AMF Annex 58 /IEA Bioenergy Task 41 Project 10
A Report from the Advanced Motor
Fuels TCP and IEA Bioenergy TCP

The Role of Renewable
Transport Fuels in
Decarbonizing Road Transport
Scenarios and Contributionsin Selected Countries
Juhani Laurikko
Ilkka Hannula
Nils-Olof Nylund
Päivi Aakko-Saksa
VTT Technical ResearchCentre of Finland Ltd
November 2020

Edited by Dina Bacovsky
BEST — Bioenergy andSustainable Technologies GmbH

Summary / Abstract
This report constitutes Part 3 of the report on “The Role of Renewable Transport Fuels in
Decarbonizing Road Transport”. In this report the term decarbonization includes all
options to reduce GHG emissions and make road transport cleaner, including low(-fossil)carbon energy carriers such as biofuels, e-fuels, and renewable electricity. This part of thereport covers the core of the project, which is the assessment of the transport sector and its
development for a number of selected countries.
In this assessment, the road transport sectors of Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and
Brazil are modeled and scenarios for their development into the future are calculated. This
sample of countries is quite diverse and differs largely in land area, population density,
number of cars per capita, and average transport work in passenger cars and in trucks, as
shown in the table below.
Comparison of some transport-related indicators, taken from https://www.worldometers.info/worldpopulation/population-by-country/.
2020
FinlandSwedenGermanyUSA

BrazilPopulation size

5,545,000

10,100,000

83,780,000

331,000,000

212,600,000

Land area, km2

303,890

410,340

348,560

9,147,420

8,358,140

Pop. density

18.2

24.6

240.4

36.2

25.4

Cars/capita

0.501

0.486

0.552

0.717

0.180

Car-km/capita

7,600

5,600

7,800

13,0003,000

Car-km/km2

138,000

137,000

1,880,000

270,000

76,000

MDT&HDT-km/capita

633

502

496

1,535

374

MDT&HDT-km/km2

11,555

12,344

119,21455,554

9,514

The transport sector of each of these countries was modeled in the ALIISA model. The
model includes 5 vehicle categories, 6 propulsion systems and 12 fuel options. Input
data for each country includes assumptions on total sales in each vehicle category for
future years, on the distribution between the available powertrain/fuel options in sales, on
the fuel consumption (or energy efficiency gain) for future years, and on the annual
driven distance, variable between categories, age classes and powertrain/fuelcombinations. The model then calculates the fleet composition for each year up to 2050,
the total energy demand of this fleet, and the resulting tank-to-wheel (TTW) CO2
emissions. It should be noted that CO2 emissions of renewable shares and electricity areiconsidered to be zero, although in reality both energy carriers cause upstream
emissions.
These calculations were performed for four different scenarios:•

Current Policies Scenario
This is the base case scenario, including input data from each country based on
historic data and on current policies.

•

MORE EV Scenario
This scenario reflects higher than anticipated sales of electrified vehicles up to thelevels still deemed conceivable by the country experts involved.

•

MAX BIO Scenario
This scenario applies biofuels to the maximum extent possible in the respective
country, starting from current deployment level up to the maximum level in 2050.

•

E-FUELS Scenario
This scenario introduces e-fuels in 2030 and increases linearly to reach full
displacement of fossil fuels by 2050.

Decarbonization based on current policies
As mentioned before, the transport sectors of the selected countries differ from each otherquite a lot. For example, in Finland almost half of the energy in 2030 will be used in trucks,
while in Sweden and Germany passenger cars dominate. In the USA the passenger car fleet
is complemented by an equally sized fleet of vans, trucks and SUVs used for personal
mobility, and Brazil features the largest contribution of buses to the energy use of thetransport sector, see the following figures.

iiEnergy use per vehicle category in Current Policies scenarios – 2030.
Taking a closer look at the fuels that will be used in the Current Policies scenarios in 2030 ineach of the countries, we find different main fuels. In Germany, Sweden and Finland, diesel
dominates, and Finland and Sweden will also use significant shares of renewable diesel. In
Brazil the share of ethanol will be more than 30%, almost equally large as the share ofdiesel. In the USA, gasoline dominates over diesel, and ethanol contributes some 10%. The
use of electricity is hardly visible, and also biomethane only provides a very minor share.

iii

Energy use per carrier in the Current Policies scenarios – 2030.
Based on the projected energy use, the ALIISA model allowed to calculate the effects ofseveral measures separately, namely gains in the energy efficiency of the vehicles in use,
use of electric vehicles (with zero TTW CO2 emissions), and the use of biofuels (alsocounted with zero TTW CO2 emissions). In the figure below, the top-most red line is the
hypothetical evolution of TTW CO2 emissions from the road transport sector without any ofthese measures. The blue line then shows the effect of electrification alone, while the yellow
one adds to this the effect of energy efficiency gains. Finally, the green line shows the
combined effect of all measures including biofuels.
The figure below clearly shows the size of the expected contributions of efficiency gains,electric vehicles and biofuels. Biofuels contribute most to decarbonization now and up to2030, 2040, or even 2050, depending on the country. In Germany and in the USA, efficiency
gains become the main contributor after 2030, and in Finland and Sweden the impact of
biofuels remains largest until around 2040 when the use of electric vehicles takes over. In
Brazil, biofuels remain the largest contributor until 2050. Biofuels can be implemented in thelegacy fleet, whereas electrification and fuel cell vehicles required the introduction of newvehicles and new infrastructure, requiring time to achieve significant impact. The figure alsoiv

shows the difference in CO2 emission trends for the selected countries, with CO2 emissions
decreasing in Finland, Sweden and Germany, stabilizing in the USA and still increasing in
Brazil. This is due to the projected increase in GDP and the resulting increase in transport
work in Brazil.

FinlandSwedenGermany

BrazilUSA
Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland, Sweden,
Germany, USA and Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

v

The effect of introducing more electric vehicles
As to check the sensitivity of the results to an accelerated market introduction of electrified
vehicles, the MORE EV scenarios were calculated. The assumptions for each country arebased on discussions with the country experts involved in this project. For Sweden,
Germany and Brazil, 100% of passenger car sales in 2050 were assumed to be various
sorts of electric vehicles; only for Finland 25% of passenger car sales were still assumed to
be spark ignited ICEs in 2050. The dynamics of this uptake, however, varies strongly
between these four countries.
As a result, the share of EVs in the passenger car fleet reaches between 1.3% (Brazil) and
21% (Finland) in 2030, and between 19.4% (Brazil) and 77% (Sweden) by 2050 (see figure
below).

Shares of chargeable vehicles in the national passenger car fleet by 2030 and 2050 for Current Policies and
MORE EV (MORE EV marked with +).

Despite these high shares of EVs in the passenger car fleets, the additional gain in CO 2
emission reductions is rather low, in the range of 0.5% to 4.3% for 2030 and 3.5% to 9.2%
for 2050, see figure below, where the dashed line depicts TTW CO2 emissions for an
accelerated uptake of electric vehicles. The dashed blue line shows the number of additionalvielectric vehicles in the fleet as compared to the Current Policies scenario.

FinlandSwedenGermany

Brazil

Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland, Sweden, Germany andBrazil in the MORE EV scenario.

Maximizing biofuels to reach deeper decarbonization
As the level of decarbonization is still by far not sufficient neither in the Current Policies nor
in the MORE EV scenario (all transport should be carbon-neutral by 2060 und 2DS scenario,
with individual national targets for carbon-neutrality by 2045 and 2050), the MAX BIO
scenarios were calculated. These scenarios illustrate the potential impact that biofuels could
have, if introduced to the technically maximum in the expected national fleet. This includes
maximizing the use of renewable diesel in compression ignited (CI) engines, applying E25
and E30 in all spark ignited (SI) engines as well as utilizing so-called biopetrol in Sweden,
and using E100 in Brazilian flex-fuel vehicles.
As a result, TTW CO2 emissions can be decreased significantly by 2050, see figure below.
Countries with options to fully substitute both fossil gasoline and fossil diesel can be fully
decarbonized by 2050.

vii

Finland

SwedenGermany

Brazil

Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland, Sweden,
Germany and Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario.
The total 2050 national demands for drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in the MAX BIO
scenarios are illustrated for each country in the following figure. These demand estimates
are contrasted with the estimate for global advanced biofuels supply from the IEA’s 2DS
scenario. Although current production capacities are not sufficient to cover e.g. Brazil´s 2050
demand, if global supply develops in line with the IEA 2DS estimate advanced biofuels could
be a realistic option for significantly reducing transport emissions even for the largest
countries.

viii

Country specific demand for drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in 2050 relative to IEA global 2DS
supply scenario.
Using e-fuels to fully decarbonize road transport sectors
Another option to fully decarbonize the road transport sectors is to use e-fuels as energy
carriers. Substantial reductions in the cost of wind and solar electricity during the past
decade have created interest towards the production of sustainable fuels via chemical
conversion of CO2 and water, using renewable energy to drive the process.
For the purpose of this analysis, synthetic replacements for natural gas, gasoline and diesel,
produced from CO2 and water with electrical energy were considered. In addition, forGermany fuel hydrogen was also considered. The introduction of e-gasoline, e-diesel, emethane and e-hydrogen to the fuel pools begins in 2030 and increases linearly achieving
full displacement of fossil gasoline, diesel, natural gas and hydrogen by 2050, and thus
reaching zero TTW CO2 emissions. The E-FUELS scenarios are based on current policies,
taking the remaining fossil fuel pool as a starting point. The figure below shows the resulting
energy demand for different fuels along with the resulting TTW CO2 emissions.

ixFinland

SwedenGermany

Brazil

Evolution of energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland, Sweden, Germany and Brazil
in the E-FUELS scenario.
Resources needed for the production of e-fuels are non-fossil electricity and CO2. The
demand for these resources for the production of the e-fuel volumes needed in the E-FUELS
scenario is depicted in the next figure. The amount of essentially zero-carbon electricity
needed for e-fuels production is comparable to the total non-fossil electricity production in
Finland and Sweden today, while in Germany and Brazil the current total non-fossil
electricity generation capacity would not be enough to run all the needed e-fuels plants.
However, asking for such substantial amounts of carbon-free electricity dedicated to e-fuels
production seems hard to imagine on top of existing requirements for a dramatic expansionof low-carbon electricity generation to meet more traditional electricity demand. With respect
to industrial CO2 emissions, these seem to be sufficient for the required production of e-fuels
for Finland, Sweden and Germany, but the Brazilian demand by 2050 would be almost triple
the currently available amount. Maximizing the use of other decarbonization measures would
therefore be important to decrease the demand for e-fuels and the associated need for nonfossil electricity.
xRelative electricity and CO2 resource requirements related to the national E-FUELS scenarios.

xiAuthors and acknowledgements
This report constitutes Part 3 of the report on “The Role of Renewable Transport Fuels in
Decarbonizing Road Transport”, a project that was initiated and carried out jointly by IEA
Bioenergy and the Advanced Motor Fuels (AMF) TCP, with financial support of the European
Commission. The project was Task 41 Project 10 under IEA Bioenergy and Annex 58 under
AMF.
Participants in this project were the Contracting Parties of IEA Bioenergy from Brazil, theEuropean Commission, Finland, and USA, the Contracting Parties of AMF from China,
Finland, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and USA, and AMF Annex 28 and AMF Annex 59. All
parties provided in-kind contributions, except for the European Commission that also
provided 80,000 USD to finance the work of experts. The overall project budget (in-kind plus
cash contributions) amounts to 200,000 USD.
Further to this part “Scenarios and Contributions in Selected Countries”, the following reportparts have been published:•

Key Strategies in Selected Countries•

Production Technologies and Costs•

Deployment Barriers and Policy Recommendations•

Summary Report

This report part was written by Juhani Laurikko, Ilkka Hannula and Nils-Olof Nylund (all VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd) and edited by Dina Bacovsky (BEST – Bioenergy
and Sustainable Technologies). Adaptations to the ALIISA model were made in close
cooperation with Rachel Martins Henriques (Energy Research Office of Brazil (EPE)) for
Brazil, Franziska Müller-Langer (DBFZ Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum
gemeinnützige GmbH) for Germany, Helen Lindblom (Swedish Transport Administration) for
Sweden, and Alicia Lindauer (US Department of Energy) for USA.
The authors of the German report would like to thank their ifeu colleagues Frank Dünnebeiland Udo Lambrecht for supporting the scenario analyses undertaken by VTT with background data on the different transport modes.
The IEA Bioenergy TCP is an international platform of cooperation working in the frameworkof the IEA´s Technology Collaboration Programmes. IEA Bioenergy’s vision is to achieve asubstantial bioenergy contribution to future global energy demands by accelerating the
production and use of environmentally sound, socially accepted and cost-competitive
bioenergy on a sustainable basis, thus providing increased security of supply whilst reducingxii

greenhouse gas emissions from energy use.
www.ieabioenergy.com
The Advanced Motor Fuels (AMF) TCP also is an international platform of cooperation
working in the framework of the IEA´s Technology Collaboration Programmes. AMF´s vision
is that advanced motor fuels, applicable to all modes of transport, significantly contribute to asustainable society around the globe. AMF brings stakeholders from different continents
together for pooling and leveraging of knowledge and research capabilities in the field ofadvanced and sustainable transport fuels.
www.iea-amf.org

xiii

Content
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 3
General structure of the model .......................................................................................... 4
Adjustments for the study cases ........................................................................................ 6
Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 6
Current Policies (Base Case) scenario........................................................................... 7
MORE EV scenarios ...................................................................................................... 7
MAX BIO scenarios........................................................................................................ 7
E-FUELS scenarios ....................................................................................................... 8
Comparison of country indicators .......................................................................................... 9
Results for the Current Policies scenario............................................................................. 13
Finland ............................................................................................................................ 14
Sweden ........................................................................................................................... 20
Germany ......................................................................................................................... 27
USA ................................................................................................................................. 33
Brazil ............................................................................................................................... 39
Results for the MORE EV scenarios ................................................................................... 45
Finland ............................................................................................................................ 46
Sweden ........................................................................................................................... 49
Germany ......................................................................................................................... 51
Brazil ............................................................................................................................... 53
Results for the MAX BIO scenarios ..................................................................................... 56
Finland ............................................................................................................................ 56
Sweden ........................................................................................................................... 59
Germany ......................................................................................................................... 62
Brazil ............................................................................................................................... 65
Resource considerations ................................................................................................. 68
Results for the E-FUELS scenarios ..................................................................................... 70
Finland ............................................................................................................................ 72
Sweden ........................................................................................................................... 74xivGermany ......................................................................................................................... 75
Brazil ............................................................................................................................... 77
Resource considerations ................................................................................................. 78
Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 81
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 87

xv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Time horizon in decarbonizing passenger cars. Source: K. Boulouchos 2019. ....... 1
Figure 2: Illustration of the examined scenarios. The Current Policies scenario is composedout of a mix of CO2 reduction technologies, while the alternative future scenarios (orange
boxes) represent pathways where additional emissions reductions are achieved byincreasing reliance on one of the main reduction technologies: electric vehicles, biofuels or
e-fuels. .................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Fleet size and composition for Current Policies scenarios (1000 units). ................. 9
Figure 4: Total Transport Work (Vehicle Miles Travelled, VMT) for Current Policies scenarios(1 M km/a)........................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Energy use per vehicle category in Current Policies scenarios – 2030. ................ 13
Figure 6: Energy use per energy carrier in the Current Policies scenarios – 2030............... 13
Figure 7: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Finland in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 9: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 10: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 11: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: The gap between BAU scenario and the goals for the Swedish transport sector.
Source: Swedish Transport Administration.......................................................................... 21
Figure 13: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Sweden in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 14: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Sweden in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 16: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 17: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Germany in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 29xvi

