Biomass imports to Europe and global availability

Transcription

1 Biomass imports to Europe and global availability VGB-Forschungsstiftung 29. June 2011

2 Contents Scope of the study 3 Biomass potentials EU27 4 Supply/Demand gap assessment 13 Global biomass availability 17 Torrefied Pellets 22 Supply chain analysis 26 Delivered costs 30 Summary 31 Contact 32 2

3 Study Tasks The study leads to a principle evaluation of 2020 Renewable Energy targets impacts on European domestic solid biomass supply markets supplemented by imports. Scope of work (Phase 1): Import assessment Assessment of existing biomass potentials Assessment of needed biomass imports (Phase 2) Biomass availability assessment Global biomass availability for exports Indicative production cost levels Additonal analysis Impact of torrefied pellets Impact of supply chain development Recommendations Recommendations and possible next steps Presentation and Discussion Assessment of of existing domestic biomass potentials in in each each country Plausibility assessment of of biomass potentials against projected growth growth rates rates Scenarios calculations of of needed biomass imports into into Europe ( ). Current and and expected biomass volumes accessible for for export export by by assortment (chips, (chips, pellets) Characteristics of of supplier markets and and indicative cost cost levels levels (based (based on on typical typical plantations/forest residue model model calculations) of of wood wood chips chips and and pellets pellets including shipping to to Europe (Rotterdam) Summary and and recommendations Imports needed to to reach reach Renewable Energy targets targets Profile Profile of of possible sourcing regions Indicative costs costs levels levels Impact Impact of of supply supply chain chain development an an torrefaction Presentation and and Report Report 3

4 2020 Biomass potentials EU27 (1/2) Comparison of supply potentials against NREAP demand Waste Agriculture Forestry Demand Supply Current BAU Efficiency Supply M toe PÖYRY EEA IE (2005) BTG (2004) Panoutsou Mantau (2006) et al. et al. & EEA (2009) (2009) (2007) DFBZ (2008) BMVBS (2010) Sources: PÖYRY Results forestry - Pöyry database; Agriculture and waste - own calculations NREAPs Assortment grouping in accordance with 2009/548/EC; Supply information is directly taken from the NREAPs. Where ranges were given the average was taken. EEA (2006) EU 25; black liquor, waste wood, wood processing residues, agricultural residues and manure are included in waste EEA (2007) Forest and waste potentials taken from EEA (2006) BMVBS (2010) World food supply secured; Manure not considered in the agricultural potential; no predictions for forest and waste potentials available BTG (2004) Assortments regrouped; only forest residues are considered in the forest potential; agricultural potential comprises also biodiesel and bioethanol; waste includes demolition wood, dry manure and black liquor Mantau et al. (2009) No changes; no predictions for agricultural and waste potentials available IE (2005) Assortments regrouped, historic data for waste are kept constant in 2020; high and low conversion paths considered DFBZ (2008) No changes; no predictions for forest and waste potentials available Panoutsou et al. (2009) Assortments regrouped 4

5 2020 Biomass potentials EU27 (2/2) NREAP: Biomass demand for primary energy use (including bioliquids) is estimated at around 213 Mtoe. This is more than 75 Mtoe more than estimated 138 Mtoe supply PÖYRY: Biomass demand for primary energy use (excluding bioliquids) vary between 146 and 158 Mtoe Possible supply: 120 Mtoe primary bioenergy. This shows that NREAP supply forecasts are to high, and a supply gap of 26 to 38 Mtoe can be expected. The difference between Pöyry and the NREAPS is even more relevant since certain countries 1 did not report projections for Forestry no information are given for: Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Malta Agriculture no information are given for: Estonia, Finland, Latvia

