Global solid biomass trade for energy by 2020: an assessment of potential import streams and supply costs to North‐West Europe under different sustainability constraints

Abstract

The expected use of solid biomass for large-scale heat and power production across North-West Europe (NW EU) has led to discussions about its sustainability, especially due to the increasing import dependence of the sector. While individual Member States and companies have put forward sustainability criteria, it remains unclear how different requirements will influence the availability and cost of solid biomass and thus how specific regions will satisfy their demand in a competitive global market. We combined a geospatially explicit least-cost biomass supply model with a linear optimization solver to assess global solid biomass trade streams by 2020 with a particular focus on NW EU. We apply different demand and supply scenarios representing varying policy developments and sustainability requirements. We find that the projected EU solid biomass demand by 2020 can be met across all scenarios, almost exclusively via domestic biomass. The exploitation of domestic agricultural residue and energy crop potentials, however, will need to increase sharply. Given sustainability requirements for solid biomass as for liquid biofuels, extra-EU imports may reach 236 PJ by 2020, i.e., 400% of their 2010 levels. Intra-EU trade is expected to grow with stricter sustainability requirements up to 548 PJ, i.e., 280% of its 2010 levels by 2020. Increasing sustainability requirements can have different effects on trade portfolios across NW EU. Excluding pulpwood pellets may drive the supply costs of import dependent countries, foremost the Netherlands and the UK, whereas excluding additional forest biomass may entail higher costs for Germany and Denmark which rely on regional biomass. Excluding solid biomass fractions may create short-term price hikes. Our modeling results are strongly influenced by parameterization choices, foremost assumed EU biomass supply volumes and costs and assumed relations between criteria and supply. The model framework is suited for the inclusion of dynamic supply-demand interactions and other world regions.

Macroeconomic outlook of sustainable energy and biorenewables innovations (MEV II)

“…• MEV II built on the first macroeconomic impact assessment study (MEV I; Appendix 1), which was carried out in 2009 (Hoefnagels et al, 2009(Hoefnagels et al, , 2014. In MEV I, an Excel-based bottom-up energy model and a top-down macroeconomic model were integrated to analyse the macroeconomic and environmental impacts of specific biomass conversion routes to energy and chemicals (in terms of CO 2 emissions, value added and job creation).…”

“…The large shift from traditional to modern uses of biomass in the last decade has resulted in rapid developments in the trade of both liquid and solid biomass (Lamers et al, 2014;Lamers et al, 2014).…”

“…The 'Reg' scenario assumes that the EU supports renewable energy and bio-based chemicals only if produced from available EU resources; extra-EU imports of biomass for bioenergy are thus restricted. Although such a development may conflict with WTO rules, it could be applied via strict sustainability criteria and greenhouse gas reduction requirements for market access (Lamers et al, 2014). The 'Glob' scenarios assume that trade barriers for biomass will be mitigated by, for example, the implementation of standardization systems and certification systems that guarantee the sustainability of biomass supply.…”

Challenges and Opportunities for International Trade in Forest Biomass

“…For each country, the grid-connected heat production volume, that is the fraction of new capacity for biomass-based electricity production generated by CHP, was calculated using the relationship between electrical and grid-connected heat generation in the respective member states' NREAPs. The demand estimates outlined in Table 8.4 were employed for scenario analyses in Lamers et al (2015), which focused on Northwest Europe and correspond to assumptions/scenario analyses by Pöyry (2014).…”

Systematic Review of Torrefied Wood Economics

“…In 2013, the EU produced 13.5 million metric tonnes of wood pellets, what was then 50% of the global production (European Biomass Association 2015). The EU production and consumption will continue to grow (Lamers et al 2014), and this in turn is projected to drive US production growth as well (Forest2Market 2015). While pellet production increases costs, these costs are offset by improved energy density and decreasing freight costs, while also streamlining handling in the transportation systems and enhancing the biomass co-firing process.…”