ERRADICAR LA POBREZA; HOGAR PARA LAS PERSONAS; DERECHOS
SALMO 34,7: “ESTE POBRE GRITÓ Y EL SEÑOR LO ESCUCHÓ.”
3.1 Introduction
Following the construction of the modelling baseline as described in the previous chapter, this chapter describes the various scenarios that are modelled against the baseline. A large number of scenarios are modelled. Firstly, a series of crop-specific scenarios for the main conventional and advanced biofuel crops as well as the deployment of separate cereal, starch and oilseed crop groups are modelled. Also, aggregated scenarios of 9.4% EU biofuel consumption following the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs)22 (8.6% conventional plus 0.8% advanced biofuels), as well as a scenario that includes a maximum cap on the consumption of conventional biofuels of 7% , are modelled. In the latter scenario, a total of 9.4% biofuels is modelled of which 7% consists of conventional biofuels and the rest of advanced biofuels, taking account of the EU RED double counting provision.23 In addition to this, some explorative scenarios are modelled: increased use of abandoned land in the EU, lower than expected worldwide deforestation plus a ban on peatland drainage, and higher than expected worldwide deforestation.
In the baseline, we assume a biofuel consumption of 3.2%, which equals the consumption level in 2008. Feedstock-specific scenarios are compared with the baseline by modelling separately for each feedstock an increased consumption of 1% biofuels as a share of total road transport fuels, or 3 Mtoe. The NREAP scenarios and explorative scenarios are modelled by applying a ‘shock’ of 6.2% additional biofuel consumption as compared to the baseline biofuel volume of 3.2%. An overview of the various scenarios as compared to the baseline is provided in Figure 12 below.
22 As submitted by Member States to the European Commission in 2010-12. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-
energy/national-action-plans
23 EU RED Article 21(2) states that biofuels produced from wastes, residues, lignocellulose and non-food cellulose material count twice
Figure 12: Scenario setting for the modelling of biofuel policies between 2000 and 2030. Two scenario types are considered: feedstock specific shocks (+1%) and policy shocks (full mandate). Plain dots indicate years for which the model generates results
3.2 Crop-specific scenarios
A total of 14 feedstock-specific scenarios are modelled in which a shock of 1% biofuel consumption from each feedstock (123 PJ) as part of total road transport fuels in the EU in 2020is compared to the baseline. The feedstock-specific scenarios are modelled for the following biofuel feedstocks: Table 7: Overview of feedstock-specific scenarios
Conventional biofuels Advanced biofuels
Wheat ethanol Miscanthus biodiesel
Maize ethanol Short rotation plantation biodiesel Barley ethanol Forest residue biodiesel
Sugarbeet ethanol Straw ethanol Sugarcane ethanol
Silage maize biogas Sunflower oil biodiesel Palm oil biodiesel Rapeseed oil biodiesel Soybean oil biodiesel
For straw ethanol, an alternative approach is used because, due to relatively high transport costs, we do not assume an EU-wide market for straw, and straw trade with countries outside the EU is
negligible. The modelling of straw ethanol takes into account this fragmented market situation. Straw removal potential is assessed in three regions with different straw availability: Hungary, Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) and Northern France around Paris. The 1% shock is applied for these regions24 and results are subsequently aggregated at EU level. For all other regions in the world, level of biofuel demand is kept constant. Therefore, no change in biofuel consumption level can serve as a buffer to divert more biofuel to the EU market. The approach taken for straw is described in more detail in Section II.1 of Annex II.
3.3 EU 2020 biofuel mix scenario without and with 7%
EU 2020 biofuel mix scenario assumes that the 10% target on renewable energy in transport is fulfilled with 9.4% biofuels (before double counting) following the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) that were submitted to the European Commission by EU Member States in 2010–11. While it is generally recognised that many of the NREAPs are outdated, no other official projections on biofuel consumption in 2020 for each EU Member State is available.
The NREAPs provide an overall forecast on the level of biofuel consumption in 2020 and a split between conventional and advanced biofuels. According to article 21(2) of the EU directive on Renewable Energy Sources, biofuels produced from wastes, residues and25 cellulosic material count twice towards national targets. This lowers the overall quantity of biofuels required to meet the target. The NREAPs assume a very limited uptake of advanced biofuels, including UCOME (biodiesel from used cooking oil), TME (biodiesel from animal fats) and other double counting biofuels of 0.8%. This means that the projected 9.4 % biofuels in the NREAPs represent an actual food crop based biofuel consumption in volume of 8.6% of EU transport fuels.
The NREAPs do not provide an estimated split in biofuel feedstocks used. In fact, it is difficult to obtain a reliable picture of the EU biofuel feedstock mix, since the biofuel industry generally does not share information on their feedstock mix and most Member States (except the UK, Germany and the Netherlands) do not publish the feedstock mix of consumed biofuels. The consortium invited the industry to provide this information, but in the end had to rely on estimates by EU FAS posts (USDA 2014). More transparency on this would certainly help to improve the estimate of land use change emissions of the total EU biofuel mix in 2020 and beyond. This study bases the assumed feedstock mix on USDA estimates for 2013 and keeps this constant up to 2030. The shares and mix of advanced biofuel feedstocks, are determined endogenously by the model based on least cost optimisation. Based on the above, the following EU biofuel consumption level and and feedstock mix are assumed:
24 In the case of Central France, the 1% shock is applied to the entire country of France. This has little impact on modelling results as
abundant straw is only available in Central France. This is further explained in Section II.1 in Annex II.
25 The estimates in this USDA report is collected by USDA Foreign Service Officers stationed in EU Member States (EU FAS posts). The
method of information collection is not known, but we assume that it is based on public information, such as press releases, magazines, combined with interviews.
Figure 13: Feedstock composition in the baseline and EU 2020 biofuel mix scenarios
The default EU2020 biofuel mix scenario without constraints placed on the consumption of conventional biofuels is characterised by a more than marginal share of palm oil in 2020 (16% of total biofuel mix), used both for biodiesel (FAME) and drop-in renewable diesel (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil or HVO), as can also be seen in Figure 14 below. Indeed, we assume that one third of additional vegetable oil used in the mandate comes from palm oil, based on USDA observation on recent change in composition mix. The rather substantial share of palm oil found by USDA is rougly equal to the quantity found in a biofuel sample analysis study performed by UFOP in Germany, which estimated that around 14% palm oil was used in German biodiesel consumption in 2013 or around 12% in the total biofuel mix.26 However, as stated above, no better data on the EU-wide feedstock mix are available than the USDA data.
26 Union zur Förderung von Oel- und Proteinpflanzen e.V, Rohstoffbasis der Biodieselanteile in Dieselkraftstoffen (2014). This study estimated that, based on samples taken at fuel stationsin 2013, around 14% of palm oil was used in biodiesel in Germany. German government agency BLE however reports that 26.316TJ of palm oil was used for biofuels consumed in Germany in 2013, which equals 21% of total German biodiesel consumption. .