a result, there will be more competition between some feedstocks than others
• For dry resources that are easy to handle, such as woody residues and energy crops, there will be
competition between electricity, CHP and domestic heating, as well as second generation biofuels once
their conversion technology is commercialised
• For wastes, there may be some competition for resources that can be dried and transported, such as
sewage sludge, but for wetter resources, use in local waste to energy plants, or biogas plants is more
likely
• This analysis provides the information needed to model this competition between demands for bioenergy
feedstocks
* It should be noted that once biogas or synthetic natural gas
is produced, it could be used directly for electricity, heat ,
CHP or as a transport fuel, or injected into the gas grid
6. Conclusions
81
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply
3. Global supply
4. Determining the price of imports
5. Supply curves for UK energy demands
6. Conclusions
7. Annexes
82
Annex A: UK supply data
82
• Energy crops
• Agricultural residues (straw)
• Forestry residues
• Stemwood
• Sawmill co-product
• Arboricultural arisings
• Sewage sludge
• Livestock manures
• Waste wood
• Wastes
• Landfill gas
Annex A: UK supply
83
Energy crops - resource
Resource
Resource = ((Arable area - Arable constraint) + (Pasture area - Pasture constraint)) x Yield x Availability
• Arable area:
• For 2008, set aside and bare fallow/land withdrawn from production. ADAS data for 2007, considered to
be a comprehensive study of UK arable land
• Refuel projections of abandoned arable land in 2030, as a result of increase in food production
efficiency, under several scenarios. Refuel projections were used, as they are lower, and based on more
detailed modelling than those from the EEA report
• Linear interpolation between these, as many of the factors causing the change are linear.
• Arable constraint: No constraint applied in any scenario
• Pasture area:
• Refuel projections of abandoned pasture land in 2030. Only one result given (no scenario variation)
Land begins to be abandoned from the Refuel base period 2000-2002
• Linear interpolation between these points
• Pasture constraint: applied at 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios only. All planting on
pasture assumes to be able to be no-till, and therefore give no land use change emissions
• Yield:
• For 2008, value and distribution of energy crop yields across England, on arable and improved
grassland from Pepinster (2008), based on spatial models from Southampton University and
Rothamsted Research. This assumes the highest yielding of SRC willow, SRC poplar, or miscanthus is
planted on each grid square
• For future years, the same distribution is used, with a yield increase factor which varies by scenario.
This is because a direct forecast of future costs was not available, hence a detailed model of the current
situation was used to give the spatial yield distribution within the UK, and allow adjustments of costs for
future years using yields
• Availability: planting rates are limited by labour and machinery, and are currently very low. Assumed 1000
ha/year planting in 2009, doubling each year until a maximum of 150 kha/year, based on data from ADAS
(2008) and communication with David Turley, CSL
83
Annex A: UK supply
84
Energy crops – cost and results
Cost
• Cost basis: an intermediate approach was taken.
• Costs are calculated using a land rent (i.e. a price of land that takes into account competing land uses).
• However, effects on the price of energy crops as a result of competing uses for the product are not
considered
• 2008 cost for each energy crop taken from Alberici (2008), based on a review of literature and industry views
on energy crop costs, adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. This considers the land rent and
production cost on each grid square. The costs are given for chopped SRC, and baled miscanthus, at the farm
gate.
• Future cost reduction assumed to be a function of yield increase only, not reduction in management costs
• Energy crop subsidies were also included for one slide above:
• Energy crop scheme establishment grants of £1000 /ha for SRC and £800 /ha for miscanthus
• EU area payments of £30/ha/yr
Results
• Arable area: from 605 kha in 2008 to 963-1334 kha in 2030 (see next slide)
• Pasture area: from 290 kha in 2008 to 1200 kha in 2030. Available area reduced considerably by pasture
constraint in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios
• Yields: yield factor increases from 1 to 1.24 in BAU and Central RES from 2008 to 2030, and from 1 to 1.55 in
High Growth and High Sustainability
• Cost: range from £1.8-4.4/GJ in 2008, decreasing to 2030 (see next slide)
• Subsidies reduce the costs of energy crops by around £0.6/GJ in 2030 under the BAU scenario, to £1.5-3 /GJ
84
Annex A: UK supply
85
Energy crops – scenario variation
BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth
Land scenario
• Refuel BAU scenario –
current farming trends
leaves some land for
bioenergy
• Refuel BAU scenario –
current farming trends
leaves some land for
bioenergy
• Refuel low scenario –
more sustainable farming
leaves less land for
bioenergy
• Note that this differs from
Hoogwijk’s global
assumption that lower
meat consumption frees
up more land
• Refuel high scenario –
intensified farming trends
leaves more land for
bioenergy
• Note that this differs from
our global assumption
that the higher world
population leads to more
land demand for food
Arable area
2030 (kha)• 1100 • 1100 • 963 • 1334
Pasture area
constraint• 100% can be used • Restricted to 10%* • Restricted to 10%* • 100% can be used
Yield
improvement• 1% p.a. increase • 1% p.a. increase • 2% p.a. increase • 2% p.a. increase
85
* (current proportion of pasture that is temporary as opposed to permanent, as a proxy
for non ‘highly biodiverse land’ as specified (but not yet defined) in the RED)
Available area (kha) Planted area (kha)
2008 2010 2015 2020 2030 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
BAU 895 1022 1342 1661 2300 8 9 71 713 2213
Central RES 634 687 820 954 1220 8 9 71 713 1220
High Sust 634 675 777 879 1083 8 9 71 713 1083
High Growth 895 1044 1416 1789 2534 8 9 71 713 2213
Annex A: UK supply
86
Agricultural residues (straw)
Resource
Resource = Straw available x Availability
• Straw available is taken from CSL, 2008. This report considers the UK straw resource from all straw types,
assuming a recoverability factor of straw from the field of 60%. It then considers a number of existing uses,
including for energy, resulting in a potential of 2-3m tonnes, assuming animal feed requirements are fulfilled by
barley straw only. In personal communication with CSL, the resource excluding the energy uses was estimated
at 3.3 mt. This is assumed to be composed of the whole oil seed rape straw resource (2.5 mt), as this is not
currently collected, with the remainder being wheat straw.
• Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle straw. Assume able to collect
10% of the resource today, 20% in 2010, 50% in 2015, and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios. This rate is
relatively slow, as oil seed rape straw is not currently extracted in large quantities, and is more difficult to
handle than wheat and barley straw.
