Proceedings Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Venice, Italy; 8-11 November 2010
© 2010 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN EUROPE –
POTENTIAL FROM LIGNOCELLULOSIC
WASTE
S. LEDUC*, E. WETTERLUND*
,
** AND E. DOTZAUER°
* International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg,
Austria
** Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
° Mälardalen University, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden
SUMMARY: The objective of this study is to analyze the biofuel potential in Europe from
lignocellulosic waste (wood waste and paper and cardboard waste). Ethanol from fermentation
and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel from gasification are the two biofuels considered. As those
biofuels are not yet commercially available, the optimal locations of the production plants have
to be determined. The analysis is carried out with a geographic explicit model that minimizes the
total cost of the biofuel supply chain. A mixed integer linear program is used for the
optimization. The results show that ethanol production plants are selected in a majority of the
studied cases. Ethanol plants are mainly set up in areas with a high heat demand and/or high
electricity or heat price, whereas FT diesel production plants are set up in areas where the heat
demand is low all year round. A high cost for emitting CO
2
as well as high transport fossil fuel
prices favor the selection of FT diesel over ethanol production plants. With a CO
2
cost of 100
€/t
CO2
applied, the biofuel production from waste can potentially meet around 4% of the
European transport fuel demand.
1.INTRODUCTION
Demand for biofuels has increased considerably over the last decade, as is evidenced by for
example the European Union (EU) target for renewable energy in the transport sector of 10% in
2020 (Dir 2009/28/EC, 2009). The main drivers have been high oil prices, security of supply
and CO
2
emissions mitigation. During the last few years the criticism against biofuels, in
particular first generation biofuels has increased, due mainly to issues related to competition with
food production and potential negative environmental impact from biofuel production (Fargione
et al., 2008, Searchinger et al., 2008). Second generation biofuels in general have lower specific
land use requirements than first generation fuels, and can use non-food feedstock, such as
various types of waste and forest residues. In order to reach the biofuel target for 2020 without
substantial interference with other goals, it will likely be necessary to have a substantial share of
second generation biofuels in the EU fuel mix.
Biofuel production plants will need to be very large to reach necessary efficiencies and
economies of scale (Faaij, 2006). Large plant sizes increase the necessary feedstock supply area
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
and put significant demands on the supply chain, which makes it necessary to carefully choose
the geographic location of the production plants with respect to fuel demand and feedstock
locations. In several second generation biofuel production routes a considerable part of the
feedstock energy content can be used for co-production of other energy products, such as heat,
electricity, lignin or biogas. Polyproduction gives an opportunity for higher total conversion
efficiencies, but also puts additional requirements on the determination of the optimal biofuel
production plant locations.
Many studies have focused their research on the use of waste for energy purposes at the
national or regional level (see for example Münster and Lund, 2009, Münster and Lund, 2010 or
Yassin et al., 2009). This study addresses localization of biofuel production on a European scale.
The focus is on second generation biofuel using wood waste and paper and cardboard waste as
feedstock, as a means to both increase the share of biofuel and decrease landfilling. The aim is to
investigate the biofuel production potential from those wastes in the EU-27, under varying CO
2
costs, and to calculate the cost to meet the transport fuel demand with biofuels in different
regions.
2. METHODOLOGY AND INPUT DATA
An optimization model is used to determine the location and size of the biofuel production
plants, given the locations of feedstock and energy demand. The model minimizes the total cost
of the entire supply chain of the studied system.
2.1 Geographical boundaries
The model incorporates the entire EU-27
1
, the grid size is half a degree. In order to limit
calculation times, the EU has been divided into eight regions.
Figure 1. Region definition and location of the trade points. The red triangles represent the larger
harbors and the green circles represent inland trade points. Feedstock and biofuel can
be traded from one harbor to any other harbor, whereas inland trades can only occur at
one specific inland trade point.
1
Malta and Cyprus have been excluded from the study.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
As the model is based on transportation costs from one grid point to any other grid point, the
eight regions have been delimited by natural borders such as mountains or water.
Within each region the distances between all grid points are calculated. Import/export of
feedstock or biofuel between the regions can only take place at defined trade points, situated at
major harbor locations or strategically located border points. Figure 1 shows those eight regions
with the included trade points. The countries that do not belong to the EU-27 (cross dashed lines)
are not considered as regards energy demand or waste supply, but trades are allowed through
those countries.
2.2 Waste supply
Two lignocellulosic waste fractions are included – wood waste and paper and cardboard waste.
Wood waste includes for example waste from the forest industry and from construction and
demolition of buildings. Paper and cardboard waste includes for example collected waste as well
as waste from pulp, paper and cardboard production. Data on the amount of waste for the
individual EU member states in 2006 has been obtained from Eurostat, 2010. As a share of the
total waste is already recovered, either for recycling or for energy recovery, only the share not
currently reported as ‘recovered’ is assumed available for biofuel production.
The waste available is assumed to be dependent on the population of each grid point, with the
per capita waste production assumed equal in all grid points for each country. In countries where
a large amount of the total waste originates from the forest industry, in particular Sweden and
Finland, this will result in an overestimation of the available waste in more populated areas and
an underestimation of waste in more sparsely populated areas, where the forest industry is
typically located. Figure 2 shows the distribution of available waste. For details of the waste
data, see Wetterlund, 2010.
Figure 2. Amounts of wood waste and paper and cardboard waste available for biofuel
production (PJ/year), 2006 (Eurostat, 2010).
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
2.3 Polyproduction technologies
Two different polyproduction technologies are considered – cellulosic ethanol via hydrolysis and
fermentation and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel via gasification, both with co-production of
electricity and heat. Produced heat can either be sold for use as district heating or, if no heat
demand exists close to the plant location, be wasted. Produced electricity is sold to the grid.
An annual operating time of 8,000 hours is assumed for both technologies. Scale effects have
a strong impact on the costs of biomass conversion systems (discussed by e.g. Dornburg and
Faaij, 2001, Sørensen, 2005). Investments costs are scaled using the general relationship:
Cost
Cost
base
=
Size
Size
base
|
\

|
.
|
R
where Cost and Size represent the investment cost and plant capacity respectively for the new
plant, Cost
base
the known investment cost for a certain plant capacity Size
base
, and R is the scaling
factor. An overall scaling factor of 0.7, the average value for chemical process plants (Remer and
Chai, 1990), is used. Process efficiencies are assumed constant over the entire scale range.
2.3.1 Ethanol production
Today ethanol for use as transport fuel is mainly produced from corn or sugarcane, with much
interest in development of production processes utilizing cellulosic feedstock. Focus is primarily
on agricultural residues, but production from various wood feedstock is also under development.
Ethanol production from lignocellulosic material demands pre-treatment in order to separate the
cellulose and hemicellulose from the lignin, typically using hydrolysis (enzymatic or acidic).
Here a process using dilute acid hydrolysis is considered. The lignin and the biogas co-produced
in the process are used to produce heat and electricity. Heat not used internally can be delivered
for use as district heating. Key data is given in Table 1, while a detailed process description can
be found in Leduc et al., 2010.
2.3.2 Fischer-Tropsch diesel production
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels are synthetic hydrocarbons that are fully compatible with existing
fossil fuel infrastructure and vehicles. Today FT fuels are produced from coal or natural gas. FT
production from biomass feedstock is still not commercial, but research and development is
being conducted (see e.g. CHOREN, 2010, Tijmensen et al., 2002).
Table 1 - Input data for the polygeneration technologies. Investment costs have been adjusted to
€2009 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). All efficiencies
concern dry feedstock (lower heating value).
Key parameters Unit Ethanol
a
FT diesel
b
Base plant capacity MW 372 300
Base investment cost M€ 490 304
Operating and maintenance cost % of total investment cost 7.7 4.2
Biofuel efficiency 0.29 0.45
Electrical efficiency 0.20 0.06
District heating efficiency 0.32 0.06
a
Hansson et al., 2007, Leduc, et al., 2010.
b
van Vliet, et al., 2009, van Vliet, 2010.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Several potential production routes exist, incorporating different gasification technologies,
cleaning and upgrading, and synthesis. Here a production route based on oxygen-blown
gasification in a pressurized fluidized bed gasifier, followed by slurry phase FT synthesis and
heavy paraffin conversion is selected. Electricity is co-produced in a combined cycle, using off-
gas from the FT synthesis as fuel for the gas turbine and heat from the gas turbine and from the
synthesis reactor in the steam cycle. Low-grade heat can also be recovered from the process and
exported for use as district heating. Key input data is given in Table 1. For a detailed process
description, see van Vliet et al., 2009.
2.4 District heating
Data on district heating in the EU in 2003 has been obtained from Werner, 2006 and Egeskog et
al., 2009. The total national district heating demand is used to calculate the per capita heat
demand for each country. No data on individual district heating systems has been collected.
Instead the per capita heat demand is assumed to be equal in all grid points for each country, and
the district heating systems are described on a nationally aggregated level. As discussed by
Egeskog, et al., 2009, the heat that could be replaced by the heat from biofuel production
depends on a number of system specific factors, such as heat load, current production mix and
age structure of the existing heat production plants. Since the aim of this study is to give a broad
view of the potential in EU for domestic biofuel production, no consideration is given to
individual district heating systems.
It is assumed that all fossil heat, from combined heat and power (CHP) plants as well as from
heat-only boilers (HOBs), can be replaced by heat from the biofuel production plants. Figure 3
shows the distribution of available heat sinks. As can be seen, the largest potential for heat
deliveries is located in region 5, 7 and 8. The reason is that those regions have both relatively
large national district heating systems and a large share of fossil heat today. Countries with large
district heating systems with a large share of for example renewables and waste heat, such as
Sweden and Finland, thus constitute much smaller heat sinks. Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece
have no or very little district heating.
Figure 3. Modeled available district heating load (PJ/year), 2003 Egeskog, et al., 2009, Werner,
2006.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Table 2 - District heating load distributions used. Three seasons of equal length are applied.
Load data from Bennstam, 2008, Chinese and Meneghetti, 2005, Sigmond, 2010.
Part of EU Season 1 Season 2 Season 3
North
a
49% 35% 16%
Central
b
60% 32% 8%
South
c
82% 12% 6%
a
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden.
b
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom.
c
Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia.
A simplified heat load duration curve is applied, with the year divided into three seasons of equal
length. To accommodate for variance in annual load distribution at different latitudes, three
different load curves are used; one representing the northern EU countries, one representing the
central and one representing the southern countries. The load distributions are summarized in
Table 2.
The heat distribution distance limit is set to 50 km. Costs for investments in district heating
distribution technology are not included. Details of district heating data and assumptions can be
found in Wetterlund, 2010.
2.5 Transportation and distribution
2.5.1 Transport of waste and biofuels
Three transportation technologies for waste and produced biofuel are included; truck, train and
boat. Base transportation costs are obtained from Börjesson and Gustavsson, 1996, and adjusted
to take into account differences in heating values and feedstock moisture contents, as well as
currency development since 1996. The transportation costs applied are presented in Table 3.
A network map of roads, rails and shipping routes is used to calculate transportation routes
and distances d between the supply points and the production plants, as well as between the
production plants and the demand points. This has been described in detail in Leduc, 2009 and
Leduc et al., 2010.
2.5.2 Distribution and dispensing of biofuels
All gas stations are assumed to be able to handle biofuel distribution, after certain alterations to
the existing equipment. The dispensing costs for FT diesel and ethanol are assumed equal, at
0.24 €/GJ (Leduc, 2009).
Table 3 - Transport costs in €/TJ for feedstock and biofuels. d is the transport distance in km.
(Börjesson and Gustavsson, 1996).
Energy carrier
a
Truck Train Boat
Waste (wood, paper and cardboard) 192+4.32d 406+0.602d 465+0.246d
FT diesel 55.5+1.23d 170+0.265d 186+0.0594d
Ethanol 91.0+2.02d 280+0.436d 306+0.0975d
a
Waste is assumed to have the same heating value as forest residues, 18.5 GJ/ton (lower heating value, dry
feedstock) and a moisture content of 20%. Heating value of FT diesel is 44.0 GJ/ton and of ethanol 26.8 GJ/ton
(Edwards et al., 2007).
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Figure 4. Biofuel demand at 10% biofuel share (PJ/year), 2005 (European Commission, 2008).
2.6 Transport fuel demand
The total energy demand in transport (public road transport, private cars and motorcycles and
trucks) in the EU was 12 EJ in 2005, with an estimated increase to 15 EJ in 2020 (European
Commission, 2008). This means that in order to meet the target of 10% renewable energy in
transport, 1.2-1.5 EJ biofuel could be needed. If all wood, paper and cardboard waste not already
recovered or recycled is used for biofuel production, it could cover 3-4% of the total 2005 fuel
demand. If also all waste already used is assumed available for conversion into biofuels, a total
of 5-8% of fossil transport fuels could be replaced.
Here the transport fuel demand for 2005 is used. The per capita fuel demand is assumed equal
in all grid points of each country. Figure 4 shows the biofuel demand at a 10% share. In the
model, any fuel demand not possible to be met by biofuels is met by fossil transport fuels. For
details on the fuel demand data, see Wetterlund, 2010.
2.7 CO
2
emissions
The model considers CO
2
emissions from fossil fuels and from transportation of feedstock and
biofuels. Each GJ of biofuel produced is assumed to replace 1 GJ of fossil transportation fuel
1
,
thus displacing 78 kg of CO
2
(Uppenberg et al., 2001).
Concerning heat, all fossil district heating is assumed replaceable, as mentioned in Section 0.
Thus, heat delivered from the polyproduction plants is assumed to replace heat corresponding to
the average fossil district heating mix for each country. Likewise, produced electricity is
assumed to replace country mix electricity. CO
2
from biomass is not included, as it is assumed
that the CO
2
emissions released when combusting the biomass based waste are balanced by CO
2
uptake in growing trees.
CO
2
emissions related to transportation of feedstock and biofuels are given in Table 4.
Country specific CO
2
emissions for heat and electricity are given in Table 5.
1
Average emission for petrol and diesel, with no country specific differences considered.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Table 4 - CO2 emissions from transportation in gCO2/km/GJ of feedstock and biofuels
(European Commission, 2010).
Energy carrier
a
Truck Train Boat
Waste (wood, paper and cardboard) 3.27 1.67 0.859
FT diesel 1.10 0.562 0.289
Ethanol 1.81 0.922 0.474
a
Waste is assumed to have the same heating value as forest residues, 18.5 GJ/ton (lower heating value, dry
feedstock) and a moisture content of 20%. Heating value of FT diesel is 44.0 GJ/ton and of ethanol 26.8 GJ/ton
(Edwards, et al., 2007).
District heating emissions are calculated from reported country district heating mixes
1
(Uppenberg, et al., 2001, Werner, 2006). Electricity emissions are end-user life cycle emissions
for national grid mixes (European Commission, 2010).
2.8 Energy prices
The energy prices assumed in this kind of study will naturally affect the results to a large extent.
Today the energy prices in the different EU member states are highly diversified, with for
example the electricity price in the country with the highest price (Italy) being more than three
times the price in the country with the lowest price (Estonia).
Since it is very difficult to predict future prices in all the EU states, country specific energy
prices for 2009 are used in this study. Sensitivity analysis of the influence of harmonized energy
prices for the entire EU is also performed (see section 0). Table 5 shows the country specific
energy prices used. The purchase price for all waste feedstock is assumed to be 0 €/GJ.
2.9 Optimization model
The problem is an ordinary Mixed Integer Program (MIP) and can thus be solved using standard
MIP techniques (Wolsey, 1998). The model was developed in the commercial software GAMS
using the solver CPLEX (McCarl et al., 2008). The MIP model has previously been used in
studies of smaller regions at the country level (Leduc et al., 2008, Leduc, et al., 2010 or Schmidt
et al., 2010), but has in this study been further developed to incorporate the entire EU.
Compared to the previous versions of the model, in this study it is possible to trade either the
feedstock or the biofuel between the eight regions. The trades between the regions are based on
the transportation costs of the commodities. The feedstock can be transported from one supply
point to either a production plant or to a trade point (harbor or inland trade point, see Figure 1) of
the same region. The biofuel can be transported from one production plant to either the demand
point or to a trade point of the same region. The feedstock or the biofuels can then be shipped
from one harbor to any other harbor of a different region, or from one inland trade point to the
inland trade point opposite the region boarder only. The amount of commodity traded at one
trade point is limited by an upper bound. This trade limit is assumed to be the same for all trade
points in Europe and kept constant in this study.
1
The share of the national mix that could be replaced by heat from polyproduction plants.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Table 5 – Country specific energy prices (€/GJ) and CO
2
emissions from displaced fossil energy
(kg
CO2
/GJ).
Energy prices (€/GJ)
a
CO
2
factors (kg
CO2
/GJ)
b
Country Transport fuel District heating Electricity District heating Electricity
Austria 11.9 17.0 35.2 73.7 87.3
Belgium 12.6 13.1 34.6 50.1 109
Bulgaria 11.4 6.9 19.0 41.5 242
Czech Rep. 12.9 11.4 26.1 64.8 214
Denmark 13.5 19.9 28.1 43.8 208
Estonia 11.9 6.9 18.9 23.4 432
Finland 13.5 9.4 23.6 80.7 135
France 12.0 13.5 22.4 78.8 39.3
Germany 12.3 15.8 34.8 43.7 187
Greece 13.9 10.3 32.6 31.0 311
Hungary 12.9 10.7 32.7 51.3 175
Ireland 12.4 7.5 43.1 105 234
Italy 13.9 19.0 65.6 39.4 186
Latvia 12.5 9.9 26.6 53.2 152
Lithuania 12.6 10.5 20.7 74.9 51.4
Luxembourg 12.8 13.1 41.1 30.0 159
Netherlands 12.7 13.1 36.4 19.3 195
Poland 12.2 8.8 24.3 57.5 316
Portugal 13.5 7.5 33.0 23.5 210
Romania 12.7 6.7 21.8 26.3 275
Slovakia 12.6 9.9 35.5 76.9 89.2
Slovenia 12.0 10.3 28.0 81.1 158
Spain 13.3 0.0 34.3 39.8 176
Sweden 11.8 15.5 24.1 114 29.9
UK 11.3 7.5 34.0 41.0 173
a
Transport fuel prices are average pump prices without taxes for petrol and diesel in 2009 (European
Commission, 2010). District heating prices are national estimated consumer price averages without VAT
for 2003 (Werner, 2006), currency adjusted to €
2009
. Heat sell prices are assumed to be possible at 50% of
the consumer price. Electricity prices are average end-user prices without taxes (domestic customers) in
2009 (Eurostat, 2010).
b
European Commission, 2010, Uppenberg, et al., 2001 and Werner, 2006.
A detailed description of the model can be found in Leduc, 2009 and Wetterlund, 2010.
The model minimizes the total cost of the supply chain which is defined as:
(Total cost) = (Supply chain cost) + (Supply chain emissions)*(CO
2
cost)
The supply chain cost includes:
- feedstock cost, collection cost and transportation cost to the production plant,
- production plant: set up and biofuel production costs,
- biofuel transport cost to the gas stations,
- income from the co-products (i.e. heat, power),
- feedstock/biofuel transportation from one region to another,
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
- fossil fuel cost for transport.
The supply chain emissions include:
- emissions of fossil CO
2
from feedstock and biofuel transportation,
- emissions from additional transport fossil fuel use,
- offset emissions from replaced fossil transportation fuel, electricity and heat.
The emissions are weighted by a CO
2
emission cost, for example a CO
2
tax or tradable emission
permits.
The model will choose the least costly pathways from one set of feedstock supply points to a
specific production plant and further to a set of biofuel demand points. The final results of the
optimization problem would then be the location of a set of plants, the different trade flows
between the regions of both feedstock and biofuels, and the costs of the supply chain.
2.10 Scenarios
In the base scenario (scenario 0) the CO
2
emission cost is set to 0 €/t
CO2
for all regions. Country
specific energy prices given in Table 5 are used. All existing fossil district heating is assumed
replaceable. The model is next run with different CO
2
cost settings for one region at a time
(scenarios 1-8).
Table 6 - List of the scenarios modeled.
Scenarios CO
2
cost Fossil fuel Energy prices
€/t
CO2
price factor
S0 (base scenario) 0 1 base
S1 100 (region 1 only) 1 base
S2 100 (region 2 only) 1 base
S3 100 (region 3 only) 1 base
S4 100 (region 4 only) 1 base
S5 100 (region 5 only) 1 base
S6 100 (region 6 only) 1 base
S7 100 (region 7 only) 1 base
S8 100 (region 8 only) 1 base
S9 100 (all regions) 1 base
S10 0 1 harmonized, weighted average
a
S11 0 1 harmonized, min
b
S12 0 1 harmonized, max
c
S13 0 0.5 base
d
S14 0 0.8 base
d
S15 0 1.2 base
d
S16 0 2 base
d
S17 0 1 no heat revenue
a
Transport fuel price 12.5 €/GJ, heat price 6.1 €/GJ, electricity price 32.1 €/GJ.
b
Transport fuel price 11.3 €/GJ, heat price 3.3 €/GJ, electricity price 18.9 €/GJ.
c
Transport fuel price 13.9 €/GJ, heat price 9.9 €/GJ, electricity price 65.6 €/GJ.
d
Fossil transport fuel price is multiplied by a price factor, all other energy prices are kept at base levels.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Those scenarios reflect the impact of a CO
2
cost on the biofuel supply costs and biofuel
production for a particular region, which would be hard to identify if all regions had the same
CO
2
cost (scenario 9). To analyze the impact of energy prices, a number of scenarios with
varying energy prices are also included. In scenarios 10-12 the energy prices are assumed
harmonized in all the individual EU member states, with different price levels (average prices,
prices corresponding to the lowest current prices, and prices corresponding to the highest current
prices). In scenario 13-16 only the fossil fuel price is varied, while all other prices are kept at
country specific base levels. Finally, in scenario 17 the influence of the possibility to sell heat is
examined, by setting the heat revenue to 0 €/GJ. The different scenarios are summarized in Table
6.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Biofuel production plant location
Large scale biofuel production plants over a capacity of 25 t
biomass
/hour have been considered.
For all the scenarios presented in this analysis, all the production plants reach the maximum
capacity set at 100 t
biomass
/hour.
Figure 5 shows the resulting plant positions in the base scenario (scenario 1). As can be seen,
a majority of the production plants are set in central Europe, in or close to region 5. Region 5 has
indeed the largest share of the total biofuel demand in EU (26%). The production plants in the
neighboring regions 4 and 8 are located close to harbors or inland trade points, with a substantial
part of the biofuel production being exported to region 5, but also with exports to regions 2 and
7. Only three production plants are set in region 1. As Figure 5 shows, all three plants are FT
diesel plants, which can be explained by a very low heat demand in this region. In the plant
locations in the other regions either the heat demand or the electricity price is high, which favors
ethanol production.
Figure 5. Resulting polyproduction plant positions (blue and yellow circles) in the base scenario.
Harbors (red triangles) and inland trade points (green triangles) also shown.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Figure 6. Number of occurrences for the ethanol production plants (left) and FT diesel
production plants (right) from all scenarios.
Figure 6 shows the resulting positions from all the scenarios with their number of occurrences,
for both ethanol and FT diesel production plants. The ethanol production plants are mainly
located in Italy, Austria and Germany where they in some locations occur in 12-16 out of 18
scenarios (Figure 6, left). The optimal locations of ethanol production plants are primarily
determined by factors related to the co-products (heat and electricity), such as electricity and heat
prices, and size of heating demand.
Table 7 - Number of production plants per region and technology in each studied scenario
(ethanol production plants / FT diesel production plants).
Scenario R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
S0 – / 3 2 / – – 2 / – 14 / – – – 8 / –
S1 – / 5 2 / – – 2 / 1 14 / – – – 8 / –
S2 – / 3 5 / – 4 / – 5 / 1 14 / – – 2 / – 8 / –
S3 – / 4 5 / – – / 5 4 / 1 14 / – – 1 / – 8 / –
S4 – / 4 2 / – – – / 17 14 / 1 1 / – 2 / – 9 / –
S5 – / 4 2 / – 4 / – 2 / 1 – / 17 2 / – 2 / – 8 / –
S6 – / 4 2 / – – 2 / – 15 / – 11 / 6 – 8 / 1
S7 – / 4 2 / – – 3 / 1 14 / – – 2 / 1 9 / –
S8 – / 3 2 / – 2 / – 2 / 1 14 / – 2 / – 2 / – 1 / 8
S9 – / 5 4 / – – / 5 1 / 15 5 / 12 10 / 8 1 / 4 4 / 6
S10 – 1 / – 4 / – – 11 / 1 5 / 4 1 / – 9 / –
S11 – – – / 1 – – – – –
S12 5 / – 3 / – 5 / – 16 / – 16 / – 20 / – 5 / – 10 / –
S13 – 2 / – – – – – – 5 / –
S14 – 2 / – – – 13 / – – – 7 / –
S15 – / 3 2 / – – / 2 2 / 14 9 / 5 – / 4 1 / 2 7 / 2
S16 – / 4 2 / 1 – / 5 – / 15 – / 15 10 / 7 – / 3 4 / 5
S17 – / 2 2 / – – 2 / 1 – / 7 – – – / 2
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Italy has indeed the highest electricity price in Europe, Germany has a high heat demand with
fairly high heat prices, and both heat and electricity prices are relatively high in Austria.
From Figure 6 (right) it can be noticed that the number of occurrences for FT diesel
production plants is highest (between 12 and 14 in some locations) in region 1. The heat demand
in this region is very low all year long, which makes FT diesel production plants more profitable
compared to ethanol production plants.
Table 7 summarizes the number of production plants that are set up per region and scenario
for each of the biofuel production technologies. Noteworthy is that the occurrence of FT diesel
production plants in several regions increases when a CO
2
cost is imposed in that region (see for
example scenario 4, region 4), or when the fossil fuel price increases (see for example scenario
16, region 5). This is discussed further in section 0.
From scenario 1 to 8, a CO
2
cost was set to 100 €/t
CO2
for one region at a time. In scenario 9,
all the regions have the same CO
2
cost of 100 €/t
CO2
. When a CO
2
cost is applied it becomes
increasingly beneficial to substitute fossil fuel for biofuel. Thus, more production plants are built
in the regions where such a cost is applied. As the objective function is defined, the higher the
price of fossil fuel, the higher the total cost will be. Therefore to minimize the objective function,
more biofuel needs to be produced to compensate this increase in price, as is evidenced by the
results for scenario 15 and 16.
3.2 Biofuel supply costs at varying CO
2
costs
It has been described in Section 0 that the biofuel demand of a specific location can be met either
by biofuel produced in the same region, or by biofuel traded from other regions. If a production
plant is set up or not is determined by the biofuel production cost in that location compared to
the cost of biofuel imported from other regions. Thus an average biofuel supply cost can be
calculated for each region.
Figure 7 presents the biofuel supply cost for each region in scenario 0 to 9. The costs vary
significantly between the regions as well as between the scenarios, ranging from -25 €/GJ to
38 €/GJ. The biofuel supply costs in regions 2, 5 and 8 are in general negative due to revenues
from the co-products. Region 2 has the highest electricity price in Europe, which outweighs high
transportation costs. Region 5 has a high demand for heat, fairly high heat prices and low
transportation costs, due to good feedstock availability in the region. In region 8 the plants are
mainly located in Austria (see Figure 6) where both heat and electricity prices are relatively high.
As can be seen in Figure 7, the biofuel supply costs reached in region 1 are stable at around
13 €/GJ, and are virtually not affected by any CO
2
cost obligation. The reason for this is that
region 1 does not trade either feedstock or biofuel with other regions, which makes the in-region
production very stable over scenarios. When a CO
2
cost is applied for the region more plants are
set up and more biofuel delivered, which increases the biofuel supply cost slightly.
When a CO
2
cost is applied for region 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 a significant increase of the biofuel
supply cost can be noticed. This is mainly due to a shift from ethanol to FT diesel production,
which leads to increased production costs due to lower co-production of heat and electricity.
Very high costs are observed for region 6 and 7 in scenario 4 and 3 respectively. For the two
scenarios the total amount of biofuel produced within the region is exported towards the region
where a CO
2
cost is applied. The regions where a CO
2
cost is set need to import as much biofuel
as possible to the lowest possible cost, in order to substitute more fossil fuel. The two export
regions (6 and 7 respectively) then have to import biofuel at higher costs. Meanwhile those two
regions are less affected when a CO
2
cost is applied to them. In region 6 large amounts of waste
feedstock are located close to the biofuel demand, which minimizes the need for biofuel import.
For region 7 very few production plants are set up and the main source of biofuel supply is
imported from the neighboring regions.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Figure 7. Average biofuel supply cost in €/GJ per region for scenarios 0 to 9.
3.3 Biofuel share
As mentioned in section 0, the maximum potential of biofuel (ethanol or FT diesel) from waste
is around 3-4% (depending on production technology) if all waste not currently recovered is
converted into biofuels. Figure 8 shows the resulting share of biofuel of total transport fuel
demand in the EU for a selection of the studied scenarios. The figure also shows how large the
share of FT diesel is of the total biofuel production.
In the base scenario the biofuel share is only about 1%, with a low share of FT diesel. The
highest total biofuel share is reached when all regions are subject to a CO
2
cost (scenario 9).
Indeed, in this case the biofuel share reaches almost 4%, which implies that close to all available
waste is used for biofuel production. The preferred production technology shifts from ethanol to
FT diesel, which allows for a higher biofuel production from the same amount of feedstock.
Two scenarios with harmonized energy prices in the entire EU are shown in Figure 8; one
with average prices and one with prices corresponding to the current highest prices in EU. With
average prices (scenario 10) the biofuel production naturally shifts from regions with individual
energy prices higher than the average prices, to regions with lower individual prices. This is
particularly noticeable for region 1 and 2 (decrease) and region 6 (increase). The total biofuel
production in EU increases slightly, and so does the FT diesel share. With high harmonized
prices (scenario 12) the total biofuel share increases significantly, compared to the base scenario.
Due to the very high electricity price (66 €/GJ) the production also shifts entirely to ethanol. A
2.8% biofuel share from ethanol also implies that almost all available waste is used.
In scenarios 14-16 only the fossil transport fuel price is varied. In scenario 14 the fuel price is
decreased by 20%, which naturally causes a decreased biofuel production, and a shift away from
FT diesel. Scenarios 15 and 16 have increased transport fuel prices (20% and 100%
respectively). An increased fuel price could be viewed as a representation of a case with targeted
biofuel support policies, such as feed in tariffs, tax reduction or biofuel certificates. The biofuel
share consequently rises significantly, as does the share of FT diesel.
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Figure 8. Biofuel share of total transport fuel demand and FT diesel share of total biofuel
production in a number of scenarios (The numbers do not include biofuel already on
the market).
When waste heat does not generate extra revenue to the plants (scenario 17) the biofuel
production cost in most of the major biofuel producing regions (4, 5 and 8) increases
significantly. This causes a substantial decrease in the total number of production plants in the
EU, with the few installed production plants located at hot spots with high biofuel demand and
good waste availability. However, as the preferred technology also shifts towards FT diesel, the
drop in total biofuel production is not very distinct. Only in region 2 and 4 where the ratio
between the electricity and the transport fuel price is particularly high, ethanol remains in place.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This study has presented the development of an already existing model to a larger scale. The
optimal locations of biofuel production plants have been determined based on cost minimization
for the EU-27, which has been divided into eight regions. The model generates solutions for each
region, and allows trades of feedstock or biofuel between those regions. Two kinds of biofuel
have been studied, ethanol and FT diesel, both of which can be produced from wood waste and
paper and cardboard waste.
In many scenarios, ethanol is the preferred biofuel choice, due to the high incomes from the
co-products. Ethanol production appears to be interesting in regions where the heat demand is
high (like Germany), or electricity or/and heat costs are high (like Austria or Italy), whereas FT
diesel production appears interesting in regions where the heat demand is lower all year round
(like Portugal or Spain).
Sensitivity analyses have been carried out with a CO
2
cost applied region wise, as well as with
varying transport fossil fuel, electricity and heat prices. The CO
2
cost has a significant impact on
both the costs and the technology choice. With a CO
2
cost of 100 €/t
CO2
, FT diesel production
plants are preferably selected, potentially entailing an increased biofuel supply cost, depending of
the region considered. High electricity or heat price favors the production of ethanol, whereas an
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
increase of the price of transport fossil fuel increases the selection of FT diesel production
considerably, due to the higher biofuel conversion efficiency.
By applying a correct policy tool (i.e. CO
2
tax or biofuel subsidy), biofuel from
lignocellulosic waste can potentially meet 4% of the European transport fuel demand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by the EC projects CC-TAME, coordinated by the Forestry Program at
the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria. The Swedish
Research Council Formas and Ångpanneföreningen’s Foundation for Research and Development
are gratefully acknowledged for their financial support.
REFERENCES
Bennstam M. (2008) Tekniska Verken, Linköping, Sweden.
Börjesson P. and Gustavsson L. (1996) Regional production and utilization of biomass in
Sweden. Energy. Vol.21, 9, pp.747-764.
Chinese D. and Meneghetti A. (2005) Optimisation models for decision support in the
development of biomass-based industrial district-heating networks in Italy. Applied Energy.
Vol.82, 3, pp.228-254.
CHOREN (2010). Following nature's example, http://www.choren.com/ [04-08-2010].
Dir 2009/28/EC. (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending
and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.
Dornburg V. and Faaij A.P.C. (2001) Efficiency and economy of wood-fired biomass energy
systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation using combustion and
gasification technologies. Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol.21, 2, pp.91-108.
Edwards R., Larivé J.-F., Mahieu V. and Rouveirolles P. (2007) Well-to-wheels analysis of
future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, version 2c. JRC, EUCAR
and CONCAWE.
Egeskog A., Hansson J., Berndes G. and Werner S. (2009) Co-generation of biofuels for
transportation and heat for district heating systems--an assessment of the national possibilities
in the EU. Energy Policy. Vol.37, 12, pp.5260-5272.
European Commission. (2008) European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030 — update 2007.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport.
European Commission. (2010) ELCD Life Cycle Inventory database, European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Available at: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm
[24-07-2010].
European Commission. (2010) Oil Bulletin. European Commission, Directorate-General for
Energy.
Eurostat. (2010) Eurostat - Environmental Data Centre on Waste, European Commission,
Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/introduction [24-07-
2010].
Eurostat. (2010) Eurostat - Energy statistics, European Commission, Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/introduction [24-07-2010].
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Faaij A.P.C. (2006) Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices. Energy Policy. Vol.34,
3, pp.322-342.
Fargione J., Hill J., Tilman D., Polasky S. and Hawthorne P. (2008) Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science. Vol.319, 5867, pp.1235-1238.
Hansson H., Larsson S.-E., Nyström O., Olsson F. and Ridell B. (2007) Electric power from new
plants. (El från nya anläggningar, in Swedish). Elforsk.
Leduc S., Schwab D., Dotzauer E., Schmid E. and Obersteiner M. (2008) Optimal location of
wood gasification plants for methanol production with heat recovery. International Journal of
Energy Research. Vol.32, 12, pp.1080-1091.
Leduc S. (2009) Development of an Optimization Model for the Loacation of Biofuel Production
Plants. Doctoral Thesis, Division of Energy Engineering, Luleå University of Technology,
2009:72.
Leduc S., Starfelt F., Dotzauer E., Kindermann G., McCallum I., Obersteiner M. and Lundgren J.
(2010) Optimal location of lignocellulosic ethanol refineries with polygeneration in Sweden.
Energy. Vol.35, 6, pp.2709-2716.
McCarl B.A., Meeraus A., Eijk P.v.d., Bussieck M., Dirkse S. and Steacy P. (2008) McCarl
Expanded GAMS User Guide Version 22.9. GAMS Development Corporation.
Münster M. and Lund H. (2009) Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport - Challenges
when performing energy system analysis. Energy. Vol.34, 5, pp.636-644.
Münster M. and Lund H. (2010) Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying energy
system analysis. Waste Management. Vol.30, 7, pp.1251-1263.
Remer D.S. and Chai L.H. (1990) Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment.
Chemical Engineering Progress. Vol.86, 8, pp.77-82.
Schmidt J., Leduc S., Dotzauer E., Kindermann G. and Schmid E. (2010) Cost-effective CO2
emission reduction through heat, power and biofuel production from woody biomass: A
spatially explicit comparison of conversion technologies. Applied Energy. Vol.87, 7,
pp.2128-2141.
Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S., Hayes
D. and Yu T.H. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases
through emissions from land-use change. Science. Vol.319, 5867, pp.1238-1240.
Sigmond G. (2010) Personal communication through Jewell, J. (Central European University,
Budapest, Hungary). Főtáv, Budapest, Hungary.
Sørensen Å.L. (2005) Economies of Scale in Biomass Gasification Systems. International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
Tijmensen M.J.A., Faaij A.P.C., Hamelinck C.N. and van Hardeveld M.R.M. (2002) Exploration
of the possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass
gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol.23, 2, pp.129-152.
Uppenberg S., Almemark A., Brandel M., Lindfors L.-G., Marcus H.-O., Wachtmeister A. and
Zetterberg L. (2001) Environmental handbook for fuels (Miljöfaktaboken för bränslen) [in
Swedish]. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet AB.
van Vliet O.P.R., Faaij A.P.C. and Turkenburg W.C. (2009) Fischer-Tropsch diesel production
in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy Conversion
and Management. Vol.50, 4, pp.855-876.
van Vliet O.P.R. (2010) Personal communication. University Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
and International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. .
Werner S. (2006) Ecoheatcool 2005–2006, Work package 1 (The European heat market) and 4
Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
(Possibilities with more district heating in Europe). Euroheat and Power.
Wetterlund E. (2010) Optimal localisation of biofuel production on a European scale.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
Wolsey L. (1998) Integer programming. Wiley-Interscience New York, NY, USA, pp.
Yassin L., Lettieri P., Simons S.J.R., Castillo-Castillo A., Leach M., Ryu C., Swithenbank J. and
Sharifi V. (2009) From incineration to advanced fluid-bed gasification of waste. Proceedings
of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management. Vol.162, 3, pp.169-177.

Figure 1. but also puts additional requirements on the determination of the optimal biofuel production plant locations. 2. The model minimizes the total cost of the entire supply chain of the studied system. This study addresses localization of biofuel production on a European scale. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste and put significant demands on the supply chain. The red triangles represent the larger harbors and the green circles represent inland trade points. and to calculate the cost to meet the transport fuel demand with biofuels in different regions. electricity. 2. the EU has been divided into eight regions. METHODOLOGY AND INPUT DATA An optimization model is used to determine the location and size of the biofuel production plants. Many studies have focused their research on the use of waste for energy purposes at the national or regional level (see for example Münster and Lund. Polyproduction gives an opportunity for higher total conversion efficiencies. whereas inland trades can only occur at one specific inland trade point.Venice 2010. Region definition and location of the trade points. such as heat. In several second generation biofuel production routes a considerable part of the feedstock energy content can be used for co-production of other energy products. 1 Malta and Cyprus have been excluded from the study. given the locations of feedstock and energy demand. as a means to both increase the share of biofuel and decrease landfilling.1 Geographical boundaries The model incorporates the entire EU-271. . 2010 or Yassin et al. 2009). Münster and Lund.. 2009. which makes it necessary to carefully choose the geographic location of the production plants with respect to fuel demand and feedstock locations. the grid size is half a degree. Feedstock and biofuel can be traded from one harbor to any other harbor. The aim is to investigate the biofuel production potential from those wastes in the EU-27. The focus is on second generation biofuel using wood waste and paper and cardboard waste as feedstock. lignin or biogas. In order to limit calculation times. under varying CO2 costs.

but trades are allowed through those countries. this will result in an overestimation of the available waste in more populated areas and an underestimation of waste in more sparsely populated areas. see Wetterlund. Wood waste includes for example waste from the forest industry and from construction and demolition of buildings.2 Waste supply Two lignocellulosic waste fractions are included – wood waste and paper and cardboard waste. Data on the amount of waste for the individual EU member states in 2006 has been obtained from Eurostat. 2010. Import/export of feedstock or biofuel between the regions can only take place at defined trade points. the eight regions have been delimited by natural borders such as mountains or water. where the forest industry is typically located. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste As the model is based on transportation costs from one grid point to any other grid point. Within each region the distances between all grid points are calculated. 2. only the share not currently reported as ‘recovered’ is assumed available for biofuel production. Figure 2 shows the distribution of available waste. Figure 2. 2010). situated at major harbor locations or strategically located border points. As a share of the total waste is already recovered. Amounts of wood waste and paper and cardboard waste available for biofuel production (PJ/year). . either for recycling or for energy recovery. in particular Sweden and Finland.Venice 2010. with the per capita waste production assumed equal in all grid points for each country. In countries where a large amount of the total waste originates from the forest industry. Figure 1 shows those eight regions with the included trade points. For details of the waste data. 2010. 2006 (Eurostat. The countries that do not belong to the EU-27 (cross dashed lines) are not considered as regards energy demand or waste supply. Paper and cardboard waste includes for example collected waste as well as waste from pulp. paper and cardboard production. The waste available is assumed to be dependent on the population of each grid point.

. 2010. 2002). Key parameters Unit Ethanola FT diesel b Base plant capacity MW 372 300 Base investment cost M€ 490 304 Operating and maintenance cost % of total investment cost 7. with much interest in development of production processes utilizing cellulosic feedstock. All efficiencies concern dry feedstock (lower heating value). 2. An overall scaling factor of 0. 2. FT production from biomass feedstock is still not commercial. The lignin and the biogas co-produced in the process are used to produce heat and electricity.29 0. and R is the scaling factor.. Dornburg and Faaij.g.20 0. but production from various wood feedstock is also under development. Tijmensen et al. while a detailed process description can be found in Leduc et al. 2007. Here a process using dilute acid hydrolysis is considered. Costbase the known investment cost for a certain plant capacity Sizebase. et al. both with co-production of electricity and heat. CHOREN. An annual operating time of 8.2 Biofuel efficiency 0. the average value for chemical process plants (Remer and Chai. Today FT fuels are produced from coal or natural gas. Leduc.3. Key data is given in Table 1. et al. 2010.7.06 District heating efficiency 0.45 Electrical efficiency 0.Venice 2010. Scale effects have a strong impact on the costs of biomass conversion systems (discussed by e.. Table 1 . Ethanol production from lignocellulosic material demands pre-treatment in order to separate the cellulose and hemicellulose from the lignin.000 hours is assumed for both technologies.32 0. van Vliet.7 4. Sørensen. Investments costs are scaled using the general relationship: R  Size  Cost    Cost base Size base  where Cost and Size represent the investment cost and plant capacity respectively for the new plant. be wasted.Input data for the polygeneration technologies. 2005).3 Polyproduction technologies Two different polyproduction technologies are considered – cellulosic ethanol via hydrolysis and fermentation and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel via gasification.06 a b Hansson et al. 2010.. Investment costs have been adjusted to €2009 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). 2001. Heat not used internally can be delivered for use as district heating. 2010. is used.g. Focus is primarily on agricultural residues. but research and development is being conducted (see e. 1990). Produced electricity is sold to the grid. van Vliet.. Produced heat can either be sold for use as district heating or. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch diesel production Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels are synthetic hydrocarbons that are fully compatible with existing fossil fuel infrastructure and vehicles..3. if no heat demand exists close to the plant location.1 Ethanol production Today ethanol for use as transport fuel is mainly produced from corn or sugarcane. Process efficiencies are assumed constant over the entire scale range. 2009. typically using hydrolysis (enzymatic or acidic).

Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Several potential production routes exist.. et al. Werner. Modeled available district heating load (PJ/year). Ireland. The total national district heating demand is used to calculate the per capita heat demand for each country. followed by slurry phase FT synthesis and heavy paraffin conversion is selected. Figure 3. 7 and 8. Countries with large district heating systems with a large share of for example renewables and waste heat. such as Sweden and Finland. and synthesis.. It is assumed that all fossil heat. such as heat load. . Low-grade heat can also be recovered from the process and exported for use as district heating. the heat that could be replaced by the heat from biofuel production depends on a number of system specific factors. using offgas from the FT synthesis as fuel for the gas turbine and heat from the gas turbine and from the synthesis reactor in the steam cycle. the largest potential for heat deliveries is located in region 5. Since the aim of this study is to give a broad view of the potential in EU for domestic biofuel production. Italy and Greece have no or very little district heating. As can be seen. Key input data is given in Table 1. incorporating different gasification technologies.. 2009.. No data on individual district heating systems has been collected. thus constitute much smaller heat sinks. Instead the per capita heat demand is assumed to be equal in all grid points for each country. no consideration is given to individual district heating systems. and the district heating systems are described on a nationally aggregated level. can be replaced by heat from the biofuel production plants. 2003 Egeskog. Here a production route based on oxygen-blown gasification in a pressurized fluidized bed gasifier. see van Vliet et al. As discussed by Egeskog. Figure 3 shows the distribution of available heat sinks. 2009. 2. The reason is that those regions have both relatively large national district heating systems and a large share of fossil heat today. Spain. current production mix and age structure of the existing heat production plants. For a detailed process description. cleaning and upgrading. Electricity is co-produced in a combined cycle. 2009.4 District heating Data on district heating in the EU in 2003 has been obtained from Werner. from combined heat and power (CHP) plants as well as from heat-only boilers (HOBs). 2009. 2006. 2006 and Egeskog et al.Venice 2010. et al.

602d FT diesel 55. Romania. Italy. paper and cardboard) 192+4. Latvia. Chinese and Meneghetti. truck. after certain alterations to the existing equipment. Table 3 . Germany.5.2 Distribution and dispensing of biofuels All gas stations are assumed to be able to handle biofuel distribution. Estonia. train and boat. United Kingdom.8 GJ/ton (Edwards et al. Ireland. Luxembourg. Belgium.1 Transport of waste and biofuels Three transportation technologies for waste and produced biofuel are included. at 0. France.. Boat 465+0.Venice 2010. Costs for investments in district heating distribution technology are not included. as well as currency development since 1996. . and adjusted to take into account differences in heating values and feedstock moisture contents. 2009 and Leduc et al.5.0594d 306+0.32d 406+0.02d 280+0. 2010. 2009). Finland.5+1. A simplified heat load duration curve is applied. Three seasons of equal length are applied. Part of EU Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Northa 49% 35% 16% b Central 60% 32% 8% c South 82% 12% 6% a b c Denmark. 2007). 2. To accommodate for variance in annual load distribution at different latitudes. Slovakia. 2. Sigmond. Czech Republic.. 2008.5 GJ/ton (lower heating value. Sweden. Slovenia.246d 186+0. dry feedstock) and a moisture content of 20%. This has been described in detail in Leduc. Greece. Netherlands. 18. 2010. 1996. Bulgaria. 2005. 1996). Base transportation costs are obtained from Börjesson and Gustavsson. Lithuania. rails and shipping routes is used to calculate transportation routes and distances d between the supply points and the production plants. Details of district heating data and assumptions can be found in Wetterlund. one representing the northern EU countries.5 Transportation and distribution 2.23d 170+0. The transportation costs applied are presented in Table 3. A network map of roads. Poland.Transport costs in €/TJ for feedstock and biofuels. Spain. Heating value of FT diesel is 44. three different load curves are used. with the year divided into three seasons of equal length.District heating load distributions used. The dispensing costs for FT diesel and ethanol are assumed equal. 2010. The load distributions are summarized in Table 2. Hungary. The heat distribution distance limit is set to 50 km. as well as between the production plants and the demand points. Austria. Portugal.24 €/GJ (Leduc.265d Ethanol 91. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Table 2 .0 GJ/ton and of ethanol 26. Energy carriera Truck Train Waste (wood.436d a distance in km.0975d Waste is assumed to have the same heating value as forest residues.0+2. Load data from Bennstam. one representing the central and one representing the southern countries. d is the transport (Börjesson and Gustavsson.

1 Average emission for petrol and diesel. Country specific CO2 emissions for heat and electricity are given in Table 5. all fossil district heating is assumed replaceable. 1.7 CO2 emissions The model considers CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and from transportation of feedstock and biofuels. as it is assumed that the CO2 emissions released when combusting the biomass based waste are balanced by CO2 uptake in growing trees. Likewise. Here the transport fuel demand for 2005 is used. Concerning heat. If also all waste already used is assumed available for conversion into biofuels. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Figure 4. Thus. see Wetterlund. 2001). with no country specific differences considered. any fuel demand not possible to be met by biofuels is met by fossil transport fuels. private cars and motorcycles and trucks) in the EU was 12 EJ in 2005.5 EJ biofuel could be needed. a total of 5-8% of fossil transport fuels could be replaced. produced electricity is assumed to replace country mix electricity. 2005 (European Commission. For details on the fuel demand data. In the model. it could cover 3-4% of the total 2005 fuel demand. thus displacing 78 kg of CO2 (Uppenberg et al. with an estimated increase to 15 EJ in 2020 (European Commission. CO2 from biomass is not included. paper and cardboard waste not already recovered or recycled is used for biofuel production. The per capita fuel demand is assumed equal in all grid points of each country. CO2 emissions related to transportation of feedstock and biofuels are given in Table 4.6 Transport fuel demand The total energy demand in transport (public road transport. This means that in order to meet the target of 10% renewable energy in transport. Figure 4 shows the biofuel demand at a 10% share. 2008). 2008). Biofuel demand at 10% biofuel share (PJ/year). heat delivered from the polyproduction plants is assumed to replace heat corresponding to the average fossil district heating mix for each country. If all wood.2-1. 2. as mentioned in Section 0. Each GJ of biofuel produced is assumed to replace 1 GJ of fossil transportation fuel1.Venice 2010. 2. 2010. ..

country specific energy prices for 2009 are used in this study. 2006). 2. Electricity emissions are end-user life cycle emissions for national grid mixes (European Commission. The biofuel can be transported from one production plant to either the demand point or to a trade point of the same region. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Table 4 . 2007).8 GJ/ton (Edwards. 18. 2010).. 2001. but has in this study been further developed to incorporate the entire EU. see Figure 1) of the same region.. District heating emissions are calculated from reported country district heating mixes1 (Uppenberg. The MIP model has previously been used in studies of smaller regions at the country level (Leduc et al. dry feedstock) and a moisture content of 20%.0 GJ/ton and of ethanol 26.922 0. Leduc.289 Ethanol 1.474 a Waste is assumed to have the same heating value as forest residues. 2010).562 0. 2. Heating value of FT diesel is 44. paper and cardboard) 3. The amount of commodity traded at one trade point is limited by an upper bound. et al.Venice 2010.859 FT diesel 1. Table 5 shows the country specific energy prices used. Since it is very difficult to predict future prices in all the EU states.9 Optimization model The problem is an ordinary Mixed Integer Program (MIP) and can thus be solved using standard MIP techniques (Wolsey. 1 The share of the national mix that could be replaced by heat from polyproduction plants.. Werner. et al. . et al. Today the energy prices in the different EU member states are highly diversified. or from one inland trade point to the inland trade point opposite the region boarder only. This trade limit is assumed to be the same for all trade points in Europe and kept constant in this study.CO2 emissions from transportation in gCO2/km/GJ of feedstock and biofuels (European Commission.5 GJ/ton (lower heating value. 2008. The purchase price for all waste feedstock is assumed to be 0 €/GJ.27 1.67 0. 1998)..10 0.81 0. 2010 or Schmidt et al.. Sensitivity analysis of the influence of harmonized energy prices for the entire EU is also performed (see section 0). 2008). Compared to the previous versions of the model. 2010). with for example the electricity price in the country with the highest price (Italy) being more than three times the price in the country with the lowest price (Estonia). The model was developed in the commercial software GAMS using the solver CPLEX (McCarl et al.. The feedstock or the biofuels can then be shipped from one harbor to any other harbor of a different region. The trades between the regions are based on the transportation costs of the commodities. in this study it is possible to trade either the feedstock or the biofuel between the eight regions. Energy carriera Truck Train Boat Waste (wood.8 Energy prices The energy prices assumed in this kind of study will naturally affect the results to a large extent. The feedstock can be transported from one supply point to either a production plant or to a trade point (harbor or inland trade point.

3 7.5 20.6 53.5 7.3 32. 2006). power).6 39.7 87.1 105 234 Italy 13.0 35.e. currency adjusted to €2009..0 10.9 18.2 73. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Table 5 – Country specific energy prices (€/GJ) and CO2 emissions from displaced fossil energy (kgCO2/GJ).5 9.9 19.0 41.8 26.2 8.8 34.5 316 Portugal 13.3 Belgium 12.5 19. heat.4 Luxembourg 12.8 24.0 311 Hungary 12.1 30.8 214 Denmark 13.9 35.0 81.7 187 Greece 13. 12.3 195 Poland 12.4 432 Finland 13.2 Slovenia 12.0 41.3 0.1 109 Bulgaria 11.0 23.9 19.3 175 Ireland 12.3 275 Slovakia 12.2 152 Lithuania 12.3 57.1 158 Spain 13.6 9.5 22.4 186 Latvia 12.5 9. Uppenberg.8 176 Sweden 11.9 17.9 UK 11.3 Germany 12. 2010).1 64. European Commission.6 10.8 39.Venice 2010.7 32.5 33.3 39.3 28.4 78.0 65.9 11.  biofuel transport cost to the gas stations.1 43.  feedstock/biofuel transportation from one region to another. .9 10.3 15. 2006.5 24.1 41.6 13.5 242 Czech Rep.9 26. 2010.6 50.7 74. 2001 and Werner.1 34.9 10.8 15.0 34.9 28. 2010.9 6.  production plant: set up and biofuel production costs. A detailed description of the model can be found in Leduc.  income from the co-products (i.8 208 Estonia 11.5 76. District heating prices are national estimated consumer price averages without VAT for 2003 (Werner.4 6.9 51.1 36.6 31. The model minimizes the total cost of the supply chain which is defined as: (Total cost) = (Supply chain cost) + (Supply chain emissions)*(CO2 cost) The supply chain cost includes:  feedstock cost.4 7.0 159 Netherlands 12.9 23.5 43.7 6. Heat sell prices are assumed to be possible at 50% of the consumer price.7 13.6 80.7 21. 2009 and Wetterlund.7 51.0 173 a b Transport fuel prices are average pump prices without taxes for petrol and diesel in 2009 (European Commission.7 135 France 12.1 114 29. Electricity prices are average end-user prices without taxes (domestic customers) in 2009 (Eurostat. collection cost and transportation cost to the production plant.4 26.4 19.9 89.4 23.8 43. et al.5 210 Romania 12.5 34.0 13. 2010).8 13. Energy prices (€/GJ)a CO2 factors (kgCO2/GJ)b Country Transport fuel District heating Electricity District heating Electricity Austria 11.

List of the scenarios modeled. All existing fossil district heating is assumed replaceable. The emissions are weighted by a CO2 emission cost.3 €/GJ. Transport fuel price 13.5 0.9 €/GJ. heat price 9.9 €/GJ. The model will choose the least costly pathways from one set of feedstock supply points to a specific production plant and further to a set of biofuel demand points. Transport fuel price 11. and the costs of the supply chain. 2. Country specific energy prices given in Table 5 are used. electricity price 65.2 2 1 Energy prices base base base base base base base base base base harmonized. The final results of the optimization problem would then be the location of a set of plants. Table 6 .  emissions from additional transport fossil fuel use. the different trade flows between the regions of both feedstock and biofuels. The supply chain emissions include:  emissions of fossil CO2 from feedstock and biofuel transportation.Venice 2010. electricity price 32. minb harmonized. electricity price 18.1 €/GJ. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste  fossil fuel cost for transport.3 €/GJ. Scenarios S0 (base scenario) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 a b c d CO2 cost €/tCO2 0 100 (region 1 only) 100 (region 2 only) 100 (region 3 only) 100 (region 4 only) 100 (region 5 only) 100 (region 6 only) 100 (region 7 only) 100 (region 8 only) 100 (all regions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fossil fuel price factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 €/GJ. . The model is next run with different CO2 cost settings for one region at a time (scenarios 1-8).6 €/GJ. all other energy prices are kept at base levels. electricity and heat. Fossil transport fuel price is multiplied by a price factor.8 1.10 Scenarios In the base scenario (scenario 0) the CO2 emission cost is set to 0 €/tCO2 for all regions.9 €/GJ. heat price 6. weighted averagea harmonized. for example a CO2 tax or tradable emission permits. maxc based based based based no heat revenue Transport fuel price 12.1 €/GJ. heat price 3.  offset emissions from replaced fossil transportation fuel.

Harbors (red triangles) and inland trade points (green triangles) also shown. Region 5 has indeed the largest share of the total biofuel demand in EU (26%). To analyze the impact of energy prices. Finally. The different scenarios are summarized in Table 6. For all the scenarios presented in this analysis. with different price levels (average prices. and prices corresponding to the highest current prices). As can be seen. all three plants are FT diesel plants. but also with exports to regions 2 and 7. The production plants in the neighboring regions 4 and 8 are located close to harbors or inland trade points. in scenario 17 the influence of the possibility to sell heat is examined. Resulting polyproduction plant positions (blue and yellow circles) in the base scenario. a majority of the production plants are set in central Europe. in or close to region 5. a number of scenarios with varying energy prices are also included.1 Biofuel production plant location Large scale biofuel production plants over a capacity of 25 tbiomass/hour have been considered. which would be hard to identify if all regions had the same CO2 cost (scenario 9). In the plant locations in the other regions either the heat demand or the electricity price is high. Figure 5. Figure 5 shows the resulting plant positions in the base scenario (scenario 1). In scenarios 10-12 the energy prices are assumed harmonized in all the individual EU member states. by setting the heat revenue to 0 €/GJ. with a substantial part of the biofuel production being exported to region 5. which can be explained by a very low heat demand in this region. all the production plants reach the maximum capacity set at 100 tbiomass/hour. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3. which favors ethanol production. while all other prices are kept at country specific base levels. As Figure 5 shows. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Those scenarios reflect the impact of a CO2 cost on the biofuel supply costs and biofuel production for a particular region. In scenario 13-16 only the fossil fuel price is varied. 3.Venice 2010. . Only three production plants are set in region 1. prices corresponding to the lowest current prices.

Figure 6 shows the resulting positions from all the scenarios with their number of occurrences. Scenario S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 R1 –/3 –/5 –/3 –/4 –/4 –/4 –/4 –/4 –/3 –/5 – – 5/– – – –/3 –/4 –/2 R2 2/– 2/– 5/– 5/– 2/– 2/– 2/– 2/– 2/– 4/– 1/– – 3/– 2/– 2/– 2/– 2/1 2/– R3 – – 4/– –/5 – 4/– – – 2/– –/5 4/– –/1 5/– – – –/2 –/5 – R4 2/– 2/1 5/1 4/1 – / 17 2/1 2/– 3/1 2/1 1 / 15 – – 16 / – – – 2 / 14 – / 15 2/1 R5 14 / – 14 / – 14 / – 14 / – 14 / 1 – / 17 15 / – 14 / – 14 / – 5 / 12 11 / 1 – 16 / – – 13 / – 9/5 – / 15 –/7 R6 – – – – 1/– 2/– 11 / 6 – 2/– 10 / 8 5/4 – 20 / – – – –/4 10 / 7 – R7 – – 2/– 1/– 2/– 2/– – 2/1 2/– 1/4 1/– – 5/– – – 1/2 –/3 – R8 8/– 8/– 8/– 8/– 9/– 8/– 8/1 9/– 1/8 4/6 9/– – 10 / – 5/– 7/– 7/2 4/5 –/2 . The ethanol production plants are mainly located in Italy. Austria and Germany where they in some locations occur in 12-16 out of 18 scenarios (Figure 6. Number of occurrences for the ethanol production plants (left) and FT diesel production plants (right) from all scenarios. and size of heating demand.Number of production plants per region and technology in each studied scenario (ethanol production plants / FT diesel production plants). for both ethanol and FT diesel production plants. Table 7 . such as electricity and heat prices. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Figure 6. The optimal locations of ethanol production plants are primarily determined by factors related to the co-products (heat and electricity). left).Venice 2010.

This is discussed further in section 0. 3. which leads to increased production costs due to lower co-production of heat and electricity. Table 7 summarizes the number of production plants that are set up per region and scenario for each of the biofuel production technologies. more production plants are built in the regions where such a cost is applied. Very high costs are observed for region 6 and 7 in scenario 4 and 3 respectively. region 5). which outweighs high transportation costs. For the two scenarios the total amount of biofuel produced within the region is exported towards the region where a CO2 cost is applied. If a production plant is set up or not is determined by the biofuel production cost in that location compared to the cost of biofuel imported from other regions. As the objective function is defined. 5 and 8 a significant increase of the biofuel supply cost can be noticed. The costs vary significantly between the regions as well as between the scenarios. in order to substitute more fossil fuel. The biofuel supply costs in regions 2. the biofuel supply costs reached in region 1 are stable at around 13 €/GJ. more biofuel needs to be produced to compensate this increase in price. Figure 7 presents the biofuel supply cost for each region in scenario 0 to 9. The reason for this is that region 1 does not trade either feedstock or biofuel with other regions. When a CO2 cost is applied it becomes increasingly beneficial to substitute fossil fuel for biofuel. due to good feedstock availability in the region. From scenario 1 to 8. When a CO2 cost is applied for the region more plants are set up and more biofuel delivered. 3. In region 6 large amounts of waste feedstock are located close to the biofuel demand. fairly high heat prices and low transportation costs. which makes FT diesel production plants more profitable compared to ethanol production plants. the higher the price of fossil fuel. region 4). Region 5 has a high demand for heat. The two export regions (6 and 7 respectively) then have to import biofuel at higher costs. as is evidenced by the results for scenario 15 and 16. Noteworthy is that the occurrence of FT diesel production plants in several regions increases when a CO2 cost is imposed in that region (see for example scenario 4. Thus an average biofuel supply cost can be calculated for each region. Region 2 has the highest electricity price in Europe. or by biofuel traded from other regions. This is mainly due to a shift from ethanol to FT diesel production. Meanwhile those two regions are less affected when a CO2 cost is applied to them. From Figure 6 (right) it can be noticed that the number of occurrences for FT diesel production plants is highest (between 12 and 14 in some locations) in region 1. 4. In scenario 9. Thus. When a CO2 cost is applied for region 2. In region 8 the plants are mainly located in Austria (see Figure 6) where both heat and electricity prices are relatively high. ranging from -25 €/GJ to 38 €/GJ. 5 and 8 are in general negative due to revenues from the co-products. and both heat and electricity prices are relatively high in Austria. which makes the in-region production very stable over scenarios. which minimizes the need for biofuel import. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Italy has indeed the highest electricity price in Europe. For region 7 very few production plants are set up and the main source of biofuel supply is imported from the neighboring regions. As can be seen in Figure 7. . which increases the biofuel supply cost slightly. Therefore to minimize the objective function. a CO2 cost was set to 100 €/tCO2 for one region at a time.Venice 2010. or when the fossil fuel price increases (see for example scenario 16. all the regions have the same CO2 cost of 100 €/tCO2. Germany has a high heat demand with fairly high heat prices.2 Biofuel supply costs at varying CO2 costs It has been described in Section 0 that the biofuel demand of a specific location can be met either by biofuel produced in the same region. the higher the total cost will be. The heat demand in this region is very low all year long. The regions where a CO2 cost is set need to import as much biofuel as possible to the lowest possible cost. and are virtually not affected by any CO2 cost obligation.

