[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v107y2017icp394-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitiveness of advanced and conventional biofuels: Results from least-cost modelling of biofuel competition in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Millinger, M.
  • Ponitka, J.
  • Arendt, O.
  • Thrän, D.
Abstract
Techno-economic variables for advanced biofuels produced from lignocellulosic biomass have been scrutinized and combined with a newly developed transparent model for simulating the competitiveness between conventional and advanced biofuels for road transport in the medium to long term in Germany. The influence of learning effects and feedstock cost developments has been highlighted, including also gaseous fuels. Thorough sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Previously reported cost assumptions for advanced biofuels were found to have been too optimistic. The most cost-competitive biofuels for most of the time period remained conventional biodiesel and bioethanol, but the costs of these options and biomethane and Synthetic Natural Gas (bio-SNG) converged in the medium term and thus other factors will play a decisive role for market developments of biofuels. Feedstock cost uncertainties for the future remain a challenge for long-term planning, and low-cost short-rotation coppice may change the picture more than any other parameter. Of the advanced biofuels, bio-SNG was found significantly more cost-competitive and resource efficient than Fischer-Tropsch-diesel and lignocellulose-based ethanol, but still requiring a dedicated long-term policy. The results and the large sensitivities of biofuel competitiveness stress the need for more data transparency and for thorough sensitivity analyses of the results in similar system studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Millinger, M. & Ponitka, J. & Arendt, O. & Thrän, D., 2017. "Competitiveness of advanced and conventional biofuels: Results from least-cost modelling of biofuel competition in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 394-402.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:107:y:2017:i:c:p:394-402
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302987
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martinsen, Dag & Funk, Carolin & Linssen, Jochen, 2010. "Biomass for transportation fuels--A cost-effective option for the German energy supply?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 128-140, January.
    2. Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
    3. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    4. Prins, M.J. & Ptasinski, K.J., 2005. "Energy and exergy analyses of the oxidation and gasification of carbon," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 982-1002.
    5. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    6. Menten, Fabio & Chèze, Benoît & Patouillard, Laure & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2013. "A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 108-134.
    7. Sunde, K. & Brekke, A. & Solberg, B., 2011. "Environmental impacts and costs of woody Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL) production and use -- A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 591-602, October.
    8. Pregger, Thomas & Nitsch, Joachim & Naegler, Tobias, 2013. "Long-term scenarios and strategies for the deployment of renewable energies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 350-360.
    9. Åhman, Max, 2010. "Biomethane in the transport sector--An appraisal of the forgotten option," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 208-217, January.
    10. van Eijck, Janske & Batidzirai, Bothwell & Faaij, André, 2014. "Current and future economic performance of first and second generation biofuels in developing countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 115-141.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruth Delzeit & Robert Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel &, 2020. "Linking Global CGE Models with Sectoral Models to Generate Baseline Scenarios: Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 162-195, June.
    2. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Markus Millinger & Kathleen Meisel & Maik Budzinski & Daniela Thrän, 2018. "Relative Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Kathleen Meisel & Markus Millinger & Karin Naumann & Franziska Müller-Langer & Stefan Majer & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "Future Renewable Fuel Mixes in Transport in Germany under RED II and Climate Protection Targets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Millinger, M. & Reichenberg, L. & Hedenus, F. & Berndes, G. & Zeyen, E. & Brown, T., 2022. "Are biofuel mandates cost-effective? - An analysis of transport fuels and biomass usage to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    6. Bryngemark, Elina, 2019. "Second generation biofuels and the competition for forest raw materials: A partial equilibrium analysis of Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Thomassen, Gwenny & Van Passel, Steven & Dewulf, Jo, 2020. "A review on learning effects in prospective technology assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Harahap, Fumi & Silveira, Semida & Khatiwada, Dilip, 2019. "Cost competitiveness of palm oil biodiesel production in Indonesia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 62-72.
    9. Vasilakou, Konstantina & Nimmegeers, Philippe & Thomassen, Gwenny & Billen, Pieter & Van Passel, Steven, 2023. "Assessing the future of second-generation bioethanol by 2030 – A techno-economic assessment integrating technology learning curves," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 344(C).
    10. Aui, Alvina & Wang, Yu, 2023. "Cellulosic ethanol production: Assessment of the impacts of learning and plant capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    11. Qing Guo & Wenlan You, 2023. "Evaluating the International Competitiveness of RCEP Countries’ Biomass Products in the Context of the New Development Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yao, Xilong & Liu, Yang & Qu, Shiyou, 2015. "When will wind energy achieve grid parity in China? – Connecting technological learning and climate finance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 697-704.
    2. Elia, A. & Taylor, M. & Ó Gallachóir, B. & Rogan, F., 2020. "Wind turbine cost reduction: A detailed bottom-up analysis of innovation drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Schmid, Eva & Knopf, Brigitte, 2015. "Quantifying the long-term economic benefits of European electricity system integration," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 260-269.
    4. Edenhofer, Ottmar & Hirth, Lion & Knopf, Brigitte & Pahle, Michael & Schlömer, Steffen & Schmid, Eva & Ueckerdt, Falko, 2013. "On the economics of renewable energy sources," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 12-23.
    5. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    6. Odam, Neil & de Vries, Frans P., 2020. "Innovation modelling and multi-factor learning in wind energy technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Gasparatos, Alexandros & Doll, Christopher N.H. & Esteban, Miguel & Ahmed, Abubakari & Olang, Tabitha A., 2017. "Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 161-184.
    8. Nicodemus, Julia Haltiwanger, 2018. "Technological learning and the future of solar H2: A component learning comparison of solar thermochemical cycles and electrolysis with solar PV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 100-109.
    9. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.
    10. Strupeit, Lars & Neij, Lena, 2017. "Cost dynamics in the deployment of photovoltaics: Insights from the German market for building-sited systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 948-960.
    11. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2016. "Photovoltaic learning rate estimation: Issues and implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 507-524.
    12. Zakerinia, Saleh, 2018. "Understanding the Role of Transportation in Meeting California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target: A Focus on Technology Forcing Policies, Interactions with the Electric Sector and Mitigation," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0r69m651, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Sommerfeldt, Nelson & Madani, Hatef, 2017. "Revisiting the techno-economic analysis process for building-mounted, grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems: Part one – Review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1379-1393.
    14. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    15. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Wigle, Randall, 2018. "How do learning externalities influence the evaluation of Ontario's renewables support policies?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-99.
    16. Gunther Glenk & Rebecca Meier & Stefan Reichelstein, 2021. "Cost Dynamics of Clean Energy Technologies," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 179-206, June.
    17. Mauleón, Ignacio & Hamoudi, Hamid, 2017. "Photovoltaic and wind cost decrease estimation: Implications for investment analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1054-1065.
    18. Fukui, Rokuhei & Greenfield, Carl & Pogue, Katie & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2017. "Experience curve for natural gas production by hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 263-268.
    19. Glenk, Gunther & Meier, Rebecca & Reichelstein, Stefan, 2021. "Cost dynamics of clean energy technologies," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-054, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Wu, X.D. & Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q. & Hayat, T. & Alsaedi, A., 2016. "Progress and prospect of CCS in China: Using learning curve to assess the cost-viability of a 2×600MW retrofitted oxyfuel power plant as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1274-1285.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:107:y:2017:i:c:p:394-402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.