Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Feasibility:
Data quality is only Medium, as EU and Global figures had to be
split out from total waste arisings (i.e. excluding C&I wastes). UK
figures based on addition of different stream volumes.
Moisture = 50% (garden) up to 70 % (food)
Density = 0.50 g/cm3
Energy content = 6.3 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 22 22 68 68
EU 189 147 591 460
Global 861 1,039 2,694 3,253
Definition: Separated household waste subject to recycling targets (paper, metal, plastic and glass) is
currently considered within this category, although may be split out or excluded. Food waste
and green waste (i.e. garden waste) are likely to remain within the definition in all cases, as
might biodegradable plastics and non-separated card and paper (mixed streams).
Basic Information:
Locations: Population centres.
Land used: None, defined as a waste.
Supply chain steps:
1 Collection
2 Transport to processing plant
3 Separation & pre-treatment
4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
5 Conversion to biofuel
6 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Toxicity.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and biomethane
upgrading of UK wastes (either for grid injection or pipeline
distribution to dedicated customer).
Bio-fraction of municipal solid waste
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 17 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via AD (based on RED typical value) - this equates to an 80% GHG
saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input
electricity to the AD plant and upgrading/compression.
Competing uses
The key waste treatment pathways identified on a volume basis
are landfill, recycling, composting and incineration.
Alternative resources
It is not necessary to consider substitute materials for disposal of
waste to landfill. Where the Waste Hierarchy is applied, materials
of sufficient quality should continue to be recycled where it is
feasible to do so, such that existing capacity is not impacted.
Deviation is allowed if environmentally beneficial, e.g. AD of food
wastes instead of composting (PAS110 certified digestate is a
recyclate, and would meet same fertiliser demands). Coal or
natural gas may be substituted in the heat & power sectors.
Indirect impacts
The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is
assessed as low when diverting material from landfill (likely to be
large benefits). Enforcing the Waste Hierarchy and only allowing
diversion when environmental benefits can be shown will limit
indirect impacts from diverting recycling – fossil fertiliser needs to
be avoided. Increased use of natural gas or coal would have fossil
GHG emissions.
Economics:
Market value = £-41/t (ranging from -46 up to -24, based on UK
prices / WRAP gate fees, i.e. including impact of landfill taxes).
Converting these using their biogas energy potential (not
combustion LHV) gives -£6.5/GJ feedstock. Assumes that
digestate also has zero price. This will be location dependent,
based on local nitrogen loadings.
Whilst there are several competing uses (e.g. composting,
incineration for heat & power), large amounts go to landfill that
could be accessed. Much of the resource is tied up in long-term
contracts (e.g. local authorities); hence impact on market price of
being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Medium.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = -13.1
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (feedstock price based
on AD gate fee, i.e. already delivered)
• Biofuel conversion = 27.8 (inc. waste handling)
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £18/GJ biomethane for selected
route based on UK MSW.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be
approximately £120/tCO2e, based on the negative feedstock cost
but high conversion costs.
Framework criteria summary:
As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but large volumes go to landfill that could safely be
diverted. Biomethane from MSW has good GHG savings, but despite landfill taxes, is more costly than natural gas. Further policy support
for diversion into biofuels is likely justified in the majority of cases.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/lq
psy
zl
Definition:
This category may encompass a range of waste streams. An indicative, non-exhaustive list includes:
waste paper, cardboard, wood, food waste occurring at the production stage (though some of this,
such as animal fats falls under another category) and also retail stages.
Feasibility:
Data quality is only Medium, as EU and Global figures had to be
split out from total waste arisings (i.e. excluding MSW). UK figures
based on addition of different stream volumes.
Moisture = 10% (paper, wood) up to 60 % (food)
Density = 0.50 g/cm3
Energy content = 7.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 25 25 85 87
EU 133 104 460 359
Global 560 690 1,941 2,390
Bio-fraction of commercial & industrial waste
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 17 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via AD (based on proxy RED typical value for MSW) - this equates
to an 80% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity
of the input electricity to the AD plant and
upgrading/compression.
Competing uses
The key waste treatment pathways identified on the basis of
volumes treated are recycling and landfill. Small volumes are
treated by incineration.
Alternative resources
It is not necessary to consider substitute materials for disposal of
waste to landfill. Where the Waste Hierarchy is applied, materials
of sufficient quality should continue to be recycled where it is
feasible to do so, such that existing capacity is not impacted. Coal
or natural gas might be substituted if waste is diverted from
generating heat & power.
Indirect impacts
The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is
assessed as low when diverting material from landfill (likely to be
large benefits). Enforcing the Waste Hierarchy and only allowing
diversion when environmental benefits can be shown will limit
indirect impacts from diverting recycling. Increased use of natural
gas or coal would have fossil GHG emissions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Population centres and manufacturing facilities.
Land used: None, defined as a waste.
Supply chain steps:
1 Collection
2 Transport to processing plant
3 Separation & pre-treatment
4 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
5 Conversion to biofuel
6 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Toxicity.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and biomethane
upgrading of UK wastes (either for grid injection or pipeline
distribution to dedicated customer).
Economics:
Market value = £-41/t (ranging from -46 up to -10, based on UK
prices / WRAP gate fees, i.e. including impact of landfill taxes).
Converting these using their biogas energy potential (not
combustion LHV) gives -£5.9/GJ feedstock. Assumes that
digestate also has zero price. This will be location dependent,
based on local nitrogen loadings.
Whilst there are several competing uses (e.g. incineration for
heat & power), large amounts go to landfill that could be
accessed. Much of the resource is tied up in long-term contracts
(e.g. local authorities); hence impact on market price of being
diverted to biofuels is judged to be Medium.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = -11.8
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (feedstock price based
on AD gate fee, i.e. already delivered)
• Biofuel conversion = 27.8 (inc. waste handling)
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £19/GJ biomethane for selected
route based on UK industrial wastes.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be
approximately £138/tCO2e, based on the negative feedstock cost
but high conversion costs.
Framework criteria summary:
As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but large volumes go to landfill that could safely be
diverted. Biomethane from C&I wastes has good GHG savings, but despite landfill taxes, is more costly than natural gas. Further policy
support for diversion into biofuels is likely justified in the majority of cases.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
LC ethanol (based on RED typical value) for EU straw – this
equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia
& lime inputs to conversion step, and location of enzyme
production. For US corn stover, GHGs = 16 gCO2e/MJ (81%
saving), due to increased transport distance.
Competing uses
The greatest use is in the livestock sector, for animal bedding and
fodder. Smaller markets include heat & power, horticulture,
mushroom production, and frost protection. Large amounts of
straw are left on field or incorporated into the soil (as fertiliser),
but only a small amount extractible sustainably.
Alternative resources
Other animal bedding materials include wood chips, saw dust &
shavings, sand, paper crumb and Miscanthus. New hay/silage
may have to be grown to meet animal fodder demands.
Indirect impacts
Potential negative environmental impacts of straw removal relate
to soil & water quality (mitigated by limiting removal rates).
Social impacts are unlikely. Overall, the likelihood of negative
impacts is assessed as Medium, since there are opportunities to
sustainably increase extraction of forest residues (for bedding).
Economics:
Market value of UK straw = £63/t (ranging from 48 to 75
dependent on location and season), or £4.2/GJ feedstock.
US corn stover = £39/t (average farmer willingness to collect), or
£2.8/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Medium-High risk; since the resource is capped, and there are
already large competing uses (bedding, fodder, heat & power,
horticulture) for this thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 11.1 (UK), 7.4 (US)
• Transport to biofuel plant = 2.1 (UK), 1.2 (US)
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 3.5 (UK), 12.6 (US, inc. tariff)
Total biofuel production cost = £26/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on UK straw, and £31/GJ LC ethanol for US corn
stover (including import tariffs).
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£104/tCO2e, based on the UK production costs and high GHG
savings, or £178/tCO2e, based on the higher costs and GHG
emissions for US corn stover ethanol to reach the EU.
Framework criteria summary:
As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium-High, with limited additional resource available for
sustainable extraction. LC ethanol from straw has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy support for
diversion into biofuels is justified only for regions with additional sustainable resource, or if sustainable bedding alternatives are found.
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, based on cereal and oilseed crop production
residue ratios. Globally, feedstock volumes are expected to
continue to increase in the long-term, as food demands increase,
although EU volumes might peak in 2020.
Moisture = 15%
Density = 0.14 g/cm3
Energy content = 15.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 7.4 – 11 7.4 – 11 52 52
EU 72 155 405 870
Global 885 934 4,963 5,240
UK range given due to conflicting opinions over sustainable extractable fractions
(HGCA 60%, Ecofys /JRC 40%). For biofuel production values, we take the average
Definition: Straw refers to the dry stalks of crops that remain following the
removal of the grain and chaff during the harvesting process and
can encompass cereal straw (e.g. from wheat, barley, rye, oats),
maize stover (but not cobs), oilseed rape straw, rice straw.
Straw
Basic Information:
Locations: Arable farmland following crop distribution patterns
Land used: Cereal and oilseed crops are typically grown on prime
agricultural land. Straw is not land-using, but is classified as an
agricultural residue (hence need to meet RED land criteria).
Supply chain steps:
1 Bailing and collection from field
2 Transport to biofuel plant
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Low density.
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from UK straw.
Lignocellulosic ethanol from US corn stover (maize straw) was
also modelled
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/lcn
kxr
5
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/lw
9v
8ta
Feasibility:
Data quality is high for all regions. Feedstock volumes are
expected to increase slowly over time, in line with livestock
production responses to population and diet. Feedstock
characteristics based on wet manure, as this dominates.
