perspectives on the lifecycle environmental impacts of .../media/files/activity files... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Susan E. Powers, PhD, PEClarkson University, Potsdam NY
Research funded by LLNL, NREL, USDA
Perspectives on the Lifecycle Environmental Impacts of
Ethanol Fuels
Expected Growth in Ethanol Use
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Mill
ions
Gal
lons
EtO
HPr
oduc
ed
EPact’057.5BgalBy 2012
2007 State of the Union –35 billion gallons renewable and
alternative fuels by 2017 to displace 5% current imported gasoline
2008 2008 –– projected 12 projected 12 BgalBgal
History of Env. Considerations
VOCsVOCsNOxNOxSOxSOxPMPM1010
COCO……..
19801980’’ss System Boundary ConsideredSystem Boundary Considered
Solution – change fuel compositionFuel Oxygenates added to improve air quality (CAAA 1990)
• Petroleum lobby MTBE used
1990’s
MTBE ubiquitous in groundwaterMTBE banned, ethanol reconsidered (corn lobby)New system boundary now includes groundwater impacts
System Boundary ConsideredSystem Boundary Considered
UFT
MTBEEthanol ??
2000’s – New Priorities Added
Reduce dependence on foreign oilFuels Security Act of 2003
• U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) “Triple the use of domestic renewable fuels over the next 10 years”
Energy Policy Act of 2005
State of Union Addresses 2006, 2007 promote ethanol ands other biofuels
Current White House Policies include reducing Greenhouse gases
Changes in Lifecycle Perspective
Single impactconsidered
Air quality
Impacts only during product use
Multiple impacts considered
Air qualityGroundwater qualityPetroleum consumptionGreenhouse gases
Impacts throughout lifecycle considered
raw materials acquisition through ultimate product “disposal”
Combustion Combustion byproducts, byproducts,
NN22O, NOO, NOx,x,NHNH33
Runoff Runoff pesticides, pesticides,
NONO33--, P, P
EnergyEnergy
Fertilizers & Fertilizers & PesticidesPesticides
Water, COWater, CO22
CO, COCO, CO22, , NONOxx, , SOSOxxVOCsVOCs……..
Energyraw materials
water
Ethanol,DDGS,Other
by-products
A Lifecycle A Lifecycle PerspectivePerspective
A lot of potential impacts…
Focus today:Groundwater impacts• During Ethanol fuel use only
Surface water impacts• corn and other feedstocks• production and conversion to ethanol
Greenhouse gas emissionsPerspectives –• Benefits in carbon cycling• Detriments in nitrogen cycling• Variability among feedstocks
UFT
Ethanol ??BTEX??
gasolinegasoline
EtOHEtOH
• Nitrates – much of GW in Iowa already above MCL for NO3
• Pesticides
Groundwater Quality
Key Question –How will ethanol impacts on groundwater compare to MTBE?
CH3 - (CH2)4- CH3
Hexane
CH3 - CH2-OH
CH3-O-C-CH3
CH3
CH3
MTBE
Ethanol
..
..
..
..
Water....OH H
Potential Spill Scenarios
EtOH gasolinediesel
Ethanol-blended fuels from LUFTsand trucks
Denatured ethanol at bulk storage terminals
Ethanol partitions completely and rapidly into the aqueous phase
Ethanol readily biodegradable
Ethanol in Groundwater
Ethanol-RFG gasoline
Water Water+ ethanol
Ethanol not a problem (??)
Can the presence of ethanol affect
contamination by other gasoline constituents?
Cosolvency - C2 gasoline
Volume Fraction of Ethanol in the Aqueous Phase
Aqu
eous
Pha
se C
once
ntra
tion
(mg/
L)
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
BenzeneToluenexylenes
Ethanol-RFG
Water
gasoline
Water+ ethanol
+BTEX ?
BTEX Plume
BTEX degradation
Biodegradation Impacts
Gasoline: Natural attenuation of BTEX importantmechanism that limits the distance contaminated
groundwater can travel.
Stable length of BTEX plumeStable length of BTEX plume
BTEX Plume
Ethanol Degradation
Effective BTEX degradation “Lag Length”Oxygen and other electron acceptors consumed, reduced BTEX degradation
Biodegradation ImpactsDegradation half-life of ethanol in groundwater
ranges between 1.3 and 7 days, depending on electron acceptor used.
Reduced natural attenuation,BTEX plume travels farther
Biodegradation Modeling Predictions
Three independent assessments - benzene plumes may increase 24 – 150 % in the presence of ethanol.Net result – a small number of increased GW consumers may be exposed to BTEX through their drinking waterThese impacts are LOCAL
Summary - MTBE vs. Ethanol
Highly solubleLow biodegradation ratesNo impact on BTEX dissolutionNo impact on BTEX transport
Infinitely solubleHigh biodegradation ratesSome increases in BTEX concentrationReduction in BTEX biodegradation ratesAnaerobic GW chemistry
MTBE difficult to treat BTEX easier to treat
MTBE is problem BTEX is problem
OtherEnvironmental Impacts:Nitrogen and Carbon Cycling
Choice of Feedstock
Goal: Quantify environmental impacts associated with agricultural activities for corn and other waste feedstock resources
Greenhouse gas emissions
Eutrophication
Potential Alternatives
Dedicated cellulosic feedstocksSwitchgrassWillow / poplar
Waste materialsCorn stoverWood products waste
• chips, sawdustFood products waste
• cheese whey, fruit pommace…Paper pulp sludge
Production process includes co-generation of heat and power from ethanol processing wastes
UFT
Ethanol ??gasolinegasoline
EtOHEtOH
Waste materialsWaste materials
Ethanol impact - The Nitrogen CycleLots of N used to increase corn yieldsNatural cycles affected with conversion of N2to NH3, NO3
-
Excess reactive nitrogen responsible for many environmental problems
NHNH33
NONOxx
NONO33--
NN22OO
AcidificationAcidification
Smog FormationSmog Formation
Human HealthHuman Health
Eutrophication/HypoxiaEutrophication/Hypoxia
Global WarmingGlobal Warming
Nutrients in water Excess nutrients Excess nutrients discharged to waterdischarged to water
•• Algal BloomsAlgal Blooms
•• Excess aquatic Excess aquatic plant growthplant growth
EutrophicationEutrophication
Mutation in frogs from Mutation in frogs from excess N and P in aquatic systemsexcess N and P in aquatic systemshttp://www.nrel.gov/biomass/photos.html
National Scale Issues - HypoxiaToo many nutrients - extreme eutrophication algae growth/decay
Oxygen concentrations reduced lethal
Gulf of Mexico along Louisiana coast D.O. < ~2-3 mg/L (~8 mg/L equilibrium)
First observed in mid-1980s
~15,000 km2 (~50 x 300 km) (~ size of Massachusetts)
Detrimental to ecosystem and economy
Sources: Canter (1997), deVries (2003), Blackmer (1987)
Soil/plant system
Soil
mineralization immobilization
Constraint: Steady state over long term
LCA Inventory Generate Model for Nitrogen Flows
Plants
nitrificationFN applied NH3
food / feed / energy
uptake
NO3
Sources: Canter (1997), deVries (2003), Blackmer (1987)
Soil/plant system
Constraint: Steady state over long term
Model for Nitrogen Flows
Soil
Plants
Atmosphericsystem
GW
river
Gulf
aqueous system
deni
trific
atio
n
NN22
NN22OONONO
NHNH33
food / feed / energy
NHNH3 NONO3
FN applied
APEX - Nutrient Fate (farm only)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CC
CT
CSC
T
CSN
T
stov
er-5
0%
stov
er-7
5%
switc
hgra
ss
Nut
rient
Flo
ws
(kg/
ha/y
) N to SWP to SW
CSNT
Significance - Eutrophication
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 20000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Dis
char
ge fr
om E
. IA
to M
SR (1
000
mtN
O3
eq.) base case est., C-S only
backgroundmaximum load - WQSactual - 30% reduced TN load
Surface water
Nutrient loads to surface water presently much higher than acceptable in MidwestNitrogen on corn primary culpritBut, can reduce this impact
Change to no-till operationsHarvest stover for ethanol feedstockGrow switchgrass
APEX - Annual Soil Loss
0123456789
10
CC
CT
CSC
T
CSN
T
stov
er-5
0%
stov
er-7
5%
Switc
hgra
ss
Soil
Loss
(t/h
a/y) These recommended changes do These recommended changes do not adversely impact soil not adversely impact soil
retention. Switch to retention. Switch to nono--till most influentialtill most influential
Long-term soil carbon losses
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
CC
CT
CSC
T
CSN
T
stov
er-5
0%
stov
er-7
5%
Switc
hgra
ss
16-y
Soi
l Car
bon
Loss
(t/h
a) These recommended changes do These recommended changes do not adversely impact soil carbon. not adversely impact soil carbon.
Switchgrass increases carbonSwitchgrass increases carbon
Global Warming PotentialGlobal Warming Potential
COCO22 UptakeUptake
COCO22 EmittedEmittedDuring Fuel During Fuel CombustionCombustion
Upstream Chemical and EnergyUpstream Chemical and EnergyProduction and DistributionProduction and Distribution
CHCH44 , CO, CO22
releaserelease
NN22OO
Global Warming Potential
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Corn
Stover A
Stover B
Wood Res
idue
Paper
Sludge
kg C
O2
eq/ L
Upstream chemical productionUpstream electricity and fuel productionProcessing
Transportation
Feedstock farming / collection
Emissions Only
(CO(CO22, CH, CH44, N, N22O)O)
Global Warming Potential
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Corn
Stover A
Stover B
Wood Res
idue
Paper
Sludge
kg C
O2
eq/ L
Atmospheric CO2 credit
Electricitydisplacement credit
Co-product credit
Emissions
Credits
Global Warming Potential
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Corn
Stover A
Stover B
Wood Res
idue
Paper
Sludge
NET
(modified GREET Model, does not include fuel combustion stage)(modified GREET Model, does not include fuel combustion stage)
kg C
O2
eq/ L
Summary –
Aspects of ethanol impactsGood – generally for Carbon related impactsBad – generally related to Nitrogen impacts
ultimately a trade off between priorities
Various impacts occur over entire life cycleCan mitigate many of the problems
No-till farming practicesAlternative feedstocks, including waste materialsWhen fermentation wastes utilized for heat and power co-generation
Uncertainties
Data on waste feedstocks from models, not plant operationCo-product credits – concepts and methodologies fraught with uncertaintiesSignificant variability in environmental emissions, especially from farming
GeographicClimateExtreme events
Next Steps…
Even broader system boundaries and environmental impacts
Human toxicity not considered yetWater resourcesLand use changes
Solutions that extend beyond new fuelsCAFE standardsOther means of transportation
Human toxicity, Smog need local scale
Geographic distribution of impacts for corn ethanolGeographic distribution of impacts for corn ethanol
Powers, S.E., D. Rice, B. Dooher P.J.J. Alvarez, “Replacing MTBE with Ethanol as a Gasoline Oxygenate –How May Ground Water Resources Be Impacted?” Environ. Sci. Technol. 35(1), 24A-30A, 2001.
Powers, S.E., “Quantifying Cradle-to-Farm Gate Life Cycle Impacts Associated with Fertilizer used for Corn, Soybean, and Stover Production.” NREL/TP-510-37500, May, 2005 (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37500.pdf
Powers, S.E., “Integrating Variability into Inventory Estimates of Non-point Source Nutrient Loads from Energy Crop Production.” Int. J. LCA, 12(6): 391-398, 2007.
Lavigne, A., S.E. Powers, “Valuing fuel ethanol feedstock options from multiple energy perspectives: corn and corn stover feedstocks.” Energy Policy, 35: 5918–5930, 2007.
Powers, S.E., L.A Deer-Ascough, R. Nelson, “Soil and Water Quality and Other Environmental Implications Associated With Corn Stover Removal and Herbaceous Energy Crop Production in Iowa.” technical report - National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2007.
Extra Slides
Energy Security and Resource Conservation
Fossil Energy UsedFossil Energy Used
RenewableRenewableBioenergyBioenergy
Diesel FuelDiesel Fuel
Natural GasNatural Gas
Electricity (coal)Electricity (coal)
Metrics – Energy Issues
Current – Net energy valueNEV = Energy out – “consumer” energy in
Alternatives – National Energy PoliciesEnergy Security• % energy inputs that are imported
Energy Resource Conservation• % energy inputs that are renewable
Global warming• % energy inputs from fossil fuels
All quantified over lifecycle
Reported Corn Ethanol NEVs
-12.0
-8.0
-4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010YEAR
NEV
(MJ/
L)
-12.0
-8.0
-4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010YEAR
NEV
(MJ/
L)
Pimentel References
Corn vs. Other feedstocks
Net Energy Value (MJ/L)
Corn 6Stover 23Wood residue 19Paper pulp 9
Calculation to move beyond NEV
Corn Farm
Ethanol ProcessDirect Input
= 4.0 MJ/L 3.6 MJ/L Nat
ura
l Gas
0.4 MJ/L
Calculation to move beyond NEV7.
3 M
J/L
Tota
l Inp
ut Corn Farm
Ethanol ProcessDirect Input
= 4.0 MJ/L (55%)
0.4 MJ/L
3.6 MJ/L
0.7 MJ/L
2.2 MJ/L
Upstream= 3.3 MJ/L (45%)
Fuel
Pr
oduc
tion
Chemical Production
Elec
tric
ityPr
oduc
tion
0.4
MJ/
L
(3%)
(54%)
P2O5
K2O
Pesticide
N(94%)
(43%)
Nat
ura
l Gas
Upstream
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Farm
Direct
Trans
Ener
gy C
onsu
med
MJ/
L
Farm Trans Process
Coal
Gasoline
Diesel
Coal
Gasoline
Diesel
Upstream for Chemicals
Upstream for Electricity
Upstream for Fuels
Upstream for Chemicals
Upstream for Electricity
Upstream for Fuels
LPG
Natural GasBiomass
LPG
Natural Gas
Corn Stover
Process
73% NG
Categorize by Fuel Type
Farm Trans. Process.0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Farm Trans. Process.
MJ/
L
Renewable
Other Fossil Fuels
Petroleum
Renewable
Other Fossil Fuels
Petroleum
Corn Stover
Summary Energy Issues
Stover superior for all energy related metrics
Lower NEVMuch more renewable resourcesMuch less imported oil
Acidification Potential
Electricity displacement credit
Co-product credit
Upstream chemical productionUpstream electricity and fuel productionProcessing
Transportation
Feedstock farming / collection
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Corn
Stov
er A
Stov
er B
Woo
d Re
sidue
Pape
r Slu
dge
g SO
2 eq
/ L
Experimental Spill
Beginning stages of a gasoline spill, dominated by gravity and capillary forces
Capillary height
Ethanol spill- Gasoline is dissolved and displaced ahead of the advancing ethanol front
Ethanol front just entering existing NAPL pool
Ethanol does not spread by capillary action
Gasoline continues to spread ahead of advancing ethanol front
Significant reduction of gasoline in vadose zone
Spreading of gasoline into saturated zone
Capillary fringe depressed
As ethanol concentrations decrease, capillary fringe begins to rebound
Increase in NAPL saturation at the capillary fringe
Smearing of NAPL in the saturated zone
Spill Summary
Increased saturation of gasoline poolIncreased pool mobilityTemporary depression of capillary fringeReduced contamination of residual gasoline in unsaturated zone
Significance of ethanol1.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Area Contact Length Length Height Capillary Depression
Nor
mal
ized
Dat
a (X
/Xin
t)
NormalizedSpill 1Spill 2Spill 3Spill 4Spill 5
Conclusions
Ethanol spill eventsLowered interfacial tension greatly affects distribution of NAPL
Cosolvency effects result in significant increase in BTEX following ethanol spill
Reduced biodegradation of BTEX