<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  	<channel>
    	<title>CE Delft - Biomass</title>
		<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012, CE Delft</copyright>
		<link>http://www.ce.nl/ce/rapporten/114/</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.cedelft.euindex.php?go=home.showRapportenRSS&amp;pagenr=279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<language>nl</language>
		<description>CE Delft Rich Site Summary</description>
		<webMaster>webmaster@ce.nl (Webmaster)</webMaster>
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/sustainability_of_biomass_in_a_bio-based_economy/1218</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/sustainability_of_biomass_in_a_bio-based_economy/1218</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In considering sustainable biomass production, land use is the most critical issue,&amp;nbsp;especially the indirect land-use impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity.&amp;nbsp;The use of waste resources and agricultural and forestry residues, that does not&amp;nbsp;involve additional land use, therefore, would be a sustainable option. Technically, it is&amp;nbsp;possible to use these types of resources for most applications in a bio-based economy.&amp;nbsp;However, it seems unlikely that, by 2030, waste and residue resources will contribute&amp;nbsp;more than three to four per cent to the final energy and feedstock consumption in&amp;nbsp;Europe. Moreover, many waste and residue resources currently already have useful&amp;nbsp;applications; for instance, as feed or soil improvers.
Three priorities can be distinguished in the transition to an ecologically sustainable&amp;nbsp;bio-based economy that aims to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels:

    develop new technologies, procedures and infrastructure to collect or to produce&amp;nbsp;more biomass without using directly or indirectly valuable natural land
    develop technologies to produce hydrocarbons from types of biomass that have&amp;nbsp;potentially the highest sustainable supply (lignocellulosic biomass), and stimulate&amp;nbsp;the application of these hydrocarbons in sectors of the economy where no or very&amp;nbsp;few fossil-free alternatives exist;
    develop a system of criteria, certification schemes and enforcement for all types of&amp;nbsp;biomass that aims to reduce the impact of direct and indirect land use on&amp;nbsp;greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity, to extend the current EU system that is&amp;nbsp;restricted to the direct impacts of transport biofuels.

&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:24:41 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economic instruments for biodiversity]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_biodiversity/1185</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Dutch Taskforce on Biodiversity and Natural Resources has set up an Economic Instruments workgroup to assess how the recommendations of the TEEB report can be worked up into concrete Dutch policy measures. Based on that report and internal discussions, the workgroup has selected a series of issues for further study and elaboration. For these issues CE Delft was asked to design policy proposals that are both practicable and lead to better protection of biodiversity, not only in the Netherlands, but also by reducing the ecological footprint of Dutch consumption patterns in other countries.

The following proposals have been investigated and/or elaborated in policy terms:

    lowering the social discount rate
    further greening of the tax system
    an import charge on bulk commodities
    a tax on non-sustainable timber
    a tax on development of greenfield sites
    a differentiated tax on animal protein
    a review of incentive schemes for biomass projects&amp;nbsp;
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:12:58 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Biodiversity and Land Use]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biodiversity_and_land_use/1157</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biodiversity_and_land_use/1157</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In a project commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, CE Delft explored whether indicators that link m2 land used for economic activities with biodiversity, are available and whether they could be applied in the various areas of policy-making in which biodiversity is an important issue.

CE Delft selected three indicators to examine in more detail: 
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The Mean Species Abundance indicator (MSA), developed under the TEEB program
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ReCiPe LCA methodology
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The biodiversity impact indicator developed by TNO. 

All three indicators employ the relative reduction in biodiversity compared with the pristine baseline situation to describe the impact of different kinds of land use on biodiversity. 

Each of the identified indicators has its strengths, limitations and specific features.
For application in policies, the ReCiPe indicator would be the most suitable methodology in the current situation, mainly because of its integration in LCA methodology. Its value and that of the other two indicators could be improved by improving the extensiveness and level of detail of the underlying datasets. Furthermore, combining the different methodological features of the three identified indicators would improve their value in policy applications.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:54:02 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Opportunities for Green Gas]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/opportunities_for_green_gas/1171</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/opportunities_for_green_gas/1171</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Biogas, or Green Gas, appears to be an interesting option for improving the sustainability of the Dutch economy through greatly increased use of gas in the energy supply. However, the biomass used as a feedstock for biogas can also be used for producing electricity, biodiesel, bio-ethanol, bioplastics, &amp;lsquo;green chemicals&amp;rsquo; and even bio-steel. In this brief report the key features of using biomass for gas production are compared with options in other sectors. The comparison indicates that it is above all wet biomass flows (like manure and household biowaste) that are suitable for conversion to biogas. In 2020 this could potentially provide between 1 and 1.5 billion Nm3 gas. Although gasification of dry biomass may also eventually become an interesting option, in this case there will be strong competition from power generators, for whom solid biomass is a viable feedstock. In the course of time dry biomass may become attractive for the steel, chemicals and transport sectors, too.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:54:48 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Review of a report on the atmospheric emissions of wood-burning stoves]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/review_of_a_report_on_the_atmospheric_emissions_of_wood-burning_stoves/1101</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/review_of_a_report_on_the_atmospheric_emissions_of_wood-burning_stoves/1101</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of Groningen local authority, Buro Blauw carried out a study on the data available on the emissions of wood-burning stoves. As part of this study the impact of these emissions on the area around the harbour location &amp;lsquo;Noorderhaven Groningen&amp;rsquo; was also assessed.

The Groningen chapter of Friends of the Earth (Milieudefensie) had a number of queries regarding the assumptions and results of the Buro Blauw study and asked CE Delft for a second opinion.

Because of the assumptions made by Buro Blauw, the approach adopted in their study leads to a serious underestimate of the contribution of wood-burning stoves to outdoor air pollution levels. Particularly in the vicinity of the harbour-moored houseboats, the standards for PM10 en PAH will be exceeded, as will acceptable levels of &amp;lsquo;stench&amp;rsquo;. Given these conclusions, it is recommended that the calculations be redone under more realistic assumptions. In addition, it is recommended that long-term monitoring of PM10 levels be undertaken at the Noorderhaven location in order to validate the calculations. This can readily be done in combination with monitoring of levoglucosan, cited by ECN in this context as a &amp;lsquo;guide pollutant&amp;rsquo;.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:22:22 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[BUBE: Better Use of Biomass for EnergyBackground Report to the Position Paper of IEA REDT and IEA Bioenergy]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/bube%3A_better_use_of_biomass_for_energy%3Cbr%3Ebackground_report_to_the_position_paper_of_iea_redt_and_iea_bioenergy/1104</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/bube%3A_better_use_of_biomass_for_energy%3Cbr%3Ebackground_report_to_the_position_paper_of_iea_redt_and_iea_bioenergy/1104</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report aims to provide a document that gives guidance on the issue of biomass energy policies in OECD countries. How can the use of biomass for energy be improved, in order to make better use of sustainable biomass potential and increase the positive and reduce the negative impacts?&amp;nbsp;

The first step in the biomass-to-energy chain is supply and production of the biomass. These processes can be improved by various means, in particular by improving domestic supply and trade and reducing the environmental impact of biomass production. The use of land for bioenergy crop cultivation and any associated land use changes are key to the environmental performance of bioenergy, its socio-economic impacts and competition with food and feed. The second step is conversion and use. The key issues for improving these steps in the biomass-to-bioenergy chain are improving the efficiency of conversion and use and using low-carbon auxiliary energy sources in the processes. To support policy-makers in their efforts to improve policies related to biomass for energy, the report also provides a list of criteria for better use of biomass for this purpose.

This study was jointly commissioned by IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy. The main conclusions and messages from this project were published in a joint IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy Position Paper and presented at the COP15 in December 2009. This paper can be downloaded here and at www.iea-retd.org.


&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:17:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Biofuels: indirect land use change and climate impact]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biofuels%3A_indirect_land_use_change_and_climate_impact/1068</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biofuels%3A_indirect_land_use_change_and_climate_impact/1068</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[By promoting biofuels European governments aim to achieve a 70 Mt reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Production of these fuels requires vast areas of arable land, possibly leading to deforestation, whether directly or indirectly.

CE Delft has evaluated 7 agro-economic models used to estimate the latter, indirect form of land use change, or ILUC. The conclusion is that all the models predict a substantial ILUC effect. ILUC-related GHG emissions are on average of the same magnitude as the direct emission cuts achieved, which means the carbon footprint of today&amp;lsquo;s &amp;lsquo;first generation&amp;rsquo; biofuels is generally no better than that of fossil fuels.

ILUC can be prevented by using waste materials as biofuel feedstocks, by cultivating biofuel crops on degraded land or through additional agricultural intensification. European governments can promote these lower-carbon alternatives by introducing an &amp;lsquo;ILUC factor&amp;rsquo; in the rules used to calculate the net GHG emissions of biofuels. The report presents concrete options for such factors.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:33:58 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Gas-powered driving and sailing - The cost and environmental impact of natural gas and green gas as transport fuels]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/gas-powered_driving_and_sailing_-_the_cost_and_environmental_impact_of_natural_gas_and_green_gas_as_transport_fuels/1052</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/gas-powered_driving_and_sailing_-_the_cost_and_environmental_impact_of_natural_gas_and_green_gas_as_transport_fuels/1052</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In recent years a number of new gaseous fuels have emerged for road vehicles and ships: compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biogas from a variety of sources including manure digestion and landfill gas (bio-CNG or bio-LNG). CE Delft has investigated the costs and environmental impact of these uses of gas, and compared them with those of conventional diesel and the &amp;lsquo;regular&amp;rsquo; biofuels&amp;nbsp; biodiesel and bio-ethanol. 

The CO2 emissions of the green gas routes are substantially lower than for diesel (an 80-90% reduction). The natural gas routes can also reduce CO2 emissions (by 15-35%), but this depends very much on where the natural gas is sourced. The green gas applications lead to considerably lower CO2 emissions than biodiesel and wheat-based bio-ethanol. In all cases, air pollutant emissions are also considerably lower.
The basic costs of driving and sailing on these fuels (i.e. exclusive of charges and taxes) are generally substantially higher than in the case of diesel, but in certain applications may be similar to or lower than for liquid biofuels.
The study was commissioned by the New Gas Platform, part of the Netherlands&amp;rsquo; Energy Transition.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:30:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Good use of biomass - summary]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/good_use_of_biomass_-_summary/1039</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/good_use_of_biomass_-_summary/1039</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Biomass can be used for various applications in many sectors. It is now becoming clearer that the supply of produced biomass is constrained by sustainability criteria. So the question is: 'what are the best places in the economy where biomass should be used?' In short: what is good use of biomass?

You can download the English summary of this study. The full report is in Dutch.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 21:36:48 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_the_belgian_carpet_supply_chain_/1045</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) a brief study was conducted on the environmental impact of the Belgian carpet supply chain, as part of the project &amp;ldquo;Partnership in the carpet chain to address sustainable resource use&amp;rdquo;. To this end a &amp;lsquo;rough and ready&amp;rsquo; LCA study was carried out to gain insight into three issues:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;

    The respective impact of various pile materials.
    The impact of various scenarios for waste disposal of the entire carpet, diversified for two frequently used pile materials.
    The relative impact of the various links in the carpet product chain.

The supply chain was modelled with the LCA software package Simapro, using the EcoInvent database and existing LCA studies, supplemented with data from the literature. For the extraction/production of pile materials a range of environmental impacts were assessed, while for the other links the climate impact expressed as cumulative energy demand (CED) was taken as a measure of overall environmental impact.

Some of the main conclusions:

    Raw materials production contributes most to environmental impact. Product maintenance also accounts for a substantial share, but is preferable to no maintenance and premature disposal. Production processes come in the third place.
    High-quality recycling does not always bring climate benefits. This is due to the complexity of the polymer being recycled as well as the complexity of the processing method. Future developments, such as improved recycling techniques and a shift in the overall energy supply to renewable sources may change this picture, however.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 14:51:21 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Better Use of Biomass for Energy]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/better_use_of_biomass_for_energy/1059</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/better_use_of_biomass_for_energy/1059</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[What are the opportunities for bio-energy to achieve greenhouse gas reduction? Which opportunities offers bio-energy in a sustainable optimum use? These are the key questions in a study whose results are presented during the climate summit in Copenhagen. The conclusion is that there is a large number of possibilities for better use of biomass for energy both on the supply side and production of biomass and also in the conversion to a finished product (electricity, heat, transport, etc.).
Clients of this study were the International Energy Agency (IEA) Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (retd) and IEA Bio-energy. 
The study was conducted in cooperation with the &amp;Ouml;ko Institut, AIDEnvironment and the Clingendael International Energy Program. Shortly, the background document will be published. 
You can download the Position Paper en de Presentation presented on the Copenhage summit.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:16:19 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[New Roads for Transport]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/new_roads_for_transport/984</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/new_roads_for_transport/984</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Under a recently adopted European directive, 10% of the Netherlands&amp;rsquo; transport fuels must be renewably sourced by the year 2020. Biofuels are the only renewable option that have been rolled out to date, but over the past few years there have been growing doubts as to their sustainability. This led the Dutch section of Friends of the Earth International, Milieudefensie, to ask CE Delft to review other available options and elaborate an alternative scenario for securing the 10% transport energy target. 