Moisture = 90% for wet slurries, down to 35% for chicken litter
Density = 0.99 g/cm3
for wet slurries
Energy content = 1.3 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield) for wet slurries
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 68 68 43 43
EU 1,521 1,340 969 853
Global 16,202 18,866 10,320 12,016
Definition: Animal manure includes liquid manure and slurry as well as solid manure and dung, produced from cows,
horses, pigs, chickens, sheep and other animals, birds and pets. Solid manures and dungs often contain a
high proportion of straw, given its use in animal bedding.
Animal manure
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 13 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via AD (based on RED typical value) - this equates to an 84% GHG
saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input
electricity to the AD plant and upgrading/compression.
Competing uses
Typically spread direct onto agricultural land where it has value as
a source of nutrients. A small fraction is already treated by AD
prior to application of digestate to land (0.3 Mt/yr), and some
chicken litter is used for power generation (0.67 Mt/yr).
Substitute resources
Digestate may supply the same fertiliser market, with the added
benefit that nutrients are more readily available in digestate than
raw manure. Substitute materials are unnecessary.
Indirect impacts
The likelihood of negative environmental impacts such as
biodiversity, soil and water quality, is assessed as low, especially
where diverted form land spreading, as digestate may provide
enhanced environmental services. Social impacts may include
increased transport/local road use.
Basic Information:
Locations: Highest resource availability in regions with intensive
livestock sectors (e.g. North-West Europe), particularly those with
restrictions on nitrogen application to land.
Land used: Livestock and poultry are typically reared on pasture
or indoors (agricultural land). Animal manure is not land-using,
but is classified as an agricultural residue (hence need to meet
RED land criteria).
Supply chain steps
1 Transport of manure to digester
2 Conversion to biogas, upgrading to biomethane
3 Transport of digestate back to farm for land application
4 Distribution of biomethane via pipeline
Transport challenges for manure: Odour, high water content,
pathogen control.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and biomethane
upgrading of UK manure (either for grid injection or pipeline
distribution to dedicated customer).
Economics:
Market value = £0/t (up to £34/t), i.e. £0/GJ feedstock (European
price assumption by Bioenergy Futures). Assumes that digestate
also has zero price. This will be location dependent, based on local
nitrogen loadings.
There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market
price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.
However, we note large additional supplies could be accessed,
there are few competing uses in a minimally traded resource, and
the digestate created via AD can meet the same fertiliser
demands.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 0.0
• Transport to biofuel plant = 2.2
• Biofuel conversion = 33.3 (small farm scale)
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £39/GJ biomethane for selected
route based on UK wet manures.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£406/tCO2e, based on the high conversion costs.
Framework criteria summary:
As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant additional supplies available. Biomethane
from manure has high GHG savings, although is much more costly than natural gas (especially for small AD + upgrading systems). Further
policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified in the majority of cases.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 13 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via AD (based on proxy RED typical value for manure) - this
equates to an 81% GHG saving versus natural gas. The key
sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input electricity.
Competing uses
Around 66% of UK sewage sludge is currently treated by AD with
the biogas used for heat and/or power within the water
treatment works. 18% is incinerated with energy recovery, and
only a small proportion is spread to land without AD (e.g. areas
where waste water treatment is not economical, or treatment
capacity is limited).
Alternative resources
If accessing the resource currently spread to land directly, then
the AD digestate may be applied to land instead, hence no
substitute necessary. However, if diverting the resource currently
used for heat & power (AD or incineration), natural gas would be
the most likely substitute for meeting power & heat demands.
Indirect impacts
AD is an established waste water treatment technology, and the
likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is
assessed to be low. However, use of natural gas will have indirect
GHG emissions from increased fossil fuel use.
Economics:
Market value = £0/t (from -£41/t to £0/t), i.e. £0/GJ feedstock,
based on UK gate fees or internal waste water works use.
Assumes that digestate also has zero price.
There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market
price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.
However, we note few additional supplies could be accessed
(small % spread to land), and there are many competing uses
(heat & power) already established.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 0.0
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (used on-site)
• Biofuel conversion = 23.7
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £27/GJ biomethane for selected
route based on UK sewage sludge.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£240/tCO2e, based on the high conversion cost.
Feasibility:
Data quality is high at UK and EU level, but missing some
countries globally (data only available from a list of 17 major
producing countries).
Moisture content = 96 %
Volumetric density = 1.00 g/cm3
Energy content = 0.5 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield)
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 35 37 9 9.5
EU 632 648 161 165
Global 1,069 1,183 272 301
Definition: Sewage sludge is the watery residual and semi-solid material left from
industrial wastewater or sewage treatment processes.
Sewage sludge
Basic Information:
Locations: Waste water treatment facilities are typically
downstream of large population centres in more developed
countries.
Land used: None, classified as a waste.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection within waste water treatment works
2 Conversion to biogas, upgrading to biomethane
3 Transport of digestate to local farms for land application
4 Distribution of biomethane via pipeline
Transport challenges: Odour, high water content, pathogen
control.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and biomethane
upgrading of UK sewage sludge (either for grid injection or
pipeline distribution to dedicated customer).
Framework criteria summary:
As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are High, with much of the resource already used for Heat & Power
(although some efficiency gains may be possible). Biomethane from sludge has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than natural
gas. Further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified for under-utilised fractions (avoiding natural gas substitution).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/m3
axd
p3
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/msu
vk
ub
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
Feasibility:
Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from palm oil
production and a residue factor. Feedstock volumes are expected
to continue to increase in the long-term in line with oil demands.
Moisture = 96 %
Density = 1.00 g/cm3
Energy content = 0.8 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield)
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0 0 0 0
Global 159 338 60 127
Definition: Palm oil mill effluent (POME) is a by-product of the palm oil processing industry – an oily
acidic liquid with high concentrations of organic solids and fertiliser nutrients. Typically, for
every tonne of fresh palm bunches processed, 0.65 tonnes of POME will be produced.
Palm oil mill effluent
Sustainability:
GHG emissions were not calculated, since biogas from POME is
most likely to be used onsite or in local markets and not exported
to EU.
Competing uses
Because of its high chemical and biological oxygen demands,
POME is typically released into open-air holding ponds for
remediation. Increasingly, mills are starting to look at energy
generation from POME, by using AD to produce biogas, and then
a gas engine to generate power and heat onsite.
Alternative resources
No substitute required where POME is diverted from open
pooling and discharge. Palm oil mills may use biogas generated
from POME for their electricity or heat requirements, hence an
alternative fuel would be natural gas.
Indirect impacts
The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts is
assessed to be low, as current remediation releases carbon
dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide to the air, treatment by
AD will mitigate some of the environmental impacts of current
treatment. Substitution by natural gas has fossil GHG emissions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Tropical palm oil growing regions (e.g. SE Asian
countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia).
Land used: None, defined as process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Pre-treatment of POME (recovery of oil contents)
2 Transport to advanced biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biogas
Transport challenges: High acidity, water content.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion to biogas from
South-East Asian palm oil mills. Unlikely to reach EU.
Economics:
Market value = £0/t, or £0/GJ feedstock (IFC assumption).
There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market
price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.
However, we note additional supplies are large, although
competing uses in heat & power are increasing. Digestate value
after AD not considered.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 0.0
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed same site)
• Biofuel conversion = NA, biogas only used for heat &
power, no transport fuel made
• Downstream distribution = NA, as unlikely to be
transported to Europe from SE Asia
Total biogas production cost is only relevant for SE Asia – this is
not a likely route for EU consumption, hence was not modelled
further.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Palm oil mill competing uses are generally Low (some converted to biogas
and inefficiently used in heat & power). GHG savings and cost competitiveness were not calculated, since POME or the biogas produced
is unlikely to ever reach the EU. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels has therefore not been evaluated.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/k7
5d
p6
x
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, based on palm oil production residue ratios.
Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in the
long-term, as vegetable oil demands increase.
Moisture = 64%
Density = 0.18 g/cm3
Energy content = 4.5 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0 0 0 0
Global 51 109 81 172
Definition: Empty palm fruit bunches are by-products of the palm oil processing industry. Typically, for
every tonne of fresh palm bunches processed, around 0.2-0.22 tonnes of empty fruit bunches,
the residues remaining after threshing the fresh fruit bunches.
Empty palm fruit bunches
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 10 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via FT diesel (based on adapted RED typical value) – this equates
to an 88% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the conversion step
energy balance, and transport distance to EU.
Competing uses
Empty palm fruit bunches are typically combusted for onsite heat
& power production, or simply incinerated without energy
recovery. Some are also composted or used in paper and board
production.
Alternative resources
No substitute required where EPFBs are diverted from
incineration without energy recovery, or boiler efficiencies are
improved. However, diversion from heat & power demands could
lead to substitution with coal, natural gas or other more
sustainable wood and straw resources.
Indirect impacts
The main environmental impact associated with the use of coal or
natural gas is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts
may include local energy prices. Overall, risks are relatively low,
given the size of the under-utilised resource, although will
depend on local resource availability and conditions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Tropical palm oil growing regions (e.g. SE Asian
countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia).
Land used: None, defined as a process residue.
Supply chain steps:
1 Pre-treatment to reduce water content
2 Collection from palm oil mill
3 Transport to advanced biofuel plant
4 Conversion to biofuel
5 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Low density.
Selected biofuel route: Fischer Tropsch diesel from SE Asia
Economics:
Market value = £3/t (ranging from 2 to 4 dependent on location
and local demands), or £0.7/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Low risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed, and
there are few competing uses in a thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 2.0
• Transport to biofuel plant = 4.2
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6
• Downstream distribution = 6.5 (inc. import tariffs)
Total biofuel production cost = £27/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on SE Asian empty palm fruit bunches.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£109/tCO2e, based on the production cost and low emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Low, and significant resource is either openly burnt or
inefficiently used (many boilers have efficiency improvement potential). FT diesel from EPFBs has high GHG savings, although will be
more expensive than current fuels. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified for under-utilised fractions.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
ww
w.e
taw
au
.co
m/O
ilP
alm
/Im
ag
es/
EFB
01
.jp
g
Feasibility:
Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from crude tall oil
production and a residue factor. Feedstock volumes are expected
to continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line with
paper/pulp demands.
Moisture content = 0.2 %
Volumetric density = 0.95 g/cm3
Energy content = 38.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.02
EU 0.16 0.19 5.3 6.6
Global 0.41 0.51 14 17
Definition: Tall oil pitch is a highly viscous residue from the distillation of crude tall oil. Crude tall oil is a by-
product of the conifer based paper pulp making process, and stems from crude sulphate soap
(skimmed off from weak black liquor)
Tall oil pitch
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 9 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
HVO - this equates to a 90% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the
amount and carbon intensity of the input hydrogen for
hydrogenation (bio-hydrogen would be much lower emission
than fossil hydrogen).
Competing uses
Used for internal process heat and power within pulp mills in
almost all cases.
Alternative resources
Wood fuel or fossil heating oil may be used depending on existing
boilers or CHP and local resource availability.
Indirect impacts
The impact of substituting with fossil heating oils is increased
GHG emissions, and potential local energy price rises. Potential
negative impacts of substituting for wood fuel relate to reduced
biodiversity, and soil degradation. The likelihood of these
negative environmental impacts is assessed as medium as there is
potential to increase forest residue removal without triggering
negative impacts.
Basic Information:
Locations: Produced at crude tall oil refineries, usually found at or
close to pulp/paper mills, hence key regions are North America,
Northern Europe, East Asia and Brazil.
Land used: None, classified as a process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection of tall oil pitch
2 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
2 Conversion to biofuel
3 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: Toxicity.
Selected biofuel route: HVO diesel from EU tall oil pitch.
Economics:
Market value = £420/t, or £11.1/GJ feedstock (European industry
price).
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since the resource potential is only rising slowly, it is
easily traded, and there are very significant competing uses (heat
& power).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 12.4
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.8
• Biofuel conversion = 3.6 (including naphtha revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9
Total biofuel production cost = £20/GJ HVO diesel for selected
route based on EU pulp mills and HVO conversion in Finland or
Rotterdam.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be as low as £ 12/tCO2e,
based on the low production cost and low emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for onsite heat & power are high, and substitution with liquid fossil
fuels is a risk. HVO diesel from tall oil pitch has very high GHG savings, and is cost competitive with current fuels. However, further policy
support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency improvements release resource).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Feasibility:
Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from FAME
biodiesel production and a residue factor. Globally, volumes are
expected to continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line
with FAME biodiesel demands.
Moisture = 10 %
Density = 1.20 g/cm3
Energy content = 14.2 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.03 0.04 0.25 0.36
EU 1.0 1.4 8.3 12
Global 2.9 4.9 25 42
Definition: Crude glycerine (also crude glycerol) is a by-product of biodiesel production and the processing of
animal and vegetable fats and oils. Biodiesel production yields around 10% crude glycerine output.
Crude glycerine can be upgraded or refined to yield glycerine, removing methanol and other impurities.
Crude Glycerine
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 25 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
methanol (based on actual UK data) - this equates to a 70% GHG
saving. Key sensitivity is the energy balance of the conversion
step, and carbon intensity of any inputs (e.g. natural gas).
Competing uses
May be upgraded (quality allowing) for the manufacture of high-
value food additives, anti-freeze, pharmaceutical and cosmetic
products. Lower value uses are in heat & power, AD, animal feed
or waste water treatment. Note that using UCO for biodiesel
results in crude glycerine that is harder/impossible to refine.
Alternative resources
Refined glycerine can be synthetically derived from crude oil (if
economic). In fuel markets, crude glycerine may be substituted by
fossil heating oil. In animal feed markets, might be substituted by
corn, other starches and/or sugars (although highly complex).
Indirect impacts
The impact of substituting by fossil heating oils is increased GHG
emissions. Increased demand for starch/sugar crops risks ILUC
and food prices issues, plus reduced biodiversity, soil
degradation, and increased water demand (although the extent
of the impacts will depend on local land management practices).
The likelihood of negative impacts is assessed as medium/high.
Supporting glycerine may also improve 1G biodiesel economics,
promoting increased vegetable oil use and ILUC.
Basic Information:
Locations: FAME biodiesel plants (e.g. EU, US).
Land used: None, defined as a process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection from FAME plant
2 Transport to 2G biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: None
Selected biofuel route: Gasification & methanol synthesis from
EU crude glycerine (e.g. BioMCN process)
Economics:
Market value = £253/t, or £17.9/GJ feedstock (European FOB
traded price).
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since the resource is limited, it is easily traded, and
there are very significant competing uses (industrial upgrading,
heat & power) that have strongly rising demands.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 29.8
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed at port)
• Biofuel conversion = 4.9
• Downstream distribution = 3.7
Total biofuel production cost = £38/GJ methanol for selected
route based on EU crude glycerine and methanol conversion in
the Netherlands. Highly dependent on glycerine price, which has
increased significantly in recent years.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £
331/tCO2e, based on the high production cost and significant
GHG emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for upgrading, heat & power and animal feed are high, and ILUC or
fossil emissions are a significant risk. Methanol from crude glycerine has modest GHG savings, and is expensive. Further policy support
for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to multiple risks of negative indirect impacts and rising competing demands. Any new
unrefinable volumes would still require low risk, sustainable replacements for their lower value markets (most substitutes are high risk).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mxp
lf8
h
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, based on sugarcane production residue
ratios. Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in
the long-term, as sugar (and/or ethanol) demands increase.
Moisture = 48 %
Density = 0.20 g/cm3
Energy content = 7.8 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0 0 0 0
Global 413 599 1,205 1,748
Definition: Bagasse is the fibrous residue from the sugarcane crushing process, after the removal of sugar
juices. It is typically around 13% of the wet unprocessed sugarcane (with the accessible sugar
content being around 14%).
Bagasse
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 23 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this equates to
a 73% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia & lime
inputs to conversion step, and transport distance to EU.
Competing uses
As a fuel for on-site heat and power (50%), incinerated without
energy recovery (40%), or in paper and board manufacture (10%).
Alternative resources
No substitute required where bagasse is diverted from
incineration without energy recovery, or boiler efficiencies are
improved. Heat & power demands could be met by the
sustainable extraction of cane trash (currently left on fields), or
other wood and straw resources.
Indirect impacts
The impacts of diverting bagasse relate to the GHG emissions
associated with any fossil fuel replacements, or environmental
impacts from cane trash extraction. Overall, risks are relatively
low, given the number of potential alternative agricultural
residues, although will depend on local resource availability and
conditions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Tropical sugarcane growing regions (e.g. Brazil, India).
Land used: Technically a processing residue (so no land used), but
RED has defined it as an agricultural residue.
Supply chain steps:
1 Collection from sugarcane mill
2 Transport to cellulosic biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Distribution to refuelling station (truck in Brazil, ship to EU,
truck in EU)
Transport challenges: Low density.
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from Brazilian
Centre-South
Economics:
Market value = £8.5/t (ranging from 2.8 to 34 dependent on
location and local demands), or £1.1/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Medium risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed,
although there are competing uses (heat & power, materials).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 3.1
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0 (on-site)
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 12.0 (inc. import tariffs)
Total biofuel production cost = £24/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on Brazilian bagasse.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£86/tCO2e, based on the low production cost.
Framework criteria summary:
As a processing residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses are Medium, but significant cane trash is available to meet H&P
demands, and many boilers have efficiency improvement potential. Bagasse ethanol has reasonably high GHG savings, and should be
near cost competitive with current fuels. Further policy support for biofuel diversion is justified for under-utilised fractions.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/ka
8o
mf9
Feasibility:
Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from wine
production and a residue factor. However, availability is highly
seasonal. Volumes are expected to continue to increase slowly in
the long-term in line with wine demands.
Moisture = 65 %
Density = 0.90 g/cm3
Energy content = 6.2 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05
EU 4.1 4.1 9.5 9.5
Global 7.7 8.5 18 20
Definition: Grape marc, also known as ‘pomace’, is the residue that remains
after the pressing of fresh grapes to extract juice for wine making.
Grape marc contains skins, pulp, seeds and stems.
Grape marcs
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
LC ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value) – this equates to an
87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia & lime inputs,
and any drying in the conversion step.
Competing uses
Previously used as mulch, organic fertiliser or ensilage for animal
feed. However, increasingly used in high value markets, including
production of other wine products & spirits (e.g. grappa), grape
seed oil, food colourings, sweeteners, preservatives, and health
products. EU legislation states that all grape marcs should be
treated via ethanol fermentation.
Alternative resources
High value markets (e.g. spirits) have no alternative resources,
and would likely require more grapes to be grown. Mulch
composting may be replaced by fossil fertilisers, peat, manures or
AD digestate, depending on local agricultural practice.
Indirect impacts
Additional grape production would require more valuable land,
leading to ILUC and food price issues. Alternatively, lower
production of e.g. spirits could have significant economic and
social impacts on these small-scale industries. Alcohol also has
calories for human consumption, i.e. direct competition with
“food”. For mulch/ composting, impacts may include increased
GHGs of fertiliser production, and water contamination.
Basic Information:
Locations: Wine growing regions (e.g. Mediterranean).
Land used: None, defined as process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection from winery
2 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: High water content.
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from EU grape
marc.
Economics:
Market value = £54/t (delivered dry), or £9.4/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since additional resource potential is limited, and there
are very significant competing uses (spirits and high-value
industries) for a thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 23.3
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.7
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £38/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on EU grape marcs.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£266/tCO2e, based on the high production cost.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for high value industries (e.g. spirits) are high, and ILUC or social
impacts are a significant risk. LC ethanol from grape marc has high GHG savings, but expensive compared to current fuels. Further policy
support for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to competition with human consumption and impacts on existing industries.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Feasibility:
Data quality is high overall, with figures derived from wine
production and a residue factor. Volumes are expected to
continue to increase slowly in the long-term in line with wine
demands.
Moisture = 65 %
Density = 0.90 g/cm3
Energy content = 6.2 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.004 0.004 0.01 0.01
EU 0.8 0.8 2.6 2.6
Global 1.5 1.6 4.9 5.4
Definition: Wine lees refer to the sediment remaining in the vessels used in wine
production, consisting of dead yeasts and other solid particles precipitated
during the wine fermentation process. Often mixed in with grape marc
Wine Lees
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 20 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via 1G ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value) – this equates
to an 76% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the amount and form
of drying in the conversion step (e.g. natural gas).
Competing uses
Previously used as mulch, organic fertiliser or ensilage for animal
feed. However, increasingly used in high value markets, including
production of other wine products & spirits (e.g. Ripasso), food
colourings, sweeteners, preservatives, and health products. EU
legislation states that all wine lees should be treated via ethanol
fermentation.
Alternative resources
High value markets (e.g. spirits) have no alternative resources,
and would likely require more grapes to be grown. Mulch
composting may be replaced by fossil fertilisers, peat, manures or
AD digestate, depending on local agricultural practice.
Indirect impacts
Additional grape production would require more valuable land,
leading to ILUC and food price issues. Alternatively, lower
production of e.g. spirits could have significant economic and
social impacts on these small-scale industries. Alcohol also has
calories for human consumption, i.e. direct competition with
“food”. For mulch/ composting, impacts may include increased
GHGs of fertiliser production, and water contamination.
Basic Information:
Locations: Wine growing regions (e.g. Mediterranean).
Land used: None, defined as process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection from winery
2 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: High water content.
Selected biofuel route: Ethanol fermentation from EU wine lees
(effectively a 1G ethanol route, as starch/sugar based with
minimal lignocellulosic content).
Economics:
Market value = £54/t (delivered dry), or £9.4/GJ feedstock.
Estimate based on the value of grape marcs, as no data available
for wine lees.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since additional resource potential is limited, and there
are very significant competing uses (spirits and high-value
industries) for a thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 15.9
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.5
• Biofuel conversion = 9.1
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £30/GJ 1G ethanol for route based
on EU wine lees.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£173/tCO2e, based on the high GHG emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses for high value industries (e.g. spirits) are high, and ILUC or social
impacts are a significant risk. 1G ethanol from wine lees has modest GHG savings, and is most costly than current fuels. Further policy
support for biofuel diversion is unlikely to be justified, due to competition with human consumption and impacts on existing industries.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/m5
xgg
wh
Feasibility:
Data quality is good for UK and EU, but only Medium for global
figures, since these are estimated based on ratio of EU vs. global
agricultural residues, due to lack of available data.
Moisture = 10 %
Density = 0.58 g/cm3
Energy content = 16.4 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0.8 0.8 4.5 4.5
Global 10 11 55 61
Definition: Nut shells are the outer hard casing of nuts. This category is
understood to include almond shells, but the RED proposals do not
specify this. The largest source of nutshells in the EU is from almond,
walnut and hazelnut production.
Nut shells
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 4 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
FT diesel (based on proxy RED typical value for waste wood) – this
equates to a 95% GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion
step energy balance.
Competing uses
Industrial uses including deburring, corrosion removal, and
polishing, and in the manufacture of cosmetics, dynamite, and
paint. They are also combusted for heat and/or power – this low
value market is assumed the key competing use.
Alternative resources
Other dry agricultural residues, wood fuel, coal or fossil heating
oil may be used depending on existing boilers and local resource
availability.
Indirect impacts
Increased forest and agricultural residue extraction may impact
biodiversity, soil and water quality. The likelihood of negative
impacts is assessed as medium, since there is some potential to
increase extraction rates without triggering negative impacts.
Social impacts relate to the economic sustainability of existing
industries. The major environmental impact associated with the
use of coal of heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released.
Basic Information:
Locations: Nut-growing regions (US, Mediterranean, SE Asia)
Land used: Most nuts are de-shelled in a processing plant, so
technically are processing residues (so no land used), but RED has
defined them as agricultural residues.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection from factory
2 Transport to biofuel plant
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: None
Selected biofuel route: Gasification & Fischer Tropsch synthesis
to diesel, from EU nut shells
Economics:
Market value = £67/t (at factory gate, ranging from 49 to 85
dependent on location and local demands), or £4.1/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since the resource potential is flat with no additional
supplies available, it is easily traded, and there are very significant
competing uses (heat & power, industrial uses).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 11.7
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.7
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (including naphtha revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9
Total biofuel production cost = £30/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on EU nut shells.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£138/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but low
emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and industry are high, and substitution with fossil
fuels is possible. FT diesel from nut shells has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for
biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mk
5a
vk
w
Feasibility:
Data for in-field agricultural residues are given within the Straw
category. Only processing residues, such as rice husks, are given
below. Data quality is therefore Medium, with EU resource scaled
down from global figure based on rice production.
Moisture = 10 %
Density = 0.035 g/cm3
Energy content = 13.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0.5 0.5 2.3 2.3
Global 120 133 583 645
Definition: Husks are the protective outer coating of seeds, nuts, grains or fruit. Grain husks are typically
separated from the kernel during threshing, becoming part of the chaff – hence regarded as an
agricultural residue (within “Straw”). “Nut shells” are also separately counted. A wider definition
of husks and hulls could include other processing residues such as olive pits and pulp.
Husks
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
LC ethanol (based on proxy RED typical value for wheat straw) –
this equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the
ammonia & lime inputs to conversion step, and husk transport
distances.
Competing uses
Global uses include process heat and power, domestic fuel, whole
crop silage for animal feed or AD, and industrial uses (including as
a silica substitute and fertiliser). Heat and power applications are
the most relevant competing uses.
Alternative resources
Other dry agricultural residues, wood fuel, coal or fossil heating
oil may be used depending on existing boilers and local resource
availability.
Indirect impacts
Increased forest and agricultural residue extraction may impact
biodiversity, soil and water quality. The likelihood of negative
impacts is assessed as medium, since there is some potential to
increase extraction rates without triggering negative impacts.
Social impacts relate to the economic sustainability of existing
industries. The major environmental impact associated with the
use of coal of heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released.
Basic Information:
Locations: Arable farmland following crop distribution patterns,
as well as processing plants, e.g. for rice in China & SE Asia.
Land used: Husks generated in the field as part of the harvesting
process would count as agricultural residues, hence RED land
criteria apply. No land would be used if the husks arise as
processing residues.
Supply chain steps
1 Collection from factory
2 Transport to biofuel plant
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: Very low density
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from EU husks
Economics:
Market value = £97/t (CIF traded, ranging from 80 to 110
dependent on location and local demands), or £7.5/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since additional resource potential is limited, and there
are very significant competing uses (heat & power, industrial
uses) for a thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 10.4
• Transport to biofuel plant = 9.6
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £33/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on EU husks.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£196/tCO2e, based on the high production cost.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and industry are high, and substitution with fossil
fuels is possible. LC ethanol from husks has high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for biofuel
diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/m2
69
k5
c
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 16 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this
equates to an 81% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the ammonia
& lime inputs to conversion step, and transport distance to EU.
Competing uses
Minor use in heating, some goes to whole crop silage for animal
feed and AD, plus there are various niche industrial uses (e.g.
furfural, deburring, corrosion removal, polishing, thickeners,
activated carbon and charcoal). Most is left on land or
incorporated into the soil.
Alternative resources
No substitute required where cobs are sustainably collected from
supplies left on the field. For replacing animal feed, more
hay/silage crops may need to be grown. Selection of substitute
industrial materials will depend on local conditions and markets,
and may include grass, cereal crops, and distillery by-products.
Indirect impacts
Potential impacts include reduced biodiversity where crop
cultivation is increased; soil degradation & erosion due to
increased straw removal; and water contamination by top-soils &
chemical fertilisers. Increased demand for land may affect food
prices. The likelihood of negative environmental and social
impacts is assessed to be medium, as it is possible to increase
agricultural residue removal avoiding negative impacts.
Economics:
Market value = £57/t (ranging from 46 to 68 dependent on
farmer willingness), or £4.6/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Medium risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed,
but there are competing uses (fertiliser, feed) for this thinly
traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 12.3
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.0
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 13.3
Total biofuel production cost = £36/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on US cobs.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£246/tCO2e, based on the high production cost.
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, based on corn production residue ratios.
Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase in the
long-term, as food demands increase.
Moisture = 20 %
Density = 0.27 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.4 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04
EU 3.6 3.6 17 17
Global 36 40 167 185
Definition: A cob is the central, fibrous core of a maize ear to which kernels or grains are attached. Isolated
cobs are a by-product from the harvesting of grain maize kernels, typically separated and left in
the field by combine harvesters.
Cobs
Basic Information:
Locations: Temperate arable land (e.g. US, China, Brazil)
Land used: Maize is typically grown on prime agricultural land.
Cobs are not land-using, but are classified as an agricultural
residue (hence need to meet RED land criteria).
Supply chain steps:
1 Collection from field
2 Transport to biofuel plant
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: None
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from US corn belt
Framework criteria summary:
As an agricultural residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium, but significant resource is left on field and available for
sustainable extraction. LC ethanol from cobs has reasonably high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy
support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mu
5ty
6f
Feasibility:
Data quality is High for UK and EU, but only Medium for global
figures, since these are split out of total wood residue production
(i.e. excluding sawmill co-products, black liquor, waste wood).
Moisture = 30 % after natural drying
Density = 0.15 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.4 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 3.4 3.4 15 15
EU 127 122 554 532
Global 317 316 1,377 1,376
Definition: This covers primary woody residues, principally forest biomass (from
thinning or harvesting operations) as well as woody biomass on non-forest
land, such as prunings and cuttings from permanent crops (e.g. olives,
vines), orchards and arboricultural arisings.
Bark, branches and leaves
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 4 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 95%
GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance.
Competing uses
Forest residues are almost always left in the forest during forest
management operations (97% across EU). Collected branches
may be used for heat and power, wood pulp, panel board
production, mulch, animal bedding, and landscaping.
Alternative resources
Potential to increase resource extraction is large; impact on
existing industries is minimal. Fertiliser use may need to increase
depending on extraction rates and local conditions.
Indirect impacts
Potential impacts of forest residue removal include reduced
biodiversity as slash on the ground provides habitat for species
and promotes regeneration; and soil degradation and erosion.
The likelihood of negative impacts is assessed as medium as there
is opportunity to increase extraction without triggering negative
impacts.
Basic Information:
Locations: Existing forest (North America, Russia, Northern EU)
Land used: Forestry grown on land. Bark, branches and leaves are
not land-using, but are classified as a forestry residue (hence
need to meet RED land criteria).
Supply chain steps
1 Extraction to road-side
2 Natural drying
3 Transport of bales to chipping plant
4 Chipping
5 Transport of chips to biofuel plant, if separately located
6 Conversion to biofuel
7 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Low density.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification and Fischer Tropsch
synthesis to FT diesel, using EU forestry residues.
Economics:
Market value = £39/t (delivered to buyer, ranging from 34 to 44
dependent on location), or £3.1/GJ feedstock. Taking off
transport and chipping gives a roadside price of ~£14/t feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Low risk; since large additional supplies could be accessed, and
there are few competing uses for this thinly traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 3.2
• Natural drying = 0.1
• Transport to chipper = 3.9
• Chipping = 1.8
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (chipper onsite)
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6
• Downstream distribution = 2.9
Total biofuel production cost = £26/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on EU forestry residues.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£94/tCO2e, based on the low GHG emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a forestry residue, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant resource left on the ground and available for
sustainable extraction. FT diesel from forest residues has very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy
support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kjm
qu
j4
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/ko
48
zhh
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mk
4g
4td
Feasibility:
Data quality is High for UK and EU, but only Medium for global
figures, since these are split out of total wood residue production
(i.e. excluding forest residues, black liquor, waste wood).
Moisture = 20% (assuming starting timber is dried)
Density = 0.35 g/cm3
Energy content = 15.2 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 1.6 1.6 8.5 8.5
EU 37 42 199 221
Global 104 115 552 614
Definition: This category covers secondary residues from the processing of dried timber
and small round-wood, such as saw dust and cutter shavings.
Sawmill co-products
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 4 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 95%
GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance.
Competing uses
Process heat & power, mulch, animal bedding, panel board
production and other building applications. Heat and power, and
panel board manufacture are the major competing uses.
Alternative resources
Most likely to substitute with forest residues (more chips/pellets)
or dry agricultural residues. Use of coal or heating oil is unlikely.
Indirect impacts
Increased forest and agricultural residue extraction may impact
biodiversity, soil and water quality. The likelihood of negative
impacts is assessed as medium, since there is some potential to
increase extraction rates without triggering negative impacts.
Social impacts relate to the economic sustainability of existing
industries.
Basic Information:
Locations: Forest industry and timber processing (sawmills),
hence key regions are North America, Northern EU, Russia, Brazil.
Land used: None, classified as a process residue
Supply chain steps
1 Collection
2 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
3 Conversion to biofuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: None.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification & Fischer Tropsch synthesis
to diesel from EU sawmill co-products.
Economics:
Market value = £67/t (EU ex-works sale price), i.e. £4.4/GJ
feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since the resource potential is only rising slowly with
minimal additional supplies available, it is easily traded, and there
are very significant competing uses (heat & power, animal
bedding, panel board).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 12.7
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.1
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (including naphtha revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9
Total biofuel production cost = £31/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on EU sawmills.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£155/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but low
emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, RED land criteria do not apply. Competing uses in heat & power and panel board are high, although most likely
substitution is with forestry residues. FT diesel from sawdust co-products has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels.
Further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency gains release resource).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/k4
7cf
4e
.jp
g
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kq
are
te
Feasibility:
Data quality is High for UK and EU, but only Medium for global
figures, since these are split out of total wood residue production
(i.e. excluding forest residues, sawmill co-products, waste wood).
Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase slowly in
the long-term in line with paper/pulp demands.
Moisture = 25 %
Density = 1.40 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.28 0.28 1.9 1.9
EU 66 72 459 498
Global 200 246 1,392 1,714
Definition: Black liquor is the spent cooking liquor from the kraft process when digesting pulpwood into paper pulp
removing lignin, hemicelluloses and other extractives from the wood to free the cellulose fibres. The
equivalent spent cooking liquor in the sulfite process is usually called brown liquor, but the terms red
liquor, thick liquor and sulfite liquor are also used.
Black and brown liquor
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 1 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
DME - this equates to a 99% GHG saving. The key sensitivity is the
energy balance in the conversion plant (assumed self-sufficient by
using more feedstock).
Competing uses
Almost all used for process heat and power. Pulping operations
also use these boilers to recover inorganic salts in the liquor for
recycling back into the pulping process – this limits the likelihood
that biofuels conversion would occur offsite (since then would
have to transport the recovered salts back to the mill).
Alternative resources
Wood fuel or fossil heating oil may be used depending on existing
boilers or CHP and local resource availability.
Indirect impacts
Fossil heating oil use would result in increased GHG emissions,
and may impact local energy prices. Potential negative impacts of
substituting with wood fuel relate to reduced biodiversity, and
soil degradation, however, the likelihood of these negative
environmental impacts is assessed as medium as there is
potential to increase forest residue removal without triggering
negative impacts. Other environmental impacts will be minimised
provided closed-loop recycling of inorganics salts is maintained.
Basic Information:
Locations: Pulp and paper mills, hence key regions are North
America, Northern Europe, East Asia and Brazil
Land used: None, classified as a process residue
Supply chain steps
1 Collection of liquor
2 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
2 Conversion to biofuel
3 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: Corrosion, toxicity.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification & DME synthesis from EU
pulp mills
Economics:
Market value = £112/t (ranging from 0 to 175 based on location
and demands), or £9.3/GJ feedstock (European energy value).
There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market
price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.
However, we note additional supplies are limited, and there are
very significant competing uses in the heat & power sectors.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 16.1
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (assumed same site)
• Biofuel conversion = 12.9
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £32/GJ DME for selected route
based on EU pulp mills, e.g. in Sweden.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£159/tCO2e, based on the high production cost but very low
emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a process residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses for onsite heat & power are high, and substitution with liquid
fossil fuels is a risk. DME from black liquor has very high GHG savings, but costs more than current fuels. Further policy support for
biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel (or efficiency improvements release resource).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
ww
w.h
yb
rid
cars
.co
m/f
ile
s/B
lack
Liq
uo
r1.j
pg
Economics:
Market value = £724/t, or £20.1/GJ feedstock (European FOB
traded price).
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Low risk; since although the feedstock is widely traded, biodiesel
is already the primary use (few competing uses for UCO), and
large additional supplies could be accessed.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 21.3
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.1
• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (including glycerine revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £25/GJ FAME for selected route
based on UK collected UCO.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£96/tCO2e, based on the low production cost and low emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a waste/processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses are Low, with significant additional supplies
available. FAME biodiesel from UCO has high GHG savings, and should be near cost competitive with current fuels. Further policy
support for biofuel diversion is likely justified for sourcing new sustainable supplies (especially if infrastructure investment is needed).
Feasibility:
Data quality is high for UCO at UK and EU level, but globally only
individual country/region data is available. Feedstock volumes are
expected to increase significantly in the short-term, as domestic
sources are collected.
Moisture content = 0 %
Volumetric density = 0.91 g/cm3
Energy content = 36.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.13 0.19 4.3 6.6
EU 1.1 3.0 37 102
Global 2.8 7.8 94 266
Definition: Used cooking oil (UCO) is typically collected from catering establishments and industrial food
processors as a waste from food production. It may also be collected from domestic households
where a collection infrastructure exists.
Used Cooking Oil
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 15 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
FAME (based on actual UK data) - this equates to an 82% GHG
saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input
methanol (bio-methanol would be much lower emission than
fossil methanol).
