Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Balances of Biofuels

  • 1,239 views
Uploaded on

Presentation of Dr Mairi J Black …

Presentation of Dr Mairi J Black
for 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/workshop5

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,239
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Balances of Biofuels Dr Mairi J Black2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of theSugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle.11th-12th November 2009.Campinas, Brazil.
  • 2. Presentation Overview•  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
  • 3. UK and EU Policy overview
  • 4. Interest in biofuels Global interest and initiatives in biofuels have set out toaddress:•  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
  • 5. UK Renewable Transport Fuel ObligationThe UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (the RTFO) requires suppliersof fossil fuels to ensure that a specified % of the road fuel supplied in the UKis made up of renewable fuels. The RTFO requires companies to submitreports 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)
  • 6. UK RTFO – Carbon ReportingGHG / 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
  • 7. UK RTFO - Sustainability ReportingEnvironmental 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 pollutionSocial Principles – Feedstock and Biofuel Production•  does not adversely affect workers rights and working relationships•  does not adversely affect existing land rights and community relations
  • 8. European Union Policy Snapshot EU Energy and Climate Change Package agreed December 2008- 27 EU Member States committed to reduce CO2 emissions by20% by 2020 and to target a 20% share of renewable energies inEU 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.
  • 9. Objectives of EU Biofuel Policies 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
  • 10. EU Biofuels Targets (FQD)•  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
  • 11. EU Biofuels Targets (RED)•  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
  • 12. Biofuel sustainability in the REDTo address biofuels issues within the RED Proposal, publicconsultation (including stakeholders, NGOs and governmentsacross 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.
  • 13. Biofuel sustainability activities in EUEU 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 2009Biofuel 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
  • 14. Methodologies – GHG emission calculations
  • 15. GHG Calculation MethodologiesUsing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or “Cradle to Grave”assessment of the environmental input of a product. Output: Product and co-products, GHG, Particles, Sulphides, Crop Disposal of Crop Harvest Processing Utilization Production waste Inputs: Fossil Fuels, Chemicals, 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)
  • 16. GHG Calculation MethodologiesLife 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)
  • 17. GHG Calculation Methodologies ALCA – Attributional Life Cycle Analysis CLCA Boundary Provides information on impacts of all (direct emissions and processes used to produce (consume and all indirect effects) 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 ALCA Boundary (direct emissions CLCA has wider scope . Approach often used from life cycle in policy making, instead of looking at specific supply chainsFrom Tipper, R.; Hutchinson, C. and Brander, M. (2009)“A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from indirect landuse change associated with biofuels” Technical Paper TP-080212-A, Ecometrica Press.
  • 18. Issues in GHG emission calculations
  • 19. Issues in GHG calculations•  The impacts of changing land use - Direct Land Use Change Non agricultural land Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or (e.g. forest, grassland or wetland) wetland) Cropland Cropland (food) (food) biofuel crop - Indirect Land Use Change Non agricultural land Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or (e.g. forest, grassland or wetland) wetland) Cropland Cropland (food) Biofuel new crop crop land(Bauen and Howes, 2008)
  • 20. Issues in GHG calculations•  Indirect Land Use Change – a methodological issue? Direct effect of Indirect effect of expanded biofuel crop area expanded biofuel crop area Cropland Cropland (food) (food) Biofuel crop Biofuel crop•  GHG emissions from Land Use Change and Indirect Land Use Change – attribute all to biofuels?
  • 21. Methodological issues in GHG calculations•  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 emissions1Beer et al., 2007
  • 22. Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops•  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 policyapproaches. A more complete understanding of themethodologies and their implications is needed.
  • 23. Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel CropsSome of the current modeling methodologies which are beingreviewed 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
  • 24. Indirect Land Use (ILUC) in the EUImpact 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
  • 25. The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction•  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)
  • 26. Porter Alliance, Imperial College London
  • 27. The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction Advancedtechnologies 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 RuralSciences (IBERS), The John Innes Centre and the Universities of Cambridge, Southampton and York.
  • 28. Porter Alliance•  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 Plants Process Products Sustainability
  • 29. Crop conversion routes for fuels/chemicals Dedicated Lignocellulosic Production Systems Conventional Commodity Crops Spruce Eucalyptus Willow Miscanthus Switchgrass Sugar Maize Wheat Barley Soy Oilseed Rape cane Sugar beet Potato Cassava Palm Co-products/residues Proteins Sugars Starches Oils Undifferentiated Lignocellulosics Biomass Food and FeedEnergy Biochemical Conversion Thermochemical Conversion Acid Enzymatic Methyl esterification Hydrolysis Hydrolysis Pyrolysis Gasification Lignin Synoil Syngas Hexose C6 monomeric sugars C5 monomeric sugars PentoseBiochar Fischer-Tropsch Fermentation Platform Chemicals Hydrocarbons Biodiesel Bioethanol Biobutanol Biochemicals
  • 30. Biofuel Technologies - Current•  Bioethanol produced by fermentation of C6 sugars C6H12O6 →
2C2H5OH
+
2CO2 + CO2•  Biodiesel produced by methyl esterification of vegetable oil triglycerides catalyst triglyceride + methanol methyl esters + glycerol e.g. NaOH
  • 31. Biofuel Technologies - Advanced•  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) Image from Dr Mike Ray, Porter Alliance, Imperial College•  Current technological developments include innovative means of accessing C6 and C5 sugars and fermentation of C5 sugars
  • 32. Potential pathways to biofuelCurrently over 200 biofuel pathways identified – nottaking into account geographical sources of cropmaterials! – we use a modular approach to LCA andsustainability for making comparisons of biofuel chains usingprocess 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)
  • 33. GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance approach to advance technology biofuels
  • 34. How do we rationalise this?Identify commonalities and apply a modular approach toLCA 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)
  • 35. Porter process chain Sustainability and life cycle analysis Fungi Butanologenic Each module can be recombinant Miscanthus Rumen microbes bacteria considered in isolation Willow Ionic liquids Long chain alkane / alkanol producing and applied to organisms Switchgrass Developmental front end processes different supply Poplar Dilute acid / alkaline Direct fermentation of oligosaccharides chain scenarios Sugar cane bagasse Mild thermal Developmental Forest residues microbial Hydrothermal ethanologens Crop residues Steam Proprietary microbial Thermochemical ethanologens ENERGY CROPS FRONT END PRIMARY PROCESSES CONVERSION Optimising yield Optimising Optimising accessible carbon conversion to biofuel
  • 36. The Porter Matrix•  How do we integrate technological innovations into this matrix? Process ProceduresFundamental Plant science Defining “typical” processes Photosynthesis Defining scale-up criteriaRadiation Use Efficiency Genomics ProcessibilityPlant Cell Wall Biosynthesis and Composition Plant material composition and physical characteristicsCrop Research and Development New TechnologiesPlant breeding Novel fungal pre-treatmentIncreasing yield Lignocellulosic solubilityImproving agronomic efficiency Novel enzymesExisting crop production systems Fuel CharacteristicsDefining “typical” practices for crops Biodiesel variationsDefining land reference systems Synfuel compatibility Vehicle / Engine Specifications
  • 37. Fundamental Plant Science•  Understanding plant cell wall biosynthesis and external factors, to improve biomass quality and processability for bioenergy production From Dr Thorsten Hamann, Imperial College London•  Identifying genotypic variation•  Not within LCA scope until reaches “crop status”
  • 38. Raw materials for lignocellulosic technology•  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
  • 39. Crop Module LCAInput activities cultivation: site preparation; planting crop; harvesting; machinerymaintenancecrop processing: drying; milling; chipping, pelleting, extraction OUTPUTS Cultivation Crop Storage Transport Conversion Processing INPUTSstorage: in-field; basic; heated or ventillatedtransport: road; rail; marine
  • 40. 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
  • 41. Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA•  Input activities for each process step *Slides from Ali Hosseini, PhD student, Porter Alliance•  Variables to address efficiency Size Reduction Alcohol & Hydrolysis Fermentation Recovery Pretreatment
  • 42. Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA •  Process probe – root cause analysis model Low yield of fermentation Low Low yield of digestability of microorganism entering fiber Low yield of Low tolerance to Low tolerance to Enzymatic ethanol inhibitors Hydrolysis Low Inefficient Microorganism Cellulases digestability of microorganism Inhibitors inhibitors entering fiber Inhibitors Inhibitors generated during Inefficient generated during pretreatment pretreatment pretreatment*Slides from Ali Inefficient InefficientHosseini, PhD student, pretreatment pretreatmentPorter Alliance
  • 43. 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
  • 44. Porter Alliance approachIdentifying 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
  • 45. Our structure Porter Alliance Board Chair – Sir Richard Sykes Directorate Members – Heads of Partner Institutions Event Organisation Administration and Director Director Development Lead for Business Ms Alison Parker Communication Prof Richard Templer and Policy Relations Group Ms Catherine Oriel Mr Rafat Malik Division Director Biology and Division Director Physical Sustainability Science and Engineering Research Dr Angela Karp Prof Nilay Shah Life Cycle Energy Crops Cell Walls and Processing and Biorefining Chemicals and Fuels and Tools and Analysis and and Biomass Composition Bioconversion Dr Claire Materials Combustion Technology Sustainability Drs Iain Dr Richard Dr David Leak Adjiman and Prof Dr Charlotte Prof Alex Taylor Prof David KlugDr Jeremy Wood Donnison and Murphy Nilay Shah Williams Angela KarpResearch interactionsLife Cycle Analysis and Energy Crops Cell Walls and Composition Processing and Biorefining Chemicals and Sustainability and Biomass Dr Richard Murphy (Dept. of Bioconversion Prof Nilay Shah Materials Dr Jeremy Woods (CEP, Drs Ian Donnison Biology, Supervisor) Dr David Leak (Dept. (Dept. of Chemical Prof Tom Welton Supervisor) ) (IGER) and Angela Dr Mike Ray (Post-Doc) of Biology, Engineering, (Dept ofDr Calliope Panoutsou (CEP) Karp (RRES) Nick Brereton (PhD) Supervisor) Supervisor) Chemistry,Dr Rocio Diaz-Chavez (CEP) Nick Brereton Dr Thorsten Hamann (Dept. of Dr Velusamy Ali Hosseini (PhD) Supervisor) Dr Mairi Black (CEP) (PhD) Biology, Supervisor) Senthilkumar Agnieska Brandt Raphael Slade (CEP) Dr Priya Madhou (Post-Doc) (PhD) Gareth Brown (CEP) Dr Lucy Denness (Post-Doc) Dr Laura BarterAlfred Gathorne-Hardy (CEP) Dr Alexandra Wormit (Post-Doc) (Supervisor) Lars Kjaer (PhD)
  • 46. Thank you Contact: Dr Mairi J Black Porter Alliance Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College London London SW7 2AZ m.black@imperial.ac.uk www.porteralliance.org.uk2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of theSugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle.11th-12th November 2009.Campinas, Brazil.