# Assessing the impacts of net-zero transport scenarios in France on biomass resources, hydrogen and electricity consumption

Robin Roure, Pascal Gastineau, Daphné Lorne, Guillaume Boissonnet, Jack Legrand, Monique Axelos

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Robin Roure, Pascal Gastineau, Daphné Lorne, Guillaume Boissonnet, Jack Legrand, et al. Assessing the impacts of net-zero transport scenarios in France on biomass resources, hydrogen and electricity consumption. Renewable Energy, 2025, 253, pp.123626. 10.1016/j.renene.2025.123626. hal-05131006

HAL Id: hal-05131006

https://ifp.hal.science/hal-05131006v1

Submitted on 26 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Assessing the impacts of net-zero transport scenarios in France on biomass resources, hydrogen and electricity consumption

Robin Roure<sup>a, *, e</sup>, Pascal Gastineau<sup>b</sup>, Daphné Lorne<sup>c</sup>, Guillaume Boissonnet<sup>a</sup>, Jack Legrand<sup>d</sup>, Monique Axelos<sup>e</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Transport decarbonization
Biofuels
E-Fuels
Hydrogen
Biomass
Electricity

## ABSTRACT

The transport sector in France accounts for 30 % of national emissions and will require significant decarbonization effort to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. Various technological solutions, from electric vehicles to renewable fuel such as biofuels and e-fuels, as well as changes in demand are envisioned to reach this target. We build three technological foresight scenarios and two sufficiency variants, mainly based on different readings of the European regulations banning the sale of internal-combustion-engine vehicles and setting Sustainable Aviation Fuel incorporation rates. The transport, hydrogen and biomass sectors are modeled in system dynamics to assess the detail impacts of these scenarios on biomass resources and energy consumption. In all scenarios, the total electricity demand increases drastically, regardless of the technological choices made for the vehicle fleets, mainly due to the production of e-fuels for aviation. None of the technological scenarios studied suggest that biomass supply is unfeasible. However, in a scenario with low electrification, there is a potentially increased dependence on imports for waste oils and fats, and competing uses or tensions with other demand sectors may arise over some biomass for anaerobic digestion and lignocellulosic resources. To reduce these potential tensions and the demand for electricity, sufficiency measures seem necessary in addition to technological advancements.

## 1. Introduction

In 2015, France signed the Paris Agreement to limit the increase in average temperature to 2 °C as part of the fight against climate change. To achieve this, France aims to become carbon neutral by 2050, as set out in the 2019 energy-climate law. The SNBC (National Low Carbon Strategy) [1] is France's sectoral roadmap for achieving its climate objectives. The objective for France is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. This requires dividing France's greenhouse gas emissions by 6 compared with 1990 levels, i.e. reducing France's emissions to 80 MtCO₂eq from 458 MtCO₂eq in 2015. In 2017, the transport sector was responsible for 30 % of national emissions, equivalent to 139 MtCO₂eq (excluding international bunkers). France aims to reduce these emissions to 4 MtCO₂eq by 2050 (i.e. residual emissions from domestic air transport and residual gas leaks). Achieving this target would require a reduction of 135 MtCO₂eq in less than 35 years.

The transport sector is widely regarded as one of the most challenging and expensive sectors to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions [2]. These conclusions are typically drawn from technical and economic modeling exercises that use multi-sectorial models such as TIMES [3]. There have been numerous foresight transport-energy exercises conducted at national levels all around the world in Europe [4], in America [5] or in Asia [6]. They focuses mostly on technological developments and their determinants, and less frequently on social-technical approach and the levers that can change the demand for mobility. Anable et al. [7] especially highlight the importance of addressing both the demand and supply sides to ensure energy security and reduce emissions.

As stated by Danielis et al. [8], Member States are employing two strategies to decarbonize the European transport sector. The first strategy entails facilitating the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. The second strategy involves increasing the production and utilization of

<footnote><sup>a</sup> CEA/DES/I-Tésé, Université Paris Saclay, Gif sur Yvette, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université Gustave Eiffel, AME-SPLOTT, F-44344, Bouguenais, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> IFP Energies Nouvelles, 1 et 4 Avenue de Bois-Préau, Rueil-Malmaison, 92852, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> University of Nantes, CNRS, ONIRIS, GEPEA, UMR6144, 37 bd de L'Université, CS 90406, 44612, Saint-Nazaire Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> INRAE - French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment, 147 Rue de L'Université, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: robin.roure@cea.fr (R. Roure).</footnote>
renewable substitutes to fossil fuels. The alternatives are biofuels produced from various biomass resources, particularly those derived from advanced materials, and e-fuels, also known as electrofuels, synthetic fuels produced by combining CO₂ and hydrogen obtained from renewable electricity.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) forecasts in its Net Zero Roadmap [9] that biofuels will be useful in decarbonizing road transportation by 2030, before being replaced by the widespread electrification of vehicle fleets. The meta-analysis conducted by Chiaramonti et al. (2021) [10] also indicates that the majority of foresight studies on European transport decarbonization suggest that biofuels, particularly advanced biofuels, will significantly contribute to this objective. The growth of biofuels may face several obstacles, including their cost, which could increase the total costs of energy systems, people's perception [11], competing uses such as power generation [12], and the availability of feedstock [13]. Recent policy developments have addressed some of these challenges by reducing sustainability risks and improving public acceptance [14,15]. Regarding air transport, the French Academy of Technology issued a report [16] on the use of biomass and indicates that France, due to its low-carbon electricity mix, is among the few European countries capable of rapidly deploying an industrial sector for Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production beyond the constraints of biomass availability.

This article focuses on how recent European regulations on transport decarbonization would affect energy and biomass resource consumption in France. We use foresight scenarios to evaluate the impact of multiple demand trajectories. Foresight scenarios are not forecasts, but can be used to describe possible contrasting futures in order to study the consequences of a set of assumptions on a given system. Three technological scenarios, with varying degrees of market penetration for battery electric vehicles are studied. Additionally, two variants are considered, incorporating sufficiency measures. This article presents the model in system dynamics, along with the underlying assumptions and trajectories regarding the transport, biomass, and hydrogen sectors. It also analyzes and discusses the results of these scenarios, showing a significant increase in required electricity, mainly due to Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production. On the biomass side, resources appear sufficient, except for the imports of used oils. However, tensions could arise regarding lignocellulosic or biomass for anaerobic digestion.

The article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a review of the relevant literature. Section 3 outlines the methodology and model used. Section 4 describes the scenarios analyzed. Section 5 presents the results and their implications for energy and biomass. Section 6 discusses the limitations of the study and suggests avenues for future research, and Section 7 concludes with a summary of the key findings.

## 2. Literature review

Several foresight exercises have been conducted in France regarding the decarbonization of transport. France Stratégie<fnref n="1" /> [17] proposed transport decarbonization scenarios that focus on both passenger and freight transport. The sector has seven possible development trajectories, but only two of them achieve carbon neutrality. To achieve this, they combine strong technological developments with marked sufficiency in use.

The Deep Decarbonization Pathways (DDP) method, developed by UN-Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) [18], is an iterative framework designed to create national and sectoral trajectories that are compatible with carbon neutrality. Briand et al. [19] used this method to investigate two potential development pathways for the freight transport sector. The scenarios are contingent upon the

degree of coupling between freight transport demand and GDP. The first scenario assumes an increase in demand for transportation and a technological advancement of the vehicle fleet. The second scenario is based on a reduction in demand, which is linked to changes in consumer behavior and a reorganization of the production system. Briand et al. [20] and Lefèvre et al. [21] also examined two scenarios for the passenger transport sector. The first scenario focuses on the social, organizational, and technical transformations of the mobility system, subsequently illustrating how technological innovations can facilitate its decarbonization. The second scenario considers current mobility trends, which describe an increase in demand, and does not anticipate any significant changes in the mobility system.

The impact on demand for biomass resources for the production of fossil fuel substitutes is not precisely quantified in these scenarios. Briand et al. (2019) [19] predicts that heavy goods vehicles may be responsible for the use of significant quantities of biofuels. They observe that this could put pressure on the agricultural sector and potentially compromise the feasibility of an agro-ecological transition. But, no resource-by-resource quantification of biomass needs compared to actual harvest potential was performed. This need for country specific biomass studies was highlighted by Akhtar Usmani and Khan (2025) [22]. They showed that overall, biofuels had the potential to contribute to energy security in transport but that regional disparities in resource availability could be locally limiting.