This study indicates that renewably powered electric transport could represent a serious option for the Netherlands to comply with its EU obligations. This will require major efforts as well as technological breakthroughs, though. As at present, biofuels produced from used chip fat can also make a small contribution.

Other options like switching from car transport to electrically powered bicycle can yield substantial CO2 gains, as can switching to tram and metro. This will do little to help achieve the 10% target, however, which relates to the share of renewables rather than to CO2 emission cuts. Slowing the growth of transport energy demand is another way to achieve major CO2 cuts, in fact more so than by securing the 10% renewable energy target. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 09:58:19 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Greenhouse gas emissions due to deforestation]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/greenhouse_gas_emissions_due_to_deforestation/961</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/greenhouse_gas_emissions_due_to_deforestation/961</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Netherlands is a major importer of tropical products like timber, soya, palm oil and pulp. For production of these commodities, natural forests are damaged and clear-felled. In this study, carried out by CE Delft at the request of Greenpeace-Netherlands, the greenhouse gas emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation have been estimated. Because of the marked rise in imports of palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia in recent years, the study focuses on these two countries, with additional focus on other major products from these countries like timber.

The calculations were performed using the methodology developed for this purpose by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In the period up to and including 2005, the forest degradation/destruction in Indonesia and Malaysia that can be ascribed to the Netherlands led to greenhouse gas emissions totalling 12 to 25 Mt/year, equivalent to some 5-10% of total GHG emissions in the Netherlands itself. Because of the subsequent sharp rise in forest degradation/destruction, in 2006 and 2007 these emissions had increased to 30-32 Mt/y, equivalent to 15% of total Dutch emissions.

The curbing of deforestation is a key issue in the run-up to the climate conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

The results of this study apportion major responsibility to the Netherlands and other countries importing farm and forestry products from the tropics. The study is highly relevant for the current debate on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), a pivotal element of ongoing climate negotiations.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:49:31 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Economic instruments for sustainably produced timber]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_sustainably_produced_timber/965</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/economic_instruments_for_sustainably_produced_timber/965</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of the Dutch Environment ministry (VROM), CE Delft has reviewed several economic policy instruments for increasing the share of sustainably produced timber in products marketed in the Netherlands. The brief was to elaborate a tax measure, a form of private &amp;quot;greening&amp;quot; and creation of a fund, with the timber procurement criteria laid down by national government serving as criteria for sustainably produced timber. The ministry wanted the various policies as well as the criteria held up against national legislation, EU regulations and WTO accords to assess their legal status. To the extent that the instruments or criteria failed this test, the ministry requested they be revised to bring them into conformity. The final element of the brief was to analyse the economic impacts of the policies in question.&amp;nbsp; 

In this study only the three economic policy instruments cited were reviewed, with no investigation of alternative options like mandatory obligations, outright bans and/or public education by means of information campaigns. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:03:41 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Calculating greenhouse gas emissions of EU biofuels]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/calculating_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_eu_biofuels/847</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/calculating_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_eu_biofuels/847</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Early 2008, the European Commission published a proposal on renewable energy that included a biofuel target for 2020 and a methodology with which the sustainability of biofuels can be monitored - including a calculation methodology for determining net GHG emissions. Greenpeace requested CE Delft to draft a report that analyses the GHG methodology proposed by the EC and proposes potential improvements.   We conclude that the GHG emission calculation methodology as proposed is more the start of the development of a methodology than a mature methodology. &amp;bull; Default values required for application as a tool are lacking; &amp;bull; Calculation methodologies for important GHG emission contributions such as N2O emissions and soil organic carbon stock changes are not specified; &amp;bull; Indirect land use change and several other items included in IPCC methodology are lacking in the EU proposal.  We furthermore conclude that a generic and relatively simple GHG emission calculation tool will probably always be too crude an instrument to produce a reasonably accurate estimation of GHG emissions. Alternative policy options ensuring GHG emissions are not underestimated could be:  &amp;bull; A &amp;lsquo;no regret&amp;rsquo; short list with respect to cultivation site, utilizable crops, cultivation practice, conversion technology, etc. &amp;bull; A GHG calculation tool with a conservative approach to include intricately determinable emissions, such as indirect land use change.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:28:15 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[An alternative to 5.75% biofuels in 2010]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_alternative_to_5.75%25_biofuels_in_2010/838</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_alternative_to_5.75%25_biofuels_in_2010/838</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the last few years doubts have arisen about whether the current genera-tion of biofuels indeed lead to environmental gains. The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment (Stichting Natuur en Milieu) therefore commis-sioned CE Delft to assess whether greater benefits can be achieved at similar cost using alternative measures.   Increasing the share of biofuels to 5.75% is anticipated to cost the average motorist about 3 to 4 eurocents per litre fuel in 2010. Lowering this figure to 2.5% would make the biofuels programme around 260 million euro cheaper. At the heart of the alternative package is to use 200 million of these savings for a different set of climate protection measures. These funds can be col-lected by the government by retaining the official target of 5.75% of current biofuels policy but augmenting it with introduction of an attractive buy-out scheme for oil companies for sales over and above 2.5%.  The main elements of the proposed alternative policy package are electrically powered vehicles, use of wood as a refinery feedstock, sustainable bio-electricity, offshore wind power, concentrated solar thermal power in Morocco, blue energy (from mixing fresh and salt water) and research into second-generation biofuels.  The alternative package reduces competition between fuel and food. It also leads to at least 1.4 Mt greater savings on greenhouse gas emissions than 5.75% biofuels. Finally, the alternative package means greater investments in the transition to a sustainable energy supply.   Europe  If the target for the share of biofuels were lowered to 2.5% in 2010 across the European Union, the budget available for alternative policies would be an es-timated 6.2 billion euro a year. If that budget were used to promote electric transport, sustainable bio-electricity, offshore wind power, energy from waste, concentrated solar power in North Africa and research on second-generation biofuels, it would probably lead to at least 30 Mt greater savings on CO2 emis-sions than the EU&amp;rsquo;s current biofuels programme.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:21:05 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/review_of_the_indirect_effects_of_biofuels/823</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/review_of_the_indirect_effects_of_biofuels/823</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year, the UK Renewables Fuels Agency (RFA) was asked to undertake a Re-view of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels. Various reports had been published that suggested that an increasing demand for biofuels might indirectly cause carbon emissions because of land use change, and concerns were raised that it may also be causing food commodity price increases. RFA then commissioned a number of studies to collect evidence for this review. CE Delft contributed to this review, also known as the Gallagher report, with two studies.   Estimating indirect land use impacts from by-products utilization This analysis focuses on the utilization of by-products from so-called first generation biofu-els production technologies as feed and as fuel: &amp;bull; Application as feed avoids cultivation of primary feed crops such as soy, wheat and corn and thus reduces area requirement for cultivation of these crops. Reduction in area requirement might in a marginal case also mean avoiding deforestation for creation of extra agricultural area. &amp;bull; By-products utilization as fuel will avoid fossil fuel consumption and related GHG-emissions.  We estimated that when applied as feed, the total amount of 60 &amp;ndash; 115 Mtonnes/a of wheat and corn DG  and rape seed meal can compete with soy meal as a protein source and with locally produced wheat and corn as energy sources. DG&amp;rsquo;s and rape meal quality and the size of the global feed market do not seem to be a limiting condition for feed application of the entire amount of by-products in any of E4Tech&amp;rsquo;s scenario&amp;rsquo;s.  Agricultural land availability and demand in 2020 This report addresses the following issues:  &amp;bull; Current and anticipated future drivers and demand (to 2020) for land and feedstock for food, feed and other commodities. &amp;bull; Global agricultural land availability. &amp;bull; The demand and availability of agricultural land for biofuels in 2020 The report shows that food and feed production are the main sources of demand for agricultural land, and it is expected that the demand for agricultural crops for food and feed will increase significantly in the next decades. Despite an increase of agricultural yields, the agricultural land demand for food and feed is expected to grow by 200-500 Mha until 2020.Current biofuels production may also increase significantly in the next decade. The global biofuel scenarios developed in the framework of this RFA review result in a land use in 2020 that varies between 73 and 276 Mha.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:19:45 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Air quality impact of measures under the Apeldoorn Energy and Climate programme]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/air_quality_impact_of_measures_under_the_apeldoorn_energy_and_climate_programme/867</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/air_quality_impact_of_measures_under_the_apeldoorn_energy_and_climate_programme/867</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[CE Delft was commissioned by the municipality of Apeldoorn to review whether the latter’s current energy policy has an impact on local air quality and, if so, what that impact is. In addition, Apeldoorn wanted to know whether the restructuring of the North Canal industrial area and construction of biomass-fired generation capacity are of influence on air quality.

Most of the measures assessed relate to energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources, both of which have a favourable impact on nitrogen oxide emissions and thus on ambient NO2 concentrations. This holds on both a local and national scale. The resultant decrease in NO2 levels will not be particularly great, however, because the main sources of NO2 are traffic and industry. These measures have no effect on airborne particulates. Burning wood (alone or with other fuels), particularly in wood stoves and open fireplaces, will lead to an increase in particulate emissions and related pollutants like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Increased use of wood stoves and open fireplaces will therefore have an adverse impact on air quality and public health.

Restructuring of the North Canal industrial estate will likewise impact negatively on air quality because of increased road traffic. Given the large size of the area, though, no major problems are to be anticipated. An analysis of the air quality impact of construction and operation of biomass-fired generation capacity shows that although air quality will be affected by the scheduled power plant, limits will not be exceeded.

Because of the positive impact of energy conservation and use of renewable energy, it is recommended to continue down this road, but with the proviso that using biomass or wood as a renewable energy source may have negative air quality impacts, thereby necessitating additional emission abatement measures.

When it comes to further restructuring of industrial estates, serious efforts will have to made each time to address the resultant increase in traffic volumes. This can be achieved by building sufficient access roads and ensuring good public transport right from the start of the project.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ETBE and Ethanol: A Comparison of CO2 savings]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/etbe_and_ethanol%3A_a_comparison_of_co2_savings/716</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/etbe_and_ethanol%3A_a_comparison_of_co2_savings/716</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[More and more attention is currently given to the sustainability of biofuels. Especially the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction that is achieved with different biofuels is getting increased attention. GHG savings may vary significantly for different biofuels, and the EU and several Member States are looking for options to differentiate between biofuels according to their actual GHG savings. The European Fuel Oxygenates Association (EFOA) now wants to draw attention to an omission of current life cycle analyses (LCAs). LCA studies, even detailed well-to-wheel analyses, assume that ETBE and bio-ethanol replace MTBE and/or gasoline, and that the base gasoline is not changed. In reality, however, refiners will adjust their refinery operation when bio-ethanol or ETBE is added, because of the different characteristics of these products. EFOA has therefore asked CE Delft to conduct a study to investigate this issue. The study looks at two scenarios: substitution of MTBE and gasoline components a) by 5 vol% ethanol, or b) by an equivalent amount of ETBE. The GHG emissions of these scenarios were compared with each other, and with the emissions of the reference situation in which no ethanol is used. For the calculations a refinery model was set up, based on data and information from literature. The results indicate that the net effect of these refinery modifications on the GHG emissions is positive, i.e. GHG emissions reduce in both cases. The emission reduction is significant in the case of ETBE. This is mainly due to the high RON of ETBE, which allows for less severe process conditions in the refinery processes and hence lower energy consumption. This advantage for ETBE is to some extent undone by the higher GHG emissions related to production of ETBE and the production of extra isobutylene. We recommend to consider including this effect in the biofuel CO2 tools currently being developed, and to include an estimate of effects on refinery operations in future LCAs on ethanol and ETBE.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:31:10 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Biomass: from controversy to development agenda*]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biomass%3A_from_controversy_to_development_agenda%2A/759</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biomass%3A_from_controversy_to_development_agenda%2A/759</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Biomass is moving increasingly into the spotlight as an energy source, but it is also eliciting increasing debate. Biomass is seen as playing a key role, providing massive opportunities. Based in part on its estimated potential, policy-makers are now setting targets, in the United States as well the EU, including the Netherlands. It is as if policy-makers were on a quest for a ‘green grail’. There are also doubts, though: is all this really feasible? Is there really all this scope and, indeed, physical space for biomass? Or do the drawbacks outweigh the benefits? 

At the request of the Netherlands Energy Council (AER). the environmental consultancy Advies voor duurzaamheid teamed up with CE Delft to analyse the debate. What are the pivotal issues? How are these amenable to influence? And how can the controversy be transformed into a widely supported development agenda? At a round-table meeting with the Netherlands’ key biomass experts a solid step in this direction was taken. 
 
The main conclusion is that the present behaviour of the biomass industry is not what was predicted in earlier studies of technical potential. These studies reported on vast tracts of marginal land and a broad range of waste streams being interesting sources of biomass, but in the real world the market is using highly productive, fertile soils for its raw materials. This very different trend is readily explainable (the government policies driving the market reward unsustainable biomass just as much as sustainable), but creates major risks in terms of competition with food and ecosystem destruction. To reverse this trend requires a new development agenda for biomass, agriculture and livestock production. Elements of such an agenda are provided in this advisory document, in which the core recommendation is to achieve better integration of global policies in the realms of spatial planning, farming and conservation. 


]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The feasibility of 5.75% biofuels by 2010: potential and main constraints]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_feasibility_of_5.75%25_biofuels_by_2010%3A_potential_and_main_constraints/563</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_feasibility_of_5.75%25_biofuels_by_2010%3A_potential_and_main_constraints/563</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In 2006 the Dutch government passed legislation decreeing that in 2007 2% of the transport fuels sold by oil companies must consist of biofuels, with this percentage rising to 5.75% in 2010. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency MNP asked CE Delft to assess the feasibility of the oil companies honouring the 2010 obligation and identify any societal constraints that might stand in the way.

The report concludes that the 5.75% target will be hard to achieve, but not impossible. Although there is set to be a major increase in biomass and biofuel production capacity over the next few years, biomass supplies and production capacity will both remain tight, which is likely to drive up the cost of biofuels in the years ahead. Secondly, sales of this proportion of biofuels will be hampered by current fuel specifications. Finally, the vehicle fleet in the Netherlands is not yet equipped to handle this target of 5.75%. To remove these constraints, there will have to be a number of policy changes in the years ahead. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[	Biofuels and their global influence on land availability for agriculture and nature]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/%09biofuels_and_their_global_influence_on_land_availability_for_agriculture_and_nature/505</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/%09biofuels_and_their_global_influence_on_land_availability_for_agriculture_and_nature/505</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[At the request of Unilever International, CE Delft has carried out a pilot study on biomass-based transport fuels and their impact on global land use. Not only in the Netherlands and the EU but elsewhere, too, demand for biofuels has risen sharply in recent years, in response to (new) government policy rewarding use of these fuels or making it compulsory. It is anticipated that policies in this area will be further intensified in the years ahead, implying to a continuation of this trend. Production of these biofuels requires immense quantities of raw materials. At the moment these are the same agricultural crops as those used by the food industry, which has led to direct competition between biofuel companies and food producers. To meet this added demand for raw materials, moreover, the amount of land being cropped worldwide is being extended ever further, threatening biodiversity at both the regional and global scale. 

One way to reduce both competition with the food industry and impacts on nature and biodiversity is to opt for biofuels embodying high CO2 cuts per hectare. This will require innovation in both agriculture and biofuel technology, as detailed in this report along with several other conclusions.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A greenhouse gas calculation methodology for biomass-based power, heat and fuels*]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_greenhouse_gas_calculation_methodology_for_biomass-based_power%2C_heat_and_fuels%2A/567</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_greenhouse_gas_calculation_methodology_for_biomass-based_power%2C_heat_and_fuels%2A/567</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[A Dutch government commission is currently drawing up sustainability criteria for the production of electricity, heat and transport fuels from biomass. At their request, CE Delft has elaborated a methodology for calculating the species and quantities of greenhouse gases emitted in the respective processes. The study was carried out in partnership with Utrecht University and in consultation with other, international experts. 

For more information, contact project leader Geert Bergsma, bergsma@ce.nl, of tel. 015 2150 150.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[High-energy nature on and around the De Veluwe national park]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/high-energy_nature_on_and_around_the_de_veluwe_national_park/494</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/high-energy_nature_on_and_around_the_de_veluwe_national_park/494</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report, commissioned by the Shell Research Foundation, describes a concept for harvesting more biomass for energy on and around the Netherlands’ De Veluwe national park in such a way that nature comes out stronger. Its implementation would allow biomass to make a welcome contribution to nature conservation and nature development. 

Dutch conservation policy is not on track, witness recent reports from the National Auditor’s Office and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, among others. New ‘push factors’ for nature development are therefore urgently needed. From the perspective of the transition to sustainable energy systems, too, ‘high-energy nature’ is important. In many energy scenarios biomass is set to play an ever greater role, but there are major concerns that this trend will be at the expense of nature, biodiversity and food production. The concept elaborated in this report shows that, if properly organised, biomass can make a positive contribution.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Zuiderzee rail link]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/strategic_environmental_assessment_of_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/496</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/strategic_environmental_assessment_of_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/496</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of the Structural Vision procedure for the proposed Zuiderzee rail link between Amsterdam and the north of the Netherlands, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was carried out on the so-called Regional Package elaborated as one of the alternatives to the link, looking specifically at major economic projects with a spatial planning dimension, known in the jargon as ‘spatio-economic projects’.   

In the current planning phase (go or no-go for the rail link), the aim of these SEAs is to inventory, in broad brushstrokes, the main environmental impacts of the various alternatives so these can be duly considered in the upcoming decision.

As far as can be judged at present, it seems unlikely that the spatio-economic projects in the Regional Package will generate any really significant environmental impacts. The ZEPP power station, the Multi-Biorefinery, the Groningen ‘Central Zone’ and possibly expansion of the TT motorcycle racing circuit at Assen are anticipated to have the greatest impact. In the case of ZEPP, there is a risk of CO2 escaping from the subsurface and during transport, as well as of changes to local hydrology. On the other hand, the use of clean power generation technology will mean lower CO2 and NOx emissions. The Multi-Biorefinery may lead to environmental gains in terms of water quality, air pollutant emissions and energy consumption. One risk here is the possibility of stench nuisance. In the ‘Central Zone’, a general increase in the scale of economic activity, and particularly in transport movements (people and goods) may have a negative impact on the living environment. The infrastructure measures to the south of Assen racing circuit may have an impact on biodiversity. As no precise locations have yet been indicated, however, the impact on nature areas forming part of the Ecological Main Structure is unclear. According to the information available, 200 ha ‘nature compensation’ will be required for the development work around the circuit.

Apart from these projects, few significant, direct, primary environmental impacts are anticipated. There may well be substantial secondary impacts, though, both positive and negative, as projects are scaled up, say, or owing to knock-on effects. This will be of greatest relevance for changes in agricultural cropping patterns and the energy supply. 

A more general secondary impact of the Regional Package will be an overall increase in economic activity in the north of the Netherlands. This will generate extra traffic and lead to development of additional commercial and housing estates. All of this will in turn again have a range of environmental impacts. This is also true of the so-called ‘accessibility alternatives’, however, although compared with full implementation of the Zuiderzee rail link the Regional Package will probably have less impact in this respect.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Survey sustainable Biomass]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/survey_sustainable_biomass/468</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/survey_sustainable_biomass/468</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of an array of strategies to combat climate change, biomass is being used increasingly as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is important that the sustainability benefits thus accruing to the Netherlands are not at the expense of sustainable development in producer countries. Against this background the ‘Sustainable biomass imports’ project group, chaired by Professor Jacqueline Cramer, is developing a set of criteria for evaluating the sustainability of biomass projects. 

To assess support for such criteria, CE conducted an internet survey among the various stakeholders (NGOs, industry, government), drawing a total of 104 responses. This report presents all the results and conclusions of the survey, for each category of stakeholders and overall. 

Among the most striking conclusions are the following:The majority of respondents see a sustainability audit on biomass as feasible, provided the sustainability criteria are adequate for the purpose (68%).Almost all the respondents are of the opinion that such sustainability criteria should apply to all applications of biomass (90%).On the issue of whether these criteria should vary according to the producer region concerned, respondents were divided (50% for, 50% against).Many NGOs state there should be different sustainability criteria in force for different biomass flows (50%), in contrast to industry, which argues for a uniform set of criteria for all flows.Most respondents hold that any biomass criteria should apply to both subsidised and unsubsidised projects.At the same time, a sizable majority of respondents state that subsidisation of biomass projects should depend on the degree of sustainability (72%) and in particular on the CO2 emission cuts achieved, this being regarded as the single most important factor.When it comes to the issue of GMO, opinions differ markedly between NGOs and industry, with some 75% of NGOs wanting this aspect included, but only 10% of industry.Respondents also commented on a number of additional issues of their own accord. Attention was drawn surprisingly often to the importance of small holdings, i.e. ‘family farms’, and maximisation of yields and CO2 reductions per hectare of farmland. It is recommended to take this latter issue on board, in part as a means of elaborating the aspect of ‘preventing competition with food production’ in practical terms.Based on the survey results, the report concludes with several concrete recommendations on sustainability criteria for biomass. The report published by the Cramer Commission in August 2006 is largely grounded in these survey results and the accompanying evaluation.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The future of biofeedstocks in the Netherlands]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_future_of_biofeedstocks_in_the_netherlands/495</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_future_of_biofeedstocks_in_the_netherlands/495</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of its current assessment of the modalities of a long-term national transition to sustainable energy systems, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency asked CE Delft to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the system option ‘Green Feedstocks’. For this purpose a literature study was carried out and interviews held with six people working ‘in the field’. The study provides insight into the approximate production costs and environmental burden associated with ‘biofeedstocks’, and compares these with the production costs and burden of competing, conventional petrochemical alternatives.

Based on current data, we conclude there are already plenty of technologies available and that in terms of technical feasibility a significant or even very substantial share of today’s chemical feedstocks could in principle be produced from biomass. The two main impediments to market introduction are cost price and unfamiliarity with the product on the part of potential customers. With cost prices sometimes 2 - 3 times higher than those of the conventional petrochemicals being replaced, these alternatives are often only implemented if the petrochemical in question has been banned because of its in-use environmental impact (lubricants, solvents, inks, paints) or in cases where an end-user is keen to promote a ‘green’ image (bioplastics). We found only a limited number of examples of biomass-based production being cheaper than production based on petrochemical feedstocks (ethanol, 1,3-propanediol). 
The main advantages of biofeedstocks, in terms of the life-cycle environmental impact, are the lower toxicity of a range of products during usage (lubricants, solvents, inks, paints). 
In many cases the environmental burden per unit product, in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, is only lower because a petrochemical feedstock has been substituted – and its fossil energy and carbon content therefore saved. However, biofeedstock production processes are often less energy-efficient than their petrochemical counterparts. One possible exception here is production of chemicals with a nitrogen atom. 
 
Another issue is that cultivation of oilseed rape and other protein crops involves significant greenhouse gas emissions because of the need for substantial inputs of nitrogen fertiliser. Most oil and carbohydrate crops are perennials and do not have this drawback.

A third issue when it comes to using dedicated biofeedstock crops is that land requirements may have a major environmental impact if it is unspoilt nature that is being converted to cropland. It is therefore recommended to make maximum use of biomass waste streams, or otherwise crops with an as high as possible per-hectare yield of useful crop constituents (sugarcane, sugarbeet, palm oil). 

What we also see in Europe is that the subsidies on using biomass for power generation and vehicle fuels have created an uneven playing field, with less priority being given to development of biofeedstocks and the cost of the raw materials for today’s biofeedstocks continually rising because of the massive market demand for these materials for subsidised application in the former two areas.

Given the above, our recommendations are as follows:Create a level playing field and develop an across-the-board vision on how biomass is to be used, giving due attention to both competition and potential synergies between bio-energy, biofuels, bioproducts and food.Consider introducing a temporary ‘bioproducts CO2-reduction subsidy’, similar to the present ‘kWhe biomas subsidy’.Alongside government targets for bio-energy and biofuels, consider setting a target for sustainable new bioproducts.Create a ‘decision filter’ enabling more rapid selection of promising options and routes, and rejection of others.Focus efforts on routes with clear, independently proven environmental gains and a reasonable cost equation.With respect to R&amp;D subsidies, also focus on added value in terms of reduced toxicity, possibly accompanied by appropriate legislation – prescribing use of bio-lubricants in nature areas, for example.Leave production of bulk chemicals and cultivation of the required crops to countries other than the Netherlands, and do no more on this score than support development of conversion technologies.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A strategy on climat-neutral fuels]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_strategy_on_climat-neutral_fuels/419</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/a_strategy_on_climat-neutral_fuels/419</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report contains recommendations on a robust medium-term strategy for climate-neutral fuels for the Dutch Environment Ministry, VROM. We conclude that it is entirely feasible for the government to implement a policy package providing effective incentives for using climate-neutral fuels. If the government takes steps to create a market for these fuels, this will give industry the scope it requires to invest in the most promising climate-neutral options, thus ensuring continued development of the technology or technologies in question. It is then absolutely essential, however, that there is a perception that policies are stable and can be built on, providing long-term assurance to investors and others. 
The report first sets out the background and basic premises of the biofuels strategy. Subsequently, the key elements of the government strategy are provided. Finally, a number of policy options are examined with which the government can implement this basic strategy.
This study was commissioned by the GAVE programme of SenterNovem (an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs), and the Ministry of Environment.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Cost effectiveness of CO2 mitigation in transport]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_effectiveness_of_co2_mitigation_in_transport/396</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cost_effectiveness_of_co2_mitigation_in_transport/396</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The ECMT is currently writing a report on carbon emission reductions in the transport sector. To support this study, CE Delft was asked to write a background report on cost effectiveness of measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector. In this report, various technical mitigation options in the transport sector are analyzed: im-proved fuel economy of cars, biofuels and hydrogen. 

The report concludes that studies on this topic are not always in agreement. Several studies find that efficiency measures in the transport sector can be more cost effective than measures in other sectors, whereas other studies, for example a recent EEA report, disagree. Regarding biofuels, the report concludes that biomass use in power stations is more favourable from a cost effectiveness point of view. New biofuels are being developed that are expected to perform better. 

It is furthermore concluded that there are only very few studies available that address the issue of cost effectiveness of measures across sectors. Even data on the cost effectiveness of measures within the transport sector is scarce.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[An Energy-Agri-Cluster as an alternative to the Zuiderzee rail link]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_energy-agri-cluster_as_an_alternative_to_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/397</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/an_energy-agri-cluster_as_an_alternative_to_the_zuiderzee_rail_link/397</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Energy-Agri-Cluster plan was developed by CE Delft in just a few weeks as a robust, non-transport alternative to the proposed Zuider-zee rail link between Amsterdam and the North of the Netherlands. It is a multi-element programme drawn up as a coherent strategy for improving the North’s economic structure, at the same time giving an impulse to creating a more sustainable national energy supply. This dovetails perfectly with the government’s plans for an Energy Transition, the Energy Valley already operational in the region and the specific features of this area – in particular the major scope for underground CO2 sequestration, the capacity of the Eems Port, and the ‘Agri-cluster’ programme and knowledge infrastructure already in place. The Energy-Agri-Cluster, designed to augment existing government plans, also aims to make the regional economy less sensi-tive to natural gas prices.  

The plan comprises the following core elements: a biomass / coal gasification unit with CO2 storage, a CO2 transport grid, a 2nd-generation ethanol plant, a biorefinery facility, a Blue Energy plant (extracting energy from the freshwater-saltwater interface), a virtual micro-CHP plant and a ‘knowledge network’. The plan, which would require a one-off government subsidy of € 550 million and an additional € 2 billion from private investors, would lead to a CO2 emission reduction of between 5 and 11 Mt annually and create at least 2000 jobs in the long term. 

The Energy-Agri-Cluster has been given a positive assessment by economic consultants Ecorys as well as by a team of experts for the Energy Transition and the Strategic Environmental Assessment committee of the Zuiderzee rail link project.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Bio-energy in Europe 2005: Policy trends and issues]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/bio-energy_in_europe_2005%3A_policy_trends_and_issues/407</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/bio-energy_in_europe_2005%3A_policy_trends_and_issues/407</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This report analyses current European trends in bio-energy policies as they relate to electricity and heat production. The first part of the report analyses the effects of seven EU directives on bio-energy projects. The second part of the reports analyses the German situation with regard to bio-energy.  The report concludes that:

    Bio-energy policy gives rise to policy competition among Member States, which would have a negative impact on the cost-efficiency of bio-energy policy. Member States should therefore coordinate their bio-energy support regimes. It is not necessary to introduce a uniform system of supports through-out the EU, but it is necessary to avoid wasting subsidies.
    Shifting biogenic waste from landfill to energy production, in particular, is a means of substantially increasing bio-energy production in Europe. This is even more important because it can potentially reduce European CO2-eq. emissions by 200-300 Mt per year. Landfill bans or substantial landfill taxes have proved to work well in many European countries in pursuit of this aim.
    Member States should carefully consider bio-energy and bio-fuel goals in combination. This is a potential area of policy competition that may lead to wastage of subsidies and reduce the cost efficiency of both policies.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:27:54 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Environmental analysis of four alternative (bio-)fuels for the Gelderland 13 power station]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_analysis_of_four_alternative_%28bio-%29fuels_for_the_gelderland_13_power_station/415</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/environmental_analysis_of_four_alternative_%28bio-%29fuels_for_the_gelderland_13_power_station/415</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Like other Dutch power generators, Electrabel has signed up to the ‘Coal Covenant’, a voluntary agreement with national government in which they have pledged to replace part of the coal burned in power stations by biomass. The study is a follow-up to a study dating from August 2005. In the present study, commissioned by Electrabel, the environmental strengths and weaknesses of four different alternative fuels from the earlier study were assessed: corn-cob, rice-residue, palm-seed and eucalyptus pellets. 

The conclusions were as follows:

Rice-residue pellets and corn-cob pellets
The analysis was based on the premise that in the producer country Thailand the rice husks/corn cobs presently used as agricultural fertil-iser could be replaced by artificial fertilisers. In that case, co-firing the rice husks / corn cobs in the Gelderland 13 power station (G13) in pelletized form would mean an improvement in both greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and local air quality in the vicinity of the station.
Eucalyptus pellets
Here, the point of departure was that the portion of the eucalyptus wood not used locally in South Africa is burned there in the open air. Although local use of this biomass within South Africa would be preferable, it does not occur. Co-firing the eucalyptus wood in pelletized form in G13 is therefore again better for GHG emissions as well as local air quality around G13.
Palm-seed pellets
In the case of palm-seed pellets as a supplementary fuel, it depends very much on the current application whether or not there will be environmental gains. If this waste is used as animal fodder, co-firing is probably unfavourable for the environment, because it is likely to mean additional destruction of virgin rainforest or other nature. If it is used as a fertiliser or simply burned, then co-firing of palm-seed pellets is better for GHG emissions. Without additional measures (to remove additional flue-gas NOx), co-firing in G13 will mean a slight deterioration of air quality around the power station.

Overall conclusion
In general, burning these pelletized biofuels in G13 would have a net positive impact on both local air quality around the power station and GHG emissions. The exception is palm-seed pellets, which seem likely to score negatively on both these environmental indicators. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Cool cars, fancy fuels]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cool_cars%2C_fancy_fuels/372</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/cool_cars%2C_fancy_fuels/372</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In light of rising CO2 emissions in the transport sector, the Dutch branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature, WNF, has decided to launch a campaign that focuses attention on the CO2 emissions of cars. WNF asked CE Delft to write a research document providing the scientific knowledge base required for this campaign. 

This report first provides background information on the historical development of CO2 emissions from passenger cars. It then describes the current situation regarding mitigation, on a national and on an international (EU) level. Finally, technological developments with respect to fuel efficient vehicles and low-carbon fuels are described. 

Fuel efficient cars are on sale today, and the technology is available to reduce the fuel consumption (and thus CO2 emissions) of new passenger cars further. However, additional government incentives are needed to boost the development and sales of more fuel-efficient cars. Biofuels are currently the only feasible option for significantly reducing the CO2 emissions of fuels. The present average cost effectiveness of biofuels is not particularly attractive, but there is significant potential for improvement, particularly with new biofuel processes. Policies are needed to guarantee the sustainability of the biofuels used and to encourage development and use of biofuels with superior environmental performance. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Pure Plant Oil: a viable alternative?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/pure_plant_oil%3A_a_viable_alternative/353</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/pure_plant_oil%3A_a_viable_alternative/353</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Pure Plant Oil (PPO), a diesel substitute produced from crushed rapeseed, sounds like an environmentally benign and cheap vehicle fuel but is this actually the case? A recent study by CE for SenterNovem shows that a number of qualifications are in order. The following main conclusions were drawn:PPO from rapeseed can only be used as a vehicle fuel after the engine has been converted to handle 100% PPO, which at present is only feasible for a limited range of vehicles, viz. those with indirect injection engines or central injection pumps.Using PPO would reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 30%. Depending on per-hectare rapeseed yields, field emissions of nitrous oxide and the production technology employed, this figure might be as much as 65% or, alternatively, as low as minus 15% (i.e. more emissions). These results are based on the biodiesel data cited on the UBA website.Emissions from PPO-fuelled vehicles cannot yet be estimated with any degree of accuracy, as measurements are still too sparse to draw any general conclusions. It can be stated, however, that such vehicles will definitely have significantly lower per-kilometre emissions of particulates and NOx.Using PPO as a vehicle fuel is also an expensive route to climate control. PPO production costs are currently 2-3 times higher than those of diesel, even without the additional costs of engine conversion. This is what makes using PPO such an expensive option, with an average price tag of around € 950 per tonne CO2. For comparison: in Dutch energy conservation policy the cost threshold for abatement measures is € 50 per tonne CO2 avoided. 

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Alternative (bio-)fuels for the Gelderland 13 power station:An environmental assessment]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/alternative_%28bio-%29fuels_for_the_gelderland_13_power_station%3A%3Cbr%3Ean_environmental_assessment/368</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/alternative_%28bio-%29fuels_for_the_gelderland_13_power_station%3A%3Cbr%3Ean_environmental_assessment/368</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Under an agreement negotiated with the Dutch government, Electrabel, like other Dutch power generators, has pledged to replace part of the coal used for power production by some form of biomass. In this study, commissioned by Electrabel, the environmental pros and cons of four alternative fuels were examined: wood waste, chip fat, palm oil fatty acids and tall oil pitch. The conclusions are as follows:

Wood waste
Co-firing wood waste in the Gelderland 13 power station is environmentally superior to using it for chipboard production. 
Chip fat
Co-firing chip fat is the best option environmentally. In this case it is a substitute for coal, which has greater environmental benefits than replacing oil via other options.
Palm oil fatty acids
If using palm oil fatty acids as a power plant fuel means devoting more land to oil palm plantations, then depending on the exact cropping regime, the kind of forest replaced, and so on, the climate change impact may well be negative, with impact on biodiversity more than likely. In this study the precise impacts under this assumption were not investigated. If guarantees can be given that use of palm oil fatty acids does not mean extending oil palm acreage, co-firing this biofuel in ‘Gelderland 13’ will, on balance, have less environmental impact on all the criteria considered than its alternative use in the fodder industry. On this point we recommend starting talks with NGOs and carrying out further research.
Tall oil pitch
Tall oil, the residue left after ‘tall oil distillation’, is a by-product of the sulphate pulp process for paper and cardboard production. Using tall oil pitch as a power station fuel again scores positively in environ-mental terms. From a societal perspective, though, it is recommended to separate off the 8% sterols contained in this feedstock and use it elsewhere in a health food context. 

As a general conclusion, co-firing any of the alternative fuels consid-ered in this study will lead to improved local air quality around the Gelderland 13 power station.
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Biofuels under development]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biofuels_under_development/323</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biofuels_under_development/323</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In response to EU directive 2003/30/EC the Dutch government is to promote use of transport biofuels from 2006 onwards. Although several such fuels including biodiesel and bio-ethanol are already on the market in various countries, there are a number of other promising biofuels still under development. 

At the request of the Netherlands Petroleum Industry Association (VNPI), CE has carried out a comprehensive analytical review of several of the most promising of these biofuels, viz.: Fischer-Tropsch diesel from biomass, bio-ethanol from woody biomass, ETBE from this bio-ethanol and HTU diesel. This report assesses the anticipated environmental performance of these new fuels and their potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as costs, fuel quality, anticipated date of market introduction and the potential opportunities for Dutch industry arising from these developments. In line with an earlier CE study for VNPI, use of biomass to synthesise these biofuels was also compared with deployment for electrical power generation. 

The study concludes that if the envisaged developments indeed come to fruition, the new biofuels reviewed will be clearly superior to current biofuels, not only being cheaper but also yielding a two- to threefold  greater reduction of greenhouse emissions. Large-scale commercial production is anticipated within about a decade, though this horizon depends very much on the R&amp;D efforts invested in the coming years.  
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The HTU process as part of the energy transition]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_htu_process_as_part_of_the_energy_transition/352</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_htu_process_as_part_of_the_energy_transition/352</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[As a future biofuel production route, Biofuel BV is currently developing a hydrothermal upgrading (HTU) process in which wet biomass is converted at high temperature and pressure to yield ‘biocrude’ from which to make transport fuels The process provides a means of processing wet organic residues, which are presently of little economic value.   

CE was asked by Biofuel BV to assess the sustainability of this process. Calculations show that if process development and market introduction proceed as currently projected by Biofuel, an annual reduction of about 2.5-4.5 Mt CO2 can be achieved by 2020 using this technology. Subsequent expansion of production capacity would probably ultimately lead to an annual reduction of 15-30 Mt CO2 by 2040.

Introduction of the process would enable further optimisation of waste processing and biomass residue disposal, with actual processing having only limited ecological impact. As there are no land use requirements, neither will there be any impact on diversity or competition with food crops. In socio-economic terms, the HTU process in principle has the advantage of enabling countries with no domestic oil reserves to produce vehicle fuels from waste streams at relatively low cost. 
]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Sustainability of the transition to bio-ethanol: An exploratory study]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/sustainability_of_the_transition_to_bio-ethanol%3A_an_exploratory_study/354</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/sustainability_of_the_transition_to_bio-ethanol%3A_an_exploratory_study/354</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Large-scale production of bio-ethanol, a biofuel with similar properties to petrol, is already feasible with sugar-containing crops and cereal products as a feedstock, and Royal Nedalco is now researching alternative routes from woody biomass. Expectations are that this new technology will reduce ethanol production costs substantially as well as overall environmental impact. 

CE was commissioned by Royal Nedalco to assess the performance of current and future ethanol production against a set of sustainability criteria, including the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by switching to woody feedstocks. While CO2 emissions are reduced by about 40-60% with current feedstocks, this figure may be as high as 80-90% for future ethanol routes. Because production costs are also expected to decline, this will have a major positive impact on the cost effectiveness of ethanol as a biofuel (i.e. the cost of avoiding one tonne CO2 emission). If the costs and technology develop as assumed in this study, the ultimate cost effectiveness may fall to about 20 to 40 €/tonne CO2-eq. 

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:17:35 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
			</channel>
</rss>