This is particularly noticeable for region 1 and 2 (decrease) and region 6 (increase). one with average prices and one with prices corresponding to the current highest prices in EU. tax reduction or biofuel certificates. Indeed. in this case the biofuel share reaches almost 4%. Due to the very high electricity price (66 €/GJ) the production also shifts entirely to ethanol.Venice 2010. With high harmonized prices (scenario 12) the total biofuel share increases significantly. An increased fuel price could be viewed as a representation of a case with targeted biofuel support policies. The figure also shows how large the share of FT diesel is of the total biofuel production. 3. the maximum potential of biofuel (ethanol or FT diesel) from waste is around 3-4% (depending on production technology) if all waste not currently recovered is converted into biofuels. . and a shift away from FT diesel. A 2. such as feed in tariffs. Figure 8 shows the resulting share of biofuel of total transport fuel demand in the EU for a selection of the studied scenarios. The biofuel share consequently rises significantly. which naturally causes a decreased biofuel production. and so does the FT diesel share.8% biofuel share from ethanol also implies that almost all available waste is used.3 Biofuel share As mentioned in section 0. In scenario 14 the fuel price is decreased by 20%. The preferred production technology shifts from ethanol to FT diesel. The total biofuel production in EU increases slightly. With average prices (scenario 10) the biofuel production naturally shifts from regions with individual energy prices higher than the average prices. which allows for a higher biofuel production from the same amount of feedstock. In the base scenario the biofuel share is only about 1%. which implies that close to all available waste is used for biofuel production. compared to the base scenario. Average biofuel supply cost in €/GJ per region for scenarios 0 to 9. Two scenarios with harmonized energy prices in the entire EU are shown in Figure 8. Scenarios 15 and 16 have increased transport fuel prices (20% and 100% respectively). In scenarios 14-16 only the fossil transport fuel price is varied. to regions with lower individual prices. as does the share of FT diesel. with a low share of FT diesel. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Figure 7. The highest total biofuel share is reached when all regions are subject to a CO2 cost (scenario 9).

However. The CO2 cost has a significant impact on both the costs and the technology choice. whereas an . ethanol and FT diesel. The model generates solutions for each region. Sensitivity analyses have been carried out with a CO2 cost applied region wise. the drop in total biofuel production is not very distinct. whereas FT diesel production appears interesting in regions where the heat demand is lower all year round (like Portugal or Spain). Only in region 2 and 4 where the ratio between the electricity and the transport fuel price is particularly high. depending of the region considered. 4. FT diesel production plants are preferably selected. both of which can be produced from wood waste and paper and cardboard waste. CONCLUSIONS This study has presented the development of an already existing model to a larger scale. The optimal locations of biofuel production plants have been determined based on cost minimization for the EU-27.Venice 2010. with the few installed production plants located at hot spots with high biofuel demand and good waste availability. Biofuel share of total transport fuel demand and FT diesel share of total biofuel production in a number of scenarios (The numbers do not include biofuel already on the market). due to the high incomes from the co-products. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Figure 8. as well as with varying transport fossil fuel. ethanol remains in place. Two kinds of biofuel have been studied. or electricity or/and heat costs are high (like Austria or Italy). This causes a substantial decrease in the total number of production plants in the EU. Ethanol production appears to be interesting in regions where the heat demand is high (like Germany). ethanol is the preferred biofuel choice. which has been divided into eight regions. In many scenarios. When waste heat does not generate extra revenue to the plants (scenario 17) the biofuel production cost in most of the major biofuel producing regions (4. High electricity or heat price favors the production of ethanol. 5 and 8) increases significantly. and allows trades of feedstock or biofuel between those regions. as the preferred technology also shifts towards FT diesel. With a CO2 cost of 100 €/tCO2. potentially entailing an increased biofuel supply cost. electricity and heat prices.

Applied Energy.jrc. (1996) Regional production and utilization of biomass in Sweden. Mahieu V. Egeskog A. Available at: http://lca.eurostat. European Commission.europa.. Eurostat. (2010) Eurostat ..21. pp. Vol. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by the EC projects CC-TAME. Chinese D. Vol. and Werner S. European Commission. Available at: http://epp. pp.com/ [04-08-2010]. Linköping. 3. European Commission.europa.choren. Joint Research Centre. Dornburg V.91-108. 2..Energy statistics. (2008) European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030 — update 2007. (2008) Tekniska Verken.. Dir 2009/28/EC. Börjesson P.ec.37. Following nature's example. Sweden.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea. Edwards R. (2007) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. 12. and Gustavsson L. European Commission. European Commission. Energy Policy. coordinated by the Forestry Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). and Rouveirolles P. Larivé J.e.Venice 2010.5260-5272. European Commission. pp. Directorate-General for Energy and Transport.-F.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/introduction [24-072010]. http://www. Available at: http://epp. and Meneghetti A. (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.P. biofuel from lignocellulosic waste can potentially meet 4% of the European transport fuel demand. The Swedish Research Council Formas and Ångpanneföreningen’s Foundation for Research and Development are gratefully acknowledged for their financial support. REFERENCES Bennstam M. Vol. (2009) Co-generation of biofuels for transportation and heat for district heating systems--an assessment of the national possibilities in the EU. Biomass and Bioenergy. and Faaij A. Berndes G.vm [24-07-2010]. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste increase of the price of transport fossil fuel increases the selection of FT diesel production considerably.747-764. EUCAR and CONCAWE. Directorate-General for Energy.82. JRC.ec.Environmental Data Centre on Waste. (2010) Eurostat . due to the higher biofuel conversion efficiency. European Commission. 9. Eurostat. (2010) Oil Bulletin.europa.228-254. Hansson J. (2010) ELCD Life Cycle Inventory database. By applying a correct policy tool (i. (2005) Optimisation models for decision support in the development of biomass-based industrial district-heating networks in Italy.eurostat. European Commission. Energy. Austria. Vol. . CO2 tax or biofuel subsidy).C.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/introduction [24-07-2010]. pp. CHOREN (2010).ec.21. (2001) Efficiency and economy of wood-fired biomass energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation using combustion and gasification technologies. version 2c.

pp.319.A. (2001) Environmental handbook for fuels (Miljöfaktaboken för bränslen) [in Swedish].9. Division of Energy Engineering.636-644. Doctoral Thesis. power and biofuel production from woody biomass: A spatially explicit comparison of conversion technologies. (2009) Use of waste for heat. Dotzauer E.M.. and Hawthorne P.35.R. 6. Elobeid A. Münster M. Biomass and Bioenergy. pp. (2002) Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification. the Netherlands and International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. (1990) Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment.. 5867. (2008) McCarl Expanded GAMS User Guide Version 22.. Dotzauer E.S.P. (2009) Fischer-Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: A carbon. and Yu T. and Lundgren J.. Tijmensen M.87.1251-1263. Sørensen Å.1238-1240.C.P..P. (Central European University. (2009) Development of an Optimization Model for the Loacation of Biofuel Production Plants.. Lindfors L. Vol.34. 5867. Elforsk...Challenges when performing energy system analysis.2128-2141. Hungary). Olsson F. Work package 1 (The European heat market) and 4 .S. Werner S.. Nyström O. Schwab D. Polasky S.34. Sigmond G. pp. pp. pp.. Kindermann G.. (2005) Economies of Scale in Biomass Gasification Systems. Energy. Leduc S. Leduc S.d..A.J. (2006) Ecoheatcool 2005–2006. Applied Energy. Budapest.R. and Lund H. (2008). (2010) Personal communication through Jewell. 2. and van Hardeveld M. Vol..-G.. in Swedish)..C. Marcus H. Hansson H. energy flow and cost analysis. 12. Uppenberg S..P. (2006) Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices. 8. Obersteiner M.. Vol. electricity and transport . (2007) Electric power from new plants. Energy..32. Leduc S. Heimlich R. Vol. Fargione J. Austria.. Vol. Főtáv.-E.R. 3.1080-1091. 4.23. Wachtmeister A.P. Remer D. (2008) Optimal location of wood gasification plants for methanol production with heat recovery. Budapest. Münster M. and Zetterberg L. Laxenburg. pp. Houghton R. Science. Tokgoz S. Tilman D. Hungary. Schmid E.C. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste Faaij A.L... Vol. McCallum I.77-82. Vol.... J. Utrecht. Energy Conversion and Management.. 7. pp. 7. Vol. Luleå University of Technology.A. pp.129-152. and Turkenburg W. (2010) Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying energy system analysis.-O.319.50.2709-2716.. van Vliet O.H. Almemark A. Waste Management. Larsson S. Eijk P. Hamelinck C. Science.30. Bussieck M...... Faaij A. Kindermann G. (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. (2010) Cost-effective CO2 emission reduction through heat. and Schmid E.. Vol. Energy Policy. pp. McCarl B. Dirkse S. Use of U. and Lund H. Starfelt F. pp. 5. Vol. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). and Obersteiner M. and Chai L.. Schmidt J. 2009:72. (2010) Optimal location of lignocellulosic ethanol refineries with polygeneration in Sweden. Faaij A.. International Journal of Energy Research. and Steacy P. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet AB.N.C.v. Dong F. pp. Meeraus A. van Vliet O. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Hayes D. Chemical Engineering Progress. University Utrecht..855-876.1235-1238. GAMS Development Corporation. (El från nya anläggningar. Dotzauer E.86.. (2010) Personal communication. Vol.Venice 2010. Hill J. Searchinger T.322-342.H. Fabiosa J. Leduc S. . Brandel M. and Ridell B.

. . USA. Leach M. 3. Simons S.169-177..J. pp. Ryu C.. Swithenbank J. Castillo-Castillo A. Wiley-Interscience New York. Vol. Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste (Possibilities with more district heating in Europe).. Euroheat and Power. pp. (2010) Optimal localisation of biofuel production on a European scale.. NY. Lettieri P.R. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Yassin L. and Sharifi V..162. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management. Wolsey L. Wetterlund E. (1998) Integer programming.Venice 2010. (2009) From incineration to advanced fluid-bed gasification of waste.