The French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME)<fnref n="2" /> proposes four scenarios in its 'Transition(s) 2050' exercise [23] for achieving carbon neutrality in France by 2050, with more details on biomass resources. These scenarios cover the entire energy system, including transport, and estimate the associated energy consumption, as well as consumption of water, construction materials and land use. According to these scenarios the amount of biomass used for energy purposes is projected to increase by a factor of three between 2015 and 2050 in most scenarios. In the transportation sector, biomass in the form of biofuels and biogas is used in combination with other sources for heavy goods vehicles, off-road vehicles, shipping, and air transport, which present greater challenges to decarbonization than light vehicles.

However, recent European legislative developments were not included in the previously stated scenarios and may have a significant impact on the decarbonization pathways of the transport sector. Regulation 2023/2405 [24] and Directive 2023/2413 [25] set targets for the incorporation of non-fossil fuel substitutes in air and road transportation respectively. In ADEME scenarios, e-kerosene is not considered as a major substitute, and only accounts for at most 4 % of the aviation demand in 2050, whereas the new EU regulation aims at 35 %. Also, European Union (EU) Regulation 2023/851 [26] establishes a ban on the sale of internal combustion vehicles, effective from 2035, which will fasten the penetration rate of battery electric vehicles in the fleet.

The literature shows a lack of foresight studies incorporating the most recent EU regulation enacted after 2023 and no detailed assessments of their impacts on biomass resources consumption. Our article proposes therefore new foresight scenarios on transport sector decarbonization with the integration of the recently enacted EU regulations. We also provide new detailed insights on how such scenarios could affect biomass resources and energy consumption. In order to highlight the possible constraints on resources of such decarbonization scenarios, this article analyzes in detail the impacts of biofuel production on each biomass type, in regards with national potentials in 2050. Additionally, this article presents scenarios that incorporate sufficiency measures, which encompass changes in behavior, beyond the scope of traditional technological-only approaches.

<footnote n="1">¹ France Stratégie is a French government policy planning and analysis organization.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² ADEME is a public agency whose primary mission is to promote and implement policies related to environmental protection, energy efficiency, and sustainable development.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Overview of OPERA modules.</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Methodology

The French energy system is modeled using the OPERA<fnref n="3" /> model, which was developed by the National Alliance for Coordinated Energy Research (ANCRE) with contributions from various working groups. Since 2009 ANCRE has brought together 17 French research and innovation organizations in the field of energy. The aim of this model is to propose foresight scenarios for decarbonizing the French energy system by utilizing the research expertise available within ANCRE. The model was previously employed in 2013 [27] and 2017 [28] to develop ANCRE's energy transition scenarios in the context of the French law on energy transition for green growth. The former objective was to reduce CO₂ emissions by a factor of four.

The OPERA model is developed using the commercial software VENSIM, which employs system dynamics as a methodology for representing the evolution of complex systems over time. This approach involves the use of stocks, flows and feedback loops to illustrate the dynamic interactions and changes within these systems.

The model is made of interconnected modules covering the energy demand sectors (agriculture, transport, buildings, industry) as well as the various energy vectors and their means of production (electricity, heat, gas, hydrogen, biomass). All of these modules provide a representation of the French energy system as a whole. The internal modeling of each module and the input data are taken from the literature or from ANCRE's own experts.

This article studies the effects of various decarbonization strategies for passenger and freight transportation on biomass resource utilization and on the hydrogen and electricity demands. The primary modules involved are therefore those related to transport, biomass, and hydrogen. An overview of OPERA modules is shown in Fig. 1.

Main links between these modules are shown in Fig. 2. The transportation module takes as inputs the growth in demand for passenger and freight transportation, as well as changes in modal shares and engine types for the different vehicle types. In the case of passenger cars, the fleet is modeled with more details using the annual sales shares of the different engines as well as vehicle survival rates. The outputs of this module are the annual consumption of electricity, hydrogen and liquid fuels. The incorporation rates of fossil fuel substitutes define the consumption of biofuels and electric fuels.

In the biomass module, the availability of biomass resources is evaluated. The consumption of biomass resources for the production of

the various biofuels is calculated with assumptions about the development of biofuels production technologies and the associated efficiencies. These requirements are then compared resource by resource with France's production potential.

Finally, in the hydrogen module, the efficiency of electrolyzers and e-fuels production technologies are used to calculate the additional electricity demand for transport.

This model facilitates the evaluation of foresight scenarios and the assessment of their influence on the global energy system. These foresight scenarios are not forecasts; rather, they are designed to describe possible contrasting futures in order to study the consequences of a set of assumptions on a given system, as defined by de Menthière et al. [29]. This type of model is particularly well suited for assessing the impact of public policies. This article focuses primarily on energy demand, with no limits imposed on supply. The main assumptions have been chosen according to the objectives set out in current French and European regulations.

Three technological demand scenarios are considered. There are based on three different readings of the European Regulation 2023/851 banning the sale of internal-combustion-engine vehicles [26].

- An electric scenario (ELEC): a ban is set on the sale of internal-combustion-engine vehicles for private cars from 2035; for freight, we assume a high penetration of electric vehicles (EV) for short distances and fuel cell vehicles for long distances.

- A hybrid scenario (HYB): from 2035 onwards, internal combustion vehicles will continue to be sold, but only plug-in hybrids; for freight, the same assumptions apply as in the ELEC scenario.

- A thermal scenario (THERM): the regulation banning the sale of internal combustion passenger cars in 2035 includes an exception allowing the sale of internal combustion passenger cars using non-fossil fuels. Decarbonization will be achieved by combining bio- or e-fuel substitutes for liquid fuels in addition to electrification; for freight, we assume that the penetration of fuel cell vehicles is lower than in the ELEC and HYB scenarios.

As other foresight studies from ADEME [30], France Stratégie [17] and also RTE the French electricity Transmission System Operator [31], this article looks at variants of our main scenarios that include sufficiency measures, with moderate growth in transport demand applied to our ELEC and THERM scenarios.

The purpose of analyzing these variants is not to quantify the precise impact of behavioral measures on demand, but rather to quantify the potential gains in consumption of highly constrained resources thanks to a relative stabilization of demand for passenger and freight transport.

<footnote n="3">³ OPERA model stands for “ANCRE’s Energy Forecasting Tool” (in French, “Outil de Prospective EneRgétique de l’ANCRE”).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Main links between OPERA modules.</figcaption></figure>

These sufficiency variants are called ELEC_SUFFIX and THERM_SUFFIX.

# 4. Scenario description

In addition to the modeling presented in Section 3, the other significant contribution to our methodology is the definition of scenarios. This scenario definition revolves around three main topics, defining the transport demand, the hydrogen supply and the biomass potential, which are detailed in the following sub-sections.

## 4.1. Transport demands

### 4.1.1. Passenger transport

4.1.1.1. **Technological scenarios.** In this article we make the assumption that the increase in demand for individual mobility will continue, but will be mitigated by a number of behavioral changes, such as the spread of teleworking, which is likely to lead to a reduction in home-work mobility (for an equivalent distribution of populations and jobs).

Passenger demand (expressed in passenger-kilometers) is assumed to grow in line with Gross Domestic Product per capita, i.e. at an average annual rate of 0.66 %/year (BASE). Compared to the other scenarios mentioned above, this rate is close to that of the SNBC [1] and lower than that of the ADEME [23] trend scenario.

The three technological scenarios are essentially distinguished according to whether or not the objective of banning the sale of new internal combustion passenger cars is achieved. The following three cases are distinguished:

* Electric vehicle fleet (ELEC scenario): the ban on sales of new cars with internal combustion engines is applied in 2035: almost all passenger cars sold after this date will be electric (the remainder will be Liquid Petroleum Gas vehicle, Natural Gas vehicle or fuel cell vehicles);

* Hybrid fleet (HYB scenario): the sale of new plug-in hybrid vehicles is authorized beyond 2035. From that date onwards, most of the vehicles in France's fleet will be 100 % electric or plug-in hybrids;

* Mixed fleet (THERM scenario): a derogation authorizes the sale of new internal combustion vehicles running on 100 % non-fossil fuels beyond 2035. The vehicle fleet is therefore a mix of technologies available on the market (internal combustion, electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, etc.).

No change in the load factor of the various modes of passenger transportation is assumed.

This leads to the trajectories of vehicle-kilometers traveled for passenger cars, with technological breakdown shown in Fig. 3.

For the other vehicle categories, the trends are as follows (detailed figures are included in Appendix A):

In the relatively short term, we make the assumption that hybrid engines for buses will expand, with widespread use of electric buses in the longer term (subject to sufficient network availability). For long-distance travels, hydrogen-powered coaches are assumed to appear on the market (subject to sufficient recharging infrastructure).

In rail transportation, we make the assumption that diesel locomotives will be phased out and replaced by hydrogen engines.

In addition, in the aviation sector, measures would be taken to promote the use of bio-kerosene and e-fuels (see Section 4.2 and Section 4.3).

In urban areas, we assume an increase in active mobility, i.e. walking, cycling and scootering, as well as an increase in the use of public transport (subject to saturation of supply (equipment and infrastructure)). In rural areas and for longer distances, the car would remain the main means of transport.

In public transport, our scenarios follow the trend towards greater use of rail. This trend would be partly due to the rehabilitation of old lines. However, on some lines, infrastructure saturation would be reached relatively quickly.

Finally, in air transport, we make the assumption that domestic demand and consumption of international bunkers will remain stable compared to the 2015–2019 period. Forecasts in literature are however very contrasted, in between sharp increase [32] and stagnation [33,34].

### 4.1.1.2. Sufficiency scenarios.
The sufficiency variant (SUFF) chosen in this article is characterized by a decrease in demand mobility (1010
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Mobility of private vehicles, expressed in giga vehicle.kilometers (Gveh.km)<fnref n="4" /> by motorization. PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, NGV = Natural Gas Vehicle, LPG = Liquid Petroleum Gas, FCEV = Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle.</figcaption></figure>

Gpmk<fnref n="5" /> in 2050 compared to 1168 Gpmk in the baseline scenarios). The trajectory can be divided into two parts: a positive annual growth rate between 2020 and 2035 (SUFF_2020_2035), followed by a negative annual growth rate between 2035 and 2050 (SUFF_2035_2050) as shown in Fig. 4.

Whereas overall demand for mobility in the technological scenarios was correlated with changes in GDP/capita, here we assume a stagnation by 2050.

This sufficiency trajectory is also characterized by a slightly more marked shift in the modal shares of urban travels away from the car and toward walking, cycling and public transport. Similarly, for medium- and long-distance journeys, greater use of public transport (train and coach) is assumed. This would result from an adaptation of the offer (equipment and infrastructure) and a change of behavior, and would mean the reopening of certain train lines.

### 4.1.2. Freight transport

#### 4.1.2.1. Technological scenarios.
For the freight sector, the trajectory adopted (BASE) is characterized by an annual growth rate of 1.03 %/year in ton-km. This value is close to those adopted in a number of available scenarios, for example the SNBC [1] adopts a rate of 0.96 %/year and most of the scenarios studied by France Stratégie [17] have a growth rate around our value. This annual growth rate is much higher than most of the ADEME scenarios, which project negative rates in their S1 and S2 scenarios [23].

Our scenarios make optimistic assumptions regarding the diffusion of alternative technologies (hydrogen and electric) by 2050 in the freight transport sector. The share of ton-kilometers transported by diesel-powered vehicles is therefore relatively low (~20 %) at the end of the studied period. For short-distance transport, i.e. urban logistics and intra-regional transport, the use of electric engines is massive. In the case of medium- and long-distance transport, hydrogen and electric engines (i.e. electric motorways) coexist to replace combustion engines (mainly diesel).

Two cases are distinguished:

* Trend-based diffusion (THERM scenario): For long-distance freight transport, we assume that diesel engines will initially continue to dominate. The targets set at European level would lead to an improvement in the energy efficiency of new vehicles over the next 10 years. A fleet of CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) trucks would develop, before the emergence of a fleet of hydrogen trucks and electric trucks). This would be subject to a suitable recharging infrastructure network and to investment in electric motorways.

* Rapid diffusion (ELEC and HYB scenarios): we make the assumption that there would be a faster diffusion of hydrogen heavy goods vehicles for relatively long journeys compared to the trend-based trajectory. Hydrogen-powered trains and barges would also gradually be integrated into rail and river transport.

#### 4.1.2.2. Sufficiency scenarios.
The sufficiency trajectory for freight transport (SUFF) is characterized by a reduced demand for ton-kilometers redistributed spatially, in favor of short-distance transport. The annual growth rate is 0.26 %/year over the entire 2015–2050 period. The difference with the three technological scenarios is mainly due to a stagnation in the relative share of long-distance freight transport in this demand, rather than an increase.

This grow is quite low compared to the literature. However, our scenario does not go so far as to assume a decline in demand, as do ADEME's S1 and S2 scenarios [23] and Briand et al.'s S2 scenario [19] (Fig. 5).

We make the assumption the modal split will be slightly more favorable to rail and inland waterway transport than it was in the technological scenarios. The modal share of rail transport would reach around 14.5 % in 2050. In comparison, the scenarios in the literature that assume a decrease in freight transport show higher modal shares of rail transport, i.e. 22 % (S1 ADEME), 24 % (S2 ADEME), and 34 % (scenario 2 of Briand et al. [19]).

### 4.2. Hydrogen supply

In our transport decarbonization scenarios, hydrogen has two possible uses: direct use in fuel cell vehicles, and the creation of synthetic fuels (e-fuels) using H₂ to replace liquid fuels in internal combustion engines. In this article, H₂ internal combustion engine are not considered in the technological pool. In 2023, electrolysis was accounting for 5 % of H₂ production [35], and we consider that it will reach the target set by the French government of 100 % by 2050 [36] (excluding hydrogen co-produced by industrial processes). In our

<footnote n="4">⁴ Giga vehicle-kilometers refers to one billion vehicle-kilometers. It is a unit of measurement used to quantify the total distance traveled by a fleet of vehicles. Specifically, it indicates the cumulative distance covered when one or more vehicles each travel one billion kilometers.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Giga passenger-kilometers (Gpmk) refers to one billion passenger-kilometers. It is a unit of measurement used to quantify the total distance traveled by passengers. Specifically, it represents the cumulative distance traveled by passengers, where one passenger traveling 1 km equals one passenger-kilometer.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Annual growth rate for passenger transport demand, in our scenarios (BASE and SUFF) and in literature (SNBC/PPE: scenario of the French National Low Carbon Strategy [1]; ADEME_X: scenarios of ADEME [23]; FS_X: scenarios of France Stratégie [17]).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Annual growth rate for freight demand, in our scenarios (BASE and SUFF) and in literature (SNBC/PPE: scenario of the French National Low Carbon Strategy [1]; ADEME_X: scenarios of ADEME [23]; FS_X: scenarios of France Stratégie [17]).</figcaption></figure>
scenarios, we also make the assumption that the efficiency of the overall electrolyzer fleet would increase from 55 kWh<sub>elec</sub>/kgH<sub>2</sub> in 2020 to 45 kWh<sub>elec</sub>/kgH<sub>2</sub> in 2050. The value in 2050 is an average value considering two trends. Firstly, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency [37] and European Strategic Research and Innovation Agendas [38,39] targets, the efficiency of current alkaline electrolyzer technologies (low temperature) is expected to decrease below 50 kWh<sub>elec</sub>/kgH<sub>2</sub>. Secondly, high temperature electrolyzers, with an efficiency of at least 40 kWh<sub>elec</sub>/kgH<sub>2</sub>, are expected to be gradually introduced in the technology pool.

For e-fuels, we consider in our scenarios the production of e-kerosene, e-diesel and e-gasoline from hydrogen using the Fischer-Tropsch process, where all three fuels are produced in the same reaction. According to Peters et al. [40], the technological readiness of individual components for the production of e-fuels with Fischer-Tropsch process is already very high, except in the cases where direct air capture for CO<sub>2</sub> or high-temperature electrolysis are needed. With the recent regulations and the emergence of new markets, the deployment of this technology is set to accelerate. Efficiencies of such processes are also well documented in the literature [41,42].

The ReFuelEu Aviation law [24] sets targets for SAF incorporation rates, with a target of 70 % SAF by 2050, including 35 % of biofuels and 35 % of e-fuels. Additionally, there is a sub-target for the overall incorporation of RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non Biological Origin, i.e. renewable e-fuels and hydrogen) in all transport sector energies in the REDII Renewable Energy Directive [25]. Although these targets are currently defined only at the European level, we assume that the contribution of French industry will follow these European obligations and that the incorporation rates in French bunkers will follow the same trends as at the European level.

In addition to the effective national demand for jet fuel (i.e. for journeys inside mainland France, inside overseas territories and between mainland France and overseas territories), which is around 1.3 Mtoe in 2019, our scenarios also take into account international jet fuel bunkers (around 5.7 Mtoe/year) to estimate the incorporation of these substitutes. International bunkers are the fuel consumed by aircraft operating on international routes.

In this article, we assume stable demand for jet fuel over time and that demand for domestic flights and international bunkers will be met by production in France.

Our scenarios assume that the availability of e-diesel and e-gasoline that can be incorporated into diesel pools (road, non-road, river and sea) and gasoline pools will be determined by the demand for e-kerosene, considering that French industrial plants produce all these products.

To determine the rate of e-diesel incorporation into the diesel pool, we consider two distinct strategies for distributing the Fischer-Tropsch process products. Table 1 details the assumptions for the distribution of products for each strategy.

* For the ELEC and HYB scenario, the goal is to maximize the production of e-kerosene at the end of the process, given the small amount of diesel remaining in the vehicle fleet. To meet the demand for road diesel by 2050, around 20 % e-diesel would be incorporated into the fuel mix.

* For the THERM scenario, the amount of diesel needed in 2050 remains significant, the aim is therefore to maximize the production of e-diesel at the end of the process. Around 1 Mtoe of this e-diesel

could be used as a substitute in non-road sectors (non-road machinery, river transport, maritime transport). This means that around 56 % of e-diesel would be incorporated into road diesel.

Finally, we assume that around 15 % of synthetic gasoline from naphtha produced by FT-type e-fuel processes will be incorporated as e-gasoline by 2050. This assumption can be found in various forecasting exercises aimed at achieving carbon neutrality in road transport [6,7].

Considering the expected quantities of e-kerosene to be produced, it is likely that the actual production of naphtha by Fischer-Tropsch will exceed the 15 % forecast for the gasoline pool in the transport sector. However, this additional co-production could be utilized by other sectors, such as petrochemical industry and more precisely for plastics production.

The incorporation rates for the various e-fuel substitutes are summarized in Table 2.

In our three scenarios, we do not account for any increase in electricity consumption related to the capture and storage of CO<sub>2</sub> required for the production of e-fuels, nor do we address any issues regarding the availability of CO<sub>2</sub>.

### 4.3. Biomass supply

In order to assess the impact of our transport scenarios on the availability of feedstock, we defined the trajectories of available potential for energy by 2050 for the different sources of biomass (agricultural, wood, organic urban waste and agro-industrial waste, algae). They are as follows:

* The maximum potential for agricultural food resources, i.e. cereals (mainly wheat, barley and maize), oilseeds (rapeseed and sunflower) and sugar beet, is limited to their current level of use for biofuel production (in 2019).

* By 2050, new agricultural resources will emerge that can be mobilized without competing directly with food production. These are listed in Annex IX-A of the REDII Directive [43] as resources capable of producing advanced biofuels. These include biomass grown as cover crops, perennial lignocellulosic crops (such as miscanthus or short rotation coppice) mainly produced on non-arable lands (brownfield sites, environment protection strips, etc.), as well as surplus harvest residues (from cereals and oilseeds) and prunings from orchards and vineyards. For these new feedstocks, a minimum and a maximum trajectory for the availability of each resource has been defined due to uncertainties regarding the economic and environmental constraints on their potential.

* Among woody biomass that can be used for bioenergy, our trajectories consider residues from forestry operations, residues from 1st and 2nd wood processing for the production of timber and industrial wood, residues from hedge maintenance and agroforestry and end-of-life wood from landfill sites.

* A single trajectory for industrial organic wastes that can be recovered by bioenergy plants has been defined up to 2050. These are namely used vegetable and animal oils and fats, by-products of vegetable oil refining (acid oils and other oil mill effluents), sugar mill residues (non-extractable sugars or poor sewage), wine production (residual alcohol) and starch production (residual starch), the organic part of solid recovered fuels (SRF), fermentable waste for anaerobic

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Assumptions for the distribution of the Fischer-Tropsch process products, according to the strategies adopted in the 3 scenarios.

<table><caption>**Table 2**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>ELEC and HYB scenarios</th><th>THERM scenarios</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>E-kerosene</td><td>50 %</td><td>25 %</td></tr><tr><td>E-diesel</td><td>25 %</td><td>63 %</td></tr><tr><td>E-gasoline</td><td>25 %</td><td>12 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

Evolution of incorporation rates for e-fuels substitutes in fossil fuel pools.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>2019</th><th>2030</th><th>2040</th><th>2050</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Diesel (ELEC)</td><td>0 %</td><td>0 %</td><td>3 %</td><td>21 %</td></tr><tr><td>Diesel (THERM)</td><td>0 %</td><td>1 %</td><td>12 %</td><td>70 %</td></tr><tr><td>Gasoline</td><td>0 %</td><td>0 %</td><td>6 %</td><td>15 %</td></tr><tr><td>Jet fuel</td><td>0 %</td><td>1 %</td><td>10 %</td><td>35 %</td></tr></tbody></table>
digestion (livestock effluents, WWTP sludge, municipal bio-waste). Potential for fermentable waste for the production of biogas by anaerobic digestion comes from a 2013 ADEME study for urban bio-waste and green waste [30], from a FranceAgriMer 2022 study [44] for livestock effluents and food industry co-products, and from a SIA Partners 2019 report [45] for wastewater treatment plants sludge.

* Micro-algae are a resource with almost no current use for energy. However, advanced biofuels from micro-algae could be produced by 2050.

The table of values for current uses and estimated potential in 2050 is detailed at in Appendix B.

It should be noted that some of these feedstocks are currently mobilized in larger quantities than the national collection potential, through imports. Imports of vegetable oils and of waste oils would continue to be authorized in our scenarios, subject to the current regulatory limits on incorporation.

To achieve carbon neutrality in the road transport sector by 2050, we assume that sustainable alternative fuels (biofuels and e-fuels) will replace 100 % of fossil fuels in 2050 for the remaining internal combustion engine vehicles. Intermediate targets of 15 % in 2030 for gasoline and diesel pools, 10 % for CNG and 40 % in 2040 for all pools are set. The specific incorporation rates for e-fuels are based on the values shown in Table 2. The respective development trajectories for biofuels and e-fuels are shown in Fig. 6.

Several types of resource are potentially available for each biofuel process. We define rules for prioritizing the use of different biomass feedstock based on current practices in France. Tables in Appendix C, D and E list the various categories of biomass that are used to meet the demand for each biofuel. For each substitute, we also define trajectories for the contribution of the various biofuel generations to the final pool, in order to assess the associated demand for biomass resources.

## 4.4. Other sectors

The electricity mix and biomass demand outside of transport sector are not modeled endogenously in our model. As these sectors have an impact on total emissions and final biomass resources consumption, trajectories are taken from scenarios from the literature.

According to RTE data [46], France's Transmission System Operator, in 2023 6.5 % of electricity in France was produced from fossil fuels and 28 % from renewable sources. Based on all of RTE's foresight scenarios [12], the electricity mix is assumed completely carbon-free by 2050. This article does not cover the technological choices (renewable or nuclear) or the technical and economic feasibility of developing the power sector, as they depend on demand in sectors that have not been modeled.

Biomass as wood fuel is used in various sectors apart from transport,

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Additional bioenergy demands outside the transport sector.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>2030</th><th>2050</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Wood fuel for residential, commercial and industrial buildings and district heating networks</td><td>Technological scenarios</td><td>111.4 TWh</td><td>105.8 TWh</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency scenarios</td><td>130.1 TWh</td><td>139 TWh</td></tr><tr><td>Biomethane apart from transport sector</td><td>Technological scenarios</td><td>42.5 TWh</td><td>134 TWh</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Sufficiency scenarios</td><td>39.3 TWh</td><td>88.1 TWh</td></tr></tbody></table>

including residential, tertiary and industrial sectors and for heating networks. Additionally, it can be used for the production in pyrogasification to produce biomethane that will replace natural gas in agriculture, industry, buildings and electricity generation. Although these demands are not included in our transport sector study, they have an impact on the available biomass resources and must therefore be considered exogenously. For the technological and the sufficiency scenarios, these demands are taken respectively from the scenarios S3 and S2 of ADEME's "Transitions 2050" foresight exercise [23] and are detailed in Table 3.

# 5. Results and discussion

All scenarios result in emissions of 2.8 MtCO₂eq in 2050. These emissions include direct emissions from remaining fossil fuels combustion and electricity production for direct use or hydrogen and e-fuels production. The residual emissions are due to the unsubstituted share of jet fuel in national air transport. There are no major differences in the transport sector final emissions in 2050 as all the scenarios assume 100 % substitution of the remaining fossil fuels in 2050 for road transportation and electricity is assumed carbon free. However, the way in which this substitution is achieved differ between the scenarios and have distinct impacts on the different resources and energy vectors, as detailed in the following sections.

## 5.1. Technological scenarios results

### 5.1.1. Bio and e-fuels demands

All scenarios project a significant increase in sustainable liquid fuels demand between 2015 and 2050, with the THERM scenario requiring the most and the ELEC scenario requiring the least. The total demand for biofuels and e-fuels is shown in Fig. 7.

For the ELEC scenario, the most important liquid substitute is bio-diesel, whose market will almost double in 2040. Its primary purpose is to address the demand for sustainable fuels for diesel engines,

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Evolution of incorporation shares for bio and e-fuels substitutes in fossil fuel pools, NGV = Natural Gas Vehicle.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Consumption trajectories for biofuels and e-fuels substitutes to fossil fuels.</figcaption></figure>

particularly in freight transportation. Demand for advanced biodiesel is the highest in this scenario, followed by the SAF for the aviation sector (biojet and e-kerosene), while biogasoline, e-diesel and e-gasoline have lower markets over the entire time horizon.

In the THERM scenario, the biogasoline market appears to be the most important from 2040 onwards, due to less electrification of the private vehicle fleet. The lignocellulosic ethanol sector is expected to develop strongly in this scenario. E-diesels, followed by biodiesels, are also mobilized at an important level.

In the HYB scenario, substitutes for diesel and jet fuel pools have similar trajectories to ELEC, while demand for gasoline substitutes is

intermediate between ELEC and THERM.

### 5.1.2. *H₂* and electricity demands

Hydrogen demand for transportation comes from two main uses: direct use in fuel cell vehicles (mainly freight in our scenarios) and for the production of e-fuels. Final electricity consumption in the transport sector is mainly coming from the use of battery electric vehicles and the production of hydrogen by electrolysis. The evolution of these demands is shown in Fig. 8.

Hydrogen demand for direct use grows steadily until 2050, with the THERM and HYB scenarios having a slightly lower demand than ELEC.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Demand trajectories for hydrogen and electricity.</figcaption></figure>
This is due to the more extensive introduction of fuel cell vehicles in the road freight sector in ELEC, as well as in rail and inland waterway transport.

However, when including the need for hydrogen for e-fuels, the total demand is between 3.6 and 6 times higher. This is much higher than the demand anticipated in RTE's 2050 Energy Futures [31] and their most advanced scenario for hydrogen, the "Hydrogen+" scenario. This scenario considers a hydrogen demand of 29 TWh<sub>H₂</sub> for mobility excluding e-fuels, i.e. the same order of magnitude as our scenarios, but only 44 TWh<sub>H₂</sub> for e-fuels for transport. The demand for e-fuels in our ELEC and THERM scenarios is therefore respectively 2 and 3.2 times greater than the one anticipated in the "Hydrogen+" scenario, mainly because of the new EU targets for e-kerosene incorporation. We can expect a particularly high demand for electricity in this sector.

The direct electricity demand in 2050 is the highest in the ELEC scenario where the number of battery electric vehicle is the highest. However, when adding the demand for hydrogen production, which is met exclusively by electrolyzers, the final demand more than doubles. This difference is even more significant in the THERM scenario which has total demand 14 % higher than ELEC.

In RTE demand scenarios, electricity demand for battery electric vehicles in the reference transportation scenario is 98.7 TWh<sub>elec</sub> and this value ranges between 76.6 and 125.2 TWh<sub>elec</sub> for the variants. Our scenarios are consistent with this value. However, even in the RTE scenario where hydrogen is most developed, the electricity consumption for e-fuel production is only 68 TWh<sub>elec</sub>. In contrast, the ELEC scenario projects a demand 1.7 times higher and the THERM scenario projects a demand 2.9 times higher. This difference comes from higher targets of e-kerosene incorporation that drives all other e-fuel production.

As our scenarios focus on the transport sector only, they do not take into account limits on total electricity supply. To put that in perspective, the forecast total electricity consumption in RTE reference scenario is 645 TWh in 2050, with 9 TWh for e-fuels. The additional demand calculated in our scenarios would mean a 17 % increase in the ELEC scenario and a 28 % increase in THERM compared to this reference, for the transport sector only. This reference scenario is deemed feasible by the French TSO, and the associated low-carbon power generation could range from 50 % nuclear and 50 % renewable to 100 % renewable electricity. However, these solutions already have high system costs ranging from 770 billion euros to 979 billion euros. The feasibility of our ELEC and THERM scenario with higher e-fuels production, would mean

either additional investments, or cutting electrification of other sectors like industry or buildings. This falls within the limits of the study and could be addressed through further work that includes feedback loops in the system in cases where demand exceed the maximum potential and economic assessments of these scenarios. Demand reduction and prioritization of use between demand sectors could be explored to address this issue.

### 5.1.3. Impacts on biomass resources

The scenarios imply the use of biofuels and therefore of biomass resources. Based on the results of the technological breakdown of biofuels by fuel pool, it is possible to define the quantities of biomass needed to realize these scenarios and to analyze them in relation to the minimum and maximum availability trajectories defined. This article assumes that all biofuels released for consumption are produced in France. The aim of this analysis is to identify the share of biomass resources that ambitious targets for decarbonization of the transport sector would require in relation to the biomass resources available for energy use at the national level. In particular, it aims to address possible tensions on certain categories of resources or, in certain cases, possible recourse to imports.

The demand for biomass resources in 2050 for each scenario is plotted in Fig. 9 and compared to current consumption, as well as minimum and maximum potential. The ELEC and HYB scenarios mobilize significantly fewer biomass resources. The THERM scenario requires more resources for the production of substitutes due to lower electrification.

Due to the regulatory targets mandating the deployment of advanced biofuels, all scenarios show a relative decrease in the consumption of conventional biofuels (approximately 2 Mtoe by 2050), a substantial increase in biofuels derived from waste oils and fats (between 0.8 and 1.1 Mtoe), and a significant increase in lignocellulosic biofuels and other advanced biofuels (between 5 and 7 Mtoe).

The use of vegetable oils from oilseed crops, such as rapeseed or sunflower, for the two biodiesel technologies FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester) and HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) in conventional biofuels will drop by 50 % between 2019 and 2050, from 3 to 1.5 million tons (Mt) of oil. Demand is therefore close to the level of national production dedicated to this sector in 2019. This drop in demand could help reduce dependence on imports. Conventional gasoline pool technologies include bioethanol from grain and sugar crops.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9. Demands of biomass resources for each scenario, normalized by maximum production potential in 2050.</figcaption></figure>
In the THERM scenario, demand for cereals continues to grow until 2050 (approximately 1 Mt for ethanol production). Due to the overall reduction in the number of gasoline vehicles in the ELEC scenario, demand for cereal-based ethanol rises slightly until 2040, pending the significant emergence of advanced technologies, and then falls back below its current level (3 Mt) by the end of the scenario. However, this resource, particularly maize cultivation, is being used to produce biogas from maize residues through anaerobic digestion for both transport (+0.5 Mt) and non-transport applications (+2 Mt). Despite the authorized share of crops in biogas plants being below the legal maximum at a trend rate of 5%, it still results in a significant increase in the quantity of cereals to be mobilized.

As for sugar crops, and beet in particular, there is an overall decrease in their use, particularly in the ELEC scenario, with a 33% reduction between 2019 and 2050, due to decreased demand for gasoline substitutes. The beet ethanol sector does not face any significant supply challenges in these scenarios.

For biofuels based on waste cooking oils or animal fats processed in FAME and HVO plants (currently listed in Annex IX-B of the RED Directive [43]), there is strong growth until 2050 for the THERM scenario (+1 Mt). This growth stabilizes in 2040 for the ELEC scenario (+0.7 Mt). Although the actual potential for collecting all used oils and fats in France remains uncertain at these horizons, such a set of assumptions maintains a situation of dependence on imports for around 600 kt of oil, replacing the current reduction in imports of vegetable oils.

Regarding advanced biofuels produced from lignocellulosic biomass shown in Fig. 10, it appears that the transport sector alone will not exert significant pressure on the availability of these resources in 2050. However, in the THERM scenario, demand for these resources in 2050 will be at the same level as the current total mobilization of lignocellulosic biomass for energy purposes in all sectors combined, which is approximately 30 Mt dry-matter. This highlights the need for a significant increase in national supply to meet the overall demand.

As shown in Fig. 11, the minimum potential without the development of perennial crops is reached as early as 2035, when the demand for biomass for other energy uses is added to the demand for the transport sector in the THERM scenario. These other energy uses include in particular the production of heat or cogeneration, as envisaged in the ADEME S3 scenario. In 2050, the maximum potential without perennial crops is mobilized.