Figure 19: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Germany in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 20: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 21: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 22: CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 23: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for the USA in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for the USA in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 25: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for the USA in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 26: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for the USA in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 27: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for the USA in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 28: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Brazil in the
Current Policies scenario. ................................................................................................... 41
Figure 29: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Brazil in the Current
Policies scenario ................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 30: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 31: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the Current Policies
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 32: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the Current
Policies scenario. ................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 33: Shares of chargeable vehicles in the national passenger car fleet by 2030 and
2050 for Current Policies and MORE EV (MORE EV marked with +). ................................. 46
Figure 34: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Finland in the MORE EV
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 35: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland in the
MORE EV scenario. ............................................................................................................ 48
Figure 36: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Sweden in the MORE EV
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 50
xvii

Figure 37: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Sweden in the
MORE EV scenario. ............................................................................................................ 51
Figure 38: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Germany in the MORE EV
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 39: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Germany in the
MORE EV scenario. ............................................................................................................ 53
Figure 40: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Brazil in the MORE EV
scenario. For Brazil the projections only include HEV flex, excluding PHEV (SI and CI). .... 54
Figure 41: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Brazil in the
MORE EV scenario. ............................................................................................................ 55
Figure 42: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the MAX BIO
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 43: TTW CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the MAX
BIO scenario. ...................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 44: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Finland
in the MAX BIO scenario ..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 45: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the MAX BIO
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 46: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the MAX
BIO scenario. ...................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 47: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Swedenin the MAX BIO scenario. .................................................................................................... 62
Figure 48: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the MAX BIO
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 49: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the MAX BIO
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 50: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport forGermany in the MAX BIO scenario. .................................................................................... 65
Figure 51: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario.
........................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 52: CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the MAX BIO
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 67
Figure 53: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Brazil in
the MAX BIO scenario......................................................................................................... 68
Figure 54: Country specific demand for drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in 2050
relative to IEA global 2DS supply scenario. ......................................................................... 69
xviii

Figure 55. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the E-FUELS
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 56. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the E-FUELS
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 57. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the E-FUELS
scenario. ............................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 58. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the E-FUELS scenario.
........................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 59: Calculated e-fuel emissions based on national scenarios on the development of
average grid emissions. Calculations are made assuming average 40% efficiency fromelectricity to fuel (LHV). ....................................................................................................... 79
Figure 60: Relative electricity and CO2 resource requirements related to the national EFUELS scenarios. ............................................................................................................... 80

xixList of Tables
Table 1: Options for propulsion system and types of fuels they use for passenger cars. ....... 4
Table 2: Comparison of some transport-related indicators. ................................................. 11
Table 3: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Finland. ...................................... 15
Table 4: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Sweden. ..................................... 22
Table 5: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Germany. ................................... 28
Table 6: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for the USA...................................... 34
Table 7: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Brazil. ......................................... 40
Table 8: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Finland. ............................................... 47
Table 9: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Sweden............................................... 50
Table 10: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Germany. .......................................... 52
Table 11: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Brazil................................................. 54
Table 12: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Finland. .............................................. 57
Table 13: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Sweden. ............................................. 60
Table 14: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Germany. ........................................... 63
Table 15: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Brazil. ................................................. 66
Table 16: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Finland. .............................................. 73
Table 17: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Sweden. ............................................. 74
Table 18: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Germany. ........................................... 76
Table 19: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Brazil. ................................................. 77
Table 20: Scenarios for specific power system emissions evolution by 2050 ...................... 79
Table 21: Comparison of the CO2 emissions according to the Current Policies cases. ........ 82
Table 22: Comparisons of the effects of advanced electrification in MORE EV scenarios onfurther CO2 reductions, compared to Current Policies case. ................................................ 82
Table 23: Comparisons of the effects of biofuels in MAX BIO scenarios on further CO2
reductions compared to Current Policies case. ................................................................... 83
Table 24: Fleet Size and Composition (Current Policies scenario) ...................................... 87
Table 25: Total transport work per vehicle category [km] (Current Policies scenario) .......... 88
Table 26: Average transport work per vehicle in each category (Current Policies scenario) 89
Table 27: Total fuel use in each category (Current Policies scenario) ................................. 90xx

Introduction
In the light of the global climate crisis there is an urgent need to decarbonize our societies,
and transport, and in particular road transport as addressed in this report, must provide its
share to this. In this report we understand the term decarbonization to include all options to
reduce GHG emissions and make transport cleaner.
There are three major solutions to reducing GHG emissions from transport:•

improving energy efficiency of the transport system, including reducing transport
work•

improving energy efficiency at the vehicle level•

introducing renewable energy carriers (biofuels, e-fuels including hydrogen and direct
use of electricity)

In order to achieve significant CO2 emission reductions by 2030 and beyond, a combinationof all measures above must be applied. In Sweden, the notion of a transport efficientsociety is used. This encompasses also the reduction of overall transport work by smart
placement of the various functions of the society and prioritization of energy efficient ways ofmoving people and goods. Regulations for better fuel efficiency and lower CO2 emissions
improve the performance of new vehicles, but renewal of the entire fleet takes decades.
Therefore, in moving towards zero carbon emissions, carbon neutral energy carriers,
renewable fuels as well as electricity are all needed. When heading for electrification,
investments are needed in new vehicles and new charging infrastructure, both inducing
significant costs and requiring time, as well as technical development for full implementation.
However, with the best renewable fuels, we can address not only the new vehicles put on
the market today, but the whole existing legacy fleet, as well.
Figure 1 shows schematics of how to decarbonize passenger cars. The example is for
Switzerland, but the principle is universal.

Figure 1: Time horizon in decarbonizing passenger cars. Source: K. Boulouchos 2019.

1

Figure 1 emphasizes the fact that the share of ICE engine equipped cars in the vehicle fleet
will still be substantial in 2030, and that the passenger car fleet is not completely electrified
even in 2050. In the case of heavy-duty long-haul vehicles, the transition to electricity will beeven slower.
Considering the anticipated pace of electrification of the total fleet, transport decarbonization
is bound to rely heavily on sustainable fuels. The question arises, how much sustainable
fuels are needed to achieve a certain reduction in road transport CO2 emissions at a given
time for a given country?
In Finland, a number of studies on how to reach a 40 or 50 % reduction in CO2 emissions by
2030 have been carried out. The 2016 Finnish energy and climate policy confirmed that the
reduction target for 2030 is -50% compared to the reference year of 2005. For Finland,biofuels constitute the foundation for emission reductions in transport, and Finland alreadyhas a law in place mandating 30 % biofuels share (of energy) in 2030. Appendix 2
summarizes the findings of a Finnish Biofuels 2030 study that assessed the role of biofuelsin transport decarbonization in Finland. The study mirrors the amount of biofuels neededagainst the penetration of electric vehicles and progress in energy efficiency. To be able to
make those calculations, a vehicle fleet modelling system called ALIISA was developed tomodel the development of the future fleet and its use of energy carriers. It is not a heuristic
model nor can it predict the future, but it applies a simple “what if” –type approach, wheresame input data always leads to same output. Yet by varying the input data and someinternal parameters, ALIISA made it possible to calculate at a reasonable level of accuracy
the outcome of e.g. presence of different amounts of electrified vehicles in the fleet by 2030
and thereafter, and what were the implications regarding the use of different energy carriers,
year by year from today to year 2050.
In the study at hand, the same modelling system was applied to four additional countries,
namely Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil. These countries are obviously very different
from each other regarding the size and composition of the vehicle fleet, the forecasted
amount in transport work, and the availability of raw materials for making biofuels.

2

Methodology
The ALIISA model was used to calculate future fleet compositions, fuel use, energy use andresulting GHG emissions for several scenarios for Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and
Brazil.
Parameters used in ALIISA model
5 vehicle categories• passenger cars

12 fuel options• gasoline•

delivery vans & light-duty trucks•

diesel•buses & coaches

•

CNG

•

medium-duty trucks

•

E5

•

heavy-duty trucks

•

E10

•

E27

6 propulsion systems•

spark ignited engine (SI)•E85, E100•

compression ignited engine (CI)•B7, B12•(plug-in) hybrid electric vehicle with spark
ignited engine (PHEV-SI)•

Drop-in hydrocarbons (FTliquids, HVO)

•

•

CBG

•

(plug-in) hybrid electric vehicle withcompression ignited engine (PHEV-CI)
battery electric vehicle (BEV)•electricity•

fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)•hydrogen

Main input feed (given for each future year of projection)•

assumption on total sales in each vehicle category for future years•

assumption on the distribution between the available powertrain/fuel options in sales•

assumption on fuel consumption (or energy efficiency gain) for future years•

assumption on annual driven distance (“VMT”), variable between categories, ageclasses and powertrain/fuel combinations

Calculation
Energy need [l/a] = driven distance [km/a] x consumption rate [L/100 km] for eachvehicle, powertrain, fuel/energy option
TTW CO2 emissions [tCO2/a] = energy need [toe/a] x nominal carbon content [tCO2/toe] for agiven fuel/energy option;
CO2 emissions of renewable shares and electricity are assumed to be zero
Brazil: special case for ethanol, regular gasoline contains 27 % ethanol (E27), also hydrous ethanol (E100) on
the market, special flex-fuel vehicles combining gasoline with any amount of ethanol.

3General structure of the model
The model is based on a collection of interlinked MS Excel spreadsheets, and it
entails the breakdown of the vehicle fleet according to the propulsion system andfuel/energy that is being used. In the model, vehicles are categorised as passenger cars
(PC), vans or light-duty trucks (LDT), buses and coaches, as well as medium (MD) andheavy-duty (HD) trucks. In addition, each of these main categories has a dedicated set ofsheets, where each vehicle category has several different options for propulsion and types offuels they use. The richest number of options is available for passenger cars, as listed inTable 1. Other vehicle categories use a smaller subset of these, as currently all options are
not available for all categories in the market place.
Table 1: Options for propulsion system and types of fuels they use for passenger cars.
Engine
type

SI

CI

PHEV
(SI)*

PHEV (CI)

Fuels

Gasoline(E5, E10,
E27)

Diesel (B7,B12)
drop-inhydrocarbons

Gasoline(E5, E10,
E27)

Diesel (B7,B12)
drop-inhydrocarbons

E85, E100

E100

CNG (CBG)

electricity

electricity

BEV

FCEV

electricityhydrogen* For Brazil the projections only include HEV flex, not PHEV (SI and CI)

The model takes as input an assumption of total sales for each of the categories andthe envisaged distribution between the available powertrain/fuel options for eachfuture year. The evolution and vehicle fleet management is then accomplished byintroducing new vehicles to each vehicle category and propulsion/fuel option for thesubsequent year (2010 to 2050); according to the input data, and by means of a withdrawal
function, the number of “surviving” vehicles for each consequent year batch is determined.
Finally, by adding up remaining vehicles for each model year, the total fleet size andcomposition is computed for each projected year.
This withdrawal function is separate for each vehicle category and propulsion type, can be
adjusted so that the fleet size follows the expected trend. Furthermore, the model computes
out also an average age of each of the sub-fleets. Like for the calculation of the year 2030,
allotments of new vehicles sold in that year are calculated for each vehicle category,
propulsion and fuel type, but also remains of the vehicles allotted for previous years (i.e.
2029, 2028, 2027 etc.) are still in the sub-fleet, until all the vehicles for that given option havebeen withdrawn. The total fleet is then a sum of all these various sub-fleets of different age.
4

Apart from the share of each propulsion system and fuel, the needed input also includes
fuel/energy consumption values projected for each future year. These figures also
portray the expected increase in efficiency, as usually the values are descending for the
future.
Furthermore, the calculation for the use of different fuels requires also annual driven
distances (a.k.a. vehicle miles travelled, VMT). Those are of course different for each main
vehicle category, but can also be attributed separately for each powertrain/fuel combination,
if necessary. While calculating the VMT, there is a nominal assumed per vehicle averageannual distance, but that will be internally modulated for each vehicle age category for that
option, as newer vehicles tend to have much higher usage rate than the older ones. The
total annual driven distance is then computed from each subsequent model year sub-fleets
using available powertrain and energy options, separately for each main vehicle category.
After the quantity of distance travelled (in km) is totaled, the basic function to calculate fuel(or energy use) is of the format:
Driven distance [km/a] x consumption rate [L/100 km] for each vehicle, powertrain,
fuel/energy option
These calculations are performed throughout the arrays of available vehicle categories,
powertrain and fuel/energy options, as well as age groups, and then summed up for eachsubsequent year.
As a separate calculation, the collective use of fuel and energy options in their usual market
units (litre, kg, m3, kWh etc.) is added up, and also converted to different energy units, suchas ktoe and PJ.
For the introduction of biofuels, the calculation also entails the possibility to allocate anannual portion (%) for biofuels, such as ethanol, renewable diesel and biomethane.
Eventually, CO2 emissions are calculated, based on the nominal carbon contents ofthe given fuel. Thus, the emitted amounts of CO2 are “tank-to-wheel” (TTW), and do
not consider the upstream “well-to-tank” (WTT) emissions. The CO2 emissions for the
renewable shares are assumed to be zero. Furthermore, the amount of electricity used is
calculated, but no CO2 emissions are associated with it. This complies with the EU
emission standards that apply to the automotive industry, but does not include WTTemissions as calculated in accordance with the EU Renewable Energy Directive.
In essence, the model is “deterministic”, i.e. one set of input data will always result in same
output.
5

Adjustments for the study cases
For this exercise, separate input value sets submitted by the country experts werebrought together. These input value sets also included some historical data and control
values that were needed to tune the model parameters, mainly vehicle scrap rates andannual mileages, so that it was possible to check that the size of the vehicle fleet andtotal mileages remained within the expected ranges. These control value sets also
included some estimates for the fuel use, and some adjustments were necessary for eachcountry case to get the output of the model to match those figures. Naturally, a perfect oneto-one fit was not possible to obtain, but for the sake of this exercise, it was notnecessary, because the goal was to make a comparative analysis using a common
methodology, and address differences between different country cases, and not to replicate
the countries own scenario analysis.
After these adjustments, the model was tuned-in for each of the countries and could be
used to produce projected vehicle fleet compositions regarding powertrain options, as wellas usage estimates for different fuels and energies, as well as the projected CO 2 emissions.
For this study, the timeframe from year 2020 to year 2050 was portrayed, although most of
the projections beyond 2030 are not equally solid.

Scenarios
Following four scenarios were developed for the purpose of our analysis: Current Policies
scenario, MORE EV scenario, MAX BIO scenario, and E-FUELS scenario. The relationshipbetween the scenarios is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Illustration of the examined scenarios. The Current Policies scenario is composed out of a mix of CO2
reduction technologies, while the alternative future scenarios (orange boxes) represent pathways where
additional emissions reductions are achieved by increasing reliance on one of the main reduction technologies:
electric vehicles, biofuels or e-fuels.

