Library

1
Title: A Stochastic Techno-Economic Analysis of the Catalytic Hydrothermolysis Aviation Biofuel Technology
Author: Elspeth McGarvey; Wallace E. Tyner
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study analyzed the financial feasibility of catalytic hydrothermolysis (CH) aviation biofuel technology. Three feedstocks were assessed: brown grease (rendered from grease trap waste), yellow grease (rendered from used cooking oil), and carinata oil. Since the technology carries risk, a stochastic analysis was conducted, which resulted in a distribution of net present values (NPVs) and breakeven prices. The breakeven price was the price of jet fuel per gallon that made the NPV equal to zero. A scenario where fuel price grew over time and a scenario where fuel price did not grow were both analyzed. Four plant scenarios were analyzed: 1. pioneer brownfield, 2. Nth brownfield, 3. pioneer greenfield, 4. Nth greenfield. Brown grease was the most promising feedstock scenario, in terms of financial feasibility. Breakeven prices in each feedstock scenario were lowest in the brownfield nth plant scenario, and highest in the greenfield pioneer plant scenario. Across the four plant scenarios and two fuel price growth scenarios, mean breakeven prices ranged from $2.02 to $2.83/gal in the brown grease scenario, $2.82 to $3.81/gal in the yellow grease scenario, and $3.90 to $5.66/gal in the carinata oil scenario. With the addition of RINs and LCFS credits, the probability of loss was as low as 0.0%, 18.9%, and 74.6% in the brown grease, yellow grease, and carinata oil scenarios, respectively. However, without RIN or LCFS credits, the process was not found to be financially viable.

2
Title: Regulation of the EP and of the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision No 280/2004/EC
Author: Official Journal of the European Union
Publication Year: 2013
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a Regulation on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision No 280/2004/EC.

3
Title: State of the Art on Alternative Fuels Transport Systems in the European Union
Author: COWI
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: FUTURE CONCEPTS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The present report, based on the contributions of the EG FTF, has the main objective to provide an update of the latest developments in the field of alternative fuels and the market uptake of alternative fuel transport systems and related infrastructure in the EU. This information, among the other guidance documents elaborated by the Commission, will be of good assistance to MS to prepare their National Policy Frameworks. The report also contains some recommendations to MS to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the Directive as well as to the Commission to pursue a further market uptake of alternative fuel transport systems in the EU.The aim of the study is to gather information of the development of alternative fuels for transport in the EU and to give a broad overview.
The report encompasses the facts, the figures and the positions of the Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels (EGFTF) on the measures (policy and research) to be taken to ensure the proper development of alternative fuels in the EU. It has been drafted by COWI mainly on the basis of the results of the meetings of the Expert Group of future transport fuels as well as on further information provided by the members of the Group.

4
Title: DIRECTIVE 2014/94/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Author:
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Official Journal of the European Union Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is the Directive 2014/94/EU on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. This Directive establishes a common framework of measures for the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in the Union in order to minimise dependence on oil and to mitigate the environmental impact of transport. This Directive sets out minimum requirements for the building-up of alternative fuels infrastructure, including recharging points for electric vehicles and refuelling points for natural gas (LNG and CNG) and hydrogen, to be implemented by means of Member States’ national policy frameworks, as well as common technical specifications for such recharging and refuelling points, and user information requirements.

5
Title: Report on Barriers to Biofuels Deployment in Europe
Author: European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP) – Support for Advanced Biofuels Stakeholders (SABS)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO Forum Area 2: LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The aim of this Report is to feed the debate on how to most effectively overcome such hurdles with the support of the EBTP. Even though the EU2020 targets are far from being met, the development of advanced biofuels capacities is slowing down. In January 2014 the European Commission presented the 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. One main change compared to the 2020 targets is that the Commission does not anymore include targets for renewable energy or the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels used in the transport sector or any other sub-sector after 2020. Previously, the Commission has already indicated, that food-based biofuels should not receive public support after 2020. The focus of policy development should be on second and third generation biofuels and other alternative, sustainable fuels, which is reflected in the 2030 decision. This report aims at spotlighting country-specific bottlenecks hindering more active engagement of the industry to realize the potentials of advanced biofuels.

6
Title: EU Refining launches its low-carbon liquid fuels path to meet CO2 targets for transport
Author: Alain Mathuren
Publication Year: 2018
Source: FuelsEurope Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO Forum Area 2: LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is about the proposed long-term trajectory for low-carbon liquid fuels for Europe (refining industry’s Vision 2050) by FuelsEurope. Transitioning gradually to new feedstocks such as renewables, waste and captured CO2, and with the right policy framework in place, this vision offers a cost-effective option for cutting CO2 emissions in transport using the existing and widespread infrastructure already in place, enabling to reducing emissions of all vehicles in circulation and including all transport sectors, HDV, marine and aviation.

7
Title: Biofuels for Aviation: Review and analysis of options for market development
Author: Paul Deane (University College Cork); Steve Pye (University College London)
Publication Year: 2016
Source: INSIGHT_E Proposed by: Kyriakos Maniatis
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The objective of this report is to review and analyse options for biojet market development in Europe to meet the Biofuel FlightPath target. An assessment of these options cannot be divorced from existing EU bioenergy policy; therefore, a review of current use and bioenergy policy in the EU is presented. Areas of complementarity and conflict are highlighted and in particular, policy recommendations are made to ensure cohesiveness in the overall renewable energy policy landscape. A review of existing methods and pathways to create biojet fuel is presented as this provides an important base not only for an understanding of the type and quantity of feedstocks required but also for implications for sustainability and potential emissions reduction. The report then reviews existing and proposed mechanisms that may be exploited to bring higher levels of biojet fuels to market.

8
Title: CO2 from new cars up as petrol overtakes diesel, 2017 data shows
Author: Cara McLaughlin
Publication Year: 2018
Source: ACEA Proposed by: David Chiaramonti
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a joint report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) illustrating that CO2 emissions increase as a function of the petrol sales.

9
Title: Economic_and_Market_Report_Q4_2017
Author:
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ACEA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: PASSENGER CARS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is an Economic and Market Report of the EU Automotive Industry in the last quarter of 2017.

10
Title: No improvements on average CO2 emissions from new cars in 2017
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: EEA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a brief overview of key findings after analysis of available data on new passenger vehicles registered in Europe that was performed by European Environment Agency (EEA).

11
Title: BIOFUELS MATRIX
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: UPEI Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO Forum Area 2: LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The file is a Biofuels matrix put together by UPEI in March 2018 that gives a concise overview on the (i) taxation system, (ii) mandatory blending and (iii) legislation for advanced biofuels in several countries (Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, UK).

12
Title: Well to wheel efficiency for heavy duty vehicles
Author: Ahlvik P.
Publication Year: 2009
Source: Ecotraffic ERD3 AB, 2009. Floragatan 10B, SE-114 31 Stockholm, Sweden. Proposed by: VOLVO
Forum Area 1: HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The project reported here was made in co-operation between Ecotraffic and Volvo Technology. The scenarios, fuel and driveline studied were largely established in discussions between these two parties. The project was funded by the Swedish emission research programme (EMFO) administered by the Swedish Road Administration. The main scope of the project was to gain more knowledge about well-to-wheel efficiency of the use of biofuels in heavy-duty vehicles. The most general conclusion that can be drawn about the energy converter is that if the most efficient engine type is used, i.e. the diesel engine, the differences between the tankto-wheel (TTW) efficiency for most fuels becomes quite small. In order to apply such technology, a considerable development work would be necessary. It is plausible, that for some of the fuel options, as high efficiency as for he diesel-fuelled diesel engine might not be achieved due to some intrinsic fuel properties or practical reasons. On the other hand, it is also possible that some of the fuels could have properties that might be utilised for improving the efficiency to an even higher level than the diesel baseline. Examples here could be the ―internal cooling‖ possible with direct injection of alcohol fuels and the specific combustion properties of DME. Likewise, the utilisation of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) might also be optimised for these fuel options and possibly, also for other fuels.

13
Title: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/652 Petrol&Diesel fuels
Author: Official Journal of the European Union
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO Forum Area 2: LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This Directive lays down rules on calculation methods and reporting requirements in accordance with Directive 98/70/EC. This Directive applies to fuels used to propel road vehicles, non-road mobile machinery (including inland waterway vessels when not at sea), agricultural and forestry tractors, recreational craft when not at sea and electricity for use in road vehicles.

14
Title: Data sources to support land suitability assessments for bioenergy feedstocks in the EU – A review
Author: Allen B., Maréchal A., Nanni S., Pražan J., Baldock D., Hart K.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London. Proposed by: European Climate Foundation
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study concerns itself primarily with the first (more common) approach, and has looked at whether the available data can be used to support the identification of currently unused land that could be considered sustainably available for biofuel production. This will help to understand the myriad claims made about land area potentials in relation to biofuels and bioenergy production in the EU. The study does not consider ways in which biomass production could be integrated to the existing agricultural production system. Whilst there may be merit in exploring such options, studies assessing potential for this type of bioenergy project are far less common, and would require a different approach to their review and understanding.
This study should not be considered as a comprehensive review of all available land use and cover datasets that relate to rural land in the EU. The review takes place within the specific context described above and therefore focuses on those data that can help us to understand land use patterns and availability in the EU.

15
Title: Methanol as a Marine Fuel
Author: Andersson K., Salazar C.M.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: FC Business Intelligence Ltd, 2015 Proposed by: Methanol Institute
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2: ALCOHOLS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Methanol is readily available worldwide and every year over 70 million tons are produced globally. The main feed-stock in methanol production is natural gas. However, methanol could be 100% renewable, as it can be produced from a variety of renewable feed-stocks or as an electro-fuel. Methanol is very similar to marine fuels such as heavy fuel oil (HFO) because it is also a liquid. This means that existing storage, distribution and bunkering infrastructure could handle methanol.

16
Title: Advanced Biofuel Feedstocks – An Assessment of Sustainability
Author: Arup URS Consortium
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Arup URS Consortium Package Order Ref: 217(4/45/12)ARPS – PPRO 04/91/30 Proposed by: St1 Biofuels
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study provides, to the best of author’s knowledge, a first holistic analysis of the whole list of sustainability criteria. It gathers consistent information and defines a rationale for including feedstocks within Annex IX using a clear set of criteria.

17
Title: Advanced Biofuel Demonstration Competition Feasibility Study
Author: Arup URS Consortium, E4tech (UK) Ltd and Ricardo-AEA
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Arup URS Consortium, E4tech (UK) Ltd and Ricardo-AEA: Package Order Ref: PPRO 04/91/32 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: COMPETITION RULES Forum Area 2: WTO
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

A UK Competition on advanced biofuels would place the UK on the global map of nations supporting their commercialisation. Current status of development of the sector means that there is potential for additionality from UK public funding to the sector, which could support the development of UK industry related to the sector and the deployment of technology in the UK, and attract international players to the UK. This feasibility study concludes that there is opportunity for a UK Competition to support one or more advanced biofuel demonstration project, within the proposed £25M budget. However, the funding available may not be able to support some of the more cost intensive technologies and may be restricted in terms of the large scale demonstration activities it could fund (TRL 7). As a result, the Competition should invite applications for activities at both TRL 6 and 7, and this may be most effectively done through a two stage application process. All scales of demonstration may deliver against the Competition objectives, where proposals demonstrate exploitation of intellectual property for UK benefit and potential for future commercial deployment of the technology in the UK and elsewhere, but their contribution towards the 2020 RED targets would be limited. The Competition would be an important means to promote the UK’s participation in the global advanced biofuels market, which could contribute up to £260M – £520M per year to the UK economy in 2030, and initiate the deployment of the technology in the UK.

18
Title: The future of climate-friendly aviation: Ten percent alternative aviation fuels by 2025
Author: Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e.V.
Publication Year: 2012
Source: Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e.V., Georgen str. 25, 10117, Berlin, Germany Proposed by: Lufthansa
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4:

Aireg has put together this strategy paper to demonstrate that it is already possible to sustainably develop feedstock on a large scale today, that there are sophosticated processing technologies available that are ready for use on ana industrial scale right now, and that the use of biofuel in the aviation industry is of great interest to all parties involved provided – the right economic and political conditions are set in place and observed.

19
Title: Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry
Author: Bazzanella M.A., Ausfelder F.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: DECHEMA Gesellschaft für Chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e.V. Theodor-Heuss-Allee 25, 60486 Frankfurt am Main Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The scope of this study is to analyse how the chemical industry could use breakthrough technologies to further reduce CO2 emissions resulting from the production of its key building blocks. The purpose of this study is to provide quantitative data on promising low carbon technologies, estimate their potential impact on CO2 emission reductions, and highlight the current technological and financial limitations and barriers. Promising technologies are available at a relatively advanced stage of development, however their implementation on a wide scale is hard to achieve under the current framework conditions, while we also need to safeguard the benefits and the global competitiveness of this key industrial sector in Europe. This shows the need for a concerted approach between public and private stakeholders to further support an ambitious research and innovation agenda, with a strong focus on industrial relevance. It also shows the need, more than ever, for a close dialogue between public and private stakeholders about the regulatory framework that will allow the shift in the long run.

20
Title: Low Carbon Transport Fuel Policy for Europe Post 2020. How can a post 2020 low carbon transport fuel policy be designed that is effective and addresses the political pitfalls of the pre 2020 policies?
Author: Bowyer C., Skinner I., Malins C., Nanni S., Baldock D.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), The International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT), Transport and Environmental Policy Research (TEPR) Proposed by: Transport & Environment
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper is intended to contribute to debate on future EU action on low carbon transport fuels. It aims to provide an analysis of a range of policy tools and mechanisms that could be employed to deliver action in this field, their strengths and limitations and to explore the need for action and the EU’s role within this. The following analysis is intended to: Explore the motivation for low carbon transport policy at the EU level and examine the case for continued action; Examine and establish the policy goals future action post 2020 would need to deliver against;
Improve understanding of both current EU level and alternative approaches to delivering low carbon transport fuels and key lessons from these experiences; Explore core policy tools, based on the literature, interviews with experts and experience for delivering effective action on low carbon transport fuels; Set out and review the core policy options for future action at EU level in the post 2020 period. The analysis within this report is based on literature review, interviews with key experts, a workshop with experts (January 2015) and a systematic review of policy objectives, goals, behaviour change and actors. The methodology adopted to analyse, develop and review future policy is set out below. Within this report it was felt critical to fully disaggregate and clearly set out the policy needs before developing future policy solutions. In this way preconceptions around policy tools and policy outcomes are revealed and set aside to enable an effective assessment of the best policy solutions for the future.

21
Title: Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the US: Options for sustainable and/or energy-secure transportation
Author: Bromberg L., Cheng W.K.
Publication Year: 2010
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Final report UT-Battelle Subcontract Number:4000096701 Proposed by: Methanol Institute
Forum Area 1: ALCOHOLS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Methanol has been promoted as an alternative transportation fuel from time to time over the past forty years. In spite of significant efforts to realize the vision of methanol as a practical transportation fuel in the US, such as the California methanol fueling corridor of the 1990s, it did not succeed on a large scale. This white paper covers all important aspects of methanol as a transportation fuel.

22
Title: Cost impacts of ICAO’s GMBM
Author: Cames M., Velzen van An.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Briefing Paper. Oeko-Institut e.V. Office Berlin, Schicklerstr. 5-7, 10179 Berlin Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Aim of the Paper: To estimate the cost impacts of introducing a global market-based mechanism (GMBM) in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) per developing country region, particularly Africa, Asia and Latin America / Caribbean. Approach: Scenario analysis 1. Cost impacts are estimated using the AERO modelling system (AERO-MS); 2. Offset supply is estimated using the CDM pipeline of registered offset projects.

23
Title: Availability of offsets for a global market-based mechanism for international aviation
Author: Cames M.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Briefing Paper. Oeko-Institut e.V. Office Berlin, Schicklerstr. 5-7, 10179 Berlin Proposed by: Swedish Biofuel
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The results of this analysis support that credits from the pipeline of existing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) projects could cover this demand for a period of at least eight years even if eligibility requirements for certain project types and vintages are introduced. If, in addition, the four years from ICAO’s potential decision to establish the Global Market-Based Mechanism (GMBM) in late 2016 to its entrance into force in early 2021 are taken into account, the period amounts to 12 years, which is certainly long enough to provide CDM project developers sufficient lead time to develop and register new CDM projects. Based on this evidence, concerns that there is a scarcity of offset supply for ICAO’s GMBM would seem to be groundless even if ICAO were to deem only credits with high environmental quality standards eligible and to use only recent vintages.

24
Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/30/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Author: Official Journal of the European Union
Publication Year: 2009
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Amendment to Directive 98/70/EC. Articles 1, 4, 9, 11 are replaced. Articles 2, 3, are amended. Articles 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 8a are inserted. Article 14 is deleted. Annexes I, II, III and IV are replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to the current Directive.

25
Title: Emission Reduction Targets for International Aviation and Shipping
Author: Cames M., Graichen J., Siemons Anne, Cook V.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Briefing Paper. Oeko-Institut e.V. Office Berlin, Schicklerstr. 5-7, 10179 Berlin Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: MARITIME
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The aim of this study is to provide Members of the European Parliament with the necessary expertise to assess what adequate contributions of the two sectors would be in terms of emission reduction. It starts with a summary of the historic CO2 emission trends in both sectors (Chapter 2). Despite the fact that both international aviation and maritime transport contribute to climate change beyond their GHG emissions (Box 1), it focuses our quantitative analysis on CO2 only, due to limited availability of consistent data for non-CO2 impacts. However, since these impacts cannot simply be ignored, it points out the implications for our conclusions if non-CO2 impacts are taken into account as well. In Chapter 3 provides a short overview of efforts undertaken at ICAO and IMO to address GHG emission of international aviation and maritime transport. In order to determine the future role of both sectors in terms of global GHG emissions, it examines emission projections for international aviation and maritime transport (Chapter 4) and provide estimates of their shares to global GHG emission pathways (Chapter 5). Based on these considerations it discusses concepts and approaches to determine adequacy in terms of emissions (Chapter 6) and derive potential emission stabilisation and reduction targets from these deliberations (Chapter 7). Conclusions of this study are provided in Chapter 8.

26
Title: An Aviation Carbon Offset Scheme (ACOS), Version 3.0 – Update
Author: Cames M., Gores S., Graichen V., Keimeyer F., Jasper F.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: On behalf of the Federal Environment Agency (Germany). Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Project No. (FKZ) 3713 14 102. Publisher: Umweltbundesamt, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau-Roßlau. Germany Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper provides a concept for the design of the Aviation Carbon Offset Scheme (ACOS) and aims at overcoming the deadlock that has continued for many years between developed and developing countries, hindering an agreement on instruments addressing greenhouse gas emission of the aviation sectors. We discuss key design options of such a scheme, including which entity should be responsible for purchasing offsets, how requirements for purchasing offsets can be divided between the covered entities, how the diverging situations of countries can be taken into account without providing incentives to evade the scheme and what needs to be considered to ensure environmental integrity. As a result we sketch out a scheme covering all countries, which takes into account differences them by means of a route-based differentiation of requirements, which does not generate any revenues and which would enable the aviation sector to contribute appropriately to the global challenge of addressing climate change.

27
Title: CO2-Based Synthetic Fuel: Assessment of Potential European Capacity and Environmental Performance
Author: Christensen A., Petrenko Ch.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Climate Foundation and the International Council on Clean Transportation Proposed by: The International Council on Clean Transportation
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study aims to improve our understanding of the potential contribution that CO2-based synthetic fuels could make towards the European Union’s (EU) climate mitigation goals. It projects potential volumes of these fuels that could be produced in EU Member States based on a financial analysis and deployment model, taking into account technology readiness, potential subsidies or other policy support, and expected changes in renewable electricity prices. The study then assesses expected impacts of CO2-based synthetic fuel production on electricity generation and consumption in the EU. It estimates the GHG intensity of CO2-based synthetic fuels, including both direct emissions from synthesizing the fuels and indirect emissions resulting from increased demand for electricity from the grid. Lastly, we estimate the total GHG reductions that could potentially be achieved by CO2-based synthetic fuels across the EU, compared to climate goals.

28
Title: Commercial Aircraft Propulsion and Energy Systems Research: Reducing Global Carbon Emissions
Author: Committee on Propulsion and Energy Systems to Reduce Commercial Aviation Carbon Emissions
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Committee on Propulsion and Energy Systems to Reduce Commercial Aviation Carbon Emissions; Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. National Academies Press, Keck 360, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 ISBN 978-0-309-44096-7. DOI: 10.17226/23490 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: FUNDAMENTALS Forum Area 4: DEFINITIONS

Four high-priority approaches were identified throughout the course of study that have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, particularly from those aircraft that produce the bulk of the emissions: large single- and twin-aisle aircraft. However, developing new technology for large commercial aircraft requires substantial time and resources. Aircraft–propulsion integration and gas turbine engines are both well-established approaches that need to be pursued. In contrast, the funding situation for the other two approaches, turboelectric propulsion and SAJF, is somewhat problematic. It is not clear when turboelectric propulsion technology will advance to the point that it provides the performance needed for practical application in commercial aircraft. It is also uncertain when SAJF will be able to compete economically with petroleum-based fuels, especially considering the capital costs of founding a new industry and the fluctuating prices of conventional jet fuel. Given the immediacy of the issues, however, research supporting all four approaches is prudent both to reduce current CO2 emissions and to alleviate the potential adverse consequences of future aviation growth worldwide.

29
Title: Novel Low Carbon Transport Fuels and the RTFO: sustainability implications Scoping paper for the UK Department for Transport
Author: Denvir B., Taylor R., Bauen A., Toop G., Alberici S.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: UK Department for Transport Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This scoping paper by E4tech and Ecofys presents a classification framework for various types of transport fuels, and the potential risks and practical implications of widening the scope of the RTFO to encompass novel low carbon fuels other than biofuels. The main objectives of the paper are:
1.To classify the various types of fuels in order to understand their standing in the context of the RED, FQD and current RTFO, and establish the makings of a comprehensive, consistent classification framework for transport fuels
2.To identify sustainability risks or unintended consequences that supporting novel low carbon transport fuels could lead to and consider how these can be mitigated
3.To consider some of the practical implications of expanding the RTFO to encompass these new fuels

30
Title: Around the world in eighty days of climate actions in transport
Author: Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Proposed by: Lanzatech
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The Dutch View for Transportation and Climate Change

31
Title: The Impact of Biofuels on Transport and the Environment, and Their Connection with Agricultural Development in Europe
Author: Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ISBN: 978-92-823-6329-4 (pdf). doi: 10.2861/775 (pdf) Proposed by: Lufthansa
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study provides a detailed overview of biofuels production and consumption and of related policies worldwide. It also contains comprehensive analysis and discussion of key aspects affecting the overall sustainability of biofuels. These include, in particular, their impact on agricultural markets, emissions from indirect land-use change, and greenhouse gas emissions.

32
Title: E2 ADVANCED BIOFUEL MARKET REPORT 2014
Author: E2 Environmental Entrepreneurs
Publication Year: 2014
Source: E2 Environmental Entrepreneurs Proposed by: International Council of Clean Transportation
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This analysis reveals a decrease in capacity over previous years and downward trends in financial metrics. Biodiesel remains the dominant biofuel through 2017, but we project increasing contributions from other fuels, in particular drop-in hydrocarbons and cellulosic ethanol. As the industry matures, some companies have ceased operations or shifted their focus to other markets. Many companies, however, continue to move steadily towards commercialization, with a number of firms expecting to begin production at commercial scale by the end of this year. Policies like the federal Renewable Fuel Standard and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard continue to be the primary drivers for market development, although there remain industry challenges related to regulatory uncertainty. Most notably, the EPA was delayed this year in its annual announcement for the Renewable Fuel Standard volumes. This regulatory instability leads to decreased investment, which further exacerbates other challenges associated with commercialization. In addition, in 2014 the LCFS was frozen at 2013 compliance volumes during a re-adoption period following a court decision. A number of promising plants have been delayed or idled because of difficulties in production or financing within this new industry. A trend in 2014 has been innovation in some companies’ paths to commercialization. While many companies continue to commercialize with a large biorefinery, other companies are looking at more distributed generation models that are less capital and feedstock intensive. We also look at trends in feedstock price and utilization to paint a clearer picture of this important component of the industry. This report continues to see valuable potential for advanced biofuels to have a substantial impact on the transportation sector in the United States. Despite some setbacks, there are many companies moving steadily towards commercialization.

33
Title: EU REFERENCE SCENARIO 2016, ENERGY, TRANSPORT AND GHG EMISSIONS, TRENDS TO 2050
Author: E3M-Lab, PRIMES model, GEM-E3 model, Prometheus model and PRIMES gas, IIASA -GAINS model, IIASA –GLOBIOM/G4M models, EuroCARE
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Directorate-General for Energy, the Directorate-General for Climate Action and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. PDF ISBN: 978-92-79-52374-8. doi: 10.2833/001137 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: REGULATION Forum Area 2: FUNDAMENTALS
Forum Area 3: DEFINITIONS Forum Area 4:

The Reference Scenario analyses key policies aiming at reducing GHG emissions (e.g. EU ETS, CO2 standards for light duty vehicles), at increasing the RES share (e.g. RES targets and implementing policies), and at improving energy efficiency (e.g. Energy Efficiency Directive, Ecodesign). The increase in RES and improvements in energy efficiency also lead to the reduction of GHG emissions. The modelling captures these policy interactions. Furthermore, the scenario analysis also provides indicators related to competitive energy provision for businesses and affordability of energy use, as these are key aspects for economic and social development. In the Reference Scenario, GHG emissions decrease in most sectors of the energy system. This is particularly the case in the power generation sector as various decarbonisation technologies reach maturity, despite the increase in gross electricity demand. As a result, the EU energy system sees a strong reduction in the carbon intensity of power generation. Non-CO2 emissions trends are diverse, with substantial decreases in e.g. waste and HFCs and small decreases in agriculture. LULUCF is currently an emission sink, although this is projected to decline. The Reference Scenario projects an increase in renewable energy shares over the projected period. This is first driven by dedicated RES policies and later in the period by the long-lasting effect of current policies, technological progress and better market functioning. Additionally the energy system is characterised by a continued decoupling of GDP growth and energy demand growth: while the economy grows by 75% between 2010 and 2050, total energy consumption reduces by 15% in the same time period. Focusing on the short to medium term, the Reference Scenario shows that the period between 2010 and 2020 sees substantial changes in the energy system. This is notably driven by the legally binding targets of the 2020 Energy and Climate package, the CO2 standards for cars and vans, and the Energy Efficiency Directive. The projection shows that the combined measures achieve 18.4% energy efficiency gains. The EU 2020 RES share is 21.0%, while GHG emission reductions would reach 25.7%. Adopted policies are found to be sufficient to achieve the EU level 2020 target for effort sharing sectors. Regarding the medium to long term, GHG emission reductions are projected to reach 35.2% in 2030 and 47.7% in 2050. Although emissions reduce substantially, the decrease is less than the target agreed for 2030 and the objective for 2050. The RES share reaches 24.3% in 2030. The ETS, which leads to continued reductions of allowances over the projection period and increasing carbon prices, is a significant driver to RES penetration and further emission reduction. The influence of energy efficiency policies, the CO2 standards for cars and vans, etc. continues beyond the 2020 horizon, with energy savings of 23.9% projected for 2030. The changes that the power generation sector undergoes entail considerable capital intensive investments. These include investments into the transmission and distribution systems not least because of the development of the ENTSOE Ten Year Development Plan until 2030. Investment costs have an upward effect on electricity prices – and on energy system costs – in the transitional period until 2030. Beyond 2030, however, electricity prices stabilize and even decrease. A general effect on total energy system costs is that they become more capital intensive
over time. After the structural adjustments in order to cope with the 2020 targets and policies, of which the effects continue in the longer term, total energy system costs grow slower than GDP. This leads to a decreasing ratio of energy system costs to GDP in the period 2030-50.

34
Title: A harmonised Auto-Fuel biofuel roadmap for the EU to 2030
Author: E4tech
Publication Year: 2013
Source: E4tech 83, Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW, United Kingdom Proposed by: SGAB Core Team, St1 Biofuels
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: AVIATION
Forum Area 3: MARITIME Forum Area 4: RAIL

The focus of the study is to develop a liquid biofuel roadmap that can make a significant contribution to environmental and energy goals. While the roadmap focuses on liquid biofuels for road transport, the modelling underpinning this roadmap also considers the role of other alternative fuels, such as natural gas, hydrogen and electricity, and the use of biofuels in other non-road transport modes, such as aviation, rail, shipping and off-highway vehicles. Also, the modelling incorporates a wide range of factors that determine the uptake of biofuels.

35
Title: DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/1513 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Author: Official Journal of the European Union
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Amendment to Directive 98/70/EC: Points 10,11,12,13,14 are added in Article 2. Articles 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 10 are amended. Paragraph 3 of Article 8a, Article 11 is replaced. Point (k) is added in Article 9. Article 10a is inserted. Annex IV is amended and Annex V is added in accordance with Annex I to this Directive.
Amendment to Directive 2009/28/EC: Points (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w) are added in Article 2. Articles 3, 17, 18, 19, 23 is amended. Paragraph 5 in Article 5 is replaced, Paragraphs 1 and 2 in Article 6 is replaced. Article 21 is deleted. Second paragraph in Article 22 is amended. Article 25 is replaced. Article 25a is inserted. Annex V is amended and Annexes VIII and IX are added in accordance with Annex II to this Directive.

36
Title: A harmonised Auto-Fuel biofuel roadmap for the EU to 2030 – Appendices
Author: E4tech
Publication Year: 2013
Source: E4tech 83, Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW, United Kingdom Proposed by: SGAB Core Team, St1 Biofuels
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: AVIATION
Forum Area 3: MARITIME Forum Area 4: RAIL

The focus of the study is to develop a liquid biofuel roadmap that can make a significant contribution to environmental and energy goals. While the roadmap focuses on liquid biofuels for road transport, the modelling underpinning this roadmap also considers the role of other alternative fuels, such as natural gas, hydrogen and electricity, and the use of biofuels in other non-road transport modes, such as aviation, rail, shipping and off-highway vehicles. Also, the modelling incorporates a wide range of factors that determine the uptake of biofuels.

37
Title: From the Sugar Platform to biofuels and biochemical
Author: E4TECH, RE-CORD and WUR
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Final report for the European Commission Directorate-General Energy Contract No. ENER/C2/423-2012/SI2.673791 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: SUGAR Forum Area 2: USA
Forum Area 3: CHINA Forum Area 4: BRASIL

Numerous potential pathways to biofuels and biochemicals exist via the sugar platform. This study uses literature surveys, market data and stakeholder input to provide a comprehensive evidence base for policymakers and industry – identifying the key benefits and development needs for the sugar platform. The study created a company database for 94 sugar-based products, with some already commercial, the majority at research/pilot stage, and only a few demonstration plants crossing the “valley of death”. Case studies describe the value proposition, market outlook and EU activity for ten value chains (acrylic, adipic & succinic acids, FDCA, BDO, farnesene, isobutene, PLA, PHAs and PE). Most can deliver significant greenhouse savings and drop-in (or improved) properties, but at an added cost to fossil alternatives.
Whilst significant progress has been made, research barriers remain around lignocellulosic biomass fractionation, product separation energy, biological inhibition, chemical selectivity and monomer purity, plus improving whole chain process integration. An assessment of EU competitiveness highlights strengths in R&D, but a lack of strong commercial activity, due to the US, China and Brazil having more attractive feedstock and investment conditions. Further policy development, in particular for biochemicals, will be required to realise a competitive European sugar-based bioeconomy.

38
Title: European Aviation Environmental Report 2016
Author: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), European Environment Agency (EEA) and EUROCONTROL
Publication Year: 2016
Source: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), European Environment Agency (EEA) and EUROCONTROL, ISBN: 978-92-9210-197-8. doi: 10.2822/385503 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4: SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable Alternative Fuels: • Uptake of sustainable alternative fuels in the aviation sector is very slow, but assumed to play a  large role in reducing aviation greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.
• The European Advanced Biofuels Flightpath provides a  roadmap to achieve an annual production rate of 2 million tonnes of sustainably produced biofuel for civil aviation by 2020.
• European commercial flights have trialled sustainable alternative fuels. However regular production of sustainable aviation alternative fuels is projected to be very limited in the next few years, and thus it is unlikely that the roadmap 2020 target will be achieved. Market‑Based Measures: • Market-based measures are needed to meet aviation’s emissions reduction targets as technological and operational improvements alone are not considered sufficient. • The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) currently covers all intra-European flights. This will contribute around 65 million tonnes of CO2 emission reductions between 2013 and 2016, achieved within the aviation sector and in other sectors. • More than 100 airports in Europe have deployed noise and emissions charging schemes since the 1990s.

39
Title: Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030
Author: European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document
Publication Year: 2014
Source: European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document SWD (2014) 15 final. Brussels, 22-01-2014 Proposed by: BTG, Mossi & Ghisolfi
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The policy initiative underpinned by this Impact Assessment is only the first step to a comprehensive and detailed solution to energy and climate challenges in a 2030 perspective. As such, the policy initiative focuses on the broad objectives of the 2030 Framework and some key implementation aspects; in particular the issue of climate and energy targets in a 2030 perspective and how they interact. It is also expected to propose the general direction of policy development in specific areas; such as internal energy market, supply diversification, the ETS cap, including approach to issues such as the existing large surplus or carbon leakage, and the role of agriculture and transport in the transition towards a more competitive, secure and sustainable energy system and EU economy. On this basis, the policy options evaluated in this Impact Assessment focus on the target setting as such, and to a lesser extent on other means of ensuring progress towards meeting the abovementioned challenges. This Impact Assessment includes a first assessment of the implementation approach to meet the 2030 objectives for climate and energy policies, but it should be underlined that the specific implementation measures will require further assessments. This would be done in a second step once there is agreement on the general approach to the 2030 framework, through dedicated impact assessments. One concrete policy implementation that is envisaged already now is the proposal for a structural measure to improve the functioning of the ETS which is confronted with a large surplus. This proposal is however supported by a separate Impact Assessment.

40
Title: State of the Art on Alternative Fuels Transport Systems in the European Union
Author: European Commission, DG MOVE - Expert group on future transport fuels State of the Art on Alternative Fuels Transport Systems
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Commission, DG MOVE - Expert group on future transport fuels State of the Art on Alternative Fuels Transport Systems Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The aim of the study is to gather information of the development of alternative fuels for transport in the EU and to give a broad overview. The report encompasses the facts, the figures and the positions of the Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels (EGFTF) on the measures (policy and research) to be taken to ensure the proper development of alternative fuels in the EU. It has been drafted by COWI mainly on the basis of the results of the meetings of the Expert Group of future transport fuels as well as on further information provided by the members of the Group.

41
Title: Communication on decarbonising the transport sector
Author: European Commission
Publication Year: 2016
Source: European Commission Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

How does this new initiative relate to past and possible future initiatives, and to other EU policies?
Building on the Commission Communication on the 2030 climate and energy framework, in October 2014 the European Council agreed on the climate and energy policy framework for the European Union. It was agreed, for 2030, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% domestically as well as on EU-wide renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. For transport (which represents more than 30% of final energy consumption and 24% of EU greenhouse gas emissions) the Council asked for a comprehensive and technology neutral approach for the promotion of emissions reduction and energy efficiency, for electric transportation and for renewable energy sources also after 2020, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and risks related to fossil fuel dependency.
Subsequently, the Energy Union Package3 stated that the EU needs to speed up energy efficiency and decarbonisation in the transport sector, its progressive switch to alternative fuels and the integration of the energy and transport systems. The 2030 objectives are consistent with the EU’s longer term vision for the transport sector. The February 2011 European Council agreed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% in 2050 compared to 1990. In this context the 2011 Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy in 2050 set out high level greenhouse gas emission milestones for the transition towards a competitive and secure low carbon economy, the different sectoral contributions, and the feasibility of the trajectory. In parallel the 2011 Transport White Paper focussed on transforming the transport sector to support mobility and increase transport competitiveness. This was in the context of reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 and by around 20% by 2030 compared to emissions in 2008. Transport greenhouse gas emissions covered by the 2030 Climate and Energy package fall into two categories: 1) CO2 emissions covered by the Emission Trading System (aviation and electricity used by rail) 2) the non-ETS sectors (road, diesel rail, inland waterway). The non-ETS sector (which covers most transport emissions) is required to reduce its emissions by 30% compared to 2005. Bunker fuels for international maritime transport are not included in the 2030 emission reduction targets of the EU. Decarbonisation’s implications for achieving the EU’s air quality objectives also give ubstantial potential for synergies. Risks related to fossil fuel dependency of the EU transport sector, in particular oil, as are analysed in 2013 Commission Communication “Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy which supports a comprehensive mix of alternative fuels, thereby ensuring technological neutrality and diversification of energy supply. Because there is no single fuel solution, all main lternative fuel options are pursued, with a focus on the specific long-term needs of each transport mode and their potential for oil substitution.

42
Title: Alternative fuels and infrastructure in seven non-EU markets – Final report
Author: European Commission, DG MOVE
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Ecofys (R. Winkel, C. Hamelinck, M. Bardout, C. Bucquet, S. Ping, M. Cuijpers) and PwC (D. Artuso, S. Bonafede) Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: USA
Forum Area 3: BRASIL Forum Area 4: INDIA

In Europe transport is responsible for a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions, but in countries like the USA and Brazil this is more than 30% and 40% respectively. While in other sectors the emissions go down, transport emissions continue to increase. Alternative fuels have prominent advantages for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants. Furthermore they help alleviating the dependence on fossil fuel consumption in the transport sector. However, the switch from current fuels to the alternative fuels requires a fuel infrastructure change, since most of the alternative fuels are not drop-in fuels (e.g. electricity, CNG, LNG, ethanol, hydrogen). This study examines how alternative transport fuels and infrastructure, which are expected to play a crucial role in the transport sector’s future, develop in other world regions. It aims to contribute to the development and implementation of a European transport strategy effectively promoting alternative modes of transportation and safeguarding the EU’s transport industry’s leading position. The report contains concise case studies to illustrate the discussion with practical examples and to further discuss implications for the EU’s alternative transportation strategy.

43
Title: The EU system for the certification of sustainable biofuels
Author: European Court of Auditors
Publication Year: 2016
Source: European Court of Auditors, 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi, 1615 Luxembourg. European Union July 2016. ISBN 978-92-872-5283-8 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/82411. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: STANDARTIZATION Forum Area 4: COMPETITION RULES, WTO

I. The ‘Renewable Energy Directive’ (RED) requires each Member State to ensure that by 2020 the share of energy from renewable sources used in all forms of transport is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in transport. In practice, considering the present stage of technical development and possibilities to use alternative energies in transport, the 10 % target can be achieved only through a substantial use of biofuels.
II. Biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gases (GHG), CO2 in particular, than fossil fuels, because the quantity of carbon emitted during combustion is equal only to the amount absorbed by the source plants during growth. However, the sustainability of biofuels as a source of renewable energy is compromised by additional emissions due to land use change.
III. To ensure that biofuels placed on the EU market are sustainable, the RED lays down a number of sustainability criteria to be respected by economic operators. Furthermore, only biofuels certified as sustainable can be taken into account by the Member States for the achievement of their 10 % transport target. The sustainability of most biofuels placed on the EU market is certified by voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission. The recognition decisions are valid for 5 years and are issued after the positive assessment of the schemes’ certification procedures.
IV. The audit addressed the question ‘Have the Commission and Member States set up a reliable certification system for sustainable biofuels?’ We conclude that, because of weaknesses in the Commission’s recognition procedure and subsequent supervision of voluntary schemes, the EU certification system for the sustainability of biofuels is not fully reliable.
V. We found that the assessments carried out by the Commission as a basis for the recognition of voluntary schemes did not adequately cover some important aspects necessary to ensure the sustainability of biofuels. In particular, the Commission did not require voluntary schemes to verify that the biofuel production they certify does not cause significant risks of negative socioeconomic effects, such as land tenure conflicts, forced/child labour, poor working conditions for farmers and dangers to health and safety. Similarly, the impact of indirect land-use changes (ILUC) on the sustainability of biofuels is not covered by this assessment. Although we acknowledge the technical difficulties in assessing the impact of ILUC, the relevance of the EU sustainability certification system is undermined without this information.VI. Furthermore, the Commission granted recognition decisions to voluntary schemes which did not have appropriate
verification procedures to ensure that the origin of biofuels produced from waste was indeed waste, or that, as required by the RED directive, biofuel feedstocks cultivated in the European Union fulfil the EU environmental requirements for agriculture. VII. Some recognised schemes were insufficiently transparent or had governance structures comprising only representatives from few economic operators, thus increasing the risk of conflict of interest and preventing an effective
communication with other stakeholders. VIII. The Commission does not supervise the functioning of recognised voluntary schemes. Since the recognition decision
is issued on the basis of a documentary review of the certification procedures, the lack of supervision means that the Commission cannot obtain assurance that voluntary schemes actually apply the certification standards presented for recognition. Furthermore, the Commission has no means to detect alleged infringements of voluntary schemes’ rules as there is no specific complaint system in place and the Commission does not verify whether complaints
directly addressed to voluntary schemes are correctly dealt with by them. IX. As regards the achievement of the 10 % transport target, Member States are responsible for ensuring that the statistics concerning sustainable biofuels reported to the Commission are reliable. We found that these statistics might
be overestimated, because Member States could report as sustainable biofuel whose sustainability was not verified. There were also problems with the comparability of data reported by the Member States. X. Based on the audit observations, the Court formulates the following recommendations:
1. For future recognitions, the Commission should carry out a more comprehensive assessment of voluntary schemes to ensure that the schemes:
(i) assess the extent to which certified biofuels production entails a significant risk of negative socioeconomic effects and of ILUC. To this end, the Commission should require voluntary schemes to report once a year based on their certification activities any relevant information concerning the above mentioned risk;
(ii) effectively verify that EU biofuel feedstock producers comply with EU environmental requirements for agriculture; (iii) provide sufficient evidence of the origin of waste and residues used for the production of biofuels. 2. For future recognitions, the Commission should assess whether the voluntary schemes’ governance reduces the risk of conflict of interests and request the voluntary schemes to ensure transparency. 3. The Commission should supervise recognised voluntary schemes by: (i) checking that the schemes’certification operations comply with the standards presented for recognition; (ii) requesting voluntary schemes to set up a transparent complaints system. 4. The Commission should propose that the Member States support their statistics with evidence on the reliability of the biofuels quantities reported. 5. To ensure comparability of the statistics on sustainable biofuels and to increase assurance on the reliability of data on advanced biofuels, the Commission should propose to the Member States a harmonisation of the definition of waste substances.

44
Title: Trends and projections in Europe 2016 – Tracking progress towards Europe’s climate and energy targets
Author: European Environment Agency
Publication Year: 2016
Source: European Environment Agency, 6 Kongens Nytorv, 1050 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: FUNDAMENTALS, DEFINITIONS Forum Area 4: SUSTAINABILITY

The 2017 edition of the European Environment Agency (EEA) Trends and projections in Europe report confirms that the European Union (EU) is well on track to meet its climate and energy targets for 2020. Official data for 2015 show that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have already decreased beyond the 20 % reduction target and energy use from renewable sources is steadily growing and getting closer to the 20 % target. Energy consumption levels, while currently considered to be on track to meet the EU energy efficiency target, have increased slightly meaning greater efforts are needed to reach this target (see Figure ES.1). Policies are playing an important role in driving the overall EU trends observed since 2005, in particular through a sustained increase in renewable energy use. According to preliminary estimates for 2016, greenhouse gas emissions show only a modest decrease compared with 2015, when GHG emissions increased for the first time since 2010. The reduction in 2016 took place despite an increase in transport emissions. Primary energy consumption increased in 2016, for the second consecutive year. This increase follows a large drop in consumption in 2014, due to an exceptionally warm winter that resulted in a particularly low energy demand for heating. Insufficient progress has been achieved so far towards the 10 % target for renewables set for the transport sector for 2020.

45
Title: Study on the use of ethyl and methyl alcohol as alternative fuels in shipping
Author: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Joanne Ellis (SSPA Sweden AB), Kim Tanneberger (LR EMEA). SSPA Project Number: 20157412. Proposed by: ABENGOA
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2: ALCOHOLS
Forum Area 3: REGULATION Forum Area 4:

Methyl and ethyl alcohol fuels, also referred to as methanol and ethanol, are good potential alternatives for reducing both the emissions and carbon footprint of ship operations. As they are sulphur-free, use of methanol and ethanol fuels would ensure compliance with the European Commission Sulphur Directive. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) commissioned this study to gain more information about the benefits and challenges associated with these fuels and to evaluate their potential for the shipping industry.

46
Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Author: Official Journal of the European Union
Publication Year: 2009
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This Directive establishes a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources. It sets mandatory national targets for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy and for the share of energy from renewable sources in transport. It lays down rules relating to statistical transfers between Member States, joint projects between Member States and with third countries, guarantees of origin, administrative procedures, information and training, and access to the electricity grid for energy from renewable sources. It establishes sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids.

47
Title: Potential of biofuels for shipping
Author: Florentinus A., Hamelinck C., Van den Bos A., Winkel R. and Cuijpers M.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G, 3526 KL Utrecht. January 2012. Project number: BIONL11332 by order of: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: REGULATION Forum Area 4: SUSTAINABILITY

There is a market for biofuels to be introduced in ships based on current policy and support schemes, high operational costs and environmental benefits. It is technically possible to replace marine fossil fuels with biofuels for use in ship engines. The most relevant parameters limiting the potential of biofuels today are: availability, technological development, technical integration, and operational consequences. However, although market incentives are there, and it is technological possible, still the introduction of biofuels is limited to a few applied test projects and local initiatives. The following conclusions were drafted by Ecofys on market barriers that need to be addressed in order to accelerate the introduction of biofuels in the shipping sector. The main market barrier that should be addressed is the fact that the market incentives in place (obligation within the Renewable Energy Directive, and the sulphur restrictions within the MARPOL legislation) are affecting different market parties in the marine fuel supply chain. Bunker parties could be affected in the fuel obligation, where ship owners are responsible for meeting the lower sulphur content in their used fuels and for other environmental impacts of their shipping (such as spills, waste etc) and also will have the exposure benefits of green imaging or profiling. Introducing biofuels to the shipping sector will have both opportunities and threats to the current market players in the fuel supply chain. The major opportunity would be the ability to shift position in the supply or rather value chain (upstream – downstream) if i.e. ship owners would produce biofuels themselves or cooperate with new biofuel entries in the marine market. This could be a threat to the larger players in the conventional market which have position in both fossil fuel supply as well as shipping. There is no large experience of biofuels use in ship engines. Known R&D projects that investigate the possibilities are all private company initiatives, and applied in operational ships. Public information is limited in availability. So, there are still some uncertainties around a full scale introduction of biofuels concerning the technical aspects. Current research and stakeholder interviews show contradicting arguments and only small scale test results are available, as a clear indication of first orientations by current market players. Especially the Health, Safety, Security and Environment aspects in the operational situation should be investigated further for introduction of biofuels on a substantial scale (e.g. a fixed percentage for every ship to use biofuels). The known restraints from the market concerning biofuels (long term storage related to unstable fuel quality and micro biological growth, water content leading to acidity, degraded low-temperature flow properties) are based on unfamiliarity with biofuels in this sector. The consequences of using biofuels for the operational side seem limited if lower blends are used. Biofuels do need special attention if used in higher or 100% blends (mainly due to the higher water content which needs frequent monitoring). This asks for training and integration within the stringent HSSE management on board of ships. Legislation for shipping is limited to a low level of detail, and not so much EU dominated and highly detailed as for road transport which operates more local/ national. For shipping the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is of major importance and acts on a global scale where a worldwide level playing field is of strong importance. This could be a hurdle for the introduction of biofuels, if the RED for example would be prolonged actively towards the shipping sector. Production costs of biofuels are still higher than for fossil marine fuels. However, the uncertainty in technological development, scaling and therefore cost reduction could lead to a competitive situation, if marine fuels are to be increasing in price, and if the obligation incentive for biofuels remains within the RED. This remains an unpredictable factor in the future marine fuel market with strong effect onthe introduction of biofuels.

48
Title: Waste-based feedstock and biofuels market in Europe
Author: GREENEA
Publication Year: 2016
Source: GREENEA 5 chemin des Perrières, 17330 Coivert – France Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Current situation on the waste-based feedstock and biofuel markets. Overview of UCO and UCOME prices. Map of current and planned plants, capacity development. Market trends, future opportunities and challenges

49
Title: Economical and Technological Statement regarding Integration and Storage of Renewable Energy in the Energy Sector by Production of Green Synthetic Fuels for Utilization in Fuel Cells
Author: GreenSynFuels
Publication Year: 2011
Source: Final Project Report, March 2011. Report Editor: Danish Technological Institute. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: ALCOHOLS Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: GASIFICATION Forum Area 4:

This report constitutes the dissemination of the EUDP project Green Synthetic Fuels (GreenSynFuels). The purpose of the project is to select and validate technology concepts for the establishment of a Danish production of green synthetic fuels primarily for fuel cells. The feasibility of the selected concepts is assessed trough a techno-economical calculation, which includes mass and energy balances and economics including CAPEX and OPEX assessments. It is envisioned by the project partners that a production of green synthetic fuels, such as methanol, can 1) bring stability to a future electricity grid with a high share of renewable energy, 2) replace fossil fuels in the transport sector, and 3) boost Danish green technology export. In the project, two technology concepts were derived through carefully considerations and plenum discussions by the project group members: Concept 1) is clearly the most favored by the project group and is therefore analyzed for its technoeconomic feasibility. Using mass and energy balances the technical perspectives of the concept were investigated, along with an economic breakdown of the CAPEX and OPEX cost of the methanol production plant. The plant was technically compared to a traditional methanol production plant using gasified biomass. The project group has decided to focus on large scale plants, as the scale economics favor large scale plants. Therefore, the dimensioning input of the concept 1) plant is 1000 tons wood per day. This is truly a large scale gasification plant; however, in a methanol synthesis context the plant is not particularly large. The SOEC electrolyzer unit is dimensioned by the need of hydrogen to balance the stoichiometric ratio of the methanol synthesis reaction, which will result in 141 MW installed SOEC. The resulting methanol output is 1,050 tons methanol per day. In comparison to a traditional methanol synthesis plant operating on biomass gasification without electrolysis, the plant methanol output is doubled and the methanol production efficiency is boosted from 59 % to 71 %. The total plant efficiency was 81.6 %. The economic analysis revealed that green methanol can indeed be produced at prices very close to the current oil price. In the scenario using the present energy prices and assuming that the critical plant components were readily available, the methanol production was found to be 120 USD/barrel equivalents, which is very close to the current oil price. Interestingly, it was found from the studies that the methanol production prices are not favored by the expected increasing market of cheap electricity, as the general energy prices are expected to increase, see figure below. However, it will be possible to use the plant as an intermediate storage of renewable energy, and thereby increase the share of renewable energy in the energy system. The figure below also shows that the use of SOEC as the electrolyzer significantly improves the production price and plant economy.

50
Title: Biofrontiers – Responsible innovation for tomorrow’s liquid fuels
Author: Harrison, P, Malins, C, and Searle, S.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: The International Council on Clean Transportation. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: FINANCING Forum Area 4: SUSTAINABILITY

The Biofrontiers project has set out to shed light on this challenge, bringing together stakeholders from industry and civil society to explore the conditions and boundaries under which such fuels might be developed in a sustainable manner. Within this project, we have considered only non-food feedstocks for alternative fuels. Each stakeholder has brought unique insight to the table, and where knowledge gaps have existed, we have sought to fill them through analysis. Based on more than a year of exchanges, this report presents a vision of a path forward for European fuels policy. The challenges faced can be broadly grouped into two areas: Sustainability and Investment Security.

