greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions balances of biofuels
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of Dr Mairi J Blackfor the "2nd Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle"Apresentação de Dr Mairi J Black realizada no "2nd Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle "Date / Data : Novr 11th - 12th 2009/ 11 e 12 de novembro de 2009 Place / Local: CTBE, Campinas, Brazil Event Website / Website do evento: http://www.bioetanol.org.br/workshop5TRANSCRIPT
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Balances of Biofuels�
Dr Mairi J Black
2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle. 11th-12th November 2009. Campinas, Brazil.
• UK and EU Policy overview
• Methodologies – GHG emission calculations
• Issues in GHG emission calculations
• Porter Alliance, Imperial College London
• GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance
approach to advance technology biofuels
Presentation Overview
UK and EU Policy overview
Global interest and initiatives in biofuels have set out to address:
• Environmental issues such as climate change – biofuels have potential to provide greenhouse gas savings and improve air quality
• Energy issues - security of supply/reduce dependence on fossil fuels (finite resource)
• Social issues - employment, rural development
Interest in biofuels
The UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (the RTFO) requires suppliers of fossil fuels to ensure that a specified % of the road fuel supplied in the UK is made up of renewable fuels. The RTFO requires companies to submit reports on carbon emissions and sustainability of biofuels.
(Renewable Fuels Agency 2008) • Commenced April 2008 • Initial renewable fuel inclusion targets set at: 2008 – 2009 2.5% 2009 – 2010 3.9% 2010 – 2011 5.25%
• Currently no reward for carbon and sustainability reporting (anticipated that carbon benefit will be rewarded from 2010 and sustainability benefits, from 2011)
• Buy-out option for non-inclusion of renewable fuel • Reporting framework provides a stepping stone towards a mandatory assurance
scheme • Administered by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA)
UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
GHG / Carbon calculations
• Current methodologies are supply chain specific (ethanol from sugarcane, sugar beet, molasses, wheat and corn; FAME from tallow, used cooking oil, soy, palm, oilseed rape; biomethane from anaerobic digestion of MSW and manure; ethanol converted to ETBE)
• On-going debate on methodologies used • Land use change issues unresolved (Gallagher Review) • Data may available and accessible for large scale commodity crops • Default values can be extremely broad where data not available • GHG and lifecycle analysis will improve
UK RTFO – Carbon Reporting
Environmental Principles - Feedstock Production
• will not destroy or damage large above or below ground carbon stocks • will not lead to the destruction or damage to high biodiversity areas • does not lead to soil degradation • does not lead to the contamination or depletion of water sources • does not lead to air pollution
Social Principles – Feedstock and Biofuel Production
• does not adversely affect workers rights and working relationships • does not adversely affect existing land rights and community relations
UK RTFO - Sustainability Reporting
EU Energy and Climate Change Package agreed December 2008 - 27 EU Member States committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 and to target a 20% share of renewable energies in EU energy consumption by 2020: “20-20 in 2020”
• will scale up to as much as 30% CO2 reduction commitment under new global climate change agreements with other developed countries
• includes a 10% transport fuel target within 20% renewable energy target
• incorporates modifications to the FQD and RED as described in Directive 2009/28/EC and Directive 2009/30/EC.
European Union Policy Snapshot
Objectives addressed by different EU Directorates:
• Directorate-General for Environment (DG-Environment): The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) - reduction of harmful atmospheric emissions (including GHGs) from
transport fuels • Directorate-General for Transport and Energy (DG-Tren): The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) - promotion of renewable energies such as wind, solar, geothermal,
wave, tidal, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment, plant gas and biogases and including biofuels
Objectives of EU Biofuel Policies
• 1998 Fuel Quality Directive (1998/70/EC); revised 2003 (2003/17/EC) - to establish fuel specifications and reduce pollution from vehicle emissions for health and environmental benefits
• January 2007 Commission Proposal for Revision of Fuel Quality Directive - to reflect developments in fuel and engine technology - to help combat climate change by the promotion and development of
lower carbon fuels (including biofuels) - to meet air quality objectives set out in the 2005 Clean Air Strategy
and 2008 Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) Proposed: - Mandatory monitoring of ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ from fuels
as of 2009 - Obligation for fuel suppliers to ensure a reduction in greenhouses gases
from fuels throughout the lifecycle (production, transport and use) of 1% per annum between 2011 and 2020 (i.e. 10% by 2020)
- Now Directive 2009/30/EC
EU Biofuels Targets (FQD)
• 2001 Renewable energy targets for electricity set (Directive 2001/77/EC) • 2003 Renewable energy targets set for biofuels (Directive 2003/30/EC) - required member states to set indicative targets for a minimum portion of
biofuels to be set in the market (by energy) 2 % by 2005 5.75% by 2010
• 2007 Biofuels Progress Report for 2005 - biofuels reached only 1% of the market - Sweden and Germany were the only countries to reach the 2% target - 2010 target of 5.75% was unlikely to be met
• January 2008 review of 2003 Biofuels Directive (as part of the Proposal for the Directive for the Promotion of Renewable Energy). Agreed December 2008 and now Directive 2009/28/EC. - 20% EU energy from renewable sources by 2020 - within this target, 10% transport fuel requirements should be met from
renewable sources
EU Biofuels Targets (RED)
To address biofuels issues within the RED Proposal, public consultation (including stakeholders, NGOs and governments across EU) generally supported the following:
• Land with high carbon stocks should not be converted for biofuel production (e.g. wetlands, peatlands)
• Land with high biodiversity should not be converted for biofuel production (e.g. forest, grassland)
• Biofuels should achieve a minimum level of greenhouse gas saving (carbon stock losses would not be included in the calculation)
• Biofuels and bioliquids which do not fulfil the sustainability credentials will not be considered as renewable.
Biofuel sustainability in the RED
EU Commission activities for New RED (2009/28/EC)
• Completion of the sustainability criteria for biofuels by end 2009/early 2010 e.g. definitions of degraded lands, biodiverse grasslands, reporting methodologies
• Guide on carbon stocks expected December 2009 - will be annexed to general guidance on sustainability criteria
• Indirect land use report is expected by 2010 - aims to review the impact of indirect land use change; address ways to minimise impact and if appropriate, recommend methodologies for accounting for emissions from carbon stock changes caused by indirect land use change Ewout Deurwaarder, European Commission, Feb 2009
Biofuel sustainability activities in RED and FQD
• A specific Committee will be created jointly with the Renewable Energy Directive and Fuels Quality Directive, to coordinate the energy and environment aspects in future development of biofuel sustainability criteria
Biofuel sustainability activities in EU
Methodologies – GHG emission calculations
Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or “Cradle to Grave” assessment of the environmental input of a product.
Impact category: Global warming potential (can also be used to define energy consumption; acidification; smog; ozone layer depletions; human toxicology; pollutants; eutrophication and eco-toxicological impacts)
GHG Calculation Methodologies
Inputs: Fossil Fuels, Chemicals,
Output: Product and co-products, GHG, Particles, Sulphides,
Crop Harvest Processing Crop Production Utilization Disposal of
waste
Life Cycle Assessment decisions – goal and scope
• functional unit (final unit of measurement; depends on perspective and questions being addressed) • systems boundaries (must be clearly defined; relevant and consistent) • reference systems (provides comparison; must be clearly defined and have the same systems boundaries) • allocation of co-products (depends on boundary setting;
various methods used – still uncertainty on methodologies)
GHG Calculation Methodologies
GHG Calculation Methodologies
CLCA Boundary (direct emissions and
all indirect effects)
ALCA Boundary (direct emissions
from life cycle
From Tipper, R.; Hutchinson, C. and Brander, M. (2009) “A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from indirect land use change associated with biofuels” Technical Paper TP-080212-A, Ecometrica Press.
ALCA – Attributional Life Cycle Analysis Provides information on impacts of all processes used to produce (consume and dispose of) a product
CLCA – Consequential Life Cycle Analysis Provides information about consequences of changes in level of output (consumption and disposal) of a product, including effects inside and outside the life cycle of the product
CLCA has wider scope . Approach often used in policy making, instead of looking at specific supply chains
Issues in GHG emission calculations
• The impacts of changing land use - Direct Land Use Change
- Indirect Land Use Change
(Bauen and Howes, 2008)
Issues in GHG calculations
Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
Cropland (food)
Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
Cropland (food)
biofuel crop
Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
Cropland (food)
Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or
wetland)
Cropland
Biofuel crop
new crop land
• Indirect Land Use Change – a methodological issue?
