The importance of renewable energy resources in the long-term energy strategy of The Netherlands in general and the Energy Valley Region in Particular - Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij

Biogas in the biobased economy Conference of the European Biogas Associa4on, Egmond aan Zee

-‐ Netherlands, October 1st 2014.

Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij Academic Director -‐ Energy Academy Europe

Dis4nguished Professor Energy System Analysis – University of Groningen

•  Center of excellence in energy educa4on/research/innova4on •  Focus on transi4on to sustainable, reliable and affordable energy.

–  Renewables (wind, solar etc.) –  Energy efficiency (including energy water and food) –  Gas (including biogas, green gas) –  C0₂ reduc4on –  Smart grids

•  Open to all interested students, organiza4ons and businesses •  Public / Private ini4a4ve of: Hanze University of Applied Sciences,

University of Groningen, GasTerra , Energy Valley and EBN

What is the Energy Academy Europe?

Top Research

Applied research/ innova4on

Educa4on (focus on interdisciplinary)

Stakeholders/IAB, Fall 2014 2015 2022

!! Interlinkages & matching stakeholder dialogue; demand & supply With respect to research, educa?on, innova?on… !!

Partners

EnTranCe Building 2000 m2 realized per sept/oct 2014

Building Energy Academy 10.000 m2, completed end of 2015

•  > 400 energy companies •  > 30.000 employees in

the energy sector •  Increase in energy

students from 300 to 3.000 yearly in 10 years 4me

Contact us: •  Academic Director André Faaij (as per 1-‐4-‐2014) •  Managing Director Bert Wiersema •  [email protected]; [email protected] •  www.energyacademy.org

Become a partner!

Energy system transforma?on…

[GEA/van Vuuren et al CoSust, 2012]

Advancing markets…pushed by technological progress and pulled

by high oil prices •  Advanced biofuels…(strong economic perspec4ve)

•  Biorefining, biochemicals, biomaterials… •  Avia4on and shipping… •  Likely to compete for the same resources… •  Should meet the same sustainability criteria…(but that is not the case today!)

•  Compe44on or synergy?

Biobased economy in the Netherlands?

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Totaal hernieuwbaar

Hernieuwbaar overig

Zonnecollectoren, geothermie

Wind, PV, Hydro

Water

Wind

Zon PV

Biomassa

Totaal Tradi4oneel

Kernenergie

Gas

Olie

Kolen

CO2-‐emissions rise

Historic tren

d

CO2-‐emissions decline

Netherlands; possible future energy supply (PJ per year)

Scenarios (2010 – 2030) Internationaloriented

IntLowTech IntHighTech

• Int. biomass • Int. biomass• co-firing • gasification• 1st generation fuels • 2nd generation fuels(import and production) • Bulk chemicals

Low technological High technologicaldevelopment development

• domestic waste • domestic waste• EU biomass • EU biomass• co-firing • gasification• waste incineration • 2nd generation fuels• digestion • Biorefineries (domestic)• 1st generation fuels

NatLowTech NatHighTech

National oriented

[Hoefnagels et al., Energy Policy 2013]

Domes?c and imported biomass needs for bioenergy and biobased chemicals (NL)

Domestic and imported biomass for bioenergy and biobased chemicals

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2006 2010 2020 2030 2006 2010 2020 2030 2006 2010 2020 2030 2006 2010 2020 2030 2006 2010 2020 2030

NatLowTech IntLowTech NatHighTech IntHighTech IntHighTech AC

Bio

mas

s fe

edst

ock

(PJ)

Ethanol (import from sugar cane)

Starch/sugar crops

Vegetable oil

Imported woody biomass

Agricultural residues

Clean wood residues

Oil and fat residues

WOW

MSW

~110 PJ from residues in the LowTech scenarios

~250 PJ from residues in the HighTech scenarios


Bioenergy in the scenarios in 2030 (+) (NL)

Fossil energy avoided

747 PJ833 PJ

113 PJ

220 PJ203 PJ

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NatLow

Tech

IntLo

wTech

NatHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech

ACA

void

ed p

rimar

y en

ergy

(PJ)

ElectricityBiodieselBiogasolineChemicals

Biobased production

171 PJ

680 PJ 673 PJ

74 PJ

164 PJ

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NatLow

Tech

IntLowTech

NatHighT

ech

IntHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech AC

Bio

base

d pr

oduc

tion

(PJ)

Electricity

BiodieselBiogasoline

Chemicals


Sensi?vity to fossil fuel prices

Oil price: 90 US$/bbl Oil price: 75 US$/bbl

Additional cost relative to fossil production

119 M€

162 M€

1067 M€

121 M€ -276 M€

-900

-400

100

600

1100

1600

NatLow

Tech

IntLo

wTech

NatHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech A

C

Add

ition

al e

xpen

ditu

res

(M€/

a)


Additional cost relative to fossil production

-1272 M€-161 M€

69 M€

15 M€-626 M€

-900

-400

100

600

1100

1600

NatLow

Tech

IntLo

wTech

NatHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech

IntHigh

Tech A

C

Add

ition

al e

xpen

ditu

res

(M€/

a)



Biomass market developments

Global biodiesel & fuel ethanol

production 2000-2009

Biodiesel

EU

Ethanol

USA Brazil Argentina Others

(Source: Lamers et al., RSER, 15 (2011) 2655– 2676)

Global (fuel) ethanol trade streams of minimum 1 PJ in 2011.

(Source: Lamers et al., in Faaij & Junginger (eds), forthcoming in 2013)

(Source: Lamers et al., in Faaij & Junginger (eds), forthcoming in 2013)

Global biodiesel trade streams of minimum 1 PJ in 2011.

(Source: Lamers et al. RSER, 16(2012) 3176-3199

Global wood pellet production 2000 - 2010

Global wood pellet trade 2010

Source: Lamers et al., RSER, 16(2012) 3176-3199

Simulated Biomass trade flows 2020

RU

FI

SE

FR

UA

ES

NO

TR

PL

DE

IT

UK BY

RO

IE

LT

BG

AT

LV

HU

CZ

PT

RS

GR

EE

SK

BA

HR

NL

CH

DK

BE

MD

AL

SI

MK

ME KS

CY

LU

MT

MC

RU

FI

SE

FR

UA

ES

NO

TR

PL

DE

IT

UK BY

RO

IE

LT

BG

AT

LV

HU

CZ

PT

RS

GR

EE

SK

BA

HR

NL

CH

DK

BE

MD

AL

SI

MK

ME KS

CY

LU

MT

MC

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Import non-EU

Low Import scenario High Import scenario

Year: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2009 2015 2020 (pellets) Low Import High Import Low Import High Import Total trade (Mtoe) 1.6 5.4 6.2 12.6 17.4 Total trade (Mt wood pellet eq.)* 3.8 12 14 29 40 Of which Intra-EU 55% 38% 32% 52% 32% Of which Inter-EU 45% 62% 68% 48% 68% *) Mt eq. = million metric tonne pellet equivalent (18 MJ/kg)

[Hoefnagels et al, applied energy , 2014]

Results -‐ spa4al produc4on poten4al

Arable land available for dedicated bio-‐energy crops divided by the total land

Countries

Low potential

High potential

Moderate potential

< 6,5%

NL, BE, LU, AT, CH, NO, SE and FI

Potential

6,5% - 17%

FR, ES, PT, GE, UK, DK, IE, IT and GR

> 17% PL, LT, LV, HU, SL, SK, CZ, EST, RO, BU and UKR

[Wit & Faaij, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010]

Results -‐ spa4al cost distribu4on

Produc4on cost (€ GJ-‐1) for Grassy crops

PL, PT, CZ, LT, LV, UK, RO, BU, HU, SL, SK, EST, UKR

FR, ES, GE, IT, SE, FI, NO, IE

NL, BE, LU, UK, GR, DK, CH, AT

< 2,00 Low Cost

Moderate Cost

2,00 – 3,20

> 3,20 High Cost

Potential Countries


1 EJ (ExaJoule) = 24 Mtoe

Summary baseline 2030

0369

1215182124

0 6 12 18Supply (EJ/year)

Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J)

Oil


0369

1215182124


Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J) Starch

Oil


0369

1215182124


Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J) Starch

OilSugar


0369

1215182124


Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J)

Wood

Starch

OilSugar


0369

1215182124


Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J)

GrassWood

Starch

OilSugar


0369

1215182124


Prod

uctio

n C

osts

(€/G

J)

GrassWood

Starch

OilSugar

GrassWood

1st generation

2nd generation

Crop specific supply curves •  Feedstock poten4als Produced

on 65 Mha arable and 24 Mha on pastures (grass and wood)

•  Significant difference between ‘1st and 2nd genera4on crops’

•  Supply poten4als high compared to demand

2010 (0,78 EJ/yr) and 2020 (1,48 EJ/yr)


Economic and Environmental viability of Advanced Biomass Conversion Pathways

Range of LCOE for selected commercially available RE technologies compared to recent

non-‐RE costs.

[IPCC-‐SRREN, 2011]

Cost ranges various current bioenergy systems.


Projected produc?on costs es?mated for selected developing technologies


Bio-‐SNG

General outline of possible bioSNG produc4on systems via gasifica4on

[Ba?dzirai et al., Applied Energy, forthcoming]

Schema4c of the Milena gasifica4on process

BioSNG produc4on process based on Milena system

Rela4ve primary energy loss of bioSNG produc4on across selected scenarios

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Rela?v

e prim

ary en

ergy loss (%

)

Scenario

Compression

Regasifica4on

Liquefac4on

Conversion

Pipeline

Ship

Rail

Pelle4sing

Milling

Torrefac4on

Drying

Chipping

Truck

Feedstock


BioSNG produc?on costs compared to natural gas prices, oil and biodiesel


Impact of scaling the Milena and Güssing technologies

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Specific investmen

t costs ($

/MWth, in)

Fuel capacity (MWth, in)

Milena Güssing


BioSNG delivered costs at different produc?on scales for selected chains

The produc4on capacity (in MWth, in) is given in brackets for each supply chain


Scale effects on bioSNG produc?on costs for selected supply chains

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 50 100 250 500 1000

Cost of d

elivered

SNG ($

/GJ C

NG)

SNG produc?on capacity (MWth,in)

Braz-‐coast Braz-‐pipeline NL-‐TOPs-‐Braz NL-‐WPs-‐Braz Ukrn-‐pipeline Biodiesel low Biodiesel high Oil low Oil high


Final remarks •  Biomass cri4cal pillar of future world’s energy supply when mi4ga4on of GHG-‐emissions is to be addressed.

•  Equally important for NL; heavily reliant on imports (European poten4als considerable).

•  Biogas amongst the poten4al winners, but future biomass deployment depends on many factors.

•  Bio-‐SNG has very good perspec4ves, but competes with advanced biofuels and biomaterials.

Selected references.

•  B. Ba4dzirai, G.S. Schotman, M.W. van der Spek, M.J. Junginger, A.P.C. Faaij, Economic and Energe-c Op-misa-on of BioSNG Produc-on and Supply Chains (accepted; Applied Energy, 2014).

•  R Hoefnagels, G Resch, M Junginger, A Faaij, Interna-onal and domes-c uses of solid biofuels under different renewable energy support scenarios in the European Union, Applied Energy, Volume 131, October 2014, Pp. 139-‐157

•  Marc de Wit, André Faaij, European biomass resource poten-al and costs, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 34, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 188-‐202

•  Ric Hoefnagels, Mar4n Banse, Veronika Dornburg, Andre Faaij, Macro-‐economic impact of large-‐scale deployment of biomass resources for energy and materials on a na-onal level—A combined approach for the Netherlands, Energy Policy,Volume 59, August 2013, Pages 727-‐744

•  H. Chum, A. Faaij, et al., (CLA’s), Chapter 2, Bioenergy. In: Oymar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs Madruga, Youba Sokona et al. (eds.) The IPCC Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mi4ga4on, Cambridge University Press, New York, ISBN 978-‐1-‐107-‐60710-‐12011. Pp. 209-‐332

Thanks for your amen?on For more informa?on, see:

-‐  Sciencedirect/Scopus (scien?fic)

-‐  Google scholar cita?ons (personal) -‐  hmp://srren.ipcc-‐wg3.de/report (IPCC) [email protected] ; [email protected]

Government & Nonprofit

The importance of renewable energy resources in the long-term energy strategy of The Netherlands in general and the Energy Valley Region in Particular - Prof. Dr. André P.C. Faaij