Therefore, in the THERM scenario, the deployment of dedicated perennial crops such as miscanthus, switchgrass or other fast-growing perennial crops is necessary at the end of the horizon to limit the risks of potential tensions on these lignocellulosic resources. The ELEC scenario, on the other hand, presents a more limited risk of tensions. Cumulative demand for lignocellulosic biomass could exceed France's minimum mobilization potential, requiring specific measures to be put in place to develop greater potential without reaching the maximum trajectory.

The demand for microalgae for biofuel applications in all scenarios falls within the range of potentials identified. Although the maximum potential seems significant and far from being reached by 2050, these scenarios rely on the emergence of this sector to supply part of the biodiesel and biojet demand expected from 2040 onwards. Other types of resources such as oils, fats or lignocelluloses would have to be used in larger quantities without the emergence of this sector. On the other hand, given the great potential of this process, if the economic and energy barriers were removed, greater use of biodiesel (FAME and HVO) derived from algal oil could significantly reduce pressure on other resources, such as imports of used oils and lignocellulosic resources, particularly in the THERM scenario.

Finally, the use of biomass for the production of biomethane through anaerobic digestion dedicated to transport is projected to increase gradually from 2030 onwards. In the ELEC scenario, this represents a maximum of 2.5 Mtoe of biogas in 2050 (compared to 2.1 Mtoe in THERM). This is equivalent to 42% of the organic waste potential for anaerobic digestion and between 25% and 30% of the total potential if the maximum and minimum cover crop potentials are included.

When including biomethane needs of the other sectors, such as injection into the grid and cogeneration, the overall consumption amounts to 10.3 Mtoe (THERM) and 10.6 Mtoe (ELEC) of biogas. The transport sector accounts for approximately 20% of this total demand. It is expected that the identified potential of organic waste will be fully mobilized by 2040, making recourse to cover crops necessary.

## 5.2. Energy sufficiency variants results

Our three technological scenarios result in a significant increase in electricity consumption for transportation, as well as potential pressure on several biomass resources, particularly in the THERM scenario. To achieve more realistic response to the 2050 climate objectives, other levers besides technological solutions are explored in the energy sufficiency variants.

As shown in Fig. 12, sufficiency measures significantly impact energy demand reduction, primarily by reducing the demand for hydrogen for e-fuel production and thereby easing the pressure on electricity supply compared to technological scenarios.

Regarding biomass resources, the variations in demand in 2050 are plotted in Fig. 13.

In the ELEC SUFF scenario, biomass for conventional biofuel production (sugar beet and cereals) remains relatively similar to technological scenarios due to already low demand. The slight increase in beet demand is attributed to a modest shift in modal preference from cars to gasoline-powered two-wheeled vehicles, of which only 35% will be replaced by electric ones by 2050.

Both sufficiency variants lead to significant reductions in the consumption of oil resources. This reduction is due to a decrease in demand for diesel fuel from the diesel vehicles and for jet fuel.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10. Lignocellulosic biomass demand for transport sector only. ATJ = Alcool To Jet, BTL = Biomass To Liquid, eBTL = Biomass To Liquid with H₂.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 11. Lignocellulosic biomass demand for all sectors. ATJ = Alcohol To Jet, BTL = Biomass To Liquid, eBTL = Biomass To Liquid with H₂.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 12. Decrease in demand in 2050 for various energies in sufficiency scenarios (SUFF) compared to the technological scenarios.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 13. Variations in demand in 2050 for various biomass resources in sufficiency scenarios (SUFF) compared to the technological scenarios.</figcaption></figure>

By 2050, the THERM_SUFF scenario result in a demand for vegetable oils that is close to the level of national production currently used for energy, which is approximately 1 Mt of oil. This would eliminate the need for imports or the use of additional cultivation areas.

The pressure on imports of used oils is reduced by 20 % with the sufficiency measures.

In terms of lignocellulosic resources, when considering all the energy uses of biomass, the ELEC_SUFF variant remains close to the minimum

potential in 2050, while the THERM_SUFF variant stays below the maximum potential excluding perennial crops. Although the maximum potential for biomass resources with perennial crops is far from being reached by 2050, these variants help alleviate pressure on certain waste resources, such as forestry and agricultural residues, which can be unevenly distributed.

A summary of the key results for the three technological scenarios and the two sufficiency variants is presented in Table 4.
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Summary of key results.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Electricity total consumption (TWh)</th><th>H2 demand (TWh)</th><th>Biofuel demand (Mtoe)</th><th>E-fuel demand (Mtoe)</th><th>CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (MtCO<sub>2</sub>eq)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ELEC</td><td>264</td><td>120</td><td>7.8</td><td>3.8</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>HYB</td><td>262</td><td>125</td><td>9.1</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>THERM</td><td>302</td><td>170</td><td>10.6</td><td>7.4</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>ELEC_SUFF</td><td>226</td><td>100</td><td>6.8</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>THERM_SUFF</td><td>259</td><td>144</td><td>9.3</td><td>6.4</td><td>2.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6. Limitations and directions for future research

One of the main limitations of this study is that it does not include a supply trajectory for electricity generation, whereas this is the case for biomass. Although these results show the effort needed to achieve the regulatory decarbonization targets, the feasibility of deploying electricity supply still needs to be examined.

After conducting this study, we have identified the following development prospects:

- Study the feedback loops between electricity demand and total production capacity. This could also be done between biomass production potentials and specific resources demands.

- Evaluate the impact of climate change on future biomass availability.

- Integrate CO₂ as a resource for the production of e-fuels and consider the energy consumption associated with its capture. This would allow us to analyze possible tensions regarding CO₂ as resource.

- Evaluate the economic barriers and integrate them into optimization studies or sensitivity analysis.

- Deepen the sufficiency aspect by studying more pronounced sufficiency measures and provide a more precise quantification of the associated levers and their impacts on lifestyles.

## 7. Conclusion

All foresight scenarios presented in this article show pathways to meet the objective for France's transport sector of emitting less than 4 MtCO₂eq in 2050, while enforcing the latest EU regulations on Sustainable Aviation Fuels and the ban of fossil fuel cars. These objectives are achieved without considering any constraints on electricity supply. The impacts on energy resources and vectors differ greatly depending on the technological choices made for the freight and passenger fleets.

The demand for electricity to electrify the vehicle fleet increases sharply between 2015 and 2050. Even in a scenario where electrification is not complete (as in THERM), it still represents a significant increase compared to current consumption. The difference with an ELEC scenario is only 30 TWh.

The demand for hydrogen increases drastically due to the production of e-fuels, regardless of the technological choices made for the vehicle fleets. This is primarily due to the assumption that the France's supply capacity will meet EU targets for the incorporation of SAF to decarbonize the aviation sector. The estimated electricity demand for transport could therefore range between 260 and 300 TWh. This conclusion could be further accentuated in the event of a sharp increase in air traffic over the next few years. In view of the major discrepancies with RTE's France's Transmissions System Operator, foresight studies, the technical and economic feasibility of this solution remains open to question.

Biomass resources for conventional liquid biofuels are relatively unconstrained. However, there is a potentially increased dependence on imports in a THERM-type scenario for waste oils and fats, if the national collection potential does not increase. This pressure could potentially be lifted if the production of biofuels from microalgae was to emerge. The

pressure on lignocellulosic resources remains low in an ELEC-type scenario, whereas a THERM-type scenario, specific resources will be required for the deployment of each of these resources, including the mobilization of perennial crops.

To substitute biomethane for almost all natural gas demand, biomass at the limit of the high potential estimated for anaerobic digestion would be required. The transport sector alone would require between 25 % and 30 % of this potential. However, it is important to consider several factors that may affect this result. These factors include uncertainties surrounding the potential development of biomass deposits available for anaerobic digestion, the deployment of various renewable biomethane production technologies, the development of demand for natural gas across all sectors, and the proportion of fossil natural gas that can be substituted between now and 2050.

None of the three scenarios studied suggest that biomass supply is unfeasible, regardless of the level of electrification of the vehicle fleet. The transport sector alone does not create any new tensions, except imports of waste oil. However, the demand for biomass from all energy sectors combined could lead to potential local supply constraints for some biomass for anaerobic digestion and lignocellulosic resources in a scenario with low electrification. Competing uses and tensions over these resources may arise.

As shown in the sufficiency variants, sufficiency measures seem necessary in addition to technological advancements in order to reduce these potential tensions and reduce the demand for electricity. Specifically, these scenarios can decrease total electricity consumption by at least 10 % in 2050, reduce dependence on imported waste oils, and alleviate pressure on lignocellulosic resources by staying below the maximum potential without perennial crops in 2050.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Robin Roure:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Pascal Gastineau:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Daphné Lorne:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Data curation. **Guillaume Boissonnet:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Data curation. **Jack Legrand:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Data curation. **Monique Axelos:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Data curation.

### Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the authors used DeepL and DeepL Write in order to translate specific sentences and improve English phrasing. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the French National Alliance for Energy Research Coordination. (ANCRE) for its support.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Appendix A. Additional hypotheses for scenario description</figcaption></figure>
Motorization in road freight

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Motorization in rail freight

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Motorization in river freight

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Appendix B. Potential of biomass resources

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Agricultural biomass resources (in Mt)</th><th>2019</th><th>2030</th><th>2040</th><th>2050</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Oil seeds</strong></td><td><strong>1.77</strong></td><td><strong>1.77</strong></td><td><strong>1.77</strong></td><td><strong>1.77</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. rapeseed</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.73</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. sunflower</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Cereals</strong></td><td><strong>3.52</strong></td><td><strong>3.52</strong></td><td><strong>3.52</strong></td><td><strong>3.52</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. wheat</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. barley</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. maize</td><td>2.60</td><td>2.60</td><td>2.60</td><td>2.60</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Sugar beet and sugar cane</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Cover crops</strong></td><td><strong>2</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>2</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</strong></td><td><strong>0.076</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>0.076</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Surplus harvest residues</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. cereals</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Incl. maize</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Agricultural biomass resources (in Mt)</th><th>2019</th><th>2030</th><th>2040</th><th>2050</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">From oilseeds</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Prunings from orchards and vineyards</td><td>7.35</td><td>7.35</td><td>7.35</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Wood resources (in Mt dry-matter)</td><td>2019 (stat)</td><td>2035</td><td>2040</td><td>2050</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Residues from forestry operation</td><td>min</td><td>13.38</td><td>12.97</td><td>13.39</td><td>14.17</td></tr><tr><td>max</td><td>13.38</td><td>18.63</td><td>22.17</td><td>26.56</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Residues from wood processing</td><td>min</td><td>1.06</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.69</td></tr><tr><td>max</td><td>1.06</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.69</td><td>3.69</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Residues from hedge maintenance and agroforestry</td><td>min</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>max</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">End of life wood from landfill sites</td><td>min</td><td>3.53</td><td>3.57</td><td>3.60</td><td>3.64</td></tr><tr><td>max</td><td>3.53</td><td>3.57</td><td>3.60</td><td>3.64</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix C. Biodiesel substitutes and their processes

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of Substitute</th><th>REDII biofuel categories</th><th>Name and acronym of the biofuel process</th><th>Biomass inputs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Diesel</td><td rowspan="3">Conventional Biodiesels</td><td>Fatty Acid Methyl Ester</td><td>Vegetable oils (rapeseed, sunflower, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>FAME</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biodiesel</td><td>Local vegetable oils (rapeseed, sunflower, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Biodiesels Other</td><td>HVO</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fatty Acid Methyl Ester</td><td>Used vegetable oils (UCO)</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biodiesel</td><td>Animal fats</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Advanced biodiesel</td><td>HVO</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fatty Acid Methyl Ester</td><td>Used vegetable oils (UCO)</td></tr><tr><td>FAME</td><td>Animal fats</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biodiesel</td><td>Animal fats</td></tr><tr><td>HVO</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fischer-Tropsch biodiesel</td><td>Oils from autotrophic microorganisms (microalgae)</td></tr><tr><td>BTL</td><td>Oils from autotrophic microorganisms (microalgae)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Advanced biodiesel</td><td rowspan="3">Fischer-Tropsch biodiesel with H<sub>2</sub></td><td>Agricultural crop by-products</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wood</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Fischer-Tropsch biodiesel with eBTL</td><td>Other industrial wood waste</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural crop by-products</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Fischer-Tropsch biodiesel with eBTL</td><td>Wood</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

## Appendix D. Biogasoline substitutes and their processes

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of Substitute</th><th>Biofuel categories</th><th>Name and acronym of the biofuel process</th><th>Biomass inputs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Gasoline</td><td rowspan="3">Biogasolines conventional</td><td>Cereal ethanol</td><td>Cereals</td></tr><tr><td>Sugar beet ethanol</td><td>Sugar beet</td></tr><tr><td>Synthetic gasoline from HVO Bionaphta</td><td>Vegetable oils (rapeseed, sunflower, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Other biogasolines</td><td>Synthetic gasoline from HVO Bionaphta</td><td>Used vegetable oils (UCO)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Animal fats</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Advanced biogasolines</td><td rowspan="3">Lignocellulosic ethanol</td><td>Agricultural crop by-products</td></tr><tr><td>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</td></tr><tr><td>Wood</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of Substitute</th><th>Biofuel categories</th><th>Name and acronym of the biofuel process</th><th>Biomass inputs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Fischer-Tropsch gasoline from Bionaphta by BTL</td><td>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste<br>Agricultural crop by-products<br>Perennial lignocellulosic crops<br>Wood<br>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Fischer-Tropsch gasoline from Bionaphta by eBTL</td><td>Agricultural crop by-products<br>Perennial lignocellulosic crops<br>Wood<br>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Synthetic gasoline from HVO Bionaphta</td><td>Oils from autotrophic microorganisms (microalgae)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

## Appendix E. Biojet substitutes and their processes

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of Substitute</th><th>Biofuel categories</th><th>Name and acronym of the biofuel process</th><th>Biomass inputs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Jet</td><td rowspan="2">Conventional biojets</td><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biojet HVO</td><td>Vegetable oils (rapeseed, sunflower, etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>Biojet from alcohol such as ethanol or butanol</td><td>Cereals, sugar beet</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Other biojets</td><td>Alcohol-to-jet ATJ</td><td>Used vegetable oils (UCO)</td></tr><tr><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biojet HVO</td><td>Animal fats</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Advanced biojets</td><td>Fischer-Tropsch Biojet</td><td>Agricultural crop by-products</td></tr><tr><td>BtL</td><td>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</td></tr><tr><td>Fischer-Tropsch Biojet with H<sub>2</sub></td><td>Wood</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>eBtL</td><td>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste<br>Agricultural crop by-products<br>Perennial lignocellulosic crops<br>Wood</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of Substitute</th><th>Biofuel categories</th><th>Name and acronym of the biofuel process</th><th>Biomass inputs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Biojet from alcohol such as ethanol or butanol</td><td>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Alcohol-to-jet ATJ</td><td>Agricultural crop by-products</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Perennial lignocellulosic crops</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Wood</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Other lignocellulosic industrial waste</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Hydrogenated vegetable oil biojet HVO</td><td>Oils from autotrophic microorganisms (microalgae)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

## References

[1] Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire, Stratégie nationale bas-carbone [National Low Carbon Strategy]. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-03-25_MTES_SNBC2.pdf. (Accessed 18 July 2023).

[2] T. Haasz, et al., Perspectives on decarbonizing the transport sector in the EU-28, Energy Strategy Rev. 20 (Apr. 2018) 124–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.007.

[3] P. Lopion, P. Markewitz, M. Robinius, D. Stolten, A review of current challenges and trends in energy systems modeling, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 96 (Nov. 2018) 156–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.045.

[4] D.A. Hagos, E.O. Ahlgren, Exploring cost-effective transitions to fossil independent transportation in the future energy system of Denmark, Appl. Energy 261 (Mar. 2020) 114389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114389.

[5] O. Bahn, M. Marcy, K. Vaillancourt, J.-P. Waaub, Electrification of the Canadian road transportation sector: a 2050 outlook with TIMES-canada, Energy Policy 62 (Nov. 2013) 593–606, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.023.

[6] H. Zhang, W. Chen, W. Huang, TIMES modelling of transport sector in China and USA: comparisons from a decarbonization perspective, Appl. Energy 162 (Jan. 2016) 1505–1514, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.124.

[7] J. Anable, C. Brand, M. Tran, N. Eyre, Modelling transport energy demand: a socio-technical approach, Energy Policy 41 (Feb. 2012) 125–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.020.

[8] R. Danielis, M. Scorrano, M. Giansoldati, Decarbonising transport in Europe: trends, goals, policies and passenger car scenarios, Res. Transport. Econ. 91 (Mar. 2022) 101068, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101068.

[9] Internation Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 - a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, 2023.

[10] D. Chiaralamonti, G. Talluri, N. Scarlat, M. Prussi, The challenge of forecasting the role of biofuel in EU transport decarbonisation at 2050: a meta-analysis review of published scenarios, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 139 (Apr. 2021) 110715, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110715.

[11] A.D. Vinod, R. Prasad, P. Singh, R. Maharaj, D. Charan, Biofuels for decarbonizing land transport sector: a case study on people's perspective and policy in Fiji, Renew. Energy 240 (Feb. 2025) 122156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.122156.

