Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse …task38.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/15_biomitre... · Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse

Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation

Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Balances

and Cost-effectiveness of Biomass Energy Technologies

Rome, May 14 2004Jinke van Dam, A. Faaij. I. LewandowskiCopernicus Institute - Dept. Science, Technology & SocietyUtrecht University


BIOMITREEuropean Commission project

Financed jointly by DG-Tren and Energy Agency Task 38

Partners in the project are:

• Department of Science, Technology and Society, University Utrecht, the Netherlands• Institute of Energy Research, Joanneum Research, Austria• Department of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Mid-Sweden University, Sweden• Forest Research, UK• Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, UK• VTT processes at the Technical Research Centre, Finland


Background of the projectMain Developments in EU:• Promotion of biomass energy in EU• Targets EU countries (almost 10% total EU energy supply in 2010)• Question: Which technologies in the EU have the best potential in GHG

reduction and cost-effectiveness?

Development software tool• GHG reduction and cost-effectiveness are complex calculations• Several tools are in circulation• Most specific and focused on 1 concept / country• Different methodological approaches

Need: general tool with accepted framework


DEMANDS TO TOOL

Translation to aims tool:

Calculate cost-effectiveness and GHG balances

Different groups of stakeholders can use the results

Results for projects in different EU countries

Results for wide range of biomass sources

Many factors influence GHG reduction

Transparency oftool

User friendliness, not too complicated to use

Results of different projects have to be comparable

Results for wide range of biomass technologies

1.Cope with wide diversity of biomass technologies and resources

2. Tool has to be applicable for different user groups (universities, policy makers, companies)

3. Standard methodology for calculation greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness

4. Transparency and user friendliness


Aim 1: Tool has to cope with a diversity of biomass resources and technologies

Biomass resources:Perennial crops, annual crops, SRC, forestry, waste

Technologies: Diverse, output is solid, liquid or gaseous fuels, electricity or heat

Translation to tool: flow chart design

Advantages:• Flow charts and modules summarize the

characteristics of any given biomass technology• Modules are specified in clear, transparent manner• Flowcharts represent interlinked processes• Flexible (modules can be extended)


Flow chart design tool

Biomass system Production biomassTon / ha * yearYield over time

Carbon stocks (changes)

Amount of carbon in soil

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Supply systemA.----B.----

Harvest

Transfer

Storage

Pre-treatment

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. ConversionA.----B.----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----

Reference system

Energy system (time dependent)

Material system (quality, lifetime material)

Efficiency (type of end-user)

Result GHG balance and cost-effectiveness

Role of leakage

Performance over time

Original use

i.e. landfill municipal waste


Carbon intensity may go down. Efficiency system.


3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Original land useA ----B ----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Reference use and supply system

2. A.----B.----


3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----

Biomass system Production biomassTon / ha * yearYield over time

Carbon stocks (changes)

Amount of carbon in soil

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Supply systemA.----B.----3.

A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Supply systemA.----B.----

Harvest

Transfer

Storage

Pre-treatment

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----


2. A.----B.----


3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----3.

A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----

Reference system



Efficiency (type of end-user)

Result GHG balance and cost-effectiveness

Role of leakage

Performance over time

Original use

i.e. landfill municipal waste


Carbon intensity may go down. Efficiency system.


3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----3.

A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Original land useA ----B ----

3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Reference use and supply system3.

A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. Reference use and supply system

2. A.----B.----


2. A.----B.----


3. A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----3.

A.----B.----

2. A.----B.----

1. End-UseA.----B.----


Aim 2: Tool is applicable for different user groups

Meaning:•Knowledge about biomass resources and technologies will be diverse.•Users will not have the same access to data resources

Possibility for different levels of data input(case studies, international references, own project data)

Successive disaