Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 3–16

Optimal use of forest residues in Europe under different policies—second generation biofuels versus combined heat and power

  • Elisabeth Wetterlund
  • Sylvain Leduc
  • Erik Dotzauer
  • Georg Kindermann
Original Article


The European Union has set a 10 % target for the share of renewable energy in the transportation sector for 2020. To reach this target, second generation biofuels from, for example, forest residues are expected to replace around 3 % of the transport fossil fuel consumption. However, forest residues could also be utilised in the heat and electricity sectors where large amounts of fossil fuels can be replaced, thus reducing global fossil CO2 emissions. This study investigates the use of forest residues for second generation biofuel (ethanol or methanol) or combined heat and power (CHP) production at the European level, with focus on the influence of different economic policy instruments, such as carbon cost or biofuel policy support. A techno-economic, geographically explicit optimisation model is used. The model determines the optimal locations of bioenergy conversion plants by minimising the cost of the entire supply chain. The results show that in order to reach a 3 % second generation biofuel share, a biofuel support comparable to today’s tax exemptions would be needed. With a carbon cost applied, most available forest residues would be allocated to CHP production, with a substantial resulting CO2 emission reduction potential. The major potential for woody biomass and biofuel production is found in the region around the Baltic Sea, with Italy as one of the main biofuel importers.


Bioenergy Second generation biofuels Energy system optimisation Energy policy CO2 emissions 


  1. 1.
    European Commission (2008) 20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity, COM(2008) 30 final. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commission E (2005) Biomass action plan, COM(2005) 628. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Parliament (2009) Dir 2009/28/EC. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ECGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Parliament (2003) Dir 2003/30/EC. Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May, 2003, on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transportGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EurObserv'ER (2011) Biofuels barometer. Systèmes Solaires - Le Journal des Energies Renouvelables, vol 204Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fonseca MB, Burrell A, Gay H, Henseler M, Kavallari A, M’Barek R, Domínguez IP, Tonini A (2010) Impacts of the EU biofuel target on agricultural markets and land use: a comparative modelling assessment. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission (2007) The impact of a minimum 10 % obligation for biofuel use in the EU-27 in 2020 on agricultural markets. Impact assessment of the renewable energy roadmap. AGRI G-2/WM D(2007). Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faaij APC (2006) Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices. Energy Policy 34(3):322–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards R, Szekeres S, Neuwahl F, Mahieu V (2008) Biofuels in the European context: Facts and uncertainties. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richard TL (2010) Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure. Science 329:793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Börjesson M, Ahlgren EO (2010) Biomass gasification in cost-optimized district heating systems—a regional modelling analysis. Energy Policy 38(1):168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wetterlund E, Söderström M (2010) Biomass gasification in district heating systems—the effect of economic energy policies. Appl Energy 87(9):2914–2922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmidt J, Leduc S, Dotzauer E, Kindermann G, Schmid E (2010) Cost-effective CO2 emission reduction through heat, power and biofuel production from woody biomass: a spatially explicit comparison of conversion technologies. Appl Energy 87(7):2128–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steubing B, Zah R, Ludwig C (2011) Life cycle assessment of SNG from wood for heating, electricity, and transportation. Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):2950–2960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fahlén E, Ahlgren EO (2009) Assessment of integration of different biomass gasification alternatives in a district-heating system. Energy 34(12):2184–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alex Marvin W, Schmidt LD, Benjaafar S, Tiffany DG, Daoutidis P (2012) Economic optimization of a lignocellulosic biomass-to-ethanol supply chain. Chem Eng Sci 67(1):68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akgul O, Zamboni A, Bezzo F, Shah N, Papageorgiou LG (2010) Optimization-based approaches for bioethanol supply chains. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(9):4927–4938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt J, Leduc S, Dotzauer E, Schmid E (2011) Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria. Energy Policy 39(6):3261–3280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim J, Realff MJ, Lee JH, Whittaker C, Furtner L (2011) Design of biomass processing network for biofuel production using an MILP model. Biomass Bioenergy 35(2):853–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hellmann F, Verburg PH (2011) Spatially explicit modelling of biofuel crops in Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 35(6):2411–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leduc S, Starfelt F, Dotzauer E, Kindermann G, McCallum I, Obersteiner M, Lundgren J (2010) Optimal location of lignocellulosic ethanol refineries with polygeneration in Sweden. Energy 35(6):2709–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Natarajan K, Leduc S, Pelkonen P, Tomppo E, Dotzauer E (2012) Optimal locations for methanol and CHP production in Eastern Finland. Bioenergy Research 5(2):412–423Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leduc S (2009) Development of an optimization model for the location of biofuel production plants. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, LuleåGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wetterlund E (2010) Optimal localisation of biofuel production on a European scale. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. Available at:
  25. 25.
    Wetterlund E, Leduc S, Dotzauer E, Kindermann G (2012) Optimal localisation of biofuel production on a European scale. Energy 41(1):462–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCarl BA, Meeraus A, Eijk Pvd, Bussieck M, Dirkse S, Steacy P (2008) McCarl expanded GAMS user guide version 22.9. GAMS Development Corporation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    JRC (2006) 2006 forest cover map. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). Available from:
  28. 28.
    Kindermann G, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M (2008) A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica 42:387–396Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swedish Energy Agency (2011) Trädbränsle- och torvpriser, nr 2/2011 (Wood fuel and peat prices, in Swedish). Sveriges officiella statistik, statistiska meddelanden EN 0307 SM 1102. Swedish Energy Agency, EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olsson O, Vinterbäck J, Porsö C (2010) EUBIONET III, WP3—wood fuel price statistics in Europe—D 3.1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Remer DS, Chai LH (1990) Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment. Chem Eng Prog 86(8):77–82Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hamelinck CN, Faaij APC (2002) Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass. J Power Sources 111(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wahlund B, Yan J, Westermark M (2004) Increasing biomass utilisation in energy systems: a comparative study of CO2 reduction and cost for different bioenergy processing options. Biomass Bioenergy 26(6):531–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barta Z, Reczey K, Zacchi G (2010) Techno-economic evaluation of stillage treatment with anaerobic digestion in a softwood-to-ethanol process. Biotechnol Biofuels 3(21)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Börjesson P, Gustavsson L (1996) Regional production and utilization of biomass in Sweden. Energy 21(9):747–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Edwards R, Larivé J-F, Mahieu V, Rouveirolles P (2007) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, version 2c. JRC/EUCAR/CONCAWE, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Commission E (2008) European energy and transport trends to 2030—update 2007. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) (2005) Global Rural–Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): settlement points. CIESIN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Werner S (2006) Ecoheatcool 2005–2006, work package 1 (the European heat market) and 4 (possibilities with more district heating in Europe). Euroheat and Power, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Egeskog A, Hansson J, Berndes G, Werner S (2009) Co-generation of biofuels for transportation and heat for district heating systems—an assessment of the national possibilities in the EU. Energy Policy 37(12):5260–5272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    European Commission (2010) Oil Bulletin. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy. Available from: Accessed 24 July 2010
  42. 42.
    Eurostat (2010) Eurostat—energy statistics. European Commission. Available at: Accessed 24 July 2010
  43. 43.
    Gode J, Martinsson F, Hagberg L, Oman A, Höglund J, Palm D (2011) Environmental facts 2011. Estimated emission factors for fuels, electricity, heat and transport in Sweden (Miljöfaktaboken 2011, in Swedish), vol 1183. Värmeforsk, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dir 2003/54/EC Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 26, 2003, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/ECGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dir 2009/72/EC Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/ECGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Axelsson E, Harvey S, Berntsson T (2009) A tool for creating energy market scenarios for evaluation of investments in energy intensive industry. Energy 34(12):2069–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, MacLean HL (2010) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wihersaari M (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions from final harvest fuel chip production in Finland. Biomass Bioenergy 28(5):435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lindholm EL, Stendahl J, Berg S, Hansson PA (2011) Greenhouse gas balance of harvesting stumps and logging residues for energy in Sweden. Scand J For Res 26(6):586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) Full fuel cycle carbon balances of bioenergy and forestry options. Energy Convers Manag 37(6–8):813–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    European Commission (2010) Commission decision of 10 June 2010 on guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 2010/335/EUGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jung A, Dörrenberg P, Rauch A, Thöne M (2010) Biofuels—at what cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the European Union. The Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Wetterlund
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sylvain Leduc
    • 2
  • Erik Dotzauer
    • 3
  • Georg Kindermann
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Energy Systems, Department of Management and EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  3. 3.School of Sustainable Development of Society and TechnologyMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations