Energy crops in the Europeancontext

Dr Calliope Panoutsou

Imperial College London

Content1. Current state of implementation

2. Demand is rising

3. Energy crops anticipated to have an increased share forindigenous supply

4. German cost supply curves

5. Energy crop potentials (assumptions, regional distribution,sustainability & costs)

6. Conclusions

Current state of implementation

Current state of implementation More than 5.5 million ha were grown with energy crops in EU27 in

2008, the major share for the liquid biofuels sector (compared to3.7 and 4Mha in 2006 and 2007, respectively).

Rapeseed accounting for around 80-85% of the total energy croparea. Low portions are covered by sunflower, maize, rye, wheatand sugar beet.

Germany the leading MS (almost 60% of the total EU-27 energycrops area), France (more than 25%), the UK (8%).

Large areas can also be found in Poland, Czech Republic,Sweden, Spain and Italy.

The main energy crops cultivated for solid biofuels in EU27 are:miscanthus in UK, Germany, Spain and Portugal; willow in UK,Sweden and Germany; reed canary grass in Finland and Sweden;poplar in Italy and Spain.

Dedicated energy crops in EU27 for 2008.

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000Hemp

Miscanthus

Poplar

Willow

Reed Canary Grass (RCG)

Other arables (e.g. sorghum)

Maize

Sugarbeet

Barley

Wheat

Sunflower

RAPE

Source: Dworak et al. (2008)/ AEBIOM

Demand is rising

Biomass demand in the low carbon scenario:de-carbonisation case

Source: EC, 2011. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050.

Energy crops anticipated to have an increasedshare for indigenous supply

EU 27 Biomass potential by sector

Agriculture currentlyprovides about 0.6EJ, forestry 2.9 EJ

Source: BEE, 2008

NREAPs 2010: Bioenergy dominates

NREAPs: Biomass feedstocks

EU Biomass production (Mio toe)

2005

2030

2050

•Crops 5 53 134

•Of which 2nd generationcrops

0 40 127

•Agricultural residues(including black liquor)

17 32 49

•Forestry 40 51 59

•Waste 25 63 87

•Import 2 12 26

Total 90 212 356

About half of totalagriculturalbioenergy in 2020is expected tocome from "energycrops", mainlydriven by the 10%RE target fortransport...

German cost supply curves

Key biomass feedstocks under the German cost /supply curves

2010 2020

Biomass feedstock Cost point€/GJ

Contributionktoe

Cost point€/GJ

Contributionktoe

Black liquor 0 371 0 506

Wet manure 1.0 3380 9.0 2594

Dry manure 8.8 7440 1.1 4671

MSW (landfill) 1.1 3240 1.4 2160

Post consumer wood 2.0 1786 2.5 1929

Perennial woodycrops

Not significant 1.9 2525

MSW (compost) 2.3 948 2.9 1120

Saw dust 2.6 897 3.2 1053

Straw 2.7 3697 3.5 3540

Perennial grassycrops

Not significant 2.7 2266

Landscape care wood 3.2 593 1.7 665

Sawmill by-products 3.2 1935 4.0 2272

Other industrial wood 3.2 1416 4.0 1560

Grassland cuttings Not significant 3.5 686

Primary forest residue 4.4 4729 5.5 4743

Forage maize 4.8 898 Not significant

Paper and card 6.3 1834 7.7 1914

Used oils and fats Not significant 8.8 356

Additional roundwood 8.8 7871 11.1 7948

Oil seed rape 9.0 1779 9.9 698

Cereals Not significant 10.0 1457

Cost supply curves - Germany

Which are the main crop options?

Which are the key assumptions framing the futurepotential of energy crops in European land?

What is the estimated potential in different Memberstates?

Which are the most important sustainability issues relatedto their supply?

What is the cost & how much it is expected to "change" for2030- 2050?

Which are the most efficient ways of mobilising dedicatedcrop feedstocks (both technical & non- technical issues)?

Energy crop potentials (assumptions, regionaldistribution, sustainability & costs)

Crop options

Key assumptions framing the future

1

RES-Directive + NREAP targets reached

No use of biodiversity rich areas (HNV farmland)

No use of areas of high carbon stock

CAPRI-baseline 2020: biofuel cropping area

Sustainable biofuel cropping mix:

Biofuel mitigation minimal 50% (whole pathway,cropping+conversion)

Cheapest dedicated crop mix per region (Euro/GJ)

Perennial crops released land:

Preference for >50% GHG mitigation (whole pathway)

Cheapest crop mix per region

Present (2008) energy cropping

1

EU: 11518 Ktoe (3 % of total potential)

EU: 251 Ktoe (0% of total potential)Including energy maize (biogas)

Energy cropping 2020 biofuels & perennials

1

EU: 33162 Ktoe (8 % of total potential)EU: 40123 Ktoe (10 % of total potential)

(Including energy maize (biogas))

Sustainability issues related to energy cropsupply

GHG-emission Biodiversity

Arable land used

for feed and food

production is

displaced for

production of

biomass

Usually positive as long

as it does not lead to

high input use

Usually positive as long

as it does not lead to

more intensive land

use and large loss of

fallow land

Leads to production of

displaced food in other

place where it may lead

to the conversion of

natural ecosystems into

arable land. This may

lead to important

biodiversity loss and

huge GHG emissions

Idle land is used

for biomass

production

Often negative.

Ploughing-up idle land

usually leads to

enormous release of

carbon stock (depends

on land + practice)

Positive or negative,

depends on what type

of idle land is used

No effect

Direct effects Indirect effects

Biomass cropping/harvesting effects onenvironment through:

- Land use change effect (including iluc)- Conversion of natural/semi-natural land use categories

(e.g. tropical forests, extensive grasslands)- Conversion of degraded land- Conversions in existing arable land (e.g. from annual to

perennial)

- Intensification/extensification effect in existingagricultural lands because of an overall changein practice (e.g. crops, input use)

- Climate change effect, mitigation (?) reducesadverse effects on biodiversity

Costs in 2020 (€/GJ)

Conclusions

Perennial crops potentially a large and cheap resource Towards 2020 increase in cheaper resources Sustainability constraints on dedicated cropping are

significant both inside and outside EU and will haveimportant effects on economic availability,

SO Sustainable increase of productivity Identification and mobilisation of idle land which is not

needed for other ecosystem services Optimise the use of energy crops for multiple purposes,

reducing land use and competition with food use