Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation GHG balances (and costs); integrating energy, products and forests IEA Bio-energy Task 38 Conference

Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation

GHG balances (and costs); integrating energy, products and

forestsIEA Bio-energy Task 38 Conference on Efficient Use of Biomass

for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Ostersund - Sweden, 30 September, 2003

André Faaij Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development –

Utrecht University.


Energy flowCarbon flow*Legend:

* Other GHG and auxiliary fossil energy inputs are excluded in this figure for reasons of simplicity

Conversion in heatand power plants

Biomass

Renewablebiotic

carbonstocks

Bioenergy system Fossil energy system

Decreasingfossil

carbonstocks

Conversion in heatand power plants

Heat /electricitydistribution

Heat Electricity

By-products

Useful energy:

By-products

Carbonoxidation

Heat /electricitydistribution

Carbonfixation

Fossil fuel

StorageTransport

Slow increasing atmospheric carbon Strong increasing atmospheric carbon

Transport

Production ProcessingHarvesting

Storage

Processing

Auxiliary fossilenergy emissions

Auxiliary fossilenergy emissions

IEF 98/026

GHG-impacts ofBio-energy systems•Carbon stock dynamics

•Reference systems

•Permanence

•Emission factors

•Efficiency

•Up stream energy inputs

•By-products

•Leakage

•Other GHG’s


Carbon flows in forestry projects


Some key topics for complex bio-energy & material systems

• Reference systems (materials, functional units).• (variable) Multi-output systems• Cascading & ‘waste’ treatment• Temporary storage (lifetime of products).• Dynamics over time.• Optimal use ($, GHG, Energy, land use efficiency)

versus dynamics.• International trade flows.• (…)


Schematic representation of biomass cascading

system with reference system and boundaries

Sam

e fu

ncti

on

Bio

ma

ss

syst

em

conversion fuel electricity heat

Energycarrier

conversion fuel electricity heat

Energycarrier

Material production and use

Mb1 Mb2

Mb4 Mb3

Re

fere

nce

sys

tem

Material production and use

Mf1Mf2

Mf4

Mf3

or

Biomasscultivation

Fossilenergy

raw material

process energy

Biomasscultivation

Fossilenergy

raw material

process energy


Biomass cascading system; carbon streams in time


Recycling possibilities of SR poplar applications considered in this study with a maximum of three

successive material applications

Raw Material

Primary materials

Secondary materials

Tertiary materials Energy

Particle lumber MDF board Particle lumber

Pallets Particle lumber MDF board

MDFboardSRC Poplar

Viscose Ethylene Ethylene

Ethylene Methanol

Chemical pulp Electricity



CO2 emission reduction per ha of the different

cascading chains with and without applying

present value to CO2 emission reductions

EL ME LU-ELMDF-EL

PA-ELPUL-EL

ET-EL VI-EL LU-LU-ET-EL

PA-MDF-ET-EL

PA-LU-MDF-EL

PA-LU-LU-EL

Mg

CO

2 /

(h

a*yr

)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CO2 reduced per haCO2 reduced per ha evaluated with present value


CO2 mitigation costs (+) or benefits (-) of the different

cascading chains€/

Mg

CO

2

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mitigation costs evaluated with present valueMitigation costs Variation due to market price reference material

EL ME

LU-EL

MDF-EL PA-EL PUL-EL

ET-EL VI-EL

PA-LU-LU-EL

PA-LU-MDF-EL

PA-MDF-ET-EL



Some findings

• Cascading often efficient, but not always!

• System boundaries, time dimension and (in)direct land demand key methodological elements.

• Key uncertainties: market prices, production costs, biomass productivity, energy mix…


Uncertainties in carbon mitigation and costs of plantation forestry projects

•Determine and estimate factors contributing to uncertainty of carbon benefits and profitability

•Compare different actually proposed projects (6, Brazil)

•Rubber plantation (RP)

•Oil palm plantation (PO)

•Teak plantation (TW)

•Babaçu forest management (BFM)

•Eucalyptus for fuelwood (EC)

•Eucalyptus for charcoal (PI)


Carbon Benefits per Hectare (assumed perpetual rotation)

-500

50100150200250300350400450

RubberPlant.

Palm OilPlant.

TeakPlantation

BabaçuCharc.

CeramicsFirew.

Eucal.Charcoal

To

ns

of

Ca

rbo

n

CER Per ha Storage Potential Remaining CER


Plausible Range of Net Present Values per Ton of Carbon Based on 'Internal Variables'.

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Rubber Plant. Palm Oil Plant. Teak Plantation Babaçu Charc. Eucal. Charcoal

NP

V p

er

ton

C

Low High Developer

-125

144


Existing vegetationEffects of Carbon Options on Carbon Credits

(indexed to 'base' scenario)

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Rubber Plant. Palm OilPlant.

TeakPlantation

CeramicsFirew.

Eucal.Charcoal

Re

lati

ve

Car

bo

n B

en

efi

t

Base Barren Fallow Savannah Jungle WCLB


Carbon rules

• What benefits are allowed– forest protection, existing vegetation

– credits for temporary storage

• What crediting system is used– based on in-and outflows (stock change)

– based on storage times (ton-year)


Carbon rulesEffects of Carbon Options on Carbon Credits

(indexed to 'base' scenario)

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

RubberPlant.

Palm OilPlant.

TeakPlantation

BabaçuCharc.

CeramicsFirew.

Eucal.Charcoal

Re

lati

ve

Car

bo

n B

en

efi

t

Base Loose Strict Lashof Moura-Costa


Effect on costs per ton of carbonEffects of Carbon Options on NPV per ton C

(15% discount rate, no carbon revenue)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RubberPlant.

Palm OilPlant.

TeakPlantation

BabaçuCharc.

CeramicsFirew.

Eucal.Charcoal

US

$ p

er

ton

C

Base Loose Strict Fallow Savannah Lashof Moura-Costa


Discount ratesEffects of Carbon Options on NPV per ton C (base 15% discount rate, no carbon revenue)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Rubber Plant. TeakPlantation

Babaçu Charc. CeramicsFirew.

Eucal.Charcoal

NP

V p

er

ton

C (

US

$)

5% D.R. 10% D.R. 15% D.R. 20% D.R.

8197


Some findings…• Five projects should be excluded from the CDM on additionality

grounds; except for Babaçu forest managment.• Carbon benefits are uncertain.

• Temporary storage is financially important• Discount rate, baseline vegetation and accounting method cause

largest uncertainties.– Can be reduced by agreement on methods and rules for measuring and

calculating project benefits.

• Leakage and product prices are runners up.– Hard to determine in advance– Additionality hard to determine due to commodity price fluctuations.– Leakage requires (expensive) monitoring

• Transparent procedures and review of project data are essential


GHG performance of current biomass imports to the Netherlands

s a w m i l l

p e l l e t i s a t i o n

h a r b o u r H a l i f a x

d e d i c a t e d f o r e s t

c h i p m i l l

A m e r p l a n t

s a w d u s ts h a v i n g s

b a r k

b a r k

c h i p s

l u m b e r

p e l l e t s

h a r b o u r R o t t e r d a m

s t e m s

p e l l e t s


GHG emissions; reference systems

GHGharvesting+stem transport

debarking

truck transport residues

pelletisation

truck transport pellets

ship-transport

barge transport

emission co-firing

cultivation

FFB transport

truck transport shells

ship-transport

barge transport

emission co-firing

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

g C

O2

-eq

/kW

h

pellet co-firing inc landfilling

PKS co-firing inc pile burning

PKS co-firing inc soybean production

reference 1a: 100% coal

reference 1b: Dutch power production


Some closing remarks…

• More work on methods is needed• Accounting dynamics over time particular

challenge…• ..as is dealing with uncertainties.• No clear winners; specific for context.• High standards needed for data quality and

verfication procedures.• (…)

Documents

Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation GHG balances (and costs); integrating energy, products and forests IEA Bio-energy Task 38 Conference