51
Title: Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels
Author: Hileman I. J., Ortiz S. D., Bartis T. J., Wong M. H., Donohoo E. P., Weiss A. M., Waitz A. I.
Publication Year: 2009
Source: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, 7 January 2009 RAND Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Regarding the benefits derived from producing and using alternative jet fuels, the study found that the economic benefits of producing alternative liquid fuels extend to all petroleum users. In particular, producing alternative liquid fuels yields benefits to commercial aviation, whether or not those fuels are used in aviation. Finally, moving to an ultralow-sulfur (ULS) specification for Jet A would reduce aviation’s impact on air quality. From its findings, the research team recommends the following:
• Measures designed to lower GHG emissions should be broad and place a price on GHG emissions, allowing economically efficient choices to be made across multiple sectors. Aviation should not be treated differently from other sectors.
• Measures designed to promote alternative-fuel use in aviation should consider the potentially large GHG releases associated with land-use changes required for cultivating crops for producing biomass or renewable oils.
• A standard methodology should be developed for assessing life-cycle GHG inventories and impacts of producing and using aviation fuels that takes into account key inputs in producing the fuels and aviation-specific effects associated with high-altitude emissions of gases other than CO2.
• To improve air quality, the adoption of a reduced-sulfur standard or a ULS jet fuel should be considered, but economic and climate costs and benefits must be weighed carefully.
• Research and testing should be performed using emission measurements from alternative jet fuels to understand the influence of fuel composition on emissions, enabling moreeffective assessments of the likely effects of deploying alternative aviation fuels.
• Long-term fundamental research should be supported on the creation of alternative middle-distillate fuels for use in ground transportation and aviation.

52
Title: Analysis of the current development of household UCO collection systems in the EU
Author: Hillairet F., Allemandou V., Golab K.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: GREENEA The project was supported by the European Climate Foundation. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study estimates that currently less than 50,000 tonnes of UCO gets collected per year from households across Europe. At the same time, potential resources should be at the level of 800,000 – 900,000 tonnes per year. This results in around 800,000 tonnes of UCO still to capture. However, as household collection has to be organized from scratch in the majority of the countries, capturing all the resources will take time and require a long-term development scenario. We estimate that until 2030, maximally around 200,000 tonnes per year could be collected in the case of active and continuous support of Member States. Yet, it has to be remembered that this is a very optimistic scenario that would involve uninterrupted and very dynamic development of household UCO collection system from today till 2030.

53
Title: IATA 2015 Report on Alternative Fuels
Author: International Air Transport Association
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IATA 33, Route de l’Aéroport, 1215 Geneva 15 Airport, Switzerland. ISBN 978-92-9252-870-6. Proposed by: SkyNRG
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: STANDARTIZATION
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4:

The alternative jet fuel sector has continued to progress in 2015. A total of 22 airlines have now used alternative fuel for over 2000 commercial flights. For an industry that remains young, this is impressive, particularly when less than a decade ago the entire concept was labeled as hypothetical. In September 2013, the 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly reaffirmed the role of ICAO to facilitate and support States and stakeholders in their efforts to stabilize their emissions at 2020 levels. This Assembly also agreed on the development of a global marketbased mechanism for international aviation. This has led to increasing amounts of work being conducted within ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection and the creation of the Alternative Fuels Task Force. In many instances airline representatives are contributing valuable knowledge in to the CAEP process which is developing a regulatory and logistical foundation for increased and global alternative fuel use. This ICAO activity is elevating the imperative to address incompatibilities with regionally focused sustainability and alternative fuel accounting standards. This is important work and presented in some detail in Chapter 2. This is not to say other activity has slowed. In fact, 22 new initiatives have commenced in 2015 taking the total number of multi-stakeholder initiatives to close to 100. While price remains a challenge, especially from the sharp decline in energy prices, there is growing evidence that with the support of appropriate policy mechanisms, innovative business cases can be developed to enable production to evolve from demonstration scale to commercial scale. Chapters 5 and 6 highlight some particularly impressive projects and notable developments contributing to the industry efforts for wider commercial deployment of alternative jet fuel. With a number of new production pathways currently in the ASTM International approval process 2016 is likely to certify some additional methods for producing drop-in alternative jet fuel. With the prospect of additional supply options, regular supply and use by an airline, and increasing policy momentum from States, 2016 has the potential to be a significant year in the evolution of alternative jet fuel use in aviation.

54
Title: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap
Author: International Air Transport Association
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IATA 33, Route de l’Aéroport, 1215 Geneva 15 Airport, Switzerland. ISBN 978-92-9252-704-4. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GASIFICATION
Forum Area 3: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 4: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS

This roadmap provides detailed information on a number of important topics concerning the commercialization and deployment of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). So far deployment has been limited to demonstration or sponsored commercial flights. While these flights have been excellent examples of both the performance and potential for SAF, until this can be incorporated into an airline‟s „business as usual‟ plans, the achievement potential for CO2 reductions from SAF will not be realized. Following the current period of small series or demonstration flights, the next phase of sustainable fuel deployment will focus on supply to certain airports, either for single airlines which have concluded longerterm offtake agreements with SAF suppliers, such as United/Altair, British Airways/Solena and Cathay Pacific/Fulcrum, or even for all airlines operating on that airport, such as the plans for Amsterdam and Oslo airports. However, the total volume of engagements so far is small and more will have to be done to meet the SAF targets set by various countries and multi-stakeholder initiatives. A growing number of such initiatives have been created all over the world, gathering producers and users of SAF as well as government agencies. Where applicable, fostering SAF feedstock production to the benefit of rural economies is also an important goal. Only drop-in fuels are considered in this roadmap, meaning a fuel that is fully compatible with current aircraft and infrastructure. The global nature of aviation has been taken into account with a detailed consideration of SAF accounting policies and sustainability legislation. With the current development of a Market Based Mechanism (MBM) under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a common global
understanding of regulatory aspects addressing SAF will become increasingly important. Furthermore, effective use of government policy mechanisms and innovative financing concepts will be necessary components of this process. The concept of sustainable growth requires the aviation sector to meet today‟s needs without depleting the resources available to future generations. The industry is conscious of aviation‟s environmental impacts and its contribution to climate change. In 2008 the aviation industry collectively agreed to the world‟s first set of sector-specific climate change targets. These targets are: 1. 1.5% fuel efficiency improvement from 2009 until 2020 2. Carbon neutral growth from 2020 3. A 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 relative to a 2005 baseline. Three pathways are already approved for use of SAF in commercial aircraft, some at blends up to a maximum of 50%. These are: Fischer Tropsch (FT) – this process converts solid biomass (including residual waste) into a synthetic gas and then processes the gas into a mixture of hydrocarbons including road and aviation fuels (often referred to as Biomass-to-Liquid – BtL). BtL fuel can be blended to a maximum of 50% with fossil kerosene. Hydrotreated Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) – this process converts oils into fuel in a similar way that crude fossil oil is refined. The process is commercially available but concern over the sustainability of raw
materials and high cost of waste oils has restricted uptake in aviation. Algal oils are in the early stages of development. HEFA fuel can be blended to a maximum of 50% with fossil kerosene. Renewable Synthesized Iso-Paraffinic (SIP) – Aviation fuel which is produced from hydro-processed fermented sugars. The process converts sugar molecules to the hydrocarbon farnesane which can be blended to a maximum of 10% with fossil kerosene. Sustainability harmonization assessment: Current legislation in several countries requires compliance with sustainability criteria developed for use in the road transport sector, and although not widely used today, any SAF reported within these systems would also have to comply with these criteria. Given the global nature of aviation it will be impractical for airlines to have to deal with varying standards from different jurisdictions, hence the harmonization objective. The most advanced and widely implemented standards exist in the European Union under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and in the United States under the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2). Section 4
provides considerable detail on the main similarities and differences between the schemes, including a strategy for developing harmonization proposals. The preferred harmonization option is mutual recognition between the RED and the RFS2. This option is based on the mutual recognition of the sustainability requirements for biofuels in national legislation, as opposed to harmonization of voluntary schemes. An alternative approach to mutual recognition of the RED
and RFS2 is to develop a „Meta-standard‟ (or sustainability framework) for SAF. The Meta-standard would specify minimum key requirements, such as sustainability principles and/or criteria, that SAF producers would need to meet in order to be recognized by the aviation industry or governments internationally.
Accounting for SAF: Similar to sustainability legislation and compliance, how to account for SAF usage varies in different regions of the world. While accounting for fuel used my seem simple, calculating the attributable Green House Gas (GHG) benefit must be determined according to a number of variables. This is important given that incentives for SAF use are often contingent on achieving a certain level of GHG reduction. Section 5 provides a detailed description of the different alternatives considered. The preferred alternative is a hybrid mass balance book and claim accounting system. We believe it is logical for the airline industry to
use the existing mass balance chain of custody rules in operation for the road biofuel supply chain as much as possible until a defined „control point‟. From that control point onwards a book and claim system using SAF certificates will allow airlines to claim the use of SAF and the MBM may provide the appropriate
platform to trade sustainability performance (i.e. emission allowances) with other airlines. Effective policy: Policy instruments need to be applied to result in action. There is not one standardized perfect application of policy mechanisms. Different economies, geographies, and government priorities will likely dictate a different application of instruments. Section 6 details a number of different policy considerations. What is consistent is that jurisdictions must influence numerous areas to enable SAF production to advance. Some of these include: 1. Level playing field (or policy equality) 2. Research 3. De-risk public and private investment in roduction
4. Incentivize airlines to use SAF from an early stage 5. Support robust international sustainability criteria 6. Foster local opportunities Financing models: A considerable challenge for developing SAF production facilities at scale is the significant capital involved, the long-term nature of such infrastructure, and the price uncertainty of the end product. The combination of these factors can make securing debt or equity financing expensive or challenging, and production risk mitigation (such as an airline off-take agreement) difficult. Section 7 presents some different financing models and demonstrations of the sensitivity many projects have to modest changes in the input assumptions. Further, the examples highlight how policy can be effectively applied to influence a projects financial viability.
Finally there are some excellent real examples to learn from. Given that less than a decade ago, the prospect of flying commercial aircraft on SAF seemed unrealistic due to the associated technical and safety challenges, it is impressive that in a short time a number of large projects, including some significant off-take
agreements, have been signed between producers and airlines. Section 8 looks at some of these success stories in more detail.

55
Title: Fact Sheet Alternative Fuel
Author: International Air Transport Association
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IATA 33, Route de l’Aéroport, 1215 Geneva 15 Airport, Switzerland. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Currently, a number of alternative jet fuel production pathways are more expensive than fossil Jet A/A1. Risks for investment in production infrastructure can be mitigated by carefully designed policy to encourage the development of SAF production capacity. In the United States, a combination of incentives according to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), support for building up new-technology production plants and incentives for agriculture, under the right conditions, can open the possibility of price-competitive sustainable aviation fuel being available. The Netherlands is the only EU Member State that recognizes the use of aviation biofuels as counting towards the EU renewable energy goals. The EU has recently announced plans to revise the Renewable Energy Directive, including proposals to increase incentives for sustainable aviation fuels. Indonesia has introduced an alternative jet fuel mandate of 2% commencing in 2018, rising to 5% by 2025
 The effectiveness of different policy mechanisms for commercially deploying meaningful quantities of sustainable alternative jet fuel is being studied by the ICAO Alternative Fuel Task Force during the CAEP/11 cycle (2016-2019).

56
Title: Overview of Alternative Jet Fuels in 2014
Author: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Publication Year: 2014
Source: This paper is an update of the text that was originally published in the IATA 2014 Report on Alternative Fuels as a contribution from ICAO Secretariat. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

There is a long way before a new industry emerges and reaches a significant market penetration. Aviation has achieved successful steps in bringing sustainable alternative fuels to technical maturity for use in commercial aircraft and numerous flights have demonstrated that the fuels can be safely and regularly used. Stakeholders all over the world are now pushing for the next step, and initiatives continue to multiply in an increasing number of countries, to set up production or assess the feasibility of such production. The first regular commercial production should take off by 2016, though still at a limited scale. Economics are a prominent barrier to overcome for initial deployment, which needs to be articulated with environmental goals and policies, as, during the preliminary phase, reducing environmental impacts may not be without cost. Long term perspectives and industry time scales should be included in the equation as aviation has limited expectation to move away from liquid fuel in the short to mid-term. Stabilizing aviation GHG emissions in spite of the impressive forecasted growth of air traffic requires developing alternative fuels and associated technologies from now. The issue is certainly complex, especially from the point of view of the availability of sustainable resources, when considering the production levels required to achieve the aspirational goals. In that sense, progressing together with a better understanding and shared evaluation of the potential for future emissions reduction is a cornerstone to inform decision-making. The work being undertaken by ICAO, and within CAEP by the Alternative Fuel Task Force is a key contribution to this effort, that will also need an increased cooperation with the other stakeholders from the bioenergy sector.

57
Title: EU Reference Scenario 2016 Energy, transport and GHG emissions – Trends to 2050
Author: E3M-Lab: Prof. P. Capros PRIMES model: A. De Vita, N. Tasios, P. Siskos, M. Kannavou, A. Petropoulos, S. Evangelopoulou, M. Zampara, D. Papadopoulos, Ch. Nakos et al. GEM-E3 model: L. Paroussos, K. Fragiadakis, S.Tsani, P. Karkatsoulis et al. Prometheus model and PRIMES gas: P. Fragkos, N. Kouvaritakis, et al. IIASA -GAINS model: L. Höglund-Isaksson, W. Winiwarter, P. Purohit, A. Gomez-Sanabria IIASA –GLOBIOM/G4M models: S. Frank, N. Forsell, M. Gusti, P. Havlík, M. Obersteiner EuroCARE: H. P. Witzke, Monika Kesting
Publication Year: 2016
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The purpose of this publication is to present the new “EU Reference Scenario 2016” (“Reference Scenario”).
This report is an update of the previous Reference Scenario published in 20131. It focuses on the EU energy system, transport and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission developments, including specific sections on emission trends not related to energy, and on the various interactions among policies in these sectors. Its time horizon as in the 2013 version is up to 2050 and it includes all EU28 Member States individually. The Reference Scenario acts as a benchmark of current policy and market trends. As such, it can help to inform future policy debate and policy making.This report focuses on trend projections – not forecasts. It does not predict how the EU energy, transport and climate landscape will actually change in the future, but merely provides a model-derived simulation of one of its possible future states given certain conditions. It starts from the assumption that the legally binding GHG and RES targets for 2020 will be achieved and that the policies agreed at EU and Member State level until December 2014 will be implemented2. Following this approach, the Reference Scenario can help inform the debate on where currently adopted policies might lead the EU and whether further policy development, including for the longer term, is needed. The fuel price projections have been updated to take into account recent developments. Some technology development projections have changed since the EU Reference Scenario 2013 and therefore technology cost assumptions have been updated based on more recent evidence5. Projections are presented from 2015 onwards in 5- year- steps until 2050.

58
Title: Annual Report 2016
Author: IEA – Advanced Motor Fuels
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Proposed by: IFP – Energies Nouvelles
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Liquid crude-oil-based fuels have dominated the transportation sector for many years and probably will do so for many years to come. Local air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the use of fossil oil-based fuels are major concerns for the ever-growing transport sector. However, clear signs indicate an understanding of the benefits and the willingness to convert to more sustainable fuels in the future. Because of existing liquid-based infrastructure, liquid biofuels or electrofuels could become significantly important since they combine liquid fuels with sustainability.

59
Title: Technology Roadmap – Biofuels for Transport
Author: IEA Renewable Energy Division
Publication Year: 2011
Source: International Energy Agency, 9 rue de la Fédération 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. Proposed by: ABENGOA, CONCAWE, IEA.
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 4:

Key Findings: Biofuels – liquid and gaseous fuels derived from organic matter – can play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions in the transport sector, and ehancing energy security. By 2050, biofuels could provide 27% of total transport fuel and contribute in particular to the replacement of diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. The projected use of biofuels could avoid around 2.1 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 emissions per year when produced sustainably. To meet this vision, most conventional biofuel technologies need to improve conversion efficiency, cost and overall sustainability. In addition, advanced biofuels need to be commercially deployed, which requires substantial further investment in research, development and demonstration (RD&D), and specific support for commercial-scale advanced biofuel plants. Support policies should incentivise the most efficient biofuels in terms of life-cycle greenhouse-gas performance, and be backed by a strong policy framework which ensures that food security and biodiversity are not compromised, and that social impacts are positive. This includes sustainable land-use management and certification schemes, as well as support measures that promote “lowrisk” feedstocks and efficient processing technologies. Meeting the biofuel demand in this roadmap would require around 65 exajoules (EJ) of biofuel feedstock, occupying around 100 million hectares (Mha) in 2050. This poses a considerable challenge given competition for land and feedstocks from rapidly growing demand for food and fibre, and for additional 80 EJ of biomass for generating heat and power. However, with a sound policy framework in place, it should be possible to provide the required 145 EJ of total biomass for biofuels, heat and electricity from residues and wastes, along with sustainably grown energy crops. Trade in biomass and biofuels will become increasingly important to supply biomass to areas with high production and/or consumption levels, and can help trigger investments and mobilise biomass potentials in certain regions. Scale and efficiency improvements will reduce biofuel production costs over time. In a low-cost scenario, most biofuels could be competitive with fossil fuels by 2030. In a scenario in which production costs are strongly coupled to oil prices, they would remain slightly more expensive than fossil fuels. While total biofuel production costs from 2010 to 2050 in this roadmap range between USD 11 trillion to USD 13 trillion, the marginal savings or additional costs compared to use of gasoline/diesel are in the range of only +/-1% of total costs for all transport fuels.

60
Title: Technology Readiness Level: Guidance Principles for Renewable Energy technologies
Author: Antonio De Rose, Marina Buna, Carlo Strazza, Nicolo Olivieri, Tine Stevens, Leen Peeters, Daniel Tawil-Jamault
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The European Union’s research framework programme Horizon2020 uses the concept of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to describe the scope of its calls for proposals; the definitions provided, however, are meant as an overall guidance and do not refer specifically to renewable energy technologies. This study was meant to firstly assess the use of TRL in the energy field at European level: a desk research, complemented by surveys and interviews with stakeholders coming from the institutional, industrial and research field, led to the conclusion that there is still a lack of common understanding around the concept of TRL and further guiding principles would be needed. The study aimed also to develop guidance documents defining TRL in 10 renewable energy fields; a Guide of Guides was conceived to be the backbone for any technology-specific definition and, based on its instructions, 10 guidance documents were produced and validated by stakeholders in a two step-approach: first through an online survey and then during a one-day workshop. A subcontractor, acting as reviewer ensured the documents produced were consistent to update the Guide of Guides; its analysis identified technology-specific issues as well as a set of common trends for each TRL that may serve as a reference to develop guidance documents in any other energy technology field.

61
Title: Access-to-finance conditions for Investments in Bio-Based Industries and the Blue Economy
Author: Jason Leoussis, Paulina Brzezicka
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Innovation Finance Advisory, European Investment Bank Advisory Services, EC Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FINANCING Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The study collects information on the investment and access-to-finance conditions for Bio-based Industries (BBI)1 and Blue Economy (BE)2 projects and companies in the European Union (EU), and evaluates the need and potential for dedicated public (risk-sharing) financial instruments (PFI)3 as well as for other policy actions at the EU and Member State (MS) levels that can catalyse (crowd-in) private sector investments in BBI and BE. The study concludes the following: BBI and BE projects face issues accessing private capital. Regulation and market and demand framework conditions are perceived as the most important drivers and incentives but also present the biggest risks and challenges for both BBI and BE project promoters (PP) as well as financial market participants (FMP) to invest in the Bioeconomy. The main funding gaps in financing the Bioeconomy exist in (i) BBI and BE projects scaling up from pilot to demonstration projects and (ii) particularly in BBI, moving from demonstration to flagship/first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and industrial-scale plants. Existing public financial instruments are utilised but their catalytic impact could be further enhanced. Policy actions and/or new or modified public financial instruments could de-risk BBI and BE investments and catalyse (crowd-in) private capital. The study recommends the following: Establish an effective, stable and supportive regulatory framework for BBI and BE at the EU level, which is essential. Further reinforce awareness about InnovFin and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which can match the funding needs of certain BBI and BE projects. Develop a new EU risk-sharing financial instrument dedicated to BBI and BE, potentially taking the form of a thematic investment platform that can meet the needs of BBI and BE projects and mobilise private capital. Explore the creation of an EU-wide contact, information exchange and knowledge sharing platform or other channels to facilitate relationships between BBI and BE project promoters, industry experts, public authorities and financial market participants active or seeking to become active in the Bioeconomy.

62
Title: Financing Europe’s low carbon, climate resilient future
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Environment Agency (EEA) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FINANCING Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This is a reference to a recent European Environment Agency (EEA) study, which assesses the state-of-play of climate finance tracking in Europe and indicates that few European countries have translated their national climate and energy objectives into corresponding investment needs and plans.

63
Title: Statistical Report 2017
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Fuels Europe Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

High quality, verified and reliable data is essential to support economic and political analysis. For this purpose, FuelsEurope Statistical Report 2017 aims at providing a comprehensive set of statistics about the refining industry that can be used by all stakeholders. It provides the most up-to-date information based on currently available data for the sectorMore specifically, it contains data on global energy markets, oil products demand and international trade flows, fuel specifications, prices and margins, the integration with the petrochemical sector as well as the environmental performance of the EU refining industry. A side navigation feature, as well as colour coding aim to help the readers browse effectively through the document. Each colour corresponds to a specific theme making browsing between subsections user-friendly. Topics are: Oil & Energy, Oil Products, Prices and Margins, Refining, Marketing Infrastructures

64
Title: Strengthening the role of agriculturaland forest biomass in all bioenergysectors to achieve the EU’s 2030climate and energy goals
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Copa cogeca Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is the position paper of Copa Cogeca on the recast of RED II. The cooperative reports that the RED II proposal is lacking in ambition in terms of promoting access to the organic carbon market and therefore undermines the achievement of the EU’s climate, energy, bioeconomy and circular economy objectives. Overall, Copa and Cogeca reject the proposal for a RED II Directive in its current form and present the following proposals to the European Council and Parliament so that the initial Commission proposal can be amended. Copa and Cogeca ask for the promotion of the use of feedstocks of biological origin in all bioenergy sectors under the RED II Directive.

65
Title: Advanced biofuel production via gasification – lessonslearned from 200 man-yearsof research activity withChalmers’ research gasifier and the GoBiGas demonstrationplant
Author: Henrik Thunman, Martin Seemann, Teresa Berdugo Vilches, Jelena Maric, DavidPallares, Henrik Ström, Göran Berndes, Pavleta Knutsson, Anton Larsson, ClaesBreitholtz & Olga Santos
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Energy Science & Engineering Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GASIFICATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper presents the main experiences gained and conclusions drawn from the demonstration of a first-of- its- kind wood-based biomethane production plant (20-MW capacity, 150 dry tonnes of biomass/day) and 10 years of operation of the 2–4-MW (10–20 dry tonnes of biomass/day) research gasifier at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. Based on the experience gained, an elaborated outline for commercialization of the technology for a wide spectrum of applications and end products is defined. The main findings are related to the use of biomass ash constituents as a catalyst for the process and the application of coated heat exchangers, such that regular fluidized bed boilers can be retrofitted to become biomass gasifiers. Among the recirculation of the ash streams within the process, presence of the alkali salt in the system is identified as highly important for control of the tar species. Combined with new insights on fuel feeding and reactor design, these two major findings form the basis for a comprehensive process layout that can support a gradual transformation of existing boilers in district heating networks and in pulp, paper and saw mills, and it facilitates the exploitation of existing oil refineries and petrochemical plants for large-scale production of renewable fuels, chemicals, and materials from biomass and wastes. The potential for electrification of those process layouts are also discussed. The commercialization route represents an example of how biomass conversion develops and integrates with existing industrial and energy infrastructures to form highly effective systems that deliver a wide range of end products. Illustrating the potential, the existing fluidized bed boilers in Sweden alone represent a jet fuel production capacity that corresponds to 10% of current global consumption.

66
Title: Driving renewable energy for transport – Next generation policy instruments for renewable transport (RES-T-NEXT)
Author: IEA-RETD ( IEA Implementing Agreement for Renewable Energy Technology Deployment)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: International Energy Agency, 9 rue de la Fédération 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: PASSENGER CARS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Most policy instruments increase the share of alternative powertrains, but few (also) directly target the
share of renewable energy consumption. The most effective instruments for increasing the share of
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) are:
 Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates (obliging OEMs to meet a minimum share of ZEVs in their
sales);
 Financial incentives in vehicle registration taxes (VRT) and in company car taxation
 CO2 regulations of road vehicles, particularly when CO2 targets are sufficiently ambitious.
 Various local incentives for AFVs.
For effectively increasing the share of renewable energy in transport, there are fewer instruments
available. Most effective are Fuel regulations and renewable energy mandates. Furthermore, the share
of RES-T is also strongly dependent on a range of energy policies targeting renewables power
generation.
All policies investigated reduce GHG emissions. Highest GHG emission reductions can be expected from
instruments targeting both RES-T and fuel efficiency improvements of conventional vehicles, most
notably CO2 regulations for road vehicles and most financial incentives. These policy instruments are
also likely to have a higher cost-effectiveness. Most other policies currently have a low costeffectiveness,
because fuel savings and other internal and external cost reductions do not outweigh the
higher costs of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and biofuels. This
situation is likely to change in the future when economies of scale result in cost reductions.

67
Title: Towards advanced Biofuels – options for integrating conventional and advanced biofuel production sites (RES-T-BIOPLANT)
Author: IEA-RETD ( IEA Implementing Agreement for Renewable Energy Technology Deployment)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: International Energy Agency, 9 rue de la Fédération 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The study analyses the potential role of government policy to incentivise integration
• Based on factual evidence from recently published work and from written and oral
interviews to 21 relevant stakeholders, including representatives from producers,
industry associations, government and public institutions, research and knowledge
institutions, and global users and traders
• Scope of the report:
• Identification of integration options for 1G and 2G processes
• Technical feasibility and analysis of costs and benefits associated
• Overview of supporting policies
• Recommendations on next steps for sites integration
• Study supports members of IEA-RETD: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland,
Japan, Norway, UK, and the EC

68
Title: Global Bioenergy Supply and Demand Projections. A Working Paper for REmap 2030
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2014
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: IRENA
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: USA
Forum Area 3: CHINA Forum Area 4: INDIA

The global energy picture is changing rapidly in favor of renewable energy. According to IRENA’s global renewable energy roadmap – REmap 2030 – if the realisable potential of all renewable energy technologies beyond the business as usual are implemented, renewable energy could account for 36% of the global energy mix in 2030. This would be equal to a doubling of the global renewable energy share compared to 2010 levels.
● Biomass has an auspicious future. By 2030, biomass could account for 60% of total final renewable
energy use and biomass has potential in all sectors.
● Most biomass demand today is its traditional uses for cooking and heating. In 2010, more than 60% of the total global biomass demand of 53 exajoules (EJ) was used in the residential and commercial buildings sectors. Much of this was related to traditional uses of biomass for cooking and heating. Biomass demand in the manufacturing industry (15%), transport (9%) and the power and district heating (8%) sectors accounted for about one-third.
● Biomass applications could change over time. Global biomass demand could double to 108 EJ by 2030 if all its potential beyond the business as usual is implemented. Nearly a third of this total would be consumed to produce power and district heat generation. About 30% would be utilised in biofuels production for the transport sector. The remainder would be halved between heating applications in the manufacturing industry and building sectors. Biomass use in combined heat and power (CHP) generation
will be key to raise its share in the manufacturing industry and power sectors.
● Estimated global biomass demand, according to REmap 2030, in the United States, China, India, Brazil and Indonesia together account for 56% of the total.Global biomass supply in 2030 is estimated to range from 97 EJ to 147 EJ per year. Approximately 40% of this total would originate from agricultural residues and waste (37-66 EJ). The remaining supply potential is shared between energy crops (33-39 EJ) and forest products, including forest residues (24-43 EJ). The largest supply potential exists in Asia and Europe (including Russia) (43-77 EJ).
● International trade of biomass would play an important role in meeting the increasing global demand. Trade could account for between 20% and 40% of the total global demand by 2030. Domestic supply costs of biomass is estimated to range from as low as USD 3 for agricultural residues to as high as USD 17 per GJ for energy crops.
● There are many challenges to be address in biomass demand and supply, its international trade as well as the substitution of its traditional uses in realising such high growth rates. Moreover, with bioenergy demand estimated to double between 2010 and 2030, ensuring the sustainability of biomass will gain even more importance including environmental, economic and societal aspects.
● For a sustainable and affordable bioenergy system, existing national and international initiatives/partnerships as well as energy and resource policies need to be expanded to address the challenges across the biomass use and supply chain.
● While biomass represents an important stepping stone in doubling the global renewable energy share, potential of other renewables should be expanded further with policy support to ensure the deployment of a broader portfolio of technologies and reduce dependency on biomass resources.

69
Title: REmap 2030: A Renewable Energy Roadmap
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: European Biogas Association
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This full report of REmap 2030 provides insights into five specific areas:
1. Pathways for doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix based on the national plans of 26 REmap countries and the additional REmap Options, and how to go beyond doubling based on different strategies represented by the RE+ Options;
2. Socio-economic impacts related to doubling the global share of renewable energy;
3. Current situation of renewable energy markets in the power, district heat and end-use (industry, buildings, transport) sectors as well as developments between 2010 and 2030 if all REmap Options are implemented;
4. National policy proposals to improve the existing policy framework; and
5. Opportunities for international co-operation of governments for doubling the global share of renewable energy.

70
Title: Renewable Energy option for Shipping – Technology Brief
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: European Biogas Association
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This technology brief summarises the current status and applications of renewable energy solutions for shipping, along with the barriers and opportunities for further deployment. It provides recommendations to policy makers to promote realistic renewable energy solutions that can support efficiency and reduced emissions in the important, growing shipping sector.

71
Title: Renewable Energy Target Setting
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: European Biogas Association
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report sets out a general definition of renewable energy targets, which are defined as numerical goals established by governments to achieve a specific amount of renewable energy production or consumption. They can apply to the electricity, heating/cooling or transport sectors, or to the energy sector as a whole. They often include a specific time period or date by which the target is to be reached. Different types of renewable energy targets can be represented along a spectrum to visualise where they stand in relation to one another, depending on how specific, measurable and binding they are. The aim of the spectrum is to more accurately describe the many forms and realities that the simple term renewable energy target can cover, ranging from aspirational statements, to energy strategies and action plans, up to fully articulated targets, accompanied by clear, quantifiable policy instruments and backed by legally binding obligations. The main outcomes are: 1. While renewable electricity targets are the most widespread type, heating/cooling and transport sector
targets have increased significantly over the last decade. 2. Renewable energy targets exist at the intersection of multiple policy drivers and priorities. 3. Targets can serve different functions throughout the policy-making process. 4. Targets send an important signal to stakeholders. 5. Stakeholder engagement strengthens ownership and feasibility of targets. 6. Technology-specific targets are now predominant. 7. The metrics of renewable energy targets have implications for implementation and monitoring. 8. Making targets mandatory matters. 9. Who is obligated and how also matter. 10. Penalties and enforcement mechanisms vary widely. 12. Striking the right balance between ambition and realism is vital to the success of targets. 13. Effective renewable energy targets should be backed by clear strategies and specific policies.

72
Title: Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring The Economics
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2016
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: FINANCING Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The study analyses the linkages between the energy system and the world’s economies within a single quantitative framework. It builds on IRENA’s previous work on the socioeconomic benefits of renewable energy and IRENA’s roadmap for doubling the global share of renewables, REmap 2030. It finds that, within the timeline of the Sustainable Development Goals, renewable energy can o¨er solutions for
the dual objective of ensuring economic growth and the imperative to decarbonise economies across the globe. Accelerating the deployment of renewable energy will fuel economic growth, create new employment opportunities, enhance human welfare, and contribute to a climatesafe future. Renewable energy deployment affects trade of energy-related equipment and services as well as of fossil fuels. The increase in the share of renewable energy in the global energy system will impact both fuel importers and exporters. Policy makers can maximise the benefits of the transition to sustainable energy for their national economies. The macroeconomic impacts of renewable energy deployment presented in this study were obtained based on a macroeconometric analysis, using the E3ME tool.

73
Title: The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU
Author: Hugo Valin (IIASA), Daan Peters (Ecofys), Maarten van den Berg (E4tech), Stefan Frank, Petr Havlik, Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) and Carlo Hamelinck (Ecofys), with further contributions from: Johannes Pirker, Aline Mosnier, Juraj Balkovic, Erwin Schmid, Martina Dürauer and Fulvio di Fulvio (all IIASA)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: European Comission (ECOFYS, IIASA, E4tech) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Biofuels are promoted as an option to reduce climate emissions from the transport sector. As most biofuels are currently produced from land based crops, there is a concern that the increased consumption of biofuels requires agricultural expansion at a global scale, leading to additional carbon emissions. This effect is called Indirect Land Use Change, or ILUC. The EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) directed the European Commission to develop a methodology to account for the ILUC effect.
The current study serves to provide new insights to the European Commission and other stakeholders about these indirect carbon and land impacts from biofuels consumed in the EU, with more details on production processes and representation of individual feedstocks than was done before. ILUC cannot be observed or measured in reality, because it is entangled with a large number of other changes in agricultural markets at both global and local levels. The effect can only be estimated through the use of models. The current study is part of a continuous effort to improve the understanding and representation of ILUC.

74
Title: REmap: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2016
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The world can reach its sustainable energy and climate objectives by doubling the share of Renewable Energy by 2030. Doubling the share of Renewables by 2030 is feasible, but only with immediate, concerted action to jump-start their use in Transport, Buildings and Industry. Doubling Renewables will save up to 15 times more than it costs. Renewables, coupled with greater energy efficiency, can keep average clobal temperatures from rising more than 2ºC above Pre-Industrial levels. REMAP identifies the following action areas: 1. Correct for market distortions to create a level playing field. 2. Introduce greater flexibility into energy systems and accommodate the variability of key renewable energy sources. 3. Develop and deploy
renewable heating and cooling solutions for urban development projects and industry. 4. Promote transport based on renewable power and biofuels. 5. Ensure the sustainable, affordable and reliable
supply of bioenergy feedstocks.

75
Title: BOOSTING BIOFUELS: Sustainable Paths to Greater Energy Security
Author: IRENA
Publication Year: 2016
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Substantial potential exists to expand both food and fuel supply in a sustainable fashion. Sustainable biofuel pathways examined in this report include:
» boosting yields of food crops and associated residues on existing farmland;
» freeing up existing farmland for biofuel crops through further yield improvements;
» reducing losses and waste in the food chain to free up additional farmland for biofuel crops; and
» improving livestock management to free up pastureland for biofuel crops.
The report also examines biofuel potential from:
» afforestation using fast-growing tree species; and
» cultivation of algae from organic waste streams or carbon dioxide. As agricultural production expands to meet the world’s growing food needs
through 2050, the supply of associated harvest and processing residues will also expand. If sustainable shares of these residues were fully collected, the
resulting biofuel could displace about a third of the transport fuel consumed today – even while allowing for some residues to be fed to animals for meat
and dairy production. Accelerating yield growth through modern agricultural practices should allow the same amount of food to be grown on less land. The land released could be planted with fast-growing, short-rotation trees and grasses. If the gap between current and potential food yields were fully closed, biofuel from trees and grasses could displace another third of today’s transport fuel. The amount of farmland needed for food production could be further decreased
by reducing waste and losses in the food chain. Globally, a third of all food is lost or wasted. If food losses were eliminated, enough additional land would
be available for advanced biofuel production to displace the final third of the fuels used in transport today. In addition, there is significant potential to grow biofuel crops by raising the efficiency of livestock production on pasture land. There is evidence that fastgrowing grasses could enhance biodiversity on such land. Recent trends in Brazil suggest the efficiency of livestock production on pasture land can be quadrupled. If so, the land released could provide half of the world’s current
liquid transport fuel from second-generation biofuel, or else all such fuel through first-generation biofuel crops.
There is also great potential to increase biomass production in forests. Much larger amounts of forest residues could be harvested sustainably for energy
purposes. Cultivation of fast-growing trees on degraded forest land or other marginal land could provide significant amounts of fuel and timber while
sequestering large amounts of carbon in the wood and soil. These forests could displace yet another half of current liquid transport fuel. Part of this potential can be harnessed through current “first-generation” technologies that produce biofuel from crops like sugar cane, maize and palm oil. Part can be harnessed through “second-generation” technologies that convert lignocellulose from farm and forest residues, grasses and wood.
Such technologies are being demonstrated at commercial scale and should be cost-effective by 2030, if not sooner. A further part could be harnessed
through “third-generation” technologies, now under development, which would produce biofuel from algae.
What share of the potential can be realised, or how soon, is unclear. Yet policies to encourage higher farm yields, promote sustainable forestry, and
demonstrate cost-effective conversion technologies should boost biofuel production substantially. Together, these policies should encourage sufficient
biofuel production to enhance global energy security, boost economic development, and contribute to success in limiting global climate change. Policies and Measures for Promoting Sustainable Biofuels: Demonstrate cost-effective technologies for production of biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks (grasses, wood, farm and forest residues) and from algae.
» Accelerate improvement of crop yields by expanding capacity building and extension services to promote modern farming techniques in developing countries, and by enhancing access to fertiliser and water storage.
» Improve understanding of logistics for cost-effective harvesting of farm and forest residues.
» Collect comprehensive data on land that could be used for sustainable biofuel crops, including achievable yields.
» Conduct in-depth research on practices for cultivating fastgrowing trees and grasses on pastureland that could sequester carbon and enhance biodiversity.
» Reduce food waste and losses through more flexible labelling and investment in refrigeration and transport infrastructure to bring more food to market fresh.
» Accelerate afforestation through incentives to cultivate trees on degraded lands and through sharing best practices for sustainable forest management.
» Expand registers of origin to include sustainable feedstock sourcing and promote expanded trade.
» Strengthen land tenure and improve land governance in developing countries to provide incentives for more intensive land management.
» Develop new business models that focus on sustainable feedstock supply, supported by policy instruments such as biofuel targets, feed-in tariffs, and carbon value.

76
Title: Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context WELL-TO-WHEELS
Author: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport
Publication Year: 2014
Source: WELL-TO-WHEELS Report Version 4a, EU 2014. ISBN 978-92-79-33887-8 (pdf), ISSN 1831-9424 (online), doi: 10.2790/95533. Proposed by: CONCAWE
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: TRANSPORT General Forum Area 4:

EUCAR, CONCAWE and JRC (the Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission) have updated their joint evaluation of the Well-to-Wheels energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a wide range of potential future fuel and powertrain options, first published in December 2003. The specific objectives of this version of the study are:
• Establish, in a transparent and objective manner, a consensual well-to-wheels energy use and GHG emissions assessment of a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe in 2020 and beyond.
• Have the outcome accepted as a reference by all relevant stakeholders.
The WTW Report contains representative pathways in order to bring out the key messages about future fuel and vehicle options. Full details of all the fuel production pathways can be obtained from the WTT report. Vehicle technology details can be obtained from the TTW report.
The main conclusions and observations are summarised below.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
A Well-to-Wheels analysis is the essential basis to assess the impact of future fuel and powertrain options.
Both fuel production pathway and powertrain efficiency are key to GHG emissions and energy use.
A common methodology and data-set has been developed which provides a basis for the evaluation of pathways. It can be updated as technologies evolve.
A shift to renewable/low fossil carbon routes may offer a significant GHG reduction potential but generally requires more total energy. The specific pathway is critical.
Large scale production of synthetic fuels or hydrogen from coal or gas offers the potential for GHG emissions reduction, but only if CO2 can be captured and stored.
Transport applications may not maximize the GHG reduction potential of alternative and renewable energy resources:
ICE-BASED VEHICLES AND FUELS
Conventional Fuels / Vehicle Technologies
Developments in gasoline / diesel engine and vehicle technologies will continue to contribute to the reduction of energy use and GHG emissions:
Hybridization of the conventional engine technologies can provide further energy and GHG emission benefits.
The efficiency gap between SI and CI vehicles is narrowing, especially for hybrid versions
Methane (CNG, CBG, SNG) and LPG fuels
Today the WTW GHG emissions for CNG lie between gasoline and diesel.
Beyond 2020, greater engine efficiency gains are predicted for CNG vehicles WTW GHG emissions will approach those of diesel.
WTW energy use will remain higher than for gasoline.
The origin of the natural gas and the supply pathway are critical to the overall WTW energy and GHG balance.
Producing biogas, particularly from waste materials, has a very low GHG impact, whether the biogas is used to fuel cars or produce electricity.
Producing synthetic gas (SNG) from wind electricity and captured CO2 (from CCS) results in low GHG emissions but needs energy.
LPG provides a small WTW GHG emissions saving compared to gasoline and diesel.
Alternative Liquid Fuels
A number of routes are available to produce alternative liquid fuels that can be used in blends with conventional fuels and, in some cases, neat, in the existing infrastructure and vehicles.
The fossil energy and GHG savings of conventionally produced bio-fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel are critically dependent on manufacturing processes and the fate of coproducts.
The lowest GHG emissions are obtained when co-products are used for energy production.
The GHG balance is particularly uncertain because of nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.
Land use change may also have a significant impact on the WTW balance. In this study, we have modelled only biofuels produced from land already in arable use.
When upgrading a vegetable oil to produce road fuel, the trans-esterification and hydrotreating routes are broadly equivalent in terms of GHG emissions.
The fossil energy savings discussed above should not lead to the conclusion that these pathways are energy-efficient. Taking into account the energy contained in the biomass resource, the total energy involved is two to three times higher than the energy involved in making conventional fuels. These pathways are therefore fundamentally inefficient in the way they use biomass, a limited resource.
ETBE can provide an option to use ethanol in gasoline as an alternative to direct ethanol blending. Fossil energy and GHG gains are commensurate with the amount of ethanol used.
Processes converting the cellulose of woody biomass or straw into ethanol are being developed. They have an attractive fossil energy and GHG footprint.
High quality diesel fuel can be produced from natural gas (GTL) and coal (CTL). GHG emissions from GTL diesel are slightly higher than those of conventional diesel, while those from CTL diesel are considerably higher. New processes are being developed to produce synthetic diesel from biomass (BTL), offering lower overall GHG emissions, though still high energy use. Such advanced processes have the potential to save substantially more GHG emissions than current bio-fuel options.
DME
DME can be produced from natural gas or biomass with lower energy use and GHG emissions results than other GTL or BTL fuels. DME being the sole product, the yield of fuel for use for Diesel engines is high.
Use of DME as automotive fuel would require modified vehicles and infrastructure similar to LPG.
The “black liquor” route which is being developed offers higher wood conversion efficiency compared to direct gasification in those situations where it can be used and is particularly favourable in the case of DME.
EXTERNALLY CHARGEABLE VEHICLES AND FUELS
There is a range of options for vehicles designed to use grid electricity ranging from battery vehicles (BEV) which use only electric power, to Range-Extended Electric Vehicles (REEV) and Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) which in turn provide a greater proportion of their power from the ICE.
While electric propulsion on the vehicle is efficient, the overall energy use and GHG emissions depend critically on the source of the electricity used.
Where electricity is produced with lower GHG emissions, electrified vehicles give lower GHG emissions than conventional ICEs, with BEVs giving the lowest emissions
Where electricity production produces high levels of GHG emissions, the PHEV20 configuration emits less GHG than the other xEVs. This is because it involves less electric driving than the BEV and REEV.
The differences in performance between PHEV and REEV technologies are primarily a function of the different assumed electric range (20km vs. 80km) rather than a differentiator between the technologies themselves.
FUEL CELL VEHICLES AND HYDROGEN
Many potential hydrogen production routes exist and the results are critically dependent on the pathway selected.
Developments in fuel cell system, tank and vehicle technologies will allow fuel-cell vehicles to become more efficient in the 2020+ timeframe and increase their efficiency advantage over conventional vehicles.
If hydrogen is produced from natural gas:
Previous versions of this study showed that WTW GHG emissions savings can only be achieved if hydrogen is used in fuel cell vehicles.
Hydrogen from NG used in a fuel cell at the 2020+ horizon has the potential to produce half the GHG emissions of a gasoline vehicle.
Electrolysis using EU-mix electricity or electricity from NG results in GHG emissions two times higher than producing hydrogen directly from NG and gives no benefit compared with a gasoline vehicle.
Hydrogen from non-fossil sources (biomass, wind, nuclear) offers low overall GHG emissions.
For hydrogen as a transportation fuel virtually all GHG emissions occur in the WTT portion, making it particularly attractive for CO2 Capture & Storage.
Using hydrogen as a cryo-compressed fuel increases GHG emissions by about 10% compared to the compressed gaseous form with 70MPa.
ALTERNATIVE USES OF PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCES
At the 2020+ horizon:
CNG as transportation fuel only provides small savings because its global GHG balance is close to that of the gasoline and diesel fuels it would replace.
With the improvements expected in fuel cell vehicle efficiency, production of hydrogen from NG by reforming and use in a FC vehicle has the potential to save as much GHG emission as substituting coal by NG in power generation
Using farmed wood to produce hydrogen by reforming saves as much GHG emission per hectare of land as using the wood to produce electricity in place of coal and saves more GHG emissions per hectare than producing conventional or advanced biofuels.
When sourcing wind electricity for transport fuels, hydrogen production and use in FCEV is more efficient than the application of synthetic diesel or methane in ICE-based vehicles.
Using wind electricity to produce hydrogen and using it in FCEV saves slightly less GHG emissions than substituting NG CCGT electricity.
Using wind electricity as a substitute for coal electricity is the most efficient option for GHG savings.

77
Title: Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context”. WELL-TO-TANK
Author: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport
Publication Year: 2014
Source: WELL-TO-TANK (WTT) Report Version 4a, EU 2014. ISBN 978-92-79-33888-5 (pdf), ISSN 1831-9424 (online), doi:10.2790/95629. Proposed by: CONCAWE
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: PASSENGER CARS Forum Area 4: HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES

This study describes the process of producing, transporting, manufacturing and distributing a number of fuels suitable for road transport powertrains. It covers all steps from extracting, capturing or growing the primary energy carrier to refuelling the vehicles with the finished fuel. As an energy carrier, a fuel must originate from a form of primary energy which can be either contained in a fossil feedstock (hydrocarbons of fissile material) or directly extracted from solar energy
(biomass or wind power). Generally a fuel can be produced from a number of different primary energy sources. In this study, we have included all fuels and primary energy sources that appear relevant within the timeframe considered (which broadly speaking is the next decade) and we have considered
the issues and established comparisons from both points of view in order to assist the reader in answering the questions:
o What are the alternative uses for a given resource and how can it best be used?
o What are the alternative pathways to produce a certain fuel and which of these hold the best prospects?
Our primary focus has been to establish the energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balance for the different routes. The methodology we used is based on the description of individual processes, which are discreet steps in a total pathway, and thereby easily allows the inclusion of additional combinations, should they be regarded as relevant in the future. Our study is forward-looking and considers state-of-the-art technology to help guide future choices. Existing production plant using older technology may not achieve the same efficiency.
In the well to tank pathway we have not considered the energy or GHG emissions associated with construction or decommissioning of fuel production and transportation facilities. There are two reasons for this. First the available data is often sketchy and uncertain. Second the impact of these additional
energy requirements on the total fuel pathway balance is generally small and within the range of uncertainty of the total estimates. This may, however, not always be the case and this should be checked when looking at a particular route in more details.
For fuels from biomass origin the GHG balance figures as presented do not include emissions caused by land use change, either direct or indirect. We do think these effects are likely to have a significant impact on results, but the current state of knowledge does not allow us to estimate them with confidence. We have, however, included a discussion of current knowledge and understanding of land use change impacts.
The scale at which a route might be developed is relevant to the selection of appropriate energy data but also to the attention that should be given to a particular option. There used to be a widespread misconception that feedstocks for biofuels used in EU would be sourced from EU production until some limit of availability is reached, after which it would be imported. In version 2 of this report we endeavoured to assess the future “EU availability” of the different fuels and associated feedstocks, but we pointed out that this limit would never be reached in practice as imports would start to increase as soon as prices started to respond to the increased demand from biofuels. This now seems well understood, so the theoretical availability is rather irrelevant, on this basis this discussion has not been
included in this version. The effect of crop demand for biofuels on EU food imports and generally on world agricultural markets has now become the object of many studies by agro-economic modellers, and has been covered in a broad way elsewhere [JRC 2008].
In any such study, many choices have to be made at every step. These cannot always be based purely on scientific and technical arguments and inevitably carry an element of judgement. While we do not pretend to have escaped this fact, we have endeavoured to make our choices and decisions as transparent as possible. In particular the workbooks associated with this report and describing individual pathways detail all primary input data and underlying assumptions.
Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context
This study has been conducted in collaboration with LBST1 through whom we have had access to the comprehensive information database compiled by the TES consortium and in the course of the study carried out in 2001-2002 by General Motors [GM 2002]. With the agreement of these two organisations we have used the information extensively. Over the course of this study, the original database has been extensively reviewed and updated and a number of new processes and pathways added that had not hitherto been considered. NOTE: Relation with data used by the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED). These study’s input database has been used by the European Commission as the basis for calculations of typical and “default” GHG savings for biofuels compared to fossil fuels in the 2009 RED and its predecessor the Biofuels Directive. The Commission’s calculations used an entirely different methodology from the one in this report, and therefore produced different results.

78
Title: GHG emissions and the cost of carbon abatement for light-duty road vehicles
Author: IPIECA
Publication Year: 2017
Source: IPIECA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Measures to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are being deployed around the world to reduce the risks posed by climate change. For the transport sector, GHG assessments are based on well-to-wheels methodologies, which take into account emissions from fuel manufacturing, transport and fuel consumption in the vehicle or life-cycle analyses that additionally take into account the emissions during the manufacturing and disposal of the vehicles. This work was undertaken to compare and contrast assumptions and results from three comprehensive public references. The studies were conducted under the auspices of government or independent contractors, with multi-stakeholder engagement including technical contributions from experts in the automotive and fuel industries. This report was commissioned by IPIECA to compare and contrast assumptions and results from the following three key studies.All three studies were conducted under the auspices of an independent or government contractor, and have had the additional benefit of technical contributions from experts in the automotive and fuel industries. The common element of the studies is an evaluation that considers the energy use and GHG emissions associated with fuel production and use in vehicles for various vehicle/fuel pathways. All three studies also include cost estimates for both vehicles and fuels so that a cost of GHG emission abatement can be calculated. These results form the basis for comparison in this report. It should be noted that other metrics that could be considered in a full LCA (e.g. the benefits of lower non- GHG emissions) are not covered by the source studies and consequently do not form part of this report. The C2G report includes emissions from vehicle manufacturing and end-of-life disposal, and so provides a measure of the additional contribution of these elements.

79
Title: EU renewable energy targets in 2020: Revised analysis of scenarios for transport fuels
Author: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport
Publication Year: 2014
Source: EU 2014. ISBN 978-92-79-36818-9 (PDF), ISSN 1831-9424 (online), doi: 10.2790/1725 Proposed by: CONCAWE
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: PASSENGER CARS
Forum Area 3: HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES Forum Area 4:

The on-going research collaboration between the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, EUCAR and CONCAWE has re-investigated the potential for fuels from renewable sources to achieve the 10% renewable energy target for the EU transport sector by 2020 as mandated by the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive (RED)
. The first JEC Biofuels Study was completed in 2011 and has been updated to account for changes in the vehicle fleet, energy demand, fuels and biofuels supply, and regulatory outlook that have occurred since 2011. Associated calculations of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reductions as mandated in Article 7a of the 2009 Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) have also been performed for four different fuel demand scenarios. In addition, consideration has been given to other relevant regulations impacting the transport sector in the coming decade. Recent regulatory amendment proposals – including those put forward by the European Commission (October
2012), the European Parliament vote in 1st Reading (September 2013), and the Environmental Council (December 2013)
– have the potential to change important aspects of the 2009 RED and FQD. These proposals have been analysed in this report.
This study provides a robust scientific assessment of different fuel demand scenarios and their associated impacts on the RED 10% renewable energy and FQD 6% GHG reduction target for transport. The primary focus is on road transport demand although all other transport modes (aviation, rail, inland navigation and off-road) have also been considered and would be important contributors towards reaching the renewable energy and GHG reduction targets.
An analytical tool, called the Fleet and Fuels model that was developed and used in the 2011 JEC Biofuels Study, has been updated accordingly. The model is based upon historical road fleet data (both passenger and freight) in 29 European countries (EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland) and it projects forward the composition
of the vehicle fleet to 2020 based on reasonable assumptions including the impact of regulatory measures. The modelled fleet composition leads to a road transport fuel demand and provides the basis upon which the introduction and availability of renewable and alternative motor fuels are analysed. The sensitivity of key modelled parameters on the RED 10% renewable energy and the FQD 6% GHG reduction targets are also analysed. During the development of the Fleet and Fuels model, the most recent energy and fuel demand data were used and experts in related projects were consulted to ensure that the model had been constructed using sound data and reasoning. In addition, the JEC consortium has consulted and interacted with other modelling teams that produce studies in the same domain and has consulted the European Commission’s Inter-Service Group on Biofuels to refine draft results. Comments have been duly taken into consideration and have contributed to improving the quality of the study presented in this report. Reasonable assumptions regarding the projected development of the European vehicle fleet, including different vehicle technology options and the resulting demand for fossil and renewable fuels have been made. From this starting point, the Fleet and Fuels model was used to evaluate a reference fuel demand scenario plus three further scenarios. The results based on the four different regulatory sets of provisions given the directives and proposals for amendment mentioned above were then compiled to compare the potential
contributions of renewable energy in transport from each scenario. These have been further studied by sensitivity analysis and provide both information and material for further investigation in several research areas where energy and transport intersect. The reference scenario was based on biofuel blends (B7, E5 and E10) that are currently standardized as market road fuels in Europe. As was also the case for the reference scenario in the 2011 JEC Biofuels Study, the new reference scenario falls short of the RED 10% renewable energy target, when the renewable energy contribution from road transport is combined with an approximately 1% additional contribution from non-road transport modes.
The other three market fuel demand scenarios have also been analysed, based on higher biofuel contents and multiple blend grades, while considering the impact of shares of compatible vehicles in the fleet and increasing customer preference to choose the market fuel for their vehicle. Evaluation of these three scenarios has
shown that the 10% RED target cannot be reached using either the accounting rules in the 2009 RED or the new amendment proposals. None of the proposed sets of multiple counting factors in the amendment proposals closes the gap towards achieving the RED renewable energy target, given the assumptions made in
this study, including the projected supply of advanced renewable energy. None of the considered scenarios achieves the minimum 6% GHG reduction target mandated in FQD Article 7a with the assumptions taken for the FQD calculations. Including the Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) factors contained in the 2012 EC, 2013 EP and Council proposals has a substantial impact on the GHG reduction target. A re-analysis of likely biofuel supply through 2020 has also been carried out using a “bottom up” approach. This re-analysis primarily focused on developments in non-conventional and advanced biofuels that are subject to specific accounting in the legislative proposals and their development is dynamic and changed since the first JEC Biofuels Study. The demand/supply analysis combines the results of the demand scenarios with biofuel availability scenarios. Similarly to the 2011 JEC Biofuels Study, this study does not assess the viability, costs, logistics, or impact on the supply chain and vehicle industry of the different demand scenarios. Additional work would be needed before determining the commercial readiness of any one scenario. Overall, the RED fuel demand scenario results depend on the underlying assumptions and should be considered as “theoretical”. Implementation of any scenarios would depend on a combination of factors, the associated costs and the timeliness of decisions.
Additional considerations
Consumer acceptance of biofuels, the respective market blends and a flawless market introduction of such market blends are critical elements of the fuel demand scenarios. Hence, the impact of market uptake has been evaluated in sensitivity cases. For example, the reference scenario assumes 36% of the consumers in
2020 will refuel E10 compatible vehicles in the road fleet with E10 gasoline. It is also assumed that E10 gasoline will be blended to the maximum oxygen/oxygenate limit in the EN 228 gasoline standard. Two sensitivity cases are included that evaluate the impact on the RED and FQD targets if this level of market uptake is more pessimistic or more optimistic. On the supply side, the pace of introduction of renewable fuels presented in the scenarios depends not only on the availability of the feedstock and fuels but also on the compatibility of the supply and distribution system for all fuel products (including proliferation of blending options). It also depends on the contribution of non-road transport modes towards approaching the RED 10% target. Realisation of some scenarios may require policy measures to enable a smooth transition from today’s situation.
Furthermore, national contexts differ widely. It is therefore important that fuel standardisation proceeds in a co-ordinated way to reduce market fragmentation for fuels and their supply. Market fragmentation would also negatively impact vehicle manufacturing, and customer confidence. Compatibility between different fuel
blends and vehicles is critical in determining the pace and uniformity of introduction of alternatives in a single European market, and avoiding a proliferation of nationally-preferred and nationally-adapted solutions. Multistakeholder coordination and timely decisions will be essential in order to approach the RED and FQD targets. The 2013 JEC Biofuels study acknowledges among its findings that much more technical work will be needed to ensure the feasibility of any of the fuel demand scenarios considered. The compatibility between the market fuels having higher renewable fuel contents with road transport vehicles and those in other transport modes is not proven and the evaluation process to ensure compatibility will require time, testing and investment. Report Outline In this report, the potential for renewable fuels to achieve mandatory targets for renewable energy and GHG intensity reduction in EU transport by 2020 has been assessed. Contributions from the road and non-road transport sectors have been considered as well as taking the broader view on other alternative fuels. Specifically, dedicated model runs have been performed to assess air transport’s contribution to the RED regulatory target. Following a review of the EU regulatory framework in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 describes the Fleet and Fuels Model developed by JEC and includes details of the reference scenario. Chapter 4 discusses the biofuels supply outlook including advanced biofuels assumptions. Chapter 5 outlines the outcomes of the study including the reference case, comparison with JEC Biofuels Study 2011, different market fuel demand scenarios, a comparative impact of legislative proposals and sensitivity runs. Conclusions from the study are presented in Chapter 6.

80
Title: Alternative Fuels for Marine and Inland Waterways: An exploratory study
Author: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport
Publication Year: 2016
Source: EU 2016. Kamaljit Moirangthem, Edited by David Baxter. ISBN 978-92-79-56957-9 (PDF), ISSN 1831-9424 (online), doi: 10.2790/227559 (online) Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2: INLAND TRANSPORT
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4:

 The EU has plans to move 30% of road freight travelling over 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50% by
2050. Another goal is to reduce the EU CO2 emissions from maritime transport by 40% (if feasible 50%) by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, as the environmental
record of shipping can and must be improved by both technology and better fuels and operations (COM 2011).
 The EU LeaderSHIP initiative aims at ensuring the future of European shipbuilding. Because decarbonising the shipping sector would involve not only introduction of greener marine fuels, but also innovative green and energyefficient ship designs.
Apart from this, development of infrastructure and greening of the ports are in process. However, introduction of alternative marine fuels will be accompanied by additional complexity in the areas of fuel supply infrastructure, rules for safe use of fuels on board and operation of new systems (DNV GL, 2015). Additionally, adoption or wide acceptance of these new fuels could possibly be a challenge for ship-owners. To ensure confidence that the technologies will work as intended, Technology Qualification from neutral third parties is needed, and JRC could play a part. This would also include developing safety standardisation techniques etc., equivalent to the tasks JRC performed for road transport. Among the stakeholders, ship owners and shipping agents will also play a major role in this transition. Although marine fuel standards are set in ISO 8217, all responsibilities for the fuel quality and quantity lie with the ship owners, with little to no liability towards
the fuel suppliers or bunker parties (Florentinus et al., 2012). Also, unlike the case for road transportation, fuels are not simply procured by the vessel owner according to engine manufacturer’s specification (McGill et al., 2013). The choice of fuel lies primarily with the charterer (the shipping agent) who, in principle, rents the vessel from a ship owner (McGill et al., 2013). Hence, while considering new marine fuels, all these stakeholders must also be included. It is evident from the life cycle assessments (LCA) that the sustainability of the fuels depends on the various parameters being considered for each study and the different process routes. JRC could also develop an in-depth comprehensive LCA analysis of these future fuels with respect to the marine sector. Additionally, with the resources of the
Commission, JRC could also identify regional factors that could affect adoption of new fuels and take into account various challenges concerning them. As mentioned above, the EU aims to shift some of the road transport load to the more efficient marine and inland waterway systems. Hence, implementation of a specific renewable fuel mandate for the marine sector could create a synergy with the already existing mandate for the road transport. The two can complement each other in areas such as technology development, implementation, government support and deployment. With the results from the COP21 summit still fresh, this is the right time to invest in the decarbonisation of the marine sector. The new implementation or support could contribute towards the 5 yearly review of each country’s contribution to cutting emissions and this will be reviewed again in 2018. Hence, renewable marine fuels can make it to this review. Another point of the summit was to extend support from rich countries to poorer countries to switch to renewable energy. Sharing such techniques and good practices could be more direct and strategic as international trade and transport links all countries.

81
Title: Integrated enzyme production lowers the cost of cellulosic ethanol
Author: Johnson E.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Biofuels Bioproduct & Biorefinery, Volume 10, pp. 164 – 174. February 2016. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1634 Proposed by: Clariant
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Previous studies of cellulosic‐ethanol production have shown that the cost of producing cellulase is surprisingly significant, and that reducing this cost is key to making cellulosic‐ethanol economically viable. This study confirms that finding, and compares the costs of the three approaches for producing cellulase: off‐site, on‐site, and integrated. It finds that the integrated method is the lowest cost, primarily because it substitutes an inexpensive feedstock, biomass, for a relatively expensive one, glucose. This substitution also makes the ethanol a 100% second‐generation biofuel, i.e., it uses no ‘food for fuel’. This study also compares the activity of cellulase produced by the integrated method versus that produced by the off‐site method. Laboratory trials of the two show the ‘integrated’ cellulase to be better or equal to commercially available ‘off‐site’ cellulase in converting cellulose to sugar.

82
Title: Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels: Fast Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating Bio-Oil Pathway
Author: Jones SB, Meyer P.A., Snowden-Swan L.J., Padmaperuma A.B., Tan E., Dutta A., Jacobson J., Cafferty K.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: PNNL-23053; NREL/TP-5100-61178, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2: PYROLYSIS
Forum Area 3: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 4:

The goal of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) is to enable the development of biomass technologies to:
 Reduce dependence on foreign oil
 Promote the use of diverse, domestic, and sustainable energy resource
 Establish a domestic bioenergy industry
 Reduce carbon emissions from energy production and consumption. (DOE 2013)
To meet these goals, the BETO promotes the development of liquid hydrocarbon fuels that can serve as gasoline, jet and diesel blendstocks. This report describes a proposed thermochemical process for converting biomass into liquid transportation fuels via fast pyrolysis followed by hydroprocessing of the condensed pyrolysis oil. As such, the analysis does not reflect the current state of commercially-available technology but includes advancements that are likely, and targeted to be achieved by 2017. The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic impact of individual conversion targets to allow a focused effort towards achieving cost
reductions. The report updates a study published in 2009 (Jones 2009) using the most current publically available data from PNNL, NREL and others. The fast pyrolysis of biomass is already being commercialized, while the upgrading via bio-oil hydrotreating to transportation fuels has only been demonstrated in the
laboratory and on a small engineering development scale. The pyrolysis oil upgrading via hydrotreating section is revised to incorporate the most recent improvements: a low temperature stabilizer reactor has been added ahead of the two-stage hydrotreaters described in the 2009 report. Capital and operating costs are updated to reflect the current understanding of the system.
The process presented here represents a conceptual design that considers the economics of gasoline and diesel blendstock production assuming the achievement of internal research targets for 2017 coupled with the plant costs and financing. The assumed processing capacity is 2,205 U.S. tons (2,000 metric tons) per
day of dry biomass and results in a fuel production yield of 40 gallons of gasoline per dry U.S. ton of biomass and 44 gallons of diesel per dry U.S. dry ton of biomass. Natural gas is used to generate a portion of the hydrogen needed for hydrotreating and electricity is purchased from the grid. The minimum
combined gasoline and diesel blendstock fuel selling price is $3.39 per gasoline gallon equivalent (lower heating value basis) in 2011 dollars.

83
Title: Fast Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating: 2015 State of Technology R&D and Projections to 2017
Author: Jones S.B., Snowden-Swan L.J., Meyer P.A., Zacher A.H., Olarte M.V., Drennan C.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: PYROLYSIS Forum Area 2: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report presents the state of technology in 2015 with projections for 2017.

84
Title: Bringing biofuels on the market. Options to increase EU biofuels volumes beyond the current blending limits
Author: Kampman B., Verbeek R., van Grinsven A., van Mensch P., Croezen H., Patuleia A.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: Delft Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: STANDARTIZATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The key conclusions and recommendations of this study are the following.
 It is very unlikely that the biofuels volumes that EU Member States expect for 2020 can be brought on the market within the current blending limits
and policies. Other blending options need to be developed.
 To contribute towards the 2020 target, many of these options require the development of new (bio)fuel standards and associated vehicles, and quite ambitious market shares of these vehicles and fuels in 2020. It is therefore essential for both governments and industry to decide sooner rather than later which routes need to be in place in 2020.
 Each Member State may have it’s own strategy tailored to their market and policy objectives, but fragmentation throughout the EU is counterproductive. It is more efficient and effective to focus efforts of the stakeholders towards a limited number of blending options.
 Many of the options investigated will result in more fuel grades on offer at filling stations. Consumers need to understand which fuels are suitable for their vehicle and incentives are needed to buy the higher blends.
 A stable market outlook – until 2020 and beyond – is a crucial condition for stakeholders to invest in the developments needed for the various marketing options. Stable, effective and longer-term biofuel strategies and policies, both on EU and Member State level, are conditions for successful implementation.
 The EU can play a crucial facilitating role in these developments, for example by:
 securing and accelerating the implementation of new fuel standards for higher blending limits and implementation of these fuels in the
pollutant emissions legislation;
 providing support to the development of Member States’ biofuels marketing strategies and harmonisation of consumer information such
as fuel labelling.

85
Title: The potential and challenges of drop-in biofuels
Author: Karatzos S., McMillan J.D., Saddler J.N.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: IEA Bioenergy Task 39. July 2014. ISBN: 978-1-910154-07-6 (electronic version) Proposed by: European Biogas Association, IEA
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: GASIFICATION
Forum Area 3: PYROLYSIS Forum Area 4: BIOCHEMICAL

This report was commissioned by IEA Bioenergy Task 39 with the goal of providing a background to the topic, an assessment of technical approaches being developed and an overview of anticipated challenges in large scale commercialization of so called “drop-in” biofuels. For the purposes of this report, “drop-in” biofuels are defined as “liquid bio-hydrocarbons that are functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and are fully compatible with existing petroleum “infrastructure”. The global petroleum industry is expected to require increasing amounts of hydrogen in the coming years to upgrade crude oil feedstocks of declining quality (i.e., increasingly heavier and more sour), particularly in areas where especially heavy oils are being sourced such as Venezuela and Alberta. For
the foreseeable future, much of this hydrogen is likely to be derived from natural gas. At the same time, there will also be increasing demand for hydrogen to deoxygenate biomass (carbohydrates and lignin) to produce drop-in hydrocarbon biofuels.
Oil refineries use hydrogen to upgrade low grade crude oil by removing sulfur and other heteroatom impurities (hydrotreating) and by “cracking” longer oil carbon chains to shorter chains while also enriching them with hydrogen (hydrocracking). One result of these hydrogen-consuming processes (collectively known as hydroprocessing) is to elevate the hydrogen to carbon ratio of low grade crude oils. The hydrogen to carbon ratio in petroleum feedstocks is a good indicator of their quality for fuel production since a high sulfur content as well as the presence of long and condensed carbon chains (e.g., in coal) reduce the H/C ratio. As detailed in the main body of the report, the H/C ratio can be visualized as a staircase in which the more “steps” that have to be climbed up the “H/C staircase”, the
more hydrogen inputs and processing efforts are required to elevate the H/C ratio to the level required for higher grade liquid gasoline, diesel and jet transportation fuels. Non-hydrogen-consuming processes such as catalytic or thermal cracking can also improve the H/C ratio of petroleum feeds by removing
carbon in the form of tars and char (coke). However, this approach consumes feedstock and reduces yields and so is generally avoided, particularly when crude oil prices are high. It is also evident that a majority of evolving drop-in biofuel technologies require hydrogen (H2) inputs or other chemical reduction processes to upgrade oxygen-rich carbohydrate, lignin or lipid feedstocks to hydrogen-rich hydrocarbons that are functionally equivalent to petroleum-derived liquid fuels. As
detailed in the report, a variation of the hydroprocessing step will likely be common to many drop-in biofuel technology platforms, with imported hydrogen used to remove oxygen (in the form of H2O) from oxygenated lignocellulose intermediates or lipid feedstocks. Alternatively, non-hydrogen consuming processes (whether chemical or biological) will have to oxidize significant amounts of feedstock carbon in order to produce the required hydrogen or alternative reducing power carriers (e.g., nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate or NADPH). However, these alternative routes to deoxygenation are generally less attractive as they can consume a significant amount of the feedstock. After adjusting for the oxygen content of the biomass feedstock, the hydrogen to carbon ratio, Heff/C, can be defined as a relevant metric for drop-in biofuel processes. Highly oxygenated biomass feedstocks such as sugar molecules have a Heff/C ratio of 0 whereas the target for drop-in biofuels is approximately 2, similar to the H/C ratio of diesel. Most biomass feedstocks (sugars, biomass, lignin) have a low Heff/C ratio and are
thus situated near the bottom steps of the H/C staircase. Biomass feedstocks thus need to “climb” more steps than fossil feedstocks to reach the chemically reduced state of diesel, jet and gasoline fuels. Even low grade fossil feedstocks such as coal (H/C = 0.5) contain a substantially higher Heff/C ratio than most
biomass feedstocks. A notable exception are the biomass lipid fractions and other renewable oleochemical types of feedstocks, which contain much lower levels of oxygen and have an Heff/C ratio of about 1.8 and are thus much farther up the H/C staircase and more readily suited for conversion to drop-in biofuels.
There are several ways to produce drop-in biofuels that are oxygen-free and functionally equivalent to petroleum transportation fuels. These are discussed within three major sections of the report and include: oleochemical processes, such as the hydroprocessing of lipid feedstock from either oil crops, algae or tallow; thermochemical processes, such as the thermal conversion of biomass to fluid intermediates (gas or oil) which are then catalytically upgraded/hydroprocessed to hydrocarbon fuels; and biochemical processes, such as the biological conversion of biomass (sugars or cellulosic materials) to longer chain alcohols and hydrocarbons. A fourth category is also briefly described that includes “hybrid” thermochemical/biochemical technologies such as fermentation of synthesis gas and catalytic reforming of sugars/carbohydrates.
To date, oleochemical based processes have been the main supplier of the drop-in biofuels that have been evaluated for commercial application by sectors such as aviation. These processes require a simple hydroprocessing step to catalytically remove oxygen from the fatty acid chains present in the lipid feedstock to convert them to diesel-like hydrocarbon mixtures. This technology is well developed, is maturing and entails relatively low technological risk and low capital expenditure compared to other emerging drop-in biofuel production routes. Most lipid feedstocks have relatively low oxygen content (11% mass) and thus require lower hydrogen inputs to be upgraded to liquid transportation fuels. However, the feedstock is generally costly and available in limited supply, as vegetable oils such as palm and rapeseed are currently priced in the range of USD $500-$1200/t (or $12-30/GJ) compared to approximately USD $75-$125/t (oven dry basis, or $3.75-6.25/GJ) for lignocellulosic biomass, and their supply is often limited by competition from other value-added end users (e.g., food and cosmetics industries). There are also ongoing challenges regarding the sustainable production of vegetable oils as production is relatively land use and resource intensive. Although “food-vs.-fuels” concerns and related debate are likely to continue, several companies are operating commercial oleochemical feedstock-tobiofuels facilities around the world, including Neste Oil (Finland, Rotterdam, Singapore) and Dynamic Fuels (Louisiana, USA). The various thermochemical methods currently being assessed for biofuel production have their origins in the ancient process of “burning” biomass in the absence of oxygen to make charcoal, a higher calorific value product. Thermochemical processing conditions can be optimized to influence the ratio of the three main products of bio-oil, synthesis gas and char. The two main routes to drop-in biofuels are through pyrolysis and gasification. Fast pyrolysis (essentially the part be a result of sourcing hydrogen from the oil refinery directly. However, it is estimated that current US refinery hydrogen capacity of 3 billion standard cubic feet per day, would need to be tripled to meet the 2022 US RFS cellulosic advanced biofuel mandate of 15 billion gallons (57 billion L) using pyrolysis platform-derived diesel/gasoline blendstock. Although existing hydrocracking units (downstream in a refinery) can co-process petroleum and hydrotreated pyrolysis oils (HPO), this practice is not yet commercial and it comes with challenges related to adapting the catalyst design to accommodate two disparate feedstocks (HPO and petroleum). A case study where Haldor Topsoe (the world’s biggest
manufacturer of petroleum refinery catalysts) performed trials on industrial hydrocrackers using various biofeeds identified several challenges to catalytic “co-processing” of biofeed blends with petroleum. Although further upstream insertion points have been suggested, such as at the vacuum distillation tower, these alternative processing strategies can only be used with minimally processed pyrolysis oils which can contain large amounts of refinery contaminants such as oxygen and inorganics. Two of the major challenges constraining development of pyrolysis derived drop-in biofuels are the availability of low cost sustainable hydrogen and the technological advances needed to adapt hydrotreating catalysts to bio-oil feedstocks. Various companies such as Canada’s ENSYN have operated pilot plants for several years and KiOR recently completed a 49 million litre per year (MLPY) or 13 million gallon per year (MGPY) commercial facility in the US.
The other major thermochemical route to drop-in biofuels is through gasification. Gasification of biomass or bio-oil produces synthesis gas (“syngas”, comprised of mostly H2 and CO), which is primarily used to fuel stationary heat and power facilities such as the 8 MW bio-power station in Gussing, Austria. Syngas can also be upgraded (catalytically condensed) to drop-in liquid biofuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT), which has its origins in the 1920s in Germany when access to oil was problematic. Since the 1980s, South Africa’s Sasol converts coal syngas into diesel at the CtL Secunda facility which has a capacity of 160,000 barrels of diesel per day. A variation of the FT process is used in the world’s largest natural gas-to-liquids facility (Shell’s Pearl GtL facility in Qatar, completed in 2011) to produce 140,000 barrels of diesel per day. However, biomass derived syngas is less energy dense than natural gas and it contains more impurities and a lower H/C ratio. As a result, biomass syngas needs to be enriched in hydrogen and cleaned of the impurities such as tars, nitrogen and other heteroatoms that can deactivate synthesis catalysts. Hydrogen is typically produced from the syngas itself by a process known as the “water-gas shift” reaction. However, this reaction consumes feedstock carbon and thus reduces the overall biomass-to-fuel yields. Alternatively, as is being proposed by companies such as Sundrop Biofuels in the US, the hydrogen can be derived from natural gas. Generally, gasification technologies entail high capital costs to both gasify the biomass and convert the resulting syngas to Fischer-Tropsch liquids or partially oxygenated liquid hydrocarbon products such as mixed alcohols. To benefit from economies of scale, these types of facilities usually have to be constructed at large scales. The capital cost estimates for a first-of-kind gasification-based facility are in the region of USD $600-900 million.
Several companies are pursuing gasification platform routes to drop-in biofuels such as Forest BtL Oy in Finland, which has licensed Choren’s Carbo-V technology and intends to complete a 129 million litre per year (MLPY) {or 34 million gallon per year MGPY} facility by 2016. The capital costs of both the oleochemical and thermochemical processes could be reduced by leveraging existing process units available in petroleum refineries. Oil refineries are complex facilities
comprised of the many unit operations needed to fractionate and upgrade diverse crude oil feedstocks. Upgrading entails a number of intertwined processes such as cracking (breaking heavy hydrocarbon chains to lighter ones), naptha reforming (creating aromatic molecules necessary for gasoline blends) and hydrotreatment (mainly used to remove sulfur before fuel blendstock finishing). The dilemma in trying to identify refinery insertion points for renewable feedstock drop-in biofuel intermediates is to what extent should the intermediate be upgraded (deoxygenated) prior to insertion and to what extent should the refinery be adapted to accept less-upgraded, oxygen-containing biofeed intermediates. The challenges of processing biofeeds in an oil refinery are significant, as has been demonstrated by previous industrial trials using less problematic renewable feedstocks such as fatty acids containing relatively low amounts of oxygen (11% oxygen). The oxygen content of biofeeds translates to corrosion of metallurgy and extensive coking of catalyst surfaces as well as downstream contamination risks and requirements for venting of oxygenated gases (CO, CO2 and H2O). Strategies to mitigate these challenges include limiting the blending rate of biofeeds in petroleum feeds and favouring insertion points towards the end of refinery processing, both of which lower the risk of downstream contamination with biomass oxygenates, inorganics and tars. Hydroprocessing units situated at the end of the oil refining process are suitable for drop-in biofuel leveraging. All of the drop-in biofuel processes proposed to date entail some form or degree of capital intensive and hydrogen-consuming hydroprocessing (especially pyrolysis and hydrotreated ester and fatty acids (HEFA) platforms). Refineries can be leveraged by drop-in biofuel facilities in order to utilize existing hydroprocessing facilities and also to source low cost fossil feedstock derived hydrogen. Still, even with this lower risk co-location strategy, there are significant challenges that need to be resolved such as matching the scale, siting and catalyst design for two distinctly different feedstocks (bulky and reactive solid biomass versus relatively inert petroleum liquids (crude oil)).
Biological routes form the third category of drop-in biofuel technologies. These include metabolic pathways that convert highly oxygenated, low Heff/C, sugars to high energy density molecules such as butanol (e.g. Gevo, Butamax), farnesene (e.g. Amyris) and fatty acids (e.g. LS9). The metabolic processes involved in biologically deoxygenating carbohydrates to drop-in fuel molecules are energy-intensive and they are usually employed by the microorganisms when under stress and as mechanisms to store energy or build defence barriers (e.g. lipid layers). In industrial practice, this generally translates to biological systems with low volumetric productivities and less stable metabolic pathways. These so-called advanced fermentation pathways are not as efficient as conventional sugar-to-ethanol industrial fermentation systems. A key advantage of biological compared to thermochemical routes, is their ability to produce relatively pure molecular streams with predictable chemistry that can be readily functionalized (chemically). Thus this route can take advantage of the rapidly growing value-added chemicals and polymers markets. These markets consist mostly of organic diacids and dialcohols (butanediol, succinic acid etc.) which have lower Heff/C ratios than hydrocarbon-like drop-in biofuels. Thus they are “easier” to produce with fewer processing efforts and fewer hydrogen inputs. In the near term, it is likely that the biological platform will exploit the higher margins that can be achieved in valueadded biochemical markets rather than fuel markets. Various business intelligence organisations have estimated significant growth for these bio-based chemicals over the coming decade (e.g. ca. 20%/year to reach 50 million metric tonnes by 2020). Until these lucrative chemical markets are saturated, there will be little incentive for biological conversion companies to produce biofuels. A fourth category of “hybrid platforms” combines elements of the categories described earlier. These include fermentation of syngas (example, LanzaTech), alcohol-to-jet (example, BYOGY), acid-to-ethanol (example, Zeachem), and aqueous phase reforming (example, Virent). Each of these technologies has certain advantages such as improved utilization of feedstock carbon (Zeachem, LanzaTech) or use of commodity bio-feedstock such as sugar and ethanol coupled with ‘low risk’ and rapid catalytic reforming (BYOGY, Virent). Disadvantages include mass transfer issues such as the slow diffusion of gases into aqueous fermentation broths and the difficulty of isolating organic acids from fermentation mixtures. Catalyst issues such as the low tolerance of current reforming catalysts to oxygenated feedstocks are also a challenge, as are feedstock and capital intensity to provide hydrogen for catalytic reduction of acids, alcohols or other oxygenated products to de-oxygenated saturated hydrocarbons. While tremendous technical progress and commercialization activity have taken place over the past several years, only relatively small amounts of drop-in biofuels functionally equivalent to petroleumderived transportation fuels are commercially available today. In the same way conventional (so-called “first generation”) bioethanol from sugar and starch was used to establish the infrastructure and “rules” for subsequent production and use of advanced (so-called “second generation”) bioethanol, it is likely that oleochemical derived drop-in biofuels will initially be used to establish the markets and procedures
for use of drop-in biofuels. This is exemplified by the many Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)-based biofuel flight trials and refinery processing trials undertaken over the last few years and by the recent ASTM approval of oleochemical derived jet fuel blendstocks. However, significant expansion of the oleochemical platform will be limited by the cost, availability and sustainability of food grade (vegetable oil) or animal oil/fat based feedstocks. The challenge of developing emerging thermochemical based drop-in technologies can be viewed as analogous to cellulosic ethanol, which uses more plentiful, nonfood lignocellulosic biomass as feedstock but entails larger technology risks and higher capital costs. In this context, thermochemical technologies are well positioned to account for a considerable component of drop-in biofuel capacity growth over the near-to-midterm. This is primarily because biochemical and hybrid based drop-in biofuel processes typically provide lower yields of higher value oxygenated intermediates (e.g. organic dialcohols and diacids) that can command higher value in the rapidly growing bio-based chemicals markets. It is also likely that future biorefineries will utilize biomass in much the same way that current petroleum refineries use crude oil by converting the raw feedstock into a diverse range of fuels and chemicals products in a single highly integrated facility. However, it is probable that larger sized thermochemical based facilities will primarily focus on converting biomass feedstocks to commodity scale drop-in biofuels and bioenergy products while somewhat smaller scale biochemical or algal platform based facilities will convert sugar, biomass or syngas feedstocks to specific higher value non-commodity products such as farnesene, butanediol, succinic acid, butanol or oils for use in more lucrative biobased chemicals markets (e.g., cosmetics, food additives, lubricants, etc.). Regardless, for all
of these technologies, hydrogen sourcing will play a major role in future commercialization of drop-in biofuel platforms.

86
Title: The potential and challenges of drop-in biofuels
Author: Karatzos S., McMillan J.D., Saddler J.N.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: IEA Bioenergy Task 39. July 2014. ISBN: 978-1-910154-09-0 (electronic version) Proposed by: European Biogas Association, IEA
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: GASIFICATION
Forum Area 3: PYROLYSIS Forum Area 4: BIOCHEMICAL

This report was commissioned by IEA Bioenergy Task 39 with the goal of providing a background to the topic, an assessment of technical approaches being developed and an overview of anticipated challenges in large scale commercialization of so called “drop-in” biofuels. For the purposes of this report, “drop-in” biofuels are defined as “liquid bio-hydrocarbons that are functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and are fully compatible with existing petroleum “infrastructure”. The global petroleum industry is expected to require increasing amounts of hydrogen in the coming years to upgrade crude oil feedstocks of declining quality (i.e., increasingly heavier and more sour), particularly in areas where especially heavy oils are being sourced such as Venezuela and Alberta. For
the foreseeable future, much of this hydrogen is likely to be derived from natural gas. At the same time, there will also be increasing demand for hydrogen to deoxygenate biomass (carbohydrates and lignin) to produce drop-in hydrocarbon biofuels.
Oil refineries use hydrogen to upgrade low grade crude oil by removing sulfur and other heteroatom impurities (hydrotreating) and by “cracking” longer oil carbon chains to shorter chains while also enriching them with hydrogen (hydrocracking). One result of these hydrogen-consuming processes (collectively known as hydroprocessing) is to elevate the hydrogen to carbon ratio of low grade crude oils. The hydrogen to carbon ratio in petroleum feedstocks is a good indicator of their quality for fuel production since a high sulfur content as well as the presence of long and condensed carbon chains (e.g., in coal) reduce the H/C ratio. As detailed in the main body of the report, the H/C ratio can be visualized as a staircase in which the more “steps” that have to be climbed up the “H/C staircase”, the
more hydrogen inputs and processing efforts are required to elevate the H/C ratio to the level required for higher grade liquid gasoline, diesel and jet transportation fuels. Non-hydrogen-consuming processes such as catalytic or thermal cracking can also improve the H/C ratio of petroleum feeds by removing
carbon in the form of tars and char (coke). However, this approach consumes feedstock and reduces yields and so is generally avoided, particularly when crude oil prices are high. It is also evident that a majority of evolving drop-in biofuel technologies require hydrogen (H2) inputs or other chemical reduction processes to upgrade oxygen-rich carbohydrate, lignin or lipid feedstocks to hydrogen-rich hydrocarbons that are functionally equivalent to petroleum-derived liquid fuels. As
detailed in the report, a variation of the hydroprocessing step will likely be common to many drop-in biofuel technology platforms, with imported hydrogen used to remove oxygen (in the form of H2O) from oxygenated lignocellulose intermediates or lipid feedstocks. Alternatively, non-hydrogen consuming processes (whether chemical or biological) will have to oxidize significant amounts of feedstock carbon in order to produce the required hydrogen or alternative reducing power carriers (e.g., nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate or NADPH). However, these alternative routes to deoxygenation are generally less attractive as they can consume a significant amount of the feedstock. After adjusting for the oxygen content of the biomass feedstock, the hydrogen to carbon ratio, Heff/C, can be defined as a relevant metric for drop-in biofuel processes. Highly oxygenated biomass feedstocks such as sugar molecules have a Heff/C ratio of 0 whereas the target for drop-in biofuels is approximately 2, similar to the H/C ratio of diesel. Most biomass feedstocks (sugars, biomass, lignin) have a low Heff/C ratio and are
thus situated near the bottom steps of the H/C staircase. Biomass feedstocks thus need to “climb” more steps than fossil feedstocks to reach the chemically reduced state of diesel, jet and gasoline fuels. Even low grade fossil feedstocks such as coal (H/C = 0.5) contain a substantially higher Heff/C ratio than most
biomass feedstocks. A notable exception are the biomass lipid fractions and other renewable oleochemical types of feedstocks, which contain much lower levels of oxygen and have an Heff/C ratio of about 1.8 and are thus much farther up the H/C staircase and more readily suited for conversion to drop-in biofuels.
There are several ways to produce drop-in biofuels that are oxygen-free and functionally equivalent to petroleum transportation fuels. These are discussed within three major sections of the report and include: oleochemical processes, such as the hydroprocessing of lipid feedstock from either oil crops, algae or tallow; thermochemical processes, such as the thermal conversion of biomass to fluid intermediates (gas or oil) which are then catalytically upgraded/hydroprocessed to hydrocarbon fuels; and biochemical processes, such as the biological conversion of biomass (sugars or cellulosic materials) to longer chain alcohols and hydrocarbons. A fourth category is also briefly described that includes “hybrid” thermochemical/biochemical technologies such as fermentation of synthesis gas and catalytic reforming of sugars/carbohydrates.
To date, oleochemical based processes have been the main supplier of the drop-in biofuels that have been evaluated for commercial application by sectors such as aviation. These processes require a simple hydroprocessing step to catalytically remove oxygen from the fatty acid chains present in the lipid feedstock to convert them to diesel-like hydrocarbon mixtures. This technology is well developed, is maturing and entails relatively low technological risk and low capital expenditure compared to other emerging drop-in biofuel production routes. Most lipid feedstocks have relatively low oxygen content (11% mass) and thus require lower hydrogen inputs to be upgraded to liquid transportation fuels. However, the feedstock is generally costly and available in limited supply, as vegetable oils such as palm and rapeseed are currently priced in the range of USD $500-$1200/t (or $12-30/GJ) compared to approximately USD $75-$125/t (oven dry basis, or $3.75-6.25/GJ) for lignocellulosic biomass, and their supply is often limited by competition from other value-added end users (e.g., food and cosmetics industries). There are also ongoing challenges regarding the sustainable production of vegetable oils as production is relatively land use and resource intensive. Although “food-vs.-fuels” concerns and related debate are likely to continue, several companies are operating commercial oleochemical feedstock-tobiofuels facilities around the world, including Neste Oil (Finland, Rotterdam, Singapore) and Dynamic Fuels (Louisiana, USA). The various thermochemical methods currently being assessed for biofuel production have their origins in the ancient process of “burning” biomass in the absence of oxygen to make charcoal, a higher calorific value product. Thermochemical processing conditions can be optimized to influence the ratio of the three main products of bio-oil, synthesis gas and char. The two main routes to drop-in biofuels are through pyrolysis and gasification. Fast pyrolysis (essentially the part be a result of sourcing hydrogen from the oil refinery directly. However, it is estimated that current US refinery hydrogen capacity of 3 billion standard cubic feet per day, would need to be tripled to meet the 2022 US RFS cellulosic advanced biofuel mandate of 15 billion gallons (57 billion L) using pyrolysis platform-derived diesel/gasoline blendstock. Although existing hydrocracking units (downstream in a refinery) can co-process petroleum and hydrotreated pyrolysis oils (HPO), this practice is not yet commercial and it comes with challenges related to adapting the catalyst design to accommodate two disparate feedstocks (HPO and petroleum). A case study where Haldor Topsoe (the world’s biggest
manufacturer of petroleum refinery catalysts) performed trials on industrial hydrocrackers using various biofeeds identified several challenges to catalytic “co-processing” of biofeed blends with petroleum. Although further upstream insertion points have been suggested, such as at the vacuum distillation tower, these alternative processing strategies can only be used with minimally processed pyrolysis oils which can contain large amounts of refinery contaminants such as oxygen and inorganics. Two of the major challenges constraining development of pyrolysis derived drop-in biofuels are the availability of low cost sustainable hydrogen and the technological advances needed to adapt hydrotreating catalysts to bio-oil feedstocks. Various companies such as Canada’s ENSYN have operated pilot plants for several years and KiOR recently completed a 49 million litre per year (MLPY) or 13 million gallon per year (MGPY) commercial facility in the US.
The other major thermochemical route to drop-in biofuels is through gasification. Gasification of biomass or bio-oil produces synthesis gas (“syngas”, comprised of mostly H2 and CO), which is primarily used to fuel stationary heat and power facilities such as the 8 MW bio-power station in Gussing, Austria. Syngas can also be upgraded (catalytically condensed) to drop-in liquid biofuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT), which has its origins in the 1920s in Germany when access to oil was problematic. Since the 1980s, South Africa’s Sasol converts coal syngas into diesel at the CtL Secunda facility which has a capacity of 160,000 barrels of diesel per day. A variation of the FT process is used in the world’s largest natural gas-to-liquids facility (Shell’s Pearl GtL facility in Qatar, completed in 2011) to produce 140,000 barrels of diesel per day. However, biomass derived syngas is less energy dense than natural gas and it contains more impurities and a lower H/C ratio. As a result, biomass syngas needs to be enriched in hydrogen and cleaned of the impurities such as tars, nitrogen and other heteroatoms that can deactivate synthesis catalysts. Hydrogen is typically produced from the syngas itself by a process known as the “water-gas shift” reaction. However, this reaction consumes feedstock carbon and thus reduces the overall biomass-to-fuel yields. Alternatively, as is being proposed by companies such as Sundrop Biofuels in the US, the hydrogen can be derived from natural gas. Generally, gasification technologies entail high capital costs to both gasify the biomass and convert the resulting syngas to Fischer-Tropsch liquids or partially oxygenated liquid hydrocarbon products such as mixed alcohols. To benefit from economies of scale, these types of facilities usually have to be constructed at large scales. The capital cost estimates for a first-of-kind gasification-based facility are in the region of USD $600-900 million.
Several companies are pursuing gasification platform routes to drop-in biofuels such as Forest BtL Oy in Finland, which has licensed Choren’s Carbo-V technology and intends to complete a 129 million litre per year (MLPY) {or 34 million gallon per year MGPY} facility by 2016. The capital costs of both the oleochemical and thermochemical processes could be reduced by leveraging existing process units available in petroleum refineries. Oil refineries are complex facilities
comprised of the many unit operations needed to fractionate and upgrade diverse crude oil feedstocks. Upgrading entails a number of intertwined processes such as cracking (breaking heavy hydrocarbon chains to lighter ones), naptha reforming (creating aromatic molecules necessary for gasoline blends) and hydrotreatment (mainly used to remove sulfur before fuel blendstock finishing). The dilemma in trying to identify refinery insertion points for renewable feedstock drop-in biofuel intermediates is to what extent should the intermediate be upgraded (deoxygenated) prior to insertion and to what extent should the refinery be adapted to accept less-upgraded, oxygen-containing biofeed intermediates. The challenges of processing biofeeds in an oil refinery are significant, as has been demonstrated by previous industrial trials using less problematic renewable feedstocks such as fatty acids containing relatively low amounts of oxygen (11% oxygen). The oxygen content of biofeeds translates to corrosion of metallurgy and extensive coking of catalyst surfaces as well as downstream contamination risks and requirements for venting of oxygenated gases (CO, CO2 and H2O). Strategies to mitigate these challenges include limiting the blending rate of biofeeds in petroleum feeds and favouring insertion points towards the end of refinery processing, both of which lower the risk of downstream contamination with biomass oxygenates, inorganics and tars. Hydroprocessing units situated at the end of the oil refining process are suitable for drop-in biofuel leveraging. All of the drop-in biofuel processes proposed to date entail some form or degree of capital intensive and hydrogen-consuming hydroprocessing (especially pyrolysis and hydrotreated ester and fatty acids (HEFA) platforms). Refineries can be leveraged by drop-in biofuel facilities in order to utilize existing hydroprocessing facilities and also to source low cost fossil feedstock derived hydrogen. Still, even with this lower risk co-location strategy, there are significant challenges that need to be resolved such as matching the scale, siting and catalyst design for two distinctly different feedstocks (bulky and reactive solid biomass versus relatively inert petroleum liquids (crude oil)).
Biological routes form the third category of drop-in biofuel technologies. These include metabolic pathways that convert highly oxygenated, low Heff/C, sugars to high energy density molecules such as butanol (e.g. Gevo, Butamax), farnesene (e.g. Amyris) and fatty acids (e.g. LS9). The metabolic processes involved in biologically deoxygenating carbohydrates to drop-in fuel molecules are energy-intensive and they are usually employed by the microorganisms when under stress and as mechanisms to store energy or build defence barriers (e.g. lipid layers). In industrial practice, this generally translates to biological systems with low volumetric productivities and less stable metabolic pathways. These so-called advanced fermentation pathways are not as efficient as conventional sugar-to-ethanol industrial fermentation systems. A key advantage of biological compared to thermochemical routes, is their ability to produce relatively pure molecular streams with predictable chemistry that can be readily functionalized (chemically). Thus this route can take advantage of the rapidly growing value-added chemicals and polymers markets. These markets consist mostly of organic diacids and dialcohols (butanediol, succinic acid etc.) which have lower Heff/C ratios than hydrocarbon-like drop-in biofuels. Thus they are “easier” to produce with fewer processing efforts and fewer hydrogen inputs. In the near term, it is likely that the biological platform will exploit the higher margins that can be achieved in valueadded biochemical markets rather than fuel markets. Various business intelligence organisations have estimated significant growth for these bio-based chemicals over the coming decade (e.g. ca. 20%/year to reach 50 million metric tonnes by 2020). Until these lucrative chemical markets are saturated, there will be little incentive for biological conversion companies to produce biofuels. A fourth category of “hybrid platforms” combines elements of the categories described earlier. These include fermentation of syngas (example, LanzaTech), alcohol-to-jet (example, BYOGY), acid-to-ethanol (example, Zeachem), and aqueous phase reforming (example, Virent). Each of these technologies has certain advantages such as improved utilization of feedstock carbon (Zeachem, LanzaTech) or use of commodity bio-feedstock such as sugar and ethanol coupled with ‘low risk’ and rapid catalytic reforming (BYOGY, Virent). Disadvantages include mass transfer issues such as the slow diffusion of gases into aqueous fermentation broths and the difficulty of isolating organic acids from fermentation mixtures. Catalyst issues such as the low tolerance of current reforming catalysts to oxygenated feedstocks are also a challenge, as are feedstock and capital intensity to provide hydrogen for catalytic reduction of acids, alcohols or other oxygenated products to de-oxygenated saturated hydrocarbons. While tremendous technical progress and commercialization activity have taken place over the past several years, only relatively small amounts of drop-in biofuels functionally equivalent to petroleumderived transportation fuels are commercially available today. In the same way conventional (so-called “first generation”) bioethanol from sugar and starch was used to establish the infrastructure and “rules” for subsequent production and use of advanced (so-called “second generation”) bioethanol, it is likely that oleochemical derived drop-in biofuels will initially be used to establish the markets and procedures
for use of drop-in biofuels. This is exemplified by the many Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)-based biofuel flight trials and refinery processing trials undertaken over the last few years and by the recent ASTM approval of oleochemical derived jet fuel blendstocks. However, significant expansion of the oleochemical platform will be limited by the cost, availability and sustainability of food grade (vegetable oil) or animal oil/fat based feedstocks. The challenge of developing emerging thermochemical based drop-in technologies can be viewed as analogous to cellulosic ethanol, which uses more plentiful, nonfood lignocellulosic biomass as feedstock but entails larger technology risks and higher capital costs. In this context, thermochemical technologies are well positioned to account for a considerable component of drop-in biofuel capacity growth over the near-to-midterm. This is primarily because biochemical and hybrid based drop-in biofuel processes typically provide lower yields of higher value oxygenated intermediates (e.g. organic dialcohols and diacids) that can command higher value in the rapidly growing bio-based chemicals markets. It is also likely that future biorefineries will utilize biomass in much the same way that current petroleum refineries use crude oil by converting the raw feedstock into a diverse range of fuels and chemicals products in a single highly integrated facility. However, it is probable that larger sized thermochemical based facilities will primarily focus on converting biomass feedstocks to commodity scale drop-in biofuels and bioenergy products while somewhat smaller scale biochemical or algal platform based facilities will convert sugar, biomass or syngas feedstocks to specific higher value non-commodity products such as farnesene, butanediol, succinic acid, butanol or oils for use in more lucrative biobased chemicals markets (e.g., cosmetics, food additives, lubricants, etc.). Regardless, for all
of these technologies, hydrogen sourcing will play a major role in future commercialization of drop-in biofuel platforms.

87
Title: Oil Prices and the New Climate Economy
Author: Klevnäs P., Stern N., Frejova J.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: The New Climate Economy Proposed by: European Climate Foundation
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: COMPETITION RULES
Forum Area 3: WTO Forum Area 4:

After several years at high levels, oil prices dropped by more than half between June 2014 and January 2015. This realignment has caused companies and countries to reconsider their energy choices. They have to account not just for current lower prices, but also for the economic implications of uncertain and volatile oil prices, and for what this means for longer-term trends. This note addresses some of these issues, building on the findings and recommendations of Better Growth,
Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report, published last September by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The report found there were many actions countries could take to promote better growth, while also reducing GHG emissions from energy use. The overall conclusion of this note is that opportunities for structural change in economies and energy systems remain even with a situation of lower oil prices.
1. Low oil prices offer welcome short-term economic relief for consumers, but medium- and long-term prices remain uncertain. Energy price volatility is high and hurts economic growth. Overall, cheaper oil provides a stimulus to the world economy, but with uneven effects. The world now uses 90 million barrels per day, so an oil price of, say, US$60 instead of $100 would save consumers US$1.3 trillion per year. Despite losses to oil producers, globally the net effect is positive. Modelling by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggests that if prices stay low, global GDP will be 0.3–0.7% higher in 2015, and 0.2–0.8% higher in
2016 than it would be otherwise. Countries cannot bank on future low fossil fuel prices. While it is tempting to think lower prices are here to stay, history tells us that large price swings are a poor guide to what happens next. Even now, forecasts for the next five years vary between troughs as low as US$20/barrel, to a steady return to $100/barrel levels. For 2016 alone, recent expert polls show guesses in the range of US$59–85/barrel. The sharp drop in prices has a sting in its tail: price volatility hurts the economy. While uncertainty is a fact of life, oil is special: its market value is 5% of world GDP, its price can move by 50% within a matter of months, there are few short-term options to reduce consumption, and it has widespread knock-on effects on other key inputs to economic activity. Energy price volatility is therefore a major concern. It hurts the economy, delaying business investment, requiring costly reallocation of resources, reducing consumer expenditure, and slowing job growth. Thus, even as consumers enjoy the benefits of low oil prices, volatility is now a top concern of energy leaders worldwide. Conversely, reducing exposure to energy price volatility has economic value. Countries can do so by discouraging wasteful consumption, increasing energy efficiency, and expanding non-fossil energy supply.
2. Low oil prices offer an opportunity: countries can seize the day to improve energy pricing and reform subsidies to achieve long-term benefits. The “true cost” of fossil fuels is higher than what consumers pay. Distorted energy prices stand in the way of a better growth and development path for many countries. Price controls undermine investment in much-needed infrastructure and can threaten the build-out of energy supplies. Subsidies for fossil fuel consumption reached
US$550 billion in 2013, encouraging waste while straining public finances. Few countries have energy prices that fully reflect the harm of pollution to public health and the environment, while most also lack the carbon prices that can underpin structural change towards a lower-carbon economy. Whether oil prices are high or low, there are benefits from correcting these various deficiencies. Lower oil prices can open up a space for reforms. There is momentum around the world to improve energy pricing: 27 countries are reforming energy subsidies, including Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana, and India, while Morocco and Jordan are among those considering additional steps; 40 countries and over 20 sub-national jurisdictions now apply or have scheduled the introduction of a carbon price, while another 26 are actively considering them. Many countries are stepping up efforts to tackle air pollution. These policies have strong long-term benefits, but often founder on short-term resistance and transition costs. The current low fossil fuel prices create an opportunity to overcome such difficulties. Consumers accustomed to high prices, but now paying less, may be more open to reform.
3. Despite low oil prices now, there are good reasons to continue to expand investments in renewable energy for electricity production. A long-term focus still favours steps to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (which would also reduce GHG emissions), but decision-makers need to take a fresh look at their options and recognise the changes in the landscape. Cheaper oil does not compete directly with renewable energy for electricity production, but can bring lower natural gas and coal prices, with wider impacts. Oil itself barely features in electricity production globally, and technologies such as solar photovoltaics and wind energy are therefore not affected by the oil price itself. However, lower natural gas prices associated with cheaper oil can change electricity choices: strengthening the near-term case to switch from coal to gas and reducing electricity prices, while making renewable energy source less cost-competitive in the short run. In the long term, however, a shift to gas cannot depend on the indirect impact of lower oil prices, but would require lower fundamental costs and improved availability of natural
gas itself. Achieving GHG benefits in such a scenario, in turn, depends on getting policy right, from steps to reduce methane leakage, to continued support for the deployment and development of fully CO2 -free energy. Costs of renewable energy are falling and have low volatility, making these sources of energy an attractive
option regardless of short-term oil price movements.
• Oil prices offer less guidance to choices about electricity than is often assumed. Continued low gas and coal prices are not assured, and the link to oil is weakening in key geographies.
• The costs of solar and wind power continue to fall fast, and these energy sources have little if any operating cost (and therefore low volatility once built). Renewable energy can thus effectively lock in the cost of energy production for 20 years or more. By contrast, fossil fuel prices have no such trend, are uncertain
even five years ahead, and also have significant short-term volatility.
• The best wind power and solar photovoltaic (PV) projects can already compete even with cheaper natural gas. There are steps countries can take now to reduce the cost of renewable energy solutions further, notably by enabling lower-cost finance.
• Renewable energy can mitigate pressing problems that do not show in the market price for energy, including energy security concerns, air pollution, as well as exposure to future fossil fuel price volatility.
Overall, oil itself is less important for electricity markets than commonly thought, and renewable energy continues to be an attractive strategic option even with lower current fossil fuel prices. However, using modern renewable energy is not without challenges. To benefit, countries need to start the process of “learning by doing”, putting in place local supply chains, new financing models, stable policy to attract investment, and the know-how for grid integration.
4. In the longer term, low-carbon policy could help maintain lower fossil fuel prices. Large consumers can gain from lower fossil fuel prices in low-carbon scenarios. Energy efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuels (renewable or nuclear) have already taken the pressure off fossil fuel markets. In the longer run, ambitious low-carbon policy could reduce fossil fuel prices by as much as 30–50%. To capture this benefit, the large consuming economies of the world would need to act in concert. They also would need to continue such policies even as the prices of those fuels fall to lower levels. The current low prices present an opportunity to avoid future “stranding” of assets. Producers are now cutting back on investment in the development of high-cost oil resources that are no longer viable under lower oil
prices. This creates an opportunity both to avoid future “stranding”, and to avoid commitment to future fossil fuel use that follows from the development of these resources.

88
Title: Reconciling food security and bioenergy: priorities for action.
Author: Kline, K. L., Msangi, S., Dale, V. H., Woods, J., Souza, Glaucia M., Osseweijer, P., Clancy, J. S., Hilbert, J. A., Johnson, F. X., McDonnell, P. C. and Mugera, H. K.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: GCB Bioenergy, 9: 557–576. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4:

Understanding the complex interactions among food security, bioenergy sustainability, and resource management requires a focus on specific contextual problems and opportunities. The United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals place a high priority on food and energy security; bioenergy plays an important role in achieving both goals. Effective food security programs begin by clearly defining the problem and asking, ‘What can be done to assist people at high risk?’ Simplistic global analyses, headlines, and cartoons that blame biofuels for food insecurity may reflect good intentions but mislead the public and policymakers because they obscure the main drivers of local food insecurity and ignore opportunities for bioenergy to contribute to solutions. Applying sustainability guidelines to bioenergy will help achieve near‐ and long‐term goals to eradicate hunger. Priorities for achieving successful synergies between bioenergy and food security include the following: (1) clarifying communications with clear and consistent terms, (2) recognizing that food and bioenergy need not compete for land and, instead, should be integrated to improve resource management, (3) investing in technology, rural extension, and innovations to build capacity and infrastructure, (4) promoting stable prices that incentivize local production, (5) adopting flex crops that can provide food along with other products and services to society, and (6) engaging stakeholders to identify and assess specific opportunities for biofuels to improve food security. Systematic monitoring and analysis to support adaptive management and continual improvement are essential elements to build synergies and help society equitably meet growing demands for both food and energy.

89
Title: Report confirms that biodiesel reduces CHG emissions
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2018
Source: FarmFutures Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This is a reference citing a report published by a collaboration between Argonne National Laboratory, Purdue University, and USDA, which confirms via a comprehensive lifecycle analysis of biodiesel that the latter reduces GHG emissions.

90
Title: Proposal for a European Biomethane Roadmap
Author: Kovacs, A.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: Intelligent Energy for Europe Program - Green Gas Grids WP3, European Biogas Association, Renewable Energy House, Rue d’Arlon 63-65. 1040 Brussels, December 2013, Belgium. Proposed by: European Biogas Association
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This Roadmap has been prepared by the Green Gas Grids Project in the frame of Intelligent Energy Europe. The main purpose of the Roadmap is to draw attention to the unique possibilities offered by upgrading biogas to biomethane and to elaborate the key conditions for dynamic growth of this industry. Biomethane can be produced from all kind of organic materials and can be used for electricity generation, as a biofuel in transportation and for providing heating and cooling. Biomethane can be blended with natural gas in any proportions and – correspondingly – the available natural gas distribution and storage network can handle
biomethane too. The technology for upgrading biogas to biomethane is mature, efficient and safe. Historically the biogas industry viewed „green” electricity as its main deliverable, while the support systems in nearly all European countries gave preference to local production of electricity instead of upgrading biogas
to biomethane. This Roadmap shows the ways how this situation could be reversed, resulting in substantial increase in production and use of biomethane.
While preparing the Roadmap all renewable energy related European Union policy issues (such as environmental and climate protection, sustainability, ILUC, clean fuels for transportation, etc.) have been reviewed. The conclusion of the analysis is that promoting the production and usage of biomethane is in full harmony with the short-, medium- and long term energy and climate policies of the EU. The IEE GGG project has reviewed the present market status and has thoroughly looked at the obstacles hindering the broader production and application of biomethane. The Roadmap indicates, that – if the necessary actions will be taken – the level of biomethane production could reach 18-20 billion m3 , about 3% of the European natural gas consumption by 2030 and biomethane could provide min. 10% of total gaseous vehicle fuel consumption. Whether this role of biomethane would be reached is not a technical or raw material availability question – this is essentially the question of willingness, determination and consequent support by the political decision makers. The key pre-conditions of realising the full biomethane potential are:
• the national renewable energy support/incentive schemes should treat the “green gas” (biomethane) equally with “green electricity”;
• the National Renewable Action Plans should be extended with a specific biomethane section to quantify the targets and determine the needed measures for achieving them;
• imported biomethane (if properly certified) should receive equal treatment (same support/incentives) with domestic production;
• national/domestic biomethane registries should be established in every biomethane producing country;
• the national/domestic biomethane registries should develop a Europe-wide cooperation aimed at coordination and harmonisation of their activities;
• the European natural gas network should be declared as a single, closed mass-balance unit.
The Roadmap addresses all the above issues along with other questions relevant to the development of the European biomethane industry.

91
Title: Mobilising Cereal Straw in the EU to Feed Advanced Biofuel Production
Author: Kretschmer B., Allen B., Hart K.
Publication Year: 2012
Source: Report produced for Novozymes. Institute for European Environmental Policy, March 2012. Proposed by: Copa - Cogeca
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: BIOCHEMICAL
Forum Area 3: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 4: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED), with its target of 10 per cent of transport fuel to be from renewable sources by 2020, has created a significant demand for biofuels in the EU. Primarily this has been for conventional biofuels and the development of advanced biofuels has not advanced as rapidly as many expected. Over the past few years an increasingly fierce debate has emerged about the environmental benefits of conventional biofuels, most notably as a result of concerns about indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts and associated emissions. Given these concerns, attention has turned to the greater use of biomass residues, including agricultural residues, for producing bioenergy as a means of alleviating the pressures on land and other environmental resources at the same time as producing considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) savings compared to fossil transport fuels.
Objectives
This report considers the use of one particular agricultural residue, straw, for the production of cellulosic ethanol and considers ways in which it can be mobilised more effectively for this purpose. It assesses the (energy) potential of agricultural residues and in particular straw; reviews the competing uses of straw and the associated environmental effects of mobilising straw for biofuel production; considers the opportunities and barriers for increasing the use of straw for bioenergy production; and examines the potential role and need for public support through EU funding instruments, such as the CAP and Cohesion Policy.
Potential availability
A number of studies have estimated the potential of different biomass residues available for energy conversion, some for the EU as a whole and some for specific Member States. Estimates of technical potential vary considerably between studies, as a result of a range of different factors (definitions of ‘agricultural residue’, different timescales used, different constraints incorporated into the models etc). However, all highlight the fact that technically there appears to be significant volumes of straw that could be mobilised, and potentially used for the production of cellulosic ethanol. However, it is important to note that these estimates of technical potential are not the same as economic potentials. Economic potentials are much lower, given that they are constrained by the market, competing uses
of straw within and outside the agricultural sector and underdeveloped supply chains. In addition, the technical potential studies tend to assume a uniform straw extraction rate, whereas in reality the volumes of straw available vary geographically and year on year. In addition, with the growth in interest in the bioeconomy more generally, it is unclear how great a demand there will be for straw to be used as a material input in other industrial sectors, such as the emerging bio-materials and bio-chemicals sectors. All these factors serve to increase the uncertainty structure) and as a mulch for use in vegetable and mushroom production. However, it is difficult to quantify the proportion of European straw production used for these different purposes as this varies between Member States and between years. Nonetheless there are situations where a surplus of straw exists. This tends to happen where there is a lack of technical capacity to incorporate the straw into the soil; where soil incorporation limits have been reached; where the use of straw in the soil is not required (for example where there is already high organic matter content); or where the straw is not demanded by, or cannot be supplied to, other sectors.
Environmental constraints
Apart from competing uses, environmental constraints are key in determining sustainable extraction rates and therefore potential availability of straw in the longer term. One of the main environmental implications of diverting increased volumes of straw to biofuel production is the potential impact on soil organic matter. It is very difficult to draw conclusions for Europe as a whole on the amount of straw needed to remain on the field, as to prevent reductions in soil organic matter and soil functionality, because this depends on local soil and climatic conditions. Local soil studies are therefore needed to determine sustainable extraction rates. Under the RED sustainability scheme, changes in soil carbon stocks from straw removal are currently not accounted for in determining the lifecycle greenhouse gas balance of biofuels. Given the potential adverse impacts, it is important to extend the lifecycle assessment approach of the RED to take such impacts into account.
Sourcing straw for biorefineries
The evidence shows that there has been limited investment in biorefinery capacity so far in the EU, with the first commercial plant to produce cellulosic ethanol being established in Italy. One of the issues is that biorefineries need to be fairly large-scale to operate profitably. For example, it has been suggested that around 50 million litres of ethanol output/year is required, corresponding to an approximate figure for straw input of around 200,000 tonnes/year. It appears from talking to industry representatives that companies in the EU currently still experiment with different arrangements for sourcing straw, the exception being Denmark. What seems to emerge rather clearly is that securing the amount of straw biomass needed to run biorefineries necessitates flexible arrangements. This may include flexibility between long-term contracts and short-term buying of straw on the market, flexibility with regard to the geographical provenance of the straw, as well as
flexibility between the use of straw and alternative feedstocks.
The straw supply chain and persisting barriers
Despite the interest from farmers in increasing the market for straw as a feedstock for energy purposes and a demand from biorefineries for straw for this purpose, five key types of barriers were identified that affect the current functioning of the straw supply chain between farmers on the one hand and the processors on the other. These are:
 Underdeveloped markets and lack of market information: to a large extent, the lack of supply chains for straw for bioenergy purposes is related to underdeveloped markets. With the notable exception of Denmark, the energetic use of straw is not an established practice EU wide. The marketing of straw for these purposes is at different stages of development in different EU regions and is still embryonic in many places.
 Competing existing uses of straw: straw is not an agricultural residue without alternative uses. Not only does it play an essential role as a soil improver, but other markets have developed over centuries for straw that is in excess of on-farm needs. Given these alternative uses and the underdevelopment of the bioenergy market for straw, farmers in many places are still to be convinced that it is worth their while in the long term to change existing practices.
 Lack of guidance on optimal use of straw as a soil improver and associated farming practices: while some farmers carry out detailed soil analyses as well as an analysis of the nutrient and mineral content of their straw to ensure optimal levels of incorporation, this does not happen in the majority of cases. This can lead to an unnecessary level of straw being incorporated into the soil, which then reduces the surplus available for extraction for other purposes.
 Lack of infrastructure: one of the issues facing land managers who might be interested in supplying straw to biorefineries is the lack of investment in appropriate on-farm machinery and infrastructure for straw handling and bailing to meet the requirements of the processors.
 Variability of straw supply: from the processors’ perspective, a major issue is the variability in the quantity and quality of straw available year to year and region to region, as a result of climatic conditions and fluctuating straw yields. Many of the barriers facing the mobilisation of agricultural residues, and straw in particular,
for use in the production of advanced biofuels, are the result of the nascent nature of the market in this area and the lack of certainty about its long term future. To resolve this requires changes to EU energy policy and most interviewees for this study argued that if this were done, then solutions to the other barriers relating to the supply chain would be found through the normal operation of the market.
European policy considerations
Nonetheless, this study has identified some areas where the CAP and Cohesion policy within the EU could play a role. Any use of straw for advanced biofuel production must be sustainable and avoid any adverse environmental impacts, for example by reducing the levels of straw incorporated into the soil and thereby potentially depleting soil organic matter. Perhaps the most important role that the CAP could play is by introducing environmental safeguards to ensure soil protection. This could occur both through the use of cross compliance as well as using rural development measures to develop guidance and tools for farmers to calculate the humus levels of their soils in order to make informed judgements about the optimal level of straw to be incorporated back in to the soil and
therefore how much is available for other purposes. Other possibilities include support for cooperation between farmers in managing straw, the setting up of producer groups or the development of new businesses, for example for the baling and transport of straw, including the provision of capital investment for the purchase of suitable machinery. Cohesion policy could play a role in providing investment capital for the development of pilot or demonstration plants for processing, where these are seen to be beneficial. In generic terms, the EU level policy tools and measures are in place within the current policy frameworks to allow Member States to pursue these options if they wish. The draft legislative proposals for both the CAP and Cohesion Policy beyond 2013 retain this possibility. Much will depend, however, on the priorities that Member States choose as the focus of their next generation of Rural Development (EAFRD) or Operational Programmes (Cohesion) and the subsequent structure, design and implementation of measures at the national and regional level. Attention will turn in this direction over the coming months as initial planning for the 2014-2020 programming period gets underway.

92
Title: The role of natural gas and biomethane in the transport sector
Author: Kollamthodi S., Norris J., Dun Cr., Brannigan Ch., Twisse F., Biedka M., Bates J.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Report for Transport and Environment (T&E). Ricardo Energy & Environment. Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0QR, United Kingdom. 16 February 2016 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 4:

Based on the analysis that carried out in this study and its findings, there are a number of key recommendations:
 There are clear air pollution benefits associated with using LNG in the shipping sector, but any GHG emissions benefits are highly dependent on the well-to-tank emissions performance associated with LNG production and distribution processes (including levels of upstream methane leakage), and also on the levels of methane slip emissions released during vessel operation. Further research may be required to more fully understand (a) the overall environmental impacts of shifting from conventional marine fuels to LNG and (b) the techniques that can be applied to control upstream and downstream methane leakage.
 For the road transport sector, the use of fossil-based natural gas does not generate net environmental benefits, primarily because in most cases there are no reductions in WTW greenhouse gas emissions and any reductions in air pollutant emissions are very limited. Furthermore, it is clear that methane leakage emissions can significantly erode the GHG The role of natural gas and biomethane in the transport sector emissions benefits associated with natural gas compared to petrol and diesel. Given that the analysis of net costs and benefits to society indicates that societal costs would be higher with natural gas, it is difficult to justify supporting the use of this fuel in the road transport sector.
 Given that very small amounts of methane slip emissions from the engine crankcase and the exhaust tailpipe during vehicle use can completely offset the tailpipe GHG reductions associated with natural gas, further efforts to control methane slip may be required. In particular, it may be necessary to introduce more stringent regulations on the levels of methane emissions that road vehicles can release.
 It is also clear that increased use of biogas and biomethane can help to reduce the EU’s reliance on imports of natural gas. It may therefore be appropriate to provide additional support to encourage the development of new production capacity for biomethane in the coming years. However, consideration needs to be given to the production routes used to generate biogas and biomethane. There are sustainability issues associated with crop-derived biogas and biomethane, including issues related to indirect land use change. It may be appropriate to introduce measures to disincentivise or restrict the production of biogas and biomethane from crops and promote the production of these fuels from waste biogenic materials.
 Given the potential (albeit limited) role that biomethane could play in helping to reduce the climate change impacts of the road transport sector, it may also be appropriate for EU Member States to consider introducing incentive schemes that encourage fuel producers to supply biomethane to the transport sector. In particular, this may require incentives to be broadly consistent across the three sectors. However, the costs associated with using biomethane in the transport sector are potentially very high due to the need for new refuelling infrastructure. Hence, developing a more comprehensive understanding of the cost effectiveness of using biomethane in the transport sector as a means of reducing GHG emissions compared to using it in the heat and power sectors is necessary before Member States introduce measures to support the use of biomethane in transport.

93
Title: Study on Access-to-finance conditions for Investments in Bio-Based Industries and the Blue Economy
Author: Leoussis J., Brzezicka P.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Prepared for DG Research and Innovation of European Commission by Innovation Finance Advisory European Investment Bank Advisory Services. Luxembourg, June 2017 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: FINANCING Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The study collects information on the investment and access-to-finance conditions for Bio-based Industries (BBI) and Blue Economy (BE) projects and companies in the European Union (EU), and evaluates the need and potential for dedicated public (risk-sharing) financial instruments (PFI) as well as for other policy actions at the EU and Member State (MS) levels that can catalyse (crowd-in) private sector investments in BBI and BE. The study concludes the following: BBI and BE projects face issues accessing private capital. Regulation and market and demand framework conditions are perceived as the most important drivers and incentives but also present the biggest risks and challenges for both BBI and BE project promoters (PP) as well as financial market participants (FMP) to invest in the Bioeconomy. The main funding gaps in financing the Bioeconomy exist in (i) BBI and BE projects scaling up from pilot to demonstration projects and (ii) particularly in BBI, moving from demonstration to flagship/first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and industrial-scale plants. Existing public financial instruments are utilised but their catalytic impact could be further enhanced. Policy actions and/or new or modified public financial instruments could de-risk BBI and BE investments and catalyse (crowd-in) private capital.
The study recommends the following: Establish an effective, stable and supportive regulatory framework for BBI and BE at the EU level, which is essential. Further reinforce awareness about InnovFin and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which can match the funding needs of certain BBI and BE projects. Develop a new EU risk-sharing financial instrument dedicated to BBI and BE, potentially taking the form of a thematic investment platform that can meet the needs of BBI and BE projects and mobilise private capital. Explore the creation of an EU-wide contact, information exchange and knowledge sharing platform or other channels to facilitate relationships between BBI and BE project promoters, industry experts, public authorities and financial market participants active or seeking to
become active in the Bioeconomy.

94
Title: EU renewable energy targets in 2020: Analysis of scenarios for transport
Author: Lonza L., Hass H., Maas H., Reid A., Rose K. D.
Publication Year: 2011
Source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy. EU 2011. ISBN 978-92-79-19792-5, ISSN 1018-5593, DOI 10.2788/74948. Proposed by: ABENGOA
Forum Area 1: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: REGULATION Forum Area 4:

The on-going research collaboration between the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, EUCAR and CONCAWE has investigated the potential for biofuels and other alternative energy sources to achieve the 10% renewable energy target for the EU transport sector by 2020 as mandated by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Consideration has also been given to other relevant regulations impacting the transport sector in the coming decade. This study provides a robust scientific assessment of different renewable energy implementation scenarios and their associated impacts on the RED mandatory target for transport. The primary focus is on road transport demand although all other transport modes (aviation, rail, inland navigation and off-road) have been considered and are important contributors towards reaching the targets. Associated calculations of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reductions mandated in Article 7a of the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) have been performed for the different RED implementation scenarios. An analytical tool, called the Fleet and Fuels (F&F) model, has been developed and used to support this study. The model is based upon historical road fleet data (both passenger and freight) in 29 European countries (EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland). It projects the development of the vehicle fleet until 2020 based on reasonable assumptions including the impact of regulatory measures. The modelled fleet development leads to a road transport fuel demand and provides the basis upon which the introduction and availability of renewable and
alternative motor fuels are analysed. The impacts of key modelled parameters on the RED 10% renewable energy target are also analysed in sensitivity cases.
During the development of the F&F model, the most recent energy and fuel demand data were used and experts in related projects were consulted via webinars and meetings to ensure that the model had been constructed using sound data and reasoning. Reasonable assumptions regarding the projected development of the European vehicle fleet, including different vehicle technology options and the resulting demand for conventional and renewable fuels have been made. From this starting point, the F&F model was used to evaluate a reference scenario and eight additional market fuel demand scenarios. The results were then compiled to compare the potential contributions of renewable energy in transport from each scenario. These scenarios have also been studied by sensitivity analysis and
provide both information and material for further investigation in several research areas at the crossroads of energy and transport. The reference scenario based on currently approved biofuel blends (B73 , E5, E10) for broad market road fuels almost meets the RED 10% renewable energy target, when the renewable energy contribution from road transport is combined with additional contributions from nonroad transport modes. Eight other “technically feasible” scenarios have been analysed, based on higher biofuel contents, multiple grades, increasing shares of compatible vehicles in the fleet, and increasing acceptance of customers to choose the right fuel for their vehicle. Evaluation of these eight scenarios has shown that the 10% RED target can be reached. However, although the RED target can be reached, none of the considered scenarios achieves the minimum 6% GHG reduction target mandated in FQD Article 7a with the assumptions taken for the FQD calculations. Indirect Land Use Change has also not been considered in this analysis. Following the definition and evaluation of different market fuel demand scenarios, an analysis of likely biofuel supply through 2020 was carried out. The demand/supply analysis combines the results of the demand scenarios with biofuel availability scenarios. Demand/supply tensions that could impact the likelihood that different demand scenarios achieve the RED 10% renewable energy target were highlighted. This study does not assess the viability, costs, logistics, or impact on the supply chain and vehicle industry of the different demand scenarios. Additional work would be needed before determining the commercial readiness of any one scenario. Overall, the RED implementation scenario results depend on the underlying assumptions and should be considered as “theoretically” achievable. Realisation of these “technically feasible” scenarios depends on a combination of factors, the associated costs and the timelines of decisions. Additional considerations.
Consumer acceptance of biofuels is a critical element of the optimal conditions required to reach the RED target. The assumed levels of biofuel uptake in these scenarios depend on customer behaviour. For example, it is assumed that Flexi-Fuel Vehicles (FFV) will be fuelled with E85 for 90% of their distance travelled and that consumers will always choose the highest available biofuel grade that is compatible with their vehicle. On the supply side, the pace of introduction of alternative solutions presented in the scenarios depends not only on the availability of the fuels but also on the compatibility of the supply and distribution system for all fuel products. It also depends on the contribution of non-road transport modes towards achieving the RED 10% target. Some scenarios may need certain policy measures to enable a smooth transition from today to the “technically feasible” solutions identified and analysed in the scenarios.
Furthermore, scenarios suit national contexts differently. It is therefore important that standardisation proceeds in a co-ordinated way to avoid market fragmentation for fuels and their supply. Market fragmentation will also negatively impact vehicle manufacturing and even lead to customer dissatisfaction. Compatibility between fuel blends and vehicles is important in determining the pace and the uniformity of introduction of alternatives in a single market, avoiding a proliferation of nationally-preferred and nationally-adapted solutions. Multi-stakeholder coordination and timely decisions will be essential in order to
approach the RED target. The JEC Biofuels Programme acknowledges among its findings that much more technical work will be needed to ensure the feasibility of identified scenarios. The compatibility between fuels having higher biofuel contents with road transport vehicles and those in other transport modes is not proven and the evaluation process to ensure compatibility will require time, testing and investments.

95
Title: Wasted: Europe’s an Untapped Resource. An Assessment of Advanced Biofuels from Wastes & Residues
Author: Malins C., Searle S., Baral A., Turley D., Hopwood L.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: The International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT), Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), NNFCCA The Bioeconomy consultants, 2014. Proposed by: European Climate Foundation, LanzaTech, Mossi & Chisolfi, St1 Biofuels
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 4:

Key findings:
• If all the wastes and residues that are sustainably available in the European Union were converted only to biofuels, this could supply 16 per cent of road transport fuel in 2030. (Technical potential).
• If advanced biofuels from wastes and residues are sourced sustainably, they can deliver GHG savings well in excess of 60 per cent, even when taking a full lifecycle approach.
• Safeguards would be needed to ensure this resource is developed sustainably, including sustainable land management practices that maintain carbon balances and safeguard biodiversity, water resources and soil functionality.
• If this resource were utilized to its full technical potential, up to €15 billion of additional revenues would flow into the rural economy annually and up to 300,000 additional jobs would be created by 2030.
• While some combinations of feedstock and technology will require short-term incentives, others are close to being competitive and require little more than policy certainty.

96
Title: Fueling a Clean Transportation Future Smart Fuel Choices for a Warming World
Author: Martin J.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2016 (corrected February 2017) Proposed by: ENERKEM
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) unveiled a practical plan to cut projected U.S. oil use in half by 2035 through improvements in vehicle efficiency and by accelerating the use of innovative clean fuels. The good news is that we are off to a solid start. After years of stagnation, the efficiency of our passenger cars and trucks has improved by about 20 percent. Americans are driving less, and sales of cleaner fuels and electric vehicles (EVs) are rising. But there is a largely unrecognized problem undermining these efforts: the oil we use is getting dirtier. The resources broadly described as oil are changing, with major climate implications. The global warming pollution associated with extracting and refining a barrel of oil can vary by a factor of more than five. As oil companies increasingly go after unconventional, hard-to-reach sources such as tar sands and use more intense extraction techniques such as hydraulic fracturing
(fracking), dirtier sources of oil have become an increasingly large part of the mix, and wasteful practices are needlessly increasing emissions. Because we use so much oil, even relatively small changes in emissions per barrel add up to very large increases in pollution over time. It doesn’t have to be this way. This report points the way to a cleaner transportation future by describing key ways we can clean up our transportation fuels. This report builds on the UCS Half the Oil plan
by explaining how our major transportation fuels are changing and what we can do to reduce emissions from fuel production. Our clean fuels—electricity and biofuels—are already cutting oil use and emissions from transportation, but more work is required to deliver on their potential. Oil is getting steadily more polluting, but by holding oil companies accountable to reduce avoidable emissions and avoid the dirtiest sources, we can check that mounting climate damage and
make sure that the oil we continue to use has the lowest global warming emissions possible.
Oil Is Getting Dirtier
Oil is the largest source of U.S. global warming pollution and for more than half a century has been the dominant source of transportation fuel. Hidden behind the pump is a global supply chain for oil that is changing in ways that have important consequences for the climate. As the easily accessed oils that characterized the oil booms of the last century are dwindling, the oil industry is looking increasingly to ever-riskier sources of oil and more polluting practices in production. The surprising truth is that global warming emissions associated with extracting and refining a barrel of oil vary from less than 50 kilograms to 250 kilograms, depending on where the oil comes from and how it was extracted and refined. Some oil extraction techniques use large amounts of natural gas to generate energy to pump oil and water, and to generate steam. Natural gas that is extracted along with oil is sometimes simply burned in place (flared) because oil operators start extracting oil without providing the infrastructure necessary to bring the gas to market. Emissions are also much higher for unconventional fossil resources like Canadian tar
sands, whose emissions can be higher by as much as 100 kilograms per barrel than more conventional crude oil. Even small increases in the emissions of the oil supply chain add up quickly. Over the course of 2015 to 2035, the addition of just one kilogram of emissions per barrel of oil per year (a rise of less than 1 percent per year) would increase cumulative emissions from oil production and refining by approximately one billion tons—roughly the tailpipe emissions of all of the gasoline-powered vehicles in the United States in 2014.
Clean Fuels Are Getting Cleaner
While oil is getting dirtier, other fuels are getting cleaner. The UCS Half the Oil plan highlights the importance of advanced biofuels and EVs in meeting oil-savings targets. But maximizing the benefits of biofuels and EVs depends on both scaling up these solutions and making sure these fuels get cleaner over time. This potential, for both, is real. Biofuels. The use of biofuels in the United States has expanded dramatically since 2002. This expansion has cut oil use significantly. In 2009, oil’s share of transportation energy fell below 95 percent for the first time since 1958, largely because of increased biofuel use. Ethanol now accounts for about 10 percent of every gallon of gas. But the rapid increase in the use of corn for fuel also put pressure on crop prices and highlighted trade-offs and limitations with food-based biofuels in general, and corn ethanol in particular. Fortunately, advanced biofuels made from non-food resources offer a better path to continue to cut oil use and emissions. The ethanol being blended into gasoline today reduces emissions by about 20 percent compared to gasoline. Ethanol produced in today’s most efficient ethanol facilities has emissions reduced by another 15 percent. Advanced biofuels made from wastes—including cellulosic ethanol made from agricultural residues—are coming to market now, and environmentally friendly perennial grasses offer further opportunities to expand biofuel production while complementing food production and enhancing the sustainability of the U.S. agricultural system. The potential scale of biomass resources is vast. Biofuel production can triple while protecting our food system and environment. By seizing these opportunities, global warming emissions from biofuels can be cut by more than 60 percent compared to gasoline on an energy equivalent basis.
Electricity. EVs cut oil use by getting their power from the grid rather than a gasoline pump. How much they cut global warming pollution, therefore, depends on the grid used to charge them. A battery EV charged on the average U.S. grid produces about 50 percent of the global warming pollution produced by a gasoline-powered vehicle. But in many parts of the country the grid is much cleaner. In California, which has more EVs than any other state, charging the same vehicle produces just 35 percent of the emissions of a conventional vehicle. As the use of coal to produce electricity falls, the grid gets steadily cleaner. However, to avoid risky overreliance on natural gas, it is important to invest in expanding the use of clean renewable energy from wind and solar power. EVs can facilitate utilities’ efforts to integrate more wind and solar resources, leading to a synergy between two crucial elements of a comprehensive approach to reaching the deep emissions reductions required to stabilize the climate.
The Road Ahead
With oil getting dirtier and appealing alternatives getting cleaner, the road ahead for cleaner U.S. transportation is clear. But oil will remain a significant part of our transportation fuel mix for many years to come. A few key steps must be taken immediately to prevent emissions from oil extraction and refining
from continuing to climb. ELIMINATE WASTEFUL PRACTICES. It is incumbent upon responsible energy companies to minimize global warming emissions from their own operations and their supply chains. The first step is to make sure oil companies change wasteful practices. The widely used practice of flaring marketable natural gas is the product of a flawed regulatory system. In addition, the use of energyintensive practices for oil recovery can be reduced through the
use of technologies such as solar-thermal steam generation. And, the higher emissions from some extremely polluting fossil fuels such as tar sands are not cost-effectively mitigated with existing technology, and their use should be curtailed.
REQUIRE DISCLOSURE AND TRACKING
One key step for ensuring that oil companies act responsibly is to require greater disclosure and tracking of emissions from oil production. More is known about the impacts of one gallon of ethanol that makes up 10 percent of our gasoline mix than the impacts of the gasoline that makes up the rest, particularly
about extracting and refining the oil. While government agencies, companies, and trade groups collect and publish a great deal of information about oil markets,
comprehensive accounting of emissions from oil extraction and refining is inadequate. Open-source models of oil extraction and refining have been developed, and these are being used to assess overall U.S. and global oil production as well as incorporated into lifecycle assessment models for transportation
fuels. Working with these models, the Carnegie Endowment has developed the Oil Climate Index, which covers 30 major global oil fields and highlights both the wide variability of different sources of oil and the lack of transparent public information required to make accurate assessment of the world’s oil fields.
MAKE OUR CLEAN FUELS CLEANER
While minimizing emissions from the production and use of gasoline is important, a low-carbon transportation system must shift steadily away from oil toward cleaner fuels. To maximize the climate benefits of this transition, we must ensure that these clean fuels get cleaner over time. This means shifting biofuel production toward advanced biofuels produced at appropriate scale and in a sustainable manner, and cleaning up the grid with the increased use of renewable
sources of electricity. These strategies to reduce the emissions associated with all of our transportation fuels complement the UCS Half the Oil plan to cut oil use and together they move us toward a clean transportation future.

97
Title: Commercializing Conventional and Advanced Liquid Biofuels from Biomass
Author: McMillan J., Saddler J., Dyk van S.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Newsletter, Newsletter Issue #41 – December 2015. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This “end of 2015” issue of the Task 39 newsletter highlights biofuels developments of likely interest to Task 39 stakeholders, including some of Task 39’s recent work. Many of our IEA Bioenergy Task 39 (Liquid Biofuels) colleagues participated in IEA Bioenergy’s “end-of-triennium” conference, held in Berlin, 27-29 October, 2015. One conference highlight was the Task 39 organized session, Progress in the development and use of advanced liquid biofuels, featuring talks by Task 39 industrial participants. The Task also held a well-attended, productive business meeting in association with the Berlin conference, with a primary focus on work planning for the coming triennium. On-going work that will continue into the next triennium includes the Task 39-led multitask update report on the Current Status and Potential for Algal Biofuels Production, which is being led by Les Edye, Australia’s representative to Task 39. This report should be published in early 2016 following review by the IEA Bioenergy Executive Committee and final report revisions. Two other projects are also now initiated and progressing: 1) Advanced Biofuels for Advanced Engines; and 2) Comparison of Leading LCA Models used to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of conventional and advanced biofuels
pathways. Both of these projects will continue into the next triennium (2016-2018), with progress being reported in future newsletters. Other work planned for the
upcoming triennium includes an update to the drop-in biofuels technology report, potentially also including special reports on aviation and maritime biofuels.

98
Title: Measuring and Addressing Investment Risk in the Second Generation Biofuels Industry
Author: Miller N., Christensen A., Park J.E., Baral A., Malins C., Searle S.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: The International Council on Clean Transportation, 1225, Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005, www.theicct.org. 2013. Proposed by: The International Council of Clean Transportation
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: FINANCING
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Over the last decade, the second-generation biofuels industry has struggled to reach commercialization. The United States and the European Union have some of the world’s most aggressive policies for alternative fuel promotion, including volumetric mandates, lifecycle fuel-carbon-intensity requirements, and fuel-taxation schemes. But these policies have not yet succeeded in bringing substantial volumes of new advanced biofuels to market. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) in the U.S. has proved to be a limited driver thus far, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drastically lowering the amount of cellulosic biofuel that must be blended into gasoline and diesel each year. In addition, the industry faces barriers from the impending “blend wall” of 10% ethanol in gasoline and uncertainty regarding policies and oil prices. This paper presents a novel analysis of the financial risk of companies with a large stake in second-generation biofuel production (defined here as biofuel made from cellulose, algae, duckweed, or cyanobacteria). While previous studies have attempted to explain the slow commercialization of cellulosic and algal biofuels qualitatively, few have presented financial analysis across the sector. Using publicly available financial data, this paper applies investment analysis tools that are generally not applied to this space in order to develop a more rigorous understanding of the investment risk in this industry.
Using the capital assets pricing model (CAPM), we calculate beta coe!cients, a metric of nondiversifiable market risk, from 2010 (post-financial crisis) to the present for nine companies that are producing or have a significant stake in cellulosic or algal biofuels. Seven of the nine companies have beta values greater than 1.0, indicating greater volatility than the stock market as a whole. Investors therefore see these companies as inherently riskier than other opportunities and, based on the CAPM analysis, would require a 15% average expected annual rate of return, compared with the S&P 500’s 8% return. The elevated risk seen in second-generation biofuel companies is one dimension that very likely contributes to unsteady and insu!cient investment and the poor financial health of the industry. A direct implication of this analysis is that additional policy measures are needed to reduce risk and build confidence in second-generation biofuel companies in the early stages of commercialization. An examination of existing policies and tax incentives points to four specific changes to the U.S. tax code that could help accelerate the commercialization of second-generation biofuels. A federal tax credit for the production of second-generation biofuels exists, but its use has remained limited. The proposed changes to this tax credit, and the issues they would help correct, are summarized in Table ES1. The first proposed change would allow eligible biofuel producers to claim an investment tax credit instead of a production tax credit, because the construction phase is when biofuel companies need financial certainty to attract investors. Second, allowing these parties to claim a grant in lieu of tax credit further enables them to use this support in the early stages, as they may not have tax liability against which to claim the credit for several years after construction begins. The third proposed change is to provide policy certainty for investors by extending the tax credit until a threshold volume of biofuels has been produced, at which point support would no longer be necessary. Last, we propose harmonizing definitions of eligible pathways between this tax credit and the RFS2.These proposed changes would spur investment in second-generation biofuel companies by allowing them the flexibility to optimize the policy support they receive. Extending the tax credit until a production threshold has been reached provides investors certainty that these companies will benefit from the policy as anticipated. At the same time, such improvements will better assure taxpayers that the policy does not provide open-ended support. To further protect taxpayers, we recommend disbursing the grant in lieu of tax credit at the completion of project milestones, to avoid overinvesting in companies that fail in the early stages of scale-up. These proposed U.S. tax code changes are relatively modest, have clear precedents, and fall squarely in line with Congress’s intention that the tax code and fuels policy promote the development of innovative domestic technology, displace petroleum consumption, and help spur long-term reductions in carbon emissions from the transport sector. These adjustments would help achieve the goals of the U.S. RFS and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Without such policy changes, second-generation biofuel production
will continue to fall far short of targets. The technology for these advanced low-carbon biofuels is here, but the financing and the investment security is not. Complementary fiscal policy will be a critical part of the shift toward a more sustainable fuel base in the United States.

99
Title: Looking back at the first half year of commercial scale pyrolysis oil production at Empyro
Author: Muggen G.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: tcbiomass Chicago November 4th, 2015 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: PYROLYSIS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Mechanical issues at Empyro but production is steadily increasing.
 Empyro shows excellent oil yield, oil quality and process stability.
 Over a million liters of pyrolysis oil produced so far.
 Pyrolysis oil is currently being fired at FrieslandCampina at a rate of up to 3 tons/hour
 Co-FCC of pyrolysis oil recently demonstrated to be a very promising and economical route to produce gasoline and diesel containing renewable carbon in a conventional oil refinery.

100
Title: Greenhouse gas emissions in rapeseed cultivation need to be assessed realistically for optimal mitigation
Author: FNR
Publication Year: 2018
Source: ufop Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This reference appeared in the News section of FNR and reports a study conducted by a network of eight partners coordinated by the Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture (Thünen-Institut für Agrarklimaschutz), which concluded to the fact that the nitrous oxide emission factor for GHG accounting in rapeseed is too high for German conditions.

101
Title: The role of biofuels within a fuels roadmap for Europe
Author: Murray J.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership – UK. June 2014. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The LowCVP believes the most pragmatic strategy to comply with the RED target is to use the E10 & B7 approach.
• Roll out E10 and increase the biodiesel blending up to B7 blend wall
• Maximise the use of double counting fuels that do not use food crop feedstock
• Feedstocks need to be sustainable and minimise risk of ILUC
• This will be reliant on high utilisation of Used Cooking Oil (UCO) as a feedstock for B7 biodiesel.
• There are potential other non-food waste streams which could provide an alternative to UCO but these are constrained by poor waste collection, costs and processing/refining plant capacity currently.
• Encouraging the development and deployment of advanced and drop-in fuels as early as possible to alleviate reliance on UCO.
• Encouraging the deployment of electric and biomethane vehicles could help alleviate reliance on E10 and B7.
In all cases, the implied take-up of new fuel blends and deployment of vehicles suggest an ambitious implementation programme which will require incentives.
The supply of double counting fuels is critical to the success of this approach. Beyond 2020 there is potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of renewable energy in road transport. With respect to liquid fuels;
• There is sufficient sustainable ethanol supply to move to a higher blend than E10 gasoline i.e. E20.
• The level of octane in E20 has implications for both vehicle and refining efficiencies. The agreed level should offer significant WTW emission savings.
• 2 grade gasoline infrastructure will delay deployment of E20.
• Early development and deployment of E20 compatible vehicles will aid deployment of E20.
• Limitations on sustainable biodiesel supply and development of drop-in diesel preclude the need to go beyond B7 (EN590) specification.
• The development and commercialisation of drop-in gasoline and diesel fuels will require policy clarity at EC level and support mechanisms at Member State level.

102
Title: Neste Renewable Diesel Handbook
Author: Neste Oil Oyj
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Neste Oil Oyj Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2: STANDARTIZATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The common acronym ”HVO” comes from ”Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil” or ”Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil”. They originate from last decade when only vegetable oils were used as feedstocks. Today more and more of HVO is produced from waste and residue fat fractions coming from food, fish and slaughterhouse industries, as well as from non-food grade vegetable oil fractions. Thus ”HVO” and ”Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil” are no longer accurate terms describing the origin of the fuel. However, those terms cannot be changed easily since they are common in the European regulation, fuel standards, and biofuel quality recommendations set by automotive companies. According to several chemistry experts ”Hydrotreated” referring to fuel processing should be preferred instead of ”Hydrogenated” as the latter is commonly linked to manufacturing of margarine. Neste Corporation calls its own product “Neste Renewable Diesel”. ”Renewable Paraffinic Diesel” has also been commonly used as it is chemically a proper definition for product quality. However, this term covers also pilot scale BTL fuels made by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and, therefore, does not define feedstock and process used to produce ”HVO”. Also terms “HDRD” i.e. “Hydrogenation Derived Renewable Diesel”, “Non Ester Renewable Diesel”, “Renewable Hydrocarbon Diesel”, and “HBD” i.e. “Hydro-generated Biodiesel” have been used especially in North America and Far East.
The European EN 15940 standard uses a definition ”Paraffinic Diesel Fuel from Hydrotreatment”. This document refers to isomerized high cetane number (above 70) products meeting EN 15940 Class A requirements. In this document “HVO”, “Neste Renewable Diesel” and “renewable diesel” are used to refer to such product.
The hydrotreating of vegetable oils as well as suitable waste and residue fat fractions to produce HVO is a quite new but already mature commercial scale manufacturing process. It is based on oil refining know-how and is used for the production of biofuels for diesel engines. In the process, hydrogen is used to remove oxygen from the triglyceride vegetable oil molecules and to split the triglyceride into three separate chains, thus creating hydrocarbons which are similar to existing diesel fuel components. This allows blending in any desired ratio without any concerns regarding fuel quality.
Traditionally, diesel components produced from vegetable oils are made by an esterification process. The products are called “Fatty Acid Methyl Esters” i.e. “FAME” or “biodiesel”. Other acronyms are also used, such as Rape Seed Methyl Ester” i.e. “RME”, “Soybean Methyl Ester” i.e. “SME”, “Palm Oil Methyl Ester” i.e. “PME”, or “Used Cooking Oils Methyl Ester” i.e. “UCOME”. A very simplified scheme regarding the inputs and outputs of esterification and hydrotreating processes is shown in the Figure 1 below. More detailed descriptions about all feedstock and energy streams, as well as products, side products and emissions from the production plan can be generally found from the case-by-case Life Cycle Assessments. Both the FAME and HVO processes are similar in that they use intermediates produced from natural gas. In the future, both hydrogen and methanol could be produced from biomass or biogas. The need for natural gas is about the same in both FAME and HVO processes and is confirmed by figures published by the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (“RED”) which show that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of HVO are slightly lower than those of FAME if both are made from the same feedstock. Neste spends 70% of all its R&D investments on the development of new raw materials, especially waste and residues. With year-on-year increases, the supply of Neste Renewable Diesel from waste and residue material reached 68% in 2015; thus the use of such raw materials by Neste is very remarkable already today. Aim of the company’s current efforts are focused on the utilization of ever lower quality waste and residue materials, as well as on the development of promising new materials, such as algae and microbial oils. HVO is a mixture of straight chain and branched paraffins – the simplest type of hydrocarbon HVO is a mixture of straight chain and branched paraffins – the simplest type of hydrocarbon molecules from the point of view of clean and complete combustion. Typical carbon numbers are C15 … C18. Paraffins exist also in fossil diesel fuels which additionally contain significant amounts of aromatics and naphthenics. Aromatics are not favorable for clean combustion. HVO is practically free of
aromatics and its composition is quite similar to GTL and BTL diesel fuels made by Fischer Tropsch synthesis from natural gas and gasified biomass. At least the following companies have developed stand-alone HVO production processes and products:
• Axens IFP: Vegan
• Honeywell UOP: Green Diesel
• Neste: NEXBTLTM, Neste Renewable Diesel
• Haldor Topsoe: Hydroflex
• ENI: Ecofining
The following description provides an overview of the NEXBTLTM HVO production process and products of NEXBTLTM process. The current sites are optimized for diesel fuel yields. In addition to diesel fuel, small amounts of renewable gasoline components, propane and isoalkane are formed as side products. Renewable gasoline components can be blended into gasoline where they provide a high bioenergy value but suffer from low octane numbers compared to, for example, ethanol. Biopropane can be used in cars and other applications using LPG; it can also be used as renewable process energy at the production site reducing the carbon footprint of products from NEXBTLTM process. Isoalkane provides possibility to usage in a wide range of chemical applications e.g. paints and coatings. The NEXBTLTM process includes also an isomerization unit for improving cold properties even down to arctic diesel fuel grades. NEXBTLTM process also enables production of renewable jet fuel.

103
Title: How to Reach 40% Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Road Transport by 2030: Propulsion Options and their Impacts on the Economy
Author: Nylund N.-O., Tamminen S., Sipilä K., Laurikko J., Sipilä E., Mäkelä K., Hannula I., Honkatukia J.
Publication Year: 2015 1st Edition. Update 2017
Source: VTT Research Report VTT-R-00752-15. VTT 2015. Proposed by: VTT
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: TRANSPORT General
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The key conclusions in the Road Transport 2030 update report
 The question to be answered in this report regards the alternatives enabling a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (and up to 2050). The level of the base year 2005 is approximately 11.7 Mt CO2. In the basic scenario of this update, the 2030 carbon emissions are approximately 9.2 Mt, i.e. approximately 21 percent below the base year. Emissions should therefore be reduced a further 2.2 Mt, i.e. approximately 19 percent. In the basic scenario, the actual share of biofuels (excluding the double counting required by the present distribution obligation) is approximately 14 percent, and
the share of electricity is very limited.
 The updated version examines five different scenarios. It also introduces two novel scenarios: an optimistic ‘electricity max’ scenario with 400,000 battery electric vehicles and 200,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles, and a ‘natural gas max’ scenario with 200,000 natural gas passenger vehicles, 50,000 vans and a 10 percent biogas share in the mileage of heavy duty vehicles. In order to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent, both scenarios require liquid drop-in biofuels that can be used in high blends. In all scenarios, including ‘electric max’ with its emphasis on electric cars, the demand for biofuels is bigger than present usage and present production capacity in Finland. In addition to changes in the vehicle fleet, ‘electricity max’ and ‘natural gas max’ scenarios would imply major changes in the distribution infrastructure for alternative power sources, for which there will be costs.
 Published in November 2016, the government’s energy and climate strategy set the target for 50 percent reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Also, the share of biofuels should be at 30 percent (actual energy share); the target for electric vehicles was 250,000 and for natural gas vehicles 50,000.
 Compared to the 21 percent reduction of the basic scenario of this survey, 250,000 electric passenger cars would reduce emissions by an additional nearly 5 percent. Similarly, increasing the share of biofuels from the present 13 percent to 30 percent would reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 12 percent.
In this respect, it can be argued that both advanced biofuels and carbon-free electric vehicles will definitely be necessary for achieving 40 or 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
 The relative cost impacts of different decisions mainly depend on external factors, such as prices of crude oil and electric vehicles. Also, carbon emission pricing and the measures for 2030 implemented in the EU’s climate policy have an influence in the situation. National level measures can also be implemented with regard to the price development of domestic biofuel production. When moving towards low-carbon and smart transport, the importance of tax decisions is significant. The estimated price for domestic biofuels is approximately 1,000 to 1,200 €/toe (pre-tax price 0.82 to 0.98 €/litre, whereas the price of fossil diesel fuel is 0.47 €/l).
 The cost impacts have been assessed from the viewpoint of distribution prices of fuels as well as annual costs per vehicle category (passenger car and transit bus). As regards passenger cars, all powertrain and fuel alternatives were assessed in the light of present taxation. A petrol car was used as a reference point. The price of avoided CO2 tonne with present prices and taxes was 50 to 300 €/tCO2 for biofuels (liquid and gas), 800 to 2,500 €/tCO2 for plug-in hybrids, and 200 to 1,400 €/tCO2 battery electric vehicles. As regards other fuels than biofuels, annual mileages of 17,000 or 30,000 km had a huge impact on the results. The price of avoided CO2 ranged from -200 to +1,800 €/tCO2 for fossil diesel fuel, and from -100 to +180 €/tCO2 for natural gas. The carbon reduction potential was, however,
limited for both of them. As regards diesel vehicles, air quality impacts in urban areas will also have to be taken into account. If the purchase price (with taxes) of electric vehicles would drop to the level of petrol vehicles, the electric vehicle would be very cost-efficient due to lower costs of use. Electric buses are already quite competitive due to their high utilisation rate.
 The general equilibrium model was used for calculating and assessing the national economic impacts. There were two versions made of the ‘electricity max’ scenario, differing in regard to price development: a) ‘electricity max’ basic version in which electric cars are still more expensive than combustion engine vehicles in 2030; and ‘electricity max 2’ in which the price of electric cars drops to the same level with combustion engine vehicles already in 2025. The first version is the most expensive as regards the impact on GDP, whereas the second version is the least expensive. In regard to the differences in the scenarios, the price development of new electric vehicles is essential even if the required investments in the infrastructure affected results slightly. The calculations show that the possible large-scale promotion of electric vehicles should only be started when the prices have dropped and the vehicle’s (battery) performance has improved. The total impact of different scenarios’ on GDP ranged from -2.7 to +0.1.

104
Title: Impact of promotion mechanisms for advanced and low-iLUC biofuels on biomass markets: Summary report.
Author: Pelkmans et al. 2014.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: IEA Bioenergy Task 40. August 2014. Proposed by: Copa - Cogeca
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: STANDARTIZATION Forum Area 4:

With current discussions on indirect effects of biofuels, and the aim to broaden feedstocks to non-food biomass, policies are trying to put focus on biofuels from waste, residues and lignocellulose materials, so called ‘advanced’ biofuels. Next to the general biofuel incentives, these biofuels are getting extra support through specific promotion mechanisms. Examples are the double-counting mechanism for advanced biofuels in the EU, and the specific targets for advanced biofuels in the US. The double counting mechanism in the Renewable Energy Directive, which was intended to promote advanced biofuels in the EU, has merely incentivised the use of used cooking oils and animal fats for biodiesel, a relatively mature and inexpensive biofuel in relation to other biofuels. For market parties this was a very cost-effective way to reach their obligations, but it hardly contributed to technological advances. More specific promotion mechanisms will be needed to achieve that.
Similar story in the US, where targets are set in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), with specific mandated volumes for renewable fuels, advanced fuels, biobased diesel and cellulosic biofuel. The growth of cellulosic biofuels has clearly stayed below expectations, and in the past 4 years, the ambitious subtarget for cellulosic biofuels was consistently reduced by EPA. Imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (recognised as advanced biofuel by US authorities) have partly compensated for the underperformance of cellulosic biofuels. The question is whether current promotion mechanisms are the right ones to stimulate further growth of technologically challenging cellulosic biofuels. A clear lesson from the two first case studies is that markets look for the most costeffective options to fulfil mandates. They will preferably focus on proven technologies and cheap feedstocks. To stimulate the development and deployment of real ‘technology challenging’ biofuels, a different policy approach is needed. Another lesson is that these promotion mechanisms (mandates, double counting) create economic incentives for market players (often valued in tradable certificates, or the alternative cost of reaching mandates without double counting). When the economic value
of the extra incentives is higher than the additional cost of certain technologies, this can give an upward push on prices of the concerned feedstocks, and this also increases risks of fraud. One lesson is that overincentivising / overcompensation of additional costs through certain promotion mechanisms should be avoided. On the other hand a good tracing and verification system becomes very important, but is not evident, specifically for materials imported from all over the world.
Differences in policy implementation between countries/regions (i.e. double counting mechanism between EU Member States, and different policies towards advanced biofuels between the US and Brazil) makes certain markets more attractive, which leads to trade to these markets. This can induce trade inefficiencies, create displacement effects (displace existing applications in sourcing regions), drive up prices of existing applications, and the carbon impact of trade and displacement (leakage) can also be substantial. Policies should keep a close eye on these effects and in principle a better aligning of policies between
countries would be preferred. The last two case studies (straw and wood pellets) are more prospective when it comes to their use for advanced biofuels. As mentioned, the real challenging advanced biofuel technologies are not really stimulated through the current promotion mechanisms. We tried to describe what has already happened with these feedstocks on energy markets, and what lessons we can learn when demand for these feedstocks increases in future. The use of residues from agriculture (e.g. straw) for the production of energy can play a role in the transition towards a more renewable energy supply, both for stationary bioenergy, and in time, also for advanced biofuels. However, sustainability issues have to be considered along the entire provision chain as they affect the resource and energy potential, as well as the achievable contribution to climate mitigation. Straw plays an important role in the humus balance of soils. For this reason not the complete technical straw potential is available. Some of the straw must be left scattered on the agricultural land to prevent nutrients from being permanently extracted from the soil. This share strongly depends on the local condition. Sustainability criteria need to safeguard that agricultural soils are not overexploited.
The trend of traditional forest industry and the readiness of other industries within the bioeconomy framework will dictate to a great extent the availability of woody biomass for energy – both for stationary energy and for advanced biofuels. Synergies between the traditional forestry operations and new forestry techniques as well as between the traditional wood markets and bioenergy markets are deemed achievable in the long term. Nevertheless, the short term perspective should not be forgotten and measures to avoid negative and unintended effects on ecosystems and markets should be put in place. Given the long-term effects of forest policies, careful planning is needed. It is necessary to acknowledge forest ownership to better understand real biomass availability and
mobilization as well as potential impacts on forest management. Sustainable forest management will be key for further mobilization of woody resources, while also
safeguarding forest ecosystems and avoiding negative carbon impacts. All in all, and aiming to make the most of this incipient market, decision-makers should consider short and longterm cross-cutting policies aiming to capture the complexity of the inter-linked systems and promoting the most efficient development.
The development of advanced bioenergy technologies (incl. straw) has to be based on stable political frame conditions. Especially for the European biofuel sector specific targets for the time frame beyond 2020 should be defined by EU policy makers. The stabilization of the market will be one of the most important tasks for future years in order to create a basis of trust for the development of biomass-using technologies.

105
Title: From biomass to advanced biofuel: the green diesel case
Author: Perego C.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Sinchem Winter School, February 16-17, Bologna, 2015. Proposed by: Copa - Cogeca
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 4:

EU Renewable Directive is promoting the diffusion of biofuels, favoring advanced biofuels from non-food, waste biomass with respect to the conventional one’s (eg. Bioethanol and FAME).
 A the moment the only commercial alternative to FAME is represented by HVO, that can also be obtained from “other” oils (non edible oils, waste
animal fats, used cooking oils) while waiting for oils from lignocellulosic biomass and algae: i.e. HVO technology is a bridge from first to advanced
generation-biofuel.
 Therefore for advanced biodiesel we do need new, viable technologies to exploit non-food lignocellulosic biomass to oil or to produce algal oil.
 Several different routes have been disclosed to get the goal. Few of them are already at a demonstration scale. For others, significant improvements are
still needed in order to make viable large-scale applications.
 Eventually, the success of one or the other of these technologies will depend on several factors, including the availability and the quality of the feedstocks,
the complexity of the process, and the quality of the final biofuel. In most cases catalysis is playing a very major role cases, catalysis is playing a very major role.

106
Title: How to advance cellulosic biofuels Assessment of costs, investment options and required policy support
Author: Peters D., Alberici S., Passmore J., Malins C.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G, 3526 KL Utrecht. 28 December 2015. Proposed by: Netherlands Enterprise Agency, The International Council of Clean Transportation
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: FINANCING
Forum Area 3: REGULATION Forum Area 4:

The use of advanced biofuels, meaning here those produced from agricultural or forest residues or energy crops, in transport is generally viewed as a sustainable manner in which to mitigate the growing climate impact of the transport sector. However, the share of advanced biofuels in the total supply of biofuels in the EU is low. Less than 1% of the total EU fuel mix consists of advanced biofuels. This limited relevance of advanced biofuels in the current marketplace does not reflect the
importance that EU policy makers attach to these biofuels, which often have a better sustainability and greenhouse gas saving performance than conventional biofuels. Much more is possible, especially when looking at the total availability of biomass residues in the EU.
Why has the uptake of advanced biofuels been so slow? Generally, it comes down to an assessment of risk, and the certainty of receiving returns on investor’s capital deployed. Advanced biofuels projects still carry many risks. Capital costs are high, some technologies are not widely tested at commercial scale and little certainty exists that produced fuels can be sold to the market at a sufficiently high price, as the regulatory climate to ensure long-term offtake has been lacking.
Clearly, more investments are required. But that investment can only come with market certainty and an assurance that risks can be reduced, eliminated or properly allocated. How can the uptake of advanced biofuels be accelerated more effectively? To address this question, we describe the barriers for increased deployment of advanced biofuels, focusing on the main barrier: high production costs. Subsequently we assess which types of investors would be willing to finance investments in advanced biofuels and we assess which policies could eliminate barriers and attract investment. Production costs We estimated production costs for three biofuel pathways: Cellulosic ethanol produced from agricultural residues, Fischer-Tropsch renewable diesel produced from woody biomass and Hydrotreated Pyrolysis Oil produced from woody biomass. Estimated costs for cellulosic ethanol and Fischer-Tropsch renewable diesel produced in next generation commercial facilities (nth-of-a-kind, NOAK) are modelled using assumptions (see Appendix) and data obtained from various sources. A cost estimate for Hydrotreated pyrolysis oil produced in a NOAK installation is based on a study by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) published in march 2015. We estimate that production costs for a next generation commercial scale cellulosic ethanol can be as low as 750 EUR/tonne, whereas costs for a current first generation plant (FOAK) stand at around 1,000 EUR/tonne. These figures do not include margins for biofuel producers. Total average revenues are estimated to be 1,004 EUR/tonne including a limited double counting premium for the biofuel producer. The double counting premium is the difference between the price of conventional ethanol and petrol, we assume that this premium largely ends up with the fuel supplier rather than with the biofuel producer. When comparing costs with revenues it becomes clear that cellulosic ethanol is currently not economically viable without additional policy incentives. Pyrolysis oil can be used as a transport fuel when hydrotreated (resulting in hydrotreated pyrolysis oil or HPO) or when directly used in the refinery fuel production. Both routes are not yet implemented at commercial scale, making it difficult to accurately estimate total production costs. PNNL estimates HPO production costs to stand at 1,647 EUR/tonne. While this means that today it is difficult to produce HPO at commercial scale, the PNNL study shows that significant cost reductions have been achieved in recent years and if this trend continues, costs will have come down to 1,100 EUR/tonne in 2017 and lower costs in subsequent years. This means that HPO might start to play a role at commercial scale after 2020. As with HPO, Fischer-Tropsch renewable diesel is thought to be relatively expensive, with an estimated production cost for NOAK plant of 1,315 EUR/tonne, which is double the market price of fossil diesel. Also for this pathway cost reductions are needed to make the technology attractive for investors. We do note that only a few reliable cost data sources for FischerTropsch renewable diesel are available, meaning that significant uncertainties remain for the results
for this pathway. At these cost levels, the carbon abatement cost of advanced biofuels vary strongly from 164 EUR/tonne CO2 for cellulosic ethanol to 209 EUR/tonne CO2 for FT biodiesel and 308 EUR/tonne CO2 for HPO. Based on our cost estimates it can be concluded firstly that of the three pathways cellulosic ethanol seems most attractive for investors and secondly that additional policy incentives are required to grow the market for advanced biofuels beyond the existing EU ‘double counting’ incentive. Investors (not) willing to invest Currently, advanced biofuel projects both in the EU and US have been mostly funded by companies themselves (Self-financing). This makes sense in a market with large regulatory and offtake risks, but in order to grow a thriving advanced biofuel industry at some point external investors will be needed to bring in more capital. In this study, eleven types of investors were identified that could play a role in funding advanced biofuel projects. In summary, of the eleven financing options reviewed, only Self-financing is identified as presenting a likely short term investment source for advanced biofuels. Self-financing means that large companies are prepared to invest their own capital not just in innovation at the R&D stage, but also in first-of-a-kind (FOAK) commercial projects. In many cases these companies are willing to take below market returns on a first of a kind project
hoping that any project losses will be recovered by selling technology licenses to project developers. Three external funding options, Large Corporate Strategics2, Investment Banks and Initial Public Offering3, are identified as possible investment sources under the right, and extremely optimal, conditions. Of these, Large Corporate Strategics seem the most likely if they can be persuaded that an investment in advanced biofuels is in their long term best interest, and that such an investment will eventually have a material impact on their business. It could be interesting to combine several financing options, so to reduce the risks for individual parties, e.g. a combination of strategic investors, industrial parties, venture capitalists, pension funds and government money. Of course it would be challenging and time consuming to assemble all pieces. Such a combination (“capital stack”) could finance projects provided all the deals can come to a close at or near the same time. In all cases, whether Strategics, or some syndicated group that an Investment Bank is able to assemble, all investors are unlikely to proceed if there is a hint of government policy instability. Given the cost of FOAK advanced biofuels facilities, any perceived threat of stranded assets will discourage investors. Essentially, certainty is the mother of investment, both in terms of markets and government policies. The remaining seven options are not considered relevant for investments in advanced biofuel plants. The reasons for this vary, but typically come down to the large size of the capital investment required, a lack of appetite for technology and therefore project risk, and a fear of future change of law. Also, since advanced biofuels projects and their sponsors do not have a proven business track record and typically lack a strong balance sheet, proposed projects are not considered “investment grade” (have sufficiently low risks to investors) by traditional providers of debt. In other words, the proposed project investment does not meet the minimum acceptable rate of return for investors. A general observation on financing first of kind commercial plants is that it is more of an art than a science, no fixed rules apply. Investment bankers, for example, will look for creative ways to put together the necessary capital to get a project built. People or entities that lend money want to be certain they are making a wise investment decision. Some lenders are prepared to take greater risks than others (have a higher “risk tolerance”), in which case their cost of capital may be lower than a lender who is highly risk averse and wants a high return for any risk (real or perceived) that the borrower is taking. So what works in one instance for a project capital raise may not work next time. Combination of policy measures to effectively mitigate investment risks In our study we assess how four policy measures could stimulate investments in advanced biofuel facilities: a specific mandate for advanced biofuels, a carbon intensity reduction target, a fiscal
incentive (tax exemption) and investment support. For each of these measures their impact in reducing the offtake risk, regulatory risk, financing risk and feedstock risk are assessed. The table below summarises the extent to which the assessment policy incentives reduce risks for investors.Feedstock risk will often not occur. In situation where it occurs, when a plant using agricultural residues in an area where the material is already widely used by other sectors. The most important risks to be mitigated from the perspective of investors are the offtake and regulatory risks. Measures can reduce the offtake risk either by enabling advanced biofuels to compete with conventional biofuels in the same market or by fencing off a market for advanced biofuels, by measures that decrease advanced biofuel production costs or by measures that increase revenues. A specific, high enough mandate for advanced biofuels, a specific high enough carbon saving target and a sufficiently
high level of fiscal support can all reduce the offtake risk whereas from the perspective of an investor only investment support offers certainty from a regulatory perspective. This makes investment support an interesting accompanying measure to one of the other three. The degree to which regulatory risk will materialise depends on the level of public support for advanced biofuels, if active support is widespread than either a mandate, carbon target or fiscal support (tax exemption) can reduce the offtake risk in a satisfactory manner. However, probably a specific mandate and specific carbon saving target offer more certainty than a fiscal measure because the latter is paid for from the government budget which makes it a potential target for savings in times of austerity, whereas the first two are paid for by consumers at the pump. Some increased regulatory certainty can be achieved by tendering fiscal support, which essentially prevents the measure to become an open ended bill for the treasury. Fiscal support can also play a helpful role not as stand-alone but as a supporting measure in the early commercialisation of advanced biofuels, to offer limited support for a fixed number of years in an advanced biofuel market that is primarily driven by a specific mandate or carbon target. Either a specific mandate, a carbon target or fiscal support can deliver an increased deployment of advanced biofuels, ideally accompanied by a form of investment support to reduce high capital costs for first and second of a kind investments. Whether such a combination of policy measures or ‘policy stack’ can really mitigate risks depends on how measures are designed. A mandate, carbon target or fiscal support should be fixed for at least eight to ten years to allow investors to return their investment. Ideally, this period would be longer to enable investors a longer period to return their investment, but regulatory certainty for longer than ten years is probably not very realistic. Mandates should have a high enough buy-out price, should be specific for advanced biofuels and should be embedded in the right storyline in order to receive sufficient levels of societal support. A carbon saving target must allocate a specific part of the target for advanced biofuels in order to effectively drive investments in advanced biofuels. This means that dedicated, longer term policy measures will
be required to really advance the market for advanced biofuels in Europe.

107
Title: The Flight Paths for Biojet Fuel
Author: Radich T.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: 9th Oct. 2015. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Washington, DC 20585. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: STANDARTIZATION Forum Area 4: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET

Jet fuel is a 22-billion-gallon per year market in the United States and about 80 billion gallons per year worldwide. Biofuels have made inroads into gasoline and diesel fuel supplies, but are only beginning to enter the jet fuel market. “Biojet” is a term that describes fuel made from renewable, biologicallyderived raw materials and, once blended with petroleum jet fuel, is suitable for use in an unmodified jet engine. “Alternative jet fuel” is a more general term that describes jet fuel blending components made from biogenic and fossil (e.g. coal, natural gas, industrial waste gases, or the non-biogenic portion of municipal solid waste) feedstocks. There are several reasons for interest in biojet. Airlines and the U.S. Department of Defense are looking to biojet to diversify fuel supplies and lower fuel costs in the long run. As with other transportation modes, greenhouse gases are a concern for aviation. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations body that sets standards and recommended practices for international aviation, has set a goal for international aviation to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Despite the keen interest in biojet fuels, wide-scale deployment of biofuels into the jet fuel market has significant barriers to overcome:
• Aircraft and airport fuel storage and delivery systems are designed to last for decades; new fuels must be compatible with existing systems. Non-petroleum jet fuels such as biojet must consist entirely of hydrocarbon compounds that are already found in petroleum jet fuel. In other words, biojet must be a drop-in biofuel.
• The approval process for new formulations of jet fuel is very involved, due to the range of conditions under which jet fuel must perform. A plane may take off from a scorching Arizona desert, climb to a freezing 30,000 feet, and land in a humid Louisiana swamp. Under all these varied conditions, the fuel can’t freeze, boil, or absorb water.
• Biojet producers will need to compete with biodiesel and ethanol producers for raw material, and biojet purchasers must pay a sufficiently high price to keep the biojet from being sold into distillate fuel markets.
• Many of the tax and other incentive programs for blending of biofuels into highway fuels have traditionally not been available for biojet. Despite these challenges, biojet technology and deployment is progressing. Alaska Airlines, KLM, and United Airlines deployed biojet fuel on commercial flights in 2011 to demonstrate how the fuels could be integrated in regular service. Further, in 2012, the first airline purchase agreement for regular supply was inked with a prospective biojet producer. In 2014, the first volumes of biojet from a commercial biojet plant in Brazil were used in commercial service and KLM launched a six-month series of transatlantic commercial flights using biojet that year.
Also in 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would purchase biojet blends for general use if available at competitive prices and various U.S. airlines have now entered commercial agreements for biojet supply.

108
Title: Renewable Fuels for advanced Powertrains – Final report
Author: RENEW Project
Publication Year: 2008
Source: EU/FP6/502705, 2008 SYNCOM Forschungs- und Entwicklungsberatung GmbH, Mühlenstraße 9, 27777 Ganderkesee. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 4:

The Integrated European Project “Renewable Fuels for Advanced Powertrains (RENEW)” has brought together 32 European partners, among them automotive manufacturers, mineral oil industry, plant developers and R&D institutes to cooperate in a four year project to develop/improve several production routes for renewable biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuels and to undertake a technical, economic and environmental assessment. The whole chain from biomass potential assessment up to fuel application in today’s and future combustion engines has been investigated. The common interface was a synthesis gas (H2+CO) which was
produced from ligno-cellulosic biomass (wood, straw, energy plants and black liquor) via gasification. Fischer-Tropsch-diesel, HCCI-fuel and Ethanol have been synthesised. Engine tests proved the suitability and sustainability of BTL FT-diesel, naphtha and DME as motor fuels. All RENEW fuels showed considerably improved emission behaviour. This is particularly pronounced and important for FT-diesel and DME. They exhibit less or equal fuel consumption than conventional fuels when compared on an energy base. Together with future engine concepts the improved combustion process can also lead to better efficiency and thus
reduced fuel consumption. A first fuel specification has been derived. Investigations into the biomass potential in EU-25 revealed: in 2005 the biomass potential
available for the production of biofuels without affecting that of food, fodder and fibre production was approximately 4 EJ, or 95 million tons oil equivalent (MtOE) per year. In 2020 the potential will be between 4.7 EJ/a (112 MtOE) and 7.2 EJ/a (172 MtOE). The RENEW approach was to show the energy density (bioenergy potential divided by land surface) on a resolution of NUTS 2 provinces. The total straw energy in provinces of the highest category amounts to 380 PJ. In Europe’s most promising provinces, technically sufficient residue biomass is available today to build around 50 industrial size BtL plants and substitute up to 4 % of the European diesel fuel demand in 2020. Among the regions with highest biomass density for the first industrial scale BtL plants, central France, East Germany and West Poland would be the most favourable choice. Concepts for integration into existing pulp and paper mills (some 65 in Europe) requiring less additional biomass are interesting for the countries Sweden, Finland, Spain, Portugal and France. Today, costs for the short rotation coppice willow are in the range of 4.3 to 5.8 €/GJ, depending on the region. For comparison, costs for straw and forest residues are between 2.4 €/GJ and 5 €/GJ. For the future, it can be expected that biomass costs will equalize throughout Europe and drop to about 3.5 to 4 €/GJ free plant gate. This conforms to the present biomass price in Sweden and Finland, which both have a well developed industrial system of biomass sourcing and utilisation. A further increase in the number of suitable locations for BtL production is thus expected by 2020. The production pathways for FT-BtL and DME have been investigated from an environmental point of view by means of a WtT-Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) pursuant to ISO 14040/44, including an independent external review. The WtT LCA included the production of biomass, transport to the production plant, self-sufficient conversion processes and fuel distribution to the filling station. The environmental profile of self-sufficient BtL production concepts is dominated by the biomass production and subsequent processes, such as fertilizer production. RENEW final report 13 A multicriteria assessment of six different BtL concepts and strategies for the production of synthetic Diesel, DME and Ethanol was used to identify advantages and drawbacks like the efficiency of the fuel production and the maturity of the concept. Among the production routes studied, the most efficient, mature and ecological were concepts of Choren (cEF-D) for
FT-Diesel and the BLEF-DME concept of Chemrec for the production of DME. Demonstration on a pre-commercial scale of the most advanced BtL concepts (Black-liquor based DME production, centralized FT-diesel production via entrained flow gasification) is of utmost importance. These two most advanced concepts are ready for a demonstration on the scale of 15 000 t/year. Today FT-Diesel could be produced from available biomass for costs of 0.86 €/lDE and with short rotation crops 0.8 €/lDE could be possible by 2020. DME via black liquor gasification could be produced today and in the future for 0.50 €/lDE as co-product of a pulp mill.
However, this depends on the development of costs for plant construction, interest rates and biomass feedstock.

109
Title: Integrated Fuels and Vehicles Roadmap to 2030 and beyond
Author: Roland Berger GmbH
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Roland Berger GmbH, Sederanger 1, 80538 Munich, Germany, April 2016. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: ROAD TRANSPORT
Forum Area 3: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 4:

EU road transport sector decarbonization and regulation post-2020 is undefined In October 2014, the European Heads of States communiqué agreed on the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework. This framework set binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and non-binding targets for renewable energy consumption and improvements in energy efficiency. The overall GHG emissions reduction target of -40% (-43% for ETS sector and –
30% for non ETS sector) in 2030 below 2005 levels was in line with both the ambition to reduce GHG emissions in the European Union (EU) by 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 and the vision of the EU White Paper on Transport. The Communiqué did not set any specific sectorial target for road transport decarbonization
between 2020 and 2030. It did however state that the Commission should “further examine instruments and measures for a comprehensive and technology neutral approach for the promotion of emissions reduction and energy efficiency in transport, for electric transportation and for renewable energy sources in transport also after 2020”. The current regulatory framework for vehicle emissions, carbon intensity of fuels and use of renewable fuels is only valid until 2020/2021 and the absence of any transport decarbonization polices post 2020 is making investors wary of low carbon vehicles and fuels. To help foster an
informed debate, it was considered useful to develop a view on possible GHG abatement measures in the road transport sector and supporting policy elements that would deliver decarbonization to 2030 and beyond in a sustainable way. This also included assessing potential measures regarding technical achievability, infrastructure requirements, customer acceptance and costs to society, needed to incorporate fuel and vehicle technologies. An independent evaluation of fuel and vehicle technologies has been undertaken For this purpose, Roland Berger has been commissioned by a coalition of automotive companies and fuel suppliers
to define and produce an Integrated Roadmap for EU Road Transport Decarbonization to 2030 and beyond. The study was commissioned to identify possible reductions in GHG emissions by considering the key elements of technical achievability, infrastructure needs, customer acceptance and which policies, currently being pursued, would lead to greater integration between the automotive and fuel sectors in order to meet the challenging decarbonization goals set out to 2030 and beyond. This study aims to provide an integrated roadmap taking into account the feasibility of all fuel and vehicle technologies along with infrastructure needs and the recommended policy framework beyond 2020. A key consideration was to identify a roadmap with the lowest, achievable GHG abatement costs to society.
This study incorporates existing data and views from a very broad range of studies and stakeholders from across the vehicle and fuel industries, research organizations, NGOs and EU policymakers. Nonetheless, one must acknowledge that evaluating developments until 2030 and beyond is rife with uncertainty and led to assessments, which were made as transparent as possible by means of variability ranges or sensitivity analysis. A realistic reference case based on current regulation was developed for the EU until 2030 Based on projected fuel and vehicle costs for conventional internal combustion engines, mild and full hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles, a powertrain mix was derived for 2030 which constitutes a reference case based upon the current unaltered regulatory framework. This reference case predicts within two different scenarios expected market developments under the current regulatory framework without any additional policies after 2021 beyond prevailing legislation with increasing alternative powertrain and fuel penetration in addition to the existing high penetration of improved ICE powertrains. After comparing the transport sector’s emissions under the current regulatory framework with 2030 GHG emissions reduction targets, technologies were identified to achieve additional GHG abatement at the lowest cost to society. In order for these technologies to contribute to the abatement of the road transport sector’s GHG emissions, the recommended policies need to address the current obstacles facing these technologies. SUMMARY OF STUDY OUTCOMES
1) The reference case shows that maintenance of the existing vehicle efficiency and fuels regulations to 2030 will lower tank-to-wheel GHG emissions from road transport to 647 Mton representing a 29% reduction compared to 2005 levels, achieving almost aspired level for 2030.
2) GHG abatement in road transport sector will cost approx. 150 – 200 EUR per ton of CO2e avoided.
3) To further abate GHG emissions in road transport by 2030, more biofuels and hybrid powertrains for passenger cars as well as more biofuels and new truck concepts for commercial vehicles are a cost effective way of delivering more GHG savings from transport and with supportive polices they can deliver an extra 34 Mton CO2e by 2030.
4) Policy makers should adopt an integrated approach in policy design and promote the deployment of cost-efficient GHG abatement technologies post-2020
5) Placing fuels in a market based system (MBM) will provide a potential source of funding for the demand side measure needed to 2030 and will also lead to GHG abatement becoming an economy-wide rather than a sectorial issue based on the lowest cost to society.

110
Title: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of biodiesel in the United States with induced land use change impacts
Author: Rui Chena, Zhangcai Qina, Jeongwoo Hana, Michael Wanga, Farzad Taheripourb, Wallace Tynerb, Don O'Connorc, James Duffieldd
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2: USA
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study conducted the updated simulations to depict a life cycle analysis (LCA) of the biodiesel production from soybeans and other feedstocks in the U.S. It addressed in details the interaction between LCA and induced land use change (ILUC) for biodiesel. Relative to the conventional petroleum diesel, soy biodiesel could achieve 76% reduction in GHG emissions without considering ILUC, or 66–72% reduction in overall GHG emissions when various ILUC cases were considered. Soy biodiesel’s fossil fuel consumption rate was also 80% lower than its petroleum counterpart. Furthermore, this study examined the cause and the implication of each key parameter affecting biodiesel LCA results using a sensitivity analysis, which identified the hot spots for fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions of biodiesel so that future efforts can be made accordingly. Finally, biodiesel produced from other feedstocks (canola oil and tallow) were also investigated to contrast with soy biodiesel and petroleum diesel.

111
Title: The voluntary RED opt-in for aviation biofuels. Identifying opportunities within the 28 EU member states.
Author: Oskar Meijerink, SkyNRG
Publication Year: 2016
Source: SkyNRG, Universiteit Utrecht Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: REGULATION Forum Area 4:

The aviation industry is responsible for 2% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions each year. Where other industries can reduce CO2 with e.g. electrification, the aviation industry is bounded to long-term infrastructure and airplanes which will fly on hydrocarbon type fuels for the coming decades. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is the only significant short-term sustainable solution. SAF is physically identical to fossil jet fuel, however made from certified sustainable biomass. Unlike biodiesel, SAF is a so-called drop-in fuel and is therefore fully compatible with existing infrastructure, distribution systems and engines without any modifications.
Besides the fact that SAF can be easily blended and used with conventional jet fuel infrastructure, it provides a number of other significant benefits. On an EU level it increases the energy independency. More locally, on a member state level, SAF provides environmental benefits to the surroundings of airports and helps to achieve national emissions targets. Also, airlines benefit from the use of SAF, as they are less bounded to incumbents and can stabilize the current price swings.
The development of SAF over the recent past has been substantially. Since the first flight in 2011, more than 1500 flights have been executed on SAF. SAF can be produced with the use of different technological pathways, the current furthest developed pathway, is the HEFA pathway. The fuel produced by using the HEFA process is ASTM approved, which means it can be used in any aircraft under the same rules and regulations as conventional jet fuels. Although technology has been proven to work and airlines are willing to fly on SAF, there is currently limited activity in the production and use of SAF. The main reason for this limited activity is the price gap between fossil and sustainable aviation fuels. SAF is currently, and for the years to come, more expensive than fossil jet fuels. Also, the aviation industry is a very price sensitive industry. As a result, airlines are not able to pay more for their fuel, while keeping competitive. A mechanism to cover the price premium on the short term, should therefore be developed. SkyNRG has been set up in 2009 to make the market for SAF, and has developed several mechanisms to cover the price premium. One of those programs is the KLM corporate biofuel program where corporate customers of KLM pay a price premium to fly on sustainable fuels. Another opportunity to cover part of the price premium emerged within the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED). The voluntary inclusion of SAF in the RED obligation is a mechanism implemented into legislation in The Netherlands since 2013. From 2016 onwards it will be possible for other member states to facilitate this as well, due to a change in the RED and Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) under the recent ILUC amendment:
“In the case of suppliers of biofuels in aviation, Member States may permit such suppliers to choose to become contributors to the reduction obligation provided that those biofuels comply with the sustainability criteria” – Directive 2015/153 amending FQD (98/70/EC) and the RED (2009/28/EC). As all member states have implemented the RED differently, not all member states will have the same opportunities of implementing the voluntary aviation opt-in. Therefore, this report
SkyNRG 2016 (Document by: Oskar Meijerink) aims to give a structured insight in which EU member states can include the RED aviation optin.
First, the Dutch system is explained. Second, the 28 EU member states are categorized on their potential of implementing the voluntary aviation opt-in. This results in six high potential member states which are analysed in-depth. For these 6 member states an overview of the current system, the relevant stakeholders and a guideline on how the voluntary aviation optin could be implemented into the RED legislation. The final part concludes and reflect upon the RED aviation opt-in, this includes a brief discussion on the post 2020 legislation.

112
Title: How to best address aviation’s full climate impact from an economic policy point of view? – Main results from AviClim research project
Author: Scheelhaase, J.D., et al.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Transport. Res. Part D (2015) Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The interdisciplinary research project AviClim (Including Aviation in International Protocols for Climate Protection) has explored the feasibility for including aviation’s full climate impact, i.e., both long-lived CO2 and short-lived non-CO2 effects, in international protocols for climate protection and has investigated the economic impacts. Short-lived non-CO2 effects of aviation are NOx emissions, H2O emissions or contrail cirrus, for instance.

Four geopolitical scenarios have been designed which differ concerning the level of international support for climate protecting measures. These scenarios have been combined alternatively with an emissions trading scheme on CO2 and non-CO2 species, a climate tax and a NOx emission charge combined with CO2 trading and operational measures (such as lower flight altitudes). Modelling results indicate that a global emissions trading scheme for both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions would be the best solution from an economic and environmental point of view. Costs and impacts on competition could be kept at a relatively moderate level and effects on employment are moderate, too. At the same time, environmental benefits are noticeable.

113
Title: Methanol: a future transport fuel based on hydrogen and carbon dioxide? Economic viability and policy options
Author: Science and Technology Options Assessment
Publication Year: 2014
Source: European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, PE 527.377 - April 2014. ISBN 978-92-823-5529-9. DOI 10.2861/57305. Proposed by: Methanol Institute
Forum Area 1: METHANOL Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study discusses the technological, environmental and economic barriers for producing
methanol from carbon dioxide, as well as the possible uses of methanol in car transport in
Europe. Costs and benefits are evaluated from a life-cycle perspective in order to compare
different feedstocks for methanol production and to account for the potential benefits of CO2-
derived methanol in the transition to a more diversified fuel mix in the transport sector.
Benefits in terms of reduced dependence on conventional fossil fuels and lower risks to
security of supply can be envisioned in the medium and long term. It is nonetheless evident
that considerable and sustained research efforts are necessary to turn CO2 into an efficient
and competitive prime materials, which would be attractive not only for the transport sector,
but also other industries. Europe’s increasingly limited and expensive access to fossil fuels
makes it obligatory to consider policy options and smart strategies, combining market,
regulatory and planning instruments, to bring down the direct and indirect costs of
alternative fuels, so that transport services remain affordable for citizens and companies
during the transition to a less petroleum-dependent economy.

114
Title: Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps
Author: Souza M. G., Reynaldo L. V., Carlos A. J. and Luciano M. V.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) 1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France. ISBN: 978-2-9545557-0-6. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

One approach to solving today’s energy challenges is to use modern bioenergy practices to harness the solar energy captured by photosynthesis. Bioenergy
derived from plants can play an essential role in satisfying the world’s growing energy demand, mitigating climate change, sustainably feeding a growing population, improving socio-economic equity, minimizing ecological disruptions and preserving biodiversity. There is broad consensus that modern bioenergy will be necessary to achieve a low-carbon future. The idea that the large-scale use of bioenergy compromises efforts to meet these challenges is unsupported by the current scientific evidence when bioenergy practices are implemented properly. So says the new report “Bioenergy & Sustainability“, a SCOPE series assessment,
led by researchers associated to the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Programs on Bioenergy, Biodiversity and Climate Change, and developed under
the aegis of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) and a Scientific Advisory Committee. This report combines a comprehensive analysis of the current bioenergy landscape, technologies and practices with a critical review of their impacts. Experts from over 80 institutions contributed to the extensive evaluation of the current status of bioenergy resources, systems and markets and the potential for sustainable expansion and wider adoption of this renewable resource. What “Bioenergy & Sustainability” proposes is not only improving energy security for over 1.3 billion people with no access to electricity and lifting rural areas out of poverty, but ultimately securing a sustainable and equitable future.The resources and technologies for the transition from fossil to renewable energy are within our reach, but achieving the critical contributions needed from modern bioenergy call for political and individual will. The report finds that land availability is not a limiting factor. Bioenergy can contribute to sustainable energy supplies even with increasing food demands, preservation of forests, protected lands, and rising urbanization. While it is projected that 50 to 200 million hectares would be needed to provide 10 to 20% of primary energy supply in 2050, available land that does not compromise the uses above is estimated to be at least 500 million hectares and possibly 900 million hectares if pasture intensification or water-scarce, marginal and degraded land is considered. As documented in the 21 chapters of the report, the use of land for bioenergy is inextricably linked to food security, environmental quality, and social development, with potentially positive or negative consequences depending on how these linkages are managed.
Building on over 2,000 scientific studies and major assessments, this 700-page e-publication outlines how:
● Development of bioenergy can replenish a community’s food supply by improving management practices and land soil quality
● New technologies can provide communities with food security, fuel, economic and social development while effectively using water, nutrients and other resources
● The use of bioenergy, if done thoughtfully, can actually help lower air and water pollution
● Bioenergy initiatives monitored and implemented, hand in hand with good governance, can protect biodiversity, and provide ecosystems services
● Efficiency gains and sustainable practices of recent bioenergy systems can help contribute to a low-carbon economy by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and assisting carbon mitigation efforts
● With current knowledge and projected improvements 30% of the world’s fuel supply could be biobased by 2050 The report’s authors see both practical and ethical imperatives to advance bioenergy in light of its potential to meet pressing human needs not easily addressed by other renewable energy sources. At the same time, they acknowledge that just because bioenergy can be beneficial does not mean that it will be. Research and development, good governance and innovative business models are essential to address knowledge gaps and foster innovation across the value chain. With these measures, the report argues, a sustainable future is more easily achieved with bioenergy than without it, and not using the bioenergy option would result in significant risks and costs for regions,
countries and the planet.

115
Title: Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the EU
Author: Searle S., Malins C.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: October 2013 International Council on Clean Transportation, 1225 Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The demand for renewable energy has grown in the EU over recent years with policy support through the Renewable Energy Directive, Fuel Quality Directive, and Emissions Trading Scheme. While, at the time of writing, global cellulosic biofuel production is still low compared to other biofuels, there is significant potential for sustainable energy from cellulosic biomass in the future. This study aims to estimate the sustainable availability of certain cellulosic wastes and residues in the EU. We calculate the availability of the cellulosic fraction of waste, agricultural residues, and forestry residues, while considering current uses of these materials and the environmental impact of utilization. The total amount of paper, wood, food, and garden waste produced in the EU is considerable, in the order of 900 million tonnes per year. However, a large fraction of this is not truly “waste,” but low-value input materials from industrial processing and livestock care. A good example is sawdust, a “waste product” of milling wood that is then used to make products such as fiberboard. Agricultural residues, or the leaves and stalks of plants left over after harvesting, are “waste” from the consumer’s perspective but often have other agricultural uses, such as animal bedding. Some wastes and residues do not have industrial uses but still provide valuable environmental services, such as the twigs and leaves left over from logging, which house small wildlife and
return nutrients to the soil to support future forest growth. Diversion of these materials from their current uses would have potentially negative knock-on effects on industry and the environment. Accounting for various industrial uses and sustainability restrictions, about a quarter of the total production of these cellulosic materials is available for energy use, now and through 2030. The estimated sustainable availability in each category is shown in Table 1. The total available cellulosic biomass is found to be about 220 million tonnes per year, with the majority coming from crop residues The quantity of available cellulosic resource represents a sizable opportunity to produce sustainable, low-carbon-intensity energy on a large scale. If all the EU-based sustainably available cellulosic biomass was processed for transport fuel, and accounting for energy losses in conversion, these renewable feedstocks could supply a little under 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. This biofuel could potentially displace 13% of road fuel consumption in the EU in 2020, and 16% in 2030. At the same time, it is critical to understand that using any resource, even if it appears to be available in excess, can have complex downstream effects on markets, other uses, and the demand for other resources. Environmental impact stems from both the direct utilization of the wastes and residues analyzed here and also from the indirect effects
on other industries, and this impact is not fully assessed here. It should be recognized that there will be competition for feedstocks within the energy sector, so the above estimate should be understood as the upper bound on the available sustainable energy resource for transport fuels. In addition, there are many industrial challenges in achieving such a major new deployment of sustainable low carbon fuels. Among these challenges is the question of how to create the right policy and fiscal incentives to reduce investment risk for the advanced biofuel industry, thereby allowing for such a substantial scale-up. Even with robust and effective policy support, some fraction of this resource is likely to be impossible to economically mobilize—the stronger the support framework, the more could be achieved.

116
Title: A reassessment of global bioenergy potential in 2050
Author: Searle S., Malins C.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Global Change Biology Bioenergy, Volume 7, pp. 328–336, 2015. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12141. Proposed by: The International Council of Clean Transportation
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Many climate change mitigation strategies rely on strong projected growth in biomass energy, supported byliterature estimating high future bioenergy potential. However, expectations to 2050 are highly divergent. Exam-ining the most widely cited studies finds that some assumptions in these models are inconsistent with the bestavailable evidence. By identifying literature-supported, up-to-date assumptions for parameters including cropyields, land availability, and costs, we revise upper-end estimates of potential biomass availability from dedi-cated energy crops. Even allowing for the conversion of virtually all ‘unused’ grassland and savannah, we findthat the maximum plausible limit to sustainable energy crop production in 2050 would be 40–110 EJ yr 1. Com-bined with forestry, crop residues, and wastes, the maximum limit to long-term total biomass availability is60–120 EJ yr 1in primary energy. After accounting for current trends in bioenergy allocation and conversionlosses, we estimate maximum potentials of 10–20 EJ yr 1of biofuel, 20–40 EJ yr 1of electricity, and10–30 EJ yr 1of heating in 2050. These findings suggest that many technical projections and aspirational goalsfor future bioenergy use could be difficult or impossible to achieve sustainably.

117
Title: The Energy Report 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Author: Singer St. (Editor in chief)
Publication Year: 2011
Source: WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland, www.panda.org. Ecofys P.O. Box 8408, 3503 RK Utrecht, The Netherlands, www.ecofys.com. OMA Heer Bokelweg 149, 3032 AD Rotterdam, The Netherlands, www.oma.eu. 2011. ISBN 978-2-940443-26-0. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: SUSTAINABILITY Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE
1. CLEAN ENERGY: Promote only the most efficient products. Develop existing and new renewable energy sources to provide
enough clean energy for all by 2050. 2. GRIDS: Share and exchange clean energy through grids and trade, making the best use of
sustainable energy resources in different areas. 3. ACCESS: End energy poverty: provide clean electricity and promote sustainable practices, such as
efficient cook stoves, to everyone in developing countries. 4. MONEY: Invest in renewable, clean energy and energy-efficient products and buildings. 5. FOOD: Stop food waste. Choose food that is sourced in an efficient and sustainable way to free up land for nature, sustainable forestry and biofuel production. Everyone has an equal right to healthy levels of protein in their diet – for this to happen, wealthier people need to eat less meat. 6. MATERIALS: Reduce, re-use, recycle – to minimize waste and save energy. Develop durable materials. And avoid things we don’t need. 7. TRANSPORT: Provide incentives to encourage greater use of public transport, and to reduce the distances people and goods travel. Promote electrification wherever possible, and support research into hydrogen and other alternative fuels for shipping and aviation. 8. TECHNOLOGY: Develop national, bilateral and multilateral action plans to promote research and development in energy efficiency and renewable energy. 9. SUSTAINABILITY: Develop and enforce strict sustainability criteria that ensure renewable energy is compatible with environmental and development goals. 10. AGREEMENTS: Support ambitious climate and energy agreements to provide global guidance and promote global cooperation on renewable energy and efficiency efforts.

118
Title: “Low ILUC potential of wastes and residues for biofuels Straw, forestry residues, UCO, corn cobs
Author: Spöttle M., Alberici S., Toop G., Peters D., Gamba L., Ping S., Steen van H., Bellefleur D.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G, 3526 KL Utrecht. 4 September 2013. Project number: BIEDE13386 / BIENL12798. Proposed by: Netherlands Enterprise Agency
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: REGULATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In October 2012 the European Commission published a legislative proposal to amend the RED and FQD aimed at addressing indirect land use change (ILUC). One of the proposed measures is a further incentive for biofuels produced from wastes, residues and (ligno) cellulose material. The Commission proposes to count these biofuels two or four times towards national biofuel mandates. While biofuels produced from wastes and residues can be very sustainable and achieve high direct GHG savings compared to fossil fuels, they are not necessarily ILUC-free. If, for example, a quantity of straw was used for animal feed and is now being used for ethanol production, more animal feed production is needed to compensate the loss of animal feed. This study examines a number of waste and residue
material and assesses to what extent a ‘surplus’ of the materials exists which can be used to produce biofuels without causing ILUC; the rules laid down in the LIIB certification module are used for this purpose. The materials assessed in this study are cereal straw, woody residues, used cooking oil (UCO) and corn cobs.
In order to assess the low ILUC potential for each of the materials this study first identifies the available theoretical potential of each of the materials. This is the quantity of the material which is available and could in theory be harvested or collected. Subsequently the sustainable potential is estimated. This is the quantity which can be harvested or collected in a sustainable way, taking into account the need to protect, for example, soil quality. Finally the low indirect impact or low ILUC potential is estimated. This potential takes into account the current non-bioenergy uses of the material. Displacing these uses could lead to ILUC and therefore these existing uses are deducted from the sustainable potential. Because UCO is traded globally its potential was assessed also outside the EU while the other materials were analysed at EU and Member State level. This report shows that the assessed waste and residue materials assessed here all have considerable
theoretical potentials, smaller but still substantial sustainable potentials and varying low ILUC potentials. For corn cobs the low ILUC potential could not be established, while straw, woody residues and used cooking oil all have a substantial low ILUC potential. Results can differ significantly from Member State to Member State. Germany, France and some other Member State for example have a large surplus of straw available while the Netherlands and Poland currently have a straw deficit. Using straw to produce ethanol in the latter two Member State poses a serious risk of negative indirect impacts. UCO is widely used as a biofuel already and this study shows that on the one hand ample ILUC-free potential is available, whilst on the other hand that UCO collection can be a dodgy business in certain regions, which makes quality control challenging. The use of UCO as cooking oil or for human consumption in China, Indonesia and possibly Argentina and dumping of UCO in rivers in some regions poses particular problems for public health and the environment. Using UCO which would otherwise be dumped to produce biodiesel can be highly beneficial beyond it being low ILUC. From low ILUC EU woody residues, low ILUC EU cereal straw and globally available UCO a total quantity of 17Mtoe of low ILUC biofuels could be produced: 11.2Mtoe from woody residues, 3MTOE from cereal straw and 2.8Mtoe from UCO. This estimated total would equal almost 60% of the total forecasted quantity of biofuels in the EU in 2020 when single counted and around 120% with double
counting in place. The challenge is not the availability of ILUC-free feedstocks but in the willingness to invest in sufficient biofuel production plants which can reap this potential. This study shows that a substantial quantity of cereal straw and forestry residues could be harvested and used for biofuels, but that an even greater quantity cannot be harvested without risking serious negative sustainability impacts. The current proposed positive lists for multiple counting do not limit
the quantitative use of specific materials, in theory allowing both straw and ‘bark, branches, leaves, saw dust and cutter shavings’ (woody residues) to be completely harvested and used for biofuels. In order to reconcile the need for truly sustainable biofuels and the need to avoid negative sustainability
impacts it would be necessary to introduce a maximum removal rate for primary land-using agricultural and forestry wastes and residues before these materials are included in the positive lists. It would be good to specify the removal rates at Member State level and if feasible an even more detailed regional specification. More research is needed to determine appropriate maximum removal rates. When creating effective incentives for the use of wastes and residues as sustainable biofuel feedstocks it is advisable to take into account current uses of the feedstock. This study shows that this can require great efforts and results are often estimates, but in order to promote truly sustainable biofuels it is worth the effort.

119
Title: D3.4 | Technical-economic analysis for determining the feasibility threshold for tradable biomethane certificates
Author: Stürmer B., Kirchmeyr F., Kovacs K., Hofmann F., Collins D., Ingremeau Cl., Stambasky J.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Biosurf project. 24 -06-2016 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Legal support of the bioenergy sector is crucial for a positive development and an expansion of the biogas sector. There are many examples in Europe, namely Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Italy being the most prominent examples. Biogas is practically an equimolar mixture of biomethane and carbon dioxide, with small traces of various other compounds such as H2, H2O, H2S, and NH3. Biomethane is physically and chemically practically identical with natural gas. This is why injection of biomethane into European gas grid is possible and can be used as energy carrier with only low energy losses and low costs. Injection of
biomethane into the gas grid is in practice since the 90’s and thus it represents a safe state-of-theart technology. The major advantage of this concept is in advanced utilization of the natural gas infrastructure, which dramatically reduce the costs of biomethane technology deployment. This unique feature is much highlighted, should biomethane be compared with other renewable fuels, which need a special dedicated infrastructure. There are several biomethane production technologies, which process raw biogas into biomethane. These technologies are all standard process technologies, commonly used in other chemical industry.
To derive total costs of biomethane production, as deepened in Chapter 2, several groups of operational cost are considered:
– Feedstock costs,
– Operational costs (OPEX) of biogas plant,
– Investment costs (CAPEX) of biogas plant,
– Operational costs (OPEX) of upgrading unit
– Investment costs (CAPEX) of biogas upgrading unit.
The market survey performed with several plant operators of the BIOSURF partner countries shows that running and investment costs are highly influenced by the plant scale and the upgrading capability where economy of scale arises. Bigger plant scale and higher upgrading capability may lead to lower running and investment costs per unit. Often unknown factors are the costs for feedstocks and the pipe laying which have to be calculated individually for each
biogas/biomethane project. The lowest feedstock costs were reported from France with 0.30 to 0.40 €cent kWhhu-1 thanks to the co-digestion of manure and organic waste. The average costs in Europe are around 3.53 €cent kWhhu-1. The OPEX of biogas upgrading and gas grid injection are also influenced by the plant size. A French plant with a capacity of 37 Nm³ CH4 will cost the operator 4.4 €cent kWhhu-1 but the OPEX are only 1.2 kWhhu-1 at a plant with the capacity of 136 Nm³ CH4. The prices of different upgrading techniques are comparable but the capacity is crucial again and can lead to a cost span of 8 €cent kWhhu-1 (i.e. 80 €cent m-3 biomethane) at a capacity of 500 m3 to 12 €cent kWhhu-1 (i.e. 120 €cent m-3 biomethane) for units with a capacity around 80 m3 biomethane per hour.
The amount of biomethane plants has been slowly but steadily increasing between 2011 and 2014 with over 350 upgrading plants in Europe today. Considering this rather small amount of plants there has already been great development. But so far these are single developed plants. To bring further development and technology jumps to the biogas technique, more installations accompanied with scientific programmes and targets on installations/share of natural gas
equivalent for 2020, 2025 and 2030 are needed. This would also bring cost reduction. Within the BIOSURF project, the work on feasibility of biomethane production and trade will be continued. The finding in this Report will be extended to include further factors influencing the income of the biomethane producers and improving the economics of the operations. Among such factors, the following ones will be given additional attention:
 possibilities for generating revenue from the sale of GHG emission reduction certificates (also named CO2 certificates) either within the ETS system or other markets,
 appreciation of the renewable and sustainable feature of biomethane by consumers (in addition to the revenue from the sale of biomethane certificates),
 tax benefits provided by national governments in comparison with fossil comparators,
 investment subsidies provided to biomethane projects fulfilling organic waste handling functions on the regional and local levels,
 other incentives granted to biomethane producers or consumers which increase the market value of the product.
In view of the above possibilities, the numbers indicated as threshold values for tradeable biomethane certificates should be interpreted as the highest required amounts (which will be decreased in the practice through the impact of the above listed and other factors).