[12] C.J. Fei, C.-C. Kung, B.A. McCarl, The optimal development paths and processing strategies of competing biofuel and biopower technologies in Taiwan, Renew. Energy 245 (Jun. 2025) 122853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.122853.

[13] M. Millinger, L. Reichenberg, F. Hedenus, G. Berndes, E. Zeyen, T. Brown, Are biofuel mandates cost-effective? - an analysis of transport fuels and biomass usage to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system, Appl. Energy 326 (Nov. 2022) 120016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120016.

[14] C. Spandagos, Chapter 13 - achieving decarbonization goals through biofuels: policy challenges and opportunities in the european union and the United States, in: M. Jeguirim, A.A. Zorpas (Eds.), Advances in Biofuels Production, Optimization and Applications, Elsevier, 2024, pp. 269–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95076-3.00003-X.

[15] J. Krause, et al., Well-to-wheels scenarios for 2050 carbon-neutral road transport in the EU, J. Clean. Prod. 443 (Mar. 2024) 141084, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141084.

[16] Académie des Technologies, La décarbonation du secteur aérien par la production de carburants durables [Decarbonizing the aviation sector with sustainable fuels]. https://www.academie-technologies.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Rappo rt-decarbonation-secteur-aerien-production-carburants-durables-AT-Mars-2023. pdf, Feb. 2023. (Accessed 6 March 2024).

[17] France Stratégie and CGEDD, Prospective 2040-2060 des transports et des mobilités [Transport and mobility outlook 2040-2060]. https://www.strategie. gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/prospective_2040-2060des _transports et des mobilités _rapport de synthese _fevrier 2022.pdf. (Accessed 21 July 2023).

[18] SDSN - IDDRI, Pathways to deep decarbonization 2015 report. https://irp.cdn-we bsite.com/6f2c9f57/files/uploaded/DDPP_2015_REPORT.pdf, 2015. (Accessed 5 March 2024).

[19] Y. Briand et al., “Trajectoires De Décarbonation Profonde Du Transport De Marchandises En France, Rapport Descriptif, IDDRI [Deep Decarbonization Pathways for Freight Transport in France, Detailed Report, IDDRI]”.

[20] Y. Briand, J. Lefèvre, J.-M. Cayla, Pathways to deep decarbonization of the passenger transport sector in France, IDDRI. https://www.iddri.org/sites/default /files/PDF/Publications/Hors%20catalogue%20iddri/DDPPTR_FRA.pdf. (Accessed 5 March 2024).

[21] J. Lefèvre, et al., A pathway design framework for sectoral deep decarbonization: the case of passenger transportation, Clim. Policy 21 (1) (Jan. 2021) 93–106, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1804817.

[22] R. Akhtar Usmani, A.A. Khan, Regional outlooks of biomass potential for transport sector energy security, Renew. Energy 242 (Apr. 2025) 122356, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2025.122356.

[23] Prospective - Transitions 2050 - Rapport [Foresight - Transitions 2050 - Report]," La librairie ADEME. [Online]. Accessed: June. 19, 2023. Available: https://libr airie.ademe.fr/recherche-et-innovation/5072-prospective-transitions-2050-rappor t.html.

[24] Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the european parliament and of the council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU aviation)." Accessed: March. 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://e ur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/oj.

[25] Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the european parliament and of the council of 18 October 2023 amending directive (EU) 2018/2001, regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing council directive (EU) 2015/652." Accessed: March. 6, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2413/oj.
[26] Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the european parliament and of the council of 19 April 2023 amending regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the Union's increased climate ambition. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/851/oj. (Accessed 5 March 2024).

[27] E. Hache, et al., Scénarios De L'Ancre Pour La Transition Energétique - Rapport 2013 [ANCRE Scenarios for the Energy Transition - Report 2013], 2014.

[28] N. Alazard-Toux, et al., "Scénario "loi de transition énergétique pour la croissance verte" de l'ANCRE : focus sur le mix énergétique [ANCRE's 'energy transition law for green growth' scenario: focus on the energy mix],", Rev. Gen. Nucleaire (1) (Jan. 2017) 48-50, https://doi.org/10.1051/rgn/20171044.

[29] N. de Menthière, D. Lacroix, B. Schmitt, A. Bethinger, Visions du futur et environnement. Les grandes familles de scénarios. Analyse de prospectives internationales relatives à l'environnement. Volume 1: Rapport final de l'étude ScénEnvi [Visions of the future and the environment. Major scenario families. Analysis of international environmental foresights. Volume 1: Final report of the 'ScénEnvi' study], Dec. 2016.

[30] ADEME, Estimation des gisements potentiels de substrats utilisables en méthanisation [Estimation of potential sources of substrates for anaerobic digestion], 2013.

[31] RTE, Futurs Energetiques 2050 [Energy Futures 2050], Oct. 2021.

[32] IATA, Global outlook for air transport sustained recovery amidst strong headwinds. https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/global-o utlook-for-air-transport—december-2022/, Dec. 2022. (Accessed 7 August 2024).

[33] C.A. Louis, C. Bouvet, G. Martin, Analyse Et Modélisation De L'Impact Climatique Du Transport Aérien Actuel Et A Venir En France [Analysis and Modelling of the Climate Impact of Current and Future Air Transport in France], Jul. 2020.

[34] Supaero Decarbo and The Shift Project, Pouvoir voler en 2050 : quelle aviation dans un monde contraint ? [Being able to fly in 2050: what kind of aviation in a constrained world?], Accessed: Aug. 07, 2024, https://theshiftproject.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2021/12/TSP_AVIATION_RAPPORT_211116.pdf, Mar. 2021.

[35] Chiffres clés de l'hydrogène [Key figures for hydrogen], Vig'Hy, https://vighy. france-hydrogene.org/chiffres-clés/. (Accessed 5 September 2024).

[36] Ministère chargé de l'Industrie, Accélérer le déploiement de l'hydrogène, clé de voûte de la décarbonation de l'industrie [Accelerating the deployment of hydrogen, the key to decarbonizing industry]. https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites

/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2023/02/230202 DP_hydrogene decarbonati on_industrie.pdf. (Accessed 19 June 2023).

[37] International Renewable Energy Agency, Making the Breakthrough: Green Hydrogen Policies and Technology Costs, 2021.

[38] Hydrogen Europe, Strategic research and innovation agenda. https://hydrogene europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20201027-SRIA-CHE-final-draft.pdf, Oct. 2020. (Accessed 5 September 2024).

[39] Clean Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, Strategic research and innovation agenda 2021-2027. https://www clean-hydrogen.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/Clean %20Hydrogen%20JU%20SRIA%20-%20approved%20by%20GB%20-%20clean% 20for%20publication%20%28ID%2013246486%29.pdf, Feb. 2022. (Accessed 5 September 2024).

[40] R. Peters, et al., A techno-economic assessment of fischer-tropsch fuels based on syngas from Co-Electrolysis, Processes 10 (4) (Apr. 2022) 4, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/pr10040699.

[41] S. Schemme, et al., H2-based synthetic fuels: a techno-economic comparison of alcohol, ether and hydrocarbon production, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45 (8) (Feb. 2020) 5395-5414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.028.

[42] F.G. Albrecht, D.H. König, N. Baucks, R.-U. Dietrich, A standardized methodology for the techno-economic evaluation of alternative fuels – a case study, Fuel (Guildf.) 194 (Apr. 2017) 511–526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.003.

[43] Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the european parliament and of the council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (text with EEA relevance). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/2024- 07-16/eng, 2024. (Accessed 31 January 2025).

[44] FranceAgriMer, Ressources en biomasse et méthanisation agricole : quelles disponibilités pour quels besoins ? [Biomass resources and anaerobic digestion in agriculture: what is available for what needs?]. https://www.franceagrimer.fr/ content/download/69402/document/20221007 RESSOURCES_EN_BIOMASSE ET_ METHANISATION_2022_WEB-V2.pdf. (Accessed 19 July 2023).

[45] S.I.A. Partners, Observatoire du biométhane [Biomethane Observatory]. https://fr ance-biomethane.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SiaPartners_Observatoire_Fran ce_Biomethane_vf-1.pdf. (Accessed 19 July 2023).

[46] RTE, Bilan électrique 2023 rapport complet [electricity balance 2023 full report]. https://assets.rte-france.com/analyse-et-donnees/2024-03/Bilan%20%C3%A9lect rique%202023%20rapport%20complet_29fev24.pdf, Feb. 2024. (Accessed 5 September 2024).