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
Summary Report
Dina Bacovsky
Andrea SonnleitnerBEST – Bioenergy andSustainable Technologies GmbH
Franziska Müller-Langer
Jörg Schröder
Kathleen Meisel
DBFZ Deutsches
Biomasseforschungszentrum
gemeinnützige GmbH
Adam Brown
Energy Insights Ltd
Kyriakos Maniatis
Eric Fee
European Commission, DG ENER
Angela Oliveira da Costa
José Mauro Ferreira Coelho
Juliana Rangel do Nascimento
Paula Isabel da Costa Barbosa
Rachel Martins Henriques
Energy Research Officeof Brazil (EPE)
November 2020

Anton Fagerström
IVL Swedish Environmental
Research Institute
Masayuki Kobayashi
Yutaka Takada
Organisation for the Promotion of
Low Emission Vehicles (LEVO)
Helen Lindblom
Swedish Transport Administration
Shaojun Zhang
Ye Wu
Tsinghua University
Markus Millinger
Helmholtz-Zentrum fürUmweltforschung GmbH – UFZ
Mahmood EbadianJack Saddler
University of British Columbia

Alicia Lindauer
Kevin Stork
Zia Haq
US Department of Energy
Juhani Laurikko
Ilkka Hannula
Nils-Olof Nylund
Päivi Aakko-Saksa
VTT Technical ResearchCentre of Finland Ltd
Lars Waldheim
Waldheim Consulting
Edited by Dina Bacovsky
BEST — Bioenergy andSustainable Technologies GmbH

Authors and acknowledgements
This report constitutes the summary 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 theEuropean 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.
This “Summary Report” is based on the following report parts that have been publishedseparately:•

Key Strategies in Selected Countries•

Production Technologies and Costs•

Scenarios and Contributions in Selected Countries•

Deployment Barriers and Policy Recommendations

This “Summary Report” was written by Dina Bacovsky (BEST – Bioenergy and Sustainable
Technologies GmbH), based on the other report parts which were written by the following
authors:
Dina Bacovsky and Andrea Sonnleitner (both BEST – Bioenergy and Sustainable
Technologies GmbH), Franziska Müller-Langer, Jörg Schröder, Kathleen Meisel (all DBFZ
Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH), Adam Brown (Energy
Insights Ltd), Kyriakos Maniatis, Eric Fee (European Commission, DG ENER), Angela
Oliveira da Costa, José Mauro Ferreira Coelho, Juliana Rangel do Nascimento, Paula Isabel
da Costa Barbosa, Rachel Martins Henriques (all Energy Research Office of Brazil (EPE)),
Anton Fagerström (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute), Masayuki Kobayashi,
Yutaka Takada (both Organisation for the Promotion of Low Emission Vehicles (LEVO)),
Helen Lindblom (Swedish Transport Administration), Shaojun Zhang, Ye Wu (both Tsinghua
University), Markus Millinger (Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ),
Mahmood Ebadian, Jack Saddler (both University of British Columbia), Alicia Lindauer,
Kevin Stork, Zia Haq (all US Department of Energy), Juhani Laurikko, Ilkka Hannula, NilsOlof Nylund and Päivi Aakko-Saksa (all VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd),
Lars Waldheim (Waldheim Consulting).
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 reducing
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 aisustainable 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

ii

The Role of Renewable Fuels in Decarbonizing Road Transport
Renewable fuels, in addition to all forms of electric vehicles powered by lowcarbon electricity, can make an important contribution in decarbonizing theroad transport sector, especially in the short and medium term and for allmodes of transport.
Bringing down the GHG emissions of the road transport sector to zero by 2050 cannot be
achieved by one measure alone.
Countries that deploy a set of different measures such as reducing transport demand,
improving vehicle efficiency, and adding renewable energy carriers such as biofuels, e-fuels,
renewable electricity and renewable hydrogen have the best chances to meet ambitious
decarbonization goals.
Our assessment shows that biofuels contribute most to decarbonization now and up to 2030,
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 biofuelsremains largest until around 2040 when the use of electric vehicles takes over. In Brazil,
biofuels remain the largest contributor until 2050.

BackgroundIn the light of climate change, there is an urgent need to decarbonize our societies. The roadtransport sector is specifically challenging, as transport demand is growing, and so are thesector´s GHG emissions. Electric mobility powered by renewable power will not be able tosolve this on its own, and renewable transport fuels will be needed to bridge the gap
between GHG emission reduction targets and the prospected actual emissions.
A team of experts has assessed the transport sector and its projected development up to2030 and 2050 for a number of countries, including Germany, Sweden, Finland, USA, andBrazil. The work was initiated and carried out jointly by two Technology Collaboration
Programmes of the International Energy Agency, namely the IEA Bioenergy TCP and theAdvanced Motor Fuels TCP, with support of the Directorate General for Energy of theEuropean Commission. The analysis is based on current national policies, projections of thevehicle fleet, and on the availability of renewable transport fuels.
The objective of the assessment was to quantify the role that renewable fuels play indecarbonizing the road transport sector, and to provide insights to policy makers on how
individual countries differ from one another, which options for decarbonization they have,and best practice examples of successful policies.

Research Protocol
The core of the project was the assessment of the possible evolution of the road transport
sectors of five individual countries. Fleet data was provided by country experts andmodelling assumptions as well as the calculation results were discussed with these experts
online and in an expert workshop.
The road transport sectors of Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil were modelled inthe VTT-owned ALIISA model. This 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, the distribution between the available
powertrain/fuel options in sales, the evolution of energy efficiency, and the annual driven
distance, which vary between categories, age classes and powertrain/fuel combinations. The
model then calculates the fleet composition for each year up to 2050, the total fleet energyiiidemand, and the resulting tank-to-wheel (TTW) CO2 emissions. The model assumes zeroCO2 emissions from renewable shares and renewable electricity.
These calculations were performed for four different scenarios, the Current Policies
Scenario, MORE EV Scenario, MAX BIO Scenario, and E-FUELS Scenario.
Other parts of the project described the key strategies of 7 countries to achieve cleaner
transport sectors; renewable fuel production pathways and their technology readiness levels,
GHG emissions, costs, and feedstocks availabilities; the applicability of fuels in engines; andimplementation barriers, policy recommendations and best practice policy examples.

Key Messages
Renewable transport fuel basics•

Renewable transport fuels such as biofuels and e-fuels can, depending on thecomponent, be used in low blends, as drop-in fuels with up to 100% substitution,
and as special fuels in dedicated or adapted engines/vehicles. However,dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are not yet widely introduced globally.

•

Substantial volumes of sustainable feedstocks could be made available forbiofuels production, sufficient to replace up to 30% of transport fuel demand in
2060.

•

When assessed in life cycle terms, biofuels offer significant GHG emission
reductions over fossil fuels. The current average carbon intensity of biofuels
provided to California ranges from 15 to 65 gCO2e/MJ (versus fossil diesel andgasoline carbon intensities of 95). Future biofuel carbon intensities are expected
to decrease further, and can also be net negative when obtaining credits foravoided GHG emissions from waste disposal or if combined with CCS.