6

Current Policies (Base Case) scenario
For each country, a base case scenario called Current Policies was developed, with theaim of matching the model output as closely as possible with country specific input data like
fleet size and composition, transport work, use of energy in various forms, and carbon
emissions in the form of CO2. This was accomplished by adjusting internal parameters of themodel, such as vehicle retirement age and average annual distance per vehicle, to meettarget values of national conditions. The “Current Policies” scenario is therefore unique toeach country in relation to its fleet composition, rate of electrification, changes in transport
work, and use of biofuels.
The Current Policies scenarios provide a starting point for three future scenarios that adopt a
more ambitious approach to emissions reductions. These alternative future scenarios differ
from each other based on the adopted technological route, i.e. more electric vehicles (MORE
EV), maximum use of biofuels (MAX BIO) or introducing e-fuels (E-FUELS). These
scenarios are briefly discussed below.
MORE EV scenarios
MORE EV scenarios are developed by increasing the anticipated sales of electrified
vehicles, thereby reaching larger replacement of fuels with electricity in total transport energy
use. The level of “EV boosting” varies between countries, and is adjusted in consultation withcountry experts, to meet their outlooks for such an action. This scenario intends to reflect
what a more aggressive, but still conceivable, electrification could achieve.
MAX BIO scenarios
MAX BIO scenarios were developed to illustrate the impact of maximal biofuels use. Again,
the exact contents of these scenarios differ between countries, but the common idea is toevaluate how much additional biofuels could technically be implemented, if available,
and what implication this would have on CO2 emissions. The MAX BIO scenarios are also
intended to provide an outlook on how much different biofuel types (ethanol, biodiesel,
renewable diesel, biomethane) could be applied, and then to judge, under what conditions it
would be possible for each examined country.
In some countries like Sweden, an “advanced biofuels scenario” already exists, and it wasused as the basis for the Swedish MAX BIO scenario. This scenario includes also the use of“biopetrol” or “renewable petrol” that would be produced with similar processes as thecurrent pool of renewable diesels. Already now, some 10% of the yield of HVO diesel
production contains molecules that can be used as components for gasoline. In the Swedish
scenario, biopetrol is expected to reach 25% share of gasoline use in 2030. In the Swedish
7

MAX BIO scenario, we assumed that this amount (437 ktoe) of “biopetrol” in 2030 would be
kept at the same level until 2050 thereby replacing higher and higher shares of fossil
gasoline, as the total use of gasoline simultaneously diminishes due to advances in energy
efficiency and electrification.
For Finland, Germany and Brazil similar advanced biofuels scenarios were not available. For
these countries, the MAX BIO was developed on the simple assumption that the use of
biofuels would increase linearly after 2030, reaching 100% of the technically possible levelby 2050. Regarding diesel and methane, the highest achievable level was set to 100% forGermany. However, biomethane was not implemented in the scenario for Brazil, as it was
not possible to ascertain the size of the fleet using methane.
Furthermore, regarding ethanol in gasoline, the maximum limit (a.k.a. “blend wall”) applied in
the calculations was 10%-vol for Germany (E10), 15%-vol for USA (E15) and 27%-vol (E30)
for Brazil. It should be noted, however, that higher ethanol contents could possibly beallowed in the future by revising fuel standards to allow more ethanol to be blended in(e.g.
E27 that is in use in Brazil, and under some consideration at least in Europe). Similarly, incountries like Finland, Sweden and Brazil that have flex-fuel vehicles in their fleet (flexible touse gasoline or E85/hydrous ethanol), maximal share of ethanol is assumed (E85 in
Sweden/Finland, 100% hydrous ethanol in Brazil) in MAX BIO scenarios, whereas in Current
Policies scenarios it is lower.
E-FUELS scenarios
E-FUELS scenarios are developed to study the impact of using e-fuels (i.e. fuels produced
from CO2 and water with renewable electricity) for the decarbonization of road transport. The
anticipated vehicle fleet development, efficiency improvements and biofuels uptake arebased on the Current Policies scenario for each country.
The introduction of e-fuels begins in 2030 for all countries, and increases linearly to reachfull displacement of fossil fuels by 2050. Fossil gasoline, diesel and natural gas remaining in
the Current Policies scenario after electrification, efficiency improvements, EVs and biofuels
are displaced by e-gasoline, e-diesel and e-methane, respectively. For Germany, also
displacement of fossil hydrogen with e-hydrogen is considered.
In addition to calculating the needed deployment of e-fuels, the amount of electricity andCO2 needed to supply the estimated e-fuels demand is also calculated for each country andcontrasted against currently available resources.

8

Comparison of country indicators
To allow characterization and comparison of the five case countries in terms of their vehicle
fleet size and composition, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per vehicle in each category, as
well as use of different fuels and fuel components several tables were composed, based ondata submitted for the Current Policies cases, and calculated separately for years 2020,
2030 and 2050. The tables are intended to facilitate a comparison of the size andcharacteristics of the transport sectors in each country, and are presented in Appendix 1.
Furthermore, Figure 3 and Figure 4 below are composed from the core data in those tables,
presenting both vehicle fleet sizes and total transport work (VMT) per vehicle category.

Figure 3: Fleet size and composition for Current Policies scenarios (1000 units).

9

Figure 4: Total Transport Work (Vehicle Miles Travelled, VMT) for Current Policies scenarios (1 M km/a).

In addition, to enable an easy comparison of the case countries whose geographical sizeand population differ greatly from each other, some transport-related indicators were
calculated as relative to the population and land area, and are presented in Table 2.

10Table 2: Comparison of some transport-related indicators.
2020
FinlandSwedenGermany

Population size

5,545,000

10,100,000

83,780,000

331,000,000

212,600,000

Land area, km2

303,890

410,340

348,560

9,147,420

8,358,140

Pop.density

18.2

24.6

240.4

36.2

25.4

Cars/capita

0.501

0.486

0.552

0.717

0.180

Car-km/capita

7,600

5,600

7,800

13,0003,000

Car-km/km2

138,000

137,000

1,880,000

270,000

76,000

633

502

496

1,535

374

11,555

12,344

119,21455,554

9,514

MDT&HDT-km/capita
MDT&HDT-km/km2

USA

Brazilhttps://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country

Population-wise, Finland is the smallest of the group, Sweden having about twice thepopulation, Germany about 15, Brazil about 40 and USA about 60 times the population.
Finland, Sweden and Germany are about the same size regarding land area, but USA and
Brazil are both about 30 times larger. In terms of population density, this means that Finland
has the lowest density, while Sweden, Brazil and USA are at about the same level, andGermany has a population density about ten times higher. However, the amount of
unpopulated land is much greater for countries other than Germany, therefore population
densities at actually habituated areas may not be very different from each other.
If we proportion transport-related activities (presented in Table 2) to population size and landarea, the resulting numbers are quite interesting. Starting from the common index of cars
per 1000 inhabitants, Finland, Sweden and Germany are about the same level, while US issomewhat higher, because in practice we must account some 70% of the LDT fleet as
passenger vehicles. The figure for Brazil is only about a third of that, which is clearlyreflected in the large size of the bus and coach fleet, as buses are needed to fulfil passenger
transport needs. Likewise, gross kilometers driven with passenger cars (and LDT in US) per
capita are roughly at the same level in Finland, Sweden and Germany, while the USA has
double the amount, and Brazil less than half of that. If we proportion the number ofkilometers driven by these light passenger vehicles to the land area, Finland and Sweden
are again on the same level, but Germany has an index that is 14 times higher, while USA isonly on about 3 and Brazil even below 1. This clearly underlines the fact that passenger
vehicle transport is by far denser in Germany than in the other countries in this study.
11

Furthermore, regarding freight transport, the figures are again quite telling: Finland, Sweden
and Germany are almost on par, with 500 to 600 km of annual heavy-vehicle kilometers per
capita, while US has three times as much, and Brazil about a quarter less. As the land areaof the country should play a role, an index was also calculated based on land area. This
makes Finland and Sweden quite close, not so surprising given the many similarities
between these countries. However, Germany has 10 times more HD transport kilometers per
land area, while US has less than half of that, and Brazil has the lowest number, being much
below Finland and Sweden. This may have something to do with the actual habituated area,
but figures for that comparison were not easily obtainable.
The above analysis is not intended for research purposes, but rather to provide additional
perspectives to our country analyses, discussed in the following chapters.

12

Results for the Current Policies scenario
The following figures summarize the energy use per vehicle category for all countries in
2030 and in 2050.

Figure 5: Energy use per vehicle category in Current Policies scenarios – 2030.

Figure 6: Energy use per energy carrier in the Current Policies scenarios – 2030.

13

Details of the scenario results for Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil are discussed
in the following sections, beginning with the Current Policies scenarios. Results for eachcountry are presented between 2020 and 2050 in the following way:•

The allotment of CO2 emissions reductions between different low-carbon solutions,i.e. adoption of electric vehicles, increased energy efficiency (of vehicles) and use of
biofuels is illustrated for each country.

•

The evolution of new car registrations per fuel type is calculated.

•

The evolution of energy use per main vehicle categories (passenger cars, LDT,
busses, medium and heavy-duty trucks).

•

The evolution of energy use per energy carrier, both of fossil and renewable origin, iscalculated.

•

The evolution of Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) CO2 emissions by vehicle category is
calculated.

Next after the Current Policies scenario, results for MAX BIO scenario are presented,
followed by results for the E-FUELS scenario and finally for the MORE EV scenario.

Finland
The Current Policies case for Finland is built around the “Base Case” that assumes thosemeasures that are now in place, either by some EU-regulation or by national legislation,such as the 30% biofuels obligation by 2029. However, the expected reduction in CO2emissions by 2030 is 38%, compared to the official base year of 2005. Thus, additional
measures are needed to reach the targeted 50% reduction.
Of the anticipated 38% reduction, the majority (67%) comes from biofuels, whileelectrification and energy efficiency gain both add some 16 to 17% shares.
According to part 1 of the overall report (“Key Strategies in Selected Countries), current use
of fuels in the road transport sector in Finland is about 4,000 kt, of which 14% is renewable.
Furthermore, of the total of 3.2 million motor vehicles, only 65,000 are now alternatively
fueled (methane gas or electricity), representing some 2% of the fleet. This combination
yields to 10.3 Mt of CO2 emissions in 2020.
According to Table 3, the Current Policies case for Finland expects the total energy use inroad transport to decrease, mainly due to the increase in vehicle energy efficiency overseen
as a result of tightening of the CO2-emissions regulations implemented in the EU. Moreover,
the alternatively-fueled vehicle fleet is expected to grow, especially the number of electriccars. Their share in new registrations shall raise from the current level of 1.5% to near 30%
by 2030, and represent almost 50% of the passenger car fleet by the year 2050. This will
14

lead to some 20% share for electricity in total transport energy use.
Table 3: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Finland.
Current Policies, FINLAND

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

4,020

3,631

3,098

2,788

Share of fossil fuels, %

86 %

67 %

62 %

54 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

1.5 %

12 %

29 %

49 %

41

349

851

1,555 000

0.24 %

2.9 %

9.5 %

20 %

10

105

295

552

14 %

30 %

28 %

26 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

545

1,087

882

729

CO2 emissions, Mt

10.3

7.3

5.7

4.5

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transport energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %Concurrently, the use of biofuels shall increase by 2030, due to the legal obligation of the
distributors to add up to 30% of bio-contents to the fuels they sell. Even if this 30% obligation
is expected to stay after 2030, the better energy efficiency and increased share of electricity
will in reality slightly lower that share and the actual amounts afterwards, as seen in Table 3.
The maximum expected amount of biofuels equals to some 1,100 kt, and that occurs by theyear 2030. Even with this slight reduction in the use of biofuels, they still remain as thelargest contributor to the lowering of the CO2 emissions over the scope of this study, as theshare of electricity is not expected to be more than 20% by 2050. With the expected
increase in the number of alternatively fueled vehicles, better energy efficiency of new carsand continued use of bio-components according to the Current Policies scenario, the CO2
emissions are expected to decrease by nearly 40% by 2030, thus falling short of the targeted
reduction of 50%, and suggesting that additional measures are still needed.
Figure 7 plots the calculated CO2 emissions and breaks down the emissions reductions tothree major contributors: effects of energy efficiency improvements, introduction of electricvehicles and use of biofuels. In the graph the top-most red line is the hypothetical evolutionof TTW CO2 emissions from the road transport sector without any of these measures. The
blue line then shows the effect of electrification alone, while the yellow one adds to this theeffect of energy efficiency gains. Finally the green line shows the combined effect of all
measures including biofuels. This figure clearly shows how apparent it is that biofuels
contribute most to decarbonization up to 2040 and even some years beyond, when the effectof electrification only catches up with biofuels. Expected increase in energy efficiency has
also a growing share at least until 2040, if no further regulations are expected after 2030.
15

Figure 7: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland in the Current Policies scenario.

According to the Figure 8, the majority of new cars shall be powered by only by an IC-engine
until 2040, as by then the combined share of plug-in hybrids (PHEV) or fully-electric vehicles(BEV) slashes over the 50% mark. This Current Policies scenario expects, though, that ICEonly (SI) cars will still retain 25% of the market even by the year 2050, but ICE-only diesels
and even PHEVs will be phased away until then.
Hydrogen-fueled FCEV category is not expected to be on the market in Finland. This ismainly due to the large geographical area of the country that makes it difficult and expensive
to create a sufficiently dense refilling infrastructure and run it with a profit margin. However,hydrogen fuel cell may yet prove to be a valid option for powering heavier vehicles due togreater energy density it can offer over batteries. It would also be easier to establish a
refueling infrastructure to heavy goods vehicles that already now mostly use their dedicatednetwork.

16

Figure 8: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Finland in the Current Policies scenario.

Then, if we review Figure 9 that depicts road transport energy use, we can see that theshare of light vehicles (cars and vans) is slightly over 60% currently, but due to the expected
increase in their fuel efficiency, as well as incoming electrification, their share will gradually
decrease close to 50% by the year 2050. Furthermore, overall energy consumption will bedown by some 10% by 2030, and 30% by the year 2050 respectively, according to theprojections by the Current Policies scenario.

17

Figure 9: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 10 breaks down the use of energy in road transport by type of fuel or energy. It clearlyshows the dominance that the diesel pool has, as this pool (fossil or renewable diesel)counts currently some 67% of the total road transport energy use, and even by the year
2045 it is still 55%. Only by 2050 its share is expected to drop below 50%, being 47% by
then. Currently, fossil gasoline accounts for 30%, and in this scenario that share remains
almost constant until 2045, but slides down to 24% by 2050, due to the expected upturn inelectrification and phase-down of ICE & PHEV powerplants.
Use of ethanol remains fairly low, as this scenario does not assume higher than 10% blends(E10) to be on the market. Therefore, the maximum share of the renewable energy in thegasoline pool remains around 7%. Combining this fact with the required 30% share of
bioenergy by 2030 and onwards, means that share of renewable diesel must cover theremainder, as in current situation the obligation counts only liquid fuels and use ofbiomethane is not accounted at all. The share of renewable diesel in the diesel pool istherefore up to 30% already by 2024, and it hits the maximum of 45% by the year 2040, andstays there onwards. Electricity is today highly marginal in road transport, as its share is only
0.25%. However, according to this Current Policies scenario, it shall reach about 3% by2030, 10% by 2040 and 20% by 2050, being then in energy about the same as renewablediesel. Despite these fairly high shares, fossil fuels accounts still 54% by 2050.
18

Figure 10: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the Current Policies scenario.

According to Figure 11, that plots the projected evolution of CO2 emissions per road vehicle
category, emissions from passenger cars are expected to be reduced quite effectively: bysome 25% until 2030, by 45% until 2040 and over 60% by the year 2050. However, as othervehicle categories cannot show similar performance, the total road vehicle emissions will not
be reduced as aggressively.

19

Figure 11: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the Current Policies scenario.

SwedenBiofuels already represent 28% of road transport fuels in Sweden. The expected uptake ofelectric vehicles will result in 56% of the passenger car fleet in 2050, replacing 553 ktoe offossil fuels. Although this is a significant share (around 16%) of the expected road transport
fuel use, it is still only 1/3 of what biofuels already now replace.
Current GHG emissions are about 13 Mt CO2, and are expected to decrease to below 6 Mt
CO2 by 2050. Up to 2038, biofuels contribute most to reducing CO2 emissions from the roadtransport sector. However, the ambitious targets of around 6 Mt CO2 by 2030 and climate
neutrality by 2045 will be missed in the Current Policies scenario.
As mentioned in part 1 of the overall report (“Key Strategies in Selected Countries”), Sweden
used 6,700 ktoe of fuel in the transport sector in 2018, of which 1,500 ktoe were renewable.
Of the 5.5 million vehicles in use only 0.3 million are alternative fuel vehicles (including
electric vehicles). The current GHG emissions from the road transport sector are about 15
Mt CO2eq. The energy consumption of the road transport sector is projected to decrease due
to more energy efficient vehicles. The target is to reduce GHG emissions from the transport
sector (excluding aviation) by 70% compared to 2010 by 2030. This translates to a maximumof 6 Mt CO2eq emitted by the transport sector by 2030. Measures to achieve this target
20

include a bonus-malus system for CO2 emissions and a GHG emission reduction obligationon the fuel suppliers. Figure 12 shows the gap between the business as usual scenario andthe goals for the Swedish transport sector.

Figure 12: The gap between BAU scenario and the goals for the Swedish transport sector. Source: Swedish
Transport Administration

The Current Policies case in Sweden (see Table 4 below) shows that total energy use inroad transport is expected to decrease and the share of fossil fuels is also expected todecrease. The electric vehicle fleet is expected to grow from 137,000 in 2020 to more than
2.8 million in 2050, which is more than 50% of the passenger car fleet. The share of biofuelsis already one of the highest in the world and is expected to remain rather constant at thecurrent high level of 28%, sliding down to 25% by 2050 due to the decreasing number ofvehicles powered by internal combustion engines. The amount of biofuels used is 1,657 ktoe
in 2020, which is still more than 3 times the amount of fossil fuels that will be expected to be
replaced by electricity in 2050, and some 80 times the current replacement by electricity use.
This shows clearly that biofuels are doing most of the job of decarbonization in the coming
decades and even turning the entire expected car fleet to electric vehicles will not be able toreplace the same amount of fossil fuels as biofuels already do. Total TTW CO2 emissions in
the Current Policies case are expected to be as high as 12.1 MtCO2 by 2030 and will thus by
far miss the target of 5.7 MtCO2eq.

21

Table 4: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Sweden.
Current Policies, SWEDEN

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

6,011

5,794

4,777

3368

Share of fossil fuels, %

72 %

70 %

66 %

58 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %2.8 %12.4 %

36 %

56 %

137

647

0.37 %

2.3 %

1,845
000
8.3 %

2,844
000
16 %

22

136

398

553

Share of biofuels, %

28 %

28 %

26 %

25 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

1,657

1,595

1,249

852

CO2 emissions, Mt

12.9

12.1

9.3

5.8

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transport energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

Figure 13 plots the expected progression of CO2 emissions according to the Current Policies
scenario, and disaggregates the effects of energy efficiency improvements, introduction ofelectric vehicles and awaited biofuels use: The red line on top is the imaginary evolution of
TTW CO2 emissions from the road sector without any of these measures. The blue line
shows the effect of electrification alone, the yellow one joins the effect of energy efficiency
gains on top of this, and finally the green line shows the combined effect of all measures
including biofuels. It is apparent that biofuels contribute most to decarbonization up to 2040,
while the effect of electrification catches up with biofuels in 2038.

22

Figure 13: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Sweden in the Current Policies
scenario.

Figure 14 shows the projected split between different engine and fuel/energy options in new
car sales from 2020 until 2050 according to the Current Policies scenario. When compared
to e.g. that of Finland (Figure 8) we see that current share of diesel is in Sweden muchhigher, twice as large. Furthermore, it is also expected to increase still for a few years,
whereas in Finland it is anticipated to continuously diminish. Even by 2040, when the sharein Finland is expected to be only 5%, the corresponding Swedish figure is still 19%, and in
2050, both SI and CI-only cars are expected to be sold at 34% level, whereas in Finlanddiesel will be completely out-of-picture by then, and only SI cars remain. The Swedish casealso assumes higher share of plug-in hybrids between 2025 and 2040 than in Finland, where
they are presumed to “fade away” much quicker.
As in Finland, a hydrogen-fueled FCEV category is not expected to be on the market in
Sweden. The main reason for this is the same: the large geographical area of the country ismaking it difficult and expensive to create a sufficient refilling infrastructure and operate it
profitably.

23

Figure 14: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Sweden in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 15 then shows that in the Current Policies case the energy use in the transport sector
is expected to decrease, due to increasing energy efficiency of mainly the cars and theincrease in electric vehicles. Cars currently use 80% of the overall transport energy, but will
only use slightly more than 50% by 2050.

24

Figure 15: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the Current Policies scenario.

Almost two thirds of cars in Sweden currently drive on diesel, and a significant portion of thisis already substituted by renewable diesel, as can be seen Figure 16. Electric vehicles are
more energy efficient than internal combustion engines (4 to 5 times as efficient assumed inthis analysis), and thus the proportion of electricity seems to remain small, although they
replace almost as much fossil fuel in 2050 as biofuels do.

25

Figure 16: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the Current Policies scenario.

The TTW CO2 emissions from the road transport sector in the Current Policies casedecrease from 13 MtCO2 in 2020 to 6 MtCO2 in 2050, and by far miss the target of 7
MtCO2eq by 2030. The largest part of CO2 emissions comes from cars, but their contribution
can be halved by 2050, while CO2 emissions from medium duty and heavy-duty trucks
remain more constant, see Figure 17.

26

Figure 17: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the Current Policies scenario.

Germany
In Germany, biofuels represent currently about 6 % of the total energy use in road transport.
Furthermore, according to Current Policies scenario, this share is not expected to increase,and due to the increasing energy efficiency of the fleet, the actual amounts would thenactually diminish. However, the electrification rate of the passenger car fleet is projected to
grow by a factor of 11 already by 2030, and reach nearly 22 million cars by 2050,
representing then 46% of the stock.
Currently, road transport accounts for about 152 Mt of CO2, and the emissions are estimatedto be less than 60 Mt by 2050. At first, the reductions are mostly attributed to the use of
biofuels, but after 2030, the increase in energy efficiency takes the lead. However, soon after
2040, increased electrification is the main contributor to the reductions in CO2 emissions.
Due to the large population in Germany, the size of the road vehicle fleet is much larger thanin the Nordic countries Finland and Sweden. Also, the energy consumption of the roadtransport sector is projected to increase until 2030. Officially, Germany aims to reduce GHG
emissions from the transport sector by 42% (as compared to 1990) by 2030. However, as
discussed in more detail in Part 1 of the overall report “Key Strategies in Selected
Countries”, it seems impossible to achieve this target.
27

In our analysis, the Current Policies scenario starts with 54.5 Mtoe/yr total road transportenergy demand in 2020, where the combined contribution of fossil gasoline (16.5 Mtoe/yr) andfossil diesel (34.5 Mtoe/yr) amounts to 94% of the energy use. By 2050, the total energy
demand is reduced by 53% to 25 Mtoe/yr with the following main energy carriers: fossil
gasoline 6 Mtoe/yr, fossil diesel 13 Mtoe/yr and electricity 3 Mtoe/yr. Fossil CO2 emissions
from road transport in 2050 are down by 38% from 2020 levels, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Germany.
Current Policies, GERMANY

2020

2030

2040

2050

54,46545,02533,13825,088

Share of fossil fuels, %

94 %

93 %

88 %

78 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.7 %

7.3 %

24 %

46 %

328

3,507

11,56021,9810.10 %

1.3 %

5.3 %

12.4 %

55

572

1,763

3,121

Share of biofuels, %

6.1 %

6.1 %

6.4 %

7.0 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

3,303

2,759

2,104

1,754

CO2 emissions, Mt

151.7

123.8

86.5

58.1

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transport energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

Figure 18 depicts the anticipated development of CO2 emissions according to the Current
Policies scenario, and separates the effects of foreseen energy efficiency improvements,
implementation of electric vehicles and estimated biofuels use. The top-most red line is the
hypothetical evolution of TTW CO2 emissions from the road sector without any measures.
The blue line then shows the effect of implementing electric vehicles, whereas the yellow
one aggregates also the effect of energy efficiency gains. Lastly, the green line plots
aggregated effect of all these measures including also use of biofuels. As the graph shows,in the beginning, biofuels represent the largest contribution to the reduction of CO 2, but soonafter 2030 the anticipated gain in energy efficiency will take the lead, and remain the main
provider until 2040. This continues even a few years beyond, but then the electrification
starts to be the most important measure, and remains so until 2050. However, this is highly
dependent on the assumption of the progression in energy efficiency.

28

Figure 18: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Germany in the Current Policies
scenario.

Figure 19 shows the projected split between different engine and fuel/energy options in new
car sales from 2020 until 2050 according to the Current Policies scenario. When comparedto the cases Finland and Sweden, a much wider list of options is considered, as e.g. theshare of SI-ICE is accounted separately for “normal” SI-ICE and SI-ICE with electric-hybrid
configurations. Furthermore, there is also a hydrogen-fueled FCEV category on top of directelectric options, which is not expected to be on the market in Finland and Sweden. As
opposed to the large geographical area of these countries making it difficult and expensive
to create a sufficient refilling infrastructure and run it profitably, Germany has much higher
population and road traffic densities that should support the creation and successful upkeepof the hydrogen infrastructure.
Like Sweden, Germany has currently a fairly high share (42%) of diesels (CI-ICE) in new car
registrations. However, unlike Sweden but like Finland, in the Current Policies scenario thisshare is foreseen to quite rapidly narrow down, and drop to about 20% by 2035 and below
10% soon after 2040, becoming almost extinct by 2050. Furthermore, the implementation ofelectricity is divided between plug-in hybrids with both SI and CI engines (PHEV-SI, PHEVCI), as well as pure electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), which usehydrogen as the energy carrier. The combined share of these shall reach about 20% by29

2025, which is about the same as expected in Finland (21%), but more than in Sweden(13%). By 2035 this share is expected to grow to somewhat over 30%, which is lower thanwhat is expected for Finland (37%) or especially Sweden (Sweden expecting a rapid “boom”
to reach already a 45% share of chargeable vehicles). By 2045 plug-in cars are foreseen toaccount for over 60% of new car sales in Germany, of which over 6% is FCEV. For Finland
the expectations for xEVs are about on the same level, as well as in Sweden, but neither ofthese countries account hydrogen-fueled vehicles to be sold. By 2050 the various electrifiedcars are anticipated to account for nearly 80% of the sales, and of the remaining nonchargeable options the HEV-SI is the largest with 17% share, but the shares of traditional SI
and CI cars are both in single-digit figures.

Figure 19: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Germany in the Current Policies scenario.

If we then view Figure 20 that depicts road transport energy use divided into different roadvehicle categories, we can see that light vehicles - especially cars – consume most of theenergy, currently almost 80% of the total. In the Current Policies scenario, this scenery is
expected to change somewhat, but not drastically, as by 2050 the light vehicles´ share still
remains at 66%. However, in absolute numbers the use of energy is expected to drop quite
substantially, as by 2040 almost a 40% reduction is expected, and by 2050 the level shall beless than half of the current figures.

30

Figure 20: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 21 presents the use of energy in road transport by type of fuel or energy. Very
distinctly, it shows how dominant the diesel pool is, because of the large diesel passenger
car and LDT fleet. The current level is 68%, and by 2050 it is anticipated to lower down to
55%. However, unlike in Finland and Sweden, in Germany the share of renewable diesel
remains only at about 8% over the 2020 to 2050 timeframe.
According to Figure 22, the projected aggressive lowering of the passenger cars CO2
emissions (which is due to electrification (27%), efficiency gains (33%) and the use of
biofuels (40%)) reduces the road transport emissions by nearly 20% by 2030. Furthermore,
the reduction is over 40% by 2040, and over 60% by 2050, which is the highest reduction
rate amongst the case countries of Finland, Sweden and Germany.

31

Figure 21: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 22: CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the Current Policies scenario.

32

USA
In the USA, the use of biofuels currently replaces about 9% of the road transportationenergy, and this figure is expected to rise modestly to somewhat over 10% by 2030 andbeyond. However, the rate of electrification is expected to increase, and due to the growing
numbers of EV’s, the share of electricity would be over 1% by 2030, and over 3% by 2050,
while the current level is less than 0.3%. By 2050, nearly 33 million EVs are expected to beon the road, nearly 20% of the total light-duty vehicle stock of that time.
For the USA, the Current Policies scenario leads to 1,250 Mt of CO2 emissions by 2030,
followed by 1,117 Mt by 2040 and 1,126 Mt by 2050. These numbers represent a reductionof 16% by 2030, 25% by 2040, and 24% by 2050, compared to current emissions. Thus,
unlike in European countries, the US emissions stagnate due to the expected growth in VMTthat counterbalances the positive effects of electrification, efficiency gain and the use of
biofuels.
Of the reductions in 2030, 17% comes from the EVs, 36% of the expected advances invehicles’ efficiency, and the remaining 47% from the use of biofuels. By 2050 these quotas
have changed to 25% by EVs, 49% by efficiency and 26% by biofuels.
The size of the road transport fleet in Unites States is about five times the fleet of Germany.
Particularly large is the light vehicle segment, consisting of passenger cars and light-duty
trucks (LDT), which nowadays contains a large share of “sport utility vehicles” (SUV) that are
essentially large passenger vehicles. Furthermore, traditional pick-up trucks are also still inwide use, but usually more as passenger vehicles rather than in their intended use case as
cargo haulers. This particular composition of the fleet also heavily influences the energy
spent by the sector, and per vehicle energy need in U.S. is almost twice as large as inGermany.
According to part 1 of the overall report (“Key Strategies in Selected Countries”), the total
fuel consumption in road transport is currently about 708 Mtoe (which is ten times that ofGermany), even if the total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in U.S. is only 7 times larger (seeTable 25 in Appendix 1). In total, 36.1 Mtoe of this fuel consumption is renewable, and mostof it is ethanol. As the prevailing SI-engine fuel in U.S. is E15, the biofuel contents (byenergy) would, at maximum, thus be about 11 %, as Table 6 shows.
According to the Current Policies scenario, the projected use of energy in the transportation
sector is going to be reduced, but not as strongly as in e.g. Germany. Although the energy
use per VMT is reduced, the expectations in the Current Policies scenario are that total VMTin U.S. will grow (up to 20% by 2050, see Figure 4), instead of the reduction presumed for33Germany and the Nordics. Therefore, if the total projected energy expenditure in 2050 will be
440 Mtoe, effectively it means that energy use per VMT is down by over 30% from thecurrent level.
Table 6: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for the USA.
Current Policies, USA

2020

2030

2040

2050

545,938

473,466

432,077

439,770

Share of fossil fuels, %

91 %

89 %

87 %

86 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

1.6 %

7.6 %

14 %

18 %

EV numbers, 1000 units

2,285

11,22021,99932,9720.20 %

1.2 %

2.3 %

3.2 %

Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

1,109

5,565

9,814

14,130Share of biofuels, %8.7 %10.1 %

10.8 %

10.6 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

47,32647,92346,65546,827CO2 emissions, Mt

1,483

1,250

1,117

1,126

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

Share of electricity, % of total transport energy

Like in the previous country cases, Figure 23 depicts the estimated development of CO2
emissions and separates the effects of forecasted energy efficiency gains, anticipatedgrowth of the electric vehicle fleet and projected biofuels use. The red line on top is theimaginary progression of TTW CO2 emissions from the road sector without any measures.
The blue line plots the outcome of the growth of electric vehicle fleets, and the yellow line
combines also the consequence of improved energy efficiency. Lastly, the green line shows
totaled outcome of all these measures including also use of biofuels. As these plots show,
until 2030 and even some years beyond, the use of biofuels accounts for the largest
reduction of CO2 emissions, but soon after 2030 the estimated improvement of energy
efficiency shall become more important. It will also keep that role, as the expected effect ofelectrification is estimated to be so modest that it will not overtake efficiency, but reaches
about the same level as the use of biofuels until 2050.

34

Figure 23: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for the USA in the Current Policies
scenario.

Figure 24 shows the anticipated shares between different engine and fuel/energy options in
new car sales from 2020 until 2050, as described in the Current Policies scenario. When
compared to the other country cases, the image is strikingly different, because traditional SIICE overrules the scene completely. Fueled either with gasoline (E15), high-concentration
ethanol (E85/FFV) or CNG, the share of this type of primary drivetrain is now over 90%, andshall remain over 80% until 2040, and still yield to about 75% in 2050. On the other hand,diesels (CI-ICE) are a marginal technology regarding passenger cars, as their market shareis always projected to remain below 2%. This holds true even if SUV’s and other LDT’s, notincluded in this graph, are considered. The rate of electrification in light-duty vehicles iscurrently below 10%, and it is anticipated to reach about 13% by 2030, nearly 20% in 2040,
and subsequently over 20% by the year 2050. The vast majority of chargeable vehicles are
expected to be fully electric (BEV), with only 2 to 3% of PHEV(SI), and a fraction (0.2% to0.3%) of hydrogen fueled fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). Even with these fairly modest
numbers, due to the large size of the US fleet, the EV fleet shall grow to over 11 million by
2030, over 22 million by 2040 and almost to 33 million by the year 2050 (see Table 6).

