Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
o.d
e
funded by
Bioenergy Environmental Impact Analysis (BIAS)
presented at the FAO Expert Meeting 5/6 Rome, Feb. 18-20, 2008
Uwe R. FritscheCoordinator, Energy & Climate Division
Oeko-Institut e.V. (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt Office
Impacts of Biofuels on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o.d
e
funded by
BIAS: Brief Overview
• FAO commissioned joint study from Öko-Institut, IFEU and Copernicus Institute on keyenvironmental issues of bioenergy
– Develop Analytical Framework: methods
– Issues: Life-Cycle GHG + direct and indirect LUC, airemissions & toxics, biodiversity, water, soil impacts
– Approach: compile existing knowledge, use ownanalysis and scientific expertise
– Define Data Categories and „Tool Box“
– Application not part of current BIAS activities
o.d
e
funded by
Biomass crops
Residues/wastes
Material Use
Energy Use
Biomass & Biofuels
o.d
e
funded by
Biodiesel
Potential Biofuel CropsPotential Biofuel Crops
Bioethanol
rapeseeds
maize(corn)
soy palmoil
Jatropha,
Castor, Neem…
wheat
sugarbeet
lignocelluloseperennial grasses,
short-rotation
copice
sugarcane
cassava etc.
o.d
e
funded by
Consider all Bioenergy Flows
o.d
e
funded by
Technologies + Fuels
coal
natural gas
crude oil
biomass
nuclear
wind
solar
hydro
geotherm.
Primary energy Energy carrier Infrastructure Power train
gasoline
FT gasoline
diesel
FT diesel
biodiesel
ethanol
methanol
DME
CNG
LPG
hydrogen
electricity
fuel cellsand hybrid
ICE and hybrid
Source: Based on WBCSD 2004
electric motorGa
so
us
fue
lsL
iqu
id f
ue
ls
o.d
e
funded by
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
• Accounting Issues
– Scope and data background
– Allocation and system boundaries
– Life-cycle analysis: full fuel-chain approach
– GHG from direct and indirect land-use change
– Links to EU and global GHG data and methodologies
(EEA, GBEP, UNEP…)
o.d
e
funded by
GEMIS Database
Energy Materials Transport
technical dataemission data
cost datadirect job datameta data
freely available at www.gemis.de
o.d
e
funded by
Life-Cycle GHG Balances
Data include by-product credits, but no land-use change (GEMIS 4.4)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
diese
l
CtL
SVO
Palm
oil
H-P
alm
oil
jatro
pha
FT-Die
isel
SRC
woo
d
FT Die
sel s
witc
hgra
ss
gasolin
eco
rn/m
aize
cass
ava
suga
rcan
e2.
gen
. mai
zenat
ural g
asbi
ogas
Biom
etha
ne S
RC
g C
O2-
eqp
er k
Wh
inp
ut
1. Generation Biodiesel
2. Generation Biodiesel
fossil Diesel
1. + 2. Generation EtOH
CNG
o.d
e
funded by
GHG from Land-Use Change
Assumptions of LUC from the UK (LowCVP 2007)
27,720-554-120-31Tropical moist rain forestSoy bean
10,620-213-35-23Temperate forestRapeseed
2,020-400-11Temperate grasslandRapeseed
2,020-400-11Set-asideRapeseed
11,220-224-57-4Tropical moist rain forestPalm oil
10,620-213-35-23Temperate forestMaize
2,020-400-11Temperate grasslandMaize
2,020-400-11Set-asideMaize
27,720-553-120-31Tropical moist rain forestSugar cane
10,620-213-35-23Temperate forestSugar beet
2,020-400-11Temperate grasslandSugar beet
2,020-400-11Set-asideSugar beet
10,620-213-35-23Temperate forestWheat
2,020-400-11Temperate grasslandWheat
2,020-400-11Set-asideWheat
t CO2/ha*alifetime (a)totalabove gr.soilPrevious usePlantation
EmissionFarmingt CO2/haC-Stock (t C/ha)
o.d
e
funded by
30% saving
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
kg C
O2-
Eq
. per
GJ
Bio
fuel
direct land use change
production of biomass
transport of biomass
conversion step I
transport betw. conv. steps
conversion step II
transport to admixture
322 kg CO2-Eq./GJ
fossil reference systems
gasoline: 85 kg/GJ.
Diesel: 86.2 kg/GJ
Ethanol from
corn sugar cane
FAME from
rapeseed oil soy bean oil palm oilwheat
tropicalrainforest
humid savannah
grasslandgrassland
GHG Balance incl. direct LUC
o.d
e
funded by
“Leakage” from Biofuels?
Source: based on Girard (GEF-STAP Biofuels Workshop, New Delhi 2005)
Food crops
Protected& other
high-naturevalue areas
Energy crops/ plantations
Loss of
biodiversity
Forests
Deforestation,
carbon release
„unused“ land(fallow, marginal, degraded)
?
o.d
e
funded by
• Leakage = unintentional side-effect(s)
• Biocropping may cause shift of current land-use
(e.g., soy, wheat…) to other areas; indirectland-use cannot be „traced back“ to project
• Carbon release from indirect land-use change
impact may offset GHG benefits from biofuels
(depending on time horizon)
• Shift of land-use may impact high-nature-value
areas
Leakage: Indirect LUC
o.d
e
funded by
GHG from indirect LUC
• Displacement is a generic problem arisingfrom restricted system boundaries
– Accounting problem of partial analysis („just“ biofuels, no explicite modelling of agro + forestry sectors)
– All incremental land-uses imply indirect effects
• Analytical and political implications
– Analysis: which displacement when & where?
– Policy: which instruments? Partial certificationschemes do not help, but have „spill-over“ effects
o.d
e
funded by
GHG from indirect LUC: risk adder
biofuel route, life-cycle max med min max med minRapeseed to RME, EU 117 89 60 38% 4% -30%
palmoil to PME, Indonesia, rain forest 180 142 103 112% 67% 21%palmoil to PME, Brazil, tropical 199 154 110 135% 82% 29%sugarcane to EtOH, Brazil, tropical 60 48 37 -30% -43% -56%
maize to EtOH, USA 89 73 57 5% -14% -33%
maize to EtOH, EU 69 60 50 -19% -30% -41%
SRC/SG to BtL, EU 52 37 23 -39% -56% -73%
SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, tropical 59 42 25 -30% -50% -70%
SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, steppe 73 52 30 -14% -39% -64%
bold red = no GHG reduction!
relative to with a risk adder level: fossil diesel/gasoline
kg CO2eq/GJ
Accounting for CO2 from indirect LUC using the “risk adder“
for the GHG balance of biofuels*
*= By-product allocation using lower heating value
risk adder is zero for residues/wastes and for biocrops from
unused/degraded lands
o.d
e
funded byEtOH sugarcane RME
A conservative: conversion of
savannah
B real: conversion
of soy cropping
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
kg C
O2-
Eq
. per
GJ
Bio
fuel
PME Palmoil
Direct LUC:
A
B
A
A
C
C
C
B
B
C risk sdder
(only for B)
indirect LUC:
D
D: total
Direct LUC:
C no riskadder
indirect LUC: Direct LUC:
C risk adder(only for B)
indirect LUC:
land use change
production of biomass
transport of biomass
conversion step I
transport betw. conv. steps
conversion step II
transport to admixture
A conservative: conversion trop.
rain forest
B real: conversionof degradedland
A conservative: conversion of pasture
B real: conversionof wheat crops
(small reductionof soil-C)
BSO Default
Example: fictiouspractise
D
D
D: total
D: total
GHG from indirect LUC: risk adder
o.d
e
funded by
GHG from indirect LUC: US Data
Source: Presentation of Prof. Michael O’Hare. University of California, Berkely at the CARB LCFS Working Group 3 meeting, Sacramento, CA, January 17, 2008 based on data from Alex Farell (see
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm)
o.d
e
funded by
Conclusions (1)
• GHG emissions become key issue in biofuels trade
• Ccertification needed up from 2009/2010 forEU market access; will become linked to CDM
• GHG emissions must include direct land-usechanges, and indirect land-use GHG emissions can be high, need „risk hedging“
• GHG limits for biofuels also reduce (but notavoid) risk of negative biodiversity impacts
o.d
e
funded by
Conclusions (2)
• So far, only few developing countries deal with life-cycle GHG emissions of biofuels (AR, BR, TH…)
• FAO should actively support countries in dealing with GHG accounting, and relatedcertification; cooperation with UNEP needed, work with GBEP GHG Task Force
• Biogas/biomethane have low GHG profile, but often ignored ���� need more attention
o.d
e
funded by
Biomethane from compressed biogas in New Delhi, India
Biomethane: local & global