120
Title: Biomethane – status and factors affecting market development and trade
Author: Thrän et al.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: IEA Task 40 and Task 37 Joint Study. September 2014. ISBN 978-1-910154-10-6 (electronic version). Proposed by: European Biogas Association
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In most IEA member countries, natural gas (NG) plays an import and particular increasing role in energy provision to meet the demand for heat, electricity and transport fuels. Hence, natural gas is an important all-round energy carrier with an already well-developed infrastructure in some countries such as gas grids, filling stations, road transport via heavy duty vehicles or marine transport via tanker in the form of compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas. Nevertheless natural gas is a fossil based fuel and various countries have initiated the stepwise transition from a fossil resource base towards renewables due to concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions, energy security and conservation of finite resources. Biomethane, defined as methane produced from biomass with properties close to natural gas, is an interesting fuel to support the transition from fossil fuels to renewables and to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in different ways. In principal, biomethane can be used for exactly the same applications as natural gas, if the final composition is in line with the different natural gas qualities on the market. Therefore, it can be used as a substitute for transport fuels, to produce combined heat and power (CHP), heat alone or serve as feedstock for the chemical sector. It can be transported and stored in the facilities and infrastructure available for natural gas. Biomethane can be produced by upgrading biogas or as so called bio-SNG from thermo-chemical conversion of lignocellulosic biomass or other forms of biomass. The aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date overview of the status of biomethane (which includes upgraded biogas and bio-SNG in this report) production, grid injection and use in different countries, and to illustrate the options and needs for the development of larger biomethane supply strategies. The focus is on technical, economic and managementrelated hurdles to inject biomethane into the natural gas grid and to trade it transnationally. The study provides insights into the current status of technologies, technical requirements and sustainability indicators as well as cost of biomethane production and use in general and especially in selected countries. The study also assesses implementation strategies, market situations and market expectations in selected countries. Based on the findings in this report, proposals are given for actions to be taken to reduce barriers and to develop the market step by step. The technical feasibility to produce biomethane from biogas on a large scale has been
demonstrated over the last decade. Table 4-1 gives an overview of the biomethane production in selected IEA member countries. At the time of writing this report about 280 biogas upgrading plants were running in several countries with an overall production capacity of some 100.000 Nm³/h. To inject biogas in the natural gas grid or to use it as a vehicle fuel, the raw biogas has to be upgraded and pressurised. Biogas upgrading includes increasing the energy density by separating carbon dioxide from methane. Furthermore, water, hydrogen sulphide and other contaminants are removed, sometimes before the upgrading process to avoid corrosion or other problems in downstream applications. Today, a range of technologies for CO2-separation are on the market. It is difficult to specify the exact characteristics for an upgrading technology, since the design and operating conditions vary between the different manufacturers, sizes and applications. The key quality criteria for the upgrading technologies are the energy demand and the methane loss during upgrading. The production of biomethane via thermo-chemical conversion is still in the pilot and demonstration stage, with no commercial market penetration so far. The small-scale production of biomethane at many different locations is a new phenomenon, and requires additional efforts to adapt the regional infrastructure and to find adopted transport modes outside the natural gas grid. Biomethane may also play a significant role in future power-to-gas concepts by combination of renewable methane from excess energy, e.g. by providing the renewable carbon source (separated CO2), so that hydrogen produced from excess electricity and the renewable carbon source can be converted to methane, thus
the overall methane output can be increased. Even if the technical and logistical requirements for biomethane production are in principle available today and in some areas already implemented on a local level, clear criteria for the biomethane quality (transnational) to be fed- into the gas grid and the end use application
are necessary. Compared to conventional fuels, the level of standardization is sparse for gaseous fuels. The international ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) has issued a natural gas standard, ISO 13686:1998 “Natural gas – Quality designation” and a standard for compressed natural gas, ”ISO 15403 Natural gas – Natural gas for use as a compressed fuel for vehicles”. The normative part of both standards contains no levels or limits, but have informal parts included with information for suggested values for gas composition, i.e. from national standards or guidelines from France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. The
absence of quantitative limits reflects the prevalent view of the gas industry that no precise gas quality can be specified, given the wide range of compositions of the raw gas obtained from underground. Up to recent years, the natural gas vehicle business has adjusted to this, international and national standardization focussing more on safety issues regarding vehicle cylinders, other gas-related components and refuelling stations. Regarding biomethane, there is a range of national standards in Europe for the injection of upgraded and purified biogas to the natural gas grid. Work on the international standardization of biomethane has
been on-going since 2006. The specific challenge is to define standards which are attractive for the different potential end-user (gas grid owner, automotive industry, etc.) to enter the new market. Intensive discussions primarily concern sulphur and silicon content. Currently, two different standards for grid injection and automotive specification are under development at European level and might be passed by the end of 2015. One key driver for the application of biomethane is the reduction of greenhouse gas emission (GHG) due to the substitution of fossil fuels. The emission reduction potentials depend on both plant design and operation, as well as the GHG accounting methodology. By following best practices, it is possible to achieve GHG savings of over 80% when compared to
the fossil fuel alternative. Key parts in the production of biomethane that contribute to these GHG emissions include biomass feedstock cultivation (e.g. energy crops like maize) and different biogas upgrading technologies. Sustainability standards for biomass have been discussed and developed in different contexts during the last years. The most important approaches are the indicators from the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) and the demands from the European Directives on Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality. The EU sustainable criteria are only obligatory for biomethane when it is used as fuel for transport. It is so far not obligatory for biomethane if it is used in other fields, such as for CHP. Outside the EU (e.g. USA (U.S. Congress 2005)) biofuel sustainability criteria are established for liquid
biofuels but do not refer to biomethane. Compared to natural gas, the biomethane provision is linked to higher costs, at least on the short- and middle-term. To ensure a sustainable feedstock as well as a proper and transparent mass balance for the biomethane which is transported and traded via the natural gas grid, uniform and cross-border standards for biomethane composition and quality are necessary. Today, the biomethane market is still at the very beginning. Different strategies, investment programmes, support schemes and utilisation concepts have been adopted in different countries and there are different stakeholder expectations. Due to the complex supply chain, see Figure E-1, there are different environmental, economic and administrative hurdles for the market introduction of biomethane. On the other hand, a survey of market expectations in five selected focus countries of IEA Tasks 37 and 40 showed that many stakeholders have
quite strong expectations for market growth. Even if the response to the survey per country is not sufficient for a statistically sound analysis, it gave an insight in the trends and perceptions in the countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden). Regarding the policy for biomethane, it can be concluded that a good framework is necessary to push biomethane development forward. Because of the challenging conditions of the post-economic crisis of 2008, biomethane needs political support and as a result of that financial support. This conclusion is the same for all the countries surveyed. Even in countries like Germany and Sweden that have strongly promoted biomethane, financial support is still an important factor. When asked if international trade should be developing, experts from Belgium, Germany and Sweden answered positively. Respondents from the Netherlands and Austria were more sceptical whether international trade could or should be established in the future. The main reason for doubt is that demand for biomethane in these countries is higher than the production, so there will be nothing left for export. The Swedish respondents reported that they hope to import biomethane to satisfy the increasing demand. Market introduction strategies have to consider the complex provision chain (Figure E-1), which has to include the very different stakeholders. Promising markets are seen in those countries with dedicated biomethane strategies, targets and support schemes. Today there is a wide range of approaches, instruments and certificates established which can differ in technical demands on grid injection and end use, sustainability demands, support schemes and monitoring of the biomethane flows. Given the political strategies and the presence of an extensive natural gas grid, a number of EU countries are becoming more active in the development of a biomethane market. There are on-going actions in the field of technical standardisation and sustainability certification, including mass balancing and tracing. Both are complex issues, but should provide instruments in the next one or two years to improve the situation with biomethane application and cross border trade. Several European countries have established national biomethane registers, which provide information on the amount and origin of the available biomethane qualities to support the market implementation. Furthermore, there is already a planned close cooperation between the national biomethane registers for better trade between six countries with the option of including more countries, see chapter 3.3.3. Relevant next steps for those registers are the development of a common terminology,
tracing system and the definition of interfaces between the country specific quality demands while also enabling accounting and monitoring of the market. Additional problems for transnational trade arise from the different support schemes developed in the different countries. Two aspects are relevant here:
(i) The part of the supply chain to which the financial policy support is applied: Currently in the different countries different products are supported (biomethane
feed into the grid, electricity provided from biogas, biomethane provided at filling stations, etc.). From a national perspective this is reasonable due to different targets and strategies for biomethane, but for international cooperation there is the risk of confusion. For international trade a very clear tracking of flows is necessary in order to avoid double support or marketing (e.g. at the injection point in one country and at the delivery point in another country).
(ii) Level of support: Today the specific level of support differs over a wide range (e.g. the feed-in-tariff for biomethane injected into the grid). If framework conditions for international trade are implemented it will be very easy to transport the biomethane via the gas grid to those countries giving the higher support or otherwise very favourable framework conditions, which may on the one hand accelerate market development, but on the other hand may also cause some national support systems to collapse. This has led to the conclusion that a more coherent EU-wide support structure between countries could make market development easier and reduce the complexity of the registry systems. To ensure a successful regulated and sustainable market, stable framework conditions are needed. Therefore, the following recommendations can be given for such a future biomethane market:
• Technical standards regarding for biomethane injection to the natural gas grid, which aims for standardised biomethane quality (in a defined range) regarding e.g.
calorific value and purity. Sustainability standards for all biomethane applications, but also with the possibility to trade sustainable biomethane between the countries.
• Certification and registries for a transparent national and international market of biomethane (e.g. no double support).
• Equal treatment of domestic and imported biomethane (certification, support/incentive, etc.).
• Support schemes need to be stable over the long term. From today’s perspective, uniform regulation for regions connected by a single natural gas grid (e.g. Europe) seems to be an important pre-requisite for the development of international markets; this study did not investigate in detail what such an instrument could contain (e.g. a uniform biomethane grid injection tariff, a quote, etc.).
• Roadmaps for middle and long term biomethane targets in order to provide a guide for incentives and support schemes. With regard to the complex provision chain of biomethane, different stakeholders in the field and the transnational natural gas grid (especially in Europe) it is easy to understand that framework conditions are difficult to achieve. Implementing the above recommendations should provide a good base for building a sustainable, fair, futureorientated
and stable biomethane market. An overarching international framework of sustainability information (e.g. feedstock, origin, GHG emission from production and
transport, etc.) for fossil and renewable energy carrier could also support the biomethane market, but goes beyond the scope of this study. Outside the EU, only minor activities were observed, such as in the USA and South Korea, with less restriction than in the EU.

121
Title: Nitrous oxide emissions from winter oilseed rape cultivation
Author: Reiner Rusera,⁎, Roland Fußb, Monique Andresc, Hannes Hegewaldd, Katharina Kesenheimera, Sarah Köbkee, Thomas Räbigerf, Teresa Suarez Quinonesg, Jürgen Augustinc, Olaf Christend, Klaus Ditterte, Henning Kagef, Iris Lewandowskih, Annette Prochnowg,i, Heinz Stichnothej, Heinz Flessab
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L., WOSR) is the major oil crop cultivated in Europe. Rapeseed oil is predominantly used for production of biodiesel. The framework of the European Renewable Energy Directive requires that use of biofuels achieves GHG savings of at least 50% compared to use of fossil fuel starting in 2018. However, N2O field emissions are estimated using emission factors that are not specific for the crop and associated with strong uncertainty. N2O field emissions are controlled by N fertilization and dominate the GHG balance of WOSR cropping due to the high global warming potential of N2O. Thus, field experiments were conducted to increase the data basis and subsequently derive a new WOSR-specific emission factor. N2O emissions and crop yields were monitored for three years over a range of N fertilization intensities at five study sites representative of German WOSR production. N2O fluxes exhibited the typical high spatial and temporal variability in dependence on soil texture, weather and nitrogen availability. The annual N2O emissions ranged between 0.24 kg and 5.48 kg N2O-N ha−1 a−1. N fertilization increased N2O emissions, particularly with the highest N treatment (240 kg N ha−1). Oil yield increased up to a fertilizer amount of 120 kg N ha−1, higher N-doses increased grain yield but decreased oil concentrations in the seeds. Consequently oil yield remained constant at higher N fertilization. Since, yield-related emission also increased exponentially with N surpluses, there is potential for reduction of the N fertilizer rate, which offers perspectives for the mitigation of GHG emissions. Our measurements double the published data basis of annual N2O flux measurements in WOSR. Based on this extended dataset we modeled the elationship between N2O emissions and fertilizer N input using an exponential model. The corresponding new N2O emission factor was 0.6% of applied fertilizer N for a common N fertilizer amount under best management practice in WOSR production (200 kg N ha−1 a−1). This factor is substantially lower than the linear IPCC Tier 1 factor (EF1) of 1.0% and other models that have been proposed.

122
Title: Trends in the UCO market – Input to DRAFT PIR
Author: Toop G., Alberici S., Spoettle M., van Steen H.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: BIOUK10553. Ecofys November 2013 for UK Department for Transport (DfT) Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: FUTURE CONCEPTS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The volume of UCO-derived biodiesel supplied on the UK market has increased markedly since the
introduction of the RTFO, peaking during Year 4 of the RTFO when the duty differential was available
only for UCO-derived biofuel. Increasing biofuel production from waste materials is a positive
development, however the DfT wishes to monitor key aspects of the UCO market to ensure
unintended consequences of the support for UCO biodiesel are avoided. This report aims to identify
and understand key trends in the UCO market and identify key areas of concern. The report will
additionally be used as an input to the 2013 RTFO Post-implementation review.
Key questions addressed include:
 Where is UCO used for biofuel in the UK coming from? (Chapter 2)
 What is the available potential for UCO? Is there a volume of UCO above which DfT should be
concerned about unintended consequences? (Chapter 3)
 Has the RTFO incentivised additional recovery of UCO, especially in the UK? (Chapter 3)
 Are there alternative uses for UCO? (Chapter 4)

123
Title: Trends in the UCO market
Author: Toop G., Alberici S., Spoettle M., van Steen H., Weddige U.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Ecofys 7-03-2014 by order of: Department for Transport. Project number: BIOUK10553. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: FUTURE CONCEPTS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The volume of UCO-derived biodiesel supplied on the UK market has increased markedly since the
introduction of the RTFO, peaking during Year 4 of the RTFO when the duty differential was available
only for UCO-derived biofuel. Increasing biofuel production from waste materials is a positive
development, however the DfT wishes to monitor key aspects of the UCO market to ensure
unintended consequences of the support for UCO biodiesel are avoided. This report aims to identify
and understand key trends in the UCO market and identify key areas of concern. The report will
additionally be used as an input to the 2013 RTFO Post-implementation review.
Key questions addressed include:
 Where is UCO used for biofuel in the UK coming from? (Chapter 2)
 What is the available potential for UCO? Is there a volume of UCO above which DfT should be
concerned about unintended consequences? (Chapter 3)
 Has the RTFO incentivised additional recovery of UCO, especially in the UK? (Chapter 3)
 Are there alternative uses for UCO? (Chapter 4)

124
Title: Use of sustainably-sourced residue and waste streams for advanced biofuel production in the European Union: rural economic impacts and potential for job creation
Author: Turley D., Evans G., Nattrass L.
Publication Year: 2013
Source: National Non-Food Crops Centre (NNFCC) The Bioeconomy consultants, Report for the European Climate Foundation, November 2013. Proposed by: European Climate Foundation
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Expansion in the use of biofuels driven by the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) has led to concerns that this may be contributing to deforestation and land use change, where land is brought into cultivation to grow food crops to compensate for lost production linked to biofuel feedstock production (the so called “indirect land use change” or ILUC impact). This has led to increased interest in the use of non-food feedstocks for biofuel production such as crop and forest residues and other waste streams. Faced with uncertainties around the scale of any ILUC impacts associated with EU biofuels policy, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are currently locked in a debate on the level of biofuel production that should be supported. There are proposals to cap production of biofuels derived from food crops and to introduce a specific ‘carve out’ of the current RED target for transport that would be allocated to biofuels derived from non-food feedstocks. There is currently uncertainty over the level of biofuel production that could be supported by use of non-food feedstocks, whether such biofuel production is economically feasible and the economic and job benefits that could arise through supporting the development of the associated nascent technologies. This study analyses the potential economic viability of using crop, forest and waste residues (Refuse Derived Fuel or RDF) as feedstocks for biofuel production using a range of conversion technologies and examines the economic benefits and job creation opportunities that could arise from exploiting these resources within the EU. This analysis draws on parallel work to assess the amount of sustainably harvestable crop and forest residues and residual waste arisings in the EU that could be accessed for biofuel production without affecting other traditional markets. NNFCC used a discounted cash-flow model to examine three advanced biofuel production pathways to determine whether it was economically feasible to use waste and residue feedstocks for biofuel production. The biofuel production pathways considered included cellulosic ethanol (biochemical fermentation) and gasification followed by either fermentation of the resulting syngas to ethanol or catalytic conversion of syngas to Fischer Tropsch diesel. These represent technologies that are currently at pilot scale development in the EU or globally. Typical delivered cereal straw price ranges from 60-80 €/t for northern Europe, and 30-40 €/t for southern and eastern European examples. Typical costs for delivery of forest harvest residues ranged from 40-65 €/t across the EU. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) gate fees1 are currently around 20€ to 40€/t in Europe. The economic analysis indicates that at current typical feedstock costs in the most likely areas of production, advanced biofuels produced from agricultural and forest harvest residue feedstocks are likely to be more expensive to produce than current commercial biofuels. However these resources could be mobilised for use in advanced biofuel production if the appropriate incentives are made available. The incentives required in most cases are not in excess of those that have been offered as duty reductions to incentivise biofuel industry start-up in the past and currently on offer by some EU Member s States. In some cases high feedstock cost, particularly where this is in excess of €70-€ 80/tonne, may be a barrier to development. As an alternative to production support, mandating the use of such fuels would also drive their development, encouraging the most economically competitive technology solutions. At current gate fees (ca. €20-46/tonne) it is estimated that RDF-derived biofuels can be produced at a price competitive with current biofuels. This is predicated on the assumption that receipt of RDF materials will continue to attract gate fees, even down to acceptance at zero cost by the biofuel processor, but this cannot be guaranteed as competition for such material increases. However, the feedstock is only partially renewable. Materials of biological origin can account for between 50 and 85% of the carbon content in RDF fuels. Therefore any biofuel derived from residual waste is only partially renewable and incentives are likely to be required to compensate for the anticipated lower value of the fossil-derived fuel component co-produced with the bio-derived fraction (which would have no value beyond its
intrinsic fuel energy value). Again the incentives required are anticipated to be relatively small, but any incentive required to promote uptake of RDF-derived
biofuels would need to be at least doubled per litre of eligible biofuel, to account for the fact that only around 50% of the output is likely to be eligible for support as a low carbon renewable fuel. It is not possible to indicate where in the EU feedstock resources might be most effectively mobilised to rationalise how much of the available biomass resources could actually be mobilised and utilised. However, if all of the resource was used then:
 between 56 and 133 thousand additional permanent jobs would be created in the agricultural and forestry sectors; when also considering the impact of
refuse derived biofuels between 4 and13 thousand additional permanent would jobs be created in the operation of the biofuel plants and a further 87to 162 thousand temporary jobs would be created during the biofuel plant construction phase.
 a net value of between €0.2 and 5.2 billion would flow into the EU’s rural agricultural economy and between €0.7 and 2.3 billion to the EU’s rural forest
economy.

125
Title: Biofuels Vital Graphics, Powering a Green Economy
Author: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Publication Year: 2011
Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ISBN: 978-92-807-3107-1, 2011 Proposed by: Copa - Cogeca
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Liquid, gaseous or solid biofuels hold great promise to deliver an increasing share of the energy required to power a new global green economy. Many in
government and the energy industry believe this modern bioenergy can play a significant role in reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, and promoting development through new business opportunities and jobs. Modern bioenergy can be a mechanism for economic development enabling local communities to secure the energy they need, with farmers earning additional income and achieving greater price stability for their production. But it is not that simple. Biofuels remain a complex and often contentious issue. Over the past few years the risks of competition with food production and potential negative impacts on the atmosphere, biodiversity, soil and water have been highlighted. The way biofuels are made and used is critical: they may either help mitigate or contribute to
climate change, reduce or exacerbate impacts on ecosystems and resources. Issues related to biofuels are complex and interconnected: they require solid planning and balancing of objectives and trade-offs. Safeguards are needed and special emphasis should be given to options that help mitigate risks and create positive
effects and co-benefits. Biofuels Vital Graphics is designed to visualise the opportunities, the need for safeguards, and the options that help ensure sustainability of biofuels to make them a cornerstone for a Green Economy. It is meant as a communications tool, rather than providing new analysis. It builds on a 2009 report
by the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management of the United Nations Environment Programme, Towards Sustainable Production and
Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels, and refers to research produced since.

126
Title: The State of the Biofuels Market: Regulatory, Trade and Development Perspectives
Author: United Nations Conference on trade and Development (UNCTAD)
Publication Year: 2014
Source: UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2013/8, United Nations, 2014. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: REGULATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This reports updates the initial study carried out by UNCTAD on the state of the biofuels markets, which was first published in 2006. In doing so, this 2013 update attempts to cover the main developments since 2006 in the biofuels sector, examining issues of production in key countries and regions, international trade, consumption trends, as well as evolving regulatory and political debates on this important theme. During the 2000s there was an unprecedented increase in public and private interest for liquid biofuels, driven by a number of factors. Those included uncertainties about the price of petroleum products, the finite nature of fossil fuels, and ever growing environmental concerns, especially related to greenhouse gas emissions. It included also interest in novel ways to promote development and growth which could deliver -carbon intensive sectors of the economy. Biofuels were discussed at one of the potential tools to allow a level of decoupling between development and environmental degradation. While in 2006 the biofuel market was only starting to become truly international, by 2013 bioethanol and
biodiesel have already become established commodities traded daily in all continents. Their market increased based primarily on demand from the transport sector, especially road vehicles, which use biofuels either in pure form or as blend into conventional fossil fuels (e.g. diesel or gasoline). Another important development, which occurred since 2006, was the emergence of alternative markets for liquid biofuels, beyond their core usage in road transport. Biofuels started being used in larger scale for aviation, electricity generation, cooking energy and even maritime transport. Policy focus of many countries also migrated from a limited scope of liquid biofuels towards broader notions of bioenergy (solid, liquid and gaseous energy products). In addition, concepts such as bioeconomy now embody a systemic view, in which systems must consider the usage of biomass not only for energy, but for food, feed and fiber as additional outputs. Since 2006 several developed and developing countries have established (and continue to pursue) regulatory setups for biofuels, including blending targets, sustainability norms, as well as research and deployment strategies for advanced biofuel technologies which hold great promise of reducing social and environmental risks associated to their production and usage. While subsidies and incentives continue to be provided, biofuel industry as a whole seems to be more self-reliant in 2013 than it was in 2006. This is perhaps one of the factors behind a relative stabilization in demand for biofuels (and overall rate of growth in the industry) after 2010.
The emergence of better science around the issue of land use change associated to production and usage of biofuels brought doubts on the strength of 1st generation biofuels as a tool to mitigate greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. Yet, the merits of biofuels have somehow shifted towards arguments about green jobs,
energy security, and overall improvement of agricultural returns, which are in dire need in many developing and least developed countries. The large increases in production, use, and international trade of biofuels which were seen after 2006 have contributed to mature the industry, giving it a professional standing in line with other major tradable commodities. Still, the basket of producing countries has not changed substantially since our first assessment was published in 2006. While in the policy front quick progress has been carried out by many countries, investments maintained the trend towards traditional producing areas that offer more predictable business landscapes for entrepreneurs. A large potential remains to be exploited in the sustainable production of 1st generation biofuels in
developing countries. Efficiency considerations continue to indicate that feedstock and biofuel production can be done most favorably in developing countries, where the climate to grow them and low-cost farm labor continue to exist. Energy security considerations, however, have prompted less-efficient countries to
engage in biofuel production irrespective of economic and environmental considerations. Bioethanol and biodiesel continue to be the primary forces behind international biofuel markets. Developing and developed countries, particularly the United States (US), Brazil, the European Union (EU), China, Argentina and Malaysia have benefited from that dynamism by distinguishing themselves in the sector. In addition to biofuel trade flows between the EU, US and Brazil, South-South trade and transfer of technology are also taking place, especially as capacity flows albeit at a slow pace towards new production frontiers such as in many African countries. At the same time, there has been little international trade in bioethanol feedstocks, partially due to the non-tradable and perishable characteristics of some feedstocks (e.g. sugarcane), and to the dual role that some countries have as both producers of feedstock and consumers of biofuels (e.g. cereals-ethanol, sunflower-biodiesel in the US and in the EU). Biodiesel production outside of the EU has grown since 2006, but most imports in the region still take form of vegetable oil, from countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Argentina. The 2nd generation of biofuels, which has started to be marketed at commercial levels in 2013, could change this panorama by allowing larger trade of feedstocks such as cellulosic and waste material, in line with practices adopted in the pellets and
pulp & paper industries. International trade in biofuels remains important to provide win-win opportunities to all countries, as several countries need the trade route as a way to guarantee the attainment of self-imposed blending targets. It has been noticed over the years that the successful cases of biofuel strategy implementation involved first the creation of domestic markets, with regional and international trade emerging from it. Export-oriented production models have not been the main trend adopted by the industry, as it became clear that reliance on fast-changing foreign regulations made risky the adoption of business models heavily reliant on exports. Instead of viewing export markets as primers for biofuel industries in developing countries, those have now the possibility to look for other sectors beyond transport such as cooking energy, electricity generation, and niche fuels such as aviation biodiesel as ways to start small, but in more
solid ground. While the market has grown more liberalized since 2006, biofuels still face tariffs and non-tariff measures. Brazil and the US both struck down their respective bioethanol import tariffs, primarily due to a mutual dependency to cover short-term demand needs from each other. The EU, on the other hand, aintained its applicable tariffs for bioethanol unchanged since 2006, but offered some waivers in the case of E85 (85 percent bioethanol blend with gasoline) imports by Sweden. While tariffs were somehow reduced, domestic subsidies continued to exist, and in some cases were strengthened such as in Brazil during
2012-13 as the country launched a plan to revitalize its bioethanol industry. With a considerable increase in biofuels trade since 2006, sustainability certification became a new norm in the industry, as well as a prerequisite for market access. After intense debate on the formulation of sustainability regulations, certification, and labeling of biofuels and feedstocks, the sustainability criteria for biofuels has evolved mainly via voluntary schemes which adhere to legislation adopted in major markets (e.g. US and EU). With the eyes towards the future, some specific challenges for developing countries include: (i) striking regulatory setups for bioenergy tailored to each country, which do not antagonize food and energy supply, but instead enhance agricultural productivity, rural income and worker’s skills; (ii) design strategies to avoid the emergence of a technological gap between 1st generation (land-intensive) and 2nd generation (capital-intensive) biofuels; (iii) find ways to ensure that the cost of sustainability certification is spread along supply chains in a way that protects small farmers from undue cost burdens; (iv) promote a continuous inflow of private investment and production and process technologies to developing countries, especially through predictable business environments; (v) prioritize research and deployment of advanced technologies that can convert non-edible biomass into bioenergy products, doing so in cooperation with other countries to reduce costs; and (v) facilitate trade by engaging in consultations and adoption of sustainability practices which are compatible with major sustainability schemes adopted in the US, Brazil and the EU.Conscious decisions, sharing of information and data collection, organizational strategies, government
support services, technical and financial assistance will continue to be needed to guide developing countries towards the right decisions in this highly dynamic market. UNCTAD, through its work on biofuels and renewable energy, is providing developing countries with access to economic and trade policy analysis, capacity-building activities, and consensus-building tools to help them address those and other challenges.

127
Title: Second Generation biofuel markets: state of play, trade and developing country perspectives
Author: United Nations Conference on trade and Development (UNCTAD)
Publication Year: 2016
Source: UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2015/8, United Nations, 2016. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

UNCTAD’s first report on the state of biofuel technologies in 2007 highlighted a sector with great potential, but at the time that was a long way off from markets. In 2015, countries made commitments toward a more environmentally balanced future through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and now seek to expand policies for low-carbon development after the agreement reached in Paris at COP21. The year also marked a milestone in the bioeconomy, as the point in time when the production of second-generation biofuels (2G) finally took off at commercial scale. Developing countries now face a new set of market opportunities and policy dilemmas to enhance their usage of biomass, which can now be transformed into more valuable products. This report focuses on how these market opportunities can be capitalized on and how to promote technology transfer for developing countries interested in engaging in advanced biofuel markets for the attainment of the SDGs, and as an instrument to meet their commitments under COP21. By carrying out a non-exhaustive mapping of cellulosic ethanol projects
and recent policy lessons around the globe, this report seeks to provide public and private practitioners with a macro-picture of the advanced biofuels sector, with a specific focus on cellulosic ethanol as of 2015-2016. Second-generation biofuels can be classified either by: process type, estimated greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reductions compared to the fossil-fuel equivalent, or feedstock type. This report primarily looks at feedstock choice, which concerns fuels made from non-edible feedstocks, partially in reaction to the food versus fuel debate. Nevertheless, process improvements have been a key factor in decreasing costs for the industry and allowing market expansion. Historically, the United States of America (US) has had the largest installed capacity for cellulosic ethanol production of deployed second-generation biofuel facilities, followed by China, Canada, European Union (EU) and Brazil, respectively. Projects in these countries vary significantly in their technological approaches and feedstocks used for fuel production, including the use of corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, municipal solid waste, and forestry residues, among others. One common trait is that companies that possess technology and knowledge in the European Union and the United States engage in partnerships to deploy advanced ethanol facilities abroad, for example, the Fuyiang project, which is a cooperation between Italy-based Beta Renewables
and Guozhen Group in China. While the African continent and the entire Latin American region (excluding Brazil) have no cellulosic ethanol projects as of 2015, progress has been made in bagasse-fired electricity cogeneration and biomass cook stoves in these regions. The policy instrument that has provided the greatest traction to advanced biofuels has been the marketsegmentation strategy in conventional / advanced / cellulosic biofuels used in the United States market, albeit by granting price premiums for the production of cellulosic ethanol. Low interest rates and a venture capital culture have also been touted for advancing the deployment of second-generation biofuels in United States market forward. Furthermore, the rapid growth of China in the advanced cellulosic ethanol industry, as well as strong support to the sector by the National Development Bank in Brazil, all illustrate the multiple supply and demand pull mechanisms, which have given traction to the industry globally. While installed capacities have been scaled-up over the past three years, interviews carried out during the preparation of this report suggest that actual production is much smaller than nominal capacities. This could be explained by several factors including feedstock costs, process costs, a lack of domestic regulatory frameworks favourable to advanced biofuels, risk avoidance, and blend walls in major markets. While this report has mapped production capacities, the availability of actual production data is limited as such information is treated confidentially by the industry. In the case of the United States, the expected utilization of cellulosic fuels in the market Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2015 corresponds to 400 million litres, or about 80 per cent of the installed United States capacity as of 2015 as surveyed in this report. Based on the limited data available, actual production data in 2014 corresponded to a utilization rate of 25 per cent of the United States installed capacity for cellulosic fuel. Indicating an optimistic stance, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued obligations that nearly double the cellulosic ethanol requirements for the United States market in 2016, calling for imports
to meet the likely shortfall in domestic capacity. Trade opportunities might exist in advanced biofuel markets, particularly as recent limits on conventional
biofuels in Europe, together with the European Union’s growing self-sufficiency in conventional biofuels, suggest that imports of advanced biofuels will most likely be made if domestic producers fail to deliver their expected output. The United States is also likely to begin cellulosic ethanol imports in the years ahead, as its own official statistics suggest. Depending on future rules on advanced biofuels in important markets, potential World Trade Organization (WTO) outcomes could be similar to those raised for firstgeneration biofuels, which led to special sustainability requirements for biomass, and may work as indirect barriers to trade.
The report concludes with five suggestions for the responsible development of the second-generation biofuels industry:
• Create regulatory frameworks for advanced bioenergy tailored to national circumstances, which do not necessarily focus on the type of supply but instead on the existing local demands. The fulfilment of such regulation is most likely to meet domestic development strategies in line with the SDGs.
• Promote cooperation between domestic organizations and foreign companies for joint ventures by means of investment agreements in order to facilitate technology transfer. This is important to avoid the emergence of a large technological gap between first-generation, land-intensive feedstocks and second-generation, capital-intensive biofuels in developed and developing countries.
• Consider the broader aspects of bioeconomy sectors, including biomaterials, in ways that avoid locking industrial development paths into specific sectors or technologies. This would provide flexibility for market players that operate biorefineries as they could target multiple markets, including materials,
feed, food, and energy – both domestically and internationally.
• Incorporate lessons from sustainability criteria applied for first-generation biofuels into near and midterm sustainability provisions or labels for advanced biofuels.
• Continuously promote technical dialogue among different production regions of advanced fuels in order to ensure compatible standards for feedstock and promote trade in advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels are an important tool to be considered in national policies in the coming decades.
They are a renewable energy option with great potential to help decarbonize transportation and other systems in developing countries. Advanced biofuels consequently relate to numerous SDGs and national commitments to limit climate change to tolerable levels. Their responsible development in the coming years should take into account lessons from first-generation biofuels (and other renewable energy technologies), which have received intense scrutiny in recent years. In particular, rules on trade and the sustainability aspects of advanced biofuels should be applied coherently with other regulations, both domestically and internationally.

128
Title: Kostnadsbild för produktion och distribution av fordonsgas (Cost benchmarking of the production and distribution of biomethane/CNG in Sweden)
Author: Vestman J., Liljemark S., Svensson M.
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB, Nordenskiöldsgatan 6, 211-19 MALMÖ. SGC Rapport 2014:296. Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The scope of this project was to investigate the costs involved in the production and the distribution of biomethane, i.e. upgraded biogas used as automotive fuel.
The report is aimed at both biogas producers and the public. The project originated from a desire of a clearer picture of the actual costs involved in production and distribution of biomethane. Cost estimates, key numbers and such from this project will contribute to future work in the biogas and biomethane areas within the Swedish Gas Association. In the beginning of the project a questionnaire for collecting cost data was designed. The questionnaire was then sent out for remittance to the Swedish Gas Association and to the representatives from the companies in the reference group and later adjusted with their comments and suggestions.
Today in Sweden, biogas is produced mainly in waste water treatment plants and in modern co-digestion plants. The produced gas is thereafter cleaned and
upgraded in order to be retailed as automotive fuel, in the form of biomethane. The gas can also be used as fuel in heat- and power generating gas engines, which
does not require as much cleaning and upgrading, but in Sweden this end-use is not so common as in other countries, due to lack of incentives. There are many factors affecting the total cost of production and distribution of biogas used as automotive fuel. One factor that has become increasingly important in recent years is the competition for the biogas feedstock material. In some areas manure, biodegradable industrial waste, energy crops and such are becoming scarcer which can lead to increased feedstock costs. This in turn affects the gas production cost and the total economy of the facility. Other important factors affecting the cost of the produced fuel are the land available for utilization of the digestate (bio-fertilizer), and the available fuel distribution logistics. The results of the study shows that it is difficult to get a complete overview of the costs involved in the production and distribution of biomethane as automotive fuel. Many of the market players have different operating conditions and profitability is reached by a combination of different production facilities, distribution systems and end customers. Therefore it proved difficult to produce accurate average figures broken down on different types of production and unit operations. In addition, the data coverage was relatively limited. The results obtained in this study should therefore be seen as approximate costs, rather than truly definitive ones. Cost levels and estimates were presented here anyway in order to provide a crude picture of the real costs of the industry, as a cost benchmarking. The reported costs are gross costs, without taxes, and with no mitigating revenue streams. As a rule the largest share of the costs can be attributed to the gas production and building and running of the refuelling stations, whereas the upgrading and distribution contributed to the overall costs to a lesser degree. According to this report, the median costs for the different units of the supply chain, including operational and capital costs are 0.54SEK/kWh for the raw gas production, 0.31SEK/kWh for upgrading
and compression, 0.08SEK/kWh for distribution and 0.04SEK/kWh for refuelling stations. The resulting median price was 0.97SEK/kWh, while the average
price was 1.35SEK/kWh. Considering that the CNG price (approx. 60 % renewable share) in Sweden in 2012 was 1.3-1.4SEK/kWh, it can be concluded that the profit margins are small. The results of this study were on par with the ones reported in the literature. A large influencing factor is the load rate of the biogas and upgrading plant. Many actors declared this to be relatively low, which contributes to elevated production costs. To get a more complete picture further studies focusing on one or more of the specific areas feedstock, production, upgrading, distribution and gas refuelling station are suggested. Another suggestion to increase profitability is to find ways to get payment for the produced bio-fertilizer.

129
Title: Review of Biojet Fuel Conversion Technologies
Author: Wang Wei-Ch., Tao L., Markham J., Zhang Y., Tan E., Batan Li., Warner Et., Biddy M.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Prepared under Task No. BB14.4420. 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401. July 2016 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Biomass-derived jet (biojet) fuel has become a key element in the aviation industry’s strategy to reduce operating costs and environmental impacts. Researchers from the oil-refining industry, the aviation industry, government, biofuel companies, agricultural organizations, and academia are working toward developing commercially viable and sustainable processes that produce long-lasting renewable jet fuels with low production costs and low greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, jet fuels must meet ASTM International specifications and potentially be a 100% drop-in replacement for the current petroleum jet fuel. The combustion characteristics and engine tests demonstrate the benefits of running the aviation gas turbine with biojet fuels. In this study, the current technologies for producing renewable jet fuels, categorized by alcoholsto-jet, oil-to-jet, syngas-to-jet, and sugar-to-jet pathways, are reviewed. The main challenges for
each technology pathway, including feedstock availability, conceptual process design, process economics, life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, and commercial readiness, are discussed. Although the feedstock price and availability and energy intensity of the process are significant barriers, biomass-derived jet fuel has the potential to replace a significant portion of conventional jet fuel required to meet commercial and military demand.

130
Title: Low Carbon Transport Fuels
Author: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2,Case postale 246, 1211 Geneve 21, ISBN: 978-2-940521-44-9, November 2015. Proposed by: DuPont, LanzaTech, SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: TRANSPORT GENERAL Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Decarbonizing the transport sector is indispensable for achieving the overall climate goal of staying below a 2°C rise of global temperature. Meanwhile, low carbon transport fuels have been widely acknowledged for their significant potential. Growth in this sector, however, must increase fivefold from today’s levels within fifteen years. This report highlights the efforts of a new, growing coalition of twelve companies and four partner organizations to delivering these growth rates. Within the framework of the Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative on transport fuels, they share a common goal in developing these markets and
technologies. After all, decarbonizing the transportation sector is their core business. But they cannot do this on their own. To secure this huge growth, the business community’s efforts and investments need to be backed by effective and stable policies. Only with a consistent publicprivate collaboration, will the transportation sector meet the urgent need to contribute to mitigating climate change.

131
Title: Low Carbon freight
Author: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Low Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi)
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2,Case postale 246, 1211 Geneve 21, ISBN: 978-2-940521-44-9, November 2015. Proposed by: LanzaTech
Forum Area 1: TRANSPORT GENERAL Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

At COP21, companies led by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
have kicked off a new partnership to tackle emissions from road freight transport under their Low
Carbon Technology Partnerships initiative (LCTPi).
The founding companies include established solution providers such as Nestle, Scania and UPS
and benefits from agile innovators such as Route Monkey and the modelling capabilities of the
International Transport Forum. The group is in talks with more companies who are interested in joining
the effort, and welcomes expressions of interest.
While there are already well-known technologies and solutions to switch to alternative fuels or
improve engine efficiency, this initiative will explore the currently untapped and unmapped potential
for emissions reductions through optimisation and collaboration between companies on road freight
transport.
This kind of collaboration is unprecedented, but so is the challenge. The transport sector produced
7.0 Gt CO2
e of direct GHG emissions in 2010 – around 23% of total energy-related CO2
emissions.
GHG emissions from transport are one of the fastest growing sectors, while emissions from freight
transport have been growing even more rapidly than those from passenger transport. This is
expected to continue to be the case, particularly in emerging and developing economies.
The new platform aims to demonstrate the unmapped potential of collaboration in road freight
transport to help meet the science-based target of 48% reduction in absolute emissions
between 2010 and 2050

132
Title: Management Summary – Critical Evaluation of Default Values for the GHG emissions of the Natural Gas Supply Chain
Author: Gert Müller-Syring, Charlotte Große, Melanie Eyßer, Josephine Glandien
Publication Year: 2016
Source: DBI-GUT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The goal of this study was to determine the carbon footprint1 (CF) of natural gas distributed in Germany and in Central EU2. Emissions resulting from the production, processing, transport, storage, and distribution of natural gas were considered. The utilization of the best data avail-able and the transparency of the calculations was of paramount importance to the project. It can be concluded that the public availability and transparency of data have a strong influence on the outcomes of study results. The availability of this data can, therefore, be seen to have a direct influence on decision-making at a European level since it cannot always be assumed that representatives of the natural gas industry are part of studies conducted to estimate the carbon footprint.

133
Title: Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels
Author: Zhu Y., Rahardjo S.T., Valkenburg C., Snowden-Swan L., Jones S., Machinal M.
Publication Year: 2011
Source: Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. June 2011. Proposed by: ENERKEM
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2: PYROLYSIS
Forum Area 3: POWER to X Forum Area 4:

Biomass has the potential to make a significant impact on domestic fuel supplies and thus help meet the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) renewable fuels goals (CRS 2007). This study is part of an ongoing effort within the Department of Energy to meet the renewable energy goals for liquid transportation fuels. The objective of this report is to present a techno-economic evaluation of the performance and cost of various biomass based thermochemical fuel production processes. This report also documents the economics that were originally developed for the report entitled “Biofuels in Oregon and Washington: A Business Case Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges” (Stiles et al. 2008). Although the resource assessments were specific to the Pacific Northwest, the production economics
presented in this report are not regionally limited. This study uses a consistent technical and economic analysis approach and uniform assumptions to evaluate different biomass based fuel production technologies. Figure ES-1 shows the five fuel products studied. The gasification-based fuels are mixed alcohols, methanol, Fischer-Tropsch (FT), dimethyl ether (DME), ethanol via acetic acid synthesis and hydrogenation, and gasoline via methanol-to-gasoline (MTG). The liquefaction-based technologies are fast pyrolysis oil and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) oil and subsequent upgrading to gasoline and diesel. Some fuel products are fully compatible with the current fuel infrastructure, such as renewable gasoline and renewable diesel; some are not, such as DME and methanol. The gasification based processes were evaluated using currently existing technology. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine opportunities for cost reduction through process improvements. No commercial systems yet exist for liquefaction based technologies which produce infrastructure compatible fuels. Thus, the liquefaction based systems were analyzed on a future potential basis. The major performance and cost analysis results are summarized in the following tables. All values assume $60/dry short ton wood (delivered to the plant) and are presented in year 2008 dollars. The gasification-based conversions to currently used liquid fuels (ethanol via mixed alcohols, ethanol via acetic acid, FT diesel, and, gasoline via methanol) are shown in Table ES-1. The production costs for these fuels using existing gasification and fuel synthesis technologies exceed current market prices. However, opportunities exist to reduce these costs as shown in the potential imrovements. For example, reducing syngas cleanup costs by combining tar cracking and methane reforming applies to all gasification cases. Both mixed alcohol catalysts and MTG catalysts have room for improvement. However, FT and the methanol portion of MTG and acetic acid catalysts are mature technologies and
have limited opportunity for improvements. Co-production of by-products can improve economics if the co-product is more valuable than the fuel, such as acetic acid in the ethanol route. The thermal efficiency for ethanol from acetic acid is somewhat inflated by the use of externally purchased CO for the methanol to acetic acid step and purchased H2 for acetic acid hydrogenation to ethanol. This value would likely be lower if CO and H2 were obtained directly from the syngas.The results for non-standard liquid fuels (methanol and DME) based on biomass gasification are listed in Table ES-2. Here too, gasification to these fuels using current technology results in high production costs. Potential areas of improvement include: reduction in syngas cleanup costs by combining tar cracking and methane reforming. Methanol catalyst is a mature technology with little room for major improvements. Improved one-step syngas to DME catalyst may reduce costs. The results for the liquefaction systems assuming potential improvements are listed in Table ES-3. Fast pyrolysis systems are commercially available, however, upgrading the oil to finished gasoline and diesel has only been proven at the research level. HTL oil systems have been demonstrated on the pilot scale, but are not yet commercially available. Also, upgrading HTL oil has not yet been demonstrated.

134
Title: High Biofuel Blends in Aviation (HBBA)
Author: Zschocke A., Scheuermann S., Ortner J.
Publication Year: 2012
Source: Interim report, ENER/C2/2012/420-1. 2012. Proposed by: Lufthansa
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: STANDARTIZATION Forum Area 4: REGULATION

The conclusions of this study are presented in chapter 8. Section 8.1 explores the results of
the study by fuel properties, discussing which properties are expected to be critical for
future blend ratios of bio kerosene, but also discussing properties which are not likely to be
critical for blending but where the relationship between the blend ratio and the property
was considered worth pointing out. The latter are not relevant for blending bio kerosene,
but are potentially of interest for others. Section 8.2 explores the same results by fuel type,
discussing which role the individual kinds of bio kerosene are likely to play in future blending
activities.
One particularly critical property is aromatics content. It is critical not only because several
bio kerosene production pathways result in fuel that is virtually aromatics-free, but also
because the role of aromatics is a two-faced one, with aromatics being currently necessary
to preserve the tightness of fuel systems but on the other hand being undesirable from a
fuel burn and emissions point of view. This specific role of aromatics is discussed in section
8.3.

135
Title: Carbon Footprint of Natural Gas Critical Evaluation of Default Values for the GHG emissions of the Natural Gas Supply Chain
Author: Gert Müller-Syring, Charlotte Große, Melanie Eyßer, Josephine Glandien
Publication Year: 2016
Source: DBIGas-undUmwelttechnikGmbH Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is presentation of DBI dealing with GHG emissions modelling for natural gas in the region Central EU. A comparison between the carbon footprint values of natural gas consumed in Central EU with the values computed by EXERGIA is also included.

136
Title: FINAL REPORT – Critical Evaluation of Default Values for the GHG Emissions of the Natural Gas Supply Chain
Author: Gert Müller-Syring, Charlotte Große, Melanie Eyßer, Josephine Glandien
Publication Year: 2016
Source: DBI-GUT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study in particular aims to determine the carbon footprint of natural gas from the source to a defined point of use. The resulting carbon footprint will, therefore, be based on the latest and most reliable data available. The goal of the present study is the determination of the carbon footprint of natural gas distributed in Central EU based on best available data, and the comparison of the results with those of the EXERGIA study. Research of current best available data is focused on the major supplying countries for Central Europe: The Netherlands, Norway and Russia. Moreover, Germany as the main consumer and an important transit country of natural gas will be considered. The input data is relevant for those countries and necessary for the calculation of the CF. Moreover, it includes a description of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which occur on the life cycle stages production, processing, transport, storage and distribution of natural gas. In the course of the impact assessment the effects on climate change (the only impact category) and the results will be interpreted and evaluated.

137
Title: Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry
Author: Dr. Alexis Michael Bazzanella, Dr. Florian Ausfelder,
Publication Year: 2017
Source: DECHEMA Gesellschaft für Chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e.V. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The scope of this study is to analyse how the chemical industry could use breakthrough technologies to further reduce CO2 emissions resulting from the production of its key building blocks. The purpose of this study is to provide quantitative data on promising low carbon technologies, estimate their potential impact on CO2 emission reductions, and highlight the current technological and financial limitations and barriers.
Promising technologies are available at a relatively advanced stage of development, however their implementation on a wide scale is hard to achieve under the current framework conditions, while we also need to safeguard the benefits and the global competitiveness of this key industrial sector in Europe. This shows the need for a concerted approach between public and private stakeholders to further support an ambitious research and innovation agenda, with a strong focus on industrial relevance. It also shows the need, more than ever, for a close dialogue between public and private stakeholders about the regulatory framework that will allow the shift in the long run.

138
Title: Carbon Footprint of Natural Gas
Author: Gert Müller-Syring, Charlotte Große, Melanie Eyßer, Josephine Glandien
Publication Year: 2016
Source: ERDGAS Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a 2-slides file presenting a DBI study which confirms the existing low values for supply chain emissions of natural gas.

139
Title: A vision on sustainable fuels for transport. Key findings of the SER vision programme, Towards a sustainable fuel mix for transport in the Netherlands
Author: Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
Publication Year: 2014
Source: PO Box 20901, NL-2500 EX The Hague. June 2014 Proposed by: SkyNRG
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In the Netherlands this vision of a sustainable fuel mix has been compiled in the first half of 2014 following intensive collaboration between more than 100 organisations. Around the world, a number of major transitions are taking place with regard to energy provision (sustainability and energy conservation) and the use of fuels. This vision brings together climate-related mobility objectives and social issues relating to sustainable energy, energy conservation, green growth, living conditions (air quality and noise pollution) and safety in a global context. The driving factor in the Netherlands is the Energy Agreement signed under the auspices of the Social and Economic Council (SER) in September 2013, in which ambitious Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) objectives1 were agreed in order to reduce the CO2 missions of the mobility and transport sector. It is important that the activities conducted for this purpose also help to reduce Well-to-Wheel (WTW) carbon emissions, and closer examination must be conducted into the relationship with other measures unrelated to fuel or vehicles, such as behavioural change, logistic efficiency, and better use of infrastructure. Achieving the Energy Agreement’s objectives whilst simultaneously stimulating green growth will be a major challenge that requires courage, decisive action, co-operation, consistent strategies, and the willingness to invest. To realise this goal, there must be approximately 3 million zero-emission vehicles in the Netherlands by 2030. In order to satisfy the objectives and simultaneously reap the benefits of green growth and improvements in living conditions, these developments must be initiated immediately. The shipping sector (both inland and ocean shipping)2 have set themselves the objective of achieving a 50% reduction in CO2 by 2050 in comparison with 2020 levels. This objective, which was later repeated in “Groen en Krachtig Varen” (Eng: Powerful and Green Shipping), the environmental brochure of the KVNR3, matches the Energy Agreement objectives for the energy sector. The aviation sector is establishing ambitious and far-reaching sustainability goals in accordance with stringent international certification criteria. A substantial proportion of the rail sector already runs on electric power. The result of this process is an adaptive and targeted multi-track strategy that will make the Netherlands a European front-runner in sustainable mobility and a pioneer in a number of promising niches.

The Netherlands is committed to switching to electric propulsion in transport sectors in whichelectricity is a promising alternative. Electric motors will be combined with sustainable biofuels and renewable gas4 as a transitional option and a long-term solution for heavy transport. Bothavenues will be supported by continual efforts to improve efficiency.

For the shipping sector, the Netherlands is committed to implementing efficiency measures in combination with a transition to LNG and use of sustainable biofuels5 for short-sea and inlandshipping.In the aviation sector, improvements in efficiency are being made by means of innovative aircraft technology, operations and infrastructure, as well as continued development and application of sustainable biokerosine sourcing, production and distribution.

For the rail sector, the Netherlands is dedicated to expanding the use of sustainable electricity, as well as replacing diesel trains with LNG- and bio-LNG-powered trains (depending on the technical and economic feasibility).

The periodic strategy updates that take place every three or four years create opportunities tointroduce new technologies and additional instruments.

The transition to a sustainable energy mix requires:

Made-to-measure support: Support will be tailor-made to suit specific product-marketcombinations and the specific development phase that the product is in. After all, products that are market mature require different support to products in the R&D stage.

Co-operation between all relevant policy areas at all scale levels within an international context: Every policy type has a different scale level (regional, national, European, global) that variesaccording to the mode of transport in question. Measures for road transport are predominantly applied at the national level, inland and short-sea shipping at the European level, and aviationand deep-sea shipping at the global level.

Swift investments to realise maximum benefits: Although 2030 and 2050 are a long way away, opportunities exist today to develop niche and early markets in order to optimally position the Netherlands for the future large-scale roll-out of technology for green vehicle transport andsustainable fuels. In a number of areas, the Netherlands can be a frontrunner.

Promising green growth projects6 further build upon the Netherlands’ strong position and its specific circumstances, such as the high degree of urbanisation. Sustainable mobility links five of the current nine innovation agendas. Promising niche markets – for both existing market players and newcomers/start-ups – in the green-growth sector with the potential for market leadership include:

Electric transport: development and application of products and services regarding recharging infrastructure, smart grids, energy storage, and special vehicles/components.

Hydrogen: pilots and market-introduction studies on fuel-cell cars and other vehicles (buses, refuse lorries etc.); development regarding the production and distribution of sustainablehydrogen fuel as a long-term solution. (The hydrogen economy is important for industriesrelating to hydrogen-fuel-cell technology, system integration, the production and distribution ofhydrogen, and the supply industry.)

Renewable gas: front-runner in R&D and pilots relating to the distribution and production ofrenewable gas for light vehicles and LNG/bio-LNG for heavy vehicles and shipping and certainsegments of the rail sector.

Biofuels: front-runner in the development and distribution of sustainable biofuels7.

With an action plan made up in 2014 and a coalition of the willing, we will begin to make this vision a reality. To achieve this vision, the following points must be put on the agenda: Strategy development and action plan: Strive to be a front-runner in specific niche markets that offer opportunities for green growth and contribute to the pioneer projects. Form coalitions and examine possible synergy between the sustainable fuel mix, smart grids, energy storage and power-to-gas. Gear development policy towards businesses that will be willing and able to play a key role in the sustainable fuel and vehicle mix (the pioneers).Encourage existing sectors – such as shipbuilding or fossil fuel / biofuel production and distribution – to focus on making fuels more sustainable. Condense the vision and strategy into an action plan.Source-based policy: Collaborate at the EU level to establish CO2 requirements for vehicles (fleet averages of car manufacturers) that are based on the 60% CO2 reduction objective for 2050.Collaborate at the EU level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the fuel chain – preferably within the EUFuel Quality Directive (FQD) – and reformulate the EU Renewable Energy Directive after 2020 (following the renewable energy in transport objective), ensuring that it encompasses all fuels and that direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions constitute the guiding factor. This will help to introduce renewable energy in all market segments of the fuel sector. It is also in line with the recommendations made by the Corbey commission. Focus on realising the commercial availability in the Netherlands of vehicles with zero CO2 exhaust emissions by 2035, in addition to examining how these efforts can be realised at the EU level. Work towards the implementation of fuel-blending obligations in the shipping sector for sustainable biofuels ortowards other renewable energy objectives, and put the standardisation of CO2 emissions and methane slip onthe agenda. R&D and innovation: Develop and reinforce the market introduction of and market-development programmes for various forms of electric propulsion in passenger and freight vehicles, including loading and hydrogen-tank infrastructure and related services, as well as connection to the energy network.Develop programmes for sustainable fuel production by means of cascading and biorefinery.Work on the development of the bio-based economy. The bio-based economy can contribute to the development of advanced bio fuels with a low environmental impact. Facilitate a testing ground for efficiency improvements for the deep-sea shipping sector and for the bulk consumers in the short-sea and inland shipping sector. Support the innovation, investment and sustainability ambitions of the aviation sector to realise efficiency improvements and sustainable biofuels by means of further development of the Bioport Holland Concept.Financial incentives (fiscal or otherwise):

Work at both the national and EU level on a fairer CO2-dependent incentive relating to vehicles, vessels and aircraft as well as fuel/energy carriers, with further examination in the long term of the entire chain and not just the specific attributes of the vehicles themselves. To this end, make long-term agreements in order to provide financial security. Create a public-private infrastructure fund for charging points for battery-powered electric cars, renewable gas and hydrogen fuel stations, and LNG bunker stations. Incentivise the transition from existing diesel ships to LNG ships or more sustainable technology and applications. Conclude a covenant regarding the financing of sustainable investments.Supporting measures: Support purchasing consortia with tendering experience.Support regional initiatives, learn from these experiences, and roll the successful initiatives out at the national level. Encourage collaboration and coalition-forming between businesses in order to reinforce their growth potential and to give the Netherlands an optimal platform to present itself as a leading player in the field of sustainable mobility.