35

Figure 24: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for the USA in the Current Policies scenario.

Turning then to Figure 25 that illustrates energy use in road transport by vehicle categories,
we observe that light vehicles - especially LDTs that include a large number of SUVs –consume most of the energy. Currently at 75% of the total, this share will slide to 67% by
2050 in the Current Policies scenario. Furthermore, in absolute numbers, the combined useof energy in passenger cars and LDT is expected to drop by 20% until 2030, and a further
10% drop is foreseen by 2040, but then levelling until 2050, mainly due to the projected
growth in vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

36

Figure 25: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for the USA in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 26 represents the use of energy in road transport by type of energy carrier. Again,
compared to the previous country cases the picture is quite different, as fossil fuels –especially gasoline – dominate the scene. Furthermore, over the 30-year period from 2020
to 2050 the share of fossil energy is expected to drop only by 6 percentage points (from 91%
to 86%).
Finally, Figure 27, that charts the projected progression of TTW CO2 emissions, shows how
total emissions shall be reduced by some 25% by 2040 from the current level, mainly due toreductions in PC&LDT emissions. However, after 2040 a slight upward trend is anticipated
due to increased transport work.

37

Figure 26: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for the USA in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 27: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for the USA in the Current Policies scenario.

38

Brazil
In Brazil, mainly because of the expected growth in economy, the transport work is also
expected to increase, leading to a growth in CO2 emissions. This is in stark contrast to our
European case countries, and the stagnating emissions of the US. However, the emissions
would grow even more if no reduction measures would have been applied. By 2030, over
25% reduction (69 Mt) is achieved, based on contributions from EVs (5%), increased
efficiency (9%), and the use of biofuels (87%). The share of biofuels is currently 25%, and it
is expected to grow moderately.
In the Current Policies scenario, in 2020, road transport accounts for 171 Mt of CO2, and its
projected growth to 2030, 2040 and 2050 is 19% (203 MtCO2), 58% (270 MtCO2) and 70%(291 MtCO2), respectively However, the three main measures are projected to reduce CO2
emissions by nearly 180 Mt by 2050. Of this total reduction electrification accounts for 36%,
efficiency gain for 23%, and biofuels for 51% contribution.
Brazil is by population 2/3 of U.S., but mainly due to different status of the economy, theirvehicle fleet is much smaller, as Figure 3 showed. A noticeable feature is the large bus fleet
that is needed to compensate the lower car/inhabitant ratio. As Figure 4 showed, Brazil isdifferent also due to the fact that the Current Policies scenario suggests total transport work(vehicle miles travelled, VMT) to grow, even quite strongly, as by 2030 total VMT is expected
to increase by 40%, and by 70% until the year 2050 from current level. Consequently, this isreflected also in total energy use by the road transport sector, which shows growth fromabout 80 Mtoe now to about 140 Mtoe in 2050. However, this growth is solely attributed to
the growth in VMT, as the energy efficiency is expected to improve, some 10% per 2030 andnearly 20% by the year 2050.
Despite the growing economy, Brazil aims to reduce overall GHG emissions by 37%
compared to 2005 by 2025. The RenovaBio policy is the main measure to achieve therequired reduction in average GHG intensity in the Brazilian transport sector. Scenarios,
which are discussed in more detail in Part 1 of the overall report “Key Strategies in Selected
Countries”, show that it seems possible to achieve this target.
The share of fossil fuels of total road transportation energy consumption shows only amodest decline, from the current level of 75% to 70% by the year 2050. In short term, by2030, by far the largest contributor to this change is the increased use of biofuels, which isconsidered to be increased from 25% to 30%. However, in the long-term the electrification of
the fleet has a stronger growth. Nowadays electricity is nearly nil, and still in 2050 electricity
is expected to represent only little over 1% of the total transport energy, whereas the shareof biofuels remains at about 25% for the same 30-year period. To support this change, the39

sales of electric vehicles are projected to grow, and the EV fleet is expected to be nearly 6
million units, which is about 6% of the total passenger car fleet, by the year 2050.
Albeit these advances in electrification and use of biofuels, the road transport-related CO2
emissions are bound to increase due to the strong growth in total transport work, attributed
to the expected growth of the Brazilian economy. Thus, the emissions shall be close to 300
Mt by 2050, which represents a 70% growth from the current level. Already by 2030, thecalculated growth in CO2 is 19%.
Table 7: Main results of the Current Policies scenario for Brazil.
Current Policies, BRAZIL

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

76 76498 378129 457

139 991

Share of fossil fuels, %

75 %

70 %

70 %

70 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.0 %

0.0 %

1.8 %

6.2 %

0

0

1 333

5 696

0.01 %

0.10 %

0.4 %

1.2 %

10

103

549

1 744

25 %

30 %

29 %

29 %

19 27429 77738 00040 413

171

203

270

291

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transport energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %Amount of biofuels, ktoe
CO2 emissions, Mt

As with the other country cases, Figure 28 plots the computed CO2 emissions and presents
the changes in emissions attributed to three contributors being a) growth of electric vehicle
fleet, b) energy efficiency improvements, and c) use of biofuels. As before in this graph, theupper-most red line is the theoretical evolution of TTW CO2 emissions from the roadtransport sector without any of these measures. The blue line then shows the effect ofgrowth in the EV fleet, and the yellow line superimposes also the effect of energy efficiency
improvements. In conclusion, the green line plots the collective outcome of all thesemeasures including use of biofuels. This figure clearly shows that biofuels are the largest
contributor to decarbonization up to 2050, and overshadows even the combined effects ofelectrification and efficiency gains until about 2048.

40

Figure 28: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

The strong preference of Brazil in using biofuels is clearly seen in Figure 29 that depicts themarket shares of different propulsion and energy options in passenger cars. The vast
majority of the passenger cars now, and also in coming decades, is expected to be flex-fuelvehicles, a specific type of SI-ICE car that can operate on gasoline or E100 according to thepreferences of the consumer (mainly based on fuel prices ratio). Even when the consumer
prefers 100% of gasoline C, there is a 27% share of anhydrous ethanol that is a mandatory
addition to gasoline.
Both regular SI-ICE and diesel (CI-ICE) are available, but only with single-digit market
shares. Both will also slowly fade away, as the hybrid versions of FFV (HEV flex) cars andalso pure-electric cars (BEV) will start to become more popular. In the Current Policies
scenario this is, however, expected to take quite some time, as by 2040, the market share ofelectric vehicles (BEV) will be about 5%, and by 2050 the share is estimated to be 10%.
Thus, contrary to many other countries, Brazil expects flex-fuel hybrids (HEV flex), based
only on a combustion engine, to be the overruling option over electric-only cars.

41

Figure 29: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Brazil in the Current Policies scenario. For
Brazil the projections only include HEV flex, excluding PHEV (SI and CI).

If we review Figure 30 that illustrates energy use in road transport, we can observe that theshare of light vehicles (cars and vans) is currently about 50%, and despite changes in VMT,
energy efficiency and vehicles fleet composition, it will remain within 50 to 56% over thethree-decade period covered in this study.

42

Figure 30: Energy use in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 31, that charts the use of different fuels in the road transport sector, shows that
because approximately half of the energy is consumed in the heavy vehicle category, thediesel pool is the most dominant single fuel with about 50 to 55% share. This graph also
clearly depicts the large quantity of ethanol used by the large and growing FFV-fleet. At
peak, the amount would be about 27,000 ktoe, occurring around year 2045, and the share ofethanol averages around 18 to 20%. When we add to this the projected use of renewablediesel, the share of biofuels raises to a level of 22 to 27%, being on the maximum level
between 2025 to 2036, but remain over 25% over to the year 2050.
Figure 32, depicting the projected CO2 emissions according to the assumptions in the
Current Policies scenario, illustrates what was already commented: the TTW CO2 emissions
from road transport will increase, and due to the fact that most of the biofuels would be
ethanol to fuel passenger cars, heavy vehicles dominate as the source of those emissions.
Furthermore, unique to Brazil amongst these five case countries is the large bus sector, as
buses currently account for 17% of the total road transport emissions. This share will raise
steadily, and reach 26% by the year 2050.

43

Figure 31: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

Figure 32: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

44Results for the MORE EV scenarios
MORE EV scenarios foresee an accelerated market introduction of electrified vehicles. The
details for each country are based on discussions with the country experts involved in the
project. For Sweden and Germany, 100% of passenger car sales in 2050 were assumed to
be various sorts of electric vehicles. However, for Finland 25% of passenger car sales werestill assumed to be spark ignited ICEs in 2050. Furthermore, in Brazil, ethanol-fueled hybrid
vehicles would account for 60% and BEV for 40%. The dynamics of this uptake, however,varies strongly between the examined countries.
As a result, the share of EVs in the passenger car fleet reaches between 1.3% (Brazil) and
21% (Finland) in 2030, and between 19.4% (Brazil) and 77% (Sweden) by 2050.
Despite such high shares of EVs in the passenger car fleets, the calculated additional gain in
CO2 emission reductions remains rather low, in the range of 0.5% to 4.3% for 2030 and
3.5% to 9.2% for 2050.
As described under “Methodology”, MORE EV scenarios were created by increasing the
anticipated sales of electrified vehicles, thereby reaching larger replacement of fuels withelectricity in total transport energy use. The level of this “EV boosting” varies between
countries, and was adjusted in consultation with country experts, to meet their outlooks forsuch an action. These scenarios were meant to reflect what a more aggressive, but stillconceivable, electrification rate could achieve.
Figure 33 shows the numbers of electric vehicles that were calculated for each country for
the Current Policies scenario and the MORE EV scenario for 2030 and 2050.

45

Figure 33: Shares of chargeable vehicles in the national passenger car fleet by 2030 and 2050 for Current
Policies and MORE EV (MORE EV marked with +).

Finland
In the MORE EV scenario for Finland the sales of chargeable plug-in vehicles wereaccelerated already from 2020, but the boosting was most effective between 2030 and 2040,
adding over 500,000 xEVs to the fleet, and resulting in nearly 2 million xEVs by 2050,
instead of the 1.6 million in the Current Policy case. Figure 34 depicts the break-down of thesales according to this MORE EV scenario. It shows how the sales of diesels were assumed
to remain unchanged as sales of diesels is presumed to be more purposefully-oriented, but
sales figures of BEVs and especially PHEV (SI) were increased, replacing the normal ICEonly SI cars, because there the performance of the chargeable option is not different.
However, the sales figures for the year 2050 were kept the same for both cases, yielding to
75% share of BEV and 25% share for SI-ICE. In both scenarios, diesels (CI-ICE) and plug-in
hybrids were faded away by the year 2050. Figure 34 should be compared with Figure 8,
which is the corresponding graph for the Current Policies case.
Figure 35 plots TTW CO2 emissions resulting from applying each of the measures. Startingfrom the top, the lines represent: a) no measures (imaginary), b) introduction of EV’s, c)adding improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuels according to Current Policies
46

scenario, and e) boosting xEV sales from the base case according to this MORE EV
scenario. A separate line in the graph shows the number of additional xEVs introduced by
the boosted scenario.
According to Table 8 that summarizes the main figures for the Finnish MORE EV scenario,
the resulting CO2 emissions were 7 Mt at 2030, 5.2 Mt at 2040, and 4.2 Mt by 2050,
equalling to emissions reductions of 0.3 Mt, 0.5 Mt and 0.3 Mt, respectively, compared to thebase case. These equal to some 4 to 8% additional reductions over the base case (Current
Policies scenario).
Table 8: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Finland.
MORE EV, FINLAND

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

4,019

3,562

2,977

2,706

Share of fossil fuels, %

86 %

66 %

59 %

52 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %1.6 %20.6 %

46.7 %

63.3 %

43

600

1,388

1,994

0.25 %

4.5 %

13.7 %

23.2 %

10

161

406

629

14 %

30 %

27 %

25 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

545

1,051

811

681

CO2 emissions, Mt

10.3

7.0

5.2

4.2

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %47

Figure 34: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Finland in the MORE EV scenario.

Figure 35: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland in the MORE EV scenario.

48

SwedenFor Sweden the MORE EV scenario for boosting the sales of electric cars was constructedby first holding back the sales of diesels starting already at 2020, and more aggressively
after 2040. Also, the sales of gasoline cars were reduced, but not as much as diesel, and notmuch before 2030. These reductions were then substituted by increasing the sales of bothplug-in hybrids (PHEV) and battery electric cars (BEV). Unlike the Finnish case, the Swedish
MORE EV scenario faded out normal SI-ICE and CI-ICE cars completely by the year 2050,
whereas in the Current Policies scenario both were still available, and sold by nearly 20%
market share each. Total car sales remained the same, but this boosting added more than 1
million xEVs to the fleet until the year 2050. Figure 36 depicts the break-down of the sales
according to the MORE EV scenario. It should be compared with Figure 14, which is thecorresponding graph for the Current Policies case.
Furthermore, Figure 37 plots TTW CO2 emissions resulting from applying each of themeasures. Starting from the top, the lines represent: a) no measures (imaginary), b)
introduction of EV’s, c) adding improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuelsaccording to the Current Policies scenario, and finally, e) boosting xEV sales from the basecase according to this MORE EV scenario as a dashed line. A separate line in the graphshows the number of additional xEVs introduced by the boosted scenario. It is apparent thatthe contribution of a more aggressive electric vehicle uptake is rather small, although morethan 1 million more EVs would be on the road in 2050 than in the Current Policies case.
According to Table 9 that summarizes the main figures for the Swedish MORE EV scenario,
the resulting CO2 emissions were 11.9 Mt at 2030, 8.7 Mt at 2040, and 4.3 Mt by 2050,
equaling to emissions reductions of 0.2 Mt, 0.5 Mt and 1.5 Mt, respectively, compared to thebase case (Current Policies scenario). These account for 1%, 6% and 25% reductions.

49

Table 9: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Sweden.
MORE EV, SWEDEN

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

6,005

5,724

4,595

2,848

Share of fossil fuels, %

72 %

70 %

64 %

51 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %3.1 %18.1 %

47.0 %

77.1 %

153

943

2,426

3,925

0.39 %

3.1 %

11.1 %

26 %

23

175

511

734

Share of biofuels, %

28 %

27 %

25 %

23 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

1,655

1,537

1,139

651

CO2 emissions, Mt

12,9

11,9

8,7

4,3

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

Figure 36: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Sweden in the MORE EV scenario.

50

Figure 37: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Sweden in the MORE EV scenario.

Germany
The MORE EV scenario for Germany was developed mostly by favoring plug-in hybrid(PHEV) cars, mainly with SI engine, over normal, non-chargeable hybrids (HEV) that in the
Current Policies scenario were supposed to have a large role. Also, pure electric cars (BEV)
were given a larger market share in the MORE EV scenario. Altogether, this boosting added
over 6 million xEVs to the fleet by the year 2050, which is nearly 30% more. The primarydimensions of this case are presented in Table 10, and the breakdown of the sales bypowerplant and fuel options in Figure 38.
Figure 39 plots TTW CO2 emissions resulting from applying each of the measures. Startingfrom the top, the lines represent: a) no measures (imaginary), b) introduction of EV’s, c)adding improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuels according to the Current
Policies scenario, and finally, e) boosting xEV sales from the base case according to this
MORE EV scenario as a dashed line. A separate line in the graph shows the number of
additional xEVs introduced by the boosted scenario.
By this increased electrification, 0.7 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions was achieved by the year
2030, 1.6 Mt by 2040, and 4.9 Mt by the year 2050, representing about 8% further reduction
from the Current Policies case on that year.
51

Table 10: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Germany.
MORE EV, GERMANY

2020

2030

2040

2050

54,43544,82732,67023,237

Share of fossil fuels, %

94 %

92 %

87 %

77 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.8 %

9.3 %

31 %

59 %

354

4,478

14,77628,077

Share of electricity, % of total transportationenergy0.10 %

1.5 %

6.4 %

16 %

Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

56

1,846

2,084

3,695

Share of biofuels, %

6.1 %

6.0 %

6%

7%

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

3,298

2,691

2,018

1,621

CO2 emissions, Mt

151.7

123.1

84.8

53.2

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

EV numbers, 1000 units

Figure 38: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Germany in the MORE EV scenario.

