Energy and GHG emission balances: CTBE´s proposal

845 views

Published on

Presentation of Joaquim Seabra
for the "2nd Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle"

Apresentação de Joaquim Bento Ferreira 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

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
845
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Energy and GHG emission balances: CTBE´s proposal

  1. 1. Energy
and
GHG
emission
balances:
CTBEs
proposal
Joaquim
E.
A.
Seabra
NIPE/Unicamp
jeaseabra@gmail.com
 Workshop
CTBE
 November
11,
2009

  2. 2. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  3. 3. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  4. 4. IntroducGon
/
context
•  Short‐term
problems
related
to
energy
supply:
 •  Oil
produc=on
close
to
peak;
 •  Necessity
to
reduce
GHG
emissions;
•  Bioenergy
is
part
of
the
solu=on;
•  Today
sugarcane
ethanol
can
mi=gate
more
than
80%
 of
greenhouse
gases
(GHG)
emissions
with
respect
to
 petroleum
gasoline;
•  For
the
future,
improvements
are
foreseen,
with
the
 implementa=on
of
new
technologies
in
the
ethanol
 produc=on
chain;
•  We
need
proper
tools
to
evaluate
technology
 alterna=ves
and
lead
RD&D
efforts
towards
the
 improvement
of
ethanol
sustainability.

  5. 5. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  6. 6. ObjecGve
•  The
objec=ve
of
this
program
is
the
con=nuous
 improvement
in
the
evalua=on
of
the
GHG
emissions
in
 the
sugarcane
ethanol
life
cycle
and,
consequently,
the
 same
regarding
the
avoided
emissions
with
respect
to
 the
corresponding
gasoline
life
cycle.
By
con=nuous
 improvement
it
is
meant
the
increasing
accuracy
of
the
 analysis
with
respect
to
the
Brazilian
condi=ons
of
 produc=on
and
the
expanding
scope
of
the
evaluated
 alterna=ves.
•  Use
the
LCA
methodology
to
iden=fy
the
technology
 op=ons,
in
the
current
and
prospec=ve
scenarios,
that
 could
benefit
environmental
sustainability
(energy
 balance
and
GHG
emissions)
of
sugarcane
ethanol.

  7. 7. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  8. 8. Sugarcane
ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  Macedo
and
Seabra
(2008):
 –  2006:
44
mills
(~100
Mtc/year)
of
Brazilian
C‐S
 Region
–
data
from
CTC
Mutual
Control.
 –  2020
Electricity
Scenario:
trash
recovery
(40%)
 and
surplus
power
produc=on
with
integrated
 commercial,
steam
based
cycle
(CEST
system).
 –  2020
Ethanol
Scenario:
trash
recovery
and
 ethanol
produc=on
from
biochemical
conversion
 of
surplus
biomass
in
a
hypothe=cal
system
 integrated
to
the
mill.

  9. 9. Scenarios

  10. 10. Scope
•  Sugarcane
produc=on
and
processing,
and
ethanol
 distribu=on.
 –  Carbon
fluxes
due
to
fossil
fuel
u=liza=on
in
agriculture,
 industry
and
ethanol
distribu=on;
in
all
the
process
inputs;
 also
in
equipment
and
buildings
produc=on
and
 maintenance.
 –  GHG
fluxes
not
related
with
the
use
of
fossil
fuels;
mainly
 N2O
and
methane:
trash
burning,
N2O
soil
emissions
from
 N‐fer=lizer
and
residues
(including
s=llage,
filter
cake,
 trash).
 –  GHG
emissions
due
to
land
use
change.
 –  GHG
emissions
mi=ga=on:
ethanol
and
surplus
electricity
 subs=tu=on
for
gasoline
or
conven=onal
electricity.


  11. 11. Energy
flows
in
ethanol
producGon
(MJ/t
cane)

  12. 12. Life
cycle
GHG
emissions

(kg
CO2eq/m3
anhydrous)

  13. 13. SensiGvity
analysis
(2006)

  14. 14. Avoided
emissions
(t
CO2eq/m3
hydrous
or
anhydrous)
Note: substitution criterion for co-products; no LUC effects
  15. 15. GHG
emissions
miGgaGon
with
respect
to
gasoline:
allocaGon
or
co‐products
credits

  16. 16. Direct
effects
of
land
use
change
for
 ethanol
•  1984‐2002:
11.8
to
12.5
M
m3/year
→
no
LUC
for
ethanol.

  17. 17. Direct
effects
of
land
use
change
•  Cane
expansion
since
2002
was
over
pasture
lands
 (mainly
extensive,
degraded
pastures)
and
annual
 crops:
 –  Data
source:
satellite
images
(Landsate
and
CBERS),
 CONAB
survey
(MAPA/DCAA),
IBGE
data
and
preliminary
 IEA‐RIMA
data
for
new
units
(Nassar
et
al.,
2008;
CONAB,
 2008;
ICONE,
2008).
•  This
fact
in
addi=on
to
cropping
prac=ces
in
the
new
 areas
(mechanical
harves=ng
of
unburned
cane;
semi‐ perennial
crop;
high
level
of
residues)
indicates
that
 land
use
change
occurs
without
soil
carbon
emissions.
 In
many
cases,
the
land
use
change
may
increase
 carbon
stocks.

  18. 18. Direct
effects
of
land
use
change

Expansion
includes
only
a
very
small
frac=on
of
lands
with
high
soil
carbon
stocks,
 and
some
degraded
pasturelands,
leading
to
increased
carbon
stocks.


  19. 19. INDIRECT
effects
of
land
use
change

In
the
Brazilian
context,
most
scenarios
(based
on
Internal
 Demand
plus
some
hypotheses
for
exports)
indicate
a
total
 of
~
60
M
m3
ethanol
in
2020,
or
36
M
m3
more
than
in
 2008.
Such
expansion
corresponds
to
a
rela=vely
small
 requirement
for
new
cane
areas
(~5
M
ha),
which
must
be
 considered
combined
with
probable
release
of
areas
due
to
 the
progressive
increase
of
pasture
produc=vi=es.
Within
 Brazilian
soil
and
climate
limita=ons,
the
strict
applica=on
 of
the
environmental
legisla=on
for
the
new
units,
and
the
 rela=vely
small
areas
needed,
the
expansion
of
sugarcane
 un=l
2020
is
not
expected
to
contribute
to
ILUC
GHG
 emissions.

  20. 20. Other
analyses
•  CARB
(CA_GREET
+
GTAP)
 •  Database.
 •  Ocean
tankers
back‐haul
 trip.
 •  LUC:
46
g
CO2e/MJ

  21. 21. Other
analyses

  22. 22. Other
analysis
•  US
EPA
(FAPRI
+
GREET)
 •  Very
comprehensive
 analysis

 •  Database.
 •  Timeframe.
 •  Ocean
tankers
back‐haul
 trip.
 •  Electricity
credits
 evalua=on.

  23. 23. Other
analyses

  24. 24. LCA
methodological
aspects
•  Database
quality;
•  Scope
of
the
analysis;
•  Co‐products:
 –  Alloca=on
(mass,
energy,
market
value,
other);
 –  Subs=tu=on.
•  LUC
and
ILUC;
•  Biorefineries.

  25. 25. LCA
models
/
approach
Source:
Delucchi
(2009)

  26. 26. Defaults
suitability
 Measured
vs.
IPCC
EsGmated
N2O
Emissions
 (Corn)
Source:
Hamield
(2009)

  27. 27. Influence
of
co‐products

Source:
Wang
et
al.
(2009)

  28. 28. Tools
for
ILUC
analysis
(?)
Source:
Babcock
(2009)

  29. 29. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  30. 30. CTBE’s
proposal
on
GHG
emissions
 analysis
•  Database
consolida=on:
 –  Sugarcane
produc=on
and
processing;
 –  Advanced
technologies;
 –  Na=onal
parameters
for
LCA
studies
(fer=lizers,
 electricity,
fossil
fuels,
etc.);
 –  Experimental
results
on
CH4
and
N2O
emissions
in
 sugarcane
produc=on
chain;
 –  Above
and
below
ground
Carbon
stocks
for
different
 crops
(and
na=ve
vegeta=on).
•  LCA
studies
for
fossil
fuels
and
biodiesel
in
Brazil;
•  Work
on
current
models
to
evaluate
land
use
 change
(e.g.,
BLUM‐ICONE);

  31. 31. CTBE’s
proposal
on
GHG
emissions
 analysis
•  Ethanol
LCA
studies:
 –  Well‐to‐wheels
analysis;
 –  Focus
on
energy
balance
(fossil
vs
renewable)
and
 GHG
emissions;
 –  Two
and
three
regression
levels;
 –  Use
of
GREET
model
defaults
in
the
short‐term;
 –  Development
of
dedicated
spreadsheets
for
analyses;
 –  Methodology
analysis:
 •  Co‐products
credits;
 •  System
boundaries;
 –  LUC
and
ILUC
analysis;
 –  GHG
emissions
mi=ga=on.

  32. 32. Agenda
•  Introduc=on
/
context
•  Objec=ve
•  Ethanol
LCA:
an
overview
•  CTBE’s
program
•  Summary

  33. 33. Project
 GHG
emissions
along
the
life‐cycle
of
ethanol
produced
from
 sugarcane
–
and
avoided
emissions
regarding
gasoline
Ac=on
 GHG
emission
balances
should
be
done
regularly
Aims
(synthesis)
 Enhancement
of
the
GHG
balances,
considering:
(a)
more
 accurate
parameters
and
(b)
changes
in
the
produc=on
process
 (tendencies
and
technology
disrup=on)
CTBEs
role
 Balances
should
be
done
by
an
expert
of
CTBE
on
regular
basis
Partnerships
 CTBE
is
open
for
discussion
 At
least
one
research
group
abroad
should
be
partner
Availability
of
informa=on
 Data
basis
should
be
organized
in
order
to
be
publicly
available
Dissemina=on
 Papers
should
be
published
at
high
level
journals
 Aoendance
at
conferences
and
workshops
Results
to
be
achieved
 ‐
Compiled
database
on:
sugarcane
produc=on
and
processing;
aper
one
year
 fer=lizers
produc=on
and
distribu=on;
fossil
fuels
produc=on
and
 distribu=on
(preliminary
results).
 ‐
Analysis
of
different
alloca=on
methodologies
for
co‐products
 evalua=on,
considering
different
co‐products
(sugar,
yeasts,
lysine,
 bagasse,
electricity,
etc.)
 ‐
Ethanol
LCA
studies
considering
the
adop=on
of
different
 commercial
technologies
in
the
ethanol
fuel
chain
(e.g.,
co‐ produc=on
of
biodiesel
and
ethanol
(Barralcool
experience)).

  34. 34. Thank
you
 Joaquim
E.
A.
Seabra
jeaseabra@gmail.com


×