Competing uses
Biodiesel manufacture is the major market (90% in EU), other
small uses include for oleochemicals and animal feed.
Alternative resources
There is significant potential to increase collection and supply (by
~2.5 Mt/yr in EU) without impacting existing industries, mainly
from accessing domestic supplies. Alternatively pure plant oils
may substitute in existing industries.
Indirect impacts
The likelihood of negative environmental and social impacts
associated with the separate collection of UCO is assessed as low,
as if not used for biodiesel, then the material would be
discharged to drains, landfill or digested in AD as a component of
food waste streams.
Basic Information:
Locations: Population centres and food manufacturing facilities.
Land used: None, defined as a processing residue (for commercial
establishments) or a waste (for households).
Supply chain steps:
1 Collection from commercial/domestic property
2 Transport to processing plant
2 Cleaning (centrifuge, washing, de-acidification)
3 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
4 Conversion to biofuel
5 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: No particular issues.
Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from UK UCO. The main
technical restriction with processing UCO is water content.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kb
6a
va
k
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 15 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route to
FAME (based on actual UK data) - this equates to an 82% GHG
saving. The key sensitivity is the carbon intensity of the input
methanol (bio-methanol would be much lower emission than
fossil methanol).
Competing uses
Category I animal fats are only permitted for fuel use, and
primarily used as process fuel in the rendering process. Category
II animal fats may also be used for technical uses, however these
are not produced separately from Category I materials in the UK.
Category III is primarily used for soap and oleochemicals, pet food
and animal feed.
Alternative resources
Heating oil is most likely to be used as a process fuel substitute.
Natural gas, wood or other sustainable fuel sources are possible
alternatives if rendering plant boilers are changed.
Indirect impacts
The major environmental impact associated with the use of
heating oil is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts
may include local energy prices.
Framework criteria summary:
As a processing residue, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Competing uses from the Heat & Power sector are high, with fossil fuel oil
the most likely substitute resource (risk of GHG emissions). FAME biodiesel from animal fats have high GHG savings, and should be cost
competitive with current fuels. However, further policy support for biofuel diversion is only justified if replaced with a sustainable fuel.
Feasibility:
Data quality is high for Animal Fats overall (Categories I, II and III
combined), however, splits into Cat I & II vs. Cat III only exist for
the UK. Feedstock volumes are expected to continue to increase
slowly in the long-term, as animal fat production is set by demand
for meat.
Moisture content = 0.3 %
Volumetric density = 0.83 g/cm3
Energy content = 32.7 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.12 0.12 3.7 3.7
EU 1.2 1.3 38 39
Global 3.5 3.8 107 119
Definition: Animal fats are obtained by the rendering (crushing and heating) of animal by-products:
Category I carries a health risk (e.g. BSE/TSE) which cannot be safely treated with sterilisation, such as
spinal and brain material, and hence cannot enter food or feed chains
Category II is lower risk material such as digestive tracts or animals that have died on-farm
Category III could enter the food chain – i.e. fit for human consumption, but not economical
Animal fats (Categories I and II)
Economics:
Market value = £480/t, or £12.6/GJ feedstock (European traded
price).
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is potentially
High risk; since the resource potential is flat, few additional
supplies can be collected, and there are significant competing
uses (heat & power) for this well traded material.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 15.6
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.2
• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (including glycerine revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £20/GJ FAME for selected route
based on UK animal fats.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be as low as £12/tCO2e,
based on the low production cost and low emissions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Livestock rendering plants. Concentrated in regions
with high livestock intensity, such as North-West Europe.
Land used: None, defined as a process residue.
Supply chain steps
1 Transport from renderer to processing plant
2 Cleaning (centrifuge, washing, de-acidification)
3 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
4 Conversion to biofuel
5 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Toxicity, pathogen control.
Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from UK animal fats. The
main technical restrictions with processing animal fat wastes are
their relatively high free fatty acid content (ranging from 5% to
30%) and water content.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
IEE
P (
20
13
)
Feasibility:
Current data is good, but data quality for 2020 is Medium, due to
very large uncertainty regarding how quickly the industry will
develop and ramp-up in different regions. Further expansion
potential in the long-term is very high.
Moisture = 16% (if harvested at correct time of year)
Density = 0.14 g/cm3
Energy content = 13.4 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.12 0.36 0.6 1.8
EU 0.9 4.1 4.6 21
Global 1.2 4.7 6.2 24
Definition: Non-food, dedicated grassy energy crops such as miscanthus, switchgrass,
giant cane, sorghum and hemp. Typically established with rhizomes, and
harvested every year. This category excludes woody crops with high lignin
content (SRC).
Non-food cellulosic material
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via LC ethanol (based on adapted RED typical value) – this
equates to an 87% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are cultivation
inputs (diesel, fertiliser), yields achieved, and the ammonia & lime
inputs to conversion step.
Competing uses
Required volumes of Miscanthus would be grown specifically for
biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be considered.
Current small volumes grown are used in heat & power, animal
bedding and biomaterials industries.
Alternative resources
No substitutes required as Miscanthus is a “new growth”
feedstock.
Indirect impacts
The impact of grassy energy crop establishment will depend on
local markets and previous land use. Conversion of agricultural
land or semi-natural habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity,
water and soil quality. Water consumption may also be
significant. The likelihood of negative impacts is highly variable
depending on which in region establishment occurs. Miscanthus
could also lead to increase food competition via ILUC given its
likely establishment on arable land.
Basic Information:
Locations: Arable land in temperate climates, avoiding frosts
(most development in Western EU or US). Many species are
adapted from tropical origins.
Land used: Yes, grassy energy crops are the main product (hence
need to meet RED land criteria and allocation of GHGs).
Supply chain steps
1 Planting & maintenance
2 Harvesting (bales)
3 Transport to biofuel plant
4 Conversion to biofuel
5 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Low density.
Selected biofuel route: Lignocellulosic ethanol from UK
Miscanthus
Economics:
Market value = £53/t (UK Miscanthus ex-farm contract price), or
£4.0/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource
is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 10.6
• Transport to biofuel plant = 2.8
• Biofuel conversion = 9.8
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £27/GJ LC ethanol for selected
route based on UK Miscanthus.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£107/tCO2e, based on the low GHG emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as Miscanthus would be grown specifically, but indirect
land impacts could be significant. LC ethanol from Miscanthus has high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further
policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/lk
jh5
2o
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mf2
mv
lr
Feasibility:
Current data is good, but data quality for 2020 is Medium, due to
very large uncertainty regarding how quickly the industry will
develop and ramp-up in different regions. Further expansion
potential in the long-term is very high.
Moisture = 30 % after natural drying
Density = 0.24 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.3 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.46
EU 0.3 1.3 1.2 5.6
Global 9 11 39 47
Definition: Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) is a dedicated woody energy crop,
such as willow, poplar or eucalyptus. Coppicing encourages multiple
stems, with harvesting then on a 2-5 year cycle, typically using
specialist machinery.
Short rotation coppice
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 6 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK biofuel route
to FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 93%
GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance.
Competing uses
Required volumes of SRC would be grown specifically for biofuels,
hence no competing uses need to be considered. Current tiny
volumes grown are used in heat & power.
Alternative resources
No substitutes required as SRC is a “new growth” feedstock.
Indirect impacts
The impact of SRC establishment will depend on local markets
and previous land use. Conversion of grasslands or semi-natural
habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity, water and soil quality.
Water consumption may also be significant. The likelihood of
negative impacts is highly variable depending on which in region
establishment occurs. SRC could also lead to increase food
competition via ILUC if on agricultural land.
Basic Information:
Locations: Typically grown on grasslands, flood plains, reclaimed
land. High moisture/water availability is key.
Land used: Yes, SRC is the main product (hence need to meet RED
land criteria and include cultivation GHG emissions).
Supply chain steps
1 Planting & maintenance
2 Harvesting (billets)
3 Natural drying
4 Chipping
5 Transport to biofuel plant
6 Conversion to biofuel
7 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: None.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification & Fischer Tropsch synthesis
to diesel, using UK SRC.
Economics:
Market value = £50/t (UK ex-farm contract price), or £4.0/GJ
feedstock.
Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource
is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 11.5
• Natural drying = 0.1
• Chipping = 1.7
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.9
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (including naphtha revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9
Total biofuel production cost = £33/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on UK SRC.
The cost of GHG savings saved in the UK could be approximately
£178/tCO2e, based on the high production costs.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as SRC would be grown specifically, but indirect land
impacts could be significant. FT diesel from SRC has very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current fuels. Further policy
support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/ltm
gp
3o
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mo
oq
hv
s
Feasibility:
All forestry in existence today classified as small round-wood or
higher-value timber. SRF only covers new plantations, which
would be available for harvest in the 2030s at the earliest. Large
expansion expected in the very long-term.
Moisture = 30 % after natural drying
Density = 0.24 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.3 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0 0 0 0
Global 0 0 0 0
Definition: Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) is the practice of cultivating fast-growing
trees that reach their economically optimum size between 15-20 years old
(compared to 40-60 years for standard forestry). Faster growing species,
e.g. Eucalyptus, are considered under the Short Rotation Coppice category.
Short rotation forestry
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK route to FT
diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a 93% GHG
saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy balance. For
US small round-wood to LC ethanol, GHGs = 16 gCO2e/MJ (81%
saving), due to increased transport distance and ammonia & lime
inputs to the LC ethanol conversion step (RED typical value).
Competing uses
Required volumes of SRF would be grown specifically for biofuels,
hence no competing uses need to be considered.
Alternative resources
No substitutes required as SRF is a “new growth” feedstock.
Indirect impacts
The impact of SRF establishment will depend on local markets
and previous land use. Conversion of grasslands or semi-natural
habitats may lead to reduced biodiversity, water and soil quality.
Water consumption may also be significant. The likelihood of
negative impacts is highly variable depending on which in region
establishment occurs. SRF could also lead to increase food
competition via ILUC, although in the UK planting is likely to occur
on lower-grade agricultural land, previously forested land or
reclaimed land.
Basic Information:
Locations: Similar areas to existing forest (North America, Russia,
Northern EU, Brazil)
Land used: Yes, SRF is the main product (hence need to meet RED
land criteria and include cultivation GHG emissions).
Supply chain steps
1 Planting & maintenance (thinning)
2 Harvesting
3 Natural drying
4 Chipping
5 Transport to biofuel plant
6 Conversion to biofuel
7 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: None.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification and Fischer Tropsch
synthesis to FT diesel, using UK SRF. We also modelled the
economics and GHG emissions for US SRF to Lignocellulosic
ethanol – all based off small round-wood values.
Economics:
UK market value = £42/t (at roadside), or £3.5/GJ feedstock.
US market value = £32/t (at roadside), or £2.6/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Medium risk; since although some un-harvested additional
supplies could be accessed, but there are competing uses (wood
products industry) for this traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step. UK values are
for FT diesel, and US values for LC ethanol:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 9.9 (UK), 7.0 (US)
• Natural drying = 0.1
• Chipping = 1.7 (UK), 1.6 (US)
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.9 (UK), 1.4 (US)
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (UK), 9.8 (US)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9 (UK), 11.6 (US, inc. tariff)
Total biofuel production cost = £31/GJ FT diesel for selected
route based on UK small round-wood. For US resources, total
production costs = £31/GJ LC ethanol (including import tariffs).
The cost of GHG savings saved in the UK could be approximately
£157/tCO2e, based on the high production costs. US savings could
be £187/tCO2e due to the larger emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as SRF would be grown specifically, but indirect land
impacts could be significant. FT diesel or LC ethanol from SRF has high to very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than current
fuels. Further policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is justified only if ILUC mitigation measures are enforced.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/lg
qll
dm
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kb
jqzv
f
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, based on existing forestry data. Feedstock
volumes are expected to slowly increase after 2020.
Moisture = 30 % after natural drying
Density = 0.24 g/cm3
Energy content = 12.3 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 3.3 3.3 14 14
EU 333 310 1,417 1,320
Global 829 772 3,523 3,282
Definition: Small diameter trees and pulp-wood that have been grown specifically for
the forestry products sector (e.g. paper, panel-board, fencing industries).
Existing assets ready to harvest (unlike Short Rotation Forestry). Excludes
saw logs and veneer logs, i.e. high value, large diameter timber.
Small round-wood
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 11 gCO2e/MJ for selected UK biofuel
route to FT diesel (based on RED typical value) – this equates to a
93% GHG saving. Key sensitivity is the conversion step energy
balance. For US small round-wood to LC ethanol, GHGs = 16
gCO2e/MJ (81% saving), due to increased transport distance and
ammonia & lime inputs to the LC ethanol conversion step (RED
typical value).
Competing uses
Main use in paper and board production, and higher value
fencing, furniture, and building materials.
Alternative resources
No substitute required where wood is sustainably collected from
un-harvested supplies. Lower value markets may switch to forest
and sawmill residues. Higher value markets will need additional
resource from increased planting, but long establishment times
will constrain supply, hence not valid for this analysis (see SRF).
Indirect impacts
Increased forest residue removal needs to avoid reductions in
biodiversity and regeneration, plus soil degradation and erosion.
See SRF sheet for impacts of new establishment.
Basic Information:
Locations: Existing forest (US, Canada, Russia, North EU, Brazil)
Land used: Yes, small round-wood is the main product (hence
need to meet RED land criteria and include cultivation GHG
emissions).
Supply chain steps
1 Planting & maintenance (thinning)
2 Harvesting
3 Natural drying
4 Chipping
5 Transport to biofuel plant
6 Conversion to biofuel
7 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: None.
Selected biofuel route: Gasification and Fischer Tropsch
synthesis to FT diesel, using UK small round-wood. We also
modelled the economics and GHG emissions for US small round-
wood to Lignocellulosic ethanol
Economics:
UK market value = £42/t (at roadside), or £3.5/GJ feedstock.
US market value = £32/t (at roadside), or £2.6/GJ feedstock.
Impact on market price of being diverted to biofuels is likely to be
Medium risk; since although some un-harvested additional
supplies could be accessed, but there are competing uses (wood
products industry) for this traded resource.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step. UK values are
for FT diesel, and US values for LC ethanol:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 9.9 (UK), 7.0 (US)
• Natural drying = 0.1
• Chipping = 1.7 (UK), 1.6 (US)
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.9 (UK), 1.4 (US)
• Biofuel conversion = 14.6 (UK), 9.8 (US)
• Downstream distribution = 2.9 (UK), 11.6 (US, inc. tariff)
Total biofuel production cost = £31/GJ FT diesel for selected route
based on UK small round-wood. For US resources, total
production costs = £31/GJ LC ethanol (including import tariffs).
The cost of GHG savings saved in the UK could be approximately
£157/tCO2e, based on the high production costs. US savings could
be £187/tCO2e due to the larger emissions.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are Medium, with some resource left un-harvested and available for
sustainable extraction. FT diesel or LC ethanol from small round-wood has high to very high GHG savings, but is more expensive than
current fuels. Further policy support for diversion into biofuels is justified for accessing new sustainable potentials.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kxu
7p
m4
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/k3
gzf
zz
Feasibility:
Current production is negligible (for niche markets). Data quality
for 2020 is Medium, due to very large uncertainty regarding how
quickly the industry will develop and ramp-up in different regions.
Further expansion potential in the long-term is very high
Moisture of oil = 0 %
Density = 0.92 g/cm3
Energy content = 36.0 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0 0 0
EU 0 0.0001 0 0.002
Global 0 0.015 0 0.51
Definition: Photosynthetic single-cell organisms, grown in open ponds or closed
photo-bioreactors. Their lipid, carbohydrate and protein compositions
vary by species and conditions. Typically after harvesting and drying,
lipids are extracted for further processing.
Micro-algae
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 31-36 gCO2e/MJ for selected US route to
FAME biodiesel (based on E4tech data) – this equates to a 58-63%
GHG saving. Uncertain as no commercial production yet, but key
sensitivities are the biomass yields, harvesting energy used, and
methanol input to conversion step.
Competing uses
Required volumes of micro-algae would be grown specifically for
low-value biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be
considered. Micro-algae are currently produced in tiny volumes
to supply niche high-value markets, e.g. food & feed,
pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
Alternative resources
No substitutes required as micro-algae is a “new growth”
feedstock.
Indirect impacts
There is uncertainty around the environmental impacts of micro-
algae cultivation in terms of inputs, including energy, water and
nutrients. This is the subject of ongoing research, however it may
be assumed that the likelihood of negative environmental and
social impacts are low or medium depending on practices and
location. Given fertile land is not required, the risk of food price
impacts via ILUC is very low.
Basic Information:
Locations: Using atmospheric CO2, grows fastest in hot, sunny
climates (MENA, US Gulf). Accelerated growth if CO2 is added
(e.g. power plant CO2 capture), but this would classify the
feedstock as waste carbon gases.
Land used: Yes, macro-algae is the main product (hence need to
meet RED land criteria and allocation of GHGs). However, can be
grown on barren land or desert
Supply chain steps
1 Cultivation
2 Harvesting, drying, extraction of oil
3 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
4 Biofuel conversion
5 Downstream distribution (truck to US port, ship to EU, truck in
EU)
Transport challenges: None for the oil.
Selected biofuel route: FAME biodiesel from micro-algae grown
in the US Gulf.
Economics:
Market value = £1,710/t algal oil (based on estimated US current
large-scale production costs with profit margin), or £47.5/GJ oil.
Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource
is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 50.4
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.0 (minimal distance)
• Biofuel conversion = 0.5 (inc. glycerine revenues)
• Downstream distribution = 8.7 (inc. tariffs)
Total biofuel production cost = £60/GJ FAME biodiesel for
selected route based on US micro-algae. This is very high, due to
cultivation nutrients and harvesting energy.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £786-
859/tCO2e, based on the very high production costs and modest
GHG savings.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as micro-algae would be grown specifically for biofuels,
but with minimal risk of ILUC on barren land. FAME biodiesel from micro-algae has threshold GHG savings, and is very expensive. Further
policy support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is therefore justified (to improve GHGs and costs).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kg
33
9u
r
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/mrs
thn
q
Feasibility:
Current production is minimal (for niche markets). Data quality for
2020 is Medium, due to very large uncertainty regarding how
quickly the industry will develop and ramp-up in different regions.
Further expansion potential in the long-term is very high.
Moisture = 85 %
Density = 1.03 g/cm3
Energy content = 2.0 GJ/t (theoretical biogas yield)
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0 0.01 0 0.01
EU 0 0.24 0 0.24
Global 0.01 2.2 0.01 2.2
Definition: Macro-algae (seaweeds) are multicellular plant-like organisms, harvested
from wild coastal stocks or cultivated at sea. Their composition varies
according to species (brown, red or green), location, salinity and season –
tend to be high in complex carbohydrates and ash, low in lipids.
Macro-algae
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 17-34 gCO2e/MJ for selected biofuel route
via AD (based on DfT Modes data) – this equates to a 60-80%
GHG saving. Uncertain as no commercial production yet, but key
sensitivities are the biomass yields, harvesting energy used, and
conversion plant power inputs.
Competing uses
Required volumes of macro-algae would be grown specifically for
low-value biofuels, hence no competing uses need to be
considered. Seaweed is currently farmed to supply a range of
niche high-value markets, including for food & feed,
pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
Alternative resources
No substitutes required as macro-algae is a “new growth”
feedstock.
Indirect impacts
There is uncertainty around the environmental and social impacts
of seeding and harvesting macro-algae at sea, which is the subject
of ongoing research. It is assumed that the likelihood of negative
environmental and social impacts are low or medium depending
on practices and location. Given land is not used, the risk of food
price impacts via ILUC is negligible.
Basic Information:
Locations: Most productive in nutrient-rich coastal waters (NW
Europe, Eastern Asia, Chile).
Land used: None. Although seaweed is the main product, it is
grown at sea or near-shore tidal zones, so RED land criteria may
not apply.
Supply chain steps
1 Installation & maintenance
2 Harvesting
3 Transport to shore and then biofuel plant
4 Conversion to biofuels
5 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: High water content.
Selected biofuel route: Anaerobic digestion and upgrading to
biomethane, from UK seaweed
Economics:
Market value = £48/t (based on estimated UK current large-scale
production costs with profit margin). Converting this using the
biogas energy potential (not combustion LHV) gives £23.8/GJ
feedstock.
Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource
is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion).
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Cultivation & harvesting = 48.2
• Transport to biofuel plant = 1.2 (minimal distance)
• Biofuel conversion = 11.5 (large scale AD)
• Downstream distribution = 3.0
Total biofuel production cost = £64/GJ biomethane for selected
route based on UK seaweed. This is very high, due to energy and
labour intensive cultivation and harvesting.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately £809-
1,085/tCO2e, based on the very high production costs and modest
GHG savings.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, but grown at sea, RED land criteria may not apply. Competing uses are not considered, as seaweed would be grown
specifically for biofuels, with no risk of ILUC. Biomethane from seaweed has threshold GHG savings, and is very expensive. Further policy
support for cultivation and conversion to biofuels is therefore justified (to improve GHGs and costs).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kg
3p
63
3
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kq
4td
hv
Feasibility:
Data quality is High, with reliable 2020 forecasts for renewables
industry ramp ups. Note that renewable electricity is the
feedstock, and hydrogen is the final transport fuel. Feedstock
availability is therefore given in Mtoe/yr for the whole sector (and
excludes renewable electricity from biomass, as this would be
double counting e.g. wood, straw feedstocks). This does not
estimate the amount that will be dedicated to H2 production.
Moisture = N/A (electricity)
Density = N/A (electricity)
Energy content = N/A (electricity)
Feedstock supply (Mtoe/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 2.2 7.8 67 235
EU 51 82 1,536 2,455
Global 403 575 12,142 17,316
Definition: Gaseous or liquid fuels whose energy content comes from renewable energy
sources other than biomass and which are used in transport. This will presumably
cover hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable electricity, and potentially more
complex synthetic molecules in the future.
Renewable non-bio liquids & gases
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 9 gCO2e/MJ for wind to renewable
electrolysis (based on JEC data) – this equates to an 89% GHG
saving. Key sensitivities are H2 compression and distribution.
Competing uses
All the renewable electricity currently generated is used in the
power sector (distributed onto the grid or consumed onsite).
There is currently no commercial production of renewable liquids
and gases of non-biological origin. Niche volumes of renewable H2
are used in transport (fuel cell electric vehicle pilots).
Alternative resources
Assuming additional renewable generating capacity is built to
supply the facility, it is not necessary to consider a substitute or
alternative resource. If diverting existing renewable output to
transport fuels, then would need to substitute with grid mix.
Indirect impacts
Potential environmental and social impacts relate to the
renewable generating capacity, and will vary widely depending on
the technology, scale and location. Impact of wind turbines and
solar PV panels are covered in great detail elsewhere. Minimal
land area used, hence low ILUC risk. Substituting with grid mix
would indirectly increase fossil emissions from coal & gas power
plants (although this would improve as grids decarbonise).
Basic Information:
Locations: Regions with high deployment of renewables are most
likely to build additional capacity (e.g. EU, US, China).
Land used: Yes, renewable electricity is the main product (hence
need to meet RED land criteria and include “cultivation”/
generation GHG emissions). However, minimal area usually
required, and co-use is possible (e.g. farming around wind turbine
bases).
Supply chain steps
1 Construction and generation of renewable electricity
2 Distribution of power, if electrolyser separately located
3 Conversion to transport fuel
4 Downstream distribution
Transport challenges: For the electricity, grid balancing at local
level and capacity constraints. For the hydrogen, low density
requires specialist pipelines and refuelling infrastructure.
Selected transport fuel route: Onsite electrolysis of UK onshore
wind power to hydrogen
Economics:
Market value = £95/MWh of electricity (UK onshore wind strike
price), i.e. £26.4/GJ of electricity.
Impact on market price is likely to be Low risk; since the resource
is being grown specifically for biofuels (no diversion), i.e.
installation of a new wind or solar farm to produce H2.
Production costs (£/GJ renewable fuel), by production step:
• Renewable electricity = 36.7
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0 (electrolyser onsite)
• Renewable fuel conversion = 7.9
• Downstream distribution = 10.3
Total biofuel production cost = £55/GJ hydrogen for selected
route based on UK onshore wind power. This is very high, due to
wind power price, electrolyser capex and H2 distribution.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£376/tCO2e, due to the very high production costs but excellent
GHG savings and high price of the comparator fossil hydrogen.
Framework criteria summary:
As a main product, RED land criteria apply. Competing uses are not considered, as renewable electricity capacity would be specifically
built (diversion to transport would lead to grid mix emissions). H2 from onshore wind has very high GHG savings, but is very expensive.
Further policy support for renewable capacity building and conversion to transport fuel is therefore justified, but for new sites only.
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/kvm
eq
3o
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/ma
rojs
a
Feasibility:
Data quality is Medium. Good data exists for regional steel
production, but conversion to available syngas volumes relies on
reliable numbers for % of furnaces equipped with gas recovery
equipment, and the syngas ultimate use (much harder to obtain).
Moisture = 0 %
Density = 0.0014 g/cm3
Energy content = 6.2 GJ/t
Feedstock supply (Mt/yr) Biofuel production (PJ/yr)
Current 2020 Current 2020
UK 0.9 0.9 3.3 3.3
EU 10 10 36 37
Global 101 138 375 511
Definition: Carbon Capture and Utilisation is defined in the RED as a process that captures carbon (CO/CO2) rich
waste and residues gas streams from non-renewable energy sources and transforms them into fuels
that are used in the transport sector. Initially the “feedstock” will mainly be steel mill (basic oxygen
furnace) gases, with subsequent syngas fermentation to ethanol.
Waste carbon gases
Sustainability:
Lifecycle direct GHGs = 25 gCO2e/MJ for selected fuel route via
syngas fermentation (based on Lanzatech public data) – this
equates to a 70% GHG saving. Key sensitivities are the power
&steam inputs to conversion step.
Competing uses
Steel mills typically combust carbon monoxide containing gasses,
either with or without energy recovery, or vent to atmosphere.
Pure CO2 streams may find application in the food & drink sector,
but the vast majority is emitted to atmosphere in dilute form.
Alternative resources
No substitute required where syngas is diverted from venting or
flaring (without energy recovery), or if efficiencies are improved
(energy recovery from steel mills is reported to have a low net
electrical efficiency of ~10%). However, diversion from heat &
power demands is likely to lead to natural gas substitution.
Indirect impacts
The main environmental impact associated with the use of
natural gas is the fossil GHG emissions released. Social impacts
may include local energy prices. Overall, risks are modest, given
the size of the under-utilised resource, although will depend on
local resource availability and conditions.
Basic Information:
Locations: Initial resource focused on steel mill syngas (e.g. China,
Europe, Japan). Future CO2 resources could be available from
large-scale power plants (via carbon capture, once
commercialised).
Land used: None, since either classified as a waste or process
residue (depending on the final use).
Supply chain steps:
1 Transport to biofuel plant, if separately located
2 Conversion to transport fuel
3 Distribution to refuelling station
Transport challenges: Auto-combustion.
Selected biofuel route: Syngas fermentation to ethanol (e.g.
Lanzatech process), based on EU steel mills.
Economics:
Market value = £42/t (UK focus), or £6.7/GJ feedstock
There is minimal trade in the resource, hence impact on market
price of being diverted to biofuels is judged to be Not Applicable.
However, we note additional supplies are limited, and there are
competing uses in the heat & power sectors.
Production costs (£/GJ biofuel), by production step:
• Resource = 11.1
• Transport to biofuel plant = 0.0
• Biofuel conversion = 7.9
• Downstream distribution = 3.5
Total biofuel production cost = £23/GJ ethanol for selected route
based on fermentation of EU steel mill syngas.
The cost of GHG savings saved could be approximately
£62/tCO2e, based on the low production cost.
Framework criteria summary:
As a waste, land criteria in the RED do not apply. Steel mill gas competing uses are generally Low (some inefficiently used in power),
although the resource is constrained by steel output. Syngas fermentation to ethanol has modest GHG savings, but is cost competitive
with current fuels. Additional support for diversion into biofuels is justified for under-utilised fractions (especially other CO2 streams).
Ima
ge
so
urc
e:
htt
p:/
/tin
yu
rl.c
om
/m6
4s9
lz