52

Figure 39: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Germany in the MORE EV scenario.

BrazilFor Brazil, the boosted MORE EV scenario was constructed by favoring battery-electricvehicles (BEV) over non-chargeable vehicles, and reducing effectively the sales of ICEpowered cars using gasoline, and especially those using diesel. These increased sales
brought nearly 18 million BEVs to the fleet by the year 2050, which represents nearly 200%
increase. The basic figures of this case are presented in Table 11, and the breakdown of thesales by powerplant and fuel options in Figure 40.
Figure 41 plots TTW CO2 emissions resulting from applying each of the measures. Startingfrom the top, the lines represent: a) no measures (imaginary), b) introduction of EV’s, c)adding improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuels according to the Current
Policies scenario, and finally, e) boosting xEV sales from the base case according to this
MORE EV scenario as a dashed line. A separate line in the graph shows the number of
additional xEVs introduced by the boosted scenario.
With this boost in electrification, 1.7 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions was accomplished by theyear 2030, 7.5 Mt by 2040, and 31.1 Mt by the year 2050, being about a 5% additional
decrease from the Current Policies case on that given year.

53

Table 11: Main results of the MORE EV scenario for Brazil.
MORE EV, BRAZIL

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

76 74998 044

126 520

123 665

Share of fossil fuels, %

75 %

69 %

70 %

71 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.0 %

1.3 %

5.4 %

19.4 %

0

575

3 988

17 7790.01 %

0.11 %

0.4 %

1.4 %

10

109

568

1 781

25 %

30 %

30 %

28 %

19 27428 95737 56534 568

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %Amount of biofuels, ktoe

Figure 40: Breakdown of new car sales by powertrain options for Brazil in the MORE EV scenario. For Brazil the
projections only include HEV flex, excluding PHEV (SI and CI).

54

Figure 41: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Brazil in the MORE EV scenario.

55

Results for the MAX BIO scenarios
The MAX BIO scenarios illustrate the potential impact that biofuels could have, if introduced
up to technical maximum in the projected national fleet. This includes maximizing the use ofrenewable diesel in compression ignited (CI) engines, applying E25 and E30 in all spark
ignited (SI) engines as well as utilizing so-called biopetrol in Sweden, and using E100 in
Brazilian flex-fuel vehicles.
As a result, TTW CO2 emissions can be decreased significantly by 2050. Countries with
options to fully substitute both fossil gasoline and fossil diesel can be fully decarbonized by
2050.
The main diesel replacement is renewable diesel, and a comparison with currently produced
renewable diesel quantities globally shows that fully displacing fossil diesel with renewablediesel is not possible for Brazil. However, if production capacities rise to the levels required
for meeting the IEA´s 2DS scenario, sufficient amount of biofuel could be available.
As already described in the methodology section, to illustrate the impact of additional
biofuels use, scenarios called MAX BIO were created. Their common idea was to assess
how much additional biofuels the vehicle fleet would technically allow to be implemented,
and what implication it would have on CO2 emissions, if such amounts would be available
and could be put in use. The MAX BIO scenarios also intend to provide an outlook on how
much different biofuel types (ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, biomethane) could beapplied.

FinlandFinland has mandated by law that suppliers of liquid transportation fuels must deliverbiofuels (neat or blended in) at a level that raises from the current level (appr. 20%) to 30%
by the year 2029, and stays on that level afterwards. This ruling with the expected advancesin fleet electrification and expected gain in energy efficiency leads to a situation in which theneed for biofuels would be greatest at 2029 to 2030, and then the absolute amount would
slowly diminish, as the gain in efficiency and increase in electrification will decrease the needfor fuels.
However, there is a strong political ambition to make road transport fossil free by 2045, andMAX BIO is built around that target. Thus, both the shares of renewable diesel as well as
biomethane are set to grow from the values of 2030 up to 100% by 2045, and remain at thatlevel. However, the Finnish MAX BIO assumes E25 gasoline (and cars compatible with it) toenter the market, so that after 2040, all SI-ICE could use E25, raising the bio-contents ingasoline to nearly 19%. Therefore, the fleet cannot reach 100% renewable level, as about56

50% of the fleet in 2045 are still SI-ICE powered cars that run on gasoline. To make the fleet
totally fossil free, about 600 to 700 ktoe of “biopetrol” would be needed.
Table 12 summarizes the main elements and outcomes of the MAX BIO scenario for
Finland. It shows that compared to the Current Policies case, this MAX BIO yields toadditional lowering of CO2 emissions, amounting to 2.3 Mt by the year 2040 and 2.7 Mt by
the year 2050 compared to Current Policies case. Emissions for 2030 remain unchanged as
the current policy is already quite ambitious. Maximizing the use of biofuels would allow
Finland to reach a reduction of CO2 emissions of 38% in 2030, 70% in 2040, and 85% in
2050 compared to the official base year (2005).
Figure 42 portrays the fuel mix and Figure 43 breaks down the corresponding TTW CO2emissions per vehicle category, according to this MAX BIO scenario.
Finally, Figure 44 shows the emissions resulting from applying each of the measures.
Starting from the top, the lines represent a) no measures (imaginary), b) introduction of EV’s,c) adding improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuels according to Current Policies
scenario, and e), adding as much biofuels as technically possible according to this MAX BIO
scenario.
Table 12: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Finland.
MAX BIO, FINLAND

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe/yr

4,020

3,631

3,059

2,747

Share of fossil fuels, %

86 %

67 %

54 %

38 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

1.5 %

12 %

29 %

49 %

41

349

851

1,555

0.24 %

2.9 %

10 %

20 %

10

105

295

552

14 %

30 %

52 %

59 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

547

1,099

1,613

1,642

CO2 emissions, Mt

10.3

7.3

3.5

1.8

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %57

Figure 42: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 43: TTW CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Finland in the MAX BIO scenario.

58

Figure 44: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Finland in the MAX BIO
scenario

SwedenSweden had already developed a more ambitious scenario for implementing biofuels overthe current policies, and this was used as the basis for the Swedish MAX BIO scenario. This
scenario includes also the use of “biopetrol” or “renewable petrol” that would be producedwith similar processes as the current pool of renewable diesels. In the Swedish scenario,
biopetrol is expected to reach a 25% share of gasoline use in 2030. Technically, this kind offuel is possible, but currently, there is no targeted production. Only some residuals of therenewable diesel manufacture are of similar molecular structure than those of gasoline areproduced, but not used as motor fuels.
In the Swedish MAX BIO scenario, we assumed that this amount (437 ktoe) of “biopetrol” in2030 would be kept at the same level until 2050, thereby replacing increasingly higher
shares of fossil gasoline, as the total use of gasoline simultaneously diminishes due toadvances in energy efficiency and electrification.
Table 13 summarizes the main elements and outcomes of the MAX BIO scenario for
Sweden. The figures show that compared to the Current Policies case, this MAX BIO resultsin very effective reductions in CO2 emissions. By 2030 the reduction is 5.3 Mt, 6.0 Mt by59

2040 and 5.5 Mt by 2050, respectively, yielding to almost total elimination of fossil CO2
emissions, amounting only to 0.3 Mt by the year 2050.
Figure 45 explores the effect of adding as much biofuels as technically possible, whichmeans substituting all fossil diesel with renewable diesel and all fossil gasoline with biopetrolby 2050. This brings GHG emissions down to almost zero by 2050, see Figure 46.
GHG emissions from all vehicle categories decrease to zero, also those from the truck
sector that remained rather constant in the Current Policies case. However, the target of 5.7
MtCO2eq by 2030 cannot be met, but full decarbonization by 2050 is possible.
Figure 47 plots the emissions resulting from applying each of the measures. Starting fromthe top, the lines represent a) no measures (imaginary), b) introduction of EV’s, c) adding
improvements in energy efficiency, d) adding biofuels according to Current Policies scenario,
and e), adding as much biofuels as technically possible according to this MAX BIO scenario.
Table 13: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Sweden.
MAX BIO, SWEDEN

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

6,008

5,731

4,705

3,303

Share of fossil fuels, %

72 %

40 %

23 %

3%

EV share in passenger car fleet, %2.7 %12.4 %

36 %

56 %

133

645

1,844

2,844

0.36 %

2.4 %

8.5 %

17 %

21

135

398

553

Share of biofuels, %

28 %

58 %

68 %

81 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

1,656

3,325

3,221

2,664

CO2 emissions, Mt

12.9

6.7

3.3

0.3

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

60

Figure 45: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 46: TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Sweden in the MAX BIO scenario.

61

Figure 47: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Sweden in the MAX BIO
scenario.

Germany
For Germany there was no pre-existing scenario for implementing more biofuels than what
was expected in the Current Policies case. As the diesel pool is heavily dominant inGermany regarding the energy mix used in road transport, the main scheme in the MAX BIO
scenario was to gradually increase the share of renewable diesel, until it reaches 100% by
the year 2050. In addition, the use of ethanol was boosted, assuming that E25 and E30 fuels
would become available at the marketplace and compatible vehicles should follow.
Table 14 summarizes the main characteristics and outcomes of this this MAX BIO scenario,
and Figure 48 presents the breakdown of the total road transport energy use to different
carriers. The share of biofuels is increased quite forcefully, as by 2030 the biofuels share is
29%, which is an almost five-fold increase compared to the Current Policies case.
Furthermore, in 2040 biofuels are assumed to represent half of the total energy use, which isnearly about eight times the basic assumption (6%). Eventually, by the year 2050 share of
biofuels would be 65%, which is over nine times the status of the Current Policies case.
The achieved reductions in CO2 emissions are also quite apparent. For the year 2030 the
calculated CO2 is 93 Mt, signifying a 25% reduction from the base case, and which is in the62range of the target of 95 Mt CO2eq. For 2040 the figure 43.6 Mt indicates a 50% reduction,and subsequently for the year 2050, the estimated emissions of just 15.4 Mt denote a 74%
reduction.
The strong effect that this increased use of biofuels has upon CO2 emissions is clearly
illustrated in Figure 50 that plots the CO2 emissions calculated by the ALIISA model fordifferent cases and combinations of measures. Compared to the plot of the MORE EV
scenario, drawn as a dashed blue line, the MAX BIO case achieves stellar reductions.
However, we must bear in mind that the amounts of renewable diesel that are needed tofulfil the demand of this case are so large that even the current world-wide supply andrefining capacities are not sufficient, given the fact that more countries and other sectors intransportation like aviation are seeking strong upsurge in use of renewable diesel fuel. (Seechapter Resource Considerations for further deliberation.)
Table 14: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Germany.
MAX BIO, GERMANY

2020

2030

2040

2050

54,424

44,77832,98825,266

Share of fossil fuels, %

92 %

70 %

44 %

20 %

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.7 %

7.3 %

24 %

46 %

328

3,507

11,56021,981

Share of electricity, % of total transportationenergyAmount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe

0.10 %

1.3 %

5.3 %

12.4 %

55

572

1,763

3,121

Share of biofuels, %

7.6 %

29 %

50 %

65 %

Amount of biofuels, ktoe

4,119

12,932

16,40816,341CO2 emissions, Mt

149.2

93.0

43.6

15.4

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

EV numbers, 1000 units

63Figure 48: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 49: CO2 emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Germany in the MAX BIO scenario.

64

Figure 50: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Germany in the MAX BIO
scenario.

BrazilAlso for Brazil, there was no pre-existing scenario for using more biofuels than what was
anticipated in the Current Policies case. For this exercise the scenario for maximum use of
biofuels was built upon maximizing the share of ethanol in the SI-powered passenger car
fleet (mainly FFVs that could run 100% ethanol, if necessary), and displacing fossil diesel
with renewable diesel fuel.
Table 15 condenses the main attributes and results of this this MAX BIO scenario, andFigure 51 portrays the total road transport energy use split to different products. In this
scenario, the share of biofuels is increased very effectively, as in the Current Policy case theshare of biofuels was assumed to remain at about 25% of the total energy expenditure overthe period of 2030 to 2050. However, in the MAX BIO case by 2030 the biofuels share is54%, almost double the share in the Current Policies case. Furthermore, in 2040, biofuels
are assumed to supply 83% of the total energy use, which is more than triple the basic
assumption. Finally, by the year 2050 share of biofuels would be 95%, which is over threetimes the status of the Current Policies case.
Likewise, the calculated reductions in CO2 emissions are also very evident. For the year652030 the calculated CO2 emissions are 128 Mt, signifying a 41% reduction from the basecase. For 2040 the figure of 56 Mt designates a vast 80% reduction, and successively for theyear 2050, the projected fossil tank-to-wheel (TTW) CO2 emissions are declined to zero.
The very potent outcome that this multiplied use of biofuels has on CO2 emissions isdistinctly seen in Figure 53 that presents the CO2 emissions computed for the three study
cases. Contrasted to the outline of the MORE EV scenario, presented as a dashed blue line,
the MAX BIO case achieves extensive cutbacks. Yet, we need to consider the limited
availability of renewable diesel, even if enough ethanol would be available to meet the
projected need. (See chapter Resource Considerations for further deliberation.)
Table 15: Main results of the MAX BIO scenario for Brazil.
MAX BIO, BRAZIL

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe

76 37799 300134 583

173 634

Share of fossil fuels, %

57 %

34 %

17 %

2%

EV share in passenger car fleet, %

0.0 %

0.0 %

1.8 %

6.2 %

0

0

1 333

5 696

0.02 %

0.10 %

0.4 %

1.0 %

15

107

568

1 804

43 %

66 %

82 %

97 %

33 00965 173111 025

168 309

128

101

68

11

EV numbers, 1000 units
Share of electricity, % of total transportation energy
Amount of fuels replaced by electricity, ktoe
Share of biofuels, %Amount of biofuels, ktoe
CO2 emissions, Mt

66

Figure 51: Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 52: CO2 Emissions in road transport by vehicle category for Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario.

67

Figure 53: TTW CO2 emissions evolution by different measures in road transport for Brazil in the MAX BIO
scenario.

Resource considerations
The total 2050 national demands for drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in the MAX BIO
scenarios are illustrated for each country in Figure 54. These demand estimates arecontrasted with the estimate for global advanced biofuels supply from the IEA’s 2DS
scenario.
The combined 2050 demand of drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in the MAX BIO
scenarios for Finland, Sweden and Germany could be supplied from the advanced biofuels
production capacity available already today. However, the current total global supply ofadvanced biofuels is currently only 30% of Brazil’s 2050 demand for drop-in hydrocarbons toreplace diesel in the MAX BIO scenario. It should be noted that if the supply of advanced
biofuels will develop in line with the IEA 2DS estimate, the global supply will surpass 100
Mtoe/yr before 2030 and 500 Mtoe/yr before 2050. It is important to emphasize that Brazil
has very favorable conditions for agricultural production and, therefore, it is estimated that alarge amount of fossil fuels could be replaced by biofuels. This would make advanced
biofuels a realistic option for significantly reducing transport emissions even for the largest
countries.
68Figure 54: Country specific demand for drop-in hydrocarbons to replace diesel in 2050 relative to IEA global 2DS
supply scenario.