6 2020 Biomass potentials EU27 (2/2) Comparability of these results with other studies mainly depends on assortment definitions. Assortments in the NREAPs and in Pöyry calculations are based on 2009/548/EC the template for the National Renewable Energy Actions Plans. Selected studies suffer from not considering needed assortments or sorting assortments into other sectors than requested. Market availability of biomass in Agriculture is highly dependent on incentive and promotion systems, thus height of results is changed by the different assumptions made. While the highest results in agriculture suppose change in eating habit or large investments into bioenergy, lower results assume strict food security requirements. In Forestry it s crucial which mobilisation scenario is implemented. An unrealistic hundred percent usage of wood increment or restriction of the bioenergy potential to residues are responsible for perceived deviations. In the waste sector some studies also account for residues from forestry and agriculture, what is a main driver of biased potentials. Overall Pöyry estimates can be considered as being conservative forecasts for 2020 in comparison to the NREAPs and with respect to other independent studies with comparable settings. While there exist deviations on country basis the overall NREAP forecasts for the EU27 are plausible in the waste and forest sector the results for agriculture seem ambitious. 6 1 Forestry no information are given for: Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Malta Agriculture no information are given for: Estonia, Finland, Latvia

7 Plausibility assessment: Forestry 2020 (1/2) Pöyry results are in line with Mantau et al. (2009) scenario 1. Restrictions in market availability of calculated potentials lead to comparable level as stated in NREAPs M toe Market Availability Potential NREAPs PÖYRY IE EEA (2005) (2006) BTG (2004) Panoutsou et al. (2009) Mantau et al. (2009) Sources: Only studies are considered that take into account as many or less assortments as defined in 2009/548/EC EEA (2006) BTG (2004) Panoutsou et al. (2009) Black liquor, waste wood and wood processing residuesare included in waste Assortments regrouped; only forest residues are considered in the forest potential; waste includes demolition wood and black liquor Assortments regrouped Mantau et al. (2009): Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 High Demand Low mobilisation Medium Demand Medium Mobilisation Low Demand - High mobilisation 7

8 Plausibility assessment: Forestry 2020 (2/2) Pöyry values are taken from Pöyry database. Market available 68 Mtoe depict the amount of biomass ready for energetic usage in 2020 under current mobilisation scenarios. Potentially available 92,2 Mtoe need incentives for timber cuttings or higher remuneration for bioenergy. Demand estimation is not split into the different sectors and hence not displayed. NREAPs and Pöyry market availability scenario are both below the lowest Mantau scenario. Pöyry estimation of potential available volume is in the midst of two lower scenarios. To reach the highest depicted scenario premium prices for bioenergy would have to be paid and intense restructuring of the market would have to apply. It s questionable if the models assumed are then still realistic. IE (2005) use a market model that s not able to depict demand for energetic uses. Therefore the usable potential is calculated by determining the amount of wood needed for industrial usages and substracted from the total increment. No mobilisation scenarios are considered. Results are therefore with the highest among the independent studies. EEA (2006) uses the same data basis as IE (2005) but different market models. Waste wood, black liquor and wood processing residues are considered waste. This leads to results much lower than in all other studies, findings are therefore hardly comparable. BTG (2004) base their findings on literature research on available forestry by-products and solid wood fuels. Solid industrial residues are also considered. A market model is used to estimate mobilisation, findings are underestimated. Panoutsou et al. (2009) use the same assortments as BTG (2004) and partly same data but come to much higher estimations. It is assumed that this is due to the lack of the market model. The last study considered is written by Mantau et al. (2009). A detailed analysis of the different sub segments that make up the whole wood potential is given. The assortments are totally in line with 2009/548/EC for this reason comparability to the NREAPs and Pöyry estimations is given. Supply and Demand are estimated separately. The graphs show lowest demand and lowest mobilisation, medium mobilisation and medium demand and as last bar high mobilisation and low demand. 8

9 Plausibility assessment: Agriculture 2020 (1/2) Pöyry calculations are in line with BMBVBS (2010) study M toe NREAPs PÖYRY EEA (2006) & EEA (2007) IE (2005) BTG (2004) Panoutsou et al. (2009) DFBZ (2008) BMVBS (2010) Sources: Only studies are considered that take into account as many or less assortments as defined in 2009/548/EC BMVBS (2010) World food security is assumed. BMVBS (2010) BTG (2004) IE (2005) Panoutsou et al. (2009) World food supply secured; Manure not considered in the agricultural potential agricultural potential comprises also biodiesel and bioethanol; waste includes dry manure Assortments regrouped Assortments regrouped Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Business as usual (BAU) Bioenergy under tightened environmental and conservational restrictions (B&U) Bioenergy (B) 9

10 Plausibility assessment: Agriculture 2020 (2/2) Pöyry results for the agricultural sector are 36,3 Mtoe and well below NREAPs forecasts (44 Mtoe for 2020). The market available potential is highly dependent on incentive and premium programs applied by EU member countries. This can also be seen in the findings of the other studies compared. Both EEA studies consider agricultural residues and manures as wastes and are hence not included in the agricultural potential. Around 40 Mtoe would have to be added to make the results comparable. IE (2005) consider two incentive scenarios, within each a high and low yield conversion path are displayed. The high influence of the premiums is obvious. BTG (2004) calculated three Technology scenarios, inside each another three promotion systems were compared. A model then calculates the market available sums. Once again it the great influence of the grant system has to be emphasized, potentials nearly double under higher remuneration systems. Panoutsou et al. (2009) only consider agricultural residues and manures. Values are taken mainly from existing literature, then availability rates were estimated. Although fewer assortments are taken into account results are higher or as high as forecasts from other studies results must be regarded as overestimated. The DFBZ (2008) study was assigned by Greenpeace, bar 1 shows a scenario for ecological sustainable agriculture with reduced yields. Bar 2 and 3 are both base scenarios with higher or lower environmental constraints. Bar 4 shows the available potential under changes of eating habits - the last bar is scenario 1 and 4 combined. The last study considered was commissioned by the german Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS 2010) and implements as major constraint world food security. In three scenarios only with optimized agricultural practice and higher investments biomass for energy production would be available. 10

11 Plausibility assessment: Waste 2020 (1/2) Pöyry calculations are in line with IE (2005) study, under high energetic yield assumptions M toe NREAPs PÖYRY IE (2005) Panoutsou et al. (2009) Sources: Only studies are considered that take into account as many or less assortments as defined in 2009/548/EC (post consumer wood not included in waste) NREAPs Assortment grouping officially in accordance with 2009/548/EC, post consumer wood seems to be included IE (2005) Assortments regrouped; historic data for waste are kept constant in 2020 Panoutsou et al. (2009) Assortments regrouped 11

12 Plausibility assessment: Waste 2020 (2/2) NREAP s report 25,8 Mtoe waste for the year 2020 what is more than twice the projected sum of Pöyry. Adding waste wood to Pöyry estimates leads to comparable volumes as listed in NREAPs. As in the other sectors the forecasts are seldom split into the base categories that make up one assortment, so it is not clear which countries did exclude wood as required in 2009/548/EC. For Municipal solid waste base data comes from Eurostat, expected growth rates are taken from ETC RWM 2008: Municipal waste management and greenhouse gases. The shares of waste used for incineration, composting, recycling or landfill are Pöyry estimates. For industrial waste no growth rates were accessible and constant 2010 values are taken. The assessed total amount of sewage sludge in the EU member states in tdm (dry matter) is taken from: Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land, part 1: Overview report (RPA, Milieu Ltd and WRc for the European Commission, DG Environment under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0076r, published 2008) IE (2005) take 2000 and 2004 values as base values for waste. These are incorporated in an economic model to estimate the market available potential available for the production of bioenergy. Displayed are two scenarios within each a high (14,5 Mtoe) and a low (6,6 Mtoe) yield conversion path are displayed. Bioenergy premiums do not influence the available biomass potential. Panoutsou et al. (2009) estimate 38,8 Mtoe for This result seems overestimated as demolition wood is explicitly excluded. 12

13 2020 Biomass potentials EU27: Demand Estimation of demand for biomass for primary bioenergy use The amount of primary biomass required to produce a unit of energy will depend on the exact nature of the feedstock and the conversion technology involved. There is a wide range of feed-stocks and technologies, resulting in a wide range of conversion efficiencies. The NREAPs provide little information on what feed-stocks and conversion technologies are envisaged, and a detailed country-by-country study is beyond the scope of this report. To estimate primary biomass requirements we have made simple assumptions about the conversion efficiency for each generic class of biomass and energy end use (as shown below), based on assumed typical technologies in each case 1. Note that the conversion efficiency is the efficiency of the whole conversion process from the feed-stock biomass in its primary form to the output energy. For example, for electricity from biogas, the conversion efficiency captures a combination of the efficiency of an anaerobic digestion unit in converting feed-stock to biogas, and the efficiency of a reciprocating engine in generating electricity from biogas. For transport, the conversion efficiency represents the energy in the resulting biofuel as a proportion of the energy of the biomass feedstock. In addition, we have made a simple adjustment to account for the efficiency gain achieved when using biomass in CHP applications 2. 1 These are our own assumptions. By way of comparison, the Cogeneration Directive harmonised reference values for new plant are 33% for electricity from wood and 25% for electricity from other biomass. For heat they are 86% for wood and 80% for other biomass (assuming steam or hot water). The Cogeneration Directive does not give comparable values for bioliquids and biogas because the reference values do not take account of the efficiency of producing the bioliquid or biogas. (See Commission Decision 2007/74/EC). Primary energy to final energy Scenario Solid Biomass Biogas Electricity 30% 26% Current Heating and Cooling 85% 67% Electricity 34% 30% BAU Heating and Cooling 85% 67% Calculation of biomass demand including bioliquids Solid biomass Bioliquids Biogas Bioethanol Biodiesel Electricity 30% 30% 26% - - Heating and Cooling 85% 60% 67% - - Improved Efficiency Electricity 37% 33% Transport % 75% Heating and Cooling 85% 67% 2 Table 10 of the NREAPs reports renewable electricity generation from CHP. We have assumed that all of this is biomass-fuelled, and that CHP achieves a primary energy saving of 10% (as per the Cogeneration Directive). We also assume a heat to power ratio of 2:1. 13

14 Plausibility assessment (1/2) Projection of biomass supply volumes M toe Waste Agriculture Forestry Lowest forecast 2020¹ Highest forecast 2020¹ Pöyry Projection 2010 Pöyry Projection 2015 Pöyry Projection 2020 Demand 'Improved Efficiency' Demand 'BAU' Demand 'Current' NREAP Projection Forecasts taken from analysed studies (see slide 5) 14

15 Plausibility assessment (2/2) Pöyry estimates that 82 Mtoe of domestic resource were available in the year This is lower than the reported 2006 NREAP Potential with 86,98 Mtoe. To explain this gap it has to be noted that in reported NREAP sums 2006 imports (solid and liquid) were included and Pöyry does only include domestic solid biomass and biogas supply. For the time 2010 to 2015 Pöyrys expects an compound annual growth rate of around 3,3 %, for the time 2015 to 2020 anticipated growth speeds up to 4,7 %. To reach the NREAP goal an overall growth rate of 5,2 % is required. To reach this objective heavy investments are needed - which are linked to further incentive schemes. 15

16 Import requirements Filling the 2020 supply gap of european markets would require significant imports (55 85 Mio. t) of wood pellets. For comparison: 2010 global pellet market is 16 Mio. t and Imports to Europe account for ~ 2 Mio. t Pellets [1000 t] Shipments NREAP Pöyry NREAP Pöyry NREAP Pöyry Number of shipments required Current BAU Improved Efficiency Heating Value of 18 GJ/ tatro assumed (mix woody and agricultural pellets) t/ shipment 16

17 Global Biomass availability

18 Global Wood Supply Wood supply in central Europe remains more or lesse stable. Regions with significant growth are mainly Russia, US South, South America and Africa. In the short run Canada has to be considered due to massiv insect calamities. Growing supply Stable/Decreasing supply Growing deficit Quelle: Pöyry 18

19 Plantations On the southern hemisphere area of fastgrowing plantations is expected to double until 2020 Brasilien Chile Neuseeland Australien Total Area, Mio. ha China Südafrika Indonesien Argentinien Venezuela Uruguay Vietnam Thailand Quelle: FAO/Pöyry Million ha 19

20 Global Pellet Production New Facilities Capacities of pellet producers have grown clearly in the recent years. 3 new plants in Brasil are announced to start production until 2015 with capacities of 1 Mio. t/a each. Large-scale Pellet Projects Latest Global News Capacity (1,000 mt/a) Biowood 1 st EnergySuzano ,000 Vyborgskaya? Note: Only plants >150kt/a are shown Green Circle RWE Suzano PEA Suzano Quelle: Pöyry

21 Regional outlook to 2020: The supply gap of Mtoe between projected demand and projected supply in Europe would be available on global markets. Available volumes of biomass are highly dependent on market price development Technical supply potential in global regions: M toe % 10% North America South America Africa Eastern Europe (incl. West. Russia) Fuel wood, harvesting residues and plantations Agricultural By-products Regions Asia and Middleast EU27 Ind. by-products (woody) Selected Regions for Regions: VGB/Eurelectric North America, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe (incl. West. Russia) and EU27 Demand Cofiring for Electricity 2020 Source: Pöyry Database; Agricultural potential - technical potential calculated on FAOSTAT basis, growth rates on available areas taken from BMVBS (2010); Demand for Cofiring calculated on basis of VGB calculations and EIA (2010) Please refer to Appendix A for country definitions in EIA (2010) 21

22 Torrefied Pellets

23 Torrefied Pellets 23

24 24

25 25

26 Supply Chain

27 Supply Chain Analysis: Woody Biomass 27

28 Supply Chain Analysis: Agricultural Biomass 28

29 Chips and Pellets Oversea shipment Pellet imports are especially of interest for overseas transports with downstream inland logistics. Chips from oversea sources usually are directly consumed at port of distinction. A regular dry bulk carrier can carry up to 30-40% higher energy content than special designed woodchip carriers. Woodchip Carrier Regular Dry Bulk Carrier Cargo Hold Capacity 110,000 m³ Cargo Hold Capacity 60,000 m³ Deadweight (Dwt) 53,600 mt Deadweight (Dwt) 53,500 mt Density (kg/m³) Net calorific value (GJ/gmt) Woodchips * Vessel type Woodchip carrier Load weight (tons/shipment) Energy transported (GJ/shipment) 42,300 tons 520,000 GJ Wood Pellets ** Dry bulk carrier 40,500 tons 689,000 GJ 29 * ~ 30 % water content ** ~ 10 % water content

30 Delivered Cost Analysis ,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Chips Wood Pellets Torr. Pellets Delivered cost CIF ARA (USD/GJ) Shipping distance (nm) Baltics Finland Russia Canada East South East US Brazil Chile US West Canada West Australia Biomass delivered to mill Chipping Capital costs Pelleting Inland transport (100 miles) Heat treatment in port Shipping (incl. loading and unloading) Full shipping Distance (nm)

31 Summary The NREAP supply of woody biomass in 2020 seems plausible, if existing programs for mobilisation will work The NREAP supply of biomass from agriculture show light variation. There are high potentials, but development would require additional incentives There is a solid biomass supply gap in Europe to be expected in 2020: (26 to 38 Mtoe ~ Mio. t wood pellets) Global availability (technical potentials) exists to supply these volumes from global markets (8 18 USD/GJ CIF ARA 2010) Impact on European Bioenergy markets should be assessed 31

32 Pöyry Management Consulting (Deutschland) GmbH Erdingerstr. 43b Freising Germany Dr. Hubert Röder Tel.: