Biomass supply curves for the UK

Summary For DECC

March 2009
1

Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply 3. Global supply and imports to the UK 4. Supply curves for UK energy demands 5. Conclusions

2

Scope and aims

1. Introduction

• 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
3

Relationship between key parts of the analysis 1. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported. The scenarios affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks (land use. technically viable end uses) 2. Introduction 1. and the level of global demand for these feedstocks. is used to determine the price of imports 4. to meet different demands 2 UK supply curve (without imports) UK supply curve (with imports) Separate UK supply curves for different UK demands 5 Price of imports to the UK Global supply curve Scenarios 1 3 Global demand levels 4 4 . The UK supply curve is then built up 3. yields. The overall UK supply curve is broken down in to separate supply curves showing the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies. extractability) and global demand (policy.

and a move away from less resource efficient technologies. putting increased pressure on resources.Introduction to scenarios • Four scenarios were defined: 1. Some sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with Central RES 5 . • High Growth –energy and food demand increase globally. This results in an increase in EU demand for bioenergy. This includes continued trends in use of first generation biofuels. the response to this leads to strong technology development. and sustainability criteria restricting land use for energy crops • High Sustainability –greenhouse gas savings and other sustainability impacts are prioritised. Introduction • Business As Usual (BAU) – a continuation of current trends. strong technology development. This leads to lower energy demand through efficiency. and stronger bioenergy demand side policy. and modest technology development in energy crops and second generation biofuel production • Central RES – As BAU. without the EU RED. but with the introduction of the RED. However. and in waste diversion from landfill.

such as eucalyptus and willow Wood chips from branches. pigs. and miscanthus Straw from wheat and oil seed rape Hardwood and softwood tree trunks Wood chips from branches. and biodiesel from oil crops Oil and biomass from photosynthetic algae 6 Others – considered in the annex only. sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood Stemwood. tips and poor quality stemwood 1. sheep and poultry Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites Woody short rotation crops.Feedstocks considered UK feedstocks Energy crops Crop residues Stemwood Forestry residues Sawmill co-product Arboricultural arisings Waste wood Organic waste Short rotation coppice willow or poplar. garden/plant and textiles wastes Sewage sludge Animal manures Landfill gas Global feedstocks Energy crops Forestry residues Wood processing residues First generation biofuels Algae From Waste Water Treatment Works Manures and slurries from cattle. tips and poor quality stemwood Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry Ethanol from sugar and starch crops. food/kitchen. not included in supply curves . wood chips. Introduction Wood chips. branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations Clean and contaminated waste wood Paper/card.

all competing uses of land • Imports – global supply and demand are used to find the global price.e.Deriving supply curves Resource • Potential minus technical constraints minus environmental constraints 1. • Exceptions : • Energy crops –includes land rent i. This is assumed to be the price at which the UK can import. i. Introduction minus competing demands for the resource minus an availability factor for supply constraints Costs • For most feedstocks any remaining resource after competing demands is available for bioenergy at the cost of production/extraction . the UK is assumed to be a price taker 7 .no competition with the competing demand on the basis of price.e.

Contents 1. UK supply 3. Introduction 2. Conclusions 8 . Global supply and imports to the UK 4. Supply curves for UK energy demands 5.

UK supply Cost Positive cost feedstocks Total available resource Negative cost feedstocks are those for which there would be a fee to dispose of them Quantity • This can be for one feedstock. or can be the sum of the supply curves for many different types of biomass feedstocks 9 .Introduction to biomass supply curves 2.

0 • Positive cost feedstocks include straw. or preprocessing – this is added separately for each demand later 10 -8. mainly due to expansion in energy crops and increased ability to extract other feedstocks Box done • There is a large resource at negative cost due to avoided gate fees: organic MSW. forestry residues.0 • It increases significantly to 2030.000 1. transport to plant.200 • The potential bioenergy resource is large -2.0 .2.0 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 Supply (PJ) 1. 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.0 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 2. sewage sludge and waste wood -4.0 -6.BAU scenario over time BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 4. UK supply Supply curve for all feedstocks .

0 0 200 400 -1.200 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 1.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) -2.00 -15.00 -8. broken down by feedstock type BAU 2030 Wastes 4. UK supply BAU scenario in 2030.0 0 200 400 600 800 10.0 0.0 -5.00 -15.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Supply (PJ) 0.2.00 Energy crops BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 -6.0 -8.00 -3.0 BAU 2030 Energy crops BAU 2030 Forestry 2.00 5.000 1.0 -20.0 -5.400 2.0 1.0 0.00 Forestry 11 .00 1.00 Cost (£/GJ) Cost (£/GJ) -6.00 5.00 -5.0 -7.00 -10.0 -15.0 -20.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Supply (PJ) -5.0 BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) -2.00 -10.00 -4.00 5.0 -4.0 Wastes BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 10.0 Supply (PJ) 0.00 Agricultural -20.00 -10.00 10.0 BAU 2030 Agricultural Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.

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 -6.0 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1. This is reduced in the BAU scenario as a result of lower crop yields. UK supply Supply curve for all feedstocks .0 • The total potential is affected strongly by the energy crop potential: the High Growth scenario has a large land area and highest yields.0 High growth 2030 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.0 • Energy crop costs are lower in the High Sustainability and High Growth scenarios.200 1.0 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 2.all scenarios in 2030 BAU 2030 4.0 .0 -4.2.400 -2. and is increased under High Growth 12 -8. as a result of higher yields • Potential from wastes is reduced in High Sustainability due to lower volumes of waste generation.

Contents 1. Supply curves for UK energy demands 5. UK supply 3. Introduction 2. Conclusions 13 . Global supply and imports to the UK 4.

0 BAU Global supply curves • Feedstocks are forestry and wood processing residues.0 Global demand of 15 EJ in 2030 gives a global price of £3.0 Cost (£/GJ) 6.3. this is the price at which imports are available to the 250 Supply (EJ)UK 14 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 0. 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 10.0 200 . 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. Imports Deriving import price from global supply and demand .0 BAU 2008 2.BAU 12.48 /GJ (equivalent to £63 /odt) 0 50 100 150 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 • If we know the global demand for woody biomass in a particular year.0 4.0 8.

0 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 0. import prices fall over time. but remain expensive 2010 import price: £6. imports would be high cost • In 2010.0 -6.0 • The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass . imports are only cheaper than the most expensive straw and energy crops • These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made.52 /GJ BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 4.0 0 200 400 600 800 Supply (PJ) 1.0 .0 • In 2030.000 1. as transport adds around £2/GJ to most global feedstock costs 15 -8. import prices are more expensive than all other UK resources -4.48 /GJ BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 2.more than enough to supply UK demand – at the global market price • However. Imports Under BAU.200 -2.3.0 2030 import price £3.

0 BAU 2030 3. 9. extra food demand requires more agricultural area.. and poorer non Supply (EJ) agricultural land is used 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cost (£/GJ) 5.0 0.0 Central RES 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 7.0 1.0 3.0 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 • more abandoned agricultural land • potentially better quality agricultural land may be abandoned • high energy crop management factor • In High Growth.Supply curves under different scenarios differ considerably in 2030.0 2..0 16 .0 6.0 4. Imports 8. and hence less is available for energy crops.

Central RES and High Growth the import price of 3.0 BAU. However..0 -8. the import price is lower at 3..48 /GJ High Sustainability import price £3. hence imports are still more expensive than 95% of the UK’s resources 17 -6.0 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.13 /GJ BAU 2030 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 2. Central RES and High Growth import price £3.but lead to a similar (and high) import price 4. as the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is cheaper.0 0 200 400 600 800 1.0 • Under BAU. UK energy crops are also cheaper.13 £/GJ.000 1.3.48 £/GJ is more expensive than nearly all UK energy crops and straw • Under High Sustainability.400 -2.200 1.0 -4.0 . Imports .

Global supply and imports to the UK 4. Supply curves for UK energy demands 5.Contents 1. Introduction 2. UK supply 3. Conclusions 18 .

UK demands Building appropriate supply curves for different demands • Deciding which feedstocks to combine on supply curves for biomass conversion can be complex. with very similar feedstock requirements • The supply curves show total available resources suitable for that demand group. • All of the resources on the supply curve must be suitable feedstocks for the conversion technology being considered.g.4. We then merged these into 5 groups. and depends on how they will be used. and so no resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered. 19 . No assumptions are made on the share of resources used for each one. chipping. and the form in which the feedstock is transported • We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion technologies. pelletising • Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks • Likely transport distances for feedstocks. in terms of • Need for wet or dry feedstocks • Sizing or other pretreatment requirements e.

turbines • Landfill gas only • No imports • No treatment or transport 20 . dry manures and sewage sludge • Chipped or dried where necessary • 50 km UK transport • Imported chips Large thermal Domestic heat/CHP • • • • Most wood resources and energy crops Pelletised or as logs Imported pellets 50 km UK transport Anaerobic digestion • Anaerobic digestion plants • Energy from waste plants using thermal technologies • 2nd generation biofuels production • SNG via gasification • All wet resources: wet manures. sewage sludge and MSW. stoves and CHP Feedstock types and requirements • Most wood resources. zero for sludge • • • • All resources except wet manures and landfill gas Chipped. straw. energy crops. chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport for most. Landfill gas is not included • No pretreatment • 10 km UK transport.4. 10km for wastes Imported chips Waste&fuels Landfill gas • Gas engines. UK demands Demand groups Demand group Types of plants • Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant • Co-firing • Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP • Domestic boilers.

09 2015 5. dry manures.00 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 0.00 4. straw.00 0 200 400 600 Supply (PJ) 800 -1.00 • Imported chips.04 21 .00 -3. energy crops.14 2020 4. Cost (£/GJ) 3.00 BAU 2008 2. dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood.28 2010 7.00 Year Import price £/GJ 2008 7.41 2030 4. UK demands BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 5. including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown -2.00 • This supply curve is suitable for medium and large electricity/ CHP/heat plant and cofiring • It includes forestry.Example: Large thermal plant – BAU over time 6.00 4.00 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 1. arboricultural and wood processing residues.

Global supply and imports to the UK 4.Contents 1. Supply curves for UK energy demands 5. Introduction 2. UK supply 3. Conclusions 22 .

There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at reasonable cost 5. or transport fuels. if there is a fast ramp up of energy crop planting • However. Most resources can be used to generate either electricity. including additional UK transport and processing costs. 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. via a range of conversion technologies. Conclusions • The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary energy demand by 2030. 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. heat. the global price may be higher than most indigenous UK feedstocks. rather than focusing supplies from within the UK or within the EU • Global woody biomass resources could potentially be very large. due to a lower resource potential. at a cost of less than £5/GJ • The resource in earlier years is much smaller. even after demands for land for food and 1st generation biofuel feedstocks are supplied first. 23 .

Full slide pack Biomass supply curves for the UK Final report For DECC March 2009 24 .

we have given two graphs: the BAU scenario in each year. 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 many feedstocks. 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 for the global demand assessment • Throughout the document summaries and conclusions are shown in blue boxes to distinguish them from analysis and supporting assumptions 25 . and all scenarios in 2030 • We also provide supporting slides. detailed data is not provided for every permutation in this pack • For both UK and global supply.How to use this document • This document gives the approach. results.

UK supply 3.Contents 1. Introduction 2. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. Conclusions 7. Global supply 4. Determining the price of imports 5. Annexes 26 .

• 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. 2015. 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 27 . 2010. 2020 and 2030 • four scenarios of the supply curve development. Introduction • In this project. varying in their assumptions of energy and food demand. policy requirements and sustainability criteria. technology development. based on • a range of UK feedstocks and imported feedstocks • five points in time: 2008. we were asked to develop supply curves for the UK biomass market.Scope and aims 1.

The overall UK supply curve can then be broken down in to separate supply curves showing the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported to the UK. is used to determine the price of imports 4. and the level of global demand for these feedstocks. The UK supply curve is then built up. as these affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks (land use. The scenarios are defined first. to meet different demands 2 UK supply curve (without imports) UK supply curve (with imports) Separate UK supply curves for different UK demands 5 Price of imports to the UK Global supply curve Scenarios 1 3 Global demand levels 4 28 . based on the availability and cost of each feedstock 3. extractability) and global demand (policy. technically viable end uses) 2. Introduction 1.Relationship between key parts of the analysis 1. yields.

However. 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. and modest technology development in energy crops and second generation biofuel production • Central RES – As BAU. and a move away from less resource efficient technologies. This includes continued trends in use of first generation biofuels. This results in an increase in EU demand for bioenergy. response to this leads to strong technology development. These were designed to represent different potential futures. Introduction • Four scenarios were defined.Introduction to scenarios 1. and also to give differing impacts on biomass supply and demand. • High Growth – here energy and food demand increase globally. Some sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with Central RES 29 . and in waste diversion from landfill. without the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). putting increased pressure on resources. strong technology development. This leads to lower energy demand through efficiency. but with the introduction of the RED. and stronger bioenergy demand side policy. • The scenarios are: • Business As Usual (BAU) – a continuation of current trends.

Scenarios summary BAU UK power. constant to 2030 Global bioenergy policy Current policy Current policy + RED Global food demand Global energy demand Land use for 1G biofuel feedstocks Land use for energy crops UK waste generation Technology development and resource extraction Central projection IEA BAU projection Continued expansion Central projection IEA BAU projection Continued expansion Central Restricted Restricted Growth rates reduced by 0. Constant generation level after RED + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Increased projection IEA BAU projections +12.75% Central Growth rates increased by 0. Constant generation level after High Sustainability Extended RED to 2030 Extended RED to 2030 + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Central projection IEA BAU projections -12.5% Reduced expansion High Growth To meet 2020 RED. heat and fuels policy 1. Introduction Central RES To meet 2020 RED.5% Increased expansion Existing as in White Paper.25% Current trend Current trend Mid Mid High High 30 .

tips and poor quality stemwood Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry Ethanol from sugar and starch crops. branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations Clean and contaminated waste wood Paper/card.Deriving supply curves – feedstocks considered • 1. tips and poor quality stemwood Wood chips. not included in supply curves 31 . such as eucalyptus and willow (species not specified) Wood chips from branches. pigs. sheep and poultry Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites Woody short rotation crops. based on consideration of the mostly likely UK and imported sources in the long term Short rotation coppice willow or poplar. garden/plant and textiles wastes From Waste Water Treatment Works Manures and slurries from cattle. and miscanthus Straw from wheat and oil seed rape Hardwood and softwood tree trunks Wood chips from branches. food/kitchen. and biodiesel from oil crops Oil and biomass from photosynthetic algae UK feedstocks Energy crops Crop residues Stemwood Forestry residues Sawmill co-product Arboricultural arisings Waste wood Organic waste Sewage sludge Animal manures Landfill gas Global feedstocks Energy crops Forestry residues Wood processing residues First generation biofuels Algae Others – considered in the annex only. wood chips. Introduction The scope of feedstocks considered was agreed at the start of the project. sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood Stemwood.

Introduction We followed a broadly similar approach to estimating the potential for each resource. and between scenarios Alternative disposal routes for wastes e.g. are not treated as competing demands 32 . In most cases. composting. recycling is supplied first The competing demands change over time. This means: • • for energy crops.Deriving supply curves – resource • 1. the wood product industry's needs are supplied first • • • • for straw. feed and bedding needs are supplied first for wastes. land needs for food are supplied first for wood processing residues. extraction ramp up • The competing demand for the resource are assumed to be supplied before any use for bioenergy. 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.

in many different sector. for most feedstocks any remaining resource is available for bioenergy at the cost of production/extraction. 33 . which includes a land rent (price) which takes into account all competing uses of land (i.e. This is assumed to be the price at which the UK can import.Deriving supply curves – cost 1. which has already been excluded) • Imports – a global supply curve based on costs. is used with global demand levels to find the global price. which would be difficult and time-consuming. not only the use of land for food. Introduction • As competing demands for the resource are supplied first. as above. i. This means that there is no competition with the competing demand on the basis of price. However.e. and in future years. this would entail deriving demand curves for each competing demand for each feedstock. the UK is assumed to be a price taker • An alternative approach would be to include price competition with competing uses. • The exceptions to this are: • Energy crops – a cost of production is used. particularly at a global level.

Global supply 4.Contents 1. Conclusions 7. Annexes 34 . Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. UK supply 3. Introduction 2. Determining the price of imports 5.

or can be the sum of the supply curves for many different types of biomass feedstocks 35 .Introduction to biomass supply curves 2. UK supply Cost Positive cost feedstocks Total available resource Quantity Negative cost feedstocks are those for which there would be a fee to dispose of them • This can be for one feedstock.

UK primary energy demand is currently around 10 EJ (10. mainly due to expansion in energy crops Box done and increased ability to extract other feedstocks There is a large resource at negative cost due to avoided gate fees: organic MSW. or preprocessing: this is added separately for each demand in section 5 36 • -4.0 0 200 400 600 800 Supply (PJ) 1.0 • -8.000 1.2.0 The potential bioenergy resource is large.0 • • -6.BAU scenario over time BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 4.0 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 0. forestry residues.0 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 2. UK supply UK supply curve for all feedstocks .000 PJ) It increases significantly to 2030. sewage sludge and waste wood Positive cost feedstocks include straw.0 .200 • -2. 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.

00 -15.0 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) -2.BAU scenario 2030 • • 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 BAU 2030 Wastes 4.00 Energy crops BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 -6.00 -8.00 -5.2.000 1.00 Cost (£/GJ) Cost (£/GJ) -6.0 BAU 2030 Agricultural Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.00 -20.00 5.00 Agricultural -20.00 -4.0 0 200 400 -1.00 -10.00 -3.0 Supply (PJ) Cost (£/GJ) 0.0 BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 0.400 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 2.00 5.0 -4.00 10.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Supply (PJ) 0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Supply (PJ) -5.0 -7.00 BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 1.0 -5.0 0.00 5.0 -8.00 -10.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 -2.200 10.00 -10.0 -15. UK supply UK supply curve for all feedstocks .0 BAU 2030 Energy crops BAU 2030 Forestry 2.0 -5.0 Wastes BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 10.00 Forestry 37 .0 -20.0 The supply curve for each of the four categories is given in the following slides -15.0 0 200 400 600 800 1.0 1.

2. UK supply

Energy crops are the largest potential resource
5.00

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

4.50

4.00

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


3.50

Cost (£/GJ)

3.00

2.50

2.00


BAU 2008
BAU 2010

1.50

1.00

BAU 2015
BAU 2020

0.50

BAU 2030

0.00 0 100 200 300 400

Supply (PJ)
500 600

Note: costs shown are for chipped SRC and baled miscanthus

38

y crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time

2. UK supply

Energy crops are limited by planting rates
5.0 4.5 4.0
3.5
BAU 2008 BAU 2010

UK energy crops: influence of planting rates on BAU over time The dotted lines show the energy • crop potential assuming all available uence of planting rates on BAU over time 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


BAU 2008 BAU 2010

Cost (£/GJ)

3.0
2.5

Add planting rates graph DONE
BAU 2008

BAU 2015 BAU 2020

BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030

2.0
1.5

BAU 2030 BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2015 no planting constraints

BAU 2008 no planting constraints

BAU 2010
BAU 2015 BAU 2020

1.0 0.5

BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2030 no planting constraints

Note that a spread of land types is planted each year – we do not BAU 2015 no planting constraints assume that the best or worst land BAU 2020 no planting constraints is planted first
BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2030 no planting constraints

BAU 2030

0.0 0 100 200

BAU 2008 no planting constraints

Supply (PJ)
500 Supply (PJ)600

300 400 BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2015 no planting constraints

200

300

400

500

600

BAU 2020 no planting constraints

39

influence of planting rates on BAU over time

Reducing the maximum planting rate reduces 2030 potential significantly in some scenarios

5.0

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.

f planting rates on BAU over time
4.0
BAU 2008 BAU 2010

Cost (£/GJ)

3.0

BAU 2015 BAU 2020

2.0
BAU 2008 BAU 2010

BAU 2030 BAU 2008 no planting constraints
BAU 2010 no planting constraints
BAU 2008

1.0

BAU 2015 BAU 2020

BAU 2015 no planting constraints

BAU 2008 no planting constraints BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2010

BAU 2030

BAU 2030 no planting constraints

This reduces total BAU potential from around 1,150PJ to around 1,000PJ

0.0 0

BAU 2008 no planting constraints

100 2010 200 300 BAU no planting constraints

Supply (PJ) 500 400

Supply (PJ)
600

300

400

BAU 2015 no planting constraints

500

600

Slide added March 2009

BAU 2020 no planting constraints

40

0 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 • Energy crop scheme establishment grants of £1000 /ha for SRC and £800 /ha for miscanthus BAU 2020 2.0 • These reduce the costs of energy crops by around £0.0 4. UK supply Energy crop subsidies 5.5 4.0 • Energy crop subsidies have been included in the dashed curves BAU 2008 3.0 BAU 2008 with subsidies 0 100 200 300 400 BAU 2010 with subsidies BAU 2015 with subsidies 500 600 Supply (PJ) 41 200 300 400 BAU 500 2020 with subsidies 600 .5 BAU 2015 BAU 2030 BAU 2020 2.6/GJ under the BAU scenario BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 BAU 2030 with subsidies 0.2.5 0.5 Cost (£/GJ) BAU 2010 BAU 2008 3.5 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2008 with subsidies BAU 2010 with subsidies BAU 2015 with subsidies BAU 2020 with subsidies BAU 2030 with subsidies BAU 2015 with subsidies BAU 2020 with subsidies 1.0 BAU 2030 BAU 2008 with subsidies • EU area payments of £30/ha/yr BAU 2010 with subsidies 1.

based on spatial models from Southampton University and Rothamsted Research. to avoid land use change emissions.e.a.2. with the annual rate then doubling each year until it reaches a maximum of 150.2mha in 2030). biodiversity restrictions are applied (10% of land is used in Central RES and High Sustainability) • Planting rate: Current area of 8. depending on scenario • Costs are calculated using a land rent (i. UK supply Energy crops – summary of assumptions • Energy crops are planted on arable and pasture land no longer needed for food production. In the other scenarios.1mha in BAU and Central RES in 2030) • In BAU and High Growth scenarios. effects on the price as a result of competing uses for the product are not considered • 2008 energy crop cost from Alberici (2008). SRC poplar. based on a review of literature and industry views on energy crop costs. This includes distribution of energy crop yields across England. adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. Projections of this for 2030 were taken from scenarios from the EU Refuel project. not reduction in management costs Resource Costs A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex A 42 .000ha is assumed to increase by 1000ha in 2010. • All abandoned arable land is assumed to be available (1. or miscanthus on each grid square • Yields were increased by 1% or 2% p. and a linear ramp up to this assumed based on Refuel and ADAS data on current land availability. assuming planting of the highest yielding SRC willow. on arable and improved grassland. However. 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. all abandoned pasture is used (1.000 ha/year in 2017 • Yields from a model developed by Pepinster (2008). a price of land that takes into account competing land uses). assuming that planting is no-till.

food/kitchen. AD or composting) are used. garden/plant. UK supply Wastes are a large resource at negative cost 2. but not those being recycled The resource is large. Ramp up in the ability to separate wastes leads to a large wood waste resource by 2015.0 -3. incineration.0 -5.0 .0 -4. textiles. although landfill tax is not included.0 -8.0 200 400 Supply (PJ) Cost (£/GJ) -2. when most other resources are limited by separability. paper/card.0 0 -1. as gate fees are charged per tonne 43 -6.0 BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 0. with landfill gas being the largest resource in 2008.0 • • • Wastes are: wood wastes. and large resources of other wastes by 2030 Most of the resource is at negative cost. The lowest energy content wastes have the lowest cost.2. as a result of the gate fee for waste disposal (£21/t in all scenarios). sewage sludge and landfill gas Resources currently going to alternative disposal routes (landfill.0 • -7.0 1.

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 .0 0 200 400 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Supply (PJ) Cost (£/GJ) -5.0 • -20.0 44 . UK supply Costs decrease if landfill tax is included BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 0.2.0 -10.wet food and garden wastes become lower cost than sewage sludge -15.0 • • 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.

Growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used to forecast future total arisings. 15% is separable for energy recovery. we have assumed no new waste is landfilled from 2008. based on international experience (ERM Golder) • Costs: avoided landfill costs • Arisings increase to 2010. 17% for food/kitchen and 26% for garden/plant (AD/composting). C&I arisings from ERM Golder 2006. 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. UK supply Wood wastes • Resource from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Under High scenarios. Sector growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used to forecast total arisings. they will not be landfilled. Growth rates were reduced by 0. and increased by 0. and increased by 0. minus the gate fee for disposal/AD treatment of £45/tonne (Strathclyde University) • The above biodegradable wastes are available for energy if separable. increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central RES. 100% by 2010 • Costs: cost of dewatering. and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. and remains flat afterwards in BAU and Central RES (WRAP 2008). Increases in recycling volumes over time from WRAP were used for BAU and Central RES. until a 90% maximum is reached. If they are used for energy.Wastes – summary of assumptions 2. gate fee of £8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood • Resource from MSW.25% for High Growth • Recycled material was considered not to be available for energy. or 4% a year under High scenarios. Commercial & Industrial (C&I) and Construction & Demolition (C&D) is given by WRAP (2005). or by 2015 in High Sustainability and High Growth • Costs: avoided landfill costs for contaminated wood. but held the same for High Sustainability even with lower arisings.25% for High Growth • One third of the total resource is clean wood. Rates were reduced by 0. Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay (Enviros). • Zero costs assumed Paper/card Garden/plant Food/kitchen Textiles Sewage sludge Landfill gas A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex A 45 . the rest is contaminated (WRAP 2008) • Competing uses for clean wood: use by the wood panel industry increases up to 2010. wood panel industry use increases to 2013 • Currently. These were scaled up by extra growth in arisings in High Growth. assuming no new capture installations.75% for High Sustainability. As a simplification. Separability is assumed to increase above rates of recycling/composting by 2% a year under BAU and Central RES. • Current separation is 48% for paper/card and 19% for textiles (for recycling).75% for High Sustainability.

but this is quickly overtaken by forestry residues.0 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 1. sawmill co-products.0 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 2.2.0 20 40 60 80 • • • Forestry resources are: arboricultural arisings.0 • -4. 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. UK supply Forestry resources are relatively small. as they are currently landfilled 46 -2.0 BAU 2008 3.0 -3. but are low cost 4.0 Supply (PJ) 0. 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. forestry residues. and soft and hard stemwood The resource is small.0 • .1 PJ).0 0 -1.

extrapolated to 2030 • Competing uses: Sawmills always take the largest timber. paper and pulp. These are all assumed to take the same volume in the future as they do now. with environmental. under all scenarios • Costs are very low: handling and storage at the sawmill • Arboricultural arisings are stemwood. as above. • Costs: tree felling and extraction • Sawmills use the largest timber. Extraction is assumed to be 10% in 2010. • Long tree growth times mean fixed forecasts regardless of scenario • None of this resource is currently extracted. or avoided landfill costs for material that is currently landfilled. The remainder. wood chips. 51% of this becomes co-product – sawdust. chips and bark • The competing uses are the panelboard industry. 2003). Other competing uses remain at current volumes. branches and tips. 75% in 2015 (50% for BAU and Central RES). and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios • Costs: forwarding and chipping at the roadside • The resource to 2025 is taken from the Forestry Commission softwood forecast. Additional resources from 1M odt/yr of under-managed English forest will be available by 2020. UK supply Forestry residues • The resource consists of poor quality stemwood. can be used • 78% of the resource can be collected now (landfilled and woodfuel). that is currently used for energy. and kept unchanged over time and scenario • The only competing use considered was the wood industry. biological and operational constraints (McKay. Stemwood Sawmill co-product Arboricultural arisings A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex A 47 . increasing to100% by 2010 • Costs: collection and handling.Forestry – summary of assumptions 2. landfilled or left on site. using 16% of the resource. exports and fencing. branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations • The resource was taken from a survey by McKay (2003).

UK supply Agricultural residues are limited by collection 5.5 Cost (£/GJ) 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 0 50 100 150 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Supply (PJ) 200 48 . but limited before 2020 as a result of the slow build up of collection of the resources • The zero cost resource is manure.0 4.3-4.5 BAU 2008 1.0 BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve • Agriculture feedstocks are: wet and dry manures. and straw • The resource is reasonably large.5 £/GJ (38-76 £/odt) 3.5 0. 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 2.0 0.5 4.2.

This is unchanged over time • This is limited by the assumed ramp up of additional straw collection: 10% of this can be collected now. with some wheat straw. 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. These were combined with excreta rates. 20% in 2010. as oil seed rape straw is not currently extracted in large quantities . at 1% now. 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020 • Costs: Since digestate has a higher nutrient value than manure. This rate is relatively slow. based on harvesting costs. The bulk of the remaining resource is oil seed rape straw. costs of fertiliser replacement and a profit margin • The resource was calculated based on ADAS livestock numbers for all types of livestock. For wet manures. 50% in 2010 and 100% in 2015. and 100% from 2020 in all scenarios. farmers are likely to provide manure at zero cost in exchange for returned digestate – which needs to be spread to land Manure A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex A 49 . taking into account the extractability from the field. UK supply Straw • The resource is based on a CSL study (2008) which considers the UK straw resource from all crops. • Cost: a four point cost curve was derived from ADAS (2008) on the price needed to persuade farmers to extract additional residues. the rate was assumed to be lower. 10% in 2010. and is more difficult to handle than wheat and barley straw.Agriculture – summary of assumptions 2. 50% in 2015. and competing uses such as feed and bedding.

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.2. UK supply UK supply curve for all feedstocks . and is increased under High Growth 50 .0 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.0 -4. is reduced in High Sustainability due to lower volumes of waste generation.0 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 2.0 Potential from wastes is the same under BAU and Central RES scenarios.0 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.all scenarios in 2030 BAU 2030 4.400 • -2. as a result of higher yields • -6.0 High growth 2030 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.200 1.0 • • -8.

Conclusions 7. UK supply 3. Introduction 2. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. Determining the price of imports 5. Global supply 4.Contents 1. Annexes 51 .

0 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 0 2. and an assumed BAU 2030 average distance for road transport in the country of origin and international shipping. Global supply Global supply curve for all feedstocks .0 BAU Global supply curves 0 8. and energy crops . We have termed these ‘woody biomass’ for the rest of this report • 0 Cost (£/GJ) 6.0 BAU 2008 Forestry and wood processing BAU 2008 residues are small (7 EJ) in 2030 in comparison with the energy BAU 2010 crop resource (196 EJ) BAU 2015 The resource increases to 2030 with energy crop yield increases BAU 2020 and planted area (see next slide) BAU 2030 • BAU 2010 BAU 2015 0 4.0 Costs include processing required BAU 2020 for transport.0 BAU Global supply curves Global feedstocks are forestry and wood processing residues.BAU over time 12.0 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 0 0.those that are most likely to be imported in large quantities. They do not include transport within the Supply (EJ) UK 250 • 0 50 100 150 200 Supply (EJ) 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 52 .3.0 BAU Global supply curves • 0 10.

Global supply Planting rates have the greatest impact on global resources BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates 12.0 • The unconstrained energy crop potential. and it takes until 2017 for the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr to be reached. with BAU 2020 no planting constraints non-agricultural land only being BAU 2030 no planting constraints late 2020s planted in the • BAU 2008 no planting constraints 0.3. the available resource is significantly reduced. and yields increase When planting rates are considered. increases over time as more land area becomes available. as shown by the dashed lines. the 2030 potential remains limited by the planting BAU 2008 no planting constraints rate BAU 2030 BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2015 no planting constraints • 2. as shown by the solid lines Planting rates are initially low.0 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 BAU 2008 no planting constraints In all scenarios.0 0 100 100 200 BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2015 no planting constraints 200 300 Supply (EJ) 300 Supply (EJ) 53 BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2030 no planting constraints . as the sector ramps up obal supply curves: influence of planting rates 8.0 BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2015 4.0 • Cost (£/GJ) • BAU 2008 6.0 BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates 10.0 Graph done BAU 2015 no planting constraints – BAU 2015 check box BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2020 BAU 2030 BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2030 no planting constraints Most of the planted area is abandoned agricultural land.

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. • We assume that a spread of land is planted in each year. The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0. willow. • Hoogwijk gives supply cost curves for each land type in 2050. Cost A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex B 54 . 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). • non-agricultural land – extensive grassland. • Energy crop costs reduce with increased yield and improved management over time. based on Hoogwijk’s assumptions. excluding nature reserves. Global supply Resource Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008). eucalyptus) • gives the potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios. We assumed that the distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years. • We assume that abandoned agricultural land is planted first. poplar. rather than the cheapest being planted first.Global energy crops – assumptions 3. 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. 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. using • available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk.g. up to a cost of $5/GJ. • 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. modified to remove land needed for 1G biofuels. which: • considers the potential from woody energy crops (e. and abandoned pasture.32Mha in 2009. and therefore derived a new supply curve using our resource and costs data.

3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 10% of Nonagricultural Land Annual growth: 1.6% Maximum: 1.3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Nonagricultural Land Annual growth: 1.3 billion in 2030 Central RES A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.3 billion in 2030 High Sustainability B1 Global-Socioenvironmental Low Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture – but less fertilisation Medium Population Growth – 8.5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Nonagricultural Land Adjusted food demand Adjusted Management Factor None None Annual growth: 1.5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 10% of Nonagricultural Land Land types possible A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex B 55 .4% Maximum: 1.3 billion in 2030 Agricultural area factored up according to UN high population projection – 8. Global supply High Growth A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.Global energy crops – scenario variation BAU A1 Global-Economic Orientation Hoogwijk’s Scenario High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.9 billion in 2030 Annual growth: 1.4% Maximum: 1.6% Maximum: 1.3 billion in 2030 None – already in B1 scenario above 3.

roadside chipping and management Forestry residues A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex B 56 . through ash recycling.e. • To this.3 are used. Global supply Wood processing residues • Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture. We assumed that this increases to 100% by 2020 in each scenario • Costs are for forwarding. which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable harvest (or 28% in High Growth). Future demand for roundwood follows the recent trend in global per capita roundwood demand. in all scenarios – i.1-0. around 7% of the total residues. e. are extracted. branches and undergrowth) to stemwood that can be removed sustainably. These also follow the recent trend in per capita demand for pulp and paper with a residue demand coefficient. 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.Global wood residues – assumptions 3. • We assumed that all of the remaining resource is available now. with higher values for the High Growth scenario assuming that the forest is fertilised. we applied a sustainable residue harvest ratio – this is the ratio of residues (tops. Values of 0.g. consistent with UK costs • Residue production is proportional to roundwood production. there is no restriction on extraction • A small collection cost is assumed. rather than through leaving the residues on the ground • There are no competing uses – current collection and use is primarily for energy • Currently.

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. • After any necessary processing. forestry residues at the nearest roadside. each resource is transported a distance of 200km by road in the country of origin. and many transported much further. Processing International transport A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex D 57 . many resources would be used close to the source of production. and are chipped • Wood processing residues originate at a plant/sawmill. Global supply Global processing and transport assumptions • 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. In reality. as set out below.3. • Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km.

0 BAU 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. lower meat consumption) under Hoogwijk’s B1 scenario rather than the A1 scenario • high energy crop management factor 8.0 Central RES 2030 7.g.0 2. and hence less is available for energy crops.0 0.0 4.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 • In High Growth.0 3. extra food demand requires more agricultural area.scenarios in 2030 9.0 1.0 6. Global supply Global curve .0 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 5. and poorer non agricultural land is used Supply (EJ) 300 58 . due to changing diets (e.3.

Introduction 2. UK supply 3. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. Determining the price of imports 5. Conclusions 7. Global supply 4.Contents 1. Annexes 59 .

8 7.g.3 2030 15.8 9.7 11.1 16.9 8.9 11. based on current data and likely trends No non-energy demands e. and energy crops) We have estimated the global demand for woody biomass for energy under the different scenarios.4 6. we can use the global supply curve to find the global price Woody biomass demand for energy (EJ) Scenario BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth 2008 6. Imports Estimating global demand for woody biomass • • The previous section gave the global supply of woody biomass (forestry and wood processing residues.1 A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex C 60 . and then estimated how much of this is from woody biomass in each sector.2 20. for chemicals and materials production.1 7.4 2010 6.6 13.1 2015 7.8 8.4 6. for many of which there is very limited supporting data • We have started with IEA projections for biomass and waste demand and biofuels demand. are included • • • A summary of these assumptions is given in the annex Using these global demand results.4 6.3 16.0 7.4. to 2030 • This involves making a large number of assumptions.5 2020 9.

8 EJ gives a global price of £6.0 BAU 2008 • BAU 2010 2. Imports Deriving import price from global supply and demand 12. the global woody biomass demand of 6. 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.0 0 50 100 150 BAU 2030 200 Supply (EJ) 250 61 . we can use the global supply curve to determine the cost of supplying that demand.4.52 /GJ (equivalent to £117 /odt) If the UK is assumed to be a price taker.0 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 Global woody biomass demand in 2030 0. the feedstock import price includes processing and international transport.0 • Cost (£/GJ) 6.48 /GJ (equivalent to £63 /odt) In BAU 2010. the global woody biomass demand of 15 EJ gives a global price of £3. as shown here In BAU 2030.0 If we know the global demand for woody biomass in a particular year. but no transport within the UK – therefore is equivalent to the price at a UK port • 8.0 BAU Global supply curves • 10.0 • • 4.

as transport adds around £2/GJ to most global feedstock costs 62 • -8. import prices fall over time.48 /GJ BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 2.200 -2.2/ GJ (European Pellet Centre for March 2008) These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made.0 2030 import price £3.0 . import prices are more expensive than all other UK resources In 2030.0 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 0.52 /GJ BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve 4.0 0 200 400 600 800 Supply (PJ) 1. or around £7.0 The 2010 price given is comparable with current pellet import prices of €135-155/tonne.4.0 • -6. but remain expensive 2010 import price: £6.0 • • The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass . imports are only cheaper than the most expensive straw and energy crops -4.000 1. imports would be high cost • • In 2010.more than enough to supply UK demand – at the global market price However. Imports Under BAU.

0 • • Under BAU.0 • -6. hence imports are still more expensive than 95% of the UK’s resources Again.0 -8. as transport adds around £2/GJ to most global feedstock costs -4.48 /GJ High Sustainability import price £3. these results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made. the import price is lower at 3.0 Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.4.200 1. However.0 63 .0 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1. 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.400 -2.17 £/GJ. UK energy crops are also cheaper. as the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is cheaper. Imports This remains the case under other scenarios in 2030 4.13 /GJ BAU 2030 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 2.0 BAU. Central RES and High Growth import price £3.

Manipulation of Hoogwijk’s model – we modified Hoogwijk’s model by changing management factors and backcasting. as there is poor data availability on the current use of each feedstock.Different assumptions are made in the global energy crop model.g. and therefore has a large effect on potential. Since the most economically viable land is distributed worldwide. rather a mix of the economically viable land (less than $5/GJ) is planted in each year. without access to the underlying model. 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. this assumption is more reasonable than assuming that the very cheapest land is planted first. shipping costs can vary considerably e. as this was related to Hoogwijk’s model. Imports Uncertainties in import price calculations • The principal uncertainties in deriving the global supply curve and global demand to get the price of imports. depending on oil price • • • Import prices could be lower than this before a global commodity market develops. and on likely future demand Yield and cost assumptions for energy crops . 1G biofuels are also assumed to be grown on a spread of the economically viable land. 1G biofuels demand – land needed for 1G biofuel crops reduces the land area for energy crops. but this could vary considerably. and in assessing the relationship with UK resource costs are: • • • • Global demand estimates – these are necessarily uncertain. compared with the UK approach. Furthermore. 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.4. it may be possible to access lower cost feedstocks 64 .

Global supply 4. Annexes 65 . Conclusions 7.Contents 1. UK supply 3. Introduction 2. Determining the price of imports 5. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6.

g. 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. We then merged these into 5 groups. and so no resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered. and have similar costs of conversion. pelletising Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks Likely transport distances for feedstocks. 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. chipping. UK demands Building appropriate supply curves for different demands • • 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. 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 the form in which the feedstock is transported • We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion technologies.5. No assumptions are made on the share of resources that can be used for each demand group. 66 . and depends on how they will be used.

straw. UK demands Demand groups Demand group Types of plants • Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant • Co-firing • Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP Feedstock types and requirements • Most wood resources. and can be used directly • Imported pellets • 50 km UK transport • All wet resources: wet manures. energy crops. zero for sludge • All resources except wet manures and landfill gas • Chipped or chopped where necessary.5. dry manures and sewage sludge • Chipped or dried where necessary • 50 km UK transport • Imported chips • Most wood resources and energy crops • Pelletised. turbines A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex D 67 . stoves and CHP Anaerobic digestion • Anaerobic digestion plants Waste/fuels • Energy from waste plants using thermal technologies • Second generation biofuels production: lignocellulosic ethanol and FT biodiesel • Synthetic natural gas via gasification Landfill gas • Gas engines. Landfill gas is not included • No pretreatment • 10 km UK transport. except for the proportion of stemwood and arboricultural arisings that are logs. sewage sludge and MSW. plus drying for sewage sludge • 50 km UK transport for most. 10km for wastes • Imported chips • Landfill gas only • No imports • No treatment or transport Large thermal Domestic heat/CHP • Domestic boilers.

dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood.00 0 200 400 600 Supply (PJ) 800 • -1.00 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 It includes forestry.41 2030 4.00 Year Import price £/GJ 2008 7. UK demands BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve • This supply curve is suitable for • • • Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant Co-firing Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP 5. energy crops.28 2010 7.04 -3. palm kernel expeller etc) are not included.00 BAU 2008 2.00 4. and 50 km UK transport is added for all resources Imported chips. dry manures. These are chipped or dried where necessary.00 • Cost (£/GJ) 3.00 BAU 2020 BAU 2030 • 0.09 2015 5.00 -2.00 5. The availability and price of residues in the future will be highly dependent on food production and their use in the country of origin. • 1. arboricultural and wood processing residues. 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. straw.00 68 .14 2020 4.Large thermal plant – BAU over time 6.

00 2.04 600 800 Supply (PJ) 1.00 High Growth .00 • Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 1.00 Central RES High Sustainability -3.00 5.00 • Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant • Co-firing • Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP BAU 2030 Cost (£/GJ) 3. energy crops.00 -2.04 4. including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown 69 • -1. These are chipped or 400 Import price £/GJ 4. straw.00 0.04 3.000 dried where necessary. UK demands • 5.00 0 200 Scenario BAU It includes forestry. dry manures.Large thermal plant – all scenarios in 2030 6. arboricultural and wood processing residues. dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood. and 50 km UK transport is added for all resources • Imported chips.69 4.00 This supply curve is suitable for 4.

Domestic heat/CHP – BAU over time
6.00

5. UK demands

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

5.00

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.

4.00

Cost (£/GJ)

3.00 BAU 2008 2.00 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 1.00 BAU 2020 BAU 2030

• •
600

0.00 0 200 400

Supply (PJ) 800

-1.00

-2.00

Year Import price £/GJ

2008 6.90

2010 6.71

2015 4.76

2020 4.03

2030 3.66

-3.00

70

Domestic heat/CHP – all scenarios in 2030
6.00

5. UK demands

5.00

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.

4.00

3.00
BAU 2030

Cost (£/GJ)

2.00

Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030

1.00

High growth 2030

0.00


0 200
Scenario Import price £/GJ 3.66 3.66 3.32 3.66

400

600

Supply (PJ)

800

-1.00
BAU Central RES High Sustainability

-2.00

-3.00

High Growth

71

AD – BAU over time
4.00

5. UK demands

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

• •

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

2.00

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 £1.043.37/GJ

Cost (£/GJ)

0.00
0 100 200 300 Supply (PJ) 400


-2.00

-4.00

BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030

-6.00

-8.00

72

UK demands 3.00 -5. sewage sludge Central RES 2030 and MSW.00 Supply (PJ) -2.00 -3.00 All wet resources are included: wet manures. -4. Landfill gas is not included High sustainability 2030 Sludge is dewatered 10 km UK transportHighadded 2030wastes and manures.00 0 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Cost (£/GJ) -1.00 -7.AD – all scenarios in 2030 Supply (PJ) 200 250 300 350 5.00 1.00 • • BAU 2030 This supply curve is suitable for anaerobic digestion plants. zero is growth for for sludge No imports are included • • • • 73 .00 BAU 2030 2.00 -6.00 0.

00 BAU 2008 -6. 10k transport is added for wastes.00 • 2.Waste & Fuels – BAU over time 6. including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown -4.00 500 1.00 Import price £/GJ 74 .00 Second generation biofuels production: lignocellulosic ethanol and FT biodiesel Synthetic natural gas via gasification • Cost (£/GJ) Supply (PJ) 0.00 5. chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport is added for dry resources.04 -10.28 2010 7. manures and sewage sludge Imported chips.00 • BAU 2030 Year 2008 7.000 • • • It includes all resources except wet manures and landfill gas These are chipped. UK demands BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve • This supply curve is suitable for • Energy from waste plants using thermal technologies 4.14 2020 4.00 0 -2.09 2015 5.00 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 -8.41 2030 4.

10k transport is added for wastes. UK demands 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 4. chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport is added for dry resources.00 High Growth 4.400 • It includes all resources except wet manures and landfill gas These are chipped . manures and sewage sludge Imported chips.04 4.000 Supply (PJ) 1. including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown • -4.00 200 400 600 800 1.04 75 .00 0 -2.00 5.00 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030 • -8.00 BAU 2030 Central RES 2030 • Scenario BAU Central RES High Sustainability Import price £/GJ 4.200 1.69 -6.04 3.00 Cost (£/GJ) 0.Waste & Fuels – all scenarios in 2030 • 6.00 2.

• We have assumed that landfill gas is available at zero cost. and therefore there is no supply curve for this feedstock. UK demands Landfill gas • Landfill gas is given separately from the other resources as there are no other gaseous feedstocks.5. • The resource is the same in all scenarios Year Resource (PJ) 2008 61 2010 54 2015 39 2020 29 2030 15 76 . Anaerobic digestion of other resources to form biogas will entail additional cost.

Introduction 2. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. UK supply 3. Determining the price of imports 5.Contents 1. Annexes 77 . Global supply 4. Conclusions 7.

5-1/GJ) and higher resources Waste generation and management: increased waste reduction and recycling reduce bioenergy potential 78 • • . which would otherwise require disposal Energy crops make up around 80% of the positive cost resource.There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at reasonable cost • • • • 6. rather than the 50% used in other scenarios. It is not yet known exactly how the sustainability restrictions on use of grassland included in the RED will be applied.g. at a cost of less than £5/GJ Nearly half of the resource in each year has a negative cost. using estimates of how fast each sector could develop. These assumed that each in sector the potential for bioenergy was recognised now. and changed as fast as possible to meet the demand. the resource in 2020 is around 60% of the 2030 resource. as a result of the availability of large quantities of waste materials. reduces the energy crop potential by around a half. e. labour and machinery and considering existing practices This was then ramped up to the full resource. Conclusions The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary energy demand by 2030. 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. we estimated how much of the resource could be extracted now using current capabilities. but these could have a large impact on energy crop potential Energy crop yields: crop development can lead to lower costs (£0. This is partly due to a lower resource potential. For example. through an obvious market or policy support. but for many feedstocks the resource is significantly limited by the sector’s capability to extract or grow the feedstock • • For each feedstock. Achieving this potential requires a significant ramp up in planting rates The resource in earlier years is much smaller.

this analysis finds that the global price may be higher than most indigenous UK feedstocks.6. the import price can be found • • • The analysis showed that global woody biomass resources could potentially be very large. 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 79 . as well as lower cost feedstocks. will become a commodity. Achieving this potential would rely on a fast ramp up of energy crop planting However. Conclusions Imports provide a high cost. If the UK is assumed to be a price taker. and biomass will increasingly become an internationally traded commodity As a result. • • Import prices could be lower than this in some cases: • • Before a global commodity market develops. it is likely that a global market will develop. This considers that they are grown predominantly on abandoned agricultural land. which are a relatively homogenous group of resources. with demands for land for food and for first generation biofuel feedstocks being supplied first. rather than focusing supplies from within the UK or within the EU In the analysis. Supplying world woody biomass demand at the levels projected would require use of energy crops. we assumed that woody biomass feedstocks. As supply and demand for bioenergy increases worldwide. with a large potential. Adding transport costs to the global price results in higher prices than UK feedstocks. biomass supply and demand should be considered globally. but very large resource • Several biomass types are already traded internationally.

there will be more competition between some feedstocks than others • For dry resources that are easy to handle. CHP and domestic heating. such as woody residues and energy crops. there may be some competition for resources that can be dried and transported. such as sewage sludge. or injected into the gas grid 80 . heat . CHP or as a transport fuel. rather than making assumptions on how the demands compete with each other Most resources can be used to generate either electricity. heat. as different conversion technologies have different acceptable feedstocks. but for wetter resources. via a range of conversion technologies* However. it is likely that some feedstocks will generally be used in particular types of plant. as UK transport and processing is added These curves show all of the feedstocks suitable for each demand. or transport fuels. whereas others are more flexible. Note that the costs for these are higher than in the general curves. there will be competition between electricity. and pretreatment and transport requirements. 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. use in local waste to energy plants.There may be more competition for feedstocks between some demands than others • 6. Conclusions We have provided supply curves suitable for different UK demands. As a result. as well as second generation biofuels once their conversion technology is commercialised For wastes.

Global supply 4. Introduction 2. Conclusions 7. UK supply 3. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6.Contents 1. Annexes 81 . Determining the price of imports 5.

Annex A: UK supply Annex A: UK supply data • • • • Energy crops Agricultural residues (straw) Forestry residues Stemwood • • • • • • • Sawmill co-product Arboricultural arisings Sewage sludge Livestock manures Waste wood Wastes Landfill gas 82 .

Arable constraint) + (Pasture area .Pasture constraint)) x Yield x Availability • Arable area: • For 2008. on arable and improved grassland from Pepinster (2008). All planting on pasture assumes to be able to be no-till. considered to be a comprehensive study of UK arable land • Refuel projections of abandoned arable land in 2030. • Arable constraint: No constraint applied in any scenario • Pasture area: • Refuel projections of abandoned pasture land in 2030. and based on more detailed modelling than those from the EEA report • Linear interpolation between these. based on spatial models from Southampton University and Rothamsted Research. doubling each year until a maximum of 150 kha/year. and allow adjustments of costs for future years using yields • Availability: planting rates are limited by labour and machinery. as a result of increase in food production efficiency.Annex A: UK supply Energy crops . the same distribution is used. Assumed 1000 ha/year planting in 2009. with a yield increase factor which varies by scenario. set aside and bare fallow/land withdrawn from production. based on data from ADAS (2008) and communication with David Turley. and therefore give no land use change emissions • Yield: • For 2008. Refuel projections were used. This assumes the highest yielding of SRC willow. 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. SRC poplar. under several scenarios. This is because a direct forecast of future costs was not available. as many of the factors causing the change are linear.resource Resource = ((Arable area . as they are lower. CSL 83 Resource . ADAS data for 2007. hence a detailed model of the current situation was used to give the spatial yield distribution within the UK. value and distribution of energy crop yields across England. and are currently very low. or miscanthus is planted on each grid square • For future years.

8-4. decreasing to 2030 (see next slide) • Subsidies reduce the costs of energy crops by around £0. at the farm gate. 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). adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. based on a review of literature and industry views on energy crop costs.24 in BAU and Central RES from 2008 to 2030. Available area reduced considerably by pasture constraint in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios • Yields: yield factor increases from 1 to 1. • Future cost reduction assumed to be a function of yield increase only. and baled miscanthus. 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 • 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 2030.4/GJ in 2008. and from 1 to 1.55 in High Growth and High Sustainability • Cost: range from £1.5-3 /GJ Results 84 . This considers the land rent and production cost on each grid square.6/GJ in 2030 under the BAU scenario. The costs are given for chopped SRC. • Costs are calculated using a land rent (i. a price of land that takes into account competing land uses).e. to £1. • However.Energy crops – cost and results Annex A: UK supply Cost • Cost basis: an intermediate approach was taken.

Energy crops – scenario variation BAU Central RES High Sustainability • 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 • 963 • Restricted to 10%* • 2% p. increase Land scenario • Refuel BAU scenario – current farming trends leaves some land for bioenergy • Refuel BAU scenario – current farming trends leaves some land for bioenergy Arable area 2030 (kha) • 1100 • 100% can be used • 1% p.a.a.a. increase • 1100 • Restricted to 10%* • 1% p. as a proxy for non ‘highly biodiverse land’ as specified (but not yet defined) in the RED) 85 .a. increase Pasture area constraint Yield improvement Available area (kha) 2008 BAU Central RES High Sust High Growth 895 634 634 895 2010 1022 687 675 1044 2015 1342 820 777 1416 2020 1661 954 879 1789 2030 2300 1220 1083 2534 2008 8 8 8 8 Planted area (kha) 2010 9 9 9 9 2015 71 71 71 71 2020 713 713 713 713 2030 2213 1220 1083 2213 * (current proportion of pasture that is temporary as opposed to permanent. increase Annex A: UK supply High Growth • 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 • 1334 • 100% can be used • 2% p.

and central price of £2/GJ Resource Cost Results 86 . This report considers the UK straw resource from all straw types. resulting in a potential of 2-3m tonnes. • Cost basis: As we have excluded straw needed for other uses.14/GJ to £4. In personal communication with CSL.3 mt of straw are available (69 PJ) • Cost range £37/odt to £84/odt (£2. as oil seed rape straw is not currently extracted in large quantities.5 [additional 50% to cover value of other nutrients. This is assumed to be composed of the whole oil seed rape straw resource (2. This rate is relatively slow. at farm gate). profit margin] • Some farmers will never extract straw: 2% • 3. with the remainder being wheat straw.98/GJ) • Compares with 3 mt resource in Defra biomass strategy. and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios. baling and handling costs (as baled.3 mt. the resource excluding the energy uses was estimated at 3. 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. no price competition with these is considered • Costs of supply are harvesting. Assume able to collect 10% of the resource today. as this is not currently collected. It then considers a number of existing uses.Annex A: UK supply Agricultural residues (straw) Resource = Straw available x Availability • Straw available is taken from CSL. assuming animal feed requirements are fulfilled by barley straw only.5 mt). including for energy. and is more difficult to handle than wheat and barley straw. and costs of fertiliser to replace nutrients lost. 20% in 2010. assuming a recoverability factor of straw from the field of 60%. soil structural benefits. 2008. 50% in 2015. • Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle straw.

so no competing uses need to be taken into account Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues.04m odt (19. 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. Data and calculation method comes from the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2004). 50% in 2015 for BAU and Central RES (75% for High Growth and High Sustainability). and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios Resource • • • • • Cost • Cost basis: There are no other uses. environmental and operational factors within managed forests. but using costs for only a NW Europe country • Currently. hence is consistent with the approach used for global resource.Annex A: UK supply Forestry residues • 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. This rises to a peak at 1. giving a breakdown into different tree components Stumps. no forestry residues are available. This McKay GB woodfuel resource study is the only detailed forecast available for managed forests. which takes into account biological. English FC policy to introduce 1Modt/yr of under-managed forest into management by 2020 will add an additional 128kodt/yr of forestry residues. Assumed that none can be collected today. comm. however. Costs of supply are forwarding and roadside chipping costs. so a cost basis was used • A separate operation is required to collect the resource after tree felling. Pers. roots and foliage are not considered to be available Only very small changes over time are given in managed residues. 10% in 2010.3 PJ) in 2020 • Cost at roadside as chips: £38 /odt (£2.3/GJ) Results 87 .

peaking in 2020 at 0.94m odt (17. comm.25m odt of stemwood is available as woodfuel (4. 0. fencing.50/GJ) for softwood. 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.5 PJ) • Cost at roadside as logs: £28 /odt (£1. The hardwood resource is much smaller. 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. exports and others are held at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008). Demand from panel. • Most of the hardwood is already used for woodfuel (available resource) Availability : 100% is usable now Resource • • • Cost • Cost basis: As we have excluded stemwood needed for other uses. £60/odt (£3.23/GJ) for hardwood Results 88 . 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.5 PJ). paper.Annex A: UK supply Stemwood • • 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. Tree felling is cheaper for softwood than hardwood. Pers. with no change over time or scenarios • Currently. sawmills expand to take all softwood resource greater than 16cm in diameter. In the future.

but not scenario Conversion factor: ratio of co-product produced for each tonne of stemwood input = 51%.5 PJ) • Cost at sawmill: £9. and hence changes over time. 0. price competition with these uses is not considered • Co-product is a by-product of making sawnwood. conversion factors and form. paper. exports and other all held at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008).53/GJ) Results 89 .Annex A: UK supply 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. allowing calculation of existing uses.13m odt available (2. for consistency Existing uses: panelboard industry (currently takes 65% of total co-product).4 PJ).9/odt (Saskatchewan Forest Research Centre. consistent with the global costs used) • Currently. 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. This is an up-to-date and detailed data source. (Forestry Commission Statistics 2008). Furthermore.05m odt (19. 11% bark • • Cost • Cost basis: As we have excluded sawmill co-product needed for other uses.9 /odt (£0. and so we have considered it to be free at source • Costs of handling and storing co-product onsite £9. it enables the incorporation of forecast stemwood input from previous slide. peaking in 2020 at 1.

rising to 0.2 PJ). the material has to be collected.17m odt available (3. of which half assumed to be woodfuel logs (and therefore available for energy). price competition with these uses is not considered • Resource arises from necessary tree surgery activities. or scenario Existing uses: currently 31% of the arisings have a market.5 PJ) in 2008.08m odt available (1. at avoided landfill gate fees of -£2. transported then landfilled Availability : 100% of the landfilled resource. 4% foliage • • Cost • Cost basis: As we have excluded marketed non-energy demand for other uses. with handling and storage costs • Transport costs used are from Suurs (2002). transported and disposed of. McKay) can be used for energy. 20% branches.6 PJ). cost as logs at depot: £1. but the other half is taken by non-energy wood industry uses The un-marketed resource (68% of total.26/GJ Results 90 . and 100% of the woodfuel resource is available.2/GJ • Landfilled resource: 0. 23% already chipped. None of the blown-back resource is available in 2008. If due to site constraints. 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).25m odt available (4. This does not change over time. 50% of the total arisings (Land Use Consultants 2007) are collected. and so are considered free at source if blown-back.Annex A: UK supply 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). rising to 100% in 2010 Form: 53% stemwood. This can be blown-back onsite if site constraints allow (18% of total) – however. assuming that the whole resource can be transported at the same cost as chips • Woodfuel and blown-back resource: 0.

g. 24% is dried then incinerated.39m odt available (15. Availability: 90% in 2008. to farmland.g. 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 digestate can still be spread on farmland to supply this requirement Results 91 . We did not assume this as if sludge is treated via AD. due to the assumption that sludge that ends up on farmland or used in reclamation is unavailable. • An alternative approach would have been to consider sewage gas as zero cost (e. Final disposal (e. The rest (10%) is treated via lime stabilisation. this would not allow modelling of use of dried sewage sludge in thermal processes • Currently.Annex A: UK supply 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).6 PJ) • Cost of dewatered sludge at WWTW: -£68/odt (-£6. 1994) • The gate fee for alternative sludge treatment . but no treatment methods 66% of sludge is currently treated via AD (Water UK. 1. hence is unavailable for energy. Defra Online Statistics give detailed and historical arisings and disposal routes.34m odt. land reclamation) is unimportant – the treatment process used is where energy can be extracted.2 PJ) rising to 2. then following population growth afterwards (National Grid). however. 2008). • The costs considered are • Dewatering before AD £60/odt (Sowa. and combine the resource with the landfill gas resource. then disposal.£45/tonne (Strathclyde University).03m odt in 2030 (24.22/GJ) • Defra Biomass Strategy resource figure is only 0. No change with scenario Sludge is considered as a waste that needs treatment. as in Enviros 2005 and National Grid 2008). hence 90% of the resource already has energy extracted.

which gives the collectable resource. whereas wet poultry. free at source • Assumed that farmers will not pay the AD plant or incinerator to get rid of the resource. CSL) Existing uses: Resource from farms that do not store or export slurries / manures (i. since excreta outside are uncollectable. and 100% by 2015. the additional straw within farmyard manure and farms without storage facilities Availability : For litter 18% is currently incinerated.e. but includes all animal categories. Occupancy: is the time an animal spends inside (Defra Agricultural Practices Survey). Farms outwintering their livestock have negligible occupancy (pers.8m odt in 2030 (91.9 PJ) • Defra Biomass Strategy figure is 3. pig. other poultry.265m odt available (4. and is highly detailed (many different animal categories) Each animal category has a different excretion rate. James Copeland.9m odt. 1% is currently used as a feedstock for AD. but would be likely to spread the AD digestate for its fertiliser value for free (Strathclyde University) • 0. rising to 50% in 2010. For wet manures. manure dry matter content and farm management system.Annex A: UK supply Livestock manures • • • 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. any breeding stocks. No change with scenario This ADAS study is the only one available with livestock numbers forecast past 2015. 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020 • Resource • • • Cost • Cost basis: No competing uses. sheep) Results 92 . 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. comm. outwintering farms. due to counting fewer categories of animals (did not count beef cattle. spread directly to land) is assumed to be unavailable. 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).2 PJ) increasing to 5. The remaining dry poultry litter is available for incineration. rising to 10% in 2010.

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 (-£1.75% for MSW.4/GJ) for contaminated waste wood. or by 2015 in High Sustainability and High Growth • Resource • • • Cost • Cost basis: Waste.6/GJ) for clean waste wood • The Defra Biomass Strategy availability figure is much larger at 5.56m odt (equivalent to 7mt). This is increased under the High Scenarios to 2.1m odt are available (19 PJ) increasing to 8. Results 93 . WRAP 2005 is still the latest collection of surveys with a breakdown by sector. These each decrease by 0.25% in the High Growth scenario Competing uses: use by the wood panel industry currently accounts for 1.75% in the High Sustainability scenario. rising to 2. 1. because no restriction on separability is assumed. and -£10/odt (-£0.6mt Availability : Currently. Although there is uncertainty regarding Construction & Demolition arisings (the two studies WRAP 2005 use gave 2mt and 8mt).2mt by 2010 (WRAP 2008). increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central RES. price competition with these routes is not considered • Costs are the avoided landfill gate fee for contaminated wood.Annex A: UK supply Waste wood Resource = (( MSW + C&I + C&D arisings ) ^ Growth rates – Recycling ) x Availability Amount of waste wood in MSW. 1. Commercial & Industrial and Construction & Demolition waste streams. allowing different growth rates to be applied to calculate total arisings Growth rates of arisings are 0.18% for other sectors (Defra Waste Strategy). gate fee of £8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood • Currently. and increase by 0. 15% is separable for energy recovery.2mt. from WRAP 2005. so free at source – and as we have excluded non-energy disposal routes/recycling.

composition.3mt respectively by 2020 (WRAP. and 4%/yr under High scenarios. price competition with these routes is not considered • Costs are avoided landfill gate fees • Currently. and 0.75% in High Sustainability scenario.06mt of textiles available (13.Annex A: UK supply Wastes • Resource = (( MSW + C&I arisings ) ^ Growth rates – Recycling ) x Availability The amount of paper/card. was taken from ERM Golder 2006. 2007). 3. Commercial and Industrial waste streams. Recycling increases for paper/card and textiles by 2. This is assumed to increase by 2%/yr above recycling and composting rates under BAU and Central RES.68% for Commercial.2mt paper/card. taking the same proportion of the arisings.5/GJ to -£6/GJ • Defra Biomass Strategy gives: 3. garden/plant. 10. These each decrease by 0. food/kitchen. 3. This is the most comprehensive study available of UK wastes by sector. recycling). 1. 17% for food/kitchen and 26% for garden/plant (for AD/composting). -0. so free at source – and as we have excluded non-energy uses (i. allowing growth rates to be used to forecast each waste arisings Growth rates of arisings are 0. 2.75% for MSW. as this is a competing use.7mt and 0.3mt for paper/card. and recycling/composing/AD/disposal routes. 1 PJ respectively) • Costs range from -£1.e. based on international experience (ERM Golder) • Resource • • Cost • Cost basis: Waste. 10m t food/kitchen and 3m t garden/plant. and increase by 0.7mt garden/plant. This assumes a 90% separability now.72% for Industrial (Defra Waste Strategy).25% in the High Growth scenario Recycling: Waste that is recycled is excluded. 16. textiles arising in MSW.0mt food/kitchen. In the High Growth scenario additional recycling is assumed. 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). until a 90% maximum is reached. and subtracts future recycling and composting from the current resource Results 94 .

composition and decay characteristics of each type of waste. not all wastes are separable now. there will be an exponential decay. if separable. forecasting landfill gas production would require knowledge of the amount. we have assumed no new waste is landfilled from 2008. and contribute over time to landfill gas production • However. and so some will be land filled. and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. they will not be landfilled. falling to 15 PJ in 2030 Results 95 . It could be assumed that the total amount of waste landfilled stays constant. As a simplification. as the resource considered is already collected and used • Currently. The reality will be somewhere in-between • • • Resource • Cost • Cost basis: Zero cost resource. Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay with a half-life of 11 years (Enviros). if all landfills close. Hence. 63 PJ of landfill gas is available for electricity and heat (current usage).Annex A: UK supply Landfill gas • Resource = Current landfill gas production x Exponential decay The biodegradable wastes considered in the rest of the analysis are available for energy if separable. in this category (to avoid double counting) any separable waste must be counted as unavailable • In reality. If they are used for energy. or alternatively. This is a conservative estimate (see below) Current LFG production used for energy is taken from DUKES 2008. 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. giving constant landfill gas production over time.

Annex A: UK supply People consulted on UK data • • • • Alan Corson. Biomass Energy Centre (energy crops) 96 . FC (general forestry) Justin Gilbert. Central Science Lab (manures) Melville Haggard. Defra (waste wood) Sheila Ward. WRAP (recycling) • • • • • • • • • Daniel Dipper. straw. ADAS (straw and energy crops) Ian Tubby. FC Stats (forestry) Bruce Horton. Water UK (sewage sludge) David Turley. energy crops) James Copeland. FC (sawmills) John Kilpatrick. FC Stats (forest residue forecasts) Patrick Mahon. Central Science Lab (manures. Defra (wastes) Helen McKay. FE (forestry costs) Geoff Hogan.

panelboard and pulp industries Forestry Residues: residues produced from conventional logging and thinning operations • • • • 1st Generation Biofuels Surplus Forest Wood Energy Crops Algae 97 .Annex B: Global supply Annex B: Global supply data • • Wood Processing Residues: clean co-products from sawmills.

Annex B: Global supply Wood Processing Residues • Resource = ((Wood product manufacture x Residue factor) . rising to 172M odt (3.Competing Uses ) x Availability Wood product manufacture: Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture.1 EJ). As a result. Demand for residues is a constant fraction of pulp and panel production (coefficients derived from UNECE-FAO Joint Wood Energy Enquiry). out of date). long-term projections for supply and demand of forest products were available. Currently.2 EJ) in 2030 • Cost of various residue forms onsite: £0. All other scenarios assume ‘Medium’ growth (UN projections) Residue factors: from academic literature (Parikka. the recent trend in global per capita wood product demand (FAOSTAT and UN population data) was used .38/GJ Results 98 . 4% other Resource • • • • Cost • Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource. 3% shavings. • Cost of residues at sawmill £7/ odt taken from Saskatchewan Forest Centre report on economics of pellet production • Available resource under BAU: 113M odt (2. 24% slabs/edgings. Available projections were poor predictors of current demand (FAO Global Forest Product Outlook. 20% sawdust. and so the cost of the resource is considered. 24% bark. The High Growth scenario assumed ‘High’ population growth. 2002) Competing uses: from the pulp and panel industry. Pulp and panel production follows the recent trend in per capita demand. 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. and no other reliable.

which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable harvest (or 28% in High Growth). Currently. are extracted. through ash recycling.3. Central RES and High Sustainability • 8. Distinction between labour costs in developed and developing world. around 7% of the total residues. • Costs: Developing countries £1. Otherwise. the Harvest Ratio is 0. which assumes that the forest is fertilised manually: e.e.15 are used (Ericsson & Nielsen) • Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues. and so the cost of the resource is considered • Capital and labour cost of forwarding. values of 0.2-0. branches and undergrowth.15/GJ • 1.1-0. The same calculations are used in REFUEL and reports by the JRC.7EJ current availability. developed countries £2.g. Residues are tops. avoiding nutrient depletion).Annex B: Global supply Forestry Residues 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).3 EJ in 2030 in High Growth Scenario • Over 50% of the global potential is located in Europe and North America Resource Cost Results 99 . roadside chipping and management (Finnish Forest Research Institute (2004)).86 EJ in 2030 under BAU.g. In the High Growth scenario. Roundwood obtained from non-forest areas is excluded (e. 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.39/GJ. rising to • 3. We assumed that this increases to 100% by 2020 in each scenario • Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource.

Annex B: Global supply Surplus Forest Wood (not included) • This resource was defined as wood not required for competing demands. biomass supply from surplus forest wood is excluded 100 . 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. 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) Resource • However: • At a global level.

we have looked at projections of volume demanded and market price.Annex B: Global supply First generation biofuels . It flattens or decreases after 2015 as 2G biofuels begin to be used 2 Demand (EJ) 1.5 • 1G biofuel demand is given by the global demand analysis. and so are considered separately here. They are also used to reduce the land area available for energy crops globally • For feedstocks (sugar. the volume used for biofuels and price depend strongly on global food and biofuels demand. 2.demand • First generation (1G) biofuel feedstocks cannot be plotted on the same supply curve as other feedstocks. In theory. as they have specific conversion routes to fuels. starch and oils) for first generation biofuels.5 BAU Central RES 1 High Sustainability High Growth 0. 1G biofuels could draw feedstock from the food market to supply demand at any level • Therefore for first generation biofuels.5 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 101 .

and vegetable oils • As an indication.10 16.prices • The price of 1G biofuels will depend heavily on global commodity prices for sugar and starch crops.49 10.78 12.73 15.00 98.Annex B: Global supply First generation biofuels . the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008 projects prices to 2017. these prices would be higher than the central projections. When these are 2008 Bioethanol (USD/hl) Biodiesel (USD/hl) Bioethanol (£/GJ. despite the drop in 1G biofuels demand 102 . deflated to 2008) 53.69 106. as a result of increased food demand.35 105.85 16.17 Biodiesel (£/GJ. deflated to 2008) • It is likely that in a High Growth scenario.55 12.81 2017 51.96 105.31 12.45 2010 53.63 17.04 2015 52.

willow. 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. This requires an extra 410Mha of agricultural land to meet the larger demand.2% by 2030 (UN High instead of Medium Variant population forecast). up to a maximum of 1.86 in 2008 up to a maximum of 1. Under High Growth scenario. 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. B2).3 in 2030 under BAU and Central RES. global food demand is ramped up to an extra 7. • non-agricultural land – extensive grassland. which: • considers the potential from woody energy crops (e. modified to remove land needed for 1G biofuels. with the variety depending on suitability • gives the • theoretical potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios (A1. • 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. and to remove extra land needed for food in the High Growth scenario. based on Hoogwijk’s assumptions. and from 0.resource Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008).84 in 2008. 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. A2. and 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability. and abandoned pasture. eucalyptus). B1.5 in 2030 under High Growth and High Sustainability (representing increased technological development) 103 Resource . using • available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk. poplar.Annex B: Global supply Energy Crops .g. excluding nature reserves.

even though the non-agricultural land may have comparable production costs. 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.Energy Crops – planting rates and costs Annex B: Global supply Planting • We assume that in a given year the area planted is a proportion of the whole supply curve. because the entire supply curve considered consists only of economically viable land. where cost reduces with yield only. • This amounts to around 80% of the potential from Abandoned Agricultural land and 45% from Nonagricultural land • We assumed that the distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years. reflecting increased productivity of labour and capital. The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0. due to similarity to existing practices. as management is not projected to increase • Hoogwijk gives supply curves for areas able to produce energy crops at <$5/GJ in 2050. 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). not that the best land is planted first. and this land is distributed worldwide. • A global planting rate was estimated by scaling up the UK planting rate in proportion to the relative arable areas. However.32Mha in 2009. 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. Note that this is different from the UK assumption. Cost 104 . • Including these planting rates results in the energy crop potential being limited even in 2030 in all scenarios • Production costs are also based on Hoogwijk. 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. and therefore derived a new supply curve using our resource and costs data. therefore less inputs needed per GJ.

Energy Crops – Hoogwijk scenarios Annex B: Global supply 105 .

whereas in A2 and B2 trade is low. UN projects a low-high population range of 7. we adjust the management factors up to be in line with those of A1/High Growth 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. B1 as given only has average technology development. This is possible because: • Global agricultural land requirements are calculated by the IMAGE model for every year 1995-2100 • • • Hoogwijk approach • • 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. whereas the more detailed studies. 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. 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. Furthermore.8-10. making it difficult to relate results to different scenarios.Energy Crops – choice of Hoogwijk scenarios • • • • Basis of Hoogwijk scenarios Annex B: Global supply Hoogwijk uses the IPCC SRES scenarios. such as REFUEL. therefore for High Sustainability to include higher technology development. we discount A2 and B2 as usable scenarios. Few global studies are temporally-explicit.8 billion in 2050. hence it is felt that A2 and B2 population projections are unrealistically high Therefore. are not global 106 . making it difficult to draw a path from the present to the long-term potential. trade is no more constrained than under current conditions.

556 2030 1.699 2008 13 13 13 13 Global planted area (Mha) 2010 2015 2020 13 33 240 13 33 240 13 33 240 13 33 240 2030 724 724 724 724 107 .5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Non-agricultural Land Adjusted food demand None None Adjusted Management Factor Annual growth: 1.4% Maximum: 1.479 1.478 Global available area (Mha) 2010 2015 2020 1.5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 10% of Non-agricultural Land Land types possible BAU Central RES High Sus High Growth 2008 1.4% Maximum: 1.3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Non-agricultural Land Annual growth: 1.636 499 582 628 491 565 665 1.491 489 476 1.9 billion in 2030 Annual growth: 1.585 1.3 billion in 2030 High Sustainability B1 Global-Socioenvironmental Low Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture – but less fertilisation Medium Population Growth – 8.3 billion in 2030 None – already in B1 scenario above Annex B: Global supply High Growth A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.842 834 854 1.3 billion in 2030 Central RES A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.6% Maximum: 1.6% Maximum: 1.3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 10% of Non-agricultural Land Annual growth: 1.533 1.3 billion in 2030 Agricultural area factored up according to UN high population projection – 8.501 1.Energy Crops – scenario variation BAU A1 Global-Economic Orientation Hoogwijk’s Scenario High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth – 8.

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) 17% 24% Europe & Former USSR Africa 14% Asia Oceania North & Central America 16% South America 8% 21% 108 . 17% in South America. 16% in Africa and 15% in East Asia The cheapest biomass (<$1/GJ in 2050) accounts for 3. equivalent to 74% of the total potential. this distribution will be the same in 2030 19% of this economic potential is located in the former USSR.Energy Crops – geographical distribution • Annex B: Global supply • Distribution of energy crops • • • Economic potential refers to biomass covered by our supply curves. 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. It corresponds to biomass available in the Hoogwijk study for $5/GJ in 2050. With our planting assumptions.4% of the economic potential (or 5.6% in B1).

Increase to 434 PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES. and consistent data. 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. 4334 PJ under High Growth and High Sustainability. and the number of plants doubles every year for first ten years.Annex B: Global supply Algae • We briefly considered the costs and potential of energy production from algae. 35% by 2030 • • Resource • • 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. or by water requirements. based on the best available. • Initial cost estimates are very high . quoting Benemann and Oswald (1996). at £14/GJ for algal biomass in 2030 Results 109 . 12 PJ under High Growth and High Sustainability. 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. 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. we did not consider this resource further Resource = Projected number of plants x Plant size x Yield The algal resource is unlikely to be limited by available global surface area. 42% by 2030 • BAU and Central RES: 30% oil content by 2020. No reduction over time. However. but the oil proportion increased: • High Growth and High Sustainability: 30% oil content by 2020. as a result of increased yield • Resource: total algal biomass is 6PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES. as the costs projected were very high.

Annex C: Global demand Annex C: Global demand data • Assumptions and results for estimates of global demand for woody biomass (energy crops. forestry wastes and wood processing residues) 110 .

based on the following assumptions: • Transport: Very little woody biomass demand for transport until 2020 (WEO 2008 assumption). rising to 15. comprising residential. from IPCC 2007). For the EU. 64% is woody biomass (based on global statistics for the proportion of black liquor in wood derived fuels. For US and ROW. as agricultural residues (e. • Other: the US and EU ‘Other’ category. of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC. corn stover) will be an important feedstock at first. The US 2G proportion is estimated based on the 2G proportion of Renewable Fuel Standard targets. of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC. • It also gives the biofuels (NOT primary energy) demand for transport • It is difficult to estimate how much of this demand is from the resources we are considering – i. These %s are assumed to remain constant to 2030. services. based on the range of data seen) Proportion of this from woody biomass 111 . 2008].Annex C: Global demand 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. energy crops and forestry industry residues (collectively termed ‘woody biomass’) • The predicted total woody biomass demand is 6.2EJ in 2030. • Electricity: biomass electricity generated from Wood and derived fuels (Black liquor. but reduced as these are not expected to be met (5% of biofuels are lignocellulosic in 2015. we assume 50% of this will be from woody biomass in 2020. landfill gas. EU and ROW. .6 EJ in 2008. 2007). of which 64% is assumed to be woody biomass (as above). • This includes demand for traditional biomass. biogas. MSW. For the EU. 2008]. We assume slow growth from 2020 to 2030. 50% in 2030). and US figures used for ROW. For the EU. For the EU and ROW. and US figures used for ROW. agricultural. 2007). 25% in 2020. services etc). This is a conservative assumption. 70% is used throughout. and regions: US.e. 50% is from ‘wood and wood waste’ (all non MSW solid biomass) [Eurostat 2008]. Of this. we assumed that the 2G proportion is half that in the US. and all other biomass & wastes) in categories: electricity.g. which we have removed by subtracting the ‘Other’ category in ROW. is assumed to be 30% woody biomass (E4tech estimate. 70% in 2030. and wood/woodwaste solids and liquids) was 70% in the US in 2006 [EIA. non-specified sectors. 98% is from ‘wood and wood waste’ (all non MSW solid biomass) [Eurostat 2008]. • Industry: US demand is 75% from wood and wood derived fuels [EIA. industrial and other (residential. as the US is likely to lead. assumed to be largely traditional use. These were kept constant to 2030.

the RED sets targets for 20% from specific renewable fuels (2G biofuels. Of this. with a linear ramp up from the current 16%. and for total energy demand (including heat and electricity).6EJ in 2008. • Electricity: 34% of electricity is assumed to be renewable by 2030.e. Based on WEO 2008). (EC estimate). with no defined split between them. and 40% by 2020. • Heat: the EU Renewable Energy Roadmap (2006) estimates the biomass contribution to EU heat demands till 2020. 15% of this renewable generation is from solid biomass (excluding biowaste and biogas) in both 2010 and 2020 (EC renewable Energy Roadmap 2006. 95% in 2020. rising to 16. Assume 2020 value constant to 2030. which change due to implementation of the RED: • The RED sets targets for transport energy. [E4tech estimates based on IPCC 2007] • This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6. and therefore consolidate them into a single ‘Heat’ sector • Transport: 5% of total transport energy to be from renewables by 2015. We assume most of the Industry and Other sector biomass and waste demand is for heat. The 2020 values remain constant to 2030. Of this. except for EU sectors. we assume 100% is met by 2G biofuels in 2015. • 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. assumed constant to 2030).4EJ in 2030 Biomass and waste demand Proportion of this from woody biomass 112 . electricity or H2) by 2015.Annex C: Global demand Central RES • The biomass and waste demand is the same in every Region and Sector in the Central RES Scenario as in the BAU scenario (i.

55% 2G biofuels in renewable fuels overall). however. 2001). we have assumed that 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. their final energy demand is taken as the midpoint at 596 EJ. However.e.1. biomass and waste) is 12. and 60% in 2030. Therefore the final energy demand in our High Growth scenario is increased by 12. electricity or H2. 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. 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. 60% of renewable fuels are 2G. the demand for energy (and by extension. 80% are 2G biofuels (i.5% higher than in the Central RES scenario. 40% in 2020.Annex C: Global demand High Growth • We assume that by 2030.6 EJ in 2008 and 20. 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. and of this. 39% in 2020). We had originally planned to consider that the RES was not extended and so 2030 production remained at 2020 levels.2% from BAU • All assumptions are the same as for central RES except for transport. • This is based on IPCC scenarios (IPCC SRES v1.3 EJ in 2030 Biomass and waste demand Proportion of this from woody biomass 113 .

the demand for energy (and by extension.5% lower than in the Central RES scenario.Annex C: Global demand High Sustainability Biomass and waste demand Proportion of this from woody biomass • We assume that by 2030. biomass and waste) is 12. where high technology development is considered as in the High Growth scenario • This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6. • 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. as before. This is based on IPCC data.4EJ in 2030 114 .6 EJ in 2008 and 16.

Annex D: T&P Annex D: Transport and processing assumptions • Transport and processing needed to obtain each feedstock in the form needed for each demand grouping. and associated data 115 .

1.e. Costs include two port costs. as set out below. transport. many resources would be used close to the source of production. and are chipped • Costs of processing are the same as the assumptions used in the UK (see following slides) • Wood processing residues are generated at a plant/sawmill.7p/odt/km • Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km. Processing International transport 116 .Annex D: T&P Global processing and transport assumptions • 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.6p/odt/km for pellets. non-dedicated vessel). Costs from Suurs (2002) include loading. each resource is transported a distance of 200km by road in the country of origin.2p/odt/km for chips. 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. In reality. for an indicative international sea transport distance of 1500km. Suurs (2002) gives 0. • After any necessary processing. and many transported much further. unloading and return journey: chips 5p/odt/km. pellets 4. loading and unloading costs and one-way transport (i. forestry residues at the nearest roadside.

Weighted average transport and processing costs are therefore used 117 . and miscanthus. in the form of bales (22%).5/odt (Nordicity Pellet logistics 2007) • Pelletising • • Chopping Assumed same as chipping in the absence of reliable data Pellets - Drying Cost for drying from 35% dry matter to 90% dry matter of £98/odt. in the form of chips (78%). from Sowa (1994) - Pellets - - • UK Energy crops are SRC willow and poplar.7t/hr plant £12.35/odt (Gigler 1999) 13.Annex D: T&P UK processing assumptions Feedstocks Forestry residues Soft stemwood Hard stemwood Sawmill co-product: chips Sawmill co-product: sawdust Sawmill co-product: bark Arboricultural blowback: logs Arboricultural blowback: chips Arboricultural landfillings: logs Arboricultural landfillings: chips Wheat straw Oil seed rape straw Energy crops Wet manures Dry manures Sewage sludge Waste wood: clean Waste wood: contaminated Paper/card waste Garden/plant waste Food/kitchen waste Textiles waste Landfill gas Imports: chips Imports: pellets Original form Chips Logs Logs Chips Sawdust Bark Logs Chips Logs Chips Bales Bales Chips Slurry/Farmyard manure Poultry litter Sludge Pieces Pieces Loose pile Loose pile Loose pile Loose pile Gas Chips Pellets Desired final form Large thermal: Domestic Waste/fuels all Pellets Chips Chips Chips Chips Pellets Pellets Pellets Pellets Chips Chips Chips Chips Pellets Chips Chips Pellets Chopped Chopped Chopped Chopped Average EC* Pellets Average EC* Dried sludge Chips Dried sludge Chips Chips - AD Landfill gas • Chipping Cost of chipping: 16t/hr centralised chipper £2.

118 .Annex D: T&P UK transport assumptions Feedstocks Current location Large thermal: all Domestic Waste/fuels AD Landfill gas Large thermal: Domestic all 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Waste/fuels AD Landfill gas Forestry residues Forest roadside Chips Soft stemwood Forest roadside Chips Hard stemwood Forest roadside Sawmill co-product: chips Sawmill yard Sawmill co-product: sawdust Sawmill yard Pellets Sawmill co-product: bark Sawmill yard Chips Arboricultural blowback: logs Depot Chips Arboricultural blowback: chipsDepot Arboricultural landfillings: logsDepot Chips Arboricultural landfillings: chips Depot Wheat straw Farm gate Bales Oil seed rape straw Farm gate Bales Energy crops Farm gate Average EC Wet manures Farm gate Dry manures Farm gate Sewage sludge Works gate Dried sludge Waste wood: clean Site skip Chips Waste wood: contaminated Site skip Paper/card waste Handling facility Garden/plant waste Handling facility Food/kitchen waste Handling facility Textiles waste Handling facility Landfill gas Landfill Imports: chips Imports: pellets UK port UK port - Pellets Pellets Pellets Chips Chips Pellets Chips Chips Chips 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Pellets Pellets 50 50 50 50 Pellets Bales Bales Average EC Dried sludge Chips Chips - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 Pellets 50 - 10 10 10 10 0 Pellets - - 50 50 50 50 50 50 Transport costs Pellets Chips Logs Bales Slurry/Farmyard manure Poultry litter Dried sludge Fixed £/odt 11.060 Reference Suurs 2002.101 0. Includes fixed and variable costs for 50km out and 50km return journey Biocap Uofaweb model 2005.907 3.081 0.065 0. exchanged and adjusted for inflation.272 Variable £/odt/km 0.173 4. adjusted for inflation.293 0.090 0.034 0.

25% Current trend Current trend Mid Mid High High 119 .5% Reduced expansion High Growth To meet 2020 RED. Constant generation level after High Sustainability Extended RED to 2030 Extended RED to 2030 + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Central projection IEA BAU projections -12.Scenarios summary BAU UK power. Introduction Central RES To meet 2020 RED. Constant generation level after RED + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Increased projection IEA BAU projections +12.75% Central Growth rates increased by 0.5% Increased expansion Existing as in White Paper. heat and fuels policy 1. constant to 2030 Global bioenergy policy Current policy Current policy + RED Global food demand Global energy demand Land use for 1G biofuel feedstocks Land use for energy crops UK waste generation Technology development and resource extraction Central projection IEA BAU projection Continued expansion Central projection IEA BAU projection Continued expansion Central Restricted Restricted Growth rates reduced by 0.