biomass life cycle assessment challenges
TRANSCRIPT
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future
Margaret K MannNational Renewable Energy Laboratory
Ethan WarnerGarvin Heath
Biomass Life Cycle Assessment Challenges
LCA Complexity
LCA isn’t just a mass and energy balance• ESPECIALLY for bioenergy systems• Feedstock variability• Technology variability and interactions• Policies• Avoided emissions• Interaction with fossil fuels• Point of views
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future2
Biomass is spatial and varied in nature
Agricultural Residues
Forest Residues Mill Residues
Urban Wood Residues
Farm & WWT Anaerobic Digestion
Dedicated Energy Crops
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future3
+ algae, landfill gas, oil seeds…..
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future4
Ag Residues
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future5
Primary Mill Residues
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future6
Forest Residues
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future7
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future8
Biomass is Full of Choices
Multiple energy feedstocks• Ag residues• Forest residues• Mill residues• Urban residues• Dairy and wastewater
Multiple products• Fuels• Power• Chemicals• Consumer goods
Multiple fuels• Ethanol• Jet fuel• Green diesel• DME• Methanol• Mixed OH’s
Multiple processes• Thermochem• Biochem• Combustion• Cofiring• Gasification• Fischer-Tropsch
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future9
Biomass Policies and Policy Creation
48 states have biomass-related financial incentives, many local– Of these, 12 have utility-directed biomass-related incentives
47 states have rules/regulations/policies addressing biomass energy– Of these, 38 are utility-directed
Federal financial incentives with biomass provisions– Depreciation– Corporate tax credit– Federal grant program– Federal loan program– Performance-based incentive
Also federal green power purchasing rules Individual states reviewing eligibility of biomass in RPS (most
notably Massachusetts) EPA evaluating carbon closure of bioenergy systems
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future10
State Renewable Portfolio Standards
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future11National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future11
Biomass Deployment and Other Renewables
NREL BioEnergy Atlas
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future12
http://maps.nrel.gov/bioenergyatlas
• Built into Google Maps• Geographically-rich• Data download capable• Zoom and layer• BioFuels Atlas
• State transportation energy use and infrastructure
• Current biofuels facilities• Biofuels potential by region
• BioPower Atlas• Current power consumption
and electric rates• Wind and solar CSP
resource potential• Biopower potential by region
LCA Literature Harmonization
13
Context:– Considerable previous work in assessing life
cycle GHG emissions of energy technologies.– But lack of holistic, rigorous evaluation of this
work, especially across technologies in a consistent manner.
– Methodological inconsistency has hampered cross-study comparisons and the usefulness of LCA results in other applications.
– Also, results in the impression amongst policymakers that the state of the science is inconclusive.
Goal and Principle:– Reduce the variability and inconsistency around
estimates of environmental impacts– Make the information useful to decision-makers
in the near term.
Methods (I): Literature Screening
14
1. Municipal solid waste, landfill gas, and anaerobic digestion related papers and estimates were collected, but not processed.
2. The 1st (relevance) screen eliminated articles that were:– not a life cycle assessments (LCA) of electricity generation– references that were abstracts, posters, PowerPoint presentations,
conference papers less than five single-spaced pages, and trade journal articles less than three single-spaced pages
– published prior to 1980– not in English.– combined heat and power papers, unless impacts were allocated (or
it was possible to easily allocate) among heat and electricity. 3. Criterion for passing the 2nd (quality) screen:
– Criterion 1: quality methods– Criterion 2: completeness of reporting– Criterion 3: technology of modern relevance
Methods (II): GHG Figure Construction
15
Criteria for biopower papers used in figure construction:– Results must be reported in a usable functional unit (e.g. g
CO2e/kWh) or easily converted to a useable functional unit.– Results must be numerically reported.– Results must be non-duplicative.
Life cycle GHG emission data distribution figures:– Initial harmonization steps:
• conversion to a common functional unit• where possible the application of common IPCC 2007 100-year
global warming potentials.• removal of coal portion of biomass co-firing estimates
– Three box and whisker plots• All exclude LUC• Two exclude the coal portion of biomass co-firing estimates
Literature Review Statistics
16
Note: Some double counting is inherent in the Totals given that some references investigate more than one technology.
technology category
number of references reviewed
number of references passing the first screen
number of references passing the second screen
number of references providing life cycle GHG emissions estimates
biopower 362 162 84 53coal 273 195 111 59concentrating solar power 114 37 21 18geothermal 45 15 8 6natural gas 220 127 66 49nuclear 241 190 63 34ocean energy 64 30 6 5photovoltaics 400 235 72 23wind 246 171 71 48TOTALS 1965 1162 502 295Biopower - % of total reviewed 45% 23% 15%Biopower - % of those passing 1st screen 52% 33%Biopower - % of those passing 2nd screen 63%
Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biopower Technologies w/ Coal and Natural Gas Portion of Co-firing (Draft)
17
Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biopower Technologies w/o coal (Draft)
18
Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biopower Feedstock Types w/o Coal, CO2 Mitigation Technology, and AEC (Draft)
19
Lessons Learned – Biopower GHGs
20
Significant set of existing literature (50+ passing screens)
Considerable variability within pool of studies analyzed– Variability across technologies can be significant– Variability within technologies can also be
significant– Variability across feedstock categories
Method and contextual inconsistency is prevalent– Many dimensions of inconsistency can be
harmonized– Other dimensions are more difficult (e.g. co-
product credits and geography)
Literature reporting
Literature coverage
Next Harmonization Steps
21
Already complete:– Global warming potential– Coal contribution to co-firing
Potential simple options:– LCA scope (system boundary)– Facility parameters (lifetime, capacity factor, etc.)
Some potential complex options could include:– Location/yields and/or feedstocks (interlinked)– Co-product allocation methods and/or avoided
emission credits– Technology (at a higher resolution)
Movement into the complex options requires construction of meta-models that incorporate multiple assumptions and scenarios, to better understand drivers of inconsistency.
IMPORTANT: There is not one answer, as there is not one biomass system