•

Costs of advanced biofuels depend on the production pathway and with a range
from 0.35 to 1.58 EUR/l gasoline equivalent are in most cases significantly higher
than the current costs of fossil fuel equivalents. Advanced biofuel technologies
are currently in their early stages of development, and therefore significant
potential for further cost reduction exists.

Country assessments•

Transport sector indicators such as the number of vehicles per capita, transport
work per capita and transport work per geographic area for the countries
assessed (Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil) vary highly.

•

In the Current Policies scenario, biofuels already provide the largest contribution
to the reduction of TTW CO2 emissions now and up to 2030, 2040, or even 2050,
depending on the country. Electric vehicles only catch up with biofuels by 2040.

•

Even if electric vehicles are introduced at a higher rate, biofuels remain thelargest contributor to decarbonization in the short to medium term.

•

Depending on the fuel qualities available in a region, maximizing the use of
biofuels, and in particular of drop-in biofuels, can reduce TTW CO2 emissions toalmost zero by 2050.

•

The use of e-fuels could close the gap between emission reductions achieved byother measures and ambitious targets. The amount of e-fuels needed to fully
displace fossil fuels however would require significant amounts of non-fossil
electricity and captured CO2 emissions, which are unlikely to be available in many
countries.
iv

Implementation barriers•Competition with well-established fossil fuels-based system•

Fluctuating policy drivers, lack of long-term stable policies•

Incomplete or unbalanced set of policy measures•

Public perception of technical performance, potential and sustainability•

Requirement to build up infrastructure for alternative fuels and alternative fuelvehicles•Successful policy examples•

Blending mandates for biofuels•

Incentives based on GHG impact•

Strict and consistent sustainability guidelines•

Advanced biofuels require specific support, such as separate obligations, RD&D
support, and risk guarantees

Policy suggestions from the expert workshop (Brussels, 18 November 2019)•

Focus on the carbon intensity of biofuels•

Get oil majors involved and leverage their existing fuel supply chains anddistribution networks to make biofuels accessible to the marketplace in a costefficient way•

Turn the tables and establish a requirement to phase out fossil fuels•

Allow automakers to make use of the GHG emission reductions that the use ofrenewable fuels offers and count these against their CO2 emissions fleet targets(which could then be strengthened)v

Content
The need to decarbonize the transport sector ....................................................................... 1
Country key strategies .......................................................................................................... 2
Ambitions versus trends ........................................................................................................ 4
Assessing the development of the transport sector in selected countries .............................. 7
Decarbonization based on current policies ........................................................................ 8
The effect of introducing more electric vehicles ............................................................... 10
Maximizing biofuels to reach better decarbonization........................................................ 11
Using e-fuels to fully decarbonize road transport sectors ................................................. 14
The availability of renewable transport fuels ........................................................................ 16
Low-carbon fuel technologies and their development status ............................................ 16
Availability and costs of sustainable bioenergy feedstocks for biofuels production .......... 19
The likely costs of emerging biofuels production and the scope for cost reduction .......... 22
Compatibility of fuels with existing engines ...................................................................... 24
Role of policy on production and use of emerging biofuels .............................................. 26
How to reach widespread deployment of renewable fuels ................................................... 27
Barriers to widespread deployment ................................................................................. 27
Well-established transport system to compete with ...................................................... 27
Fluctuating policy drivers .............................................................................................. 28
Public perception ......................................................................................................... 28
Incomplete set of policy measures ............................................................................... 28
Infrastructure requirements .......................................................................................... 29
Risks associated with the take-up of low-carbon fuels.................................................. 29
Policy requirements for increased advanced transport fuels deployment ......................... 30
Policy best practice.......................................................................................................... 30
Final remarks................................................................................................................... 31
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 32vi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Countries covered in this report.............................................................................. 1
Figure 2: Role of biofuels in transport – IEA 2DS Scenario ................................................... 4
Figure 3: Comparison of projected biofuels growth to 2025 with WEO Scenarios Source: IEA
Renewables 2019 and WEO 2018 ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Finnish road transport CO2 inventory from 2005 (reference year) to 2030 (target
year) and the trajectories needed to reach emission reductions of -39 or -50 % by 2030. ..... 5
Figure 5: The gap between BAU scenario and the goals for the Swedish transport sector.
Source: Swedish Transport Administration............................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Trends in energy consumption in the Japanese transport sector. ........................... 6
Figure 7: Energy use per vehicle category in Current Policies scenarios – 2030. .................. 8
Figure 8: Energy use per carrier in the Current Policies scenarios – 2030. ........................... 9
Figure 9: Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for
Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil in the Current Policies scenario. .................... 10
Figure 10: Shares of chargeable vehicles in the national passenger car fleet by 2030 and
2050 for Current Policies and MORE EV (MORE EV marked with +). ................................. 11
Figure 11: Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for
Finland, Sweden, Germany and Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario. ....................................... 12
Figure 12: Evolution of energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland, Sweden,
Germany and Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario. .................................................................... 13
Figure 13: Country specific demand for drop-in hydrocarbons in 2050 relative to IEA global
2DS supply scenario. .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 14: Evolution of energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland, Sweden,
Germany and Brazil in the E-FUELS scenario..................................................................... 14
Figure 15: Relative electricity and CO2 resource requirements related to the national EFUELS scenarios. ............................................................................................................... 15
Figure 16: Overview of technology pathways and their technology readiness level (TRL) ... 18
Figure 17: Potential global biomass supply in 2030 (Adapted from IRENA, 2014) ............... 20
Figure 18: Projected annual global supply for primary biomass in 2030 .............................. 21
Figure 19: Minimum, average, and maximum carbon intensity (CI) values of some of the fuelpathways certified under California LCFS program in 2019 ................................................. 22
Figure 20: Summary of current cost ranges of advanced biofuels ....................................... 23
Figure 21: Potential costs of advanced biofuels production after reductions........................ 23
Figure 22: Technology-push and market-pull biofuel policies .............................................. 26
Figure 23: Multitude of stakeholders involved in the market implementation of alternative
fuels and vehicles ............................................................................................................... 28vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of some transport-related indicators .................................................... 7
Table 2: Application of transport fuels ................................................................................. 24
Table 3: Current and future road transport system .............................................................. 27
Table 4: Main risks for biofuels ............................................................................................ 30

viii

The need to decarbonize the transport sector
In the light of climate change, there is an urgent need to decarbonize our societies. The
transport sector, and within it in particular the road transport sector, is specificallychallenging, as transport demand is growing, and so are the sector´s GHG emissions.
Decarbonization includes all options to reduce GHG emissions and make road transportcleaner, including low(-fossil)-carbon energy carriers such as biofuels, e-fuels, andrenewable electricity. None of these will be able to solve this grand challenge alone, andrenewable transport fuels have an essential role in bridging the gap between GHG emission
reduction targets and the prospected emission reductions.
A team of experts has assessed the transport sector and its projected development up to2030 and 2050 for a number of countries, including Germany, Sweden, Finland, USA, andBrazil. The work was initiated and carried out jointly by two Technology Collaboration
Programmes of the International Energy Agency, namely the IEA Bioenergy TCP and theAdvanced Motor Fuels TCP, with support of the Directorate General for Energy of theEuropean Commission. The analysis is based on the countries´ key strategies for
decarbonization, their current and projected vehicle fleet, and on the availability of
established and emerging renewable transport fuels.

Figure 1: Countries covered in this report1Country key strategies
Most countries are aware that ambitious action is needed to abate the climate crisis. GHG
emissions from all sectors have to be reduced dramatically, and the transport sector isamong the hardest one to decarbonize. Measures can be taken according to the avoid-shiftimprove principle, i.e. avoid excessive transport, shift to less carbon-intensive transportmodes, and improve the carbon intensity of all transport modes. The use of renewableenergy carriers such as biofuels, e-fuels and green electricity for electric vehicles constitutes
one of the main measures to improve the carbon intensity of transport.
Consequently, many countries have set up legislation that mandates or encourages the useof renewable transport fuels. The European Union has introduced the Renewable Energy
Directive RED and its recast RED-II, mandating all EU member states to cover 10 % of theirtransport energy demand from renewable sources by 2020, and 14% by 2030. In the USA
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) established volume requirements for renewable fuelbased on life-cycle GHG emission reduction thresholds across several fuel categories.
Annual volume targets in the initial legislation culminate at 36 billion gallons (136 billion
liters) of total renewable fuels per year in 2022. In Brazil, the RenovaBio system shallgradually reduce the average GHG intensity in the Brazilian transport system by around 10%
in 2030, relative to 2017.
Finland, Germany and Sweden (all EU member states) have set even more ambitious
targets for biofuels than mandated by the EU RED. Finland has a target of increasing theshare of biofuels (by energy content) in road transport fuels to 30% by 2030. Germany has atarget of reducing GHG emissions from the transport sector stepwise to 95 million tons by
2030 which is about 42% compared to 1990. One measure for achieving this is a GHGbased quota system which obligates fuel suppliers to sell a fuel mix which achieves a 6%
GHG mitigation a year compared to fossil gasoline and diesel mix from 2020 onwards.
Finally, Sweden has a target to reduce emissions from the road transport sector by at least
70% by 2030, compared with 2010. One measure to achieve this is a GHG reduction
obligation, which entails an obligation for fuel suppliers to reduce GHG emissions from soldvolumes of gasoline and diesel fuels by incorporating biofuels. In 2020 the reduction
obligation is 4.2 % for gasoline and 21 % for diesel. The reduction obligation will be
increased over time with an indicative target of 40% overall reduction in 2030, indicatively
composed of 28 % for gasoline and 66 % for diesel.
In the USA, besides the federal RFS, California was the first state to introduce a mandate ontransport fuel GHG emission reductions based on GHG intensities of fuels. The Low-Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) sets annually decreasing carbon intensity benchmarks for gasoline,
diesel, and their replacement fuels. The LCFS has a goal of reducing the carbon intensity of
its transportation fuel pool by 20% by 2030 (relative to a 2011 baseline). The State ofOregon has a program similar to the LCFS requiring reduction of carbon intensity of its
transport fuels. Some Mid-West states are exploring similar clean fuel programs to reducetransport fuel GHG emissions.
Other countries are more focusing on electric vehicles in order to decarbonize the transport
sector. China has committed to lower its overall carbon intensity and to peak its national
carbon emissions by 2030 or earlier. In the transport sector, China is primarily focusing on
the introduction of electric vehicles (so-called new energy vehicles), but also promoting theuse of E10. Japan has committed to reduce GHG emissions from the transport sector from
225 million tCO2eq in FY 2013 to 163 by 2030, constituting a reduction of 27%. Measures
include the promotion of next-generation automobiles, and transport-system level measures.
All mentioned countries have also implemented legislation to gradually increase the fuelefficiency of vehicles, directly resulting in GHG emission reductions.
2More details on the key strategies of these countries can be found in Part 1 of the overall
report (“Key Strategies in Selected Countries”).

3

Ambitions versus trends
Comparing the actual reduction of GHG emissions from the transport sector with national
ambitions or with global low-carbon scenarios tends to be depressing, as forecasts based on
current trends show that the ambitions will almost never be met.
In the World Energy Outlook 2017 publication, the IEA has introduced the 2°C Scenario(2DS), which is consistent with a 50% chance of limiting future global average temperature
increases to 2°C by 2100. The 2DS sees an increase of biofuels use by a factor of 10 by
2060, providing 30 EJ in the transport sector. In this scenario, biofuels provide some 30% oftransport energy, complementing increases in electricity and improvements in energy
efficiency in the sector as shown in Figure 2. This scenario also sees a rapid increase in thelevel of biofuels in the short term, with its contribution in the transport sector growing by afactor of 3 by 2030.

Figure 2: Role of biofuels in transport – IEA 2DS Scenario

However, when comparing the needed production and use of biofuels for low-carbon
scenarios to current biofuel production trends, it is apparent that the figures don´t match.
Figure 3 shows the anticipated trends in total global biofuels production to 2024, andcompares these to the 2025 figures in the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable
Development Scenario of the IEA´s World Energy Outlook (WEO NPS and SDS)1.
Comparison shows that current and proposed policies (as represented by the NPS scenario)
are only likely to stimulate around 70% of the deployment level needed in the SDS scenario,
even if proposed measures are actually put in place and effective. More ambitious targets
and policy measures will be essential if biofuels are to be developed in a way that iscompatible with scenarios such as the SDS.

The NPS provides an assessment of where today’s policy frameworks and ambitions, together with thecontinued evolution of known technologies, might take the energy sector in the coming decades. The policy
ambitions include those that have been announced as of August 2018 and incorporates the commitments
made in the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.
The SDS, introduced for the first time in the 2017 edition of the WEO starts from the assumption that selected
key outcomes related to the main energy-related components of the Sustainable Development Goals, agreed
by 193 countries in 2015, can be achieved and then works back to the present to see how they might berealised.

1

4

Figure 3: Comparison of projected biofuels growth to 2025 with WEO Scenarios
Source: IEA Renewables 2019 and WEO 2018

This global analysis is complemented by national analyses with essentially the same result,as can be seen in the following two figures for Finland and Sweden that compare national
forecasts for GHG emissions from the transport sector with the national goals.

Figure 4: Finnish road transport CO2 inventory from 2005 (reference year) to 2030 (target year) and the
trajectories needed to reach emission reductions of -39 or -50 % by 2030.

5Figure 5: The gap between BAU scenario and the goals for the Swedish transport sector. Source: Swedish
Transport Administration

It should be noted though that there are also examples of a contrary development. Japan
has actually managed to decrease the energy use and thus the GHG emissions from thetransport sector. Japan´s energy demand in the transport sector has already peaked in FY
2001 (see Figure 6). Gasoline provides 54.4% of transport energy, followed by diesel with31.7%. There is a small share of electricity of 2.0%, and only 1.5% biofuels (countable
number as ETBE mixed into gasoline).

Figure 6: Trends in energy consumption in the Japanese transport sector.

6Assessing the development of the transport sector in selected
countries
The core of this study was the assessment of the road transport sector and its development
for a number of selected countries, namely Finland, Sweden, Germany, USA and Brazil.
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 Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of some transport-related indicators
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/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

633

502

496

1,535

374

11,555

12,344

119,21455,554

9,514

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

For this assessment, the transport sector of each of these countries was modeled in the
ALIISA model. This model was developed to assess the Finnish transport sector in the”Biofuels 2030” study; for which an English translation of the main parts of this study isavailable as appendix to Part 1 of the overall report.
The ALIISA 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 thefuel consumption (or energy efficiency gain) for future years, and on the annual driven
distance, variable between categories, age classes and powertrain/fuel combinations. 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 are 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
7

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.

Figure 7: 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.

8Figure 8: 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 also
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.

9Finland

SwedenGermany

BrazilUSA
Figure 9: Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland, Sweden,
Germany, USA and Brazil in the Current Policies scenario.

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
10

between these four countries.
As a result, the share of EVs in the passenger car fleet reaches between 3% (Brazil) and
21% (Finland) in 2030, and between 41% (Brazil) and 77% (Sweden) by 2050 (see figure
below).

Figure 10: 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.

Maximizing biofuels to reach better 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 under 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 technical 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 11.
Countries with options to fully substitute both fossil petrol and fossil diesel can be fully
decarbonized by 2050.

11

Finland

SwedenGermany

BrazilFigure 11: Evolution of TTW CO2 emissions in road transport by different measures for Finland, Sweden,
Germany and Brazil in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 12 shows the energy use in the MAX BIO scenario by energy carrier. Renewablediesel is the main biofuel substituting fossil fuels for Finland, Germany, and Sweden, while inBrazil also ethanol provides a large share.
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.

12Finland

SwedenGermany

BrazilFigure 12: Evolution of energy use in road transport by energy carrier for Finland, Sweden, Germany and Brazil
in the MAX BIO scenario.

Figure 13: Country specific demand for drop-in hydrocarbons in 2050 relative to IEA global 2DS supply scenario.

13

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.

FinlandSwedenGermany

BrazilFigure 14: 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
14

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.

Figure 15: Relative electricity and CO2 resource requirements related to the national E-FUELS scenarios.

However, the calculated E-FUELS scenario is an extreme scenario and based only on
current policies; with increased efforts, biofuels could cover part of the required GHG
emission reductions, and hereby reduce the demand for e-fuels and the associated need fornon-fossil electricity.
More details on our assessment of these countries can be found in Part 3 of the overall
report (“Scenarios and Contributions in Selected Countries”).

15

The availability of renewable transport fuels
While the assessment of the development of the road transport sector in selected countries
has clearly shown that the required full decarbonization can only be reached with a
combination of biofuels, electric vehicles and eventually also e-fuels, the question arises
whether there will be sufficient renewable transport fuels available to support national andglobal needs. A large number of different renewable transport fuels exists, produced from avariety of feedstocks through a range of different production technologies. Some of thesefuels are compatible with existing engines, others have to be used in low blends with fossil
fuels or in dedicated engines. The multitude of options makes it difficult for policy makers todecide which fuel options to go for to decarbonize their transport sectors. Part 2 of theoverall report (“Production Technologies and Costs”), provides all the required details fortaking informed decisions, and is summarized below.

Low-carbon fuel technologies and their development status
Low-carbon transport fuels can be produced from:•••biogenic feedstocks or biogenic fraction of wastes (“biofuels”)
energy and carbon contained in fossil wastes and residue streams or thefossil fraction of such materials (“e.g. recycled carbon fuels”)
energy from other renewable sources, sometimes in combination with carbon
atoms from biogenic and fossil sources (CCU) (“renewable fuels”)

The technology readiness levels (TRL) of the production technologies for these fuels vary,as depicted in
Figure 16.
Technologies for the production of established biofuels such as ethanol from sugar andstarch crops, biodiesel from triglycerides and lipids, hydrogenated triglycerides and lipids,
and biomethane from upgrading of anaerobic digestion biogas are at TRL9.
Emerging biofuel pathways include ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks, gasificationderived biofuels, pyrolysis-derived intermediates, hydrothermal liquefaction-derived
intermediates, lignin-derived intermediates, sugars to biofuels, and biofuels derived from
non-lignocellulosic biomass such as microalgae. TRLs for these technologies range from 3
to 8.
Recycled carbon fuels include ethanol, methanol and methane produced from industry offgases, and fuels derived from the gasification or pyrolysis of non-biogenic wastes or
fractions of wastes, with TRLs ranging from 4 to 9.
E-fuels include hydrogen, methanol, methane and Fischer-Tropsch liquids. While theproduction of hydrogen through electrolysis is at TRL9, the other pathways are at TRL 4-6.
Terminology for different low-carbon fuels is not consistent globally. In the EU fuels areclassified by feedstock, in the USA by pathway, and in Brazil by the carbon intensity of thefuel. In particular, the term advanced biofuel has different meanings in different jurisdictions.

16Terminology used in this report
In this report a distinction is being made between established biofuel pathways andemerging biofuel pathways. This is to avoid terms like first and second generation, 1G,
2G, conventional and advanced, as these terms have no homogeneous definition and areused differently in different regions and jurisdictions. Further fuel types mentioned in thereport include recycled carbon fuels and e-fuels. Further descriptions of these categories areprovided in Figure 16 and the explanatory text below.
The same figure also provides the linkage between fuel production pathway, i.e. feedstockand conversion technology used, and the chemical nature of the resulting fuel. When appliedin engines it is the chemical composition of the fuel that matters, not the feedstock. Thus,
some fuels are grouped, e.g. FT-liquids and HVO2 into drop-in hydrocarbons3.
The linkage between these fuels and their marketed qualities is provided in Table 2, which
also describes the applicability of these fuels in different engines.

2 HEFA (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids), also called HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil), is a renewablediesel fuel that can be produced from a wide array of vegetable oils and fats. The term HEFA or HVO is usedcollectively for these biogenic hydrocarbon-based renewable biofuels. HVO is free of aromatics and sulfur andhas a high cetane number.
3“Drop-in” biofuels are defined as liquid hydrocarbons that are oxygen-free and functionally equivalent topetroleum transportation fuel blendstocks.

17Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Emerging Biofuels

Established biofuels

Raw material

Technology

Fuel

Fermentation

Ethanol

Transesterification

FAME/Biodiesel

Hydrotreatment

Drop-in hydrocarbons

Crops, sludges, manures etc.

AD biogas
upgrading

Biomethane

Raw material

Technology

Fuel

Enzymatichydrolysis +fermentation

EthanolLignocellulosic feedstocks

Sugar

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

StarchVegetable oils & lipid waste

Lignocellulosics , biogenic
fraction of RDF etc., nonlignocellulosic biomass or
by-products
Lignocellulosics , biogenic
fraction of RDF etc., nonlignocellulosic biomass or
by-products
Lignin from lignocellulosic
ethanol or forestry liquors

Other alcohols

Gasification +fermentation

Ethanol

Gasification +catalytic synthesis

Drop-in hydrocarbons,
Alcohols, Biomethane

Pyrolysis +upgradingDrop-in hydrocarbons

HTL + upgrading

Drop-in hydrocarbons

HTL and/or
chem. treatment+ upgrading

Drop-in hydrocarbons

Drop-in hydrocarbons

E-fuels

Recycle Carbon Fuels

Sugars from sugar andstarch crops or
lignocellulosic

Fermentation
Various alcohols
C hem. conversion

Drop-in hydrocarbons

Non-LC biomass fractions or
by-products

Various

Various

Supply of fossil waste or byproduct gases

Technology
Fermentation

Steel industry & chemicalindustry off-gases

C atalytic
synthesis

Gasification +Wastes, waste plastics, noncatalytic synthesis
bio fraction of RDF
or fermentation

Fuel
Ethanol
Methanol
MethaneDrop-in hydrocarbons,
Alcohols, Biomethane

Waste plastic fraction

Pyrolysis +distillation

Drop-in hydrocarbons

Supply of H2

Technology

FuelElectrolysis

Hydrogen
MethanolRE electricity

Electrolysis andcarbon capture+
catalytic synthesis

MethaneDrop-in hydrocarbons

Figure 16: Overview of technology pathways and their technology readiness level (TRL)18

Availability and costs of sustainable bioenergy feedstocks for biofuels
production
The theoretical availability and cost modelling indicate that large volumes of sustainable
feedstock could be made available for biofuels production, sufficient to meet likely future
demand as indicated in low carbon scenarios. Most of the material necessary could be
supplied from wastes and residues, and from sustainable forestry practices. Agriculture canalso be an important source of raw materials, with feedstocks produced in ways which
complement traditional agricultural production through co-cropping and through use of lessproductive land.
Estimates of the potential available biomass and other uses vary significantly in theliterature. While the theoretical potential is high, the economic availability can vary greatly,
depending on numerous factors including yield and regional parameters (e.g. location andsize of crop/forest lands, local infrastructure, etc.). There is a wide range of biomass
availability globally, from as low as 95 Exajoule (EJ)/year to as high as 350 EJ/year.
National studies indicate that much of the raw material could be produced and delivered tousers at costs of between 3 - 6 EUR/GJ. More information from real projects is needed totest the costs of procuring suitable feedstock in the real world.
The overall biomass cost is highly case dependent and successful management of biomass
supply chains will be critical if future investments in biofuels are to be realized. Despite
efforts to reduce the cost of biomass and associated logistics, it is anticipated that increasing
competition for commercial quantities of biomass will result in an increase in the price of thebiomass feedstock.
National and regional assessments are very helpful in providing insights into likely long-term
availability and costs of feedstocks for bioenergy production, including for the production ofadvanced biofuels. However, in order to be useful for estimating long term global availability
such assessments need to be done in a very transparent way, with clear classification of thevarious resources and of the assumptions made in defining how much material could inpractice be available, and around the sustainability considerations applied.
A useful step in harmonizing such approaches would be the development of some bestpractice guidelines for such studies, including some standardization and rationalization of theclassification of the various potential feedstocks, and of the sustainability constraints which
are applied. Such measures could facilitate the development of more consistent resource
estimates, which could be more easily compiled to give a global estimate, at least for key
producer and user regions.
As shown in Figure 17, IRENA estimates the global biomass energy supply potential in 2030
to be in the range of 97 to 147 EJ/year. Feedstocks considered include energy crops,
agricultural residues, processing residues, animal and food wastes, fuel wood, forest
biomass and wood waste. Largest supply potentials stem from Asia, Europe and North
America. Growth in biomass supply potential will be (among other factors) supported byincreased plantation areas both for food/feed crops as well as for forests, higher yields ofenergy crops, and higher recovery of agricultural and processing residues.

19Figure 17: Potential global biomass supply in 2030 (Adapted from IRENA, 20144)

Domestic biomass resources can be classified into three supply cost groups:•••< USD 5 per GJ: processing residues and wastes
USD 5-8 per GJ: harvesting residues> USD 8 per GJ: bioenergy crops and fuel wood

As depicted in Figure 18, the average global cost of biomass is about USD 8.3 per GJ, withthe cost of domestic biomass ranging from as low as USD 3 per GJ in Africa (agriculturalprocessing residues) to as high at USD 17 per GJ for bioenergy crops in more developed
parts of the world. The amount of exportable biomass available in regions with surplus
biomass is estimated to be about 26% of the total global supply potential. However, thecosts associated with transporting this biomass to different world regions are estimated to
add an average of USD 3 per GJ to domestic prices.
The overall biomass cost is highly case dependent and successful management of biomass
supply chains will be critical if future investments in bioenergy and biofuels are to berealized. Despite efforts to reduce the cost of biomass and associated logistics, it isanticipated that increasing competition for commercial quantities of biomass will result in an
increase in the price of the biomass feedstock.

4

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2014. Global bioenergy supply and demand projections.
A working paper for REmap 2030. https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/IRENA_REmap_2030_Biomass_paper_2014.pdf

20

Figure 18: Projected annual global supply for primary biomass in 20305

GHG emissions of emerging biofuel pathways
Current legislation in the USA and the European Union require advanced biofuels to show atleast 50% / 65% reduction in GHG emissions respectively, as compared to their fossil fuelequivalents. The carbon intensity of a fuel is measured in gCO2e/MJ using Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and represents the GHG emissions emitted across the full life cycle of a
product system, from feedstock acquisition to production, use, and final disposition. Carbon
intensity of gasoline and diesel is about 95 gCO2e/MJ.
Emerging biofuels, termed advanced by either USA or EU legislation, do not automaticallyhave lower carbon intensity values than those of established biofuels. However, among thevarious pathways that have been certified under California Low Carbon Fuel Standard(LCFS) program, the average carbon intensity values of advanced biofuels are typically,sometimes significantly, lower than those of established biofuels, see
Figure 19 for details. The current average CI values of biofuels (both established andemerging pathways) provided to California range from 15 to 65 gCO2e/MJ, and can also be
negative when obtaining credits for avoided GHG emissions from waste disposal or if
combined with CCS.

5The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2014. Global bioenergy supply and demand projections.
A working paper for REmap 2030. https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/IRENA_REmap_2030_Biomass_paper_2014.pdf

21

Figure 19: Minimum, average, and maximum carbon intensity (CI) values of some of the fuel pathways certified
under California LCFS program in 2019

The location/region where the biofuel production facility is located will be a key component of
the final carbon intensity of the fuel. This is due to factors such as access to low carbon
intensity energy sources for heat and power, the potential to co-locate with other biofuel
plants or oil refineries to develop efficient biofuel production and supply chains, the type of
biofuels and co-products produced, the type of feedstock and associated logistics, land typeused for crop/biomass cultivation and agronomic practices, the local regulations on the useof feedstock, and carbon accounting mechanisms for biomass.
As LCFS-type policies become more common in increasing numbers of jurisdictions, thecarbon intensity of current and emerging biofuels is expected to decrease.

The likely costs of emerging biofuels production and the scope for cost
reduction
The costs of producing advanced biofuels have been assessed in a recent IEA Bioenergy
study, “Advanced Biofuels –Potential for Cost Reduction”6. Advanced biofuels assessed
include (2nd generation) cellulosic ethanol, 1.5 generation cellulosic ethanol7, methanol andmethane from biomass, methanol and methane from waste, FT-liquids from biomass, FTliquids from wastes, co-processing of bio-oil, stand-alone upgrading of bio-oil, HVO, andanaerobic digestion followed by upgrading to biomethane. Costs of all the assessedadvanced biofuels pathways are currently significantly higher than the current costs of fossil
fuel equivalents, as shown in Figure 20.

6https://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/new-publication-advanced-biofuels-potential-for-costreduction/
7
1.5 Generation most frequently refers to the production of cellulosic (such as corn fiber) ethanol integrated
into a corn-based ethanol plant22

50 Production cost EUR/GJ

40

30

20
Feedstock Costs
Operating Costs

10

Capital

Total
0

- 10

Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
Cellulosic Methanol and Methanol and FT Liquids – FT Liquids –Cellulosic
Bio-oil Bio-oil Biomass
Wastes coprocessing standaloneethanol ethanol “1 1/2 methanemethaneGen”
biomass
wastesHVO

AD

Figure 20: Summary of current cost ranges of advanced biofuels

There is significant potential for reducing the costs of the assessed range of emerging
biofuels. In order to achieve these, projects must first demonstrate in practice that thecurrent production objectives in terms of reliable production at high availability and efficiency
can be achieved consistently. The reductions will only then be achieved if there areopportunities to build a significant number of further generations of plants which will allow
experience to accumulate and provide the basis for learning, and for growing confidence inthe technologies. The figure on the next page shows possible future emerging biofuel
production cost ranges, after improvements in the process and after gaining access tocapital at lower cost.

Figure 21: Potential costs of advanced biofuels production after reductions

23

Large scale deployment will depend on continuing policy support. First, industry will needsupport during the demonstration and risky and costly early commercialization of thetechnologies, so as to bridge the “valley of death”. And then, continuing strong support will
be needed to offset the differences between biofuels and fossil fuel prices, and to incentivize
low carbon transport fuels.
While the costs of the emerging biofuels and other fuels discussed above are an importantfactor, a broader range of issues also need to be considered when comparing these options
and also when looking at other low-carbon options. These include the extent to which they
can directly replace fossil fuels, the costs of any modifications or of distribution costs
associated with fuels, the likely availability of feedstocks and the life-cycle GHG emissions
associated with particular routes. The overall consideration of the future for emerging
biofuels need to be seen in the context of these other factors, and based on an analysis offull system costs, feedstock availability and life-cycle GHG emissions.

Compatibility of fuels with existing engines
The compatibility of fuels with fuel infrastructure and vehicles includes the aspects material
compatibility, tolerance, vehicle compatibility and vehicle compliance, i.e. fulfilment of all
regulatory requirements concerning pollutant emissions and safe vehicle use. Biofuels canbe used in low blends, as drop-in fuels with up to 100% substitution, or as special fuels in
dedicated or adapted engines. Table 2 provides an overview on fuels and their applicability
in engines.
Table 2: Application of transport fuels
Fuel

Application in road transport

Ethanol8

Gasoline blends (E5, E10, E85 in FFVs), stoichiometry and materials
issues constitute blending walls in conventional vehicles
Additive treated ED 95 for diesel-type engines (commercial),
potentially also engines with assisted ignition (spark-plug, glowplug, dual-fuel)MethanolLow-level blends with gasoline
Heavy-duty engines as in the case of ethanol (additive treated fuel,engines with assisted ignition)

Various higher alcohols

E.g. butanol in gasoline blends

EthersE.g. MTBE (from methanol) and ETBE (from ethanol) in gasoline
blends, preferred by the auto manufacturers over ethanol ormethanol as such; blending wall stems from stoichiometry

FAME/Biodiesel

Diesel blends (B7, B10, B20, B30), neat B100
Neat B100 typically requires some vehicle modifications

Drop-in hydrocarbons

Gasoline-type components with limited octane for blending
components

8Brazil: 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 available, some ICEs
adopted for methane use

24

Paraffinic HVO and Fischer-Tropsch diesel, drop-in, up to 100%
substitution
MethanePassenger cars (mostly bi-fuel methane/gasoline vehicles)
Heavy duty vehicles with either mono-fuel or dual-fuel technology
On-board storage either as compressed biogas (CBG) for LD
vehicles or liquefied biogas (LBG) for HD vehicles
Application in shipping

Biofuels

Various types of bioliquids, including some “biocrudes” less stringent
fuel requirements than in the on-road sector

MethaneMainly dual-fuel engines, fuel storage in liquid form, currently fossil
natural gas, bio-methane could replace natural gas
Application in aviation

Liquid renewable fuels

Current regulation allows up to 50 % renewable components, very
stringent certification process, hydrotreatment (HEFA fuels),
synthesis and e-fuels potential routes to aviation fuels

The easiest way to introduce biocomponents is to operate within the framework of existing
standards for gasoline and diesel fuel. Typically, standards allow blending of ethanol and
FAME biodiesel corresponding up to an energy share 10 - 15 %. Some activities to introduce
intermediate ethanol blends (E20, E25) are under way. However, for higher substitution andmore substantial decarbonization of transport, complementary actions are needed.
Drop-in type fuels are fully fungible with conventional hydrocarbon fuels and compatible withexisting vehicles and fuel infrastructure; no infrastructure or vehicle modifications areneeded. Paraffinic renewable diesel fuel, whether from hydrotreatment of oils and fats (HVO)
or Fischer Tropsch synthesis, can in principle completely substitute fossil diesel and for mostperformance criteria is superior to regular diesel.
B100 is not a real drop-in type fuel, as it requires some changes in calibration, engine
hardware and maintenance schedules. Notwithstanding, some heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers allow the use of B100 fuel in present-day sophisticated vehicles.
In the case of gasoline, there are no superior renewable hydrocarbon drop-in components,
as bio-gasoline hydrocarbon compounds tend to have low octane numbers. New blending
components, such as pure hydrocarbons, higher alcohols or ethers, could alleviate this.
Finally, special fuels can be used as such or as high blends in dedicated or adapted
engines. Such fuels are, e.g., gaseous fuels (methane, LPG), dimethyl ether (DME) and highconcentration alcohol fuels (E85, ED95). These fuels have a merit in chemically simple
structure, and in most cases, also inherently clean burning. However, the market introductionof such fuels has to go hand in hand with building up the refueling infrastructure and thevehicle fleet, requiring huge joint efforts.
The world population of natural gas vehicles exceeds 20 million units. Cleaned biogas,
biomethane, is a drop-in substitute for natural gas. Ethanol flex-fuel vehicles (FFV) are still
offered for the markets in North and South America, but have in practice vanished from theEuropean market. FFVs are a cost-effective way of enabling the use of high concentration
ethanol.
Regardless of the method to introduce biofuels, whether low-level blending, drop-in fuels or
special fuels for dedicated vehicles, fuel quality, vehicle/fuel compatibility and vehicle
25

compliance have to be maintained. Prerequisites are standards defining and securing fuelproperties and vehicles adapted to and certified for the fuels they are using. The fuel issimply not a parameter that can be decoupled from the rest of the system, which comprisesof engine, lubricant, exhaust after-treatment system, refueling infrastructure and regulation
regarding safety and emissions.

Role of policy on production and use of emerging biofuels
Policies have been and will continue to be essential to foster the growth of the advanced
biofuels used to decarbonize transport, particularly long-distance transport. Policies used
include blending mandates, excise tax reductions or exemptions, renewable or low carbon
fuel standards, as well as a variety of fiscal incentives and public financing mechanisms.
Countries that use a mixture of market-pull and technology-push policy instruments havebeen most successful at increasing biofuels production and use and also at developing anddeploying less mature emerging biofuels production technologies.

Figure 22: Technology-push and market-pull biofuel policies

So far, most of the policies used to promote transport decarbonization have focused on roadtransport. Other transport sectors, such as rail, aviation and shipping, have, until recently,
received comparably less policy attention despite being large energy consumers and GHG
emitters. However, transport policies and industry efforts are increasingly focused on
decarbonizing long-haul transport sectors (i.e., road, rail, aviation and shipping), where
electrification is much more challenging.
While the production and use of transport biofuels has more than doubled over the last
decade, progress in expanding biofuels production remains well below the levels required todecarbonize transport significantly. Several factors continue to impact the effectiveness of
biofuels policies such as relatively low petroleum and fossil fuel prices, uncertainty about
future policy and funding programs to support conventional and advanced biofuels, theinconsistent regulation of global trade of biofuels and continuing concerns related to foodsecurity, land use change and overall sustainability.

26

How to reach widespread deployment of renewable fuels
In the course of the study it has become apparent that the countries assessed are aware of
the urgent need for decarbonizing their road transport systems; that the required level ofdecarbonization can only be reached with a set of measures, including biofuels, electricvehicles, and eventually e-fuels; and that globally there is sufficient feedstock available forthe sustainable production of biofuels to be used in vehicles to cover the demand of lowcarbon scenarios. But why is the production and use of biofuels not yet growing as needed?
This question was analyzed in Part 4 of the overall report (“Deployment Barriers and Policy
Recommendations”).

Barriers to widespread deployment
Reflecting the assessments carried out in this project, findings from AMF Annex 59, findings
from the IRENA study, the discussion at the project workshop, and also other existing
literature, the following barriers seem to be most important:•

Well-established transport system to compete with•

Fluctuating policy drivers / lack of long-term stable policies•

Low public acceptance / perception of technical performance issues andsustainability concerns•

Incomplete set of policy measures•

The need to build up infrastructure for alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles
such as FFVs, EVs, FCEVs•

Risks associated with biofuels

Well-established transport system to compete with
What we are looking for if we are to reach the required level of decarbonization, is thetransition into a new transport system that uses multiple alternative fuels in a range ofvehicles. This new, complex system has to compete with the current system, which has
been established and optimized over the past 100 years and offers predictable income to theestablished stakeholders, while the infrastructure required for the future transport system still
has to be built, with higher costs and risks associated and unclear and risky business cases.
Table 3 lists features of the current and the future transport system.
Table 3: Current and future road transport system
Current road transport system

Future road transport system

Well-performing fuel/engine/after-treatment
combinations

Adaptation of fuel/engine/after-treatment
system required

Established material compatibility

Ev. lack of material compatibility

Many vehicle models available

Few models available

Robust vehicle repair infrastructure

New repair knowledge required

Good driving range

Sometimes lower driving range

Well-established fuel production

Fuel production infrastructure has to be built

27

Limited number of fuel options provided

Large variety of alternative fuels

Ubiquitous refueling infrastructures

Refueling infrastructure has to be built andmight not be profitable

Existing fleet uses existing fuels

New fleet has to be built up

The system of stakeholders in the established transport sector (as depicted in Figure 23)
includes the fossil fuel industry and fuel marketers, the automotive industry and vehicle
marketers, and the consumers freight sector and private car owners. In the new system, newstakeholders come into the picture, such as biomass producers and biofuel producers, andexisting stakeholders are expected to adapt their businesses to produce alternative fuels andalternative vehicles. Doing so is not economic for any of these stakeholders unless policies
set regulations to offset the increased production and infrastructure costs. As a result, thebiofuels market depends on political interventions. Thus, it is of major importance that policy
sends strong signals and keeps up the support for renewable fuels over a long period oftime. Workshop participants even called for targets for renewable fuels in 2040 and 2050 tobe communicated already now.

Figure 23: Multitude of stakeholders involved in the market implementation of alternative fuels and vehicles

Fluctuating policy drivers
However, policy drivers are often fluctuating, as described earlier for the example of theUSA. Through improvements in the existing system, the driver towards renewable fuelsbecame weaker and ineffective, and the new fuels and vehicles, not yet fully established,vanished from the market again.
Public perception
Another very important aspect is the public perception of new fuels. The debate around theimplications that large-scale production of biofuels could have on GHG emissions throughdirect and indirect land use change (LUC and iLUC) has stalled the growth of establishedbiofuels production and use in Europe. And although EU policy has been adapted and now
includes measures to safeguard the sustainability of biofuels, the public image of biofuelsremains severely damaged.
Incomplete set of policy measures
For the market introduction of alternative fuels and vehicles it is also important to provide a28set of carefully balanced policy measures that considers all stakeholders in the transportsystem and offers benefits to each of them. Also, the very details of regulations can create
serious problems, as currently is the case with EU state aid rules that are in conflict with tax
benefits for biofuels.
As to not forget any of the multiple stakeholders in the transport sector, Argonne National
Laboratory has developed a checklist that can be used to assess whether everyone´s needs
have been considered9. While it might be obvious to talk to the fossil fuel industry and also to
the automotive industry, a group that can rather easily be forgotten is private car owners.
While freight operators act based on economic considerations and this is their main
business, private car owners often lack sufficient insight into the pros and cons of themultitude of vehicle and powertrain/fuel options. Their knowledge is rather based on what isreported in the media, with magazines of motorist associations often playing a major role.
The influence of these advocates should not be underestimated, and they should be
involved in efforts to introduce alternative fuels and vehicles.
Infrastructure requirements
Renewable fuels can, depending on their chemical nature, be applied in engines as low
blends, high blends, or neat, as drop-in fuels or with the need for adapted engines orvehicles. Also they can be produced in stand-alone biofuel production facilities, or throughco-processing in refineries, or from CO2 and hydrogen in e-fuels facilities. The introduction ofrenewable fuels to the market always requires investment in some type of new infrastructure,
be it biofuel or e-fuel production facilities, adaptation of refineries, adaptation of engine andvehicle production systems, purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, or adaptation of fuelpumps. These investments will be made by different actors from within the broad range ofstakeholders involved, and they will only be made if the actors can define their businesscase. Policy makers should be aware of these multiple options and they need to find thesolution that works best for their country.
Risks associated with the take-up of low-carbon fuels
Different fuels face different barriers which need to be recognized in designing policy
portfolios to promote more widespread deployment. These relate to
•
•
•
•
•

Technical risk
Economic competitiveness
Ease of integration of fuels
Availability of appropriate feedstock, meeting sustainability requirements
Perception of associated sustainability risks

9Risch, C. E., Santini, D. J., and Johnson, L. R. Using Checklists to Assess Your Transition to Alternative Fuels: A
Technical Reference. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.2172/1344887

29

Table 4 summarizes the points above, highlighting key barriers to more widespread
deployment.
Table 4: Main risks for biofuels

Technology risk

EconomicCompetitiveness

Fuel integration

Sustainable
Feedstockavailability

Ethanol
Biodiesel
HVO
Biomethane
Cellulosic ethanol
Thermochemical
biofuelsKey:
No significant barrier
Some barriers
Major barriers

Policy requirements for increased advanced transport fuels deployment
Long term and stable policy frameworks are essential to foster growth of renewable transport
fuels. An appropriate policy portfolio would include measures to “level the playing field” byremoving fossil fuel subsidies and putting effective carbon pricing mechanisms in place. The
portfolio also includes specific targets for low-carbon fuels, and mechanisms to ensure thatthe fuels are competitive in the transport market, along with a stringent, evidence-basedsustainability governance regime.
Additional measures are needed to promote the development of these fuels and processes,
since these will not initially be able to compete in a “technology-neutral” policy environment.
These can include:•

Mandatory obligations for deployment of emerging biofuels and for specificsubcategories that are at different stages of technical and market maturity.

•

Appropriate and dedicated financial mechanisms and instruments to facilitate
technological development and subsequent market deployment. These can include
loan guarantees, and ways of bridging the initial cost differences between the novel
energy sources and more established ones (fossil or other bioenergy).

•

Support for RD&D focused on priorities identified in previous sections.

Policy best practice
Policy best practice for the deployment of conventional biofuels such as ethanol, biodiesel(FAME), HVO, and biomethane already exists in a number of countries. The main elementsof policy portfolios which have been successfully adopted include:•

Blending mandates which make a percentage of biofuels mandatory. These are30

widely in place but not always effective if there are insufficient penalties for noncompliance, and arrangements to share any additional costs amongst market players(such as a certificate scheme). The mandates also need to be consistent with fuelspecifications and blending regulations.
•

There is growing trend to move to systems which incentivize transport fuels based on
their GHG impacts (such as the Californian LCFS, the Brazilian RenovaBio scheme
and various programs in Europe). These provide a significant incentive to move tohigher biofuels blend levels and to encourage the development of more GHG efficientfuels.

•

Strict but consistent sustainability guidelines are needed to ensure fuels meetnecessary environmental, social and economic goals.

However, the same set of measures does not sufficiently support the market introduction of
emerging biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and fuels based on thermochemical
technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis. Policy measures which can support the
introduction of these processes include:•

Separate obligations for new fuels with high rewards to reflect likely high cost of firstsuccessful plants (e.g. US RFS2 provision for cellulosic fuels)•

Continuing support for RD&D, recognizing especially the extended period likely to beneeded in order to commission novel plants and to solve problems which inevitably
arise when operation at commercial scale commences.

•

Risk guarantees such as those available within the US can help reduce the financial
risk associated with constructing large scale first of a kind facilities.

Finally, suggestions made by the participating industry representatives during the policy
workshop on 18 November 2019 in Brussels include:•

to install some sort of carbon price•to focus on the carbon intensity of renewable fuels•

to get the oil majors involved,•

to establish a requirement to phase out fossil fuels in the transport sector, and•to allow the automotive industry to count the GHG emission reductions offered by theuse of renewable fuels against their CO2 fleet targets (which could then be
strengthened).

Final remarks
With the above tools at hand, each government has to find the right alternative fuels andvehicles to go for, and to find the right set of policy measures for the particular nationalsituation at a given time. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to decarbonize transport.
The only constant is that bold action needs to be taken now to reach decarbonization at therequired level and speed.

31Abbreviations
2DS

AMF

IEA 2 Degree Scenario, compatible with the goal of limiting global heating to 2°C
by 2100
Model used by VTT to calculate the future composition of vehicle fleets in thisstudy
Advanced Motor Fuels

B5, B7,…

Diesel blends with x% FAMEBAUBusiness as usual

CCU

Carbon capture and utilizationCPS

IEA Current Policies Scenario

E5, E10,…

Gasoline blends with x% ethanol

EPE

Brazilian Energy Research Office

ETBE

Ethyl tert-butyl ether, ethanol-containing gasoline additive

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

FY

Fiscal YearGHG

greenhouse gases

HDT

Heavy duty truck

HEFA

Hydrotreated esters and fatty acids

HEV

Hybrid electric vehicle

HVO

Hydrotreated vegetable oils

ICE

Internal combustion engine

IEA

International Energy Agency

ILUC

Indirect land-use change

IRENAInternational Renewable Energy Agency

LCA

Life-cycle assessment

LCFS

Low-carbon Fuel Standard, Californian regulation

LPG

Liquefied petroleum gas (auto gas)

LUC

Land-use change

MDT

Medium duty truck

ALIISA

32

MTBE

Methyl tert-butyl ether, methanol-containing gasoline additive

NPS

IEA New Policies Scenario

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

SDS

IEA Sustainable Development Scenario

TCP

Technology Collaboration Programme (of the IEA)

TRLTechnology Readiness LevelTTW CO2emissions
UCO

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

USD

United States (of America) Dollar

used cooking oil

33