The results of the production cost analysis for fuels are based on scenarios of crude oil prices of Euro 50, Euro 100, Euro 150 and Euro 200 per barrel and under consideration of the technical status for the years 2015 and 2020. Table 5 summa­rises these results.

1. Estimated biofuel production costs in 2015

Our modelling results (Fig. 4) show that in 2015 only biodiesel is able to reach competitive production costs and only at high crude oil prices. Biodiesel made from waste oil can compete with fossil fuels in the Euro 150/barrel and Euro 200/ barrel scenarios. Biodiesel from palm oil reaches competitiveness in the crude oil price scenario of Euro 200/barrel. Production costs for second-generation bioetha­nol are significantly higher than those of fossil fuels in all crude oil price scenar­ios. Furthermore, unlike for other biofuels, the simulation of different crude oil scenarios in Fig. 4 indicates that production costs for bioethanol from lignocel — lulosic waste is largely independent of the crude oil price levels. In addition, our simulation reveals that HVO and BTL are unlikely to be a reasonable alternative to other fuels as their production costs are significantly higher than the others.

2. Estimated biofuel production costs in 2020

At the crude oil price scenario of Euro 50/barrel, the production cost of all bio­fuel alternatives is too high to be competitive (Fig. 5), even when scale and learn­ing effects are considered for 2020. Again, biodiesel made from waste oil seems to be the most promising option. In the Euro 100/barrel scenario, waste oil bio­diesel production costs (Euro-Cent 55 per litre) are lower than those of fossil fuel (Euro-Cent 68 per litre), followed by the more expensive biodiesel made from palm oil (Euro-Cent 81 per litre) and second-generation bioethanol (Euro-Cent 86 per litre). At a market price of Euro 150/barrel, ethanol made from lignocellulosic waste becomes attractive. While production costs for fossil fuel stand at Euro-Cent 99 per litre, second-generation bioethanol can be produced for Euro-Cent 91 per

litre. In this crude oil price scenario, bioethanol is even cheaper to produce than biodiesel made from palm oil (Euro-Cent 98 per litre). However, biodiesel from waste oil (Euro-Cent 64 per litre) remains the most attractive option, cost-wise. The 150 Euro/barrel results are documented in Fig. 6.

First-generation biodiesel and first-generation bioethanol show an increase of overall production costs between 2015 and 2020 despite positive learning and scale effects. This is due to the influence of high raw material prices. One can note that all first-generation biofuels, except palm oil biodiesel, experience increasing production costs. In regard to palm oil biodiesel, advancements in production pro­cesses are capable of overcompensating the rise of feedstock prices.

There is a similar situation with HVO and especially BTL. The combination of relatively high raw material costs and high conversion costs make both types of biofuel uncompetitive. Although significant learning effects between 2015 and 2020 will lead to considerably lower conversion costs, HVO’s and BTL’s poten­tial as a substitute for fossil fuels is virtually non-existent. The related cost-sav­ing potentials are simply not sufficient to compensate the high raw material costs. Consequently, one cannot expect either of these two types of biofuel to be pro­duced at competitive costs, even though both have a higher energy density com­pared with other biofuels and, in particular, bioethanol.

When learning and scale effects are considered, second-generation biofuels seem to be the most promising alternatives to fossil fuels throughout all crude oil price scenarios until 2020. In detail, the most promising options in regard to production costs are biodiesel from waste oil and bioethanol made from ligno — cellulosic raw materials when produced at large scales.

Our results are in line with research from de Wit et al. (2010), who explain this order between those two types of biofuels by lower feedstock, capital and opera­tional costs. Compared to bioethanol of the first generation, the production of bio­diesel is associated with lower feedstock costs. In addition, capital and operational expenditures for the transesterification of oil to biodiesel are lower compared to the conversion process of first-generation bioethanol (hydrolysis and fermentation of sugar/starch crops). This initial advantage of biodiesel over bioethanol, how­ever, may impede the exploitation of positive effects associated with learning and a larger scope and, in consequence, may prevent the use of related cost-saving potentials for bioethanol.