140
Title: The Potential of Biofuels in China
Author: Dyk van J. S., Li L., Leal B. D., Hu J., Zhang Xu, Tan Ti., Saddler J.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: IEA Bioenergy: Task 39. Sept. 2016 Proposed by: SGAB Core Team
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: CHINA
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

China now has the largest economy in the world. As a result, it will face an ever-increasing energy demand for the foreseeable future. In 2013, China surpassed the USA as the largest net importer of petroleum and other oil based liquids. It also accounted for more than a quarter of the world’s growth in oil consumption. Oil demand is primarily driven by a growing economy with one indication being China’s current status as the world’s biggest car market with sales of new vehicles expanding due to the country’s growing middle class. However, this increasing demand for fossil fuels has also contributed to the country’s increasing energy security concerns. As a result, China has taken steps to secure energy supply through various strategies such as intensive domestic exploration, investment in overseas oil companies, securing long-term contracts with suppliers of fossil fuels, such as natural gas from Russia and investing heavily in renewable forms of energy.
At the same time as China’s economy has rapidly grown it has also become the world’s largest CO2 emitter and faces growing concerns over air pollution. Thus, climate change mitigation and pollution abatement, particularly in its cities, have also become important policy drivers for the country. This is indicated by China’s signing of the recent UNFCCC COP21 agreement and the country’s 13th five-year plan that was released in March 2016. This most recent five-year plan described a large number of binding commitments to aid in environmental reform.
Since the oil crisis of the 1970’s energy security and climate change mitigation requirements have been the main motivators behind most countries’ desire to develop biofuels. Although climate change and energy security are also of concern to China, it is not clear which of these drivers has been the primary motivator for biofuels development. However, the policies that China has implemented so far to help develop biofuels have resulted in the country becoming the world’s third largest ethanol producer. The country currently produces about 3 billion litres of ethanol and about 1.14 billion litres of biodiesel per year. Although the Chinese government has set ambitious targets to increase annual biofuels production to12.7 billion litres of ethanol and 2.3 billion litres of biodiesel by 2020, it is highly unlikely that these targets will be met. It is worth noting that biofuels development and use received little attention in the country’s recently released 13th five-year plan. Unlike other forms of renewable energy, no exact output targets were given for biofuels.
Unlike stationary power, which can be derived from multiple sources including solar, hydro and wind, transportation has limited options available for decarbonisation. Although biofuels can potentially alleviate energy security concerns and make an important contribution to reducing transportation emissions and air pollution, it seems that the most recent central government policies have primarily focussed on the development of “new energy vehicles” (electric and hybrid vehicles). However, it is worth noting that electric vehicle expansion based on coal-derived electricity will have a limited impact on emissions.
China’s biofuels policies have mainly focused on ethanol production with about 99% of the ethanol produced in China based on conventional starch-based feedstocks. Current ethanol production has been developed within a highly regulated environment as no facilities can be built unless government approval is obtained. All ethanol production and distribution is controlled by state-owned oil companies and only state approved companies can carry out blending and receive incentives and subsidies. Although an E10 mandate is in place in four provinces and 27 cities, no blending can take place outside of these areas. The price of the ethanol that blenders have to pay producers is fixed at 91.1% of the price of gasoline. As a result, there are no incentives in place for consumers to preferentially purchase ethanol containing fuels as the blended fuel costs the same price as the unblended fuel.
After the initial development of ethanol production facilities based on stale grain reserves in 2007, the government banned further bioethanol development based on grains. Instead they encouraged the production of so-called 1.5 generation feedstocks such as cassava, sweet potato and sweet sorghum. A further two ethanol facilities were supposed to be developed based on cassava and one based on sweet sorghum. These 1.5 generation crops were supposed to be predominantly grown on marginal lands. However, this approach has had limited success, with land and water availability proving to be significant challenges while these supposed biofuels feedstocks still compete with food production. The commercial development of so-called second generation/advanced biofuels based on cellulosic feedstocks has been limited to small volumes. Currently there is only one demonstration/commercial scale facility using corn cobs as the feedstock. However, it appears that there is considerable potential for further cellulosic ethanol production based on a range of agricultural residue feedstocks. Preliminary assessments of agriculture residue availability indicate that there should be significant quantities available for ethanol production, even based on conservative estimates. However, far more detailed studies need to be carried out to determine realistic availability within an economically viable radius. At the same time, a detailed assessment of the likely supply chain challenges that might be encountered in China needs to be carried out. (i.e. small-scale farming versus large-scale commercial farming; manual harvesting versus mechanical harvesting; topographical factors such as terrace farming; and the viability of large-scale collection of rice straw). These further analyses will be better able to distinguish between the theoretical and actual potential of making advanced/second generation bioethanol in specific locations.
Although several international companies such as DuPont, Beta Renewables and Novozymes have announced plans for construction of commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facilities in China, in partnership with existing ethanol producers, the current low price of oil has delayed these developments. Thus, it is unlikely that the commercial development of cellulosic ethanol will occur in time to meet the government’s ethanol targets for 2020. However, this conversion technology is probably the best opportunity for the country to expand ethanol production, in addition to achieving its climate change mitigation and emission reduction targets for transport.
Unlike the ethanol industry the biodiesel industry has developed slowly, is dominated by small-scale private businesses and is largely unregulated. No mandate for biodiesel blending exists, except for a small trial in two counties in Hainan province. There are also limited incentives to carry out biodiesel blending. The vast majority of the biodiesel that is produced is used by industry, with only about 30% used for transport. Market penetration for biodiesel has been very limited as state-owned oil companies own 90% of the gas stations and they have not encouraged biodiesel use.
Virtually all of the biodiesel that is produced is based on used cooking oil as the feedstocks. Although large volumes of so-called “gutter oil” are produced in China, competition from illegal re-use in food applications has resulted in supply availability challenges. The central government’s strategy of developing 1.5 generation oilseed-bearing trees and crops such as Jatropha as the feedstocks has had limited success to date. Although biodiesel production targets are modest and could possibly be achieved, further expansion is likely to be limited. Although there is approximately equal demand for gasoline and diesel in China’s transportation supply chain, biodiesel market penetration and production targets have been very low compared to ethanol. Early indications are that compressed natural gas vehicles, particularly for haulage, may be preferentially developed ahead of biodiesel. Although imported biofuels could potentially be used to meet government targets this is likely to remain limited as current regulations do not allow any imported ethanol to be used for transport. The experience in other jurisdictions such as Brazil, the EU and the US has shown the essential role the supporting policies play in creating demand, stimulating production and facilitating research, development and commercialisation of biofuels. Although the Chinese government has implemented some policy support for biofuels, these policies have primarily focused on ethanol, have lacked integration and have had a limited impact on the development of biofuels. For example, the most recent 13th Five-year Plan makes limited mention of biofuels implying that biofuels will likely play only a minor role in China’s decarbonisation of its transport sector.

141
Title: Policy scenarios for transport under the 2030 Energy and Climate framework
Author: Howes J, Bauen A, Chudziak Cl.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Final Report. This report was prepared by E4tech to inform ePURE’s thinking on European transport policy. 25 February 2016. Proposed by: ePure
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

European transport decarbonisation policy in the period from 2020 to 2030 is still under discussion, and has been the subject of much debate. This report explores what different possible transport policy scenarios could achieve in terms of their contribution to policy goals, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) savings and renewable energy penetration.
This study undertook detailed modelling of the impacts of different types of target, (GHG targets, renewables targets, advanced (referred to as second generation, or 2G here) biofuels targets, or no EU-wide targets), on expected GHG savings, renewables contribution and the cost of carbon savings for biofuels. It also qualitatively assessed the expected environmental impact of alternative or complementary policy approaches, such as inclusion of transport in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and changing car CO2 standards from a tank-to-wheel (tailpipe) basis to a well-to-wheel basis.
Several key conclusions are made about how effectively different transport policies can contribute to policy goals:
Renewable energy or greenhouse gas targets for transport are the only options considered that allow transport to contribute significantly towards 2030 energy and climate goals
The absence of EU-level targets would lead to declining biofuels volumes, and a lack of investment in 2G biofuels
Either a GHG or energy based-target, together with an 2G biofuel sub-target, could be an effective approach – the level at which the target is set, and the success of implementation of each is what would create any difference between the two. Biofuels make a contribution of around 11% to EU transport energy in 2030 in scenarios with targets modelled here.
Blending limits are the main factor that could limit ethanol use. Continued roll out of E10 and introduction of E20 would require other actions alongside EU biofuels targets

142
Title: Production of Liquid Biofuels, Technology Brief
Author: IRENA, IEA-ETSAP
Publication Year: 2013
Source: IRENA Headquarters, Masdar City, P.O. Box 236, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, www.irena.org. January 2013. Proposed by: Copa - Cogeca
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Liquid biofuels are made from biomass and have qualities that are similar to gasoline, diesel or other petroleum-derived fuels. The two dominant liquid biofuels
are bioethanol and biodiesel (i.e. 80% and 20% of the market, respectively), that together meet about 3% of the global transport fuel demand and are produced
using 2-3% of the global arable land. Bioethanol can be produced from sugarcane, corn, sugar beets, wheat, potatoes, sorghum and cassava. In 2011, the largest producers of bioethanol were the United States (63%), using corn, Brazil (24%), using sugarcane, and China (2.5%). Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils, derived from soybeans, rapeseed, palm seeds, sunfl owers, jatropha, as well as from animal fat or waste oils. The largest producers of biodiesel in 2011 were the European Union (43%), the United States (15%), Brazil and Argentina (each around 13%). The advantage of biofuels is that they can substantially reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in the transport sector (i.e. between 70% and 90% compared to gasoline) with only modest changes to vehicle technology and the existing
fuel distribution infrastructure. The disadvantage is that, apart from sugarcane ethanol, the large-scale production of liquid biofuels based on today’s technology
and feedstock would compete with food production for arable land and water, with limited expansion potential in certain cases. Also of concern would be the
conservation of biodiversity and the risk of important land-use changes. The use of shared international standards is crucial to ensure that liquid biofuels are produced in a sustainable manner, minimising these possible negative environmental and social impact due to land-use change and competition for food.
In several countries, research is currently working on the development of advanced biofuels (i.e. second and third generation biofuels), which are produced
from non-food, cellulosic biomass, such as woody and straw residues from agriculture and forestry, fast-rotation plants, non-food crops (possibly grown
on marginal, non-arable land), organic fraction of urban waste and algae-based feedstock. These kinds of feedstock require advanced, capital-intensive processing
to produce biofuels, but they promise to be more sustainable, off ering higher emissions reductions and less sensitivity to fl uctuations in feedstock costs. While
the production cost of advanced biofuels is still high, improvements in process effi ciency and cost reductions are expected from ongoing demonstration projects
in many countries, where there are a number of small plants in operation and/or large plants under construction or planned. Biofuels have been produced since the 1970s, but the market has expanded in the last ten years with a six-fold increase in production. This growth has been driven by mandates and tax incentives for blending biofuels with fossil fuels for energy security and emissions mitigation reasons. In general, today’s biofuels are not yet economically competitive with fossil fuels, with the sole exception of sugarcane ethanol, which enjoys an untaxed retail price as low as USD 0.6-0.65 per litre of gasoline equivalent (lge). In terms of market potential, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that sugarcane ethanol and advanced biofuels could provide up to 9.3% of total transportation fuels by 2030 and up to 27% by 2050. However, this would require at least a three- to fi ve-fold increase in land use for biofuels production and signifi cant yield improvements in developing countries. The future of biofuels hinges on a number of factors. The economic viability will depend largely on the price of biomass and oil-based fuels. A large-scale production of biofuels would increase feedstock demand and prices, requiring a global market—a situation similar as that for oil today. However, technical advances in the production of advanced biofuels from cellulosic feedstock could make available a broader range of non-food biomass (e.g. agriculture and forestry waste), which could ease feedstock supply and prices, and address certain sustainability issues. Policy measures should be very selective in promoting only those biofuels technologies that substantially reduce emissions reductions, avoid adverse land and water uses, and have positive social impacts.

143
Title: Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) – premium renewable biofuel for diesel engines.
Author: Neste Oil Oyj
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Neste Oil Oyj, February 2014 Proposed by: Neste Oil Oyj
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2: STANDARTIZATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The hydrotreating of vegetable oils (HVO) and animal fats is a new process. It is based on oil
refining know-how and is used for the production of biofuels for diesel engines. In the process,
hydrogen is used to remove oxygen from the triglyceride vegetable oil molecules and to split the
triglyceride into three separate chains thus creating hydrocarbons which are similar to existing
diesel fuel components. This allows the blending in any desired ratio without any concerns
regarding quality.

144
Title: EMPYRO: Implementation of a Commercial Scale Fast Pyrolysis Plant in the Netherlands
Author: Beld van de L., Muggen G.
Publication Year: 2015
Source: 23rd European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 1-4 June 2015, Vienna, Austria. Conference Proceedings pp. 1670-1673. Proposed by: BTG
Forum Area 1: PYROLYSIS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Empyro has been established with the aim to demonstrate the fast pyrolysis technology of BTG Bioliquids on a commercially relevant scale of 25 MWth. Preparations already started in 2009, but the actual construction of the pyrolysis oil production plant just began early 2014. Regarding plant capacity, 5 t/hr of clean wood will be converted into about 3.2 t/hr of pyrolysis oil. Excess heat generated from the combustion of the byproducts (gas and char) is used for the generation of steam. Subsequently, this steam is used to provide the heat for the biomass dryer, and to run a steam turbine for generating electricity. Finally, any excess steam is sold to AkzoNobel. Commissioning of the plant started early 2015, and first batches of oil have been produced. Gradually, the production capacity will be increased to its maximum of over 20 million liters of pyrolysis oil annually. A guaranteed long-term off-take of the pyrolysis oil is of utmost importance. Agreement has been reached with FrieslandCampina on a 12-year delivery contract for the majority of the oil (>75%). They will utilize pyrolysis oil to substitute natural gas and generate 40 t/h of 20 bar(g) process steam for use in the milk powder production. The new boiler has been installed on their site, and commissioning will take place in Q2/Q3-2015. The pyrolysis oil will replace 12 million cubic meters of natural gas, the equivalent annual consumption of 8,000 Dutch households, which saves up to 20,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year.

145
Title: Policy scenarios for transport under the 2030 Energy and Climate framework
Author: Howes J, Bauen A, Chudziak Cl.
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Final Report. This report was prepared by E4tech to inform ePURE’s thinking on European transport policy. 25 February 2016. Proposed by: ePure
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

European transport decarbonisation policy in the period from 2020 to 2030 is still under discussion, and has been the subject of much debate. This report explores what different possible transport policy scenarios could achieve in terms of their contribution to policy goals, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) savings and renewable energy penetration.
This study undertook detailed modelling of the impacts of different types of target, (GHG targets, renewables targets, advanced (referred to as second generation, or 2G here) biofuels targets, or no EU-wide targets), on expected GHG savings, renewables contribution and the cost of carbon savings for biofuels. It also qualitatively assessed the expected environmental impact of alternative or complementary policy approaches, such as inclusion of transport in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and changing car CO2 standards from a tank-to-wheel (tailpipe) basis to a well-to-wheel basis.

Several key conclusions are made about how effectively different transport policies can contribute to policy goals:

  • Renewable energy or greenhouse gas targets for transport are the only options considered that allow transport to contribute significantly towards 2030 energy and climate goals
  • The absence of EU-level targets would lead to declining biofuels volumes, and a lack of investment in 2G biofuels
  • Either a GHG or energy based-target, together with an 2G biofuel sub-target, could be an effective approach – the level at which the target is set, and the success of implementation of each is what would create any difference between the two. Biofuels make a contribution of around 11% to EU transport energy in 2030 in scenarios with targets modelled here.
  • Blending limits are the main factor that could limit ethanol use. Continued roll out of E10 and introduction of E20 would require other actions alongside EU biofuels targets
146
Title: Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) – premium renewable biofuel for diesel engines.
Author: Neste Oil Oyj
Publication Year: 2014
Source: Neste Oil Oyj, February 2014 Proposed by: Neste Oil Oyj
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2: STANDARTIZATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The hydrotreating of vegetable oils (HVO) and animal fats is a new process. It is based on oil
refining know-how and is used for the production of biofuels for diesel engines. In the process,
hydrogen is used to remove oxygen from the triglyceride vegetable oil molecules and to split the
triglyceride into three separate chains thus creating hydrocarbons which are similar to existing
diesel fuel components. This allows the blending in any desired ratio without any concerns
regarding quality.

147
Title: Demonstrating climate mitigation technologies NER300
Author: Max Åhmana, Jon Birger Skjærsethb, Per Ove Eikelandb
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Energy Policy Proposed by: Lars Wladheim
Forum Area 1: FINANCING Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This article takes stock of the world’s largest low-carbon technology demonstration programme – the EU’s NER
300. The programme has been marked by delays and many withdrawn projects since becoming operational in
2010: CCS projects have failed and not reached final investment decisions; wind and solar projects have succeeded,
whereas bioenergy projects have seen successes as well as failures. These outcomes can be explained by
specific design features in the program that placed large-scale projects at a disadvantage, and by the wider
context of EU climate and energy policies providing inadequate market-pull incentives for CCS and biofuels. The
design and policy challenges identified are related more to political feasibility than to lack of knowledge of what
is needed to trigger innovation. The proposal for a follow-up Innovation Fund is assessed against the lessons from
NER 300.

148
Title: Ecofys Gas for Climate Report Study
Author: Timme van Melle, Daan Peters, Jenny Cherkasky, Rik Wessels, Goher Ur Rehman Mir, Wieke Hofsteenge
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Ecofys Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study by Ecofys, a Navigant company, explores the role of gas in a fully decarbonised energy system by 2050. We conclude that it is possible by 2050 to scale up renewable gas (biomethane and renewable hydrogen) production in the EU to a quantity of 122 billion cubic metres by 2050. We also conclude that using this gas with existing gas infrastructure, smartly combined with renewable electricity in sectors where it adds most value, can lead to €138 billion societal cost savings annually compared to decarbonisation without a role for renewable gas.
This study has been commissioned by Gas for Climate, a consortium of seven gas transport companies (Enagás, Fluxys, Gasunie, GRTgaz, Open Grid Europe, Snam and Teréga) based in six EU Member States plus two renewable gas producing organisations (European Biogas Association and Consorzio Italiano Biogas). The group shares the vision that renewable and low carbon gas, transported, stored and distributed by the existing gas infrastructure, can help to achieve a net zero carbon European energy system by 2050 in a cost-effective way.
This study starts from the perspective that all gas consumption in Europe must, by 2050, be net zero carbon. This means that it is produced from renewable sources and that any remaining natural gas consumption will be combined with carbon capture and storage or capture and permanent utilization.
Ecofys analyses how much renewable gas Europe can produce and what the societal value is of using this gas in existing gas infrastructure in various sectors of the economy. Based on conservative assumptions, we conclude that it is possible to greatly increase the production and use of renewable gas in the EU. Keeping the existing gas infrastructure in place to enable the transport, storage and distribution of this renewable gas significantly lowers the total EU energy system costs.

149
Title: A critical review of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) Working paper 2017-5: “Potential greenhouse gas savings from a 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target with indirect emissions accounting for the European Union”
Author: Professor André P.C. Faaij, Distinguished Professor Energy System Analysis, University of Groningen – The Netherlands.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The importance of the use of sustainable biomass for our (future) energy and material system in order to replace fossil fuels and reduce GHG emissions is highlighted in many key global studies and scenario’s, such the IPCC, IEA, Greenpeace, World Energy Council and many others. The notion that the use of terrestrial biomass needs to meet sustainability criteria to avoid undesired indirect effects is also widely accepted and incorporated. An additional argument for the large scale use of sustainable biomass is the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage technology in combination with biomass (Bio-CC), which will lead to negative emissions is deemed necessary to achieve the 1,5 – 2 0C GMT change scenario’s this century. This increases the need to deploy biomass further and increase the biomass resource base over time.
A key prerequisite is of course that biomass resources are sustainable and do lead to the net GHG emissions reductions as projected.
The recently made report of ICCT presents a study focusing on deploying elements of consequential LCA to estimate the direct and indirect GHG emissions of biomass sourcing and use, including potential displacement effects on land use or biomass markets. This review deals with a number of key methodological issues versus the consequential LCA approach used by ICCT, goes through a number of example results and draws an overall conclusion on the paper.

150
Title: Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050
Author: REmap team at IRENA’s Innovation and Technology Centre (IITC)
Publication Year: 2018
Source: IRENA Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report sets out a path to energy system decarbonisation based on high energy efficiency and renewable energy. It provides evidence showing how the transition is occurring, and how the deployment of renewables is making energy supply more sustainable.
This report also demonstrates that decarbonisation is both technically feasible and can be achieved at a lower cost and with greater socio-economic benefits than business as usual.
This report identifies six focus areas where policy and decision makers need to act:
1. Tap into the strong synergies between energy efficiency and renewable energy;
2. Plan a power sector for which renewables provide a high share of the energy;
3. Increase use of electricity in transport, building and industry. Urban planning, building regulations, and other plans and policies must be integrated, particularly to enable deep and cost-effective decarbonisation of the transport and heat sectors through electrification;
4. Foster system-wide innovation;
5. Align socio-economic structures and investment with the transition;
6. Ensure that transition costs and benefits are fairly distributed.

151
Title: Biofuels for the marine shipping sector: An overview and analysis of sector infrastructure, fuel technologies and regulations
Author: Chia-wen Carmen Hsieh, Claus Felby
Publication Year: 2017
Source: IEA Bioenergy Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The objective of this report is to provide an introduction and overview of the current maritime shipping sector and describe how biofuel developers can introduce alternative fuels, in light of the sector infrastructure and how it is regulated. To describe and analyze the potential of biofuels for the maritime sector, a technical assessment of biofuels for marine engines, taking into account the entire supply chain from field to ship, is performed.
This report is written from a biofuel developer or manufacturer point of view. The approach can be formulated as “If you were a biofuel developer and would like to develop marine biofuels, what fuel properties would be needed and how would they compete with current fuels given fuel prices and emission regulations?”
The report includes an overview of the current status of the shipping sector; the classes of ships built and in operation, the different marine propulsion technologies, and the fuels available on the market for ship propulsion. Of particular interest are current and near future regulations on the use of marine fuels in the newly created emission control areas (ECAs)1, introducing mandates on fuel sulphur levels, as well as the fuel specifications needed in order to comply with these. These regulations, motivated by a need to reduce harmful particle emissions from marine diesels, are also an avenue by which biofuels can enter the market as low-carbon, low-sulphur fuels.

152
Title: Mid and long term potential for advanced biofuels in Europe
Author: Paul Baker, Olivier Chartier, Robert Haffner, Laura Heidecke, Karel van Hussen, Lars Meindert, Barbara Pia Oberč, Karolina Ryszka (Ecorys), Pantelis Capros, Alessia De Vita, Kostas Fragkiadakis, Panagiotis Fragkos, Leonidas Paroussos, Apostolis Petropoulos, Georgios Zazias, (E3MLab), Ingo Ball, Ilze Dzene, Rainer Janssen, Johannes Michel, Dominik Rutz, (WIP Renewable Energies), Marcus Lindner, Alexander Moiseyev, Hans Verkerk (EFI), Peter Witzke (Eurocare), Magda Walker (IUNG)
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Commission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Research and Innovation (R&I) plays a central role in developing advanced biofuels technologies to help achieve the EU’s climate and energy targets. This study examines the R&I potential for feedstock production, advanced biofuels production, and use of advanced biofuels. The study quantifies R&I potential under future scenarios where EU targets are met. Improving feedstock supply and reducing conversion costs through research and innovation resulting in an increase of feedstock availability by 40-50 %, will contribute to the development of advanced biofuels. With successful R&I and attainment of the 2050 EU targets, advanced biofuels could achieve (i) close to a 50 % share of the overall transport sector energy mix, (ii) achieving 330 Mt of net emission savings, in case they replace fossil fuels, or 65 % of the required emission savings needed, compared to 1990 levels, in order to meet the target of the transport sectors emissions by 60 %1, (iii) a market volume of 1.6 % of EU’s GDP, and (iv) significantly improve energy security. This would result in a net increase of 108 000 jobs, even taking into account the 11 000 jobs reduction in fossil fuel sectors and the reduced employment in other sectors, without impacting negatively EU’s GDP. This is a particularly noteworthy positive impact, considering that it mainly comes from the substitution of currently existing energy demands.

In the extreme case of a transition to an energy system relying heavily on advanced biofuels, achieving EU targets would put considerable pressure on feedstock availability, driving up feedstock prices. Yet, in a system characterized by a balanced energy mix with several renewable options and an important role for advanced biofuels, R&I plays a paramount role in both (i) safeguarding the amount of affordable sustainable biomass and (ii) improving the efficiency of the whole biomass to biofuel process chain, needed for the transition to a bioenergy system. The transition could take more than 15-20 years and require substantial efforts and extensive coordination between stakeholders.

153
Title: STUDY REPORT ON REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON BIOFUELS AND BIOLIQUIDS STEMMING FROM THE DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/1513
Author: Wageningen Economic Research Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) Wageningen Environmental Research National Renewable Energy Centre (CENER)
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Commission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report was commissioned to gather comprehensive information on, and to provide systematic analysis of the latest available scientific research and the latest available scientific evidence on indirect land use change (ILUC) greenhouse gas emissions associated with production of biofuels and bioliquids. This report will provide inputs for the reporting requirements under Article 3 of the European Union’s Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of 9 September 2015 by summarizing and interpreting the available and best available scientific evidence on ILUC GHG emissions associated with the production of biofuels and bioliquids and the latest available information with regard to key assumptions influencing the results from modelling of the ILUC GHG emissions associated with the production of biofuels and bioliquids. It will also analyse the scientific evidence on measures (introduced in the directive or not) to limit indirect land-use emissions, either through promotion of low ILUC-risk biofuels or more general measures. Besides the report will also provide inputs for Article 23 of the revised European Union’s Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive) on the latest available information with regard to key assumptions influencing the results from modelling ILUC GHG emissions, as well as an assessment of whether the range of uncertainty identified in the analysis underlying the estimations of ILUC emissions can be narrowed down, and if the possible impact of the EU policies, such as environment, climate and agricultural policies, can be factored in. An assessment of a possibility of setting out criteria for the identification and certification of low ILUC-risk biofuels that are produced in accordance with the EU sustainability criteria is also required.

154
Title: Biofuels imports to European countries, January 2018 – FAME
Author: n.a.
Publication Year: 2018
Source: ARGUS Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: PASSENGER CARS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

A map developed by the organisers of Argus Biofuels

155
Title: Joint declaration of Visegrad 4 plus Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania biofuels
Author: Ing. Petr Jevič, CSc., prof. h.c., Ing. Diana Štrofová, Ferenc HÓDOS, Adam Stępień, Mindaugas Palijanskas, Zigurds Erciņš, Danail Kamenov, Robertas Einoris
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Euractiv Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Joint declaration of Visegrad 4 plus Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania biofuels associations on the new Renewable Energy Directive Recast (RED II)

156
Title: Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies
Author: n.a.
Publication Year: 2018
Source: DNV GL Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The objective of this guidance paper is to provide decision support for investments in ships over the coming 5 to 10-year period. The paper focuses on technical parameters and limitations without accounting for local market conditions, considerations and incentive schemes which may have a significant impact on competitiveness and the uptake of alternative fuels and technologies.

157
Title: Advanced biofuels in India- A comparative analysis between India and the EU – v2
Author: Radhika Singh, Stamatis Kalligeros, Jai Uppal
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Proposed by: Radhika Singh
Forum Area 1: INDIA Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:
158
Title: IEA-Advanced Motor Fuels Annual Report
Author: n.a.
Publication Year: 2017
Source: IEA Bioenergy Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The AMF Annual Report has recently been streamlined to provide condensed and to-the-point information on the status of annex work and of advanced motor fuels in AMF member countries. A third communication product consists of key messages for policy makers and laypersons that provide a brief description of the main messages from annex work. I hope that these three levels of reports will make AMF even more successful and a source of information for all levels of society.

159
Title: Master plan for CO2 reduction in the Dutch shipping sector-Biofuels for shipping
Author: n.a.
Publication Year: 2018
Source: e4tech Proposed by: Eric van den Heuvel
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

A report attached that is commissioned by the Netherlands Platform Sustainable Biofuels and executed by E4tech on the role of biofuels for the Dutch shipping sector

160
Title: Zero-emission Vessels 2030 – How do we get there
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Lloyd's, UMAS Proposed by: Eric van den Heuvel
Forum Area 1: MARITIME Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report aims to demonstrate the viability of ZEVs, identifying the drivers that need to be in place to make them a competitive solution for decarbonisation.

161
Title: EFFECTIVE POLICY DESIGN FOR PROMOTING INVESTMENT IN ADVANCED ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Author: Kristine Bitnere and Stephanie Searle
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study seeks to understand why policy support for these advanced technologies has not resulted in greater deployment of facilities and scale-up in production. For the purpose of this study, we focus on alternative fuels, including both biofuels and non-biological low-carbon pathways, that rely on emerging technologies and non-food feedstocks and that can offer high GHG savings compared to petroleum; we refer to these pathways as advanced alternative fuel (AAF). The first section of this report briefly reviews barriers to commercialization of AAF, in particular economic and market challenges. The second section reviews existing EU and U.S. policies promoting AAF and evaluates the effectiveness of policy elements in scaling up production capacity. We analyze a number of policy frameworks, including renewable energy targets, GHG emission reduction targets, tax incentives, subsidies, and grant programs at the EU level and in member states, and at the U.S. federal level as well as in the state of California. The third section summarizes and discusses the lessons learned from the experiences of these jurisdictions in promoting AAF. The fourth section introduces principles for effective policy design for supporting investment in AAF production developed from these lessons learned.

162
Title: Overview of biofuel policies and markets across the EU-28
Author: n.a.
Publication Year: 2018
Source: ePure Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In June 2016, ePURE published a report on Member States’ biofuel policies and markets, detailing the national transposition and implementation status of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). This report updates that status for each country now that the deadline for transposing the so-called ILUC Directive amending both the RED and FQD has passed. The report seeks to provide a detailed overview of the current national biofuel policies across the EU 28 Member States, with a focus on: • The national policy frameworks regulating biofuels, in particular the implementation of the RED and FQD as amended by the ILUC Directive; and • Relevant national fuels (including biofuels) and vehicles market data.

163
Title: Sustainability of liquid biofuels
Author:
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Royal Academy of Engineering Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

this study
considers the most significant sustainability issues associated
with liquid biofuels, the methods available for assessing them and
the associated uncertainties, with the aim of supporting future
policy decisions. While the main focus of the study is on the carbon
footprints of different biofuels, other environmental, economic and
social issues related to their production and use are also discussed.

164
Title: Can power to methane systems be sustainable and can they improve the carbon intensity of renewable methane when used to upgrade biogas produced from grass and slurry?
Author: Truc T.Q. Vo, Karthik Rajendran , Jerry D. Murphy
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Elsevier Proposed by: Jerry D Murphy
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2: BIOMETHANE
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The recast of the renewable energy directive (RED recast) considers power to gas (P2G) an advanced transport
biofuel if a 70% greenhouse gas savings as opposed to the fossil fuel displaced is achieved. Power to methane
systems can store electricity as gas and the system can be optimised in sourcing CO2 from biogas to upgrade
biogas to biomethane. The crucial question in this work is whether P2G systems can be sustainable and if they
can improve the sustainability of biomethane systems using traditional upgrading systems. This work evaluates a
comparative lifecycle assessment of grass and slurry (50:50 wet weight equivalent to 80:20 volatile solid weight)
biomethane using P2G and/or amine scrubbing as an upgrading method. The sustainability of P2G upgrading
systems is heavily dependent on the carbon intensity of the source of electricity. Using a 41% decarbonised
electricity mix the sustainability was reduced using P2G and would not be deemed sustainable under criterion
set by the RED recast. Maintaining a maximum of 2% fugitive CH4 emissions, using 74% slurry (wet weight) in a
grass slurry feedstock, allowing for 0.6 t carbon sequestration per hectare per annum in grasslands and using an
electricity mix with 85% renewable electricity the whole system including P2G upgrading could satisfy the GHG
savings of 70%. However, the traditional system employing amine scrubbing had higher levels of sustainability

165
Title: Biofuel Mandates in the EU by Member State in 2018
Author: Sabine Lieberz
Publication Year: 2018
Source: USDA Proposed by: Lars Waldheim
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report provides an overview on the biofuel use mandates in the various EU-28 member states. It supplements the EU-28 Biofuel Annual Report.

166
Title: EU Biofuels Annual 2018
Author: Bob Flach, Sabine Lieberz, Jennifer Lappin and Sophie Bolla
Publication Year: 2018
Source: USDA Proposed by: Lars Waldheim
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

On June 14, 2018, an agreement on the successor to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) was reached for 2021-2030. The RED II sets a limit of 7 percent on the blending of conventional (food based) biofuels, well above the blended 4.1 percent forecast for this year. This is less stifling than some of the previous proposals but conventional biofuels must compete with other forms of renewable transport energy and current imports of biodiesel and potentially bioethanol are a threat for the domestic producers. Based on the readiness of the technology and the double counting factor, biofuels produced from waste fats and oils have the best outlook for further expansion on the short term. The RED II set ambitious goals for biofuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks, but so far commercial production of these advanced biofuels have been limited. The EU market for wood pellets is expected to continue its growth during 2018-2020, but further expansion could be limited by individual Member State sustainability requirements.

167
Title: CAC forscht an umweltfreundlichem Kerosin
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Chemietechnik Proposed by: Eelco Dekker
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2: AVIATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:
168
Title: Gaps and Research Demand for Sustainability Certification and Standardisation in a Sustainable Bio-Based Economy in the EU
Author: Stefan Majer, Simone Wurster, David Moosmann, Luana Ladu, Beike Sumfleth and Daniela Thrän
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The concept of the bio-based economy has gained increasing attention and importance in
recent years. It is seen as a chance to reduce the dependency on fossil resources while securing a
sustainable supply of energy, water, and raw materials, and furthermore preserving soils, climate and
the environment. The intended transformation is characterized by economic, environmental and
social challenges and opportunities, and it is understood as a social transition process towards a
sustainable, bio-based and nature-oriented economy. This process requires general mechanisms
to establish and monitor safeguards for a sustainable development of the bio-based economy on a
national and EU level. Sustainability certification and standardisation of bio-based products can
help to manage biogenic resources and their derived products in a sustainable manner. In this paper,
we have analysed the current status of sustainability certification and standardisation in the bio-based
economy by conducting comprehensive desktop research, which was complemented by a series of
expert interviews. The analysis revealed an impressive amount of existing certification frameworks,
criteria, indicators and applicable standards. However, relevant gaps relating to existing criteria
sets, the practical implementation of criteria in certification processes, the legislative framework,
end-of-life processes, as well as necessary standardisation activities, were identified which require
further research and development to improve sustainability certification and standardisation for a
growing bio-based economy.

169
Title: Technology pathways in decarbonisation scenarios
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: European Commission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The purpose of this study was to ensure robustness and representativeness of the technology assumptions by reaching out to relevant experts, industry representatives and stakeholders, who are in possession of the most recent data in the different sectors.
The study thus undertook to confirm and – if necessary – adjust the assumptions for PRIMES modelling for the technologies relevant for long term (decarbonisation) pathways in the EU that have been compiled by E3M (both in terms of technology pathways selected and costs). This objective was achieved by identifying and reaching out to relevant experts, industry representatives and stakeholders and using internal expertise.

170
Title: Electric Mobility Update
Author: Alexandros Perellis
Publication Year: 2018
Source: IENE Proposed by: Theodor Goumas
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The latest issue of IENE’s periodic publication “Electric Mobility Update”, No. 2, August 31, 2018

171
Title: Role of CCS in the Energy Transition
Author: Lisa Campbell, Lee Solsbery, Vicky Hudson and Max Crawford
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Transition to a low carbon economy requires near zero emissions in the
coming decades and will also need technologies that will “…achieve a balance
between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of
greenhouse gases in the second half of this century …,” as stated in the Paris
Agreement. Therefore, CO2 capture and geological storage (CCS) should be
central to the discussion of mitigating future GHG emissions from fossil fuels
because CCS can remove CO2 emissions from combustion or remove the
carbon even prior to combustion, thus providing a low or zero carbon fuel.
In this report, we find that 14 of 163 submitted nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) which specifically mention CCS, and five nations submitted midcentury
strategies (MCS) that include some description of CCS. Those handful
of nations that do mention CCS do so with extensive discussion about barriers
to investments in CCS projects including the cost of CCS, the lack of finance
and the lack of implementation of government policies and incentives.
Our report also finds that the International Energy Agency, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global
CCS Institute, Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project, and the EU Joint
Research Centre have all projected the need for CCS to achieve the Paris
Agreement goals.
The contributions of CCS to scenarios that could successfully achieve the Paris
Agreement goals range from 10 to 25 percent of the total GHG emissions
response effort depicted in those scenarios.
This points to the critical need for the rapid scale-up of CCS in the coming
decades which has yet to begin. The pipeline of major CCS projects has dried
up in recent years and no new significant CCS projects are being developed.
Further, because of costs and a range of issues from lack of policy framework,
policy uncertainty, public perception, and potential long-term storage site
stewardship issues, some business leaders in a World Energy Council survey
have expressed negative sentiments about the prospect of deploying CCS.
These difficult challenges point to a fundamental gap between the ambitious
goal of the Paris Agreement and the reality of deployment of CCS projects.
This report also points out that even if nations did not mention CCS in their
nationally determined contributions or in a mid-century strategy, nations
could still benefit from developing CCS as part of their future actions. In
particular, as nations go through the every-five-year global stocktake, it could
be beneficial for nations to analyse for and plan the conditions that would
help in the future deployment of CCS in order to reduce emissions
significantly.

172
Title: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources – Analysis of the final compromise text with a view to agreement
Author:
Publication Year: 2018
Source: European Commission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
– Analysis of the final compromise text with a view to agreement

173
Title: Advanced alternative liquid fuels: For climate protection in the global raw materials change Position paper of the ProcessNet Working Group “Alternative Liquid and Gaseous Fuels”
Author: Dr.-Ing. Bernd Benker Dieter Bockey Prof. Dr. Nicolaus Dahmen Dr.-Ing. Ralph-Uwe Dietrich Melanie Form Arne Grewe Dr. Armin Gόnther Benedikt Heuser Wolfgang Hofer Dr.-Ing. Thomas Kuchling Prof. Dr. Walter Leitner Dr.-Ing. Klaus Lucka Dr. habil. Andreas Martin Dr. Dietrich Meier Dr. Jochen Michels Gerhard Muggen Dr.-Ing. Franziska Mόller-Langer Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Munack Dr. Thomas Otto Dr. Doris Schieder Dr. Jakob Seiler Prof. Dr. Anika Sievers Norbert Ullrich Dr.-Ing. Amin Velji Karlsruher Prof. Dr.-Ing. Thomas Willner Annett Wollmann
Publication Year: 2018
Source: DECHEMA Proposed by: George Vourliotakis
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The Working Group “Alternative Liquid and Gaseous Fuels” is part of ProcessNet, a joint initiative of the DECHEMA Gesellschaft für Chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e. V. and the VDI Gesellschaft für Verfahrenstechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen e. V. (VDI-GVC). Its participants are representatives of commercial enterprises, associations and sciences in the fields of fuels, plant construction, oil refineries, bio refineries, combustion engines, automobiles, aviation, energy systems, thermochemical conversion, renewable raw materials, waste and secondary raw materials as well as other sustainable resources.
This position paper is intended to appeal to decision-makers in politics, business and science. With regard to climate protection goals, the paper aims at showing technological ways to achieve the full integration of the transport and heating
sectors into the energy transition by 2050 in a realistic, sustainable and economically justifiable manner. The objective is
to illustrate why advanced liquid alternative fuels will play a key role. Recommendations for action should help to meet
the challenges of the required radical change from fossil fuels to sustainable resources.
In this way, the working group is supporting efforts to achieve the energy transition in linking the areas of mobility,
electricity and heat as a contribution to climate protection, resource conservation and security of raw material supply,
resource efficiency by optimizing material cycles, security of supply through independence from imports, job creation
through regional added value and global technology leadership.

174
Title: Waste and residue availability for advanced biofuel production in EU Member States
Author: Stephanie Y. Searle a, Christopher J. Malins
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The EU is adopting policy measures to promote the use of advanced biofuels for transport made from sustainable sources including wastes and residues. As Member States prepare to implement these policy changes, they will need to understand if they have sufficient resource to meet an advanced biofuel target. This study assesses the availability of agricultural residues, forestry residues, and biogenic wastes that could potentially be used for advanced biofuel production in EU Member States at the present and projected to 2020 and 2030. This analysis incorporates specific information on agricultural, forestry, and waste production, anagement practices, and environmental risks in each Member State in order to model the amounts of residues needed to preserve soil quality and that are utilized in other industries; we exclude these quantities in order to determine the sustainable biomass potential that can be achieved without significant adverse impacts on the environment or biomass markets. We find that most EU Member States are likely to have more than enough sustainably available feedstock to meet the advanced biofuel requirement, and a majority may have more than 10 times the necessary amount. While this study does not assess economic viability of advanced biofuel production, from a resource perspective, the target appears to be achievable in most Member States. Some countries, including Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Slovenia, may need to import either feedstock or advanced biofuel from neighboring countries to meet the target.

175
Title: DECARBONIZATION POTENTIAL OF ELECTROFUELS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Author: Stephanie Searle and Adam Christensen
Publication Year: 2018
Source: ICCT Proposed by: Tim Vink
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study updates a previous analysis on the economic viability of electrofuels in the EU and assesses the lifecycle GHG performance of these fuels. In particular, we analyze how the accounting of electrofuels in the final RED II impacts the GHG performance of these fuels.
We find that because of high production costs, electrofuels will deliver limited—if any—renewable fuel volumes and GHG reductions in the EU in the 2030 timeframe, even with strong policy support. We also find that the RED II effectively counts twice as much energy toward the renewable energy target as the amount of fossil fuels displaced, which will likely result in a shortfall in total renewable energy usage in the EU and thus an increase in fossil fuel use. Significant GHG savings can only be achieved if EU Member States take measures to ensure that renewable electricity used in electrofuels is fully additional – even then, electrofuels would still only offset 0.5% of projected road transport GHG emissions in 2030 in the EU with very high policy support.

176
Title: Dead End Road The false promises of cellulosic biofuels
Author: Almuth Ernsting, Rachel Smolker
Publication Year: 2018
Source: Biofueleatch Proposed by: Marko Janhunen
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report looks at the history, the technologies and the experience of refineries where cellulosic ethanol
production has been attempted. The technical challenges remain, suggesting that there is little likelihood that large new markets for wood and energy crops for biofuels will emerge any time soon. The illusion that cellulosic biofuel production has dramatically increased recently reflects a redefinition of “cellulosic” to include transport fuels made from landfill gas, biogas and corn kernel fibre. Even though large-scale production of cellulosic biofuels appears destined to fail, the development of risky genetically engineered (GE) trees, crops and microbes associated with this quest introduces imminent and serious risks.

177
Title: Energy Transition outlook 2018: A global and regional forecast to 2050
Author:
Publication Year:
Source: DNV GL Proposed by: Stamatis Kalligeros
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Over the next three decades, the world’s energy system will
become substantially cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable.
Understanding this energy transition is critical for businesses,
investors, and regulators and this is the scope of this report

178
Title: Potential greenhouse gas savings from a 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target with indirect emissions accounting for the European Union
Author: Stephanie Searle, Nikita Pavlenko, Sammy El Takriti, and Kristine Bitnere
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The European Commission’s proposal for a recast Renewable Energy Directive for the period 2021-2030 (RED II) includes a 6.8% target for renewable energy to be used in transport. This target can be met by advanced biofuels, renewable electricity, waste-based fossil fuels, and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (such as power-to-liquids). Food-based biofuels are not eligible to be used towards the transport target. The proposal defines a list of eligible feedstocks that can be used to produce advanced biofuels, including many types of materials often referred to as “wastes” and “residues,” such as municipal waste, wheat straw, forestry residues, and inedible animal fats. Alternative fuels must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 70% to qualify, but the Commission’s proposed GHG calculation methodology does not include indirect effects. Indirect land use change (ILUC) has been estimated to substantially reduce and in some cases eliminate the GHG savings associated with biofuels made from food, such as corn ethanol and rapeseed biodiesel. The magnitude of indirect emissions that would be caused by eligible advanced biofuel feedstocks in the RED II proposal has been less well understood. This study estimates indirect emissions for many of these feedstocks and finds that, if indirect emissions accounting were included in the GHG calculation methodology for the RED II, several pathways currently listed as eligible are not likely to meet the 70% GHG reduction threshold. Similarly to food-based biofuels, some eligible feedstocks may not offer any GHG savings at all. This study also assesses the total GHG savings that could be achieved by the policy in 2030 if the transport target were changed to a GHG reduction target, similar to the target in the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). This analysis shows that, for the same total amount of renewable energy delivered, a GHG target would drive greater GHG reductions compared to the energy target in the Commission’s proposal.

179
Title: Annex 1: The IEA ETP Model and Scenarios
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference gives a short overview of the three ETP (Energy Technology Perspectives) scenarios each of which has different energy technology and policy pathways for a low carbon energy system in the period to 2060.

180
Title: Annex 2: Bioenergy technologies
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference pinpoints the different characteristics between biomass feedstocks and fossil fuels and analyses the three technologies of biomass processing (fuel preparation, pretreatment, conversion) prior to conversion to energy in order to optimise the efficiency and the economics of the bioenergy pathway.

181
Title: Annex 3: Bioenergy solutions suitable for immediate scale-up
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMETHANE Forum Area 2: BIOMASS RESOURCES
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference presents different bioenergy solutions that are suitable for immediate scale-up. Examples are: (i) biomethane from waste and residue feedstocks, (ii) waste and residue HVO in heavy-duty road freight and HEFA in aviation, (iii) higher ethanol blends and unblended ethanol in road transport, (iv) bioenergy based district heating networks in urban areas, (v) medium-scale biomass heating systems in commercial and public buildings, (vi) maximising the efficiency of bagasse co-generation in the sugar and ethanol industry, (vii) energy recovery from municipal waste solutions and (viii) the conversion of existing fossil fuel infrastructure for bioenergy use.

182
Title: How2guide for Bioenergy: Roadmap Development and Implementation
Author: Simone Landolina, Irini Maltsoglou
Publication Year: 2017
Source: IEA and FAO Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This How2Guide for Bioenergy (hereinafter the H2G.BIO) is designed to provide stakeholders from government, industry and other bioenergy-related institutions with the methodology and tools required to successfully plan and implement a roadmap for bioenergy at the national or regional level.
As a guide addressed to decision makers in developing, emerging and developed economies, the H2G.BIO does not attempt to cover every aspect of bioenergy conversion technology and deployment, or to be exhaustive in its reference to biomass resources and technologies at the country and regional levels. Rather, the aim is to provide a comprehensive list of steps and issues to be considered at each phase of bioenergy roadmapping and deployment. The guide draws on pre-existing work as well as on new evidence collected specifically for the production of this document.

183
Title: The Future of Trucks: Implications for energy and the environment
Author: Adam Majoe
Publication Year: 2017
Source: OECD/IEA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report is composed of three main chapters:
• Chapter 1: The role of trucks in the energy sector aims to provide a concise primer on road freight transport, reviewing in detail the current contribution of road freight transport to energy demand, CO2 emissions and air pollution. It covers the historical drivers of freight activity, the main features of the global truck market, and the current policy landscape.
• Chapter 2: Opportunities to reduce energy and emissions growth aims to provide an overview of all relevant technological and system-wide measures to curb future oil demand and emissions growth from road freight transport. It reviews the status and prospects of alternative fuels, including natural gas, biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, and discusses the possible ways and extent to which the average fuel consumption of different types of road freight vehicles can be reduced. It also assesses the potential of systemic improvements, such as better logistics, for contributing to lower fuel demand growth from the sector.
• Chapter 3: Long-term outlook and policy insights first presents two alternative outlooks for road freight transport to mid-century through the analysis of two key scenarios. In the Reference Scenario, the outlook for future energy demand and CO2 emissions growth to 2050 is presented on the basis of all policies that are currently in place or have already been announced. This scenario is not a normative scenario that the IEA deems desirable or one that energy stakeholders should try to bring about. Based on a comparison of the two policy scenarios, Chapter 3 next provides a concise overview of the lessons learned and derives recommendations for policy makers. These policy insights explore options to reduce the road freight sector’s energy and emissions growth while improving the efficiency with which it can foster global economic activity and contribute to essential policy goals, such as energy security, climate change and air pollution.

184
Title: What role is there for electrofueltechnologies in Europeantransport’s low carbon future?
Author: Chris Mallins
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Transport & Environment / Cerulogy Proposed by: Chris Mallins
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Electro or e-fuels (or power to liquid/gas) are electricity-based gaseous or liquid fuels which can be used in internal combustion engines. According to a new report by Cerulogy for T&E, e-fuels only have meaningful climate benefits if strict sustainability criteria are observed throughout the production process. The key factors determining the sustainability of e-fuels are the source of electricity (it must be renewable), the source of CO2 (ideally air capture) as well as impacts on land and water.

185
Title: Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy
Author: Fatih Birol
Publication Year: 2017
Source: OECD/IEA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Bioenergy is a complex subject with many potential feedstocks, conversion processes and energy applications. It interacts strongly with the agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors, and its prospects are linked to the growth of a broader bioeconomy. Bioenergy can also sometimes be a controversial topic, and there is an increasing understanding that bioenergy can only expand if supplied and used in a sustainable manner.
This Roadmap re-examines the role of bioenergy in light of changes to the energy landscape over the past five years as well as recent experience in bioenergy policy, market development and regulation. It identifies the principal opportunities and the technical, policy and financial barriers to deployment, and it suggests a range of solutions to overcome them, outlining those which are available now and in the longer term. Many of these opportunities are highly suitable for emerging and developing economies experiencing rapid energy demand growth.
This publication is part of the new cycle of IEA Technology Roadmaps, a series that looks at the long term vision for clean energy technologies and offers guidance on the near-term priorities and key steps to accelerating technology development and deployment.
This Roadmap has been developed in in close co operation with the IEA Technology Collaboration Programme on Bioenergy and has benefited from extensive consultation with a wide range of international organisations and other stakeholders. We hope that this roadmap will play a valuable role by emphasising the potential for sustainable bioenergy and identifying the key opportunities and actions needed to fulfil its potential, as part of an enhanced international effort to provide new impetus to this important sector.

186
Title: Sustainability criteria for biofuels made from land and non-land based feedstocks
Author: Ben Allen David Baldock Silvia Nanni Catherine Bowyer
Publication Year: 2016
Source: IEEP Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The principal aim of this study is to define and articulate effective and workable sustainability criteria for the use of biomass in the production of energy, primarily in biofuels, in the post 2020 period. The main focus is on renewable transport fuel, and thus on biofuels and bio-liquids, but many of the criteria are applicable to the wider use of biomass for energy purposes. Certain criteria already apply for this purpose but they have not been re-examined to take account an increasing range of feedstocks and competing applications as well as evolving sustainability concerns. The report aims to increase understanding in this area as well as to propose potential ways forward.

