Biomass Supply Curves For The UK E4tech 2009

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
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. Introduction
1. The scenarios affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks (land use, yields, extractability) and global demand (policy, technically viable end uses) 2. The UK supply curve is then built up 3. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported, and the level of global demand for these feedstocks, is used to determine the price of imports 4. The overall UK supply curve is broken down in to separate supply curves showing the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies, to meet different demands
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
Introduction to scenarios
Four scenarios were defined:
1. Introduction
Business As Usual (BAU) a continuation of current trends, without the EU RED. This includes continued trends in use of first generation biofuels, and in waste diversion from landfill, and modest technology development in energy crops and second generation biofuel production Central RES As BAU, but with the introduction of the RED. This results in an increase in EU demand for bioenergy, and sustainability criteria restricting land use for energy crops High Sustainability greenhouse gas savings and other sustainability impacts are prioritised. This leads to lower energy demand through efficiency, strong technology development, and stronger bioenergy demand side policy. High Growth energy and food demand increase globally, putting increased pressure on resources. However, the response to this leads to strong technology development, and a move away from less resource efficient technologies. Some sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with Central RES
5
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, and miscanthus Straw from wheat and oil seed rape Hardwood and softwood tree trunks Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood
1. Introduction
Wood chips, sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood Stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations Clean and contaminated waste wood Paper/card, food/kitchen, 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, pigs, sheep and poultry Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites Woody short rotation crops, such as eucalyptus and willow Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry Ethanol from sugar and starch crops, and biodiesel from oil crops Oil and biomass from photosynthetic algae
6
Others considered in the annex only, not included in supply curves
Deriving supply curves

Resource Potential minus technical constraints minus environmental constraints
1. 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 - no competition with the competing demand on the basis of price.
Exceptions :
Energy crops includes land rent i.e. all competing uses of land Imports global supply and demand are used to find the global price. This is assumed to be the price at which the UK can import, i.e. the UK is assumed to be a price taker
7
Contents
1. Introduction
Introduction to biomass supply curves
2. 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
2. UK supply
Supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario over time

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve
4.0
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015
2.0
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800
Supply (PJ)
1,000 1,200
The potential bioenergy resource is large

-2.0
It increases significantly to 2030, 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, sewage sludge and waste wood
-4.0
-6.0
Positive cost feedstocks include straw, forestry residues, stemwood and sawmill co-product but these are small compared with the potentially large energy crop resource
Note: these costs do not include landfill tax, transport to plant, or preprocessing this is added separately for each demand later
10
-8.0
2. UK supply
BAU scenario in 2030, broken down by feedstock type

BAU 2030 Wastes
4.0
BAU 2030 Energy crops BAU 2030 Forestry
2.0
BAU 2030 Agricultural
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0
0 200 400 600 800
10.00 5.00
1,000
1,200
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
1,400
2.0
1.0
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
-2.0
0.0 0 200 400 -1.0
Supply (PJ)
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
-2.0
-5.00
-3.0 -4.0
-5.0
-15.00
-10.00
-4.0
-20.00
Energy crops
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-6.0 -7.0
-8.0
Wastes
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
Cost (/GJ)
Cost (/GJ)
-6.0
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Supply (PJ)
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Supply (PJ)
-5.00
-5.00
-10.00
-10.00
-15.00
-15.00
-8.0
-20.00
Agricultural
-20.00
Forestry
11
2. UK supply
Supply curve for all feedstocks - all scenarios in 2030

BAU 2030 4.0 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 2.0 High growth 2030
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
-2.0
-4.0
The total potential is affected strongly by the energy crop potential: the High Growth scenario has a large land area and highest yields. This is reduced in the BAU scenario as a result of lower crop yields, and in the Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios as a result of greater constraints on the use of abandoned pasture land Energy crop potentials in both BAU and High Growth scenarios remain constrained in 2030 by planting rates
-6.0
Energy crop costs are lower in the High Sustainability and High Growth scenarios, as a result of higher yields Potential from wastes is reduced in High Sustainability due to lower volumes of waste generation, and is increased under High Growth
12
-8.0
Contents
1. Introduction
13
3. Imports
Deriving import price from global supply and demand - BAU

12.0
BAU Global supply curves
Feedstocks are forestry and wood processing residues, and energy crops woody biomass Forestry and wood processing residues are small (7 EJ) in 2030 in comparison with the energy crop resource (196 EJ) The resource increases to 2030 with energy crop yield increases and planted area
10.0
8.0
Cost (/GJ)
6.0
4.0
BAU 2008
2.0
Global demand of 15 EJ in 2030 gives a global price of 3.48 /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, we can use the global supply curve to determine the cost of supplying that demand If the UK is assumed to be a price taker, this is the price at which imports are available to the 250 Supply (EJ)UK
14
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
0.0 200
3. Imports
Under BAU, import prices fall over time, but remain expensive
2010 import price: 6.52 /GJ

4.0
2030 import price 3.48 /GJ
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015
2.0
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800
Supply (PJ)
1,000 1,200
-2.0
The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass - more than enough to supply UK demand at the global market price However, imports would be high cost In 2010, import prices are more expensive than all other UK resources
-4.0
-6.0
In 2030, imports are only cheaper than the most expensive straw and energy crops
These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made, as transport adds around 2/GJ to most global feedstock costs
15
-8.0
Supply curves under different scenarios differ considerably in 2030...

9.0
BAU 2030
3. Imports
8.0
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 6.0
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, extra food demand requires more agricultural area, and hence less is available for energy crops, and poorer non Supply (EJ) agricultural land is used
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cost (/GJ)
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
16
3. Imports
...but lead to a similar (and high) import price

4.0
BAU, Central RES and High Growth import price 3.48 /GJ High Sustainability import price 3.13 /GJ
BAU 2030 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030
2.0
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
-2.0
-4.0
Under BAU, Central RES and High Growth the import price of 3.48 /GJ is more expensive than nearly all UK energy crops and straw Under High Sustainability, the import price is lower at 3.13 /GJ, as the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is cheaper. However, UK energy crops are also cheaper, hence imports are still more expensive than 95% of the UKs resources
17
-6.0
-8.0
Contents
1. Introduction
18
4. UK demands
Building appropriate supply curves for different demands

Deciding which feedstocks to combine on supply curves for biomass conversion can be complex, and depends on how they will be used. All of the resources on the supply curve must be suitable feedstocks for the conversion technology being considered, in terms of
Need for wet or dry feedstocks

Sizing or other pretreatment requirements e.g. chipping, pelletising Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks Likely transport distances for feedstocks, and the form in which the feedstock is transported We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion technologies. We then merged these into 5 groups, with very similar feedstock requirements The supply curves show total available resources suitable for that demand group. No assumptions are made on the share of resources used for each one, and so no resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered.
19
4. 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, stoves and CHP Feedstock types and requirements Most wood resources, energy crops, straw, 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. Landfill gas is not included No pretreatment 10 km UK transport, zero for sludge All resources except wet manures and landfill gas Chipped, chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport for most, 10km for wastes Imported chips
Waste&fuels
Landfill gas
Gas engines, turbines
Landfill gas only No imports No treatment or transport

20
Example: Large thermal plant BAU over time

6.00
4. UK demands
5.00
4.00
This supply curve is suitable for medium and large electricity/ CHP/heat plant and cofiring It includes forestry, arboricultural and wood processing residues, energy crops, straw, dry manures, dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood.
Cost (/GJ)
3.00 BAU 2008 2.00 BAU 2010

BAU 2015
1.00
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
0.00 0 200 400 600
Supply (PJ) 800
-1.00
Imported chips, including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown
-2.00
-3.00
Year Import price /GJ
2008 7.28
2010 7.09
2015 5.14
2020 4.41
2030 4.04
21
Contents
1. Introduction
22
There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at reasonable cost
5. Conclusions
The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary energy demand by 2030, at a cost of less than 5/GJ
The resource in earlier years is much smaller, due to a lower resource potential, and each the sectors capability to extract or grow the feedstock
The key factors affecting biomass resources and costs are Land availability for energy crops Energy crop yields
Waste generation and management

Biomass supply and demand should be considered globally, rather than focusing supplies from within the UK or within the EU Global woody biomass resources could potentially be very large, even after demands for land for food and 1st generation biofuel feedstocks are supplied first, if there is a fast ramp up of energy crop planting
However, the global price may be higher than most indigenous UK feedstocks. Prices could be lower before a global commodity market develops or with lower transport costs
Supply curves suitable for different UK demands have been provided, including additional UK transport and processing costs. Most resources can be used to generate either electricity, heat, or transport fuels, via a range of conversion technologies.
23
Full slide pack
Biomass supply curves for the UK
Final report For DECC
March 2009
24
How to use this document

This document gives the approach, results, and supporting data for the biomass supply analysis conducted during this project The main body of the slides is a summary of the results Given that we have modelled 4 scenarios across 5 points in time, and many feedstocks, detailed data is not provided for every permutation in this pack For both UK and global supply, we have given two graphs: the BAU scenario in each year, and all scenarios in 2030 We also provide supporting slides, summarising the assumptions behind the derivation of the supply curve for each group of resources The annexes give more details on the assumptions for each feedstock, and for the global demand assessment Throughout the document summaries and conclusions are shown in blue boxes to distinguish them from analysis and supporting assumptions
25
Contents
1. Introduction
2. UK supply 3. Global supply 4. Determining the price of imports 5. Supply curves for UK energy demands 6. Conclusions 7. Annexes
26
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, varying in their assumptions of energy and food demand, technology development, policy requirements and sustainability criteria. The supply curves and data will be used by BERR in ongoing modelling and analysis to compare relative costs of biomass and other renewable options in the electricity, heat and transport sectors estimate the costs to the UK of the renewables target identify the optimal use of limited biomass resource assess impacts of technology development develop consistent incentives across all sectors
27
Relationship between key parts of the analysis
1. Introduction
1. The scenarios are defined first, as these affect UK and global supply of biomass feedstocks (land use, yields, extractability) and global demand (policy, technically viable end uses) 2. The UK supply curve is then built up, based on the availability and cost of each feedstock 3. The global supply curve for feedstocks that could be imported to the UK, and the level of global demand for these feedstocks, is used to determine the price of imports 4. The overall UK supply curve can then be broken down in to separate supply curves showing the resources suitable for conversion by different technologies, to meet different demands
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
28
Introduction to scenarios
1. Introduction
Four scenarios were defined. These were designed to represent different potential futures, and also to give differing impacts on biomass supply and demand. The scenarios are: Business As Usual (BAU) a continuation of current trends, without the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). This includes continued trends in use of first generation biofuels, and in waste diversion from landfill, and modest technology development in energy crops and second generation biofuel production Central RES As BAU, but with the introduction of the RED. This results in an increase in EU demand for bioenergy, and sustainability criteria restricting land use for energy crops High Sustainability here greenhouse gas savings and other sustainability impacts such as conservation of biodiversity are prioritised. This leads to lower energy demand through efficiency, strong technology development, and stronger bioenergy demand side policy. High Growth here energy and food demand increase globally, putting increased pressure on resources. However, response to this leads to strong technology development, and a move away from less resource efficient technologies. Some sustainability constraints are relaxed compared with Central RES
29
Scenarios summary
BAU
UK power, heat and fuels policy
1. Introduction
Central RES 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 -12.5% Reduced expansion
High Growth To meet 2020 RED. Constant generation level after

RED + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Increased projection IEA BAU projections +12.5% Increased expansion
Existing as in White Paper, 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
Restricted
Restricted
Growth rates reduced by 0.75%
Central
Growth rates increased by 0.25%
Current trend
Current trend
Mid
Mid
High
High
30
Deriving supply curves feedstocks considered
1. Introduction
The scope of feedstocks considered was agreed at the start of the project, based on consideration of the mostly likely UK and imported sources in the long term
Short rotation coppice willow or poplar, and miscanthus Straw from wheat and oil seed rape Hardwood and softwood tree trunks Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood Wood chips, sawdust and bark made when sawing stemwood Stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations Clean and contaminated waste wood Paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant and textiles wastes From Waste Water Treatment Works Manures and slurries from cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry Captured gases from decomposing biodegradable waste in landfill sites Woody short rotation crops, such as eucalyptus and willow (species not specified) Wood chips from branches, tips and poor quality stemwood Sawmill co-product and waste wood from the wood processing industry Ethanol from sugar and starch crops, 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, not included in supply curves
31
Deriving supply curves resource
1. Introduction
We followed a broadly similar approach to estimating the potential for each resource. In most cases, this takes the form of Potential minus technical constraints minus environmental constraints minus competing demands for the resource minus an availability factor for supply constraints e.g. planting rate, extraction ramp up
The competing demand for the resource are assumed to be supplied before any use for bioenergy. This means: for energy crops, land needs for food are supplied first for wood processing residues, the wood product industry's needs are supplied first
for straw, feed and bedding needs are supplied first

for wastes, recycling is supplied first
The competing demands change over time, and between scenarios Alternative disposal routes for wastes e.g. composting, are not treated as competing demands
32
Deriving supply curves cost
1. Introduction
As competing demands for the resource are supplied first, for most feedstocks any remaining resource is available for bioenergy at the cost of production/extraction. This means that there is no competition with the competing demand on the basis of price.
The exceptions to this are: Energy crops a cost of production is used, which includes a land rent (price) which takes into account all competing uses of land (i.e. not only the use of land for food, which has already been excluded) Imports a global supply curve based on costs, as above, is used with global demand levels to find the global price. This is assumed to be the price at which the UK can import, i.e. the UK is assumed to be a price taker An alternative approach would be to include price competition with competing uses. However, this would entail deriving demand curves for each competing demand for each feedstock, in many different sector, which would be difficult and time-consuming, particularly at a global level, and in future years.
33
Contents
1. Introduction
34
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, or can be the sum of the supply curves for many different types of biomass feedstocks
35
2. UK supply
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario over time

4.0
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015
2.0
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800
Supply (PJ)
1,000 1,200
-2.0
The potential bioenergy resource is large. UK primary energy demand is currently around 10 EJ (10,000 PJ) It increases significantly to 2030, mainly due to expansion in energy crops Box done and increased ability to extract other feedstocks There is a large resource at negative cost due to avoided gate fees: organic MSW, sewage sludge and waste wood Positive cost feedstocks include straw, forestry residues, stemwood and sawmill co-product but these are small compared with the potentially large energy crop resource Note that these costs do not include transport to the plant, or preprocessing: this is added separately for each demand in section 5
36
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
2. UK supply
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - 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
4.0
BAU 2030 Energy crops BAU 2030 Forestry
2.0
BAU 2030 Agricultural
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
10.00 5.00
1,400
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020

BAU 2030
2.0
1.0
0.0 0 200 400 -1.0
Supply (PJ)
Cost (/GJ)
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-2.0
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
-2.0
-5.00
-3.0 -4.0
-5.0
-15.00
-10.00
-4.0
-20.00
Energy crops
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
-6.0 -7.0
-8.0
Wastes
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
Cost (/GJ)
Cost (/GJ)
-6.0
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Supply (PJ)
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Supply (PJ)
-5.00
-5.00
-10.00
-10.00
-8.0
The supply curve for each of the four categories is given in the following slides
-15.00
-15.00
-20.00
Agricultural
-20.00
Forestry
37
2. UK supply
Energy crops are the largest potential resource

5.00
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
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 2030
0.0 0 100 200
Supply (PJ)
500 Supply (PJ)600
300 400 BAU 2010 no planting constraints

200
300
400
500
600
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 2008
1.0
BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2008 no planting constraints BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2010
BAU 2030
This reduces total BAU potential from around 1,150PJ to around 1,000PJ
0.0 0
100 2010 200 300 BAU no planting constraints
Supply (PJ) 500 400
Supply (PJ)
600
300
400
500
600
Slide added March 2009
40
2. UK supply
Energy crop subsidies

5.0
4.5
4.0
Energy crop subsidies have been included in the dashed curves

BAU 2008
3.5
Cost (/GJ)
BAU 2010
BAU 2008
3.0
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
Energy crop scheme establishment grants of 1000 /ha for SRC and 800 /ha for miscanthus
BAU 2020
2.5
BAU 2015
BAU 2030
BAU 2020
2.0
BAU 2030
BAU 2008 with subsidies
EU area payments of 30/ha/yr
1.5
BAU 2008 BAU 2010
BAU 2008 with subsidies BAU 2010 with subsidies BAU 2015 with subsidies BAU 2020 with subsidies BAU 2030 with subsidies
1.0
These reduce the costs of energy crops by around 0.6/GJ under the BAU scenario
BAU 2015 BAU 2020 BAU 2030
0.5
0.0
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
2. UK supply
Energy crops summary of assumptions

Energy crops are planted on arable and pasture land no longer needed for food production. Projections of this for 2030 were taken from scenarios from the EU Refuel project, and a linear ramp up to this assumed based on Refuel and ADAS data on current land availability. All abandoned arable land is assumed to be available (1.1mha in BAU and Central RES in 2030) In BAU and High Growth scenarios, all abandoned pasture is used (1.2mha in 2030), assuming that planting is no-till, to avoid land use change emissions. In the other scenarios, biodiversity restrictions are applied (10% of land is used in Central RES and High Sustainability) Planting rate: Current area of 8,000ha is assumed to increase by 1000ha in 2010, with the annual rate then doubling each year until it reaches a maximum of 150,000 ha/year in 2017 Yields from a model developed by Pepinster (2008), based on spatial models from Southampton University and Rothamsted Research. This includes distribution of energy crop yields across England, on arable and improved grassland, assuming planting of the highest yielding SRC willow, SRC poplar, or miscanthus on each grid square Yields were increased by 1% or 2% p.a. depending on scenario Costs are calculated using a land rent (i.e. a price of land that takes into account competing land uses). However, effects on the price as a result of competing uses for the product are not considered 2008 energy crop cost from Alberici (2008), based on a review of literature and industry views on energy crop costs, adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. This considers the land rent and production cost on each grid square Future cost reduction was assumed to be a function of yield increase only, not reduction in management costs
Resource
Costs
A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex A
42
2. UK supply
Wastes are a large resource at negative cost

2.0
1.0
0.0 0 -1.0 200 400
Supply (PJ)
Cost (/GJ)
-2.0
-3.0 -4.0
-5.0
Wastes are: wood wastes, paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant, textiles, sewage sludge and landfill gas Resources currently going to alternative disposal routes (landfill, incineration, AD or composting) are used, but not those being recycled The resource is large, with landfill gas being the largest resource in 2008, when most other resources are limited by separability. Ramp up in the ability to separate wastes leads to a large wood waste resource by 2015, and large resources of other wastes by 2030 Most of the resource is at negative cost, as a result of the gate fee for waste disposal (21/t in all scenarios), although landfill tax is not included. The lowest energy content wastes have the lowest cost, as gate fees are charged per tonne
43
-6.0
-7.0
-8.0
2. UK supply
Costs decrease if landfill tax is included

0.0 0 200 400
Supply (PJ)
Cost (/GJ)
-5.0
-10.0
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. This reduces the cost of the lowest cost resources by around 5/GJ by 2030 Including landfill tax changes the cost of each resource, and also the merit order of the resources - wet food and garden wastes become lower cost than sewage sludge
-15.0
-20.0
44
Wastes summary of assumptions
2. UK supply
Wood wastes
Resource from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Commercial & Industrial (C&I) and Construction & Demolition (C&D) is given by WRAP (2005). Sector growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used to forecast total arisings. Growth rates were reduced by 0.75% for High Sustainability, and increased by 0.25% for High Growth One third of the total resource is clean wood, the rest is contaminated (WRAP 2008) Competing uses for clean wood: use by the wood panel industry increases up to 2010, and remains flat afterwards in BAU and Central RES (WRAP 2008). Under High scenarios, wood panel industry use increases to 2013 Currently, 15% is separable for energy recovery, increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central RES, or by 2015 in High Sustainability and High Growth Costs: avoided landfill costs for contaminated wood, gate fee of 8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood Resource from MSW, C&I arisings from ERM Golder 2006. Growth rates from the Defra Waste Strategy were then used to forecast future total arisings. Rates were reduced by 0.75% for High Sustainability, and increased by 0.25% for High Growth Recycled material was considered not to be available for energy. Increases in recycling volumes over time from WRAP were used for BAU and Central RES. These were scaled up by extra growth in arisings in High Growth, but held the same for High Sustainability even with lower arisings. Current separation is 48% for paper/card and 19% for textiles (for recycling); 17% for food/kitchen and 26% for garden/plant (AD/composting). Separability is assumed to increase above rates of recycling/composting by 2% a year under BAU and Central RES, or 4% a year under High scenarios, until a 90% maximum is reached, based on international experience (ERM Golder) Costs: avoided landfill costs Arisings increase to 2010, then slower annual growth with population afterwards (National Grid) Extraction rates: 90% is extractable as this is already used for energy via AD and incineration, 100% by 2010 Costs: cost of dewatering, minus the gate fee for disposal/AD treatment of 45/tonne (Strathclyde University) The above biodegradable wastes are available for energy if separable. If they are used for energy, they will not be landfilled, and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. As a simplification, we have assumed no new waste is landfilled from 2008. Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay (Enviros), assuming no new capture installations. Zero costs assumed
Paper/card Garden/plant Food/kitchen Textiles
Sewage sludge
Landfill gas
45
2. UK supply
Forestry resources are relatively small, but are low cost

4.0
BAU 2008 3.0 BAU 2010

BAU 2015
BAU 2020 2.0

BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
1.0
Supply (PJ)
0.0 0
-1.0
20
40
60
80
Forestry resources are: arboricultural arisings, sawmill co-products, forestry residues, and soft and hard stemwood The resource is small, but increases up to a peak in 2020 as forests reach maturity and forest residue collection increases The largest potential resource is currently arboricultural arisings (6.1 PJ), but this is quickly overtaken by forestry residues, which grow to 19 PJ by 2020 The costs of most feedstocks are a result of collection and chipping only Some arboricultural arisings are available at negative costs, as they are currently landfilled
46
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
Forestry summary of assumptions
2. UK supply
Forestry residues
The resource consists of poor quality stemwood, branches and tips, with environmental, biological and operational constraints (McKay, 2003). Additional resources from 1M odt/yr of under-managed English forest will be available by 2020. Long tree growth times mean fixed forecasts regardless of scenario None of this resource is currently extracted. Extraction is assumed to be 10% in 2010, 75% in 2015 (50% for BAU and Central RES), and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios Costs: forwarding and chipping at the roadside The resource to 2025 is taken from the Forestry Commission softwood forecast, extrapolated to 2030 Competing uses: Sawmills always take the largest timber. Other competing uses remain at current volumes. Costs: tree felling and extraction Sawmills use the largest timber, as above. 51% of this becomes co-product sawdust, chips and bark The competing uses are the panelboard industry, paper and pulp, exports and fencing. These are all assumed to take the same volume in the future as they do now, under all scenarios Costs are very low: handling and storage at the sawmill Arboricultural arisings are stemwood, wood chips, branches and foliage from municipal tree surgery operations The resource was taken from a survey by McKay (2003), and kept unchanged over time and scenario The only competing use considered was the wood industry, using 16% of the resource. The remainder, that is currently used for energy, landfilled or left on site, can be used 78% of the resource can be collected now (landfilled and woodfuel), increasing to100% by 2010 Costs: collection and handling, or avoided landfill costs for material that is currently landfilled.
Stemwood
Sawmill co-product
Arboricultural arisings
47
2. UK supply
Agricultural residues are limited by collection

5.0
4.5 4.0
Agriculture feedstocks are: wet and dry manures, and straw The resource is reasonably large, but limited before 2020 as a result of the slow build up of collection of the resources The zero cost resource is manure. The slight decrease in resource between 2020 and 2030 is a result of the livestock herd decreasing The straw resource (69 PJ in 2030) is available between a cost of 2.3-4.5 /GJ (38-76 /odt)
3.5
Cost (/GJ)
3.0 2.5 2.0

1.5
BAU 2008 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 50 100 150 BAU 2010

BAU 2015 BAU 2020
BAU 2030
Supply (PJ) 200

48
Agriculture summary of assumptions
2. UK supply
Straw
The resource is based on a CSL study (2008) which considers the UK straw resource from all crops, taking into account the extractability from the field, and competing uses such as feed and bedding. The bulk of the remaining resource is oil seed rape straw, with some wheat straw. This is unchanged over time This is limited by the assumed ramp up of additional straw collection: 10% of this can be collected now, 20% in 2010, 50% in 2015, and 100% from 2020 in all scenarios. This rate is relatively slow, as oil seed rape straw is not currently extracted in large quantities , and is more difficult to handle than wheat and barley straw. Cost: a four point cost curve was derived from ADAS (2008) on the price needed to persuade farmers to extract additional residues, based on harvesting costs, costs of fertiliser replacement and a profit margin The resource was calculated based on ADAS livestock numbers for all types of livestock. These were combined with excreta rates, time housed and manure management method Some resource is excluded from farms where manure is spread to land without storage Extraction rates were considered to be 18% for dry poultry litter now, 50% in 2010 and 100% in 2015. For wet manures, the rate was assumed to be lower, at 1% now, 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020 Costs: Since digestate has a higher nutrient value than manure, farmers are likely to provide manure at zero cost in exchange for returned digestate which needs to be spread to land
Manure
49
2. UK supply
UK supply curve for all feedstocks - all scenarios in 2030

BAU 2030 4.0 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 2.0 High growth 2030
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
-2.0
-4.0
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, and in the Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios as a result of greater constraints on the use of abandoned pasture land Energy crop potentials in both BAU and High Growth scenarios remain constrained in 2030 by planting rates Energy crop costs are lower in the High Sustainability and High Growth scenarios, as a result of higher yields
-6.0
-8.0
Potential from wastes is the same under BAU and Central RES scenarios, is reduced in High Sustainability due to lower volumes of waste generation, and is increased under High Growth
50
Contents
1. Introduction
51
3. Global supply
Global supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU over time

12.0
0
10.0
0
8.0
Global feedstocks are forestry and wood processing residues, and energy crops - those that are most likely to be imported in large quantities. We have termed these woody biomass for the rest of this report
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
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015
0
2.0
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
0
0.0
Costs include processing required BAU 2020 for transport, and an assumed BAU 2030 average distance for road transport in the country of origin and international shipping. They do not include transport within the Supply (EJ) UK
250
50
100
150
200 Supply (EJ)
50
100
150
200
250
52
3. Global supply
Planting rates have the greatest impact on global resources

BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates
12.0
BAU Global supply curves: influence of planting rates

10.0
The unconstrained energy crop potential, as shown by the dashed lines, increases over time as more land area becomes available, and yields increase When planting rates are considered, the available resource is significantly reduced, as shown by the solid lines Planting rates are initially low, and it takes until 2017 for the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr to be reached, as the sector ramps up
obal supply curves: influence of planting rates

8.0
Cost (/GJ)
BAU 2008
6.0
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2010
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
BAU 2015
4.0
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
BAU 2020
BAU 2030
In all scenarios, 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
2.0
Graph done BAU 2015 no planting constraints BAU 2015 check box BAU 2020 no planting constraints BAU 2020
BAU 2030
Most of the planted area is abandoned agricultural land, with BAU 2020 no planting constraints non-agricultural land only being BAU 2030 no planting constraints late 2020s planted in the
0.0
0 100 100 200
BAU 2010 no planting constraints BAU 2015 no planting constraints 200
300
Supply (EJ)
300
Supply (EJ)
53
Global energy crops assumptions
3. Global supply
Resource
Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008), which: considers the potential from woody energy crops (e.g. willow, poplar, eucalyptus) gives the potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios, of which 2 are used as a basis for our scenarios considers two main types of Available Area abandoned agricultural land released as agricultural technology and food demand changes. non-agricultural land extensive grassland, and abandoned pasture, excluding nature reserves. We then estimated the potential resource to 2030 by: backcasting Hoogwijks available area and productivity from 2050 to 1995 to give a 1995 potential forecasting to 2030, using available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk, modified to remove land needed for 1G biofuels, and to remove extra land needed for food in the High Growth scenario a proportion of the (constant) non-agricultural land area: 50% in BAU and High Growth, and 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability, based on Hoogwijks assumptions. management factors adapted from Hoogwijk to reflect our scenarios The resource is then limited by a planting rate A global planting rate was estimated by scaling up the UK planting rate in proportion to the relative arable areas. The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0.32Mha in 2009, with the rate then doubling each year until 2017 when the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr is reached (48Mha is 3% of current global arable area). We assume that abandoned agricultural land is planted first. Energy crop costs reduce with increased yield and improved management over time. Hoogwijk gives supply cost curves for each land type in 2050, up to a cost of $5/GJ. We assumed that the distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years, and therefore derived a new supply curve using our resource and costs data. We assume that a spread of land is planted in each year, rather than the cheapest being planted first.
Cost
A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex B
54
Global energy crops scenario variation

BAU A1 Global-Economic Orientation Hoogwijks Scenario High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth 8.3 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 8.3 billion in 2030 None already in B1 scenario above
3. Global supply
High Growth A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth 8.3 billion in 2030 Agricultural area factored up according to UN high population projection 8.9 billion in 2030 Annual growth: 1.6% Maximum: 1.5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Nonagricultural Land
Adjusted food demand Adjusted Management Factor
None
None
Annual growth: 1.4% Maximum: 1.3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Nonagricultural Land
Land types possible
55
Global wood residues assumptions
3. Global supply
Wood processing residues
Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture, which we projected using the recent trend in global per capita demand for wood products. Residue generation factors were then applied Pulp and panel industry raw material requirements are supplied first. These also follow the recent trend in per capita demand for pulp and paper with a residue demand coefficient. We assumed that all of the remaining resource is available now, in all scenarios i.e. there is no restriction on extraction A small collection cost is assumed, consistent with UK costs Residue production is proportional to roundwood production. Future demand for roundwood follows the recent trend in global per capita roundwood demand. To this, we applied a sustainable residue harvest ratio this is the ratio of residues (tops, branches and undergrowth) to stemwood that can be removed sustainably. Values of 0.1-0.3 are used, with higher values for the High Growth scenario assuming that the forest is fertilised, e.g. through ash recycling, rather than through leaving the residues on the ground There are no competing uses current collection and use is primarily for energy Currently, around 7% of the total residues, which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable harvest (or 28% in High Growth), are extracted. We assumed that this increases to 100% by 2020 in each scenario Costs are for forwarding, roadside chipping and management
Forestry residues
56
3. 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, and are chipped Wood processing residues originate at a plant/sawmill, forestry residues at the nearest roadside, whereas energy crop costs already include 50km road transport to a centralised point (included in Hoogwijk model) We then added an estimated average transport distance for global woody biomass resources, as set out below. In reality, many resources would be used close to the source of production, and many transported much further. After any necessary processing, each resource is transported a distance of 200km by road in the country of origin. Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km.
Processing
International transport
A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex D
57
3. Global supply
Global curve - scenarios in 2030

9.0
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, due to changing diets (e.g. lower meat consumption) under Hoogwijks B1 scenario rather than the A1 scenario high energy crop management factor
8.0
Central RES 2030
7.0 6.0
Cost (/GJ)
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

0 50 100 150 200 250
In High Growth, extra food demand requires more agricultural area, and hence less is available for energy crops, and poorer non agricultural land is used
Supply (EJ)
300
58
Contents
1. Introduction
59
4. Imports
Estimating global demand for woody biomass

The previous section gave the global supply of woody biomass (forestry and wood processing residues, and energy crops) We have estimated the global demand for woody biomass for energy under the different scenarios, to 2030 This involves making a large number of assumptions, for many of which there is very limited supporting data
We have started with IEA projections for biomass and waste demand and biofuels demand, and then estimated how much of this is from woody biomass in each sector, based on current data and likely trends
No non-energy demands e.g. for chemicals and materials production, are included
A summary of these assumptions is given in the annex Using these global demand results, we can use the global supply curve to find the global price Woody biomass demand for energy (EJ) Scenario BAU Central RES High Sustainability High Growth 2008 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 2010 6.8 7.1 7.0 7.1 2015 7.8 8.9 8.8 9.5 2020 9.9 11.7 11.6 13.3 2030 15.1 16.3 16.2 20.1
A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex C
60
4. Imports
Deriving import price from global supply and demand

12.0
10.0
If we know the global demand for woody biomass in a particular year, we can use the global supply curve to determine the cost of supplying that demand, as shown here In BAU 2030, the global woody biomass demand of 15 EJ gives a global price of 3.48 /GJ (equivalent to 63 /odt) In BAU 2010, the global woody biomass demand of 6.8 EJ gives a global price of 6.52 /GJ (equivalent to 117 /odt) If the UK is assumed to be a price taker, this is the price at which imports are available to the UK Note that energy crops must be planted in order to meet the global demand Note that as before, the feedstock import price includes processing and international transport, but no transport within the UK therefore is equivalent to the price at a UK port
8.0
Cost (/GJ)
6.0
4.0
BAU 2008
BAU 2010
2.0
BAU 2015
BAU 2020
Global woody biomass demand in 2030

0.0 0 50 100 150
BAU 2030
200
Supply (EJ) 250
61
4. Imports
Under BAU, import prices fall over time, but remain expensive
2010 import price: 6.52 /GJ

4.0
2030 import price 3.48 /GJ
BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015
2.0
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800
Supply (PJ)
1,000 1,200
-2.0
The UK could import significant volumes of woody biomass - more than enough to supply UK demand at the global market price However, imports would be high cost In 2010, import prices are more expensive than all other UK resources In 2030, imports are only cheaper than the most expensive straw and energy crops
-4.0
-6.0
The 2010 price given is comparable with current pellet import prices of 135-155/tonne, or around 7.2/ GJ (European Pellet Centre for March 2008) These results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made, as transport adds around 2/GJ to most global feedstock costs 62
-8.0
4. Imports
This remains the case under other scenarios in 2030

4.0
BAU, Central RES and High Growth import price 3.48 /GJ High Sustainability import price 3.13 /GJ
BAU 2030 Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030
2.0
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
-2.0
Under BAU, Central RES and High Growth the import price of 3.48 /GJ is more expensive than nearly all UK energy crops and straw Under High Sustainability, the import price is lower at 3.17 /GJ, as the cost of the first tranche of global energy crops is cheaper. However, UK energy crops are also cheaper, hence imports are still more expensive than 95% of the UKs resources Again, these results depend heavily on the transport assumptions made, as transport adds around 2/GJ to most global feedstock costs
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
63
4. Imports
Uncertainties in import price calculations

The principal uncertainties in deriving the global supply curve and global demand to get the price of imports, and in assessing the relationship with UK resource costs are: Global demand estimates these are necessarily uncertain, as there is poor data availability on the current use of each feedstock, and on likely future demand Yield and cost assumptions for energy crops - Different assumptions are made in the global energy crop model, as this was related to Hoogwijks model, compared with the UK approach. Manipulation of Hoogwijks model we modified Hoogwijks model by changing management factors and backcasting, without access to the underlying model. 1G biofuels demand land needed for 1G biofuel crops reduces the land area for energy crops, and therefore has a large effect on potential. 1G biofuels are also assumed to be grown on a spread of the economically viable land. The potentials seen in some scenarios rely on a switch away from 1G production Planting assumptions the most economically viable land is not assumed to be planted first, rather a mix of the economically viable land (less than $5/GJ) is planted in each year. Since the most economically viable land is distributed worldwide, this assumption is more reasonable than assuming that the very cheapest land is planted first. Also, abandoned agricultural land is assumed to be planted before non-agricultural land Transport assumptions we assumed an average transport distance for all globally traded feedstocks, but this could vary considerably. Furthermore, shipping costs can vary considerably e.g. depending on oil price
Import prices could be lower than this before a global commodity market develops, it may be possible to access lower cost feedstocks
64
Contents
1. Introduction
65
5. 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, and depends on how they will be used. Here we provide supply curves suitable for different UK bioenergy demands All of the resources on the supply curve must be suitable feedstocks for the demand being considered, and have similar costs of conversion. This is complicated by the characteristics and requirements of conversion technologies in terms of Need for wet or dry feedstocks Sizing or other pretreatment requirements e.g. chipping, pelletising Ability to accept contaminated feedstocks Likely transport distances for feedstocks, and the form in which the feedstock is transported
We considered the feedstock requirements of 12 different biomass conversion technologies. We then merged these into 5 groups, where each group has very similar feedstock requirements (see next slide) The supply curve for each demand group is given in the following slides in this section. It is important to note that the supply curves show total available resources suitable for that demand group. No assumptions are made on the share of resources that can be used for each demand group, and so no resource competition between bioenergy demands is considered.
66
5. 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, energy crops, straw, dry manures and sewage sludge Chipped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport Imported chips Most wood resources and energy crops Pelletised, except for the proportion of stemwood and arboricultural arisings that are logs, and can be used directly Imported pellets 50 km UK transport All wet resources: wet manures, sewage sludge and MSW. Landfill gas is not included No pretreatment 10 km UK transport, zero for sludge All resources except wet manures and landfill gas Chipped or chopped where necessary, plus drying for sewage sludge 50 km UK transport for most, 10km for wastes Imported chips Landfill gas only No imports No treatment or transport
Large thermal
Domestic heat/CHP
Domestic boilers, 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, turbines
A full list of data sources and assumptions is given in Annex D
67
Large thermal plant BAU over time

6.00
5. UK demands
This supply curve is suitable for Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant Co-firing Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP
5.00
4.00
Cost (/GJ)
3.00 BAU 2008 2.00 BAU 2010

BAU 2015
It includes forestry, arboricultural and wood processing residues, energy crops, straw, dry manures, dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood. These are chipped or dried where necessary, and 50 km UK transport is added for all resources Imported chips, including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown Note that other potential co-firing feedstocks such as vegetable oils and other agricultural residues (olive pits, palm kernel expeller etc) are not included. The availability and price of residues in the future will be highly dependent on food production and their use in the country of origin.
1.00
BAU 2020 BAU 2030
0.00 0 200 400 600
Supply (PJ) 800
-1.00
-2.00
2008 7.28
2010 7.09
2015 5.14
2020 4.41
2030 4.04
-3.00
68
Large thermal plant all scenarios in 2030

6.00
5. UK demands
5.00
This supply curve is suitable for
4.00
Dedicated medium and large thermal electricity/CHP plant

Co-firing Commercial and industrial scale heat/CHP
BAU 2030
Cost (/GJ)
3.00
2.00
Central RES 2030 High sustainability 2030

High growth 2030
1.00
0.00 0 200
Scenario BAU
It includes forestry, arboricultural and wood processing residues, energy crops, straw, dry manures, dried sewage sludge and clean waste wood.
These are chipped or
400
Import price /GJ 4.04 4.04 3.69 4.04
600
800
Supply (PJ) 1,000 dried where necessary,

and 50 km UK transport is added for all resources Imported chips, including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown 69
-1.00
-2.00
Central RES High Sustainability
-3.00
High Growth
Domestic heat/CHP BAU over time

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
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
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
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
-6.00
-8.00
72
AD all scenarios in 2030 Supply (PJ)

200 250 300 350
5. UK demands
3.00
BAU 2030
2.00 1.00 0.00 0
Central RES 2030
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cost (/GJ)
-1.00
Supply (PJ)
-2.00
-3.00
BAU 2030 This supply curve is suitable for anaerobic digestion plants.
-4.00 -5.00 -6.00 -7.00
All wet resources are included: wet manures, sewage sludge Central RES 2030 and MSW. Landfill gas is not included High sustainability 2030 Sludge is dewatered 10 km UK transportHighadded 2030wastes and manures, zero is growth for for sludge No imports are included
73
Waste & Fuels BAU over time

6.00
5. UK demands
This supply curve is suitable for Energy from waste plants using thermal technologies
4.00
2.00
Second generation biofuels production: lignocellulosic ethanol and FT biodiesel

Synthetic natural gas via gasification
Cost (/GJ)
Supply (PJ)
0.00 0 -2.00 500 1,000
It includes all resources except wet manures and landfill gas These are chipped, chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport is added for dry resources. 10k transport is added for wastes, manures and sewage sludge Imported chips, including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown
-4.00 BAU 2008 -6.00 BAU 2010 BAU 2015 BAU 2020
-8.00
BAU 2030
Year 2008 7.28 2010 7.09 2015 5.14 2020 4.41 2030 4.04
-10.00
Import price /GJ
74
Waste & Fuels all scenarios in 2030
6.00
5. 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
4.00
2.00
Cost (/GJ)
0.00 0 -2.00 200 400 600 800 1,000
Supply (PJ)
1,200 1,400
It includes all resources except wet manures and landfill gas These are chipped , chopped or dried where necessary 50 km UK transport is added for dry resources. 10k transport is added for wastes, manures and sewage sludge Imported chips, including 50km UK transport are available at the prices shown
-4.00
BAU 2030 Central RES 2030
Scenario BAU Central RES High Sustainability Import price /GJ 4.04 4.04 3.69
-6.00
-8.00
High Growth
4.04
75
5. UK demands
Landfill gas
Landfill gas is given separately from the other resources as there are no other gaseous feedstocks. Anaerobic digestion of other resources to form biogas will entail additional cost.
We have assumed that landfill gas is available at zero cost, and therefore there is no supply curve for this feedstock. The resource is the same in all scenarios
Year Resource (PJ)
2008
61
2010
54
2015
39
2020
29
2030
15
76
Contents
1. Introduction
77
There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at reasonable cost

6. Conclusions
The biomass resource from UK feedstocks could reach around 10% of current UK primary energy demand by 2030, at a cost of less than 5/GJ Nearly half of the resource in each year has a negative cost, as a result of the availability of large quantities of waste materials, which would otherwise require disposal Energy crops make up around 80% of the positive cost resource. Achieving this potential requires a significant ramp up in planting rates
The resource in earlier years is much smaller. For example, the resource in 2020 is around 60% of the 2030 resource. This is partly due to a lower resource potential, but for many feedstocks the resource is significantly limited by the sectors capability to extract or grow the feedstock For each feedstock, we estimated how much of the resource could be extracted now using current capabilities, labour and machinery and considering existing practices This was then ramped up to the full resource, using estimates of how fast each sector could develop. These assumed that each in sector the potential for bioenergy was recognised now, e.g. through an obvious market or policy support, and changed as fast as possible to meet the demand. No specific policy measures or markets were considered
Scenario analysis showed that the key factors affecting biomass resources and costs are
Land availability for energy crops: restriction of the use of pasture land for energy crops to 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios, rather than the 50% used in other scenarios, reduces the energy crop potential by around a half. It is not yet known exactly how the sustainability restrictions on use of grassland included in the RED will be applied, but these could have a large impact on energy crop potential
Energy crop yields: crop development can lead to lower costs (0.5-1/GJ) and higher resources Waste generation and management: increased waste reduction and recycling reduce bioenergy potential
78
6. Conclusions
Imports provide a high cost, but very large resource

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

Before a global commodity market develops, it may be possible to access lower cost feedstocks imported residues at 2-3 /GJ would increase supply while UK energy crop supplies are limited If transport costs are lower than the average transport costs included here through import of more easily accessed resources
79
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 different conversion technologies have different acceptable feedstocks, and pretreatment and transport requirements. Note that the costs for these are higher than in the general curves, as UK transport and processing is added These curves show all of the feedstocks suitable for each demand, rather than making assumptions on how the demands compete with each other Most resources can be used to generate either electricity, heat, or transport fuels, via a range of conversion technologies* However, it is likely that some feedstocks will generally be used in particular types of plant, whereas others are more flexible. As a result, there will be more competition between some feedstocks than others For dry resources that are easy to handle, such as woody residues and energy crops, there will be competition between electricity, CHP and domestic heating, as well as second generation biofuels once their conversion technology is commercialised For wastes, there may be some competition for resources that can be dried and transported, such as sewage sludge, but for wetter resources, use in local waste to energy plants, or biogas plants is more likely
This analysis provides the information needed to model this competition between demands for bioenergy feedstocks
* It should be noted that once biogas or synthetic natural gas is produced, it could be used directly for electricity, heat , CHP or as a transport fuel, or injected into the gas grid
80
Contents
1. Introduction
81
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
Annex A: UK supply
Energy crops - resource

Resource = ((Arable area - Arable constraint) + (Pasture area - Pasture constraint)) x Yield x Availability Arable area: For 2008, set aside and bare fallow/land withdrawn from production. ADAS data for 2007, considered to be a comprehensive study of UK arable land Refuel projections of abandoned arable land in 2030, as a result of increase in food production efficiency, under several scenarios. Refuel projections were used, as they are lower, and based on more detailed modelling than those from the EEA report Linear interpolation between these, as many of the factors causing the change are linear. Arable constraint: No constraint applied in any scenario Pasture area: Refuel projections of abandoned pasture land in 2030. Only one result given (no scenario variation) Land begins to be abandoned from the Refuel base period 2000-2002 Linear interpolation between these points Pasture constraint: applied at 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios only. All planting on pasture assumes to be able to be no-till, and therefore give no land use change emissions Yield: For 2008, value and distribution of energy crop yields across England, on arable and improved grassland from Pepinster (2008), based on spatial models from Southampton University and Rothamsted Research. This assumes the highest yielding of SRC willow, SRC poplar, or miscanthus is planted on each grid square For future years, the same distribution is used, with a yield increase factor which varies by scenario. This is because a direct forecast of future costs was not available, hence a detailed model of the current situation was used to give the spatial yield distribution within the UK, and allow adjustments of costs for future years using yields Availability: planting rates are limited by labour and machinery, and are currently very low. Assumed 1000 ha/year planting in 2009, doubling each year until a maximum of 150 kha/year, based on data from ADAS (2008) and communication with David Turley, CSL 83
Resource
Energy crops cost and results
Annex A: UK supply
Cost
Cost basis: an intermediate approach was taken. Costs are calculated using a land rent (i.e. a price of land that takes into account competing land uses). However, effects on the price of energy crops as a result of competing uses for the product are not considered 2008 cost for each energy crop taken from Alberici (2008), based on a review of literature and industry views on energy crop costs, adjusted to remove subsidies where necessary. This considers the land rent and production cost on each grid square. The costs are given for chopped SRC, and baled miscanthus, at the farm gate. Future cost reduction assumed to be a function of yield increase only, not reduction in management costs Energy crop subsidies were also included for one slide above: Energy crop scheme establishment grants of 1000 /ha for SRC and 800 /ha for miscanthus EU area payments of 30/ha/yr Arable area: from 605 kha in 2008 to 963-1334 kha in 2030 (see next slide) Pasture area: from 290 kha in 2008 to 1200 kha in 2030. Available area reduced considerably by pasture constraint in Central RES and High Sustainability scenarios Yields: yield factor increases from 1 to 1.24 in BAU and Central RES from 2008 to 2030, and from 1 to 1.55 in High Growth and High Sustainability Cost: range from 1.8-4.4/GJ in 2008, decreasing to 2030 (see next slide) Subsidies reduce the costs of energy crops by around 0.6/GJ in 2030 under the BAU scenario, to 1.5-3 /GJ
Results
84
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 Hoogwijks global assumption that lower meat consumption frees up more land 963 Restricted to 10%* 2% p.a. 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.a. 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. increase
1100 Restricted to 10%* 1% p.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, as a proxy for non highly biodiverse land as specified (but not yet defined) in the RED)
85
Annex A: UK supply
Agricultural residues (straw)

Resource = Straw available x Availability Straw available is taken from CSL, 2008. This report considers the UK straw resource from all straw types, assuming a recoverability factor of straw from the field of 60%. It then considers a number of existing uses, including for energy, resulting in a potential of 2-3m tonnes, assuming animal feed requirements are fulfilled by barley straw only. In personal communication with CSL, the resource excluding the energy uses was estimated at 3.3 mt. This is assumed to be composed of the whole oil seed rape straw resource (2.5 mt), as this is not currently collected, with the remainder being wheat straw. Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle straw. Assume able to collect 10% of the resource today, 20% in 2010, 50% in 2015, and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios. This rate is relatively slow, as oil seed rape straw is not currently extracted in large quantities, and is more difficult to handle than wheat and barley straw. Cost basis: As we have excluded straw needed for other uses, no price competition with these is considered Costs of supply are harvesting, baling and handling costs (as baled, at farm gate), and costs of fertiliser to replace nutrients lost, using the method developed by ADAS (2008) Supply curve based on 4 assumptions: No straw is extracted below the cost of harvesting and fertiliser replacement Half of the straw is extracted at below current straw prices 90% of the straw is extracted at below a price = (fertiliser value of straw + extraction costs) x 1.5 [additional 50% to cover value of other nutrients, soil structural benefits, profit margin] Some farmers will never extract straw: 2% 3.3 mt of straw are available (69 PJ) Cost range 37/odt to 84/odt (2.14/GJ to 4.98/GJ) Compares with 3 mt resource in Defra biomass strategy, and central price of 2/GJ
Resource
Cost
Results
86
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, which takes into account biological, environmental and operational factors within managed forests. This McKay GB woodfuel resource study is the only detailed forecast available for managed forests, giving a breakdown into different tree components Stumps, roots and foliage are not considered to be available Only very small changes over time are given in managed residues, however, English FC policy to introduce 1Modt/yr of under-managed forest into management by 2020 will add an additional 128kodt/yr of forestry residues. Pers. comm. with Helen McKay confirmed that this is an additional resource (no double-counting) There are no scenario differences since long growth times of forest set the forecast available resource None of this resource is currently extracted and used, so no competing uses need to be taken into account Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues. Assumed that none can be collected today, 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 for BAU and Central RES (75% for High Growth and High Sustainability), and 100% in 2020 for all scenarios
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: There are no other uses, so a cost basis was used A separate operation is required to collect the resource after tree felling. Costs of supply are forwarding and roadside chipping costs. Data and calculation method comes from the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2004), hence is consistent with the approach used for global resource, but using costs for only a NW Europe country Currently, no forestry residues are available. This rises to a peak at 1.04m odt (19.3 PJ) in 2020 Cost at roadside as chips: 38 /odt (2.3/GJ)
Results
87
Annex A: UK supply
Stemwood
Resource = ( Harvested stemwood Existing uses ) x Availability The Forestry Commissions Softwood Forecast (2005) gives the potential harvested stemwood, with a peak in softwood production in 2020. The hardwood resource is much smaller. English FC policy to introduce 1Modt/yr of under-managed forest into management by 2020 which will add an additional 709kodt/yr of soft and 145kodt of hard stemwood. Pers. comm. with Helen McKay confirmed that this is an additional resource (no double-counting) No scenario differences since long growth times of forest fix the forecast available resource Existing uses For softwood there are several current competing uses. In the future, sawmills expand to take all softwood resource greater than 16cm in diameter. Demand from panel, paper, fencing, exports and others are held at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008). Most of the hardwood is already used for woodfuel (available resource) Availability : 100% is usable now
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: As we have excluded stemwood needed for other uses, price competition with these uses is not considered Costs of harvesting stemwood and extracting logs to roadside: The South West Biomass Bio-Renewables report (2004) gives a range of harvesting costs dependent on technique an average value for soft and hardwood was chosen. Tree felling is cheaper for softwood than hardwood, with no change over time or scenarios Currently, 0.25m odt of stemwood is available as woodfuel (4.5 PJ), peaking in 2020 at 0.94m odt (17.5 PJ) Cost at roadside as logs: 28 /odt (1.50/GJ) for softwood, 60/odt (3.23/GJ) for hardwood
Results
88
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, and hence changes over time, but not scenario Conversion factor: ratio of co-product produced for each tonne of stemwood input = 51%. (Forestry Commission Statistics 2008). This is an up-to-date and detailed data source, allowing calculation of existing uses, conversion factors and form. Furthermore, it enables the incorporation of forecast stemwood input from previous slide, for consistency Existing uses: panelboard industry (currently takes 65% of total co-product), paper, exports and other all held at constant volume (FC Statistics 2008), since increase in demand for panels will be met by the increase in the industrys recycled waste wood uptake Availability : 100% is usable Form: 69% woodchips, 20% sawdust, 11% bark
Cost
Cost basis: As we have excluded sawmill co-product needed for other uses, price competition with these uses is not considered Co-product is a by-product of making sawnwood, and so we have considered it to be free at source Costs of handling and storing co-product onsite 9.9/odt (Saskatchewan Forest Research Centre, consistent with the global costs used) Currently, 0.13m odt available (2.4 PJ), peaking in 2020 at 1.05m odt (19.5 PJ) Cost at sawmill: 9.9 /odt (0.53/GJ)
Results
89
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). This does not change over time, or scenario Existing uses: currently 31% of the arisings have a market, of which half assumed to be woodfuel logs (and therefore available for energy), but the other half is taken by non-energy wood industry uses The un-marketed resource (68% of total, McKay) can be used for energy. This can be blown-back onsite if site constraints allow (18% of total) however, 50% of the total arisings (Land Use Consultants 2007) are collected, transported then landfilled Availability : 100% of the landfilled resource, and 100% of the woodfuel resource is available. None of the blown-back resource is available in 2008, rising to 100% in 2010 Form: 53% stemwood, 23% already chipped, 20% branches, 4% foliage
Cost
Cost basis: As we have excluded marketed non-energy demand for other uses, price competition with these uses is not considered Resource arises from necessary tree surgery activities, and so are considered free at source if blown-back. If due to site constraints, the material has to be collected, transported and disposed of, this resource is available at the avoided landfill cost Costs of supplying the woodfuel and blown-back resource are the costs of transportation back to a depot (onsite collection already carried out), with handling and storage costs Transport costs used are from Suurs (2002), assuming that the whole resource can be transported at the same cost as chips Woodfuel and blown-back resource: 0.08m odt available (1.5 PJ) in 2008, rising to 0.17m odt available (3.2 PJ), cost as logs at depot: 1.2/GJ Landfilled resource: 0.25m odt available (4.6 PJ), at avoided landfill gate fees of -2.26/GJ
Results
90
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), then following population growth afterwards (National Grid). No change with scenario Sludge is considered as a waste that needs treatment, then disposal. Final disposal (e.g. to farmland, land reclamation) is unimportant the treatment process used is where energy can be extracted. Defra Online Statistics give detailed and historical arisings and disposal routes, but no treatment methods 66% of sludge is currently treated via AD (Water UK, 2008), 24% is dried then incinerated, hence 90% of the resource already has energy extracted. The rest (10%) is treated via lime stabilisation, hence is unavailable for energy. Availability: 90% in 2008, rising to 100% in 2010 with changes in treatment
Cost
Cost basis: There are no competing uses for sewage sludge before it is treated. The costs considered are Dewatering before AD 60/odt (Sowa, 1994) The gate fee for alternative sludge treatment - 45/tonne (Strathclyde University). An alternative approach would have been to consider sewage gas as zero cost (e.g. as in Enviros 2005 and National Grid 2008), and combine the resource with the landfill gas resource, however, this would not allow modelling of use of dried sewage sludge in thermal processes Currently, 1.39m odt available (15.2 PJ) rising to 2.03m odt in 2030 (24.6 PJ) Cost of dewatered sludge at WWTW: -68/odt (-6.22/GJ) Defra Biomass Strategy resource figure is only 0.34m odt, due to the assumption that sludge that ends up on farmland or used in reclamation is unavailable. We did not assume this as if sludge is treated via AD, the digestate can still be spread on farmland to supply this requirement
Results
91
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. No change with scenario This ADAS study is the only one available with livestock numbers forecast past 2015, and is highly detailed (many different animal categories) Each animal category has a different excretion rate, manure dry matter content and farm management system. The excretion rate was multiplied by the dry matter content(s) of the slurry and/or farmyard manure to give a manure factor per animal per year (Smith 2000). Occupancy: is the time an animal spends inside (Defra Agricultural Practices Survey), which gives the collectable resource, since excreta outside are uncollectable. Farms outwintering their livestock have negligible occupancy (pers. comm. James Copeland, CSL) Existing uses: Resource from farms that do not store or export slurries / manures (i.e. spread directly to land) is assumed to be unavailable. The remaining dry poultry litter is available for incineration, whereas wet poultry, pig, sheep and cattle slurries and manures are only available for AD (less than 30% Dry Matter) This method above follows the basic method of the Defra Biomass Strategy, but includes all animal categories, outwintering farms, the additional straw within farmyard manure and farms without storage facilities Availability : For litter 18% is currently incinerated, rising to 50% in 2010, and 100% by 2015. For wet manures, 1% is currently used as a feedstock for AD, rising to 10% in 2010, 50% in 2015 and 100% in 2020
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: No competing uses, free at source Assumed that farmers will not pay the AD plant or incinerator to get rid of the resource, but would be likely to spread the AD digestate for its fertiliser value for free (Strathclyde University) 0.265m odt available (4.2 PJ) increasing to 5.8m odt in 2030 (91.9 PJ) Defra Biomass Strategy figure is 3.9m odt, due to counting fewer categories of animals (did not count beef cattle, any breeding stocks, other poultry, sheep)
Results
92
Annex A: UK supply
Waste wood
Resource = (( MSW + C&I + C&D arisings ) ^ Growth rates Recycling ) x Availability Amount of waste wood in MSW, Commercial & Industrial and Construction & Demolition waste streams, from WRAP 2005. Although there is uncertainty regarding Construction & Demolition arisings (the two studies WRAP 2005 use gave 2mt and 8mt), WRAP 2005 is still the latest collection of surveys with a breakdown by sector, allowing different growth rates to be applied to calculate total arisings Growth rates of arisings are 0.75% for MSW, 1.18% for other sectors (Defra Waste Strategy). These each decrease by 0.75% in the High Sustainability scenario, and increase by 0.25% in the High Growth scenario Competing uses: use by the wood panel industry currently accounts for 1.2mt, rising to 2.2mt by 2010 (WRAP 2008). This is increased under the High Scenarios to 2.6mt Availability : Currently, 15% is separable for energy recovery, increasing to 100% by 2020 in BAU and Central RES, or by 2015 in High Sustainability and High Growth
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: Waste, so free at source and as we have excluded non-energy disposal routes/recycling, price competition with these routes is not considered Costs are the avoided landfill gate fee for contaminated wood, gate fee of 8 /t for reprocessing for clean wood Currently, 1.1m odt are available (19 PJ) increasing to 8.4m odt in 2030 (149 PJ) under BAU because of arisings growth and a cap on amount of recycled wood that the panelboard industry can accept Cost -26/odt (-1.4/GJ) for contaminated waste wood, and -10/odt (-0.6/GJ) for clean waste wood The Defra Biomass Strategy availability figure is much larger at 5.56m odt (equivalent to 7mt), because no restriction on separability is assumed.
Results
93
Annex A: UK supply
Wastes
Resource = (( MSW + C&I arisings ) ^ Growth rates Recycling ) x Availability The amount of paper/card, food/kitchen, garden/plant, textiles arising in MSW, Commercial and Industrial waste streams, was taken from ERM Golder 2006. This is the most comprehensive study available of UK wastes by sector, composition, and recycling/composing/AD/disposal routes, allowing growth rates to be used to forecast each waste arisings Growth rates of arisings are 0.75% for MSW, 2.68% for Commercial, -0.72% for Industrial (Defra Waste Strategy). These each decrease by 0.75% in High Sustainability scenario, and increase by 0.25% in the High Growth scenario Recycling: Waste that is recycled is excluded, as this is a competing use. Recycling increases for paper/card and textiles by 2.7mt and 0.3mt respectively by 2020 (WRAP, 2007). In the High Growth scenario additional recycling is assumed, taking the same proportion of the arisings. Waste going to AD and composting is considered to be available for energy Availability: Current separability is 48% for paper/card and 19% for textiles (all recycled), 17% for food/kitchen and 26% for garden/plant (for AD/composting). This is assumed to increase by 2%/yr above recycling and composting rates under BAU and Central RES, and 4%/yr under High scenarios, until a 90% maximum is reached, based on international experience (ERM Golder)
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: Waste, so free at source and as we have excluded non-energy uses (i.e. recycling), price competition with these routes is not considered Costs are avoided landfill gate fees Currently, 1.2mt paper/card, 3.0mt food/kitchen, 3.7mt garden/plant, and 0.06mt of textiles available (13, 10, 16, 1 PJ respectively) Costs range from -1.5/GJ to -6/GJ Defra Biomass Strategy gives: 3.3mt for paper/card, 10m t food/kitchen and 3m t garden/plant. This assumes a 90% separability now, and subtracts future recycling and composting from the current resource
Results
94
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. If they are used for energy, they will not be landfilled, and so will not contribute to future LFG generation. As a simplification, we have assumed no new waste is landfilled from 2008. This is a conservative estimate (see below) Current LFG production used for energy is taken from DUKES 2008. Gas production from existing landfill follows an exponential decay with a half-life of 11 years (Enviros), This assumes that no new gas capture is installed on existing sites, and that no sites currently flaring gas switch to energy production These are conservative assumptions as modelling landfill production under different scenarios would be complex: Any biodegradable wastes expected to be landfilled have been counted as available resource in other categories, if separable. Hence, in this category (to avoid double counting) any separable waste must be counted as unavailable In reality, not all wastes are separable now, and so some will be land filled, and contribute over time to landfill gas production However, forecasting landfill gas production would require knowledge of the amount, composition and decay characteristics of each type of waste. It could be assumed that the total amount of waste landfilled stays constant, giving constant landfill gas production over time, or alternatively, if all landfills close, there will be an exponential decay. The reality will be somewhere in-between
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: Zero cost resource, as the resource considered is already collected and used Currently, 63 PJ of landfill gas is available for electricity and heat (current usage), falling to 15 PJ in 2030
Results
95
Annex A: UK supply
People consulted on UK data

Alan Corson, FE (forestry costs) Geoff Hogan, FC (general forestry) Justin Gilbert, FC Stats (forest residue forecasts) Patrick Mahon, WRAP (recycling)
Daniel Dipper, Defra (wastes)

Helen McKay, FC Stats (forestry) Bruce Horton, Water UK (sewage sludge) David Turley, Central Science Lab (manures, straw, energy crops) James Copeland, Central Science Lab (manures) Melville Haggard, Defra (waste wood) Sheila Ward, FC (sawmills) John Kilpatrick, ADAS (straw and energy crops) Ian Tubby, Biomass Energy Centre (energy crops)
96
Annex B: Global supply
Annex B: Global supply data

Wood Processing Residues: clean co-products from sawmills, panelboard and pulp industries Forestry Residues: residues produced from conventional logging and thinning operations
1st Generation Biofuels

Surplus Forest Wood Energy Crops Algae
97
Wood Processing Residues

Resource = ((Wood product manufacture x Residue factor) - Competing Uses ) x Availability Wood product manufacture: Residue generation is directly proportional to wood product manufacture. Available projections were poor predictors of current demand (FAO Global Forest Product Outlook, out of date), and no other reliable, long-term projections for supply and demand of forest products were available. As a result, the recent trend in global per capita wood product demand (FAOSTAT and UN population data) was used . The High Growth scenario assumed High population growth. All other scenarios assume Medium growth (UN projections) Residue factors: from academic literature (Parikka, 2002) Competing uses: from the pulp and panel industry. Pulp and panel production follows the recent trend in per capita demand. Demand for residues is a constant fraction of pulp and panel production (coefficients derived from UNECE-FAO Joint Wood Energy Enquiry). Currently, the pulp and panel sector uses around 60% of total global residues supply as material input Availability: 100% of the remaining resource is available Form: 25% chips, 24% bark, 24% slabs/edgings, 20% sawdust, 3% shavings, 4% other
Resource
Cost
Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource, and so the cost of the resource is considered. Cost of residues at sawmill 7/ odt taken from Saskatchewan Forest Centre report on economics of pellet production Available resource under BAU: 113M odt (2.1 EJ), rising to 172M odt (3.2 EJ) in 2030 Cost of various residue forms onsite: 0.38/GJ
Results
98
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). Roundwood obtained from non-forest areas is excluded (e.g. urban areas and non managed woodland) since this would not be derived from conventional logging activities Sustainable Residue Harvest Ratio This is the ratio of residues to stemwood that can be removed sustainably (i.e. avoiding nutrient depletion). Residues are tops, branches and undergrowth. In the High Growth scenario, the Harvest Ratio is 0.2-0.3, which assumes that the forest is fertilised manually: e.g. through ash recycling. Otherwise, values of 0.1-0.15 are used (Ericsson & Nielsen) Availability: additional labour and machinery will be needed to extract and handle forest residues. Currently, around 7% of the total residues, which is equivalent to 56% of the sustainable harvest (or 28% in High Growth), are extracted. We assumed that this increases to 100% by 2020 in each scenario Cost basis: The resource requirements for the competing uses have been subtracted from the resource, and so the cost of the resource is considered Capital and labour cost of forwarding, roadside chipping and management (Finnish Forest Research Institute (2004)). The same calculations are used in REFUEL and reports by the JRC. Distinction between labour costs in developed and developing world. Costs: Developing countries 1.39/GJ, developed countries 2.15/GJ 1.7EJ current availability, rising to 3.86 EJ in 2030 under BAU, Central RES and High Sustainability 8.3 EJ in 2030 in High Growth Scenario Over 50% of the global potential is located in Europe and North America
Resource
Cost
Results
99
Surplus Forest Wood (not included)

This resource was defined as wood not required for competing demands, that comes from sustainable sources: Sustainable sources defined as: Wood from plantation forests OR Wood from forest that is a) not undisturbed b) classed as available for wood supply c) growing commercial wood species (all classifications are FAO terminology) Resource However: At a global level, supply of wood from plantations + commercial disturbed forest + commercial undisturbed forest is insufficient to meet roundwood demand projections This suggests a significant presence of illegal wood in the global timber supply (for which there is anecdotal evidence) Therefore, biomass supply from surplus forest wood is excluded
100
First generation biofuels - demand

First generation (1G) biofuel feedstocks cannot be plotted on the same supply curve as other feedstocks, as they have specific conversion routes to fuels, and so are considered separately here. They are also used to reduce the land area available for energy crops globally For feedstocks (sugar, starch and oils) for first generation biofuels, the volume used for biofuels and price depend strongly on global food and biofuels demand. In theory, 1G biofuels could draw feedstock from the food market to supply demand at any level Therefore for first generation biofuels, we have looked at projections of volume demanded and market price.
2.5
1G biofuel demand is given by the global demand analysis. It flattens or decreases after 2015 as 2G biofuels begin to be used
Demand (EJ)
1.5
BAU Central RES
High Sustainability High Growth
0.5
0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
101
First generation biofuels - prices

The price of 1G biofuels will depend heavily on global commodity prices for sugar and starch crops, and vegetable oils
As an indication, the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008 projects prices to 2017. When these are
2008 Bioethanol (USD/hl) Biodiesel (USD/hl) Bioethanol (/GJ, deflated to 2008) 53.00 98.55 12.85 16.45 2010 53.96 105.78 12.63 17.04 2015 52.69 106.31 12.10 16.81 2017 51.35 105.49 10.73 15.17
Biodiesel (/GJ, deflated to 2008)
It is likely that in a High Growth scenario, these prices would be higher than the central projections, as a result of increased food demand, despite the drop in 1G biofuels demand
102
Energy Crops - resource

Data is based on a global analysis from Hoogwijk (2008), which: considers the potential from woody energy crops (e.g. willow, poplar, eucalyptus), with the variety depending on suitability gives the theoretical potential in 2050 for 4 IPCC-derived scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2), of which 2 are used as a basis for our scenarios (A1 and B1) see following slides global economic potential (at production cost of up $5/GJ) in 2050 for the 4 scenarios considers two main types of Available Area abandoned agricultural land released as agricultural technology and food demand changes. non-agricultural land extensive grassland, and abandoned pasture, excluding nature reserves. We then estimated the potential resource to 2030 by: backcasting Hoogwijks available area and productivity from 2050 to 1995 to give a 1995 potential forecasting to 2030, using available abandoned agricultural area projections from Hoogwijk, modified to remove land needed for 1G biofuels, and to remove extra land needed for food in the High Growth scenario. Under High Growth scenario, global food demand is ramped up to an extra 7.2% by 2030 (UN High instead of Medium Variant population forecast). This requires an extra 410Mha of agricultural land to meet the larger demand, hence much less land released compared with Hoogwijk A1 scenario a proportion of the (constant) non-agricultural land area: 50% in BAU and High Growth, and 10% in Central RES and High Sustainability, based on Hoogwijks assumptions. management factors adapted from Hoogwijk to reflect our scenarios In any given grid square: yield = theoretical yield per grid square * Management Factor Management factors increase over time from 0.84 in 2008, up to a maximum of 1.3 in 2030 under BAU and Central RES, and from 0.86 in 2008 up to a maximum of 1.5 in 2030 under High Growth and High Sustainability (representing increased technological development) 103
Resource
Energy Crops planting rates and costs
Planting
We assume that in a given year the area planted is a proportion of the whole supply curve, not that the best land is planted first. However, because the entire supply curve considered consists only of economically viable land, and this land is distributed worldwide, this assumption is more reasonable than assuming that the very cheapest land is used first We also assume that abandoned agricultural land is always planted before any non-agricultural land, due to similarity to existing practices, even though the non-agricultural land may have comparable production costs. The driver to plant on these different land types may depend on the definition of idle and marginal land under the RED sustainability criteria designed to avoid indirect land use change. A global planting rate was estimated by scaling up the UK planting rate in proportion to the relative arable areas. The 13Mha currently planted increases by 0.32Mha in 2009, with the rate then doubling each year until 2017 when the maximum planting rate of 48Mha/yr is reached (48Mha is 3% of current global arable area). Including these planting rates results in the energy crop potential being limited even in 2030 in all scenarios
Production costs are also based on Hoogwijk, who uses the following equation: Cost (/GJ) = (Land cost + (Management costs * cost reduction factor)) yield Cost is lower on grid squares with higher yield Cost varies over time with changing cost reduction factor, reflecting increased productivity of labour and capital, therefore less inputs needed per GJ. Note that this is different from the UK assumption, where cost reduces with yield only, as management is not projected to increase Hoogwijk gives supply curves for areas able to produce energy crops at <$5/GJ in 2050. This amounts to around 80% of the potential from Abandoned Agricultural land and 45% from Nonagricultural land We assumed that the distribution of costs across the resource would be the same in intervening years, and therefore derived a new supply curve using our resource and costs data.
Cost
104
Energy Crops Hoogwijk scenarios
105
Energy Crops choice of Hoogwijk scenarios

Basis of Hoogwijk scenarios
Hoogwijk uses the IPCC SRES scenarios. These offer alternative versions of how the future might unfold The 4 scenarios vary according to the degree of global integration and social/ environmental concerns Our High Sustainability scenario is environmental focused hence B1 is the best match available, and our High Growth scenario is economically focused hence A1 is the best match available In all our scenarios, trade is no more constrained than under current conditions, whereas in A2 and B2 trade is low. Furthermore, UN projects a low-high population range of 7.8-10.8 billion in 2050, hence it is felt that A2 and B2 population projections are unrealistically high Therefore, we discount A2 and B2 as usable scenarios, and choose to adjust the management factors behind the A1 scenario to account for less technology development in our BAU and Central RES scenarios (compared with High Growth) However, B1 as given only has average technology development, therefore for High Sustainability to include higher technology development, we adjust the management factors up to be in line with those of A1/High Growth The main advantage of Hoogwijk's approach is that it allows us to make short-term and long-term projections of energy crop potential using the same methodology. This is possible because: Global agricultural land requirements are calculated by the IMAGE model for every year 1995-2100
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, making it difficult to relate results to different scenarios. Few global studies are temporally-explicit, making it difficult to draw a path from the present to the long-term potential, whereas the more detailed studies, such as REFUEL, are not global
106
Energy Crops scenario variation

BAU A1 Global-Economic Orientation Hoogwijks Scenario High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth 8.3 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 8.3 billion in 2030 None already in B1 scenario above
High Growth A1 Global-Economic Orientation High Meat Demand Intensive Agriculture Medium Population Growth 8.3 billion in 2030 Agricultural area factored up according to UN high population projection 8.9 billion in 2030 Annual growth: 1.6% Maximum: 1.5 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Non-agricultural Land
Adjusted food demand
None
None
Adjusted Management Factor
Annual growth: 1.4% Maximum: 1.3 Abandoned Arable (Less 1G biofuel land) + 50% of Non-agricultural Land
Land types possible
BAU Central RES High Sus High Growth
2008 1,491 489 476 1,478
Global available area (Mha) 2010 2015 2020 1,501 1,585 1,636 499 582 628 491 565 665 1,479 1,533 1,556
2030 1,842 834 854 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
Energy Crops geographical distribution
Distribution of energy crops
Economic potential refers to biomass covered by our supply curves. It corresponds to biomass available in the Hoogwijk study for $5/GJ in 2050, equivalent to 74% of the total potential. With our planting assumptions, this distribution will be the same in 2030 19% of this economic potential is located in the former USSR, 17% in South America, 16% in Africa and 15% in East Asia The cheapest biomass (<$1/GJ in 2050) accounts for 3.4% of the economic potential (or 5.6% in B1). This is almost entirely located in Western and Eastern Africa where relative labour costs are extremely low The next most expensive bracket of biomass (<$2/GJ in 2050) accounts for 60% of the economic potential. 53% of this is located in Africa and former USSR (these percentages are 79% and 39% respectively in B1) The B1 scenario has a very similar distribution (other than specific percentages given above)
17%
24% Europe & Former USSR Africa
14%
Asia
Oceania North & Central America 16% South America
8%
21%
108
Algae
We briefly considered the costs and potential of energy production from algae, based on the best available, and consistent data. However, as the costs projected were very high, we did not consider this resource further
Resource = Projected number of plants x Plant size x Yield The algal resource is unlikely to be limited by available global surface area, or by water requirements, given that there is development of algae grown in sea water Projected number of plants: Based on analysis by E4tech for the Carbon Trust High Growth and High Sustainability: Assume first commercial scale plant is built in 2017, and the number of plants doubles every year for first ten years, thereafter sustained growth rate of 50% per year BAU and Central RES: assume half the number of plants in 2020 compared with above, and then growth rate of 50% per year Plant size: kept constant at 1000 ha Yield: the total yield of algal biomass is kept constant at 60 odt/ha/yr, but the oil proportion increased: High Growth and High Sustainability: 30% oil content by 2020, 42% by 2030 BAU and Central RES: 30% oil content by 2020, 35% by 2030
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, quoting Benemann and Oswald (1996). No reduction over time, as any capital cost reduction is likely to be offset by increase in nutrients needed to achieve increased productivities Cost of oil reduces over time, as a result of increased yield Resource: total algal biomass is 6PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES, 12 PJ under High Growth and High Sustainability. Increase to 434 PJ in 2020 under BAU and Central RES, 4334 PJ under High Growth and High Sustainability. Initial cost estimates are very high , at 14/GJ for algal biomass in 2030
Results
109
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
BAU
Biomass and waste demand
IEA World Energy Outlook 2008 (WEO 2008) gives the primary energy demand for biomass and waste to 2030(including wood, MSW, biogas, landfill gas, and all other biomass & wastes) in categories: electricity, industrial and other (residential, services etc), and regions: US, EU and ROW. This includes demand for traditional biomass, which we have removed by subtracting the Other category in ROW, assumed to be largely traditional use. It also gives the biofuels (NOT primary energy) demand for transport
It is difficult to estimate how much of this demand is from the resources we are considering i.e. energy crops and forestry industry residues (collectively termed woody biomass) The predicted total woody biomass demand is 6.6 EJ in 2008, rising to 15.2EJ in 2030, based on the following assumptions: Transport: Very little woody biomass demand for transport until 2020 (WEO 2008 assumption). We assume slow growth from 2020 to 2030. The US 2G proportion is estimated based on the 2G proportion of Renewable Fuel Standard targets, but reduced as these are not expected to be met (5% of biofuels are lignocellulosic in 2015; 25% in 2020; 50% in 2030). For the EU and ROW, we assumed that the 2G proportion is half that in the US, as the US is likely to lead. For US and ROW, we assume 50% of this will be from woody biomass in 2020; 70% in 2030. This is a conservative assumption, as agricultural residues (e.g. corn stover) will be an important feedstock at first. For the EU, 70% is used throughout. Electricity: biomass electricity generated from Wood and derived fuels (Black liquor, and wood/woodwaste solids and liquids) was 70% in the US in 2006 [EIA, 2008]. Of this, 64% is woody biomass (based on global statistics for the proportion of black liquor in wood derived fuels, from IPCC 2007). For the EU, 50% is from wood and wood waste (all non MSW solid biomass) [Eurostat 2008], of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC, 2007). These were kept constant to 2030, and US figures used for ROW. Industry: US demand is 75% from wood and wood derived fuels [EIA, 2008], of which 64% is assumed to be woody biomass (as above). For the EU, 98% is from wood and wood waste (all non MSW solid biomass) [Eurostat 2008], of which 62% is woody biomass (IPCC, 2007). These %s are assumed to remain constant to 2030, and US figures used for ROW. . Other: the US and EU Other category, comprising residential, services, agricultural, non-specified sectors, is assumed to be 30% woody biomass (E4tech estimate, based on the range of data seen)
Proportion of this from woody biomass
111
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.e. Based on WEO 2008), except for EU sectors, which change due to implementation of the RED: The RED sets targets for transport energy, and for total energy demand (including heat and electricity), with no defined split between them. We assume most of the Industry and Other sector biomass and waste demand is for heat, and therefore consolidate them into a single Heat sector Transport: 5% of total transport energy to be from renewables by 2015. Of this, the RED sets targets for 20% from specific renewable fuels (2G biofuels, electricity or H2) by 2015; and 40% by 2020. Of this, we assume 100% is met by 2G biofuels in 2015; 95% in 2020. The 2020 values remain constant to 2030. Electricity: 34% of electricity is assumed to be renewable by 2030, (EC estimate), with a linear ramp up from the current 16%. 15% of this renewable generation is from solid biomass (excluding biowaste and biogas) in both 2010 and 2020 (EC renewable Energy Roadmap 2006, assumed constant to 2030). Heat: the EU Renewable Energy Roadmap (2006) estimates the biomass contribution to EU heat demands till 2020. Assume 2020 value constant to 2030. Same woody biomass % as BAU for USA and ROW for all sectors For EU Assume 70% of 2G biofuels are from woody biomass 62% of solid non-waste biomass for electricity and 58% of biomass for heat is from woody biomass. [E4tech estimates based on IPCC 2007] This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6EJ in 2008, rising to 16.4EJ in 2030
112
High Growth
We assume that by 2030, the demand for energy (and by extension, biomass and waste) is 12.5% higher than in the Central RES scenario. This is based on IPCC scenarios (IPCC SRES v1.1, 2001), which show that Final energy demand in 2030 in A1 AIM is 669 EJ Final energy demand in 2030 in B1 IMAGE is 523 EJ Since our BAU and Central RES scenarios are designed as intermediate scenarios, their final energy demand is taken as the midpoint at 596 EJ. Therefore the final energy demand in our High Growth scenario is increased by 12.2% from BAU All assumptions are the same as for central RES except for transport, where high technology development leads to In the US the share of 2G biofuels in total biofuels is increased to 10% of biofuels in 2015; 40% in 2020; and 60% in 2030. The ROW is assumed to be the same as the US EU targets remain the same as in Central RES (20% of renewable fuels are 2G biofuels in 2015, 39% in 2020). However, we have assumed that in 2030, 60% of renewable fuels are 2G, electricity or H2, and of this, 80% are 2G biofuels (i.e. 55% 2G biofuels in renewable fuels overall). We had originally planned to consider that the RES was not extended and so 2030 production remained at 2020 levels, however, this would not be realistic given the level of technology development in 2G biofuels seen worldwide This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6 EJ in 2008 and 20.3 EJ in 2030
113
High Sustainability
Biomass and waste demand Proportion of this from woody biomass We assume that by 2030, the demand for energy (and by extension, biomass and waste) is 12.5% lower than in the Central RES scenario. This is based on IPCC data, as before. All assumptions are the same as for central RES except for Extension of the RED to 2030 on a constant % basis for electricity and heat although this has little effect as EU energy demand grows very little in this time Transport, where high technology development is considered as in the High Growth scenario This gives a total woody biomass demand of 6.6 EJ in 2008 and 16.4EJ in 2030
114
Annex 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
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, 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, forestry residues at the nearest roadside, whereas energy crop costs already include 50km road transport to a centralised point We then added an estimated average transport distance for global woody biomass resources, as set out below. In reality, many resources would be used close to the source of production, and many transported much further. After any necessary processing, each resource is transported a distance of 200km by road in the country of origin. Costs from Suurs (2002) include loading, transport, unloading and return journey: chips 5p/odt/km, pellets 4.7p/odt/km Costs for sea transport are then added for a distance of 1500km. Suurs (2002) gives 0.6p/odt/km for pellets, 1.2p/odt/km for chips. Costs include two port costs, loading and unloading costs and one-way transport (i.e. non-dedicated vessel), for an indicative international sea transport distance of 1500km.
Processing
International transport
116
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 2.35/odt (Gigler 1999) 13.7t/hr plant 12.5/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, from Sowa (1994)
Pellets -
UK Energy crops are SRC willow and poplar, in the form of chips (78%), and miscanthus, in the form of bales (22%). Weighted average transport and processing costs are therefore used
117
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
11.173 4.907 3.272
Variable /odt/km 0.034 0.101 0.065 0.081 0.293 0.090 0.060
Reference Suurs 2002, adjusted for inflation. Includes fixed and variable costs for 50km out and 50km return journey
Biocap Uofaweb model 2005, exchanged and adjusted for inflation.
118
Scenarios summary
BAU
UK power, heat and fuels policy
1. Introduction
Central RES 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 -12.5% Reduced expansion
High Growth To meet 2020 RED. Constant generation level after

RED + Increased 2G biofuels targets globally Increased projection IEA BAU projections +12.5% Increased expansion
Existing as in White Paper, 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
Restricted
Restricted
Growth rates reduced by 0.75%
Central
Growth rates increased by 0.25%
Current trend
Current trend
Mid
Mid
High
High
119

Biomass Supply Curves For The UK E4tech 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Supply Curves For The UK E4tech 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass supply curves for the UK

Summary For DECC

Scope and aims

Relationship between key parts of the analysis

Global supply curve Scenarios 1 3 Global demand levels

From Waste Water Treatment Works

Others considered in the annex only, not included in supply curves

Deriving supply curves

minus competing demands for the resource

Introduction to biomass supply curves

Positive cost feedstocks

Supply curve for all feedstocks - BAU scenario over time

BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015

BAU 2020 BAU 2030

0.0 0 200 400 600 800

The potential bioenergy resource is large

BAU scenario in 2030, broken down by feedstock type

BAU 2030 Energy crops BAU 2030 Forestry

BAU 2030 Agricultural

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

0.0 0 200 400 -1.0

0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Supply curve for all feedstocks - all scenarios in 2030

Deriving import price from global supply and demand - BAU

BAU Global supply curves

BAU 2020 BAU 2030

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

2030 import price 3.48 /GJ

BAU 2008 BAU 2010 BAU 2015

BAU 2020 BAU 2030

0.0 0 200 400 600 800

Supply curves under different scenarios differ considerably in 2030...

High sustainability 2030 High growth 2030

more abandoned agricultural land

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

...but lead to a similar (and high) import price

Building appropriate supply curves for different demands

Need for wet or dry feedstocks

Gas engines, turbines

Landfill gas only No imports No treatment or transport

Example: Large thermal plant BAU over time

BAU Scenario: UK supply cost curve

3.00 BAU 2008 2.00 BAU 2010

BAU 2020 BAU 2030

0.00 0 200 400 600

Supply (PJ) 800

Year Import price /GJ

There is a significant potential from UK feedstocks at reasonable cost

Waste generation and management

Full slide pack