OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOFUELS

CREATING COMPETITIVE BIOFUELS MARKETS

ALLAN ASHER Chief Executive of energywatch

Biofuels Australasia 2006 Conference

20 – 22 November 2006, Sydney, Australia
Contents

1. World wide energy markets – drivers for biofuels

1.1 Introduction to global biofuels
1.2 Biofuels in Europe
1.3 European Biofuels Directive
1.4 Biofuels in EU Member States – Overview
1.5 Fiscal measures to promote biofuels in EU countries
1.6 Regulatory approaches in the EU
1.7 Biofuels in the United States
1.8 Biofuels in Brazil
1.9 Biofuels in other countries

2. Potential for growth in supply, and constraints to growth (environmental and food
production)
2.1 Overview of global potential
2.2 First and second-generation biofuels
2.3 First and second-generation biofuels
2.4 Food versus fuel
2.5 Environmental sustainability and carbon savings

3. Consumer implications in the UK

3.1 Biodiesel – current position
3.2 Bioethanol – current position
3.3 Biofuels prices under the RTFO

4. Concluding remarks – are biofuels best used in transport?

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

2
1. World wide energy markets – drivers for biofuels

1.1 Introduction to global biofuels

The leading producers of biofuels are Brazil and the United States. Brazil has led the development
of ethanol from sugar cane, and the U.S. has led the way in producing ethanol from corn. Germany
has been a leader in the production of biodiesel from rapeseed and sunflower seed, and China is
becoming a player in global production. See Appendix for charts with global biodiesel and ethanol
production.

1.2 Biofuels in Europe

Fuel security and climate change are the two main drivers for European promotion of biofuels. On
the fuel security side, currently 98% of the transport market is dependant upon oil, and if nothing
is done, the European Union’s external energy dependence will reach 70% before 2030, 90% for
oil.
In terms of climate change, emissions from transport in Europe are growing, and the road sector
generates 85% of this sector’s carbon emissions1.

1.3 European Biofuels Directive

The most important piece of legislation for biofuels in Europe is the Biofuels Directive (Directive
2003/30/EC). Adopted in May 2003, it aims to promote the use in transport of fuels made from
biomass, as well as other renewable fuels. The directive sets a reference value of 5.75% for the
market share of biofuels in 2010, measured in terms of energy content. This is an indicative target
– i.e. it sets an overall goal, but the target is not legally binding.

The Directive asks the European Commission to make a progress report before the end of
2006, and the EC consulted with stakeholders this year to help prepare this progress report. The
review asks questions such as: Will existing policies and measures will be effective in meeting the
targets, are the objectives of the Directive still valid, and should certification schemes be
introduced to support “better performing” biofuels2.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

3
1.4 Biofuels in EU Member States – Overview
Member states are required to report annually on their progress in implementing the Directive3.
The percentage biofuel component of each member state is shown below; with further
information on biofuels sales volumes contained in the Appendix.

Biofuels: Percentage of total transport fuel

Belgium 6.4%
Czech republic 0.046%
Denmark 0.75%
Estonia 0.44%
Germany 3.75%
Hungary 0.5%
Italy 0.50%
Latvia 0.33%
Lithuania 0.72%
Malta 0.52%
Netherlands 0.024%
Poland 0.48%
Portugal 0.003%
Spain 0.44%
Sweden 2.2%
UK 0.06%
Source: Member States Reports in the frame of Directive 2003/30EC
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_members_states_en.htm
Note: Information for Slovakia not available

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

4
1.5 Fiscal measures to promote biofuels in EU countries
To meet the EC Biofuels Directive, most European countries have adopted policy measures at the
national level. Fiscal incentives are fairly common: The Flemish region of Belgium has exempted
rapeseed oil from CO2 taxes (as of April 2006)4. In Germany the fraction of biofuels used in
blends in petrol and diesel is tax-free5, and in the UK the biofuels component receives a 20p/litre
differential6. Denmark, Italy and Spain are among the other countries that have fuel tax incentives
for biofuels.

1.6 Regulatory approaches in the EU

Some Member States are now looking at regulatory measures to increase the market penetration
of biofuels. The UK has announced it is launching a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO),
which will require up to 5 per cent of UK transport fuel to be biofuels by 2010-20117 (volume
content). Similarly, the Netherlands will require all suppliers of petrol and diesel to include a 2%
biofuels percentage in 2007, rising to 5.75% in 20108 (based on energy content). Sweden has an
even more ambitious target: From 2005 onwards, biofuels must make up at least 3% of total
petrol and diesel consumption calculated on the basis of energy content.

1.7 Biofuels in the United States

In 2005 the United States overtook Brazil as the world’s biggest biofuels producer: Brazil produces
4.22 billion gallons, and the United States 4.26 billion gallons, of ethanol in 20059. The U.S. is
predominantly a producer of ethanol derived from corn, and production is concentrated in
Midwestern states with abundant corn supplies10. In 2005 the U.S. produced 4 billion gallons of
ethanol, which equates to about 3% of the country’s total gasoline consumption (140 billion gallons
per year)11. Biodiesel producing is also growing - up to 75 million gallons form 25 million gallons
from 2004 to 200512, representing 0.08 percent of diesel consumed for vehicular transportation13.

The policy environment for biofuels in the U.S. has shifted radically in the last couple of years due
to the National Energy Policy Act, which was approved by Congress in 2005. The most important
development was the creation of a new Renewable Fuel Standard, which will increase the volume
of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons by 201214. The Act also
created new tax incentives for biodiesel and anew federal tax credit to assist with the installation
of equipment and infrastructure to dispense E85 at retail outlets1,15.

1.8 Biofuels in Brazil

Brazil has historically been the leader in biofuels production, with production centred on ethanol
produced from sugar cane, which prospers in the country’s tropical climate. Over half of all cars
in the country are “flex-fuel” vehicles, meaning that they can run on 100 percent ethanol or an
ethanol-gasoline mixture.16 By law, all gasoline contains a minimum of 25 percent alcohol, yet it
actually accounts for 40 percent of all vehicle fuel. Since its inception, Brazil's ethanol program has
displaced imported oil worth $120 billion17.

1
The incentive is a 30 percent federal income tax credit up to a maximum of $30,000, and is scheduled to expire
December 31, 2008

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

5
Brazil continues to build its sugar-ethanol sector, and Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company,
has suggested that the country could be exporting 8-10 billion litres/annum within a few years18.
However, infrastructure constraints13 may hamper this as well as other factors that influence
ethanol markets: the price of sugar, the price of crude oil, and the value of the U.S. dollar.
Currently, Brazil’s export capacity is on the rise, and ought to be more than 5.6 billion/litres per
annum by the end of 2006, and Brazil has also commenced with a biodiesel program19.

1.9 Biofuels in other countries

Many countries around the world are incentivising, and/or mandating, an increased penetration of
biofuels into their transport fuel markets. Some examples are listed below20:

China: 20% of gasoline consumed contained ethanol in 2005

Colombia: 10% ethanol in gasoline targeted

India: 5% ethanol in certain states if ethanol is not more expensive, biodiesel purchase
policy

Indonesia: 3% of energy from plant-based fuels by 2025

Malaysia: biodiesel from palm oil, trial underway

Philippines: coco-biodiesel, ethanol planned

Thailand: explosive growth of E10

2 Potential for growth in supply, and constraints to growth (environmental and food
production)

2.1 Overview of global potential

The recent pace of advancement in technology, policy, and investment suggest that the rapid
growth of biofuel use could continue for decades to come and that these fuels have the potential
to displace a significant share of the oil now consumed in many countries. A recent study found
that advanced biofuel technologies could allow biofuels to substitute for 37 percent of U.S.
gasoline within the next 25 years, with the figure rising to 75 percent if vehicle fuel efficiency were
doubled during the same period. The biofuel potential of EU countries is in the range of 20–25
percent, provided strong environmental sustainability criteria for land use and crop choice are put
in place, and assuming that bio-energy use in non-transport sectors is growing in parallel21.

The potential for biofuels is particularly large in tropical countries, where high crop yields and
lower costs for land and labour, which dominate the cost of these fuels, provide an economic
advantage that is hard for countries in temperate regions to match. When petroleum prices are
above €41 ($50) per barrel, as they were for most of 2005 and early 2006, ethanol from sugar
cane is significantly less expensive than gasoline, and biodiesel is also increasingly competitive with
diesel. It has been estimated that worldwide sugar cane production could be expanded to a level
such that this crop alone could displace about 10 percent of gasoline use worldwide22

2.2 First and second-generation biofuels

The various biomass feedstock used for producing biofuels can be grouped into two basic
categories. The first is the currently available “first-generation” feedstock, which comprises various
grain and vegetable crops. These are harvested for their sugar, starch, or oil content and can be
converted into liquid fuels using conventional technology. The yields from the feedstock vary
considerably, with sugar cane and palm oil currently producing the most litres of fuel per hectare23.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

6
By contrast, the “next-generation” of biofuel feedstock comprises cellulose-rich organic material,
which is harvested for its total biomass. These fibres can be converted into liquid biofuels only by
advanced technical processes, many of which are still under development. Promising energy crops
include fast-growing woody crops such as willow, hybrid poplar, and eucalyptus, as well as tall
perennial grasses such as switchgrass and miscanthus. Another potential “next-generation”
feedstock is the organic portion of municipal solid waste24.

Second-generation biofuels offer several possible advantages over some first- generation fuels
including that they may:

Be produced from a wider range of feedstocks - including waste green materials

Achieve higher productivity per unit area than some current biofuel feedstocks, which
reduces the risks of energy crops replacing food crops and damaging biofidersity

Produce molecules that replicate oil products and therefore be capable for use in any blend
without engine adaptation and achieve higher levels of engine efficiency.

2.3 At present, the cost of producing second-generation fuels is prohibitively high, and the UK’s
Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership has concluded that “Incentives are needed to enable the
market for these products to develop and realise the benefits”25. However, various
government and industry-sponsored efforts are under way to lower these costs, with some
success. There are two projects currently underway to produce ethanol from wood, a
demonstration facility in Ottawa, Canada26, and a commercial-scale facility in Louisiana, USA,
and there is development of “synthetic” biofuels underway in Germany, Sweden and Austria27.
In addition, BP has launched a major initiative with DuPont to develop advanced biofuels28

2.4 Food versus fuel

There are concerns that the production of biofuels will impinge upon the production of food
crops. Unilever, for example, has argued that because world population growth and increased
economic development will require a substantial increase in food production in the coming
years, UK farmers should not diversify into crop production29.

Countering this view, the National Farmers’ Union argue that crops used for energy are dual
purpose: after processing wheat for bioethanol and oil seed rape for biodiesel, up to half of the
crop remains available for other uses like animal feed. Taking the UK as an example, the NFU
calculate that taking “co-products” into account reduces the calculated extra land needed in the
UK to meet the EU Biofuels Directive by 25%.

The NFU maintain that the UK could meet the EU target by a combination of wheat surplus and
set-aside land (see Appendix for table of fuel and crop requirements to meet the UK RTFO), but
admit, that currently farmers are unable to use this set-aside land for energy crops, and that to do
so would require changes to the European Common Agricultural Policy 30. Therefore on balance it
appears that some diversion from food crops is likely, was the UK to meet the RTFO supplies
from domestic resources.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

7
However the picture is even more complex, because much of the raw biofuel product required to
meet the RTFO will in practice be imported from overseas. Imports are cheaper than UK
produced biofuels- a report for the East of England Development Agency found that imported
bioethanol from Brazil would be 10 pence per litre cheaper than that made from United Kingdom
wheat and sugar beet31. In addition, WTO rules mean that the UK cannot legally restrict fuel
suppliers to using UK farm products, and therefore

The question of “fuel versus food” cannot therefore be restricted to a discussion of UK crop
potential, because it is likely that the UK will need imports to meet its biofuels targets. The market
for biofuels is therefore a global one,. This also links closely to concerns over environmental
sustainability, because fuel crops may be produced in place of existing natural habitats.

It is the creation of a large Eureopan import market for biofuels that is most concerning for those
who see biofuels as a threat to food production, since producers in developing countries may
choose to grow energy crops for export rather than food crops. Certainly, in general terms, large-
scale production of biofuels will tend to increase the price of agricultural commodities, which may
hurt those who can barely afford food. However, as noted above in the case of the UK, the meat
industry will benefit from the increased production of high-protein feeds that are the co-products
of fuel crops such as corn grown for ethanol. Furthermore, the Worldwatch Institute argues,
many of the world’s hungry are also farmers, who could benefit by producing their own fuels32.

A biodiesel company that attempts to sidestep the “food versus fuel” critique is D1 Oils. D1
grows Jatropha, an energy crop, in developing countries such as India, Zambia and the Philippines,
and then imports the oil to a refinery in the UK to produce Biodiesel. D1 Oils claims to grow
Jatropha on non-arable, marginal and waste land, so that it need not compete with vital food crops
for good agricultural land33.

This is a real step forward, but it is unclear how much of UK and EU demand could be met from
unused or reclaimed land in developing countries. Fundamentally, the D1 business model currently
excludes developing countries from the true “value-added” stage of biofuels production, namely
processing and refining. Indigenous refining capacity would enable crop-growing nations to sell
finished biofuel product, rather than just the raw commodity. The “food-versus-fuel” debate is
therefore highly complex, and it remains to be seen to what extent global biofuels demand will
really lead to food crop substitution.

2.5 Environmental sustainability and carbon savings

There are concerns among environmentalists that production of biofuels crops might replace
valuable natural resources such as rainforests. WWF, for example, has expressed concern that
expansion of oil palm plantations, whose produce is used in biodiesel production in the United
Kingdom and elsewhere, may be contributing to deforestation in Indonesia234. These concerns
have gathered political support: The European Parliament’s industry committee recently called for
an EU-wide ban on the use of biofuels derived from palm oil, citing concerns about the impacts
of palm oil production on indigenous forest35. While it is unclear what proportion of palm oil is

2
Of the estimated five million hectares of former forest lands in Indonesia’s lowlands that have already been
converted to estate crop plantations, three million hectares are covered with oil palms

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

8
used in transport fuel as opposed to chemical and food products, the concern is that if and when a
major import market opens up in the EU, this could add to pressures to produce more palm oil,
and more forest destruction.

The other major concern that environmentalists have about biofuels is that they have highly
variable carbon benefits depending on the way crops are farmed, the amount of energy used to
convert crops to fuel, and what happens to by-products produced in the process3 A report by the
LowCVP summarised a number of lifecycle studies of biofuels, showing the variability in their
carbon benefits. This is shown in the figure, below36. Notably, corn ethanol could have negative
carbon reductions – i.e. in some cases, it may produce more in fertilizing and processing the crop
into ethanol than is saved by the corn as it is grown. The key is to reduce farm inputs, and to use
by-products effectively

Percentage lifetime GHG savings

compared to petrol or diesel
%

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
(sugarbeet)

(rapeseed)
(wheat /

Ethanol

Ethanol

Ethanol

Biodiesel
Ethanol

(wood)
(sugar

Biodiesel
(corn)

cane)

(wood)
grain)

-20
Ethanol

-40

Source: LowCVP 2006

3
Corn stalks, for instance, could be used as fuel for ethanol refining plants providing the right
infrastructure is in place. This can improve the overall carbon benefit, since it displaces other
sources of energy used in the processing plant.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

9
These twin concerns have led to detailed debates over the possibility of preventing
environmentally damaging, biofuels, or biofuels with very poor carbon reduction performance,
from entering EU markets. In the UK, these discussions are, arguably, further advanced than
anywhere else in the world, due to the pioneering work of the LowCVP, which has commissioned
highly detailed research to consider whether the RTFO could exclude poorly-performing biofuels
from the UK market.

The LowCVP work concluded that WTO rules may preclude excluding certain biofuels from the
UK market, but that the rules do allow reporting on sustainability and carbon benefits37. The UK
government has taken these conclusions on board, is therefore developing an assurance scheme
alongside the Obligation to ensure, as far as possible, biofuels are produced from sustainable
sources38. UK environmental groups are pushing strongly for incentives for low-carbon, sustainable
biofuels to be built-in to the RTFO in future years.
Developing an assurance scheme for biofuels is a complex process. WWF highlight the difficulty of
accurately differentiating between sustainably produced palm oil, and oil that is produced in
unsustainable ways, since crude palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia is often mixed in tanks in
Rotterdam’s transit harbour, or at other points in the supply chain, before it is processed and
passed on to consumer product industries. Because of this mixing, many companies do not know
the origin of the palm oil. According to VDO, a German environmental group, tracing a shipment
of palm oil back to its original port of departure is possible only in exception cases, and tracing it
back to the plantation where the palm fruits were harvested is completely impossible39.
Environmental concerns over biofuels are therefore highly complex, and it will be interesting to
see whether the UK assurance scheme will be able to overcome practical difficulties in assessing
the environmental performance of biofuels entering the UK market.

In the longer term, concerns over the environmental damage done by producing biofuels may be a
fundamental constraint to this market. In other words, suppliers may find themselves simply unable
to source enough sustainably produced biofuels to meet market demand. Environmental concerns
were part of the explanation given by RWE Npower to drop thei plans for a palm-oil powered
power station in Dartford, UK, although the company also citied cost issues as a reason440. This
again shows the importance of developing new “second generation” biofuels, which would
produce more energy per unit, and enable more sustainable growth in this market.

3. Consumer implications in the UK

The impact of the development of biofuels on the general consumer is often overlooked. There
are potentially two types of impact, namely the price of fuel could be affected, on the choice of
fuel and vehicle may change. These impacts are briefly explored below, with reference to the UK
market.

3.1 Biodiesel – current position

Biodiesel is a blend – the combination of a small percentage (up to 5%) Biofuel and 95%
conventional Diesel in order to meet the forecourt diesel fuel specification. Biodiesel prices
fluctuate as the prices of Diesel rise and fall. The UK Government is promoting the use of Biofuels
through a reduction in fuel duty of 20 pence per litre of renewable fuels. However this reduction

4
talking to the Financial Times, the company stated “it could not import enough of the fuel from "environmentally
sustainable" sources in south-east Asia at a low enough price”

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

10
only applies to the renewable fuel element of any blend, and therefore only works out at a
maximum of 1 penny per litre reduction in price at the pump for a 5% blend. In practice Biodiesel
costs about the same as standard diesel. Unlike bioethanol (see below) biodiesel is currently not
used as a higher percentage in vehicles in the UK.

3. 2 Bioethanol – current position

As well as being blended in to petrol at a low percentage, E85 (85% Ethanol and 15% Petrol) is
available as a niche-fuel at a handful number of petrol stations in the UK i.e. it is at a very early
stage of market development. If a market for E85 is to develop in the UK, as it has in the U.S. and
Brazil, then it is critical that the cost of using the fuel is competitive against petrol and diesel. This
is a major challenge, since E85 cars have comparatively poor fuel economy: Bioethanol has lower
energy content per litre than petrol or diesel, and cars using E85 consume approximately 25-30%
more fuel than a petrol equivalent model and at least 40% more than the diesel version.

This fuel economy penalty is partially reduced by the 20p per litre duty fuel duty reduction for
bioethanol. However, because the reduction only applies to the bioethanol content of the fuel,
E85 receives a 17 p/litre duty reduction at the pump rather than the full 20p. Further, bioethanol is
currently more expensive per litre than petrol, and E85 requires separate blending, delivery and
pump infrastructure. Once these costs are factored in. it is unsurprising that E85 is typically sold at
only 2 pence per litre cheaper than petrol at the pump41. In conclusion, as illustrated below, the
current fuel duty reduction is insufficient to make the Ford Focus E85 car competitive with
comparable petrol cars.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

11
3.3 Biofuels prices under the RTFO
Once the RTFO is introduced, it seems reasonably likely that the UK Government will reduce the
fuel duty reductions applied to biofuels, so that additional costs incurred by companies meeting
the RTFO may be passed on to consumers. However, the UK government seems confident that
these price increases will not be significant. While actual costs will be heavily dependent on
relative oil and biofuel prices, the government is confident that if oil prices remain at today's levels,
even without the current duty incentive, there would be no significant impact on fuel prices at a
5% blend. To protect consumers against higher biofuels prices, the Government are building in
the 'buy-out' mechanism proposed as part of the RTFO. This would ensure that the additional
costs of supplying renewable fuels could not reach unacceptable limits42.

The Energy Saving Trust is concerned that this strategy for the RTFO would have a negative effect
on the development of a market for E85 fuel cars, since fuel suppliers would be more likely to
meet RTFTO requirements by blending in biofuels into conventional fuels, rather than developing
separate high-blend infrastructure. The Energy Saving Trust therefore argues that fuel duty
incentives for biofuels should be retained alongside the RTFO43. This approach has been successful
in Sweden, where all petrol contains 5% ethanol, but E85 retains a fuel duty reduction similar to
our own (0.87 €/litre compared to 1.17 €/litre for gasoline). E85 is now available at over 160
refuelling stations in Sweden44.

Running costs for Ford Focus 5 dr, various fuels (20,000 km)

£2,500

E85 car
VED

£2,000 Fuel Duty

Fuel Cost £140 £190

£190 £447
£150
£1,500
£150
£125 £125 £876
£125
£110 £725 £754
£110
£1,000 £110 £669
£110 £622 £631
£603
£528
£490
£443 £452 £1,370

£500
£902
£747 £776
£621 £640 £650 £689
£487 £527 £568
£477

£-
1.6 TDCi 1.6 TDCi 1.8 TDCi 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.8 Flexi- 2.5
Diesel Diesel Diesel Duratorq Duratec Duratec Duratec Duratec Duratec Duratec fuel Duratec
TDCi Petrol Petrol Petrol Petrol Petrol Petrol ST Petrol
Diesel

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

12
4. Concluding remarks: Are biofuels best used in transport?
This paper has summarised the global market in biofuels as a road transport fuel. It has also
discussed how this market is likely to grow over time, and introduced the complex debates over
diversification away from food crops, and the environmental impacts of biofuels production. The
paper does not, however, seek to answer the more fundamental question of whether biofuels
should be used in transport, or instead in direct energy production. Biofuels could compete in the
market for oil-fired power stations and there is a question over whether it is sensible to convert
woody materials to transport fuels rather than burning them directly: the UK Sustainable
Development Commission argue that, for lignocellulosic crops such as willow, it may be more
efficient and cost effective to convert the wood into energy through direct combustion45.
This issue is beyond the scope of this paper, but will become more central controversial topic in
years to come.

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

13
APPENDIX

Source: Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation 2006

Source: Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation 2006

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

14
Biofuel use in Europe, 2005 (units given in member states’ reports)

Biodiesel Bioethanol
Belgium 380,000 m3 250,000 m3
Cyprus 25,000 litres
Czech republic 3,169 thousand tonnes 0
Denmark 2.4 PJ (2004) 0
Estonia 0 0
Germany 1,800 thousand tonnes 226 thousand tonnes
Hungary 0.12 PJ
Italy 200 000 tonnes of biodiesel 16 860 tonnes
Latvia 2.89 thousand tonnes 0
Lithuania 3.2 thousand tonnes 0.9 thousand tonnes
Malta 0.895 Mega litres 0
Netherlands 3 million litres (PPO)
Poland 17.1 thousand tonnes 42.8 thousand tonnes
Portugal 158.5 tonnes N/A
Slovakia N/A N/A
Spain 26 970 t 176 500 t
Sweden 0.10 TWH 1.68 energy volume TWh
UK 33 million litres 85 million litres

Source: Member States Reports in the frame of Directive 2003/30EC

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/biofuels_members_states_en.htm

Fuel and crop production required to meet the RTFO

Petrol Diesel
Estimated 2010 demand 19 million tonnes 22.5 million tonnes
5% by volume (RTFO) 1.2 billion litres of bioethanol 1.35 billion litres of biodiesel
Feedstock required 3 million tonnes of wheat 2.7 million tonnes of OSR
Land involved 375,000 ha (8t/ha) 840,000 ha (3.2t/ha)
Source: NFU, Land required to meet RTFO, 2006

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

15
REFERENCES
1
Source: EC: Summary of biofuel policy
2
The consultation paper is available on the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership website
3
Member states’ reports are available on the EC biofuels website
4
Belgium annual biofuels report 2005
5
Germany annual biofuels report, 2005
6
UK Budget 2006
7
The RTFO has its own section of the DfT website
8
Netherlands annual biofuels report, 2005
9
WTO Disciplines and Biofuels: Opportunities and Constraints in the Creation of a Global Marketplace, International
Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, 2006
10
Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation 2006
11
American Council for Ethanol FAQ
12
National Biodiesel Board, A Biodiesel Primer
13
WTO Disciplines and Biofuels: Opportunities and Constraints in the Creation of a Global Marketplace, International
Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, 2006
14
For more detail, see the RFS section of the EPA website
15
American Coalition for Ethanol, FAQs
16
US Dept. of Energy, "Country Analysis Briefs: Brazil". 2006
17
Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Future of Ethanol April 17, 2005
18
WTO Disciplines and Biofuels: Opportunities and Constraints in the Creation of a Global Marketplace, International
Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, 2006
19
WTO Disciplines and Biofuels: Opportunities and Constraints in the Creation of a Global Marketplace, International
Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, 2006
20
Source: World Bank, EXTENERGY project presentation
21
Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation 2006
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
LowCVP, Response to EC Biofuels Consultation, 2006
26
Iogen Corporation, Cellulose ethanol is ready to go, 2006
27
CE Delft, Biofuels under development: An analysis of currently available and future biofuels, and a comparison with
biomass application in other sectors, 2005
28
BP, Advanced biofuels, 2006
29
Unilever Position statement on biofuels 2006
30
NFU, Land required to meet RTFO, 2006
31
“Impacts of creating a domestic bioethanol industry”, East of England Development Agency, June 2003
32
Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation 2006
33
D1 Oils, sustainability statement 2006
34
“Oil palm plantations and deforestation in Indonesia - what role do Europe and Germany play?”, WWF Germany in
collaboration with WWF Indonesia and WWF Switzerland, November 2002.
35
LowCVP website news update, 18.10.2006
36
Source: LowCVP presentation, Development of Carbon Certification & Sustainability Assurance for Biofuels 2006
37
For a good summary of the study see Development of Carbon Certification & Sustainability Assurance for Biofuels
2006; the full study is E4tech et al, Feasibility study on certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, June
2005
38
DfT, UK report to the EC on biofuels 2006
39
“Oil palm plantations and deforestation in Indonesia - what role do Europe and Germany play?” WWF Germany in
collaboration with WWF Indonesia and WWF Switzerland, November 2002.
40
Financial Times (13th Nov 06) – “Palm Oil Energy Venture Dropped”
41
Morrison’s pricing, 2006
42
DfT, RTFO Feasibility Report, Section 4: Costs
43
Energy Saving Trust, Biofuels discussion paper: Tax breaks for E85 2006
44
Atrax Energi, Assessment of bioethanol and biogas initiatives for transport in Sweden, May 2005
45
Sustinable Development Commission, Biofuels and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, 2006

Data supplied by EST, The Energy Saving Trust Limited

16