André Faaij Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40

1. Technologies (and their role for sustainable bioenergy)1st Workshop ESSP Bioenergy – Bioenergy and Earth Sustainability. Escola Superior de Agricultura “ Luiz de Queiroz” Piracicaba - Brazil, July 19-22, 2008. André Faaij Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40 Member Steering Group BIOPEC Initiative

2. Integration… Pfff, it’s complex…

3. Key bioenergy utilisation routes

4. Bioenergy today • 45 EJ + 10 EJ total use • 9 EJ + 6 EJ commercial; non-modern • ~ 8 EJ Modern; commercial: • < 1 EJ electricity • ~ 2.5 EJ heat • ~ 1.5 EJ biofuels (bulk = ethanol; half of that ethanol sugar cane based) • Main controversy on biofuels from annual crops and palm oil. • Currently some 20 Mha in use for biofuels worldwide (compared to 5,000 Mha for food)

5. Combustion; workhorse of bio-energy… Efficiency: from 20 – 40% CHP: 60 - <80% Capacity: 20 – 250 MWe … Economics OK with residues

6. Power Station Kymijärvi, Lahti Finland

7. Future BIG/CC technology -> Current status: ~3500 U$/kWe, 30% electrical efficiency, ACFB, ~10 Mwe -> Future:~1500,- U$/kWe, ~50% efficiency, (ACFB..), >100 MWe -> Ultimate: <1000 U$/kWe, >55% eff., PCFB, HT gas cleaning >200 MWe Cost of electricity: ~ 10 U$ct/kWh -> 3-4 U$ct/kWh, almost doubling of electrical output [Faaij, van Ree et al., 1998]

8. Perennial crops (vs. annual crops) • Lower costs (< 2 €/GJ) • Planted for 15-25 years • Low(er) intensity • Can restore soil carbon and structure • Suited for marginal/degraded lands • Requires less inputs (well below key threshold values) • Wide portfolio of species & production systems • Possibilities for enhancing (bio-) diversity • Adaptable to local circumstances (water, indigenous species) • Earlier development stage • Large scale and diverse experience needed • Learning curve to be exploited • Improvement potential Miscanthus x giganteus

9. Yields: perennials ~3x annual

10. Bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass • SHF • SSF • SSCF • CBP • +BIG/CC… Major demonstrations In US/Canada, EU

11. Pre-treatment: - grinding - drying feedstock is poplar wood Gasification: - air or oxygen - pressurised or atmospheric - direct/indirect Gas cleaning: - ‘wet’ cold or ‘dry’ hot FT liquids Offgas Recycle loop FT synthesis: - slurry reactor or fixed bed Gas turbine Gas processing: - reforming - shift - CO2 removal Power Synthetic fuels from biomassBiomass & coal gasification to FT liquids - with gas turbine Major investments in IG-FT capacity ongoing in China right now: - Reducing dependency on oil imports! - Without capture strong increase in CO2 emissions… About 50% of carbon!

12. What are we waiting for? Yueyang Sinopec-Shell Coal gasification project; (China) Shell gasifier arriving at site September 2006. 15 licences in China at present… Courtesy of Shell

13. Economic performance 2nd generation biofuels s.t. & l.t.; 3 Euro/GJ feedstock [Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy]

14. GHG Balances (without indirect land-use changes) IEA – Fulton, 2004

15. Composing chains… Source: Hamelinck, Faaij, 2005

16. Technological learning; improvement potentials and development pathways. • Detailed bottom –up analyses of bio-energy systems. • Breakdown of factors in conversion, supply lines and biomass (crop) production. • Essential for implementation • Many case studies, methodology development & applied research.

17. Cost reduction potential in 2nd generation technologies. [Wit, Junginger, Faaij, 2008]

18. Total learning system for biomass-fuelled power plants producing electricity Source: Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005

19. Experience curve for primary forest fuels in Sweden and Finland (1975 and 2003). Source: Junginger Faaij et al., 2005

20. Experience curve for the average and marginal production cost of electricity from Swedish biofuelled CHP plants from 1990-2002 Source: Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005

21. [Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008] Experience curve for total hydrated ethanol (1975- 2004) excluding feedstock Experience curve of sugarcane production 1975 – 2004

22. Examples of various sugarcane cost breakdowns in Sao Paulo 1976-2005 [Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]

23. Cost breakdowns of industrial ethanol production process excl. feedstock [Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]

24. Estimated future costs of sugarcane and ethanol production assuming 8% annual growth Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane J.D. van den Wall Bake, M. Junginger, A. Faaij, T.Poot, A. da Silva Walter Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008

25. Ethanol plants US (status 2006) Global ethanolProduction &outlook Source: John Urbanchuk (data for Oct 31 2006; green = operating, red = under construction)

26. Corn production costs Still 38% reduction in costs per acre (so without yield increase influences) 60% reduction in costs per bushel [Hettinga, 2007]

27. Corn production costs +171% -63% -46% -64% [Hettinga, 2007]

28. Development: yield increase Genetic modification? Single cross hybrids Open pollinated Hybrids [Hettinga, 2007] Source: Adapted from Pioneer, NCGA (ProExporter Network)

29. Ethanol operating costs -75% ? [Hettinga, 2007]

30. Experience curve: operating costs [Hettinga, 2007]

31. Yield developments in Europe Historic yield development  example: wheat Average yields plotted for The Western European Countries The Central and Eastern European Countries Significant difference! [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

32. Yield projections Europe Observed yield CEEC and WEC Linear extrapolation of historic trends Widening yield gap Applied scenarios Low, baseline and high [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

33. Results - spatial production potential Arable land available for dedicated bio-energy crops divided by the total land [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

34. Results - spatial cost distribution Production cost (€ GJ-1) for Grassy crops [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

35. Results – cost-supply curves Production costs vs. supply potential for 2010, 2020 and 2030 Variation areas indicated around the curves represent uncertainties and scenario variables. Only CEEC cost level increases [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

36. 2nd generation 1st generation Crop specific supply curves • Feedstock potentials Produced on 65 Mha arable and 24 Mha on pastures (grass and wood) • Significant difference between ‘1st and 2nd generation crops’ • Supply potentials high compared to demand 2010 (0,78 EJ/yr) and 2020 (1,48 EJ/yr) 1 EJ (ExaJoule) = 24 Mtoe [Wit & Faaij, 2008]

37. Development in net feedstock use for biofuels (REFUEL project; example scenario) [www.refuel.org, 2008]

38. Closing remarks • Technological and management improvements key factor: • Agricultural (and livestock) management! • Energy cropping & supply systems • Conversion. • Technological learning and improvement potentials still fairly poorly covered in analyses around bioenergy (potentials & projections), agriculture a.o (especially 2nd generation and beyond!). • Combination of bottom-up engineering work and modelling generally gives good results. • Takes considerable effort.

39. Thanks for your attention For more information, see e.g. IEA Task 40: www.bioenergytrade.org: Key References: • Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005 • Smeets et al., 2007, Progress in Energy & Combustion Science, • Hoogwijk et al., 2005 & 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy • Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy • Dornburg et al.,2008 Biomass Assessment WAB • Wicke et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy • Wall Bake et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy • Wit & Faaij, 2008, REFUEL – (Forthcoming) • Hettinga et al., 2009 (forthcoming).