• GHG emissions from Land Use Change and Indirect Land Use Change – attribute all to biofuels?
Issues in GHG calculations
Direct effect of expanded biofuel crop area
Cropland (food)
Biofuel crop
Indirect effect of expanded biofuel crop area
Cropland (food)
Biofuel crop
• e.g. palm oil-based biodiesel
- range of emissions reported in literature1 - using ACLA approach
* 80% positive ghg emission benefit when palm oil is derived from existing plantations * 800-2000% negative ghg emissions benefit when palm oil is
produced on cleared rain or peat swamp forest
- using CLCA approach, including indirect land use change
* all palm oil causes 800-2000% negative ghg emissions
1Beer et al., 2007
Methodological issues in GHG calculations
• Dealing with ILUC within any policy framework is problematic - Indirect Land Uses Change (ILUC) relies on understanding Land Use
Change - Direct Land Use Change (LUC) may occur as the result of several drivers, is difficult to monitor and attribute specifically to given factors. - ILUC is even more difficult to define as it may be the result of several direct factors and “knock-on” effects. - The only way to deal with LUC and ILUC in policy is using modeling
methodologies.
Several methodologies are being employed in different policy approaches. A more complete understanding of the methodologies and their implications is needed.
Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops
Some of the current modeling methodologies which are being reviewed for ILUC modeling in the EU are:
• GTAP-AEZ (Global Trade Analysis Project-Agroecological Zone model) • GTAP-E (Global Trade Analysis-Energy model) • LEITAP (an extended land allocation version of GTAP)
In the US, iLUC is being reviewed using:
• LCA models (GREET) • Economic models such as CARD/FAPRI and FASOM • Satelite image analysis • Carbon stocks of lands, based on IPCC/Winrock International consultants
studies
Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops
Impact Review - Key considerations
• co-product value and allocation of benefits • how to allocate carbon lost from deforestation between LUC causes (e.g. timber
extraction; agricultural expansion for food production)? • how to rationalise the relationship between increased demand for crops for biofuels
and increased agricultural yields? • how to define directly, the relationship between increased demand in one region
leading to supply in another region? • how to “decide” which type of land is converted to agriculture? • how to take into account the use of agricultural land that would otherwise have
been abandoned? How to define the value of regenerating land? • how to take into account the effect of sustainability criteria? Ewout Deurwaarder, European Commission, Feb 2009
• how to evaluate technological developments in biofuel production and land use implications in timeframe for targets
Indirect Land Use (ILUC) in the EU
• Recommendations for the RTFO for biofuel inclusion in the transport fuel mix are now - 2.5% target should remain for 2008 but thereafter, only increase target by 0.5% per annum to a maximum of 5% (by volume) in 2013
• EU Renewable Energy Directive is currently going through the political process to evaluate the 10% renewable transport fuel target for 2020, including a review of methodologies to define ILUC
• On-going methodological improvements will continue to support the debate - GHG calculations (default values) - Crop co-product value and allocation - Land use change / land use potential (Agro-ecological zoning work)
The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction
Porter Alliance, Imperial College London
Advanced technologies for liquid biofuel production offer new opportunities both for feedstock and fuel types.
The Porter Alliance is an association of leading science institutions in the UK, including Imperial College London, Rothamsted
Research, The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), The John Innes Centre and the Universities of
Cambridge, Southampton and York.
The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction
• We consider the whole supply chain for biofuels, from agronomic considerations through processing to end fuel format
• Rely on LCA methodologies to evaluate and make comparisons to “prove “ the ghg balance benefits of advanced technologies
• We use quantitative sustainability criteria to manage research and development
Porter Alliance
Plants Process Products
Sustainability
Crop conversion routes for fuels/chemicals
Biochemical Conversion
Pyrolysis
Bioethanol Biodiesel
Synoil Syngas
Biochemicals
Acid Hydrolysis
Enzymatic Hydrolysis
Starches Oils Proteins
Platform Chemicals Biobutanol Hydrocarbons
Fermentation
Wheat Maize Sugar cane
Barley
Potato Cassava
Hexose C6 monomeric sugars
Soy
Palm
Oilseed Rape Willow Miscanthus Switchgrass Eucalyptus Spruce
Methyl esterification
Dedicated Lignocellulosic Production Systems Conventional Commodity Crops
Fischer-Tropsch
Sugar beet
Co-products/residues
Food and Feed
Energy
Lignin
Undifferentiated Biomass
Lignocellulosics Sugars
Pentose C5 monomeric sugars
Gasification
Thermochemical Conversion
Biochar
• Bioethanol produced by fermentation of C6 sugars C6H12O6 →2C2H5OH+2CO2
+ CO2
• Biodiesel produced by methyl esterification of vegetable oil triglycerides triglyceride + methanol methyl esters + glycerol
Biofuel Technologies - Current
catalyst
e.g. NaOH
• Biochemical conversions of biomass to release sugars for fermentation (lignocellulosic technologies) - breakdown and separation of biomass
plant cell wall structural components i.e. lignin breakdown and removal; cellulose and hemicellulose breakdown to C6 and C5 sugars using steam explosion; acid/alkali treatments and/or enzymatic hydrolysis (requiring a cocktail of enzymes depending on the structure of biomass materials)
• Current technological developments include innovative means of accessing C6 and C5 sugars and fermentation of C5 sugars
Biofuel Technologies - Advanced
Image from Dr Mike Ray, Porter Alliance, Imperial College
Potential pathways to biofuel
Currently over 200 biofuel pathways identified – not taking into account geographical sources of crop materials! – we use a modular approach to LCA and sustainability for making comparisons of biofuel chains using process chain units
• Crops (breeding improvements; agronomic practices) • Front End Process (extractions; milling) • Primary Conversion (accessing sugars) • Secondary Conversions (fermentation pathways) • End product (biofuel/bioenergy/chemicals)
GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance approach to advance technology biofuels
How do we rationalise this?
Identify commonalities and apply a modular approach to LCA and sustainability (the Porter Matrix)
• in principle, the LCA and sustainability of a crop to the farm gate will be the same, regardless of whether it is grown for bioenergy or biofuel
• in principle, the processing steps to convert a crop material, will be the same regardless of where the crop is grown (but variables in input requirements, as the result of biomass composition can be probed)
Porter process chain
ENERGY CROPS
Optimising yield FRONT END PROCESSES
Optimising accessible carbon
PRIMARY CONVERSION
Optimising conversion to
biofuel
Sustainability and life cycle analysis
Miscanthus Willow Switchgrass Poplar Sugar cane bagasse Forest residues Crop residues
Fungi
Dilute acid / alkaline
Ionic liquids
Mild thermal
Thermochemical
Hydrothermal
Rumen microbes
Steam
Developmental front end processes
Proprietary microbial ethanologens
Direct fermentation of oligosaccharides
Butanologenic recombinant bacteria Long chain alkane / alkanol producing organisms
Developmental microbial ethanologens
Each module can be considered in isolation and applied to different supply chain scenarios
The Porter Matrix
• How do we integrate technological innovations into this matrix?
Fundamental Plant science Photosynthesis Radiation Use Efficiency Genomics Plant Cell Wall Biosynthesis and Composition
Crop Research and Development Plant breeding Increasing yield Improving agronomic efficiency
Existing crop production systems Defining “typical” practices for crops Defining land reference systems
Process Procedures Defining “typical” processes Defining scale-up criteria
Processibility Plant material composition and physical characteristics
New Technologies Novel fungal pre-treatment Lignocellulosic solubility Novel enzymes
Fuel Characteristics Biodiesel variations Synfuel compatibility
Vehicle / Engine Specifications
Fundamental Plant Science
• Understanding plant cell wall biosynthesis and external factors, to improve biomass quality and processability for bioenergy production
• Identifying genotypic variation • Not within LCA scope until reaches “crop status”
From Dr Thorsten Hamann, Imperial College London
• Using less specifically defined biomass materials. Agronomic targets are increased yield and reduced inputs (e.g. from fertilizer inputs) - UK crops e.g. miscanthus; short rotation coppice (SRC) crops such
as willow and poplar; grass from grasslands
- global crops e.g. switchgrass; reed canary grass; eucalyptus; energy sorghum and sugarcane
- waste such as paper; wood; MSW – even less specific
Raw materials for lignocellulosic technology
Input activities cultivation: site preparation; planting crop; harvesting; machinery maintenance
crop processing: drying; milling; chipping, pelleting, extraction
storage: in-field; basic; heated or ventillated
transport: road; rail; marine
Crop Module LCA
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Crop Processing Storage Cultivation Transport Conversion
Crop Module LCA
• Cultivation is often the largest ghg emissions source in the supply chain - fertilizer inputs; N2O soil emissions - machinery use and fuel consumption
• Supported by actual, gathered field data where possible (or “best available” default values used)
• Attributional approach taken for specific supply chain calculations to farm gate
• ILUC still to be defined for many supply chains
Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Input activities for each process step
• Variables to address efficiency Size Reduction
& Pretreatment
Hydrolysis Fermentation Alcohol Recovery
*Slides from Ali Hosseini, PhD student, Porter Alliance
Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Process probe – root cause analysis model Low yield of fermentation
Low yield of microorganism
Low tolerance to ethanol
Inefficient microorganism
Low tolerance to inhibitors
Microorganism Inhibitors
Inhibitors generated during
pretreatment
Inefficient pretreatment
Low digestability of entering fiber
Low yield of Enzymatic Hydrolysis
Low digestability of entering fiber
Inefficient pretreatment
Cellulases inhibitors
Inhibitors generated during
pretreatment
Inefficient pretreatment
*Slides from Ali Hosseini, PhD student, Porter Alliance
Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA
• Crop production models • Process models – root cause analysis model supported by
• Field based agronomic data • Variation in genotypes from crop • Crop/Plant material - lab based compositional analysis • Novel pre-processing technologies - solubility studies of lignocellulosic material - fungal breakdown of biomass prior to hydrolysis
• Novel enzymes from metabolic engineering • Enzymatic break-down and compositional analysis
Porter Alliance approach
Identifying and evaluating potential biofuel supply chains
• Working with colleagues at Imperial College and other research institutes to develop technologies • Drawing on Imperial College collaborative projects such as Quatermas; COMPETE; TSEC and BEST projects • Direct involvement with the UK and EU political process for the development
of biofuel and bioenergy policies and methodologies for carbon and sustainability reporting within the RTFO; RED and FQD
• Activities within global Academic community and “RoundTable” activities for defining LCA methodologies and sustainability standards
Our structure Porter Alliance Board
Chair – Sir Richard Sykes Members – Heads of Partner Institutions
Division Director Biology and Sustainability Dr Angela Karp
Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability
Dr Jeremy Wood
Energy Crops and Biomass
Drs Iain Donnison and Angela Karp
Cell Walls and Composition Dr Richard
Murphy
Processing and Bioconversion Dr David Leak
Division Director Physical Science and Engineering
Prof Nilay Shah
Tools and Technology
Prof David Klug
Fuels and Combustion
Prof Alex Taylor
Chemicals and Materials
Dr Charlotte Williams
Biorefining Dr Claire
Adjiman and Prof Nilay Shah
Directorate
Research
Director Prof Richard Templer
Director Development and Policy
Lead for Business Relations Group Mr Rafat Malik
Administration and Communication
Ms Catherine Oriel
Event Organisation Ms Alison Parker
Research interactions Cell Walls and Composition
Dr Richard Murphy (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)
Dr Mike Ray (Post-Doc) Nick Brereton (PhD)
Dr Thorsten Hamann (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)
Dr Priya Madhou (Post-Doc) Dr Lucy Denness (Post-Doc)
Dr Alexandra Wormit (Post-Doc) Lars Kjaer (PhD)
Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability
Dr Jeremy Woods (CEP, Supervisor) )
Dr Calliope Panoutsou (CEP) Dr Rocio Diaz-Chavez (CEP)
Dr Mairi Black (CEP) Raphael Slade (CEP) Gareth Brown (CEP)
Alfred Gathorne-Hardy (CEP)
Biorefining Prof Nilay Shah
(Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Supervisor)
Ali Hosseini (PhD)
Chemicals and Materials
Prof Tom Welton (Dept of
Chemistry, Supervisor)
Agnieska Brandt (PhD)
Dr Laura Barter (Supervisor)
Energy Crops and Biomass
Drs Ian Donnison (IGER) and Angela
Karp (RRES) Nick Brereton
(PhD)
Processing and Bioconversion
Dr David Leak (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)
Dr Velusamy Senthilkumar
Thank you Contact: Dr Mairi J Black
Porter Alliance Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College London London SW7 2AZ [email protected] www.porteralliance.org.uk
2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle. 11th-12th November 2009. Campinas, Brazil.