69

Results for the E-FUELS scenarios
E-FUELS scenarios are based on the Current Policies scenarios, sharing the same energy
efficiency gains, amount of electric vehicles, and supply of biofuels, but adding e-gasoline, ediesel, e-methane, and for the Germany case also e-hydrogen. The introduction of e-fuels
begins in 2030 and increases linearly to reach 100% substitution of fossil fuels by 2050.
The WTW CO2 emissions of e-fuels depend strongly on the carbon intensity of electricity
used in their production. Fuels produced using today’s average grid electricity have lower
WTW CO2 emissions than fossil fuels in Sweden and Finland, are similar to fossil fuels in
Brazil, but remain significantly higher in Germany. Problems imposed by high-carbon
electricity grids can be circumvented by connecting the production plants directly to lowcarbon electricity generators (e.g. wind turbines or PV panels), but this ties fuel production to
the capacity factor of the power source, leading to higher costs.
Similar to biofuels, available resources for the supply of significant quantities of e-fuels are
currently being debated. While current industrial CO2 emissions seem to be sufficient for therequired production of e-fuels for Finland, Sweden and Germany, the Brazilian 2050 demandin the E-FUELS scenario would surpass the current availability of CO2 from industrial point
sources by almost three times. If the industrial sector will be successfully decarbonized
towards mid-century, the availability of CO2 might become a constraint for the widespread
production of e-fuels. With respect to non-fossil electricity production, Finland and Sweden
seem to have sufficient generation capacity already today to support the 2050 demand, but
Germany and Brazil would face severe constraints in the supply of essentially carbon-freeelectricity. In addition, asking such substantial amounts of carbon-free electricity dedicated tofuel production seem difficult to satisfy, as they come on top of existing requirements for adramatic expansion of low-carbon generation to meet more traditional electricity demand.
Maximizing the use of other decarbonization measures would therefore be an important way
to decrease the demand for e-fuels and the associated need for non-fossil electricity.

70

Substantial reductions in the cost of wind and solar electricity during the past decade havecreated interest towards the production of sustainable fuels via chemical conversion of CO2
and water, using renewable energy to drive the process.1,2,3,4,5 A number of techno-economic
studies are already available in the literature and 128 R&D projects have been realized or
already finished in Europe as of May 2018.6,7 The main application for these projects has
been the injection of hydrogen or methane into the natural gas grid for storing electricity fromvariable renewable energy sources. Producing sustainable fuels for transport is anotherimportant application where the focus has been on synthetic methane or methanol, and both
applications have already seen a megawatt-scale demonstration. A plant in Iceland
produces methanol using CO2 and electricity that are both derived from geothermal
sources.8 The production began in 2011, but in 2015 the capacity was expanded from 1.3 to5 million liters of methanol per year. A similarly sized plant in Germany converts CO2 from a
co-located biogas facility to methane with electricity from the grid. The plant began
production in 2014, and uses roughly 6 MW of electricity to produce 3.2 MW of synthetic
methane.9
Although hydrogen, methane and methanol are all globally used commodities, their use intransport is impeded by distribution and vehicle-related barriers. Such barriers could be
1

Steinberg, M. Synthetic carbonaceous fuels and feedstocks from oxides of carbon and nuclear power. Fuel 57,

460–468 (1978).
2

Zeman, F.S. and Keith, D.W. Carbon neutral hydrocarbons. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 3901–3918 (2008). DOI:

10.1098/rsta.2008.0143.
3

Dimitriou, I., Garcia-Gutiérrez, P., Elder, R.H., Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., and Allen, R.W.K.. Carbon

dioxide utilisation for production of transport fuels: process and economic analysis. Energy Environ. Sci. 8,
1775–1789 (2015).
4

Abanades, J.C., Rubin, E.S., Mazzotti, M. and Herzog, H.J. On the climate change mitigation potential of CO 2

conversion to fuels. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 2491-2499 (2017).
5

Hannula, I.; Kaisalo, N. and Simell, P. Fuels and chemicals from CO2 via catalytic partial oxidation and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: a conceptual and experimental study. Carbon 6(3), (2020). DOI: 10.3390/c6030055.
6 Brynolf, S., Taljegard, M., Grahn, M., Hansson, J. Electrofuels for the transport sector: A review of production
costs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81(2), 1887-1905 (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.288.
7 Wulf, C., Linßen, J. and Zapp, P., Review of Power-to-Gas Projects in Europe, Energy Procedia 155, 367-378(2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.041.
8 http://www.carbonrecycling.is/george-olah/
9 Otten, R. (2014). The first industrial PtG plant – Audi e-gas as driver for the energy turnaround. CEDEC Gas
Day Verona Italy. http://bit.ly/2zTg5kW..

71

overcome by focusing on the production of “drop-in” transport fuels, i.e. synthetic fuelreplacements to fossil diesel, kerosene and gasoline. These fuels can be produced by postprocessing methanol with a methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) process or via the well-known
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction.
For the purpose of this analysis, synthetic drop-in replacements for natural gas, gasoline anddiesel, produced from CO2 and water with electrical energy were investigated. In addition,
fuel hydrogen was also considered in the case of Germany. The introduction of e-gasoline,e-diesel, e-methane and e-hydrogen to the national fuel pools begins in 2030 and increases
from there linearly, achieving full displacement of fossil gasoline, diesel, natural gas andhydrogen by 2050. The E-FUELS scenarios are based on Current Policies, taking theremaining fossil fuel pool as a starting point. In addition to analyzing the needed scale-up in
the production of e-fuels, the resulting need for electricity and feedstock CO2 in 2050 is also
calculated for each country and contrasted against currently available resources.

FinlandFor Finland, the Current Policies scenario starts with 4 Mtoe/yr total road transport energy
demand in 2020. Fossil gasoline, fossil diesel and natural gas account for 86% of thesector’s energy use, resulting in 10 MtCO2 annual direct fossil carbon emissions. By 2050,
the total energy demand is reduced by 31% to 2.8 Mtoe/yr of which biofuels account for 26%
and electricity for EVs 20%.
The introduction of e-fuels begins in 2030, and the total supply increases by 66 ktoe eachyear until full displacement of fossil fuels is reached in 2050. The final e-fuels supply is 1.5
Mtoe/yr, representing 54% of the sector’s energy use. The corresponding electricity demandfor producing the required amount of e-fuels is 43 TWh/yr and CO2 feedstock demand is 6
Mt/yr.

72

Table 16: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Finland.
E-FUELS, FINLAND

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe/yr

4,020

3,631

3,098

2,788

Share of fossil fuels, %

86 %

65 %

37 %

0%

Share of EV energy use, %

0%

3%

10 %

20 %

Share of biofuels, %

14 %

30 %

28 %

26 %

Share of e-fuels, %

0%

2%

25 %

54 %

Amount of e-fuels, ktoe/yr

0

66

730

1,393

CO2 emissions, Mt

10

7

3

0

E-fuel electricity demand, TWh/yr

0

2

23

43

E-fuel CO2 feedstock demand, MtCO2/yr

0

0

3

6

Figure 55 shows the amount of fuels and the resulting reduction in TTW CO2 emissions.

Figure 55. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland in the E-FUELS scenario.

73

SwedenFor Sweden, the Current Policies scenario starts with 6 Mtoe/yr total road transport energy
demand in 2020. Fossil gasoline, fossil diesel and natural gas account for 76% of thesector’s energy use, resulting in 14 MtCO2 annual direct fossil carbon emissions. By 2050,
the total energy demand is reduced by 44% to 3.4 Mtoe/yr of which biofuels account for 25%
and electricity for EVs 16%.
The introduction of e-fuels begins in 2030, and the total supply increases by 93 ktoe eachyear until full displacement of fossil fuels is reached in 2050. The final e-fuels supply is 2.0
Mtoe/yr, representing 58% of the sector’s energy use. The corresponding electricity demandfor producing the required amount of e-fuels is 57 TWh/yr and CO2 feedstock demand is 8
Mt/yr.
Table 17: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Sweden.
E-FUELS, SWEDEN

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe/yr

6,019

5,793

4,777

3,368

Share of fossil fuels, %

76 %

69 %

44 %

0%

Share of EV energy use, %

0%

2%

8%

16 %

Share of biofuels, %

24 %

28 %

26 %

25 %

Share of e-fuels, %

0%

2%

21 %

58 %

Amount of e-fuels, ktoe/yr

0

93

1,026

1,958

CO2 emissions, MtCO2/yr

14

12

6

0

E-fuel electricity demand, TWh/yr

0

3

30

57

E-fuel CO2 feedstock demand, MtCO2/yr

0

0

4

8

Figure 56 shows the amount of fuels and the resulting reduction in TTW CO2 emissions.

74

Figure 56. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Sweden in the E-FUELS scenario.

Germany
For Germany, the Current Policies scenario starts with 54 Mtoe/yr total road transport energy
demand in 2020. Fossil gasoline, fossil diesel and natural gas account for 94% of thesector’s energy use, resulting in 153 MtCO2 annual direct fossil carbon emissions. By 2050,
the total energy demand is reduced by 54% to 25 Mtoe/yr of which biofuels account for 7%
and electricity for EVs 12%.
The introduction of e-fuels begins in 2030, and the total supply increases by 930 ktoe eachyear until full displacement of fossil fuels is reached in 2050. The final e-fuels supply is 19.5
Mtoe/yr, representing 81% of the sector’s energy use. The corresponding electricity demandfor producing the required amount of e-fuels is 565 TWh/yr and CO2 feedstock demand is 76
Mt/yr.

75

Table 18: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Germany.
E-FUELS, GERMANY

2020

2030

2040

2050

54,46545,02533,13825,088

Share of fossil fuels, %

94 %

91 %

57 %

0%

Share of EV energy use, %

0%

1%

5%

12 %

Share of biofuels, %

6%

6%

6%

7%

Share of e-fuels, %

0%

2%

31 %

81 %

Amount of e-fuels, ktoe/yr

0930

10,22819,547CO2 emissions, MtCO2/yr

153

122

56

0

E-fuel electricity demand, TWh/yr

0

27

296

565

E-fuel CO2 feedstock demand, MtCO2/yr

0

4

40

76

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe/yr

Figure 57 shows the amount of fuels and the resulting reduction in TTW CO2 emissions.

Figure 57. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Germany in the E-FUELS scenario.

76

Brazil
For Brazil, the Current Policies scenario starts with 77 Mtoe/yr total road transport energy
demand in 2020. Fossil gasoline, fossil diesel and natural gas account for 75% of thesector’s energy use, resulting in 172 MtCO2 annual direct fossil carbon emissions. By 2050,
the total energy demand is increased by 82% to 140 Mtoe/yr of which biofuels account for
29% and electricity for EVs 1%.
In the E-FUELS scenario, the introduction of e-fuels begins in 2030, and the total supply
increases by about 5 Mtoe each year until full displacement of fossil fuels is reached in 2050.
The final e-fuels supply is 98 Mtoe/yr, representing 70% of the sector’s energy use. The
corresponding electricity demand for producing the required amount of e-fuels is 2800
TWh/yr and CO2 feedstock demand is 379 Mt/yr.
Table 19: Main results of the E-FUELS scenario for Brazil.
E-FUELS, BRAZIL

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total energy use in road transport, ktoe/yr

76 76498 378129 457

139 991

Share of fossil fuels, %

75 %

65 %

31 %

0%

Share of EV energy use, %

0%

0%

0%

1%

Share of biofuels, %

25 %

30 %

29 %

29 %

Share of e-fuels, %

0%

5%

40 %

70 %

Amount of e-fuels, ktoe/yr

0

4 659

51 246

97 834CO2 emissions, MtCO2/yr

172

191

118

0

E-fuel electricity demand, TWh/yr

0

135

1490

2844

E-fuel CO2 feedstock demand, MtCO2/yr

0

18

199

379

Figure 58 shows the amount of fuels and the resulting reduction in TTW CO2 emissions.

77

Figure 58. Energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Brazil in the E-FUELS scenario.

Resource considerations
The sustainability of e-fuels is governed by emissions associated with the electricity used in
the production process.10 If an e-fuel production plant is connected directly to a carbon-freeelectric generator, then overall e-fuels emissions can be very close to zero. However, if thee-fuels plant is connected to an electrical grid, average grid emissions should be used as abasis for calculating e-fuel emissions. Table 20 summarizes scenarios for the evolution of
average power system emissions from 2020 to 2050 for the examined countries. For
example, average electrical emission for Germany are 455 gCO2/kWh in 2020 and are
expected to decline to 151 gCO2/kWh by 2050. In contrast, Swedish emissions are alreadyat very low 47 gCO2/kWh level owing to a large share of hydro and nuclear generation in thenational mix. Swedish specific power system emissions are expected to drop to zero by
2040.

10

Koponen, K. and Hannula, I. GHG emission balances and prospects of hydrogen enhanced synthetic biofuelsfrom solid biomass in the European context, Applied Energy 200, 106-118 (2017). DOI:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.014

78

Table 20: Scenarios for specific power system emissions evolution by 2050
Emissions in gCO2/kWh

2020

2030

2040

2050

FINLAND

140

60

30

0

SWEDEN

47

24

0

0

GERMANY

455

345

236

151

BRAZIL

119

117

N/A

N/A

If average electricity from the power grid would be used to produce e-fuels, the resulting fuelemissions (gCO2/MJ (LHV)) are shown for different countries in Figure 59. These areillustrated together with emissions from petroleum fuels that are around 90 gCO 2/MJ
depending on the feedstock and refining technology.11 According to the results, e-fuels
produced using average Brazilian electricity mix are associated with carbon emissions very
close to emissions from petroleum fuels. With Swedish electricity generation mix, e-fuels
emissions would be very low already now and be close to zero after 2040. For Germany, efuels produced using average national electricity mix are associated with higher emission
than petroleum fuels even in 2050.

Figure 59: Calculated e-fuel emissions based on national scenarios on the development of average gridemissions. Calculations are made assuming average 40% efficiency from electricity to fuel (LHV).

11

Edwards, R Definition of input data to assess GHG default emissions from biofuels in EU legislation. (2019)

JRC115952, DOI: 10.2760/69179

79

We also analyzed resource demands associated with the production of e-fuels needed tocover national demands in our non-fossil transport scenarios. Figure 60 contrasts theseresource requirements with the current availability of suitable resources in each country. The
electricity demand is contrasted with the current scale of non-fossil electricity generation,and the CO2 demand with current CO2 emission from industrial point sources.

Figure 60: Relative electricity and CO2 resource requirements related to the national E-FUELS scenarios.

In all cases, except Brazil, current levels of industrial emissions would be large enough toprovide carbonaceous feedstock for e-fuels, but the levels of non-fossil electricity generation
are likely to impose a serious bottleneck for ramping up a material level of e-fuels production
domestically. Without important contributions from biofuels (that underpin all non-fossil
transport scenarios), the need for e-fuels would be much higher than shown in Figure 60,
and the need for electricity would be much higher than current total electricity generationfrom non-fossil sources in each country.
80Analysis and Conclusions
The implementations of the Current Policies scenarios show that some countries like Finland
are expected to see effective reductions of road transport-related CO2 emissions (30%)
already by 2030, whereas Germany and USA are expecting only half of that pace at about
16 to 18% reduction, while Sweden remains at single-digit figures (-6%), according to Table
21. However, Brazil is entirely different, as their road transport emissions are expected togrow, and not reduce, due to the growth of the economy and thus also the amount oftransport work. In this timeframe, the strongest contributor for the reductions in all cases isthe use of biofuels, and even in Brazil, despite the growth in VMT, biofuels cut down CO2emissions by about 20%.
By 2040, Germany starts to catch up with Finland, both reaching about 43…44% reductions,while Sweden and USA yield to 25 to 28% reductions. Simultaneously, Brazil’s emissions
are up by over 50% from the 2020 levels, but without biofuels, they would be over 25%
higher. At this stage for Finland as well as for Brazil, biofuels are still the strongest
contributor, but for Sweden, the electrification of cars has taken over, while for Germany,
expected increase in vehicles’ energy efficiency has the leading role.
In 2050, the Current Policies case for Germany leads to the strongest reductions in CO2emissions, as the emissions are calculated to be reduced by over 60%, while Finland andSweden remain a notch behind at 55 to 56% reductions. On the contrary, Brazil is expecting
a 70% increase, but as said, the use of biofuels still brings the emissions down by over 50%.
However, for Finland, Sweden and Germany the electrification is the main contributor forthese reductions, while in USA, gain in energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet brings thelargest share of the calculated emissions reductions.