187
Title: Interest Representation in the European Union: A Case Study of the Directive on the Transition to Second Generation Biofuels
Author: Patrick CUMMINS-TRIPODI Marco GILOTTO Andrei MORARU
Publication Year: 2017
Source: KU LEUVEN Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper identifies and analyses private actors’ and NGOs’ lobbying behaviour around Directive 2015/1513 on the transition to advanced biofuels (ILUC Directive). It is structured in two parts. Part I outlines the biofuels sector, the relevant EU legislation on biofuels, the main stakeholders, and the main issues of contention between them. Part II presents the theoretical framework, the methodology, and the main findings.
Data collection comprises qualitative (semi-structured interviews, document analysis) and quantitative (document analysis) methods. It is used to test a series of hypotheses derived from the literature and goes beyond them to paint a comprehensive picture of lobbying behaviour.
The main finding is that NGOs stand out as winners in comparison to industry players. Furthermore, this paper finds that specific interests favour access strategies and that their preferred target institution usually depends on the type of access goods they have to offer.

188
Title: Bioenergy and Bioeconomy – Carbon Value
Author: Skeer, J; Leme, R; Boshell, F
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2: AVIATION
Forum Area 3: MARITIME Forum Area 4:

In their recent report to the G20, IRENA and IEA have shown that bioenergy supply should expand to constitute about three-eighths of all renewable energy produced in the year 2050 (IEA/IRENA, 2017). But investment in bioenergy, particularly in plants to demonstrate the production of liquid biofuels from wood and grasses at scale, has been lagging behind what is needed. This is largely due to low oil prices and low carbon values in the market place, which make it difficult for liquid biofuels to compete with petroleum-based diesel and gasoline in the transport sector, although such biofuels are key to renewable energy supply for aviation, marine shipping, and heavy freight transport.
However, there are several technologies for advanced liquid biofuels which offer real potential to compete within the next two decades, assuming a substantial carbon value is put in place to meet the goals of Paris to keep global warming well below two degrees Celsius. Prospects for these advanced technologies, which make possible the use of a wide range of lignocellulosic resources – including rapidly growing grasses like energy cane and short rotation coppice wood from agroforestry – can be firmly supported by a realistic value of carbon in the marketplace. Advanced biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks do not appear cost effective at today’s oil prices and today’s market value for carbon. But both oil prices and carbon values are expected to increase over time. And ongoing RD&D efforts will bring down the costs of advanced biofuel technologies. So advanced liquid biofuels may well be extremely cost-competitive by the middle of the century – or sooner.

189
Title: Accelerating the Energy Transition through Innovation
Author: Dolf Gielen, Deger Saygin, Francisco Boshell and Arina Anisie (IRENA) Citation
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This working paper aims to shed light on the conditions needed to nurture low-carbon technology innovation. By assessing current status and future needs for such technologies, it seeks to identify the elements of a flexible policy framework for innovation, broadly suitable to enable decarbonisation of the energy sector between now and 2050. With these aims in mind, the potential and cost of emissions-abatement through low-carbon technologies has been assessed in 13 different sectors of the energy system, spanning both power generation and the end-use sectors of energy demand. In addition, international initiatives promoting the required innovation have been mapped for each sector. Specific findings for each technology and sector, in turn, are translated into high-level policy recommendations to spur low-carbon technology innovation. The envisaged of cultivation of effective, case-specific innovation policies would do much to help countries meet international climate goals, such as those set forth in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This assessment builds on and expands the analysis prepared at the request of the G20 Presidency (IEA and IRENA, 2017), which looks at how the energy transition could occur and how it would result in deep decarbonisation by 2050. It also builds on earlier REmap work by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that had a 2030 focus. The multifaceted “REmap” constitutes IRENA’s global roadmap to double the share of renewables in the energy mix by 2030, based on a detailed analysis of countries, regions and sectors focused on the period until 2030 and until 2050.

190
Title: THE RENEWABLE ROUTE TO SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT
Author: Dolf Gielen, Deger Saygin and Nicholas Wagner (IRENA)
Publication Year: 2016
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This working paper draws on IRENA’s engagement with these experts and expands on the transport findings published in IRENA’s report REmap: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future, 2016 Edition (IRENA, 2016a).
REmap is a global renewable energy roadmap that explores the possibility of significantly increasing the share of renewables in the global energy system by 2030. The paper also proposes an action agenda that can contribute to increasing renewable energy use and the sustainability of the transport sector. This working paper explores pathways for renewable energy and proposes an action agenda to inform national policy makers and technology experts of the areas requiring further work to increase the uptake of renewables in transport sector. It builds on the important inputs of the Transport Action Team members and a growing body of work at IRENA beyond REmap, including: technology briefs that include the latest technology and cost information for emerging renewable energy and transport technologies. This working paper is the result of these broad engagements. It is based on quantitative, countrybased studies and multiple stakeholder webinars focused on technology solutions, such as emerging biofuel technologies and electric mobility (IRENA 2015a,b).

191
Title: PERSPECTIVES FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION
Author: International Energy Agency and International Renewable Energy Agency
Publication Year: 2017
Source: OECD/IEA and IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Investment is the lifeblood of the global energy system. Individual decisions about how to direct capital to various energy projects – related to the collection, conversion, transport and consumption of energy resources – combine to shape global patterns of energy use and related emissions for decades to come. Government energy and climate policies seek to influence the scale and nature of investments across the economy, and long-term climate goals depend on their success. Understanding the energy investment landscape today and how it can evolve to meet decarbonisation goals are central elements of the energy transition. Around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stem from energy production and use, which puts the energy sector at the core of efforts to combat climate change. This report presents the perspectives on a low-carbon energy sector of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

192
Title: BIOFUELS FOR AVIATION: TECHNOLOGY BRIEF
Author: Susan van Dyk and Jack Saddler (University of British Columbia), Francisco Boshell, Deger Saygin, Alessandra Salgado and Amr Seleem (IRENA)
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: AVIATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a technology briefing with respect to biofuels in aviation prepared by IRENA. The reference describes the four certified pathways to produce bio-jet and elaborates further on those options. More specifically, it states that currently the vast majority of biojet fuels are derived from oleochemical feedstocks and use the HEFA pathway. This will likely remain the main conversion route over the next five to 10 years, as methods using biomass, lignocellulosic and algal sources, and other advanced bio-jet technologies, are still maturing. Thermochemical technologies are the most likely to provide the large volumes of advanced bio-jet required, partly because the intermediates produced biochemical routes to bio-jet are worth considerably more in chemical, lubricant and cosmetic markets. The refence concludes with the view that without specific interventions and incentives directed towards bio-jet production and use, current policies in jurisdictions such as the U.S. will favour the production of renewable diesel over bio-jet.

193
Title: BIOGAS FOR ROAD VEHICLES: TECHNOLOGY BRIEF
Author: Frank Scholwin, Johan Grope and Angela Clinkscales (Institute of Biogas, Waste Management and Energy), Francisco Boshell, Deger Saygin, AlessandraSalgado and Amr Seleem (IRENA)
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a technology briefing with respect to biogas for road vehicles prepared by IRENA. The reference elaborates on process and technology status, costs, performance, sustainability and potential and barriers. It concludes by presenting a few best practice examples.

194
Title: INNOVATION OUTLOOK ADVANCED LIQUID BIOFUELS
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2016
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Innovation Outlook: Advanced Liquid Biofuels provides a global technology outlook for advanced biofuels between 2015 and 2045, specifically for liquid transport fuels for road, shipping and aviation use. It includes details of the technical and non-technical barriers to commercial deployment and the role of innovation in overcoming these barriers. It provides strategies to support advanced biofuels at all stages of the innovation chain. The potential for advanced biofuels is great but so are the challenges. A competitive advanced biofuels industry will depend on innovative technology and supply chains, market development and policy support.The purpose of the research underlying this report is to provide a global technology outlook for advanced biofuels in 2015-2045 specifically for liquid transport fuels for road, shipping and aviation use. This report concentrates on the role of innovation in stimulating advanced biofuels pathways that have not reached widespread commercialisation. The report is aimed at a wide range of stakeholders, including policy makers, investors, and project and technology developers worldwide. It aims to provide insight into potential technology and commercialisation developments and challenges, and the role that different stakeholders and IRENA can play in accelerating advanced biofuels pathway development and deployment. It complements IRENA’s Renewable Energy Technology Innovation Process, a guide developed byIRENA to assist countries, upon request, to choose assessment methods, identify key sectors and appropriate strategies, create co-ordinated policy portfolios, and define roles and responsibilities for implementation (IRENA, 2015). This report should also be read in conjunction with IRENA’s Renewable Energy Innovation Policy: Success Criteria and Strategies (IRENA, 2013a).

195
Title: Electrofuels-what role in EU transport decarbonisation?
Author: Carlos Calvo Ambel
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Transport & Environment Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Electro or e-fuels (or power to liquid/gas) are electricity-based gaseous or liquid fuels which can be used in internal combustion engines. According to a new report by Cerulogy for T&E, e-fuels only have meaningful climate benefits if strict sustainability criteria are observed throughout the production process. The key factors determining the sustainability of e-fuels are the source of electricity (it must be renewable), the source of CO2 (ideally air capture) as well as impacts on land and water.

196
Title: Renewable Energy Options for Shipping
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2015
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a technology brief that summarises the current status and applications of renewable energy solutions for shipping, along with the barriers and opportunities for further deployment. It provides recommendations to policy makers to promote realistic renewable energy solutions that can support efficiency and reduced emissions in the important, growing shipping sector.

197
Title: ROAD TRANSPORT: THE COST OF RENEWABLE SOLUTIONS
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2013
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report outlines the principal findings of the latest analysis by IRENA of options available for road transport. These include a range of biofuel, biogas and electrification options. These results for renewable solutions for road transport are preliminary findings in what is a fast moving and dynamic situation for advanced biofuels and electrification of transport. The analysis will be updated in 2013 and integrated into an assessment of the cost of renewable solutions for air and sea transport to provide a more complete picture of the costs for the transport sector. This will also include additional data that is likely to emerge over the coming year from the first-of-a-kind advanced biofuels plants that are just starting up, and from more widespread distribution of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and pure electric vehicles (EVs). The analysis summarised in this paper represents a static analysis of costs. Yet finding the optimal mix of renewable transport solutions in a country’s transport energy mix requires dynamic modelling, not just of the transportation system, but of the energy system as a whole.This analysis of the costs of renewable solutions for road transport – based on the latest available data and information – supports the transparent assessment of the role different renewable solutions for road transport can play in decarbonising the transport sector, improving energy security and promoting economic growth.

198
Title: BIOENERGY FROM DEGRADED LAND IN AFRICA
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This report attempts to give a more precise estimate of the bioenergy potential from land pledged to the Bonn Challenge, concentrating on the pledges made so far in Africa. It poses the following research question: What is the sustainable potential of biomass for energy from restored degraded land pledged to the Bonn Challenge by African countries? It takes an overall view of the pledges in this light but considers Kenya and Rwanda in more detail because more data are available for these countries.The analysis shows that around 6 EJ of primary energy per year could in theory be sustainably extracted from SRWC cultivated on land pledged for restoration under the African Forest Landscape initiative. This amounts to about three-quarters of the land ultimately to be pledged. This proportion would account for 87% of TPES projected in 2050 for the 15 countries studied. However, this assumes bioenergy crops will be planted on the entire pledged area and that the most productive (highest yielding) land will be selected to plant such crops.

199
Title: Biofuel Potential in Southeast Asia
Author: Jeffrey Skeer, Shunichi Nakada and Yasuko Inoue
Publication Year: 2017
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Substantial resource potential exists to sustainably expand supplies of liquid biofuels in Southeast Asia. Volumes of lignocellulosic feedstocks for biofuels can be expanded through more systematic collection of agricultural residues, as well as through planting of grasses and trees on land made available through more intensive cultivation of croplands and reduced waste and losses in the food chain. If these feedstocks were converted to advanced liquid biofuels using processes that are being demonstrated at commercial scale and becoming increasingly cost-competitive (IRENA, 2016b), advanced liquid biofuels could displace a significant share of petroleum-based transport fuel in the region. This paper focuses in particular on five countries in southeast Asia which are each both member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and member economies within the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC): Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.

200
Title: SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Author: Shunichi Nakada (IRENA), Deger Saygin (IRENA) and Dolf Gielen (IRENA).
Publication Year: 2014
Source: International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The objective of this working paper is not to add yet another data input to this already complicated prognosis, bioenrgy. Rather, it addresses itself to a number of crucial questions in view of biomass’ large demand potential in 2030 (IRENA, 2014a), as well as the uncertainties concerning supply in a sustainable, affordable way and how this might be ensured. This working paper starts by describing the methodology IRENA applied to estimate the biomass supply potential and costs (Section 2). It continues by presenting the current bioenergy market situation (Section 3). Section 4 compares the total biomass demand estimates according to REmap 2030 with these supply estimates. Section 5 discusses the uncertainties in realising the demand and biomass supply growth estimates between now and 2030. Section 6 discusses the biomass supply cost estimates. Section 7 outlines the sustainability issues around biomass. In view of the uncertainties in bioenergy growth and sustainability, Sections 8 and 9 identify the technology options and hedging strategies, as well as policy needs, needed to strengthen bioenergy use and supply growth. The working paper concludes with Section 10, which outlines the next steps for improving expanding the bioenergy work of IRENA based on the findings of this paper.

201
Title: Electric vehicle life cycle analysis and raw material availability
Author: Yoann Le Petit
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Transport & Environment Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This briefing addresses two of the criticisms against electric vehicles (EV), their environmental impact on a lifecycle basis; and the availability and use of critical metals. It compares the performance of EVs based upon charging using different electricity mixes across Europe to a conventional diesel vehicle, and demonstrates that a shift delivers climate benefits today, even in countries with the highest grid carbon intensity. Low grid carbon intensity now and in the future delivers substantial climate benefits.
The second part of this briefing looks at the demand and availability of critical raw materials (such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earths) used in batteries and electric motors. There can be expected to be a massive increase in demand arising from a growth in electric vehicles. The briefing considers current and projected supply and demand, and concludes that physical shortages of such materials are unlikely. However, the extraction of these metals needs to be certified against high social and environmental standards. In the long term, re-use, recycling, and progressive substitution of these materials should generalise.

202
Title: CO2-Based Synthetic Fuel: Assessment of Potential European Capacity and Environmental Performance
Author: Adam Christensen,Chelsea Petrenko
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study aims to improve our understanding of the potential contribution that CO2-based synthetic fuels could make towards the European Union’s (EU) climate mitigation goals. We project potential volumes of these fuels that could be produced in EU Member States based on a financial analysis and deployment model, taking into account technology readiness, potential subsidies or other policy support, and expected changes in renewable electricity prices. We then assess expected impacts of CO2-based synthetic fuel production on electricity generation and consumption in the EU. We estimate the GHG intensity of CO2-based synthetic fuels, including both direct emissions from synthesizing the fuels and indirect emissions resulting from increased demand for electricity from the grid. Lastly, we estimate the total GHG reductions that could potentially be achieved by CO2-based synthetic fuels across the EU, compared to climate goals.

203
Title: Life Cycle Analysis of the Climate Impact of Electric Vehicles
Author: Dr. Maarten Messagie – Vrije Universiteit Brussel - research group MOBI
Publication Year:
Source: Transport & Environment Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology, commonly used for the environmental assessment of vehicle technologies (or any other product/system). LCA studies consider, all the environmentally significant processes throughout the life cycle of vehicles, from raw material extraction, production of components, assembly, transport, vehicle use to the end-of-life treatment. Since all the life stages are covered from a cradle to grave perspective, LCA prevents problem shifting. However, the key question is how to make robust policy decisions when vehicle-LCA literature consists sometimes of divergent results. To help the debate, the document contains key findings from literature on vehicle-LCA and specific calculations of scenarios in which the influence of the carbon footprint on the performance of electric vehicles in Europe is discussed.

204
Title: Crude tall oil low ILUC risk assessment
Author: Daan Peters, Viktorija Stojcheva
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Ecofys Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This is an update of the initial 2013 report prepared by Ecofys for UPM to assess whether CTO can be regarded as a residue and whether the feedstock would be low ILUC risk, meaning its use for biofuels would not lead to displacement effects of existing other uses. The important change since the previous report is that biofuel production at UPM has started, so any effects of CTO usage for biofuels has on the CTO market would be visible.

205
Title: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION A SUSTAINABLE, LOW COST, RELIABLE AND WIN WIN BECCS SOLUTION
Author: David Bolzonella, Stenano Bozzeto, Bruce Dale, Paolo Foglia, Piero Gattoni, Paolo Inglese, Biagio Pecorino, Fabrizio Sibilla, Ezio Veggia, Lorenzo Maggioni, Guido Bezzi
Publication Year:
Source: CIB Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This article proposes an inexpensive, widely-proven and widely-applicable means of reversing climate change using bioenergy and associated carbon capture and storage. We propose a systemic approach to agriculture, where we obtain food and feed and energy/biomaterials from the same hectare of land already cultivated or set aside. We achieve this target via a combination of already existing and new farming techniques and while we photosynthesize more carbon in the crops we
sequestrate CO2 from the atmosphere and we store it in the soil, making it richer in organic matter and thus more fertile. We call these techniques biogasdoneright® since the whole farm activity is designed around the anaerobic digester (AD). The term “biogasdoneright®” is also used to describe a technological platform that combines Anaerobic Digestion (AD) technologies and other Industrial and Agricultural practices.

206
Title: Climate solutions for EU industry: interaction between electrification, CO2 use and CO2 storage
Author: Ruta Malinauskaite
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Zero Emission Platform (ZEP) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The capture of carbon emissions from Energy-Intensive Industries (EIIs) for utilisation in new products is gaining traction as a potential cost-effective way of addressing industrial carbon emissions in Europe. Collectively, these processes are known as CCU. The extent to which a CCU process can contribute towards climate change mitigation depends on the lifecycle of the product and whether and when the captured CO2 is released into atmosphere.
Furthermore, assessment of different types of CCU must be measured against a robust and transparent counterfactual. This report concludes that treating all forms of CCU as de facto CO2 abatement could have serious detrimental impacts on efforts to reduce emissions, and that each application of CCU must be comprehensively assessed on its ability to contribute to long-term climate mitigation.Building on analysis of the ‘Indicative Sink Factor’ (ISF) of different types of CCU, the report also analyses the potential market size for different CCU products and processes in Europe. The analysis suggests that the emerging markets for CO2 (re)use will only be able to address a small proportion of the emissions that will need to be abated to meet climate targets under EU legislation and the Paris Agreement.Taking into account the challenges around electrification and the limited scalability of CCU, it can be concluded that these solutions must be combined with making available large-scale permanent storage for captured CO2 to meet the required level of reductions, thus enabling the long-term sustainability of these key industries in a low carbon Europe. Given the critical importance of CCS in enabling decarbonisation of Europe’s EIIs, this paper recommends that EU policy focuses on the rapid deployment of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure to support these important sectors. A failure to provide such enabling infrastructure in the short term will increase CO2 liability risk and undermine investments in jobs and economic activity.

207
Title: WWF-Studie 2016: Auf der Ölspur – Berechnungen zu einer palmölfreieren Welt
Author: Ilka Petersen, Jenny Walther-Thoss
Publication Year: 2017
Source: WWF Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a WWF study on palm oil with emphasis on the situation particularly in Germany. It presents the advantages of palm oil that are difficult to beat and the criticism that palm oil receives. The study includes some statistical data on the production and consumption of palm oil. Alternatives/substitution options are presented and analyzed on the basis of ecological challenges that will appear (surface requirements, GHG emissions, biodiversity) through substitution of palm oil by other types of vegetable oils. The study clearly states that no palm oil is not an option either and concludes with a list of recommendations to consumers.

208
Title: ∅ILUC ETHANOL
Author: JAMES COGAN
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a presentation on ethanol and iLUC prepared by Ethanol Europe Renewables.

209
Title: Assessing the case for sequential cropping to produce low ILUC risk biomethane
Author: Daan Peters, Matthias Spöttle, Ann-Kathrin Kühner, Masoud Zabeti
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Ecofys Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a presentation of the study on low iLUC risk biomethane produced from sequential cropping. It illustrates the first positive observations when sequential cropping is implemented and urges for further research into the scalability of sequential cropping, especially in northern Europe.

210
Title: Methodologies for the identification and certification of Low ILUC risk biofuels
Author: Daan Peters, Matthias Spöttle, Thomas Haehl, Ann-Kathrin Kühner and Maarten Guijpers (Ecofys), Tjeerd Jan Stomph and Wopke van der Werf (WUR) and Martin Grass (Intertek)
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Ecofys, WUR, Intertek Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In this report, Ecofys proposes two methodologies to identify and demonstrate low ILUC risk biofuel feedstock production through the application of yield increase or unused land. The yield increase methodology is based on productivity increases of single target crops but also includes the possibility to apply multi-cropping systems. The implementation and certification of ILUC mitigation measures will come at a financial cost. On the other hand, will resulting additional biomass production also lead to increased revenues. The precise costs and revenues depends on how much additional biomass is produced and what the required investments were to achieve this, which can differ from case to case. In the end, it will be up to economic operators to assess whether a business case exists to pursue low ILUC risk certification.

211
Title: Biofuels and food security
Author: Carlo Hamelinck
Publication Year: 2013
Source: ePURE, Ecofys Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This comprehensive overview of the main aspects of the interrelation between food and biofuels synthesizes previous research on the subject. It addresses the causality between biofuels production, global crop commodity prices and eventual implications for food security, especially in poor regions and for poor households. This overview attempts to bring together the relevant economic forces influencing global (and local) food prices, many of which are absent in other analyses. Thus, it addresses low stock level impacts on price volatility, how cheap food encourages waste, to what extent global prices transmit to local prices across regions, and why high prices encourage local agricultural investment and food security.

212
Title: Grow but cherish your environment
Author:
Publication Year: 2014
Source: The Economist Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is an Economist article on the palm oil in west Africa. It describes the controversial topic of palm oil production and how this has affected Malaysia, Indonesia and Africa.

213
Title: Waste and residues availability for biofuel production
Author: Detlef Evers
Publication Year: 2017
Source: MVaK Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a presentation dealing with waste and residues availability for biofuel production. It focuses primarily on Germany and EU and presents the potential liquid biofuels produced in Germany and in EU from waste and residues along with the resulting GHG reduction of road transport emissions per year.

214
Title: Impartial Analysis for Policy Making
Author: The Institute for Impact Assessment and Scientific Evaluation of Policy and Legislation
Publication Year: 2017
Source: IAI Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The Proposal for a Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (recast) is part of an interdependent package of energy legislation. This IAI study scrutinises the Impact Assessments on renewable energy and bioenergy accompanying that proposal, and their coherence with the proposal in the context of the full legislative package. A number of significant shortcomings in the evidence have been identified, which severely weaken the foundation for this part of the EU’s energy policy. The study refers to the other pieces of energy legislation and their Impact Assessments where directly relevant. It builds on the previous IAI study scrutinising the Inception Impact Assessment on renewable energy1. In particular, this current study identifies shortcomings and inconsistencies in the presented evidence and, where sufficient evidence is available, investigates further to offer alternative approaches.

215
Title: CROPS OF THE BIOFRONTIER: IN SEARCH OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CROPPING
Author: Stephanie Searle, Chelsea Petrenko, Ella Baz, Chris Malins
Publication Year: 2016
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

With this research, we seek to identify and describe the opportunity for sustainable energy cropping through fieldwork and literature review, including case studies of early energy crop projects in Europe. Two case studies, supported by fieldwork, consider cropping on land that is marginal for agriculture, and one of the cases also looks at the potential for double cropping. The third case study, based on literature review, considers the environmental benefits that could be achieved through the wet cultivation of peatlands for biomass in Europe. These case studies augment a sparse literature base on the environmental risks and benefits of an emerging and rapidly evolving industry. There is reason to believe that energy crops could potentially deliver environmental benefits when grown on previously disturbed, abandoned agricultural land. While literature studies comparing biodiversity and carbon stocks in energy crop plantations to marginal land are scant, it is clear that in many cases perennial energy crops can improve agricultural land previously used for annual row crops and may offer similar environmental benefits to existing unmanaged grassland. The literature suggests that growing perennial energy crops may rehabilitate agricultural land faster than simple
abandonment.

216
Title: Promoting renewable energy sources in the EU after 2020
Author: Alex Benjamin Wilson
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Parliament Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The Briefing on the topic of promoting renewable energy sources in the EU after 2020 consists of an overview of the background, the Commission proposal itself and the stakeholders’ views on the proposed Directive.

217
Title: Understanding options for ILUC mitigation
Author: Sammy El Takriti, Chris Malins, and Stephanie Searle
Publication Year: 2016
Source: ICCT Proposed by: Chris Mallins
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper surveys the existing literature on methodologies related to the certification of low ILUC biofuel projects through different measures. It also assesses the potential challenges, risks, and loopholes that could arise from the use of these methodologies. We find that several methodologies lack detailed requirements on “additionality,” which significantly diminishes the credibility of those methodologies and reveals potential loopholes in the proposed measures to avoid ILUC. Additionality is the demonstration that a project reduces GHG emissions below those that would have occurred in a baseline scenario (i.e., in the absence of that project). In the case of biofuels, demonstrating additionality means demonstrating that feedstock production or use is really additional to what would have happened in a baseline scenario without biofuel demand. We conclude that the concept of low indirect impact biofuels, as described in the analyzed methodologies, is still in its infancy stage, and would require substantial supplementary requirements and risk analyses if it were to be included in a new European legislation as an additional sustainability criterion for the production of biofuels and bioenergy post-2020. This paper examines the concept of low indirect impact biofuels, how it is addressed in European legislation, and the existing literature on how it can be implemented and certified through different regional and local measures. We also assess the potential challenges, risks, and loopholes that could arise from the certification of low indirect impact biofuels. The emphasis here is on biofuels feedstock; however, the discussion would be similar for feedstock used for bioenergy or biomaterials in general.

218
Title: Cattle pastures and other degraded lands become new oil palm plantations
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference refers to a newly published study that offers the first regional look at land being converted to palm oil plantations in Latin America. The article informs that most palm oil plantations in Latin America are being established on previously cleared lands, particularly cattle pastures. The study also shows that most palm oil produced in Latin America is consumed in the region, instead of being exported to distant markets like Europe, as there is a strong internal demand for palm oil in the region. The study suggests that this is in part driven by the surge of recent domestic biofuel targets.

219
Title: The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production
Author: Ed Gallagner
Publication Year: 2008
Source: Renewable Fuels Energy Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Biofuels have been proposed as a solution to several pressing global concerns: energy security, climate change and rural development. This has led to generous subsidies in order to stimulate supply. In 2003, against a backdrop of grain mountains and payments to farmers for set-aside land, the European Union agreed the Biofuels Directive. Under this directive, member states agreed to set indicative targets for biofuels use and promote their uptake. Many environmental groups hailed a new revolution in green motoring.This review examines evidence of the indirect effects of increasing demand for biofuels and makes recommendations that provide a direction for policy to deliver sustainable biofuels into the UK and EU transport fuels market. The review has been undertaken by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA)2 at the request of the UK Government. The RFA is an independent non-departmental public body with the aim to help the UK to achieve its renewable transport fuel targets sustainably by administering the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation effectively and efficiently and by reporting to the Secretary of State on its effects. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the RFA.

220
Title: Long-term effects of crop rotation, manure and mineral fertilisationon carbon sequestration and soil fertility
Author: Loretta Triberti, Anna Nastri, Guido Baldoni
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Carbon sequestration, recently advocated to mitigate climate change, needs a thorough knowledge ofthe dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC), whose study requires long-term experiments. A field trialstarted in 1967 is still in progress in the Southeast Po valley (Italy). It compares a 9-year rotation(corn–wheat–corn–wheat–corn–wheat–alfalfa–alfalfa–alfalfa), two 2-year successions (corn–wheat andsugarbeet–wheat), continuous corn and continuous wheat. During the first 18 years (up to 1984) wheatcrops were always followed by catch crops of silage corn. Within each rotation, three rates of cattlemanure have been factorially combined with three mineral NP rates. In 1984 the highest manure appli-cation was stopped. Wheat straw and corn stalks have always been removed from the field. Since 1972 upto now every year we have determined the organic C and total N contents in soil samples collected from0.40-m depth. During the first 18 years (in the presence of the catch crop) SOC exponentially declined,probably as a consequence of the intensification of tillage depth and crop succession with respect to theprevious conventional agriculture. The intensification regarded ploughing, which became deeper, thenumber of cropped species that in most treatments was reduced, and mineral N application, which, onaverage, increased. The drop was faster in the sugarbeet–wheat succession than in the 9-yr rotation andcontinuous wheat. After 1985, without the catch crop, SOC linearly increased, faster in the 9-yr rota-tion and continuous wheat than in sugarbeet–wheat. The results can be ascribed to the amount and C/Nratio of debris remaining in the field after each crop, even after having taken away wheat straw andcorn stalks. The debris consisted of sugarbeet tops, with a low C/N ratio, and of roots and basal culms ofthe two cereal crops with higher C/N ratio. Mineral fertilizers significantly increased SOC, probably forthe greater amount of cereal roots and sugarbeet tops in more fertilized plots. The influence of manurewas less intense, but its benefits lasted longer than 18 years after its interruption. Soil N content wasmore related to accumulated organic matter than to mineral N fertilisation. In conclusion the highest Csequestration was obtained with manure addition, with the highest rate of mineral fertilizers, and in therotation containing the alfalfa ley. The effects of these factors were not additive.

221
Title: SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE PALM OIL SUPPLY CHAINS NEED MORE THAN TRACEABILITY
Author: no author
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Solidaridad Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is an article that touches on the issue of traceability of palm oil supply chains. The author points out that in order to create a truly sustainable palm sector, industries and NGOs active in the palm oil supply chains need to shift their focus from segregated and traceable supply chains to a more inclusive supply chain with room for improvements on the ground. Through an example, she illustrates the two downsides of traceability and calls for adopting a different approach which continues to reward suppliers of traceable, segregated sustainable palm oil material, but with the important condition that the supply chains should include all key stakeholders, even independent smallholders.

222
Title: Improving the accounting of renewable electricity in transport within the new EU Renewable Energy Directive
Author: Christof Timpe Dominik Seebach Joß Bracker Peter Kasten
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Oeko Institute Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This policy paper assesses whether the accounting rules for electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E) proposed in the RED II are consistent and whether they create appropriate incentives for the increased use of low-carbon energy in the transport sector. As starting points, Chapter 2 gives an overview of the situation of renewable energy in the EU electricity market and Chapter 3 summarises the most important effects of an intensified interplay of the transport and electricity sectors. Chapter 4 analyses the proposed accounting mechanisms for renewable electricity within the blending obligation on fuel suppliers. Chapter 5 assesses the role of renewable electricity for transport in the context of the overall Union target for renewable energy. A summary of the recommendations from the individual chapters is provided in Chapter 6.

223
Title: An outline of sustainability criteria for synthetic fuels used in transport
Author: Joß Bracker With contributions from Christof Timpe
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Oeko Institute Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2: POWER to X
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Generally, electricity-based synthetic fuels are fuels based on hydrogen and hydrocarbons, which can be produced by electricity. Hydrogen produced by electricity (Power-to-Gas) can serve as a transport fuel in fuel cell-based vehicles without further processing. With the input of CO2 (e.g. from biogas plants), hydrogen can be synthesised and refined to different liquid transport fuels (Power to-Liquid) that have a higher energy density than pure hydrogen and a broader range of possible applications. This policy paper sets out the most important issues which should be addressed by such criteria and outlines possible criteria approaches. For the development of a concrete criteria set, a much more thorough assessment of the relevant issues is necessary than it is possible in this short paper. The analysis in this paper concentrates on the sustainability aspects of the production of liquid synthetic fuels (methanol, liquid hydrocarbons), with most arguments also applying to hydrogen.

224
Title: MHPS Europe recommendations on the implications of the ongoing Renewable Energy Directive recast for the deployment of Power-to-X Technologies
Author:
Publication Year: 2017
Source: MHPS Europe Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is the position paper of MHPS Europe on RED II for the deployment of Power-to-X technologies. MHPS Europe asks for (i) definitions that do not restrict the use of different feedstocks and technology paths, (ii) the development of a robust Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology for the calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of these novel fuels which overcomes regulatory disparities in the different markets, (iii) A binding share of renewable energy supplied for final consumption in the transport sector, with the possibility to use other measures targeting volumes, energy content or GHG emission savings to ensure the achievement of that share, (iv) allowing the use of Guarantees of Origin (GoO) and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), including through concepts such as “virtual power plants” which can provide real-time monitoring and validation of multiple producers and consumers, while avoiding double counting.

225
Title: Bas Eickhout, Green MEP: Sustainability criteria will distinguish ‘good’ and ‘bad’ biofuels
Author: Sarantis Michalopoulos
Publication Year: 2017
Source: EURACTIV Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is an interview of Bas Eickhout, a Dutch MEP of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. He is the rapporteur for the Parliament’s ENVI committee’s draft report on the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II). Mr. Eickhout elaborates on his approach towards the EC’s Renewable Energy Directive II proposal and on his view that there must be a differentiation among first-generation biofuels. He shares his opinion on the EU’s reluctance to adopt electric cars and comments on the impact of the German election on the case considering that the Greens will not be part of the coalition. Mr. Eickhout also comments on the criticism the Commission’s impact assessment process has received and provides an answer to the question whether he is convinced about the sustainability of this approach.

226
Title: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
Author: General Secretariat of the Council
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is the Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, as adopted by the General Secretariat of the Council.

227
Title: EU winter package
Author: George Ogleby
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Edie.net Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

As the European Commission (EC) today (30 November) unveils its energy winter package aimed at helping to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, edie analyses the major talking points of the document’s key proposals.The document sets out the EU’s planned transition to an energy efficient and low-carbon economy
The EC’s 1,000 page document is a series of legislative proposals designed to achieve three objectives; putting energy efficiency first, achieving global leadership in renewable energy and providing a fair deal for consumers. The 10-year package sought to underpin commitments made in the Paris Agreement, where the EU pledged to cut emissions by 40% on 1990 levels by 2030. Proposals include plans to increase energy efficiency levels by 30% by 2030, accelerate clean energy innovation, renovate Europe’s buildings and step-up the coal phase-out.
In the build-up to the document’s release, a host of multi-sector businesses warned that the EC’s current proposals were insufficiently ambitious to deliver policy clarity. Today’s document, which still faces a lengthy review by the European Parliament and member states, has been met with varied response from industry experts.

228
Title: Renewable ethanol drives EU decarbonisation
Author: Craig Winneker
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ePURE Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOCHEMICAL Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a 2-slides presentation of ePURE that addresses the threat imposed by the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) to phase out ethanol, which is one of the EU’s best options for reducing greenhouse gases and decarbonizing transport.

229
Title: ETIP Bioenergy position on the European Commission proposal for a revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II)
Author: ETIP Bioenergy
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Technology and Innovation Platform (ETIP) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The European Technology and Innovation Platform (ETIP) Bioenergy aims to contribute to the development of sustainable, cost-competitive world-class bioenergy value chains and the creation of a healthy bioenergy industry in the European Union, through a process of guidance, prioritisation and promotion of research, technology development and demonstration. Bioenergy encompasses a wide range of value chains, from many feedstock types and conversion technologies to essentially all possible energy carriers. Technological and commercial maturity differs between these chains, which mean that effective policy instruments will need to take account of these differences. For example, new innovative technologies for biofuels (biofuels made from feedstocks specified in RED Annex IX, part A) will require a different type of support than technologies commercially available at scale for e.g. biofuels made from Annex IX, part B. This will be a key challenge for the RED II and its implementation in member states.
In various responses from a broad range of parties, much has already been said and discussed about the RED II proposal, part of the European Commission’s Winter Package published in November 2016. In our response, we focus on the key elements on which ETIP bioenergy has a specific position, which is in innovation and technology development for sustainable energy applications of biomass.

230
Title: EU bioenergy policy: Ensuring that the provisions on bioenergy in the recast EU Renewable Energy Directive deliver genuine climate benefits
Author: Alex Mason
Publication Year: 2017
Source: WWF Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a WWF briefing paper on EU bioenergy policy. It summarises the evidence on the impacts of various types of EU bioenergy use, focusing on the climate aspects. It then assesses the policy proposals put forward by the European Commission and considers what changes to those may be necessary to ensure that bioenergy used in the EU is genuinely sustainable from an ecological, social and climate perspective. The paper does not attempt to cover the entire global biomass sector (much of which consists of traditional subsistence fuelwood in developing countries) and is without prejudice to whatever bioenergy policies may be appropriate in third countries. Instead it considers the specific question of what types of bioenergy should actively be incentivised, for example through subsidies, blending mandates or other policy incentives permitted under EU law.

231
Title: THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S RENEWABLE ENERGY PROPOSAL FOR 2030
Author: ICCT
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ICCT Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a summary of the European Commission’s Renewable Energy Proposal for 2030 by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

232
Title: EBB position on RED II – 2020-30 EU Renewables in Transport
Author: EBB
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Biodesiel Board (EBB) Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: FUTURE CONCEPTS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This Position Paper provides the detailed position and suggestions of the EU biodiesel industry to unlock the potential of this new, EU-based, renewable source of transport energy. In the frame of the upcoming negotiations on the post-2020 EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), the position paper lists the points that are of crucial importance, such as policy continuity, ambitious targets, sustainability criteria, realistic deployment of advanced biofuels, reduction of GHG emissions, deployment of higher biodiesel blends and downside in the EU economy, jobs and agriculture as a result of unreasoned phase-out of the EU biodiesel sector.

233
Title: FuelsEurope-Position Paper Renewable Energy Directive II
Author: Daniel Leuckx
Publication Year: 2017
Source: FuelsEurope Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Position paper of FuelsEurope on the Renewable Energy Directive II. FuelsEurope welcomes the Commission’s proposal on the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) and recognises that the deployment of renewable energy is one of the main measures to tackle security of supply and climate change. FuelsEurope considers that transport can play an important role in achieving the EU-wide renewable energy target of at least 27% renewables in 2030. Homogeneous policy across the EU will be key in creating conditions that remain predictable and stable over the long term and that prevent fragmentation of the EU single energy market.

234
Title: LSB position paper EP AMENDMENTS
Author:
Publication Year:
Source: LSB Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference consists of the explicit position of the Leaders of Sustainable Biofuels (LSB) on the amendments to the recast of the Renewables Energy Directive (RED II) proposed by ENVI.

235
Title: LSB position paper European Parliament September 2017
Author: Marko Janhunen
Publication Year: 2017
Source: LSB Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is the position paper of the Leaders of Sustainable Biofuels (LSB) on the recast of the Renewables Energy Directive (RED II). LSB (i) urges the European Parliament to adopt a dedicated binding target for advanced biofuels produced from Annex IX part A feedstocks, (ii) sees a clear need for separate Annex IX part A and part B in order to support investments in new technologies (Part A), (iii) urges the European Parliament to promote long-term policy stability by not engaging in discussions on the feedstock list based on Annex IX part A, (iv) advises that including the accounting of indirect emissions should not be legally binding as it is based on immature scientific assumptions, and (v) claims that cascading and respecting the waste hierarchy are principles to which Member States should adhere to as much as possible. However, in the case of fighting transport emissions strict legal application of these principles could be counterproductive.

236
Title: How to make the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) work for renewable electricity in transport
Author: Laura Buffet
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Transport & Environment Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

In November 2016 the Commission presented its new proposal for a Renewable Energy Directive in the 2021-2030 period. The main elements of the proposal on transport are to reduce the cap on food and feed-based biofuels to 3.8% in 2030 and to establish a mandate on fuel suppliers, requiring them to blend 6.8% of advanced fuels by 2030 (T&E’s position on biofuels in the RED can be found here).
Although the Commission recognises the key role of renewable electricity, the RED II proposal – just like the RED I legislation currently in force – does little to effectively stimulate the use of renewable electricity in transport. Moreover it does not ensure that new renewable electricity capacity is built to fulfil the increased transport electricity demand. This briefing summarises how the REDII could accelerate the use of renewable electricity in transport.

237
Title: The ‘Power-to-liquids’ Trap
Author: Ana Serdoner, Keith Whiriskey
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Bellona Europa Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reinvention of kerosene for the outdated fossil lamps has taken its modern form. The most recent alternative to the already existing, efficient climate mitigation solutions are synthetic fossil fuels produced by using renewable energy sources. The purpose of this report is to debunk the myths of that so-called climate change mitigation pathway and the promises it claims. Finally, it aims to develop recommndations on how to avoid the pitfalls of Power to Liquids. This report explores: a) current impact assessments of the synthetic fossil fuel production, b) potential pitfalls of the technology related to the current policy framework, c) recommendations for the alternative paths of climate mitigation.

238
Title: 2016 legislative proposal for the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive for advanced biofuels
Author: Ruta Baltause
Publication Year: 2017
Source: DG Energy, European Commission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a presentation on the recast of the RED II for advanced biofuels. It outlines the Commission’s strategy on low emission mobility on biofuels, as well as the objectives of the RED II. The reference also illustrates the difference between RES-T target and proposed obligation and elaborates further on the latter.

239
Title: Renewable energy deployment in the European Union
Author: Banja M, Monforti-Ferrario F, Bódis K,Jäger-Waldau A, Taylor N,Dallemand JF, Scarlat N
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: BIOMASS RESOURCES Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The report presents an overview of renewable energy development and progress expected by 2020, as forecasted in the EU Member States’ reporting under the Renewable Energy Directive and projected in the EU Reference 2016 and EUCO27 scenarios. The report compares the progress achieved between 2005 and 2015, as reported by EU Member States in their progress reports and the Eurostat SHARES Tool, with the expected results as set out in their national renewable energy action plans. The report goes on to describe in detail each Member State’s overall contribution to the development of renewable energy since 2005. The findings draw on the Member States’ reporting under the Renewable Energy Directive, the progress each country has made in the use of each renewable energy source and the contribution of renewable energy in each Member State to the heating/cooling, electricity and transport sectors. Findings are summarised in standardised tables and graphs, enabling quick comparison between different countries and for the EU as a whole.

240
Title: Co-production of synthetic fuels and district heat from biomass residues, carbon dioxide and electricity: Performance and cost analysis
Author: Ilkka Hannula
Publication Year: 2015
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2: GASIFICATION
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Large-scale systems suitable for the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG), methanol or gasoline (MTG) are examined using a self-consistent design, simulation and cost analysis framework. Three basic production routes are considered: (1) production from biomass via gasification; (2) from carbon dioxide and electricity via water electrolysis; (3) from biomass and electricity via hybrid process combining elements from routes (1) and (2). Process designs are developed based on technologies that are either commercially available or successfully demonstrated at precommercial scale. The prospective economics of future facilities coproducing fuels and district heat are evaluated from the perspective of a synthetic fuel producer. The levelised production costs range from 18e37 V/GJ for natural gas, 21e40 V/GJ for methanol and 23e48 V/GJ for gasoline, depending on the production route. For a given end-product, the lowest costs are associated with thermochemical plant configurations, followed by hybrid and electrochemical plants.

241
Title: Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in the European context: A techno-economic assessment
Author: Ilkka Hannula
Publication Year: 2016
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GASIFICATION Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

Potential to increase biofuels output from a gasification-based biorefinery using external hydrogen supply (enhancement) was investigated. Up to 2.6 or 3.1-fold increase in biofuel output could be attained for gasoline or methane production over reference plant configurations, respectively. Such enhanced process designs become economically attractive over non-enhanced designs when the average cost of low-carbon hydrogen falls below 2.2e2.8 V/kg, depending on the process configuration. If all sustainably available wastes and residues in the European Union (197 Mt/a) were collected and converted only to biofuels, using maximal hydrogen enhancement, the daily production would amount to 1.8e2.8 million oil equivalent barrels. This total supply of hydrogen enhanced biofuels could displace up to 41e63 per cent of the EU (European Union)’s road transport fuel demand in 2030, again depending on the choice of process design.

242
Title: The Potential for electrofuels Production in sweden Utilizing Fossil and Biogenic cO2 Point sources
Author: Julia Hansson, Roman Hackl, Maria Taljegard, Selma Brynolf and Maria Grahn
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Frontiers in Energy Research Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This paper maps, categorizes, and quantifies all major point sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial and combustion processes in Sweden. The paper also estimates the Swedish technical potential for electrofuels (power-to-gas/fuels) based on carbon capture and utilization. With our bottom-up approach using European databases, we find that Sweden emits approximately 50 million metric tons of CO2 per year from different types of point sources, with 65% (or about 32 million tons) from biogenic sources. The major sources are the pulp and paper industry (46%), heat and power production (23%), and waste treatment and ncineration (8%). Most of the CO2 is emitted at low concentrations (<15%) from sources in the southern part of Sweden where power demand generally exceeds in-region supply. The potentially recoverable emissions from all the included point sources amount to 45 million tons. If all the recoverable CO2 were used to produce electrofuels, the yield would correspond to 2–3 times the current Swedish demand for transportation fuels. The electricity required would correspond to about 3 times the current Swedish electricity supply. The current relatively few emission sources with high concentrations of CO2 (>90%, biofuel operations) would yield electrofuels corresponding to approximately 2% of the current demand for transportation fuels (corresponding to 1.5–2 TWh/year). In a 2030 scenario with large-scale biofuels operations based on lignocellulosic feedstocks, the potential for electrofuels production from high-concentration sources increases to 8–11 TWh/year. Finally, renewable electricity and production costs, rather than CO2 supply, limit the potential for production of electrofuels in Sweden.

243
Title: GHG emission balances and prospects of hydrogen enhanced synthetic biofuels from solid biomass in the European context
Author: Kati Koponen, Ilkka Hannula
Publication Year: 2017
Source: Elsevier Ltd. Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The European Commission has proposed a minimum share of 3.6% for advanced biofuels in transport in 2030. Satisfying this target using synthetic biofuels would require 48–62 Mt/a of forest residue feedstock. If all biofuel plants were maximally enhanced with additional hydrogen input, the biomass demand would be reduced by 35 Mt to 16–24 Mt/a. As sustainable biomass is a limited resource, such drastic improvements in the efficiency of biomass use have a favourable impact on biomass availability. In this work we assume electrolysis of water as the source of hydrogen and investigate the GHG emission balances of hydrogen enhanced biofuels using the calculation method provided in the European Union’s sustainability criteria for biofuels. The required 70% emission saving compared to fossil fuels is achieved when the carbon intensity of electricity remains under 84–110 gCO2/kWh, depending on the process configuration.
In addition, we study the possibility that an emission factor could be allocated to the wood biomass, referring to recent discussions on climate impacts of forest bioenergy. Without hydrogen enhancement, the emission factor needs to remain below 13 gCO2/MJwood to meet the 70% requirement, while for hydrogen-enhanced configurations it could increase to 36 gCO2/MJwood, under the assumption of zero emission electricity.

244
Title: The Chemical Route to a CO2-neutral world
Author: Johan A. Martens Annemie Bogaerts Norbert De Kimpe Pierre A. Jacobs Guy B. Marin Korneel Rabaey Mark Saeys Sebastian Verhelst
Publication Year: 2017
Source: ChemSusChem Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The CO2 problem is a timing problem. Timing in the carbon cycle suggests large-scale chemical processes in which CO2 is chemically reduced to fuel within seconds, needed to close the carbon cycle and avoid emission of greenhouse gas. This type of cycle, in which CO2 is formed and converted back in the same time-scale, is a sustainable solution for achieving a CO2-neutral world. The energy for rapid CO2 reduction must be generated sustainably and come indirectly from the sun. The development of technology for the required rapid conversion of CO2 to fuel is a considerable scientific challenge.

245
Title: Sub Group on Advanced Biofuels Building Up the Future – Final Report
Author: Kyriakos Maniatis Ingvar Landälv Lars Waldheim Eric van den Heuvel Stamatis Kalligeros
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: HVO, LIPID BASED BIOFUELS Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

This study seeks to support the European Commission in the elaboration of a methodology for the deployment of advanced biofuels. Currently, the contribution of advanced and other renewable fuels is very limited in the EU with a relative higher cost than fossil fuels they aim to replace. The Sub Group on Advanced Biofuels of the Sustainable Transport Forum consisted of 32 industry experts representing all advanced biofuels value chains as well as the transport sectors of aviation, maritime and heavy duty transport. The work of the Sub Group on Advanced Biofuels put forward a simple and transparent definition for advanced biofuels, proposed reliable targets for deployment of advanced biofuels in the EU market by 2030, updated the technology status of the various value chains and examined thoroughly the production costs of advanced biofuels.
The Sub Group on Advanced Biofuels also considered carefully the proposals on decarbonising transport in the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive and put forward proposals for improvements aiming to create a long term stable framework for encouraging billions of investments.

246
Title: NER 300 Initiative and Status of the Selected Bioenergy Projects
Author: Lars Waldheim
Publication Year: 2016
Source: SGAB Proposed by:
Forum Area 1: GENERAL POLICY AND MARKET Forum Area 2:
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The reference is a report prepared for the SGAB group on the NER 300 Initiative and Status of the Selected Bioenergy Projects. It summarizes the take away messages from the experience of the industry with NER300 up to March 2016 and analyses the NER300 institutional background. It assesses the outcome of the NER300 Calls for Proposals and gives an overview of the developments after the award decisions. Finally, the author makes a note on the successor program (NER400) and concludes by presenting the overall experience of the NRE300.

247
Title: SGAB Cost of Biofuels
Author: Ingvar Landalv & Lars Waldheim
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by: Kyriakos Maniatis
Forum Area 1: HVO Forum Area 2: LIPID BASED BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The Sub-group on Advanced biofuels (SGAB), to the Sustainable Transport Forum (STF), is chaired by the EC and has some thirty members that represent biofuel, fuel, vehicle and transport industries, while other stakeholders such as national authorities, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and others are welcomed as observers. SGAB, which had its first meeting in December 2015 and the end meeting in October 2016, had a main defined deliverable to give a recommendation on targets for advanced biofuels in 2030. This report has the ambition to present overall economics for production of various advanced biofuels. With a few exceptions, this industry is just starting its path to commercialization and data based on years of operating experiences and construction of a series of plants therefore do not exist for most of the fuels covered by this report. This report does not have the ambition to draw “the final conclusion” of all good work generated in the field of advanced biofuels during the last couple of years. It will however claim to draw well based conclusions on the topic “Cost of Advanced Biofuels”. Chapter 2 describes how information has been gathered and reviewed. Results of this work are compared with other relevant work in the field of advanced biofuels. This is done on a fuel by fuel basis in the chapters thereafter. The overall results are presented in the Summary chapter. Production cost of biofuels are there presented as cost of energy and data are presented as a span. It will give a well-founded base for how much production cost of advanced biofuels differs from cost of today’s main fuels, gasoline and diesel and can therefore be used when investigating what level of incentives would be needed in order to introduce advanced biofuels into the market.

248
Title: Technology status and reliability of the value chains
Author: Ingvar Landalv
Publication Year: 2017
Source: European Comission Proposed by: Kyriakos Maniatis
Forum Area 1: POWER to X Forum Area 2: ALGAE TO BIOFUELS
Forum Area 3: Forum Area 4:

The SCAB decided that it was necessary to establish the actual state of the art of advanced and renewable fuels technologies addressing all value chains as well as their current status of development beyond any doubt. Furthermore, it was aimed to collect directly information from the various organisations developing the technologies in order to avoid ambiguity and establish the status based on their direct input. This report addresses the status and reliability of the advanced biofuels sector by referring to plants in operation, or in some cases close to being in operation. As the title of this report expresses the following information is intended to give STATUS and RELIABILTY information for various conversion pathways of biomass feedstocks to advanced biofuels. These conversion pathways have been grouped under four sections.
1. Thermochemical conversion
2. Biological conversion
3. Power to Gas or Liquid conversion
4. Algae development
This report does not have the intention of being complete. This means that the report gives examples where information has been validated but does not imply that all and every developer is included, and there were technologies in a variety of development stages for which the information was not sufficient and which therefore was omitted.

Abstracts may have been drafted and/or compiled by the editors of this reference database and may not be necessarily those provided by the authors of the original publication, neither convey the full intended message

NEWSLETTER