New study questions accuracy of EU’s biofuel impact assessments

Skewed data was used to determine the impact of the EU’s renewable energy directive, a scientific paper has claimed, raising questions about the model and process employed by the European Commission to assess policy options for transport decarbonisation, including for fuels.

Published in the scientific journal Fuels, the paper examines the so-called Price-induced market equilibrium system (PRIMES) model used by the European Commission to simulate the impact of proposed policies.

The PRIMES model provides a projection of future energy demand and supply, as well as prices and emissions under different scenarios. It was used in part to determine the impact of the Renewable Energy Directive, a key piece of EU legislation, which contains strict sustainability criteria for the production of biofuels. 

The research, led by Dr Zoltán Szabó, a sustainability consultant with biofuel company Ethanol Europe, devised a PRIMES model with revised assumptions using the “latest available market and industry data”.

One of the key differences was the inclusion of co-products in the generation of biofuels.

When ethanol is distilled, protein feed is produced as a co-product. This is typically used to feed animals, preventing the need for animal fodder imports or additional land cultivation.

However, the Commission’s calculations did not include the climate impact of having a domestic supply of high-protein animal feed.

Once the new parameters were used, the model produced significantly different results.

While the Commission’s modelling found that the carbon abatement cost of ethanol is in the range of about 220–390 EUR/tCO2eq, the revised modelling found that crop-based bioethanol has negative abatement costs.

Electromobility, which was absent from the Commission’s impact assessment, was found to be in the range of 100–150 EUR/tCO2eq.

The paper concludes that “transport plans presented to the [European Commission] were not backed by underlying cost assessments”, which runs the risk that “transport decarbonisation efforts in the EU may become unnecessarily costly”.

EU ethanol companies produced more animal feed than fuel last year

The production of bioethanol in Europe has led to greater yields of animal fodder than fuel in 2021, new figures show – further evidence that biofuels can also contribute to food stability, according to the industry.

Black box

Exactly how the PRIMES model works is not known – specifics are not made public, with the model considered a “black box”.

The modelling is carried out for the European Commission by E3Modelling, a private company closely linked with the Technical University of Athens.

A request for comment from E3Modelling was not returned.

Energy campaigners have long questioned the Commission’s use of PRIMES, criticising the secretive nature of the model.

Despite the criticism, the Commission maintains confidence in the PRIMES model as a good analytical tool, pointing out that modelling is just one element in developing impact assessments, as the final document is also shaped by input from stakeholder consultation.

It’s understood that data for the PRIMES model is based on the EU Reference Scenario 2020, an analysis tool which draws information from national energy and climate plans and consultations with experts.

Joao Pacheco, a former deputy director-general in the European Commission’s agriculture directorate who is now advisor at think-tank Farm Europe, said that the information presented in the scientific paper calls into question the validity of impact assessments done by Brussels.

“All the wrong assumptions and old data put together give a completely distorted picture of the greenhouse gas savings achieved by biofuels and their costs,” he said.

“The EU’s policymaking gets distorted. The EU’s economy loses, farmers lose, consumers lose, the climate loses,” he added.

Pacheco said that the reputation of the Commission has been damaged by the flawed impact assessments and asserted the Renewable Energy Directive should be reviewed as a matter of priority.

“It is now time to reassess what has been proposed,” he said.

‘Maladministration’

Ethanol Europe, meanwhile, presented the Fuels study as a “clear-cut case of maladministration” by the Commission.

“The PRIMES model has been the backbone of all Renewable Energy Directive-related impact assessments and policy justifications for 15 years, and all of Europe had to assume since the inner workings of the PRIMES model were kept secret, that the model was fit for purpose,” said Eric Sievers, director of Ethanol Europe.

“However, now we know that the model and the Renewable Energy Directive are, and always have been, completely at odds with each other.”

Sievers branded the PRIMES methodology “indefensible from a scientific standpoint”.

[Edited by Frédéric Simon/Alice Taylor]

Read more with Euractiv

Glyphosate approval proposal will not be turned upside down, EU Commissioner says

Food Safety Commissioner Stella Kyriakides defended the key points of the EU executive’s proposal to re-approve the contentious herbicide glyphosate, signalling that the expected tweaks to the text at this point are likely to be relatively minor.