81

Table 21: Comparison of the CO2 emissions according to the Current Policies cases.

FIN

CO2 emissions, Mt

2020

2030

2040

2050

10.3

7.3

5.7

4.5

-30 %

-44 %

-56 %

12.1

9.3

5.8

-6 %

-28 %

-55 %

123.8

86.5

58.1

-18 %

-43 %

-62 %

1 250

1 117

1 126

-16 %

-25 %

-24 %

203

170

291

19 %

58 %

70 %

compared to 2020
SWE

CO2 emissions, Mt

12.9

compared to 2020
GER

CO2 emissions, Mt

151.7

compared to 2020
USA

CO2 emissions, Mt

1 483

compared to 2020
BRA

CO2 emissions, Mt

171

compared to 2020

Introducing electric vehicles more rapidly (as in MORE EV) does add to the reduction of
GHG emissions. In Table 22, CO2 emissions for MORE EV scenarios are presented, as wellas the additional (relative) reductions from the Current Policies to MORE EV scenarios.
However, according to our study the effect is rather marginal for 2030, and even for 2040.
This is especially true in countries like Finland and Germany, where the presence of a large
heavy transport vehicle fleet effectively dilutes the advances made in the light-duty sector.
However, for Sweden, the projected boost in electrification could bring the emissions down
by 25% by the year 2050, according to this study.
Table 22: Comparisons of the effects of advanced electrification in MORE EV scenarios on further CO 2
reductions, compared to Current Policies case.

FIN

CO2 emissions, Mt

2020

2030

2040

2050

10.3

7.0

5.2

4.2

-4 %

-8 %

-7 %

11.9

8.7

4.3

-1 %

-6 %

-25 %

123.1

84.8

53.2

-1 %

-2 %

-8 %

202

263

259

0%

-3 %

-11 %

reduction, %SWE

CO2 emissions, Mt

12.9

reduction, %GER

CO2 emissions, Mt

151.7

reduction, %BRA

CO2 emissions, Mt

171

reduction, %82

Furthermore, adding more biofuels up to the technically permissible level of the projectedvehicles fleet gives more robust results. Table 23 compares those reductions for each of thecase countries. In Table 23, CO2 emissions for MAX BIO scenarios are presented, alongwith the additional (relative) reductions from the Current Policies to MAX BIO scenarios.
Table 23: Comparisons of the effects of biofuels in MAX BIO scenarios on further CO 2 reductions compared toCurrent Policies case.

FIN

CO2 emissions, Mt

2020

2030

2040

2050

10.3

7.2

3.5

1.8

0%

-40 %

-60 %

6.7

3.3

0.3

-44 %

-65 %

-94 %

93.0

43.6

15.4

-25 %

-50 %

-74 %

100.8

68.2

10.5

-50 %

-75 %

-96 %

reduction, %SWE

CO2 emissions, Mt

12.9

reduction, %GER

CO2 emissions, Mt

149.2

reduction, %BRA

CO2 emissions, Mt

128.5

reduction, %According to the figures in Table 23, by far the greatest achievement of the MAX BIO
scenarios is predicted for Brazil, as according to our assumptions, it would be possible toreach nearly 100% fossil-free road transport by maximizing the use of biofuels. Furthermore,
Sweden yields to an almost as good result with a 94% reduction, while Germany stays at
about -74%, and Finland only reaches -60%. For these two countries, the “deal-breaker” isthe assumption of a larger SI-ICE powered passenger car fleet that is supposed to tolerate amaximum of E25/E30 gasoline, limiting the substitution rate. However, Sweden is supposing
the presence of “biopetrol” that effectively closes the gap, and yields to very high reductions
in fossil CO2 emissions. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the amounts of biofuelsnecessary to fulfil the demand of these scenarios is exceeding multiple times present andnear-future projected production volumes, so they remain highly hypothetical.
In addition, at least in theory, the use of e-fuels basically allows all countries to achieve theirtransport decarbonization targets. However, an aggressive deployment of e-fuels leads tosubstantial increase in low-carbon electricity demand on top of existing requirements to
expand low-carbon generation to meet more traditional electricity uses. Therefore theviability of E-FUELS scenarios ultimately depend on access to low-cost, ultra-low-carbon
power systems or sources of zero-carbon electricity with high annual availability. It is also
important to deploy other decarbonization measures like efficiency improvements, electric
drivetrains and biofuels to reduce the overall need for CO2-based fuels in the system.
83Abbreviations
ALIISA

Model used by VTT to calculate the future composition of vehicle fleets in this study

AMF

Advanced Motor Fuels

B5, B7,…

Diesel blends with x% FAME

BEV

Battery electric vehicle

BTL

Biomass to Liquid

CBG

Compressed biogas

CI engine

Compression ignited engine

CI-ICE

Compression ignited internal combustion engine

CNG

Compressed natural gas

CNG (SI)

Vehicle with a spark ignited engine running on compressed natural gas

DBFZ

Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH

Diesel (CI)

Diesel vehicle with a compression ignited engine

E5, E10,…

Gasoline blends with x% ethanol

EPE

Brazilian Energy Research OfficeEthanol (FFV, SI)
EU

Flex-fuel vehicle with a spark ignited engine with the ability to use high-blend ethanol(or pure hydrous ethanol in the case of Brazil)
European Union

EUR

Euro

EV

Electric vehicle

FAME

Fatty acid methyl ester

FCEV

Fuel cell electric vehicle

FFV
FT

Flex-fuel vehicle, capable of using either gasoline or high-blend ethanol (or purehydrous ethanol in the case of Brazil)
Fischer Tropsch

Gasoline (SI)

Gasoline vehicle with a spark ignited engine

GDP

Gross domestic product

GHG

greenhouse gases

HDT

Heavy duty truck

HDV

Heavy duty vehicles

HEFA

Hydrotreated esters and fatty acids

HEV

Hybrid electric vehicle

HEV (FFV)

Hybrid electric vehicle with a flex-fuel internal combustion engine

HEV (ICE)

Hybrid electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine

HEV-SI

Hybrid electric vehicle with a spark ignited engine

84

HVO

Hydrotreated vegetable oils

Hydrogen (FCEV)

Fuel cell electric vehicle running on hydrogen

ICE

Internal combustion engine

IEA

International Energy Agency

IEA 2DSLDTIEA 2 Degree Scenario, compatible with the goal of limiting global heating to 2°C by
2100
Light duty truck

LDV

Light duty vehicles

LHV

Lower heating value

LNG

Liquefied natural gas

LPG

Liquefied petroleum gas (auto gas)

MDT

Medium duty truck

MTG

Methanol-to-gasoline, process for the production of gasoline based on methanol

PC

Passenger cars

PHEV

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

PHEV (CI)Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a compression ignited engine

PHEV (FFV)

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a flex-fuel internal combustion engine

PHEV (SI)Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a spark ignited engine

PHEV-CI

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a compression ignited engine

PHEV-SI

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a spark ignited engine

PTG

Power to Gas

PTLPower to Liquids

PTX

Power to X (X for different products), usual German definition for e-fuels

RED

Renewable Energy Directive, EU regulation

RED-II

Recast of the Renewable Energy Directive, EU regulation

RenovaBio

Renova Bio, Brazilian regulation

RFS

Renewable Fuel Standard, US regulation

SI engine

Spark ignited engine

SI-ICE

Spark ignited internal combustion engine

SUVSports and utility vehicle

TCP

Technology Collaboration Programme (of the IEA)TTW CO2 emissions

Tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions, i.e. tailpipe emissions

UCO

used cooking oil

USD

United States (of America) Dollar

85

VMT

Vehicle miles travelled

WTT CO2 emissions

Well-to-tank CO2 emissions, i.e. upstream emissions from fuel or electricity production

WTW CO2 emissions

Well-to-wheel CO2 emissions, i.e. WTT and TTW combined

xEV

all types of electric vehicles

86Appendix
The following tables are intended to characterize the analyzed countries in terms of theirvehicle fleet size and composition, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per vehicle in eachcategory, and total use of different fuels and components. The data in these tables is basedfor Current Policies case, and presented separately for years 2020, 2030 and 2050. The
tables are intended to facilitate a comparison of transport sectors in each country.
Table 24: Fleet Size and Composition (Current Policies scenario)
2020
Fleet Composition

FinlandSwedenGermany

USA

Passenger cars

2,776,716

4,905,230

46,224,773

139,060,924

38,360,012

Vans & LDT

325,757

558,974

2,425,898

122,913,804

505,516

Buses & Coaches

12,822

16,11682,44912,808448,004

Medium-Duty Trucks

70,043

79,235

320,1077,078,121

212,039

Heavy-Duty Trucks

27,2309,526

405,136

5,238,165

1,042,130

3,212,569

5,569,081

49,458,363

274,303,22

40,567,700

in total

Brazil2030
Passenger cars

2,917,450

5,200,261

47,909,627

148,352,562

53,400,439

Vans & LDT

317,015

643,866

2,409,786

124,981,137

604,069

Buses & Coaches

14,125

16,77789,502

13,042

773,144

Medium-Duty Trucks

76,214

91,244

320,398

8,447,310

213,034

Heavy-Duty Trucks

29,593

10,891

410,669

5,238,043

1,341,263

3,354,397

5,963,038

51,139,982

287,032,095

56,331,949

in total

2050
Passenger cars

3,149,784

5,123,900

47,698,454

183,061,600

91,630,114

Vans & LDT

324,094

820,697

2,452,165

113,703,134

963,656

Buses & Coaches

14,865

16,57090,574

13,097

1,593,590

Medium-Duty Trucks

88,058104,281306,268

12,391,108

313,090

Heavy-Duty Trucks

33,83912,310395,5025,394,439

2,169,067

3,610,639

6,077,757

50,942,963

314,563,379

96,669,517

in total

87

Table 25: Total transport work per vehicle category [km] (Current Policies scenario)
2020
Total transport
work percategory

FinlandSwedenGermanyUSA

BrazilPassenger cars

42,079,656,816 56,377,067,124 654,917,630,384 2,506,199,455,692

637,779,831,93

Vans & LDT

5,717,755,995

8,079,271,039

47,823,214,304 2,261,844,344,858

10,131,181,23

630,150,327

881,809,375

4,629,733,497

1,025,961,840

22,917,968,66

Medium-Duty
Trucks1,617,228,678

1,625,445,903

5,667,018,970

189,121,692,875

4,966,229,42

Heavy-Duty Trucks

1,894,154,912

3,439,908,497

35,886,236,309

319,050,597,226

74,556,046,99

Passenger cars

45,543,658,125 66,247,209,897 649,522,603,418 2,720,943,522,791

897,266,104,88

Vans & LDT

5,697,039,404

8,674,905,289

665,505,356

917,077,429

Buses & Coaches

2030

Buses & Coaches
Medium-Duty
Trucks

1,882,240,621

Heavy-Duty Trucks

2,094,027,558

44,897,445,477 2,293,155,656,846

12,062,261,96

5,023,927,802

1,013,478,713

39,291,934,80

5,759,445,670

235,286,720,589

4,881,447,83

31,701,228,884

346,273,993,457

93,253,327,52

1,869,774,817
3,961,754,885

2050
Passenger cars

50,547,016,571 56,377,067,124 529,103,816,203 3,427,138,995,735 1,521,516,154,64

Vans & LDT

6,011,347,858

8,079,271,039

689,662,958

Medium-Duty
TrucksHeavy-Duty Trucks

Buses & Coaches

43,112,428,361 2,161,197,892,369

19,358,861,77

881,809,375

5,060,658,077

1,025,414,928

81,121,945,17

1,773,812,467

1,625,445,903

5,714,110,918

374,303,561,802

7,208,597,90

2,303,652,554

3,439,908,497

31,221,199,377

392,885,987,201

152,156,783,69

88

Table 26: Average transport work per vehicle in each category (Current Policies scenario)
2020
Average VMT per
vehicleFinlandSweden Germany

USA

BrazilPassenger cars

15,20011,50014,20018,00016,600Vans & LDT

17,60014,50019,70018,40020,000

Buses & Coaches

49,10054,70056,20080,10051,200Medium-Duty Trucks

23,10020,50017,70026,70023,400

Heavy-Duty Trucks

69,600361,100

88,60060,90071,5002030
Passenger cars

15,60010,80013,60018,30016,800Vans & LDT

18,00012,50018,60018,30020,000

Buses & Coaches

47,10052,60056,10077,70050,800Medium-Duty Trucks

24,70017,80018,00027,90022,900

Heavy-Duty Trucks

70,800315,900

77,20066,10069,5002050
Passenger cars

16,00011,000

11,10018,70016,600Vans & LDT

18,5009,800

17,60019,00020,100

Buses & Coaches

46,40053,20055,90078,30050,900Medium-Duty Trucks

20,10015,60018,70030,20023,000

Heavy-Duty Trucks

68,100279,400

78,90072,80070,10089

Table 27: Total fuel use in each category (Current Policies scenario)
2020
Use of fuels

FinlandSwedenGermanyUSA

BrazilFossil gasoline l/a

1 579 336 310

2 185 356 937

21 479 636 836

469 969 119 149

26 146 297 297

Fossil diesel l/a

2 615 995 263

3 086 771 979

40 263 173 379

157 291 365 368

43 630 986 176

Renewable diesel l/a

550 782 407

1 752 209 234

3 082 597 961

6 189 360 502

5 537 898 864

Ethanol

166 845 003

262 783 324

1 468 693 120

83 124 721 827

28 994 264 978

10 655 000

8 401 154

108 889 773

1 625 339 974

788 195kg/a

9 775 867

96 613 270

35 931 890

n/r

0Electricity

kWh/a

113 693 761

258 359 222

634 891 288

12 899 567 103

119 521 530

Hydrogen

kg/a

n/r

<100

<100

18 002 093

0l/a

Fossil methane
Biomethane

kg/a

2030

Fossil gasoline l/a

1 423 822 648

1 868 181 891

18 174 734 720

374 117 813 741

32 483 126 330

Fossil diesel l/a

1 528 095 677

3 059 410 928

32 211 833 371

152 043 138 060

50 796 649 062

Renewable diesel l/a

1 192 439 497

1 729 142 594

2 548 502 477

5 940 116 598

8 479 974 609

159 801 139

210 136 425

1 242 716 931

84 701 452 738

44 916 631 663

38 895 394

6 923 469

136 919 307

1 838 964 577

10 602 019

kg/a

31 793 429

79 619 896

44 924 346

n/r0Electricity

kWh/a

1 217 917 171

1 576 028 331

6 653 343 808

64 709 606 932

1 196 419 170

Hydrogen

kg/a

n/r

<100

<100

171 865 196

0Ethanoll/aFossil methane
Biomethane

kg/a

2050

Fossil gasoline l/a

864 177 647

681 656 439

8 126 837 030

328 359 092 190

43 938 184 035

Fossil diesel l/a

850 772 026

1 673 643 933

14 920 647 031

141 159 768 048

74 691 093 874

Renewable diesel l/a

717 003 719

929 562 956

1 232 343 739

5 552 265 801

12 477 128 235

Ethanol

94 154 860

73 658 565

1 148 663 510

83 168 836 786

59 402 281 097

122 816 229

5 054 471

563 770 782

4 987 673 068

73 865 510

kg/a

103 111 577

58 126 416

176 012 972

n/r

0Electricity

kWh/a

6 423 488 150

6 432 627 579

36 290 539 540

164 306 947 161

20 277 580 334

Hydrogen

kg/a

n/r

<100

232 188 399

325 424 485

0l/a

Fossil methane
Biomethane

kg/a<100: limited use

90

n/r=not reported