Cost
• Cost basis: As we have excluded straw needed for other uses, no price competition with these is considered
• Costs of supply are harvesting, baling and handling costs (as baled, at farm gate), and costs of fertiliser to
replace nutrients lost, using the method developed by ADAS (2008)
• Supply curve based on 4 assumptions:
• No straw is extracted below the cost of harvesting and fertiliser replacement
• Half of the straw is extracted at below current straw prices
• 90% of the straw is extracted at below a price = (fertiliser value of straw + extraction costs) x 1.5
[additional 50% to cover value of other nutrients, soil structural benefits, profit margin]
• Some farmers will never extract straw: 2%
Results
• 3.3 mt of straw are available (69 PJ)
• Cost range £37/odt to £84/odt (£2.14/GJ to £4.98/GJ)
• Compares with 3 mt resource in Defra biomass strategy, and central price of £2/GJ
86
Annex A: UK supply
87
Forestry residues
Resource
Resource = ( Poor quality stemwood + Tips + Branches ) x Availability
• The potential resource of Poor quality stemwood + Tips + Branches available at the roadside is taken from
Forestry Commission data, which takes into account biological, environmental and operational factors within
managed forests. This McKay GB woodfuel resource study is the only detailed forecast available for managed
forests, giving a breakdown into different tree components
• Stumps, roots and foliage are not considered to be available
• Only very small changes over time are given in managed residues, however, English FC policy to introduce
1Modt/yr of under-managed forest into management by 2020 will add an additional 128kodt/yr of forestry
residues. Pers. comm. with Helen McKay confirmed that this is an additional resource (no double-counting)
• There are no scenario differences since long growth times of forest set the forecast available resource
• None of this resource is currently extracted and used, so no competing uses need to be taken into account
• Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues. Assumed
that none can be collected today, 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 for BAU and Central RES (75% for High Growth
and High Sustainability), and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios
Cost
• Cost basis: There are no other uses, so a cost basis was used
• A separate operation is required to collect the resource after tree felling. Costs of supply are forwarding and
roadside chipping costs. Data and calculation method comes from the Finnish Forest Research Institute
(2004), hence is consistent with the approach used for global resource, but using costs for only a NW Europe
country
Results• Currently, no forestry residues are available. This rises to a peak at 1.04m odt (19.3 PJ) in 2020
• Cost at roadside as chips: £38 /odt (£2.3/GJ)
87
Annex A: UK supply
88
Stemwood
Resource
Resource = ( Harvested stemwood – Existing uses ) x Availability
• The Forestry Commission’s Softwood Forecast (2005) gives the potential harvested stemwood, with a peak in
softwood production in 2020. The hardwood resource is much smaller.
• English FC policy to introduce 1Modt/yr of under-managed forest into management by 2020 – which will add
an additional 709kodt/yr of soft and 145kodt of hard stemwood. Pers. comm. with Helen McKay confirmed that
this is an additional resource (no double-counting)
• No scenario differences since long growth times of forest fix the forecast available resource
• Existing uses
• For softwood there are several current competing uses. In the future, sawmills expand to take all
softwood resource greater than 16cm in diameter. Demand from panel, paper, fencing, exports and
others are held at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008).
• Most of the hardwood is already used for woodfuel (available resource)
• Availability : 100% is usable now
Cost
• Cost basis: As we have excluded stemwood needed for other uses, price competition with these uses is not
considered
• Costs of harvesting stemwood and extracting logs to roadside: The South West Biomass Bio-Renewables
report (2004) gives a range of harvesting costs dependent on technique – an average value for soft and
hardwood was chosen. Tree felling is cheaper for softwood than hardwood, with no change over time or
scenarios
Results• Currently, 0.25m odt of stemwood is available as woodfuel (4.5 PJ), peaking in 2020 at 0.94m odt (17.5 PJ)
• Cost at roadside as logs: £28 /odt (£1.50/GJ) for softwood, £60/odt (£3.23/GJ) for hardwood
88
Annex A: UK supply
89
Sawmill co-product
Resource
Resource = ((Stemwood deliveries x Conversion factor) – Existing uses) x Availability
• The amount of stemwood delivered to sawmills is the same as the sawmill competing use considered
previously, and hence changes over time, but not scenario
• Conversion factor: ratio of co-product produced for each tonne of stemwood input = 51%. (Forestry
Commission Statistics 2008). This is an up-to-date and detailed data source, allowing calculation of existing
uses, conversion factors and form. Furthermore, it enables the incorporation of forecast stemwood input from
previous slide, for consistency
• Existing uses: panelboard industry (currently takes 65% of total co-product), paper, exports and other all held
at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008), since increase in demand for panels will be met by the increase in the
industry’s recycled waste wood uptake
• Availability : 100% is usable
• Form: 69% woodchips, 20% sawdust, 11% bark
Cost
• Cost basis: As we have excluded sawmill co-product needed for other uses, price competition with these uses
is not considered
• Co-product is a by-product of making sawnwood, and so we have considered it to be free at source
• Costs of handling and storing co-product onsite £9.9/odt (Saskatchewan Forest Research Centre, consistent
with the global costs used)
Results• Currently, 0.13m odt available (2.4 PJ), peaking in 2020 at 1.05m odt (19.5 PJ)
• Cost at sawmill: £9.9 /odt (£0.53/GJ)
89
Annex A: UK supply
90
Arboricultural arisings
Resource
Resource = (Tree surgery arisings – Existing uses) x Availability
• The amount of tree surgery arisings was taken from the McKay GB woodfuel resource study (2003). This does
not change over time, or scenario
• Existing uses: currently 31% of the arisings have a market, of which half assumed to be woodfuel logs (and
therefore available for energy), but the other half is taken by non-energy wood industry uses
• The un-marketed resource (68% of total, McKay) can be used for energy. This can be blown-back onsite if site
constraints allow (18% of total) – however, 50% of the total arisings (Land Use Consultants 2007) are
collected, transported then landfilled
• Availability : 100% of the landfilled resource, and 100% of the woodfuel resource is available. None of the
blown-back resource is available in 2008, rising to 100% in 2010
• Form: 53% stemwood, 23% already chipped, 20% branches, 4% foliage
Cost
• Cost basis: As we have excluded marketed non-energy demand for other uses, price competition with these
uses is not considered
• Resource arises from necessary tree surgery activities, and so are considered free at source if blown-back. If
due to site constraints, the material has to be collected, transported and disposed of, this resource is available
at the avoided landfill cost
• Costs of supplying the woodfuel and blown-back resource are the costs of transportation back to a depot
(onsite collection already carried out), with handling and storage costs
• Transport costs used are from Suurs (2002), assuming that the whole resource can be transported at the same
cost as chips
Results
• Woodfuel and blown-back resource: 0.08m odt available (1.5 PJ) in 2008, rising to 0.17m odt available (3.2
PJ), cost as logs at depot: £1.2/GJ
• Landfilled resource: 0.25m odt available (4.6 PJ), at avoided landfill gate fees of -£2.26/GJ
90
Annex A: UK supply
91
Sewage sludge
Resource
Resource = Sludge arisings x Availability
• Sludge arisings are predicted to grow to 2010 as more households are connected and with tighter regulation
(Defra Waste Strategy), then following population growth afterwards (National Grid). No change with scenario
• Sludge is considered as a waste that needs treatment, then disposal.
• Final disposal (e.g. to farmland, land reclamation) is unimportant – the treatment process used is where energy
can be extracted. Defra Online Statistics give detailed and historical arisings and disposal routes, but no
treatment methods
• 66% of sludge is currently treated via AD (Water UK, 2008), 24% is dried then incinerated, hence 90% of the
resource already has energy extracted. The rest (10%) is treated via lime stabilisation, hence is unavailable for
energy.
• Availability: 90% in 2008, rising to 100% in 2010 with changes in treatment
Cost
• Cost basis: There are no competing uses for sewage sludge before it is treated.
• The costs considered are
• Dewatering before AD £60/odt (Sowa, 1994)
• The gate fee for alternative sludge treatment - £45/tonne (Strathclyde University).
• An alternative approach would have been to consider sewage gas as zero cost (e.g. as in Enviros 2005 and
National Grid 2008), and combine the resource with the landfill gas resource, however, this would not allow
modelling of use of dried sewage sludge in thermal processes
Results
• Currently, 1.39m odt available (15.2 PJ) rising to 2.03m odt in 2030 (24.6 PJ)
• Cost of dewatered sludge at WWTW: -£68/odt (-£6.22/GJ)
• Defra Biomass Strategy resource figure is only 0.34m odt, due to the assumption that sludge that ends up on
farmland or used in reclamation is unavailable. We did not assume this as if sludge is treated via AD, the
digestate can still be spread on farmland to supply this requirement
91
Annex A: UK supply
92
Livestock manures
Resource
Resource = (( Livestock numbers x Manure factor ) x Occupancy – Existing uses ) x Availability
• Livestock numbers from ADAS show a long term decline (except in poultry) over time. No change with scenario
• This ADAS study is the only one available with livestock numbers forecast past 2015, and is highly detailed
(many different animal categories)
• Each animal category has a different excretion rate, manure dry matter content and farm management system.
The excretion rate was multiplied by the dry matter content(s) of the slurry and/or farmyard manure to give a
manure factor per animal per year (Smith 2000).
• Occupancy: is the time an animal spends inside (Defra Agricultural Practices Survey), which gives the
collectable resource, since excreta outside are uncollectable. Farms outwintering their livestock have negligible
occupancy (pers. comm. James Copeland, CSL)
• Existing uses: Resource from farms that do not store or export slurries / manures (i.e. spread directly to land)
is assumed to be unavailable. The remaining dry poultry litter is available for incineration, whereas wet poultry,
pig, sheep and cattle slurries and manures are only available for AD (less than 30% Dry Matter)
• This method above follows the basic method of the Defra Biomass Strategy, but includes all animal categories,
outwintering farms, the additional straw within farmyard manure and farms without storage facilities
• Availability : For litter 18% is currently incinerated, rising to 50% in 2010, and 100% by 2015. For wet manures,
1% is currently used as a feedstock for AD, rising to 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020
Cost
• Cost basis: No competing uses, free at source
• Assumed that farmers will not pay the AD plant or incinerator to get rid of the resource, but would be likely to
spread the AD digestate for its fertiliser value for free (Strathclyde University)
Results
• 0.265m odt available (4.2 PJ) increasing to 5.8m odt in 2030 (91.9 PJ)
• Defra Biomass Strategy figure is 3.9m odt, due to counting fewer categories of animals (did not count beef
cattle, any breeding stocks, other poultry, sheep)
92
Annex A: UK supply
93
Waste wood
Resource
Resource = (( MSW + C&I + C&D arisings ) ^ Growth rates – Recycling ) x Availability
• Amount of waste wood in MSW, Commercial & Industrial and Construction & Demolition waste streams, from
WRAP 2005. Although there is uncertainty regarding Construction & Demolition arisings (the two studies
WRAP 2005 use gave 2mt and 8mt), WRAP 2005 is still the latest collection of surveys with a breakdown by
sector, allowing different growth rates to be applied to calculate total arisings
• Growth rates of arisings are 0.75% for MSW, 1.18% for other sectors (Defra Waste Strategy). These each
decrease by 0.75% in the High Sustainability scenario, and increase by 0.25% in the High Growth scenario
• Competing uses: use by the wood panel industry currently accounts for 1.2mt, rising to 2.2mt by 2010 (WRAP
2008). This is increased under the High Scenarios to 2.6mt
• Availability : Currently, 15% is separable for energy recovery, increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central
RES, or by 2015 in High Sustainability and High Growth
Cost
• Cost basis: Waste, so free at source – and as we have excluded non-energy disposal routes/recycling, price
competition with these routes is not considered
• Costs are the avoided landfill gate fee for contaminated wood, gate fee of £8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood
Results
• Currently, 1.1m odt are available (19 PJ) increasing to 8.4m odt in 2030 (149 PJ) under BAU because of
arisings growth and a cap on amount of recycled wood that the panelboard industry can accept
• Cost -£26/odt (-£1.4/GJ) for contaminated waste wood, and -£10/odt (-£0.6/GJ) for clean waste wood
• The Defra Biomass Strategy availability figure is much larger at 5.56m odt (equivalent to 7mt), because no
restriction on separability is assumed.
93
Annex A: UK supply
94
Wastes
Resource
Resource = (( MSW + C&I arisings ) ^ Growth rates – Recycling ) x Availability
• The amount of paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant, textiles arising in MSW, Commercial and Industrial
waste streams, was taken from ERM Golder 2006. This is the most comprehensive study available of UK
wastes by sector, composition, and recycling/composing/AD/disposal routes, allowing growth rates to be used
to forecast each waste arisings
• Growth rates of arisings are 0.75% for MSW, 2.68% for Commercial, -0.72% for Industrial (Defra Waste
Strategy). These each decrease by 0.75% in High Sustainability scenario, and increase by 0.25% in the High
Growth scenario
• Recycling: Waste that is recycled is excluded, as this is a competing use. Recycling increases for paper/card
and textiles by 2.7mt and 0.3mt respectively by 2020 (WRAP, 2007). In the High Growth scenario additional
recycling is assumed, taking the same proportion of the arisings. Waste going to AD and composting is
considered to be available for energy
• Availability: Current separability is 48% for paper/card and 19% for textiles (all recycled), 17% for food/kitchen
and 26% for garden/plant (for AD/composting). This is assumed to increase by 2%/yr above recycling and
composting rates under BAU and Central RES, and 4%/yr under High scenarios, until a 90% maximum is
reached, based on international experience (ERM Golder)
Cost
• Cost basis: Waste, so free at source – and as we have excluded non-energy uses (i.e. recycling), price
competition with these routes is not considered
• Costs are avoided landfill gate fees
Results
• Currently, 1.2mt paper/card, 3.0mt food/kitchen, 3.7mt garden/plant, and 0.06mt of textiles available (13, 10,
16, 1 PJ respectively)
• Costs range from -£1.5/GJ to -£6/GJ
• Defra Biomass Strategy gives: 3.3mt for paper/card, 10m t food/kitchen and 3m t garden/plant. This assumes a
90% separability now, and subtracts future recycling and composting from the current resource
94
Annex A: UK supply
95
Landfill gas
Resource
Resource = Current landfill gas production x Exponential decay
• The biodegradable wastes considered in the rest of the analysis are available for energy if separable. If they
are used for energy, they will not be landfilled, and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. As a
simplification, we have assumed no new waste is landfilled from 2008. This is a conservative estimate (see
below)
• Current LFG production used for energy is taken from DUKES 2008.
• Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay with a half-life of 11 years (Enviros),
• This assumes that no new gas capture is installed on existing sites, and that no sites currently flaring gas
switch to energy production
• These are conservative assumptions as modelling landfill production under different scenarios would be
complex:
• Any biodegradable wastes expected to be landfilled have been counted as available resource in other
categories, if separable. Hence, in this category (to avoid double counting) any separable waste must
be counted as unavailable
• In reality, not all wastes are separable now, and so some will be land filled, and contribute over time to
landfill gas production
• However, forecasting landfill gas production would require knowledge of the amount, composition and
decay characteristics of each type of waste. It could be assumed that the total amount of waste
landfilled stays constant, giving constant landfill gas production over time, or alternatively, if all landfills
close, there will be an exponential decay. The reality will be somewhere in-between
Cost • Cost basis: Zero cost resource, as the resource considered is already collected and used
Results • Currently, 63 PJ of landfill gas is available for electricity and heat (current usage), falling to 15 PJ in 2030
95
Annex A: UK supply
96
People consulted on UK data
96
• Alan Corson, FE (forestry costs)
• Geoff Hogan, FC (general forestry)
• Justin Gilbert, FC Stats (forest residue forecasts)
• Patrick Mahon, WRAP (recycling)
• Daniel Dipper, Defra (wastes)
• Helen McKay, FC Stats (forestry)
• Bruce Horton, Water UK (sewage sludge)
• David Turley, Central Science Lab (manures, straw, energy crops)
• James Copeland, Central Science Lab (manures)
• Melville Haggard, Defra (waste wood)
• Sheila Ward, FC (sawmills)
• John Kilpatrick, ADAS (straw and energy crops)
• Ian Tubby, Biomass Energy Centre (energy crops)
Annex A: UK supply
97
Annex B: Global supply data
97
• Wood Processing Residues: clean co-products from sawmills, panelboard and pulp industries
• Forestry Residues: residues produced from conventional logging and thinning operations
• 1st Generation Biofuels
• Surplus Forest Wood
• Energy Crops
• Algae
Annex B: Global supply
98
Wood Processing Residues
Resource
Resource = ((Wood product manufacture x Residue factor) - Competing Uses ) x Availability
• Wood product manufacture: Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture. Available
projections were poor predictors of current demand (FAO Global Forest Product Outlook, out of date), and no
other reliable, long-term projections for supply and demand of forest products were available. As a result, the
recent trend in global per capita wood product demand (FAOSTAT and UN population data) was used . The
High Growth scenario assumed ‘High’ population growth. All other scenarios assume ‘Medium’ growth (UN
projections)
• Residue factors: from academic literature (Parikka, 2002)
• Competing uses: from the pulp and panel industry. Pulp and panel production follows the recent trend in per
capita demand. Demand for residues is a constant fraction of pulp and panel production (coefficients derived
from UNECE-FAO Joint Wood Energy Enquiry). Currently, the pulp and panel sector uses around 60% of total
global residues supply as material input
• Availability: 100% of the remaining resource is available
• Form: 25% chips, 24% bark, 24% slabs/edgings, 20% sawdust, 3% shavings, 4% other
Cost
• Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource, and
so the cost of the resource is considered.
• Cost of residues at sawmill £7/ odt taken from Saskatchewan Forest Centre report on economics of pellet
production
Results• Available resource under BAU: 113M odt (2.1 EJ), rising to 172M odt (3.2 EJ) in 2030
• Cost of various residue forms onsite: £0.38/GJ
98
Annex B: Global supply
99
Forestry Residues
Resource
Resource = ( Roundwood Production x Sustainable Residue Harvest Ratio ) x Availability
• Roundwood Production – Future demand for roundwood follows the recent trend in global per capita demand
(FAOSTAT and UN population data, same approach as previous slide). Roundwood obtained from non-forest
areas is excluded (e.g. urban areas and non managed woodland) since this would not be derived from
conventional logging activities
• Sustainable Residue Harvest Ratio – This is the ratio of residues to stemwood that can be removed
sustainably (i.e. avoiding nutrient depletion). Residues are tops, branches and undergrowth. In the High
Growth scenario, the Harvest Ratio is 0.2-0.3, which assumes that the forest is fertilised manually: e.g. through
ash recycling. Otherwise, values of 0.1-0.15 are used (Ericsson & Nielsen)
• Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues. Currently,
around 7% of the total residues, which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable harvest (or 28% in High
Growth), are extracted. We assumed that this increases to 100% by 2020 in each scenario
Cost
• Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource, and
so the cost of the resource is considered
• Capital and labour cost of forwarding, roadside chipping and management (Finnish Forest Research Institute
(2004)). The same calculations are used in REFUEL and reports by the JRC. Distinction between labour costs
in developed and developing world.
• Costs: Developing countries £1.39/GJ, developed countries £2.15/GJ
Results
• 1.7EJ current availability, rising to
• 3.86 EJ in 2030 under BAU, Central RES and High Sustainability
• 8.3 EJ in 2030 in High Growth Scenario
• Over 50% of the global potential is located in Europe and North America
99
Annex B: Global supply
100
Surplus Forest Wood (not included)
Resource
• This resource was defined as wood not required for competing demands, that comes from sustainable sources:
• Sustainable sources defined as:
• Wood from plantation forests OR
• Wood from forest that is a) not undisturbed b) classed as available for wood supply c) growing
commercial wood species (all classifications are FAO terminology)
• However:
• At a global level, supply of wood from plantations + commercial disturbed forest + commercial undisturbed
forest is insufficient to meet roundwood demand projections
• This suggests a significant presence of illegal wood in the global timber supply (for which there is anecdotal
evidence)
• Therefore, biomass supply from surplus forest wood is excluded
100
Annex B: Global supply
101
First generation biofuels - demand
101
• First generation (1G) biofuel feedstocks cannot be plotted on the same supply curve as
other feedstocks, as they have specific conversion routes to fuels, and so are considered
separately here. They are also used to reduce the land area available for energy crops
globally
• For feedstocks (sugar, starch and oils) for first generation biofuels, the volume used for
biofuels and price depend strongly on global food and biofuels demand. In theory, 1G
biofuels could draw feedstock from the food market to supply demand at any level
• Therefore for first generation biofuels, we have looked at projections of volume demanded
and market price.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
De
man
d (
EJ)
BAU
Central RES
High Sustainability
High Growth
• 1G biofuel
demand is given
by the global
demand analysis.
It flattens or
decreases after
2015 as 2G
biofuels begin to
be used
Annex B: Global supply
102
First generation biofuels - prices
102
• The price of 1G biofuels will depend heavily on global commodity prices for sugar and
starch crops, and vegetable oils
• As an indication, the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008 projects prices to 2017. When
these are
2008 2010 2015 2017
Bioethanol (USD/hl)53.00 53.96 52.69 51.35
Biodiesel (USD/hl)98.55 105.78 106.31 105.49
Bioethanol (£/GJ, deflated to 2008)12.85 12.63 12.10 10.73
Biodiesel (£/GJ, deflated to 2008)16.45 17.04 16.81 15.17
• It is likely that in a High Growth scenario, these prices would be higher than the central
projections, as a result of increased food demand, despite the drop in 1G biofuels demand
Annex B: Global supply
103
Energy Crops - resource
Resource
Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008), which:
• considers the potential from woody energy crops (e.g. willow, poplar, eucalyptus), with the variety depending on
suitability
• gives the
• theoretical potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2), of which 2 are used as a
basis for our scenarios (A1 and B1) – see following slides
• global economic potential (at production cost of up $5/GJ) in 2050 for the 4 scenarios
• considers two main types of Available Area
• abandoned agricultural land – released as agricultural technology and food demand changes.
• non-agricultural land – extensive grassland, and abandoned pasture, excluding nature reserves.
We then estimated the potential resource to 2030 by:
• backcasting Hoogwijk’s available area and productivity from 2050 to 1995 to give a 1995 potential
• forecasting to 2030, using
• available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk, modified to remove land needed for 1G
biofuels, and to remove extra land needed for food in the High Growth scenario. Under High Growth
scenario, global food demand is ramped up to an extra 7.2% by 2030 (UN High instead of Medium
Variant population forecast). This requires an extra 410Mha of agricultural land to meet the larger
demand, hence much less land released compared with Hoogwijk A1 scenario
• a proportion of the (constant) non-agricultural land area: 50% in BAU and High Growth, and 10% in
Central RES and High Sustainability, based on Hoogwijk’s assumptions.
• management factors adapted from Hoogwijk to reflect our scenarios
• In any given grid square: yield = theoretical yield per grid square * Management Factor
• Management factors increase over time from 0.84 in 2008, up to a maximum of 1.3 in 2030 under
BAU and Central RES, and from 0.86 in 2008 up to a maximum of 1.5 in 2030 under High Growth
and High Sustainability (representing increased technological development)
103
Annex B: Global supply
104
Energy Crops – planting rates and costs
Planting
• We assume that in a given year the area planted is a proportion of the whole supply curve, not that the best
land is planted first. However, because the entire supply curve considered consists only of economically viable
land, and this land is distributed worldwide, this assumption is more reasonable than assuming that the very
cheapest land is used first
• We also assume that abandoned agricultural land is always planted before any non-agricultural land, due to
similarity to existing practices, even though the non-agricultural land may have comparable production costs.
The driver to plant on these different land types may depend on the definition of idle and marginal land under
the RED sustainability criteria designed to avoid indirect land use change.
• A global planting rate was estimated by scaling up the UK planting rate in proportion to the relative arable areas.
The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0.32Mha in 2009, with the rate then doubling each year until 2017
when the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr is reached (48Mha is 3% of current global arable area).
• Including these planting rates results in the energy crop potential being limited even in 2030 in all scenarios
Cost
• Production costs are also based on Hoogwijk, who uses the following equation:
• Cost (£/GJ) = (Land cost + (Management costs * cost reduction factor)) ‚ yield
• Cost is lower on grid squares with higher yield
• Cost varies over time with changing cost reduction factor, reflecting increased productivity of labour and
capital, therefore less inputs needed per GJ. Note that this is different from the UK assumption, where
cost reduces with yield only, as management is not projected to increase
• Hoogwijk gives supply curves for areas able to produce energy crops at <$5/GJ in 2050.
• This amounts to around 80% of the potential from Abandoned Agricultural land and 45% from Non-
agricultural land
• We assumed that the distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years, and
therefore derived a new supply curve using our resource and costs data.
104
Annex B: Global supply
105
Energy Crops – Hoogwijk scenarios
105
Annex B: Global supply
106
Energy Crops – choice of Hoogwijk scenarios
Basis of
Hoogwijk
scenarios
• Hoogwijk uses the IPCC SRES scenarios. These offer alternative versions of how the future might unfold
• The 4 scenarios vary according to the degree of global integration and social/ environmental concerns
• Our High Sustainability scenario is environmental focused hence B1 is the best match available, and our
High Growth scenario is economically focused hence A1 is the best match available
• In all our scenarios, trade is no more constrained than under current conditions, whereas in A2 and B2
trade is low. Furthermore, UN projects a low-high population range of 7.8-10.8 billion in 2050, hence it is
felt that A2 and B2 population projections are unrealistically high
• Therefore, we discount A2 and B2 as usable scenarios, and choose to adjust the management factors
behind the A1 scenario to account for less technology development in our BAU and Central RES
scenarios (compared with High Growth)
• However, B1 as given only has average technology development, therefore for High Sustainability to
include higher technology development, we adjust the management factors up to be in line with those of
A1/High Growth
Hoogwijk
approach
• The main advantage of Hoogwijk's approach is that it allows us to make short-term and long-term
projections of energy crop potential using the same methodology. This is possible because:
• Global agricultural land requirements are calculated by the IMAGE model for every year 1995-2100
• Supply curves are based on the development of technology over time as well as the quality of
land made available for bioenergy from abandonment
• Most other studies of global biomass potential are extremely theoretical, making it difficult to relate results
to different scenarios. Few global studies are temporally-explicit, making it difficult to draw a path from the
present to the long-term potential, whereas the more detailed studies, such as REFUEL, are not global
106
Annex B: Global supply
107
Energy Crops – scenario variation
107
BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth
Hoogwijk’s
Scenario
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
B1 Global-Socio-
environmental
A1 Global-Economic
Orientation
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population Growth
– 8.3 billion in 2030
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population Growth
– 8.3 billion in 2030
Low Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture – but
less fertilisation
Medium Population Growth
– 8.3 billion in 2030
High Meat Demand
Intensive Agriculture
Medium Population Growth
– 8.3 billion in 2030
Adjusted food
demandNone None
None – already in B1
scenario above
Agricultural area factored up
according to UN high
population projection – 8.9
billion in 2030
Adjusted
Management
Factor
Annual growth: 1.4%
Maximum: 1.3
Annual growth: 1.4%
Maximum: 1.3
Annual growth: 1.6%
Maximum: 1.5
Annual growth: 1.6%
Maximum: 1.5
Land types
possible
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 50% of Non-agricultural
Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 10% of Non-agricultural
Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 10% of Non-agricultural
Land
Abandoned Arable
(Less 1G biofuel land)
+ 50% of Non-agricultural
Land
Global available area (Mha) Global planted area (Mha)2008 2010 2015 2020 2030 2008 2010 2015 2020 2030
BAU 1,491 1,501 1,585 1,636 1,842 13 13 33 240 724
Central RES 489 499 582 628 834 13 13 33 240 724High Sus 476 491 565 665 854 13 13 33 240 724
High Growth 1,478 1,479 1,533 1,556 1,699 13 13 33 240 724
Annex B: Global supply
108
Energy Crops – geographical distribution
108
24%
16%
21%
8%
14%
17%
Europe & Former USSR
Africa
Asia
Oceania
North & Central America
South America
Distribution
of energy
crops
• Economic potential refers to biomass covered by our supply curves. It corresponds to biomass available in
the Hoogwijk study for $5/GJ in 2050, equivalent to 74% of the total potential. With our planting
assumptions, this distribution will be the same in 2030
• 19% of this economic potential is located in the former USSR, 17% in South America, 16% in Africa and
15% in East Asia
• The cheapest biomass (<$1/GJ in 2050) accounts for 3.4% of the economic potential (or 5.6% in B1). This
is almost entirely located in Western and Eastern Africa where relative labour costs are extremely low
• The next most expensive bracket of biomass (<$2/GJ in 2050) accounts for 60% of the economic
potential. 53% of this is located in Africa and former USSR (these percentages are 79% and 39%
respectively in B1)
• The B1 scenario has a very similar distribution (other than specific percentages given above)
Annex B: Global supply
109
Algae
Resource
Resource = Projected number of plants x Plant size x Yield
• The algal resource is unlikely to be limited by available global surface area, or by water requirements, given that
there is development of algae grown in sea water
• Projected number of plants: Based on analysis by E4tech for the Carbon Trust
• High Growth and High Sustainability: Assume first commercial scale plant is built in 2017, and the number
of plants doubles every year for first ten years, thereafter sustained growth rate of 50% per year
• BAU and Central RES: assume half the number of plants in 2020 compared with above, and then growth
rate of 50% per year
• Plant size: kept constant at 1000 ha
• Yield: the total yield of algal biomass is kept constant at 60 odt/ha/yr, but the oil proportion increased:
• High Growth and High Sustainability: 30% oil content by 2020, 42% by 2030
• BAU and Central RES: 30% oil content by 2020, 35% by 2030
Cost
• Cost basis used: competing uses of the bulk of the oil or biomass are not yet known
• Cost of a plant taken from McMahon, quoting Benemann and Oswald (1996). No reduction over time, as any
capital cost reduction is likely to be offset by increase in nutrients needed to achieve increased productivities
• Cost of oil reduces over time, as a result of increased yield
Results
• Resource: total algal biomass is 6PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES, 12 PJ under High Growth and High
Sustainability. Increase to 434 PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES, 4334 PJ under High Growth and High
Sustainability.
• Initial cost estimates are very high , at £14/GJ for algal biomass in 2030
109
• We briefly considered the costs and potential of energy production from algae, based on the best
available, and consistent data. However, as the costs projected were very high, we did not consider this
resource further
Annex B: Global supply
110
Annex C: Global demand data
110
• Assumptions and results for estimates of global demand for woody biomass (energy crops, forestry
wastes and wood processing residues)
Annex C: Global demand
111
BAU
Biomass and
waste
demand
• IEA World Energy Outlook 2008 (WEO 2008) gives the primary energy demand for biomass and waste to
2030(including wood, MSW, biogas, landfill gas, and all other biomass & wastes) in categories: electricity,
industrial and other (residential, services etc), and regions: US, EU and ROW.
• This includes demand for traditional biomass, which we have removed by subtracting the ‘Other’ category in
ROW, assumed to be largely traditional use.
• It also gives the biofuels (NOT primary energy) demand for transport
Proportion of
this from
woody
biomass
• It is difficult to estimate how much of this demand is from the resources we are considering – i.e. energy crops and
forestry industry residues (collectively termed ‘woody biomass’)
• The predicted total woody biomass demand is 6.6 EJ in 2008, rising to 15.2EJ in 2030, based on the following
assumptions:
• Transport: Very little woody biomass demand for transport until 2020 (WEO 2008 assumption). We assume
slow growth from 2020 to 2030. The US 2G proportion is estimated based on the 2G proportion of
Renewable Fuel Standard targets, but reduced as these are not expected to be met (5% of biofuels are
lignocellulosic in 2015; 25% in 2020; 50% in 2030). For the EU and ROW, we assumed that the 2G
proportion is half that in the US, as the US is likely to lead. For US and ROW, we assume 50% of this will be
from woody biomass in 2020; 70% in 2030. This is a conservative assumption, as agricultural residues (e.g.
corn stover) will be an important feedstock at first. For the EU, 70% is used throughout.
• Electricity: biomass electricity generated from Wood and derived fuels (Black liquor, and wood/woodwaste
solids and liquids) was 70% in the US in 2006 [EIA, 2008]. Of this, 64% is woody biomass (based on global
statistics for the proportion of black liquor in wood derived fuels, from IPCC 2007). For the EU, 50% is from
‘wood and wood waste’ (all non MSW solid biomass) [Eurostat 2008], of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC,
2007). These were kept constant to 2030, and US figures used for ROW.
• Industry: US demand is 75% from wood and wood derived fuels [EIA, 2008], of which 64% is assumed to be
woody biomass (as above). For the EU, 98% is from ‘wood and wood waste’ (all non MSW solid biomass)
[Eurostat 2008], of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC, 2007). These %s are assumed to remain constant to
2030, and US figures used for ROW. .
• Other: the US and EU ‘Other’ category, comprising residential, services, agricultural, non-specified sectors, is
assumed to be 30% woody biomass (E4tech estimate, based on the range of data seen)
111
Annex C: Global demand
112
Central RES
Biomass and
waste
demand
• The biomass and waste demand is the same in every Region and Sector in the Central RES Scenario as in
the BAU scenario (i.e. Based on WEO 2008), except for EU sectors, which change due to implementation of
the RED:
• The RED sets targets for transport energy, and for total energy demand (including heat and electricity), with
no defined split between them. We assume most of the Industry and Other sector biomass and waste
demand is for heat, and therefore consolidate them into a single ‘Heat’ sector
• Transport: 5% of total transport energy to be from renewables by 2015. Of this, the RED sets targets
for 20% from specific renewable fuels (2G biofuels, electricity or H2) by 2015; and 40% by 2020. Of
this, we assume 100% is met by 2G biofuels in 2015; 95% in 2020. The 2020 values remain constant
to 2030.
• Electricity: 34% of electricity is assumed to be renewable by 2030, (EC estimate), with a linear ramp up
from the current 16%. 15% of this renewable generation is from solid biomass (excluding biowaste
and biogas) in both 2010 and 2020 (EC renewable Energy Roadmap 2006, assumed constant to
2030).
• Heat: the EU Renewable Energy Roadmap (2006) estimates the biomass contribution to EU heat
demands till 2020. Assume 2020 value constant to 2030.
Proportion of
this from
woody
biomass
• Same woody biomass % as BAU for USA and ROW for all sectors
• For EU
• Assume 70% of 2G biofuels are from woody biomass
• 62% of solid non-waste biomass for electricity and 58% of biomass for heat is from woody biomass.
[E4tech estimates based on IPCC 2007]
• This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6EJ in 2008, rising to 16.4EJ in 2030
112
Annex C: Global demand
113
High Growth
Biomass and
waste
demand
• We assume that by 2030, the demand for energy (and by extension, biomass and waste) is 12.5% higher
than in the Central RES scenario.
• This is based on IPCC scenarios (IPCC SRES v1.1, 2001), which show that
• Final energy demand in 2030 in A1 AIM is 669 EJ
• Final energy demand in 2030 in B1 IMAGE is 523 EJ
• Since our BAU and Central RES scenarios are designed as intermediate scenarios, their final energy demand
is taken as the midpoint at 596 EJ. Therefore the final energy demand in our High Growth scenario is
increased by 12.2% from BAU
Proportion of
this from
woody
biomass
• All assumptions are the same as for central RES except for transport, where high technology development
leads to
• In the US the share of 2G biofuels in total biofuels is increased to 10% of biofuels in 2015; 40% in
2020; and 60% in 2030. The ROW is assumed to be the same as the US
• EU targets remain the same as in Central RES (20% of renewable fuels are 2G biofuels in 2015, 39%
in 2020). However, we have assumed that in 2030, 60% of renewable fuels are 2G, electricity or H2,
and of this, 80% are 2G biofuels (i.e. 55% 2G biofuels in renewable fuels overall). We had originally
planned to consider that the RES was not extended and so 2030 production remained at 2020 levels,
however, this would not be realistic given the level of technology development in 2G biofuels seen
worldwide
• This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6 EJ in 2008 and 20.3 EJ in 2030
113
Annex C: Global demand
114
High Sustainability
Biomass and
waste
demand
• We assume that by 2030, the demand for energy (and by extension, biomass and waste) is 12.5% lower than
in the Central RES scenario. This is based on IPCC data, as before.
Proportion of
this from
woody
biomass
• All assumptions are the same as for central RES except for
• Extension of the RED to 2030 on a constant % basis for electricity and heat – although this has little
effect as EU energy demand grows very little in this time
• Transport, where high technology development is considered as in the High Growth scenario
• This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6 EJ in 2008 and 16.4EJ in 2030
114
Annex C: Global demand
115
Annex D: Transport and processing assumptions
115
• Transport and processing needed to obtain each feedstock in the form needed for each demand grouping,
and associated data
Annex D: T&P
116
Global processing and transport assumptions
Processing
• Each feedstock must be in a suitable form for transport
• Wood processing residues:
• chips do not need further processing
• sawdust is pelletised
• other loose material is chipped at a centralised plant
• Forestry resides are already chipped at roadside
• Energy crops are in the form of willow logs and eucalyptus sticks, and are chipped
• Costs of processing are the same as the assumptions used in the UK (see following slides)
International
transport
• Wood processing residues are generated at a plant/sawmill, forestry residues at the nearest
roadside, whereas energy crop costs already include 50km road transport to a centralised point
• We then added an estimated average transport distance for global woody biomass resources,
as set out below. In reality, many resources would be used close to the source of production,
and many transported much further.
• After any necessary processing, each resource is transported a distance of 200km by
road in the country of origin. Costs from Suurs (2002) include loading, transport,
unloading and return journey: chips 5p/odt/km, pellets 4.7p/odt/km
• Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km. Suurs (2002) gives
0.6p/odt/km for pellets, 1.2p/odt/km for chips. Costs include two port costs, loading and
unloading costs and one-way transport (i.e. non-dedicated vessel), for an indicative
international sea transport distance of 1500km.
116
Annex D: T&P
117
UK processing assumptions
Chipping
• Cost of chipping:
16t/hr centralised
chipper £2.35/odt
(Gigler 1999)
Pelletising
• 13.7t/hr plant
£12.5/odt
(Nordicity Pellet
logistics 2007)
Chopping
• Assumed same
as chipping in the
absence of
reliable data
Drying
• Cost for drying
from 35% dry
matter to 90%
dry matter of
£98/odt, from
Sowa (1994)
117
Feedstocks Original form
Desired final form
Large thermal:
allDomestic Waste/fuels AD Landfill gas
Forestry residues Chips - Pellets -
Soft stemwood Logs Chips - Chips
Hard stemwood Logs Chips - Chips
Sawmill co-product: chips Chips - Pellets -
Sawmill co-product: sawdust Sawdust Pellets Pellets Pellets
Sawmill co-product: bark Bark Chips Chips
Arboricultural blowback: logs Logs Chips - Chips
Arboricultural blowback: chips Chips - Pellets -
Arboricultural landfillings: logs Logs Chips - Chips
Arboricultural landfillings: chips Chips - Pellets -
Wheat straw Bales Chopped Chopped
Oil seed rape straw Bales Chopped Chopped
Energy crops Chips Average EC* Pellets Average EC*
Wet manures Slurry/Farmyard manure -
Dry manures Poultry litter - -
Sewage sludge Sludge Dried sludge Dried sludge -
Waste wood: clean Pieces Chips Pellets Chips
Waste wood: contaminated Pieces Chips
Paper/card waste Loose pile - -
Garden/plant waste Loose pile - -
Food/kitchen waste Loose pile - -
Textiles waste Loose pile - -
Landfill gas Gas -
Imports: chips Chips - Pellets -
Imports: pellets Pellets - - -
• UK Energy crops are SRC willow and poplar, in the form of chips (78%), and miscanthus, in the form of bales (22%). Weighted
average transport and processing costs are therefore used
Annex D: T&P
118
UK transport assumptions
118
FeedstocksCurrent location
Large
thermal: allDomestic Waste/fuels AD Landfill gas
Large thermal:
allDomestic Waste/fuels AD Landfill gas
Forestry residues Forest roadside - Pellets - 50 50 50
Soft stemwood Forest roadside Chips - Chips 50 50 50
Hard stemwood Forest roadside Chips - Chips 50 50 50
Sawmill co-product: chips Sawmill yard - Pellets - 50 50 50
Sawmill co-product: sawdust Sawmill yard Pellets Pellets Pellets 50 50 50
Sawmill co-product: bark Sawmill yard Chips Chips 50 50
Arboricultural blowback: logs Depot Chips - Chips 50 50 50
Arboricultural blowback: chipsDepot - Pellets - 50 50 50
Arboricultural landfillings: logsDepot Chips - Chips 50 50 50
Arboricultural landfillings: chips Depot - Pellets - 50 50 50
Wheat straw Farm gate Bales Bales 50 50
Oil seed rape straw Farm gate Bales Bales 50 50
Energy crops Farm gate Average EC Pellets Average EC 50 50 50
Wet manures Farm gate - 10
Dry manures Farm gate - - 50 10
Sewage sludge Works gate Dried sludge Dried sludge - 50 10 0
Waste wood: clean Site skip Chips Pellets Chips 50 50 10
Waste wood: contaminated Site skip Chips 10
Paper/card waste Handling facility - - 10 10
Garden/plant waste Handling facility - - 10 10
Food/kitchen waste Handling facility - - 10 10
Textiles waste Handling facility - - 10 10
Landfill gas Landfill - 0
Imports: chips UK port - Pellets - 50 50 50
Imports: pellets UK port - - - 50 50 50
Transport costsFixed Variable
Reference£/odt £/odt/km
Pellets 0.034Suurs 2002, adjusted for inflation. Includes fixed and variable costs for 50km out and 50km return journey
Chips 0.101Logs 0.065Bales 0.081Slurry/Farmyard manure 11.173 0.293
Biocap Uofaweb model 2005, exchanged and adjusted for inflation. Poultry litter 4.907 0.090Dried sludge 3.272 0.060
Annex D: T&P
119
Scenarios summary
BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth
UK power, heat and
fuels policy
Existing as in White
Paper, constant to
2030
To meet 2020 RED.
Constant generation
level after
Extended RED to
2030
To meet 2020 RED.
Constant generation
level after
Global bioenergy
policyCurrent policy Current policy + RED
Extended RED to
2030 + Increased 2G
biofuels targets
globally
RED + Increased 2G
biofuels targets
globally
Global food
demandCentral projection Central projection Central projection Increased projection
Global energy
demandIEA BAU projection IEA BAU projection
IEA BAU projections
-12.5%
IEA BAU projections
+12.5%
Land use for 1G
biofuel feedstocksContinued expansion Continued expansion Reduced expansion Increased expansion
Land use for
energy cropsCentral Restricted Restricted Central
UK waste
generation Current trend Current trend
Growth rates reduced
by 0.75%
Growth rates
increased by 0.25%
Technology
development and
resource extraction
Mid Mid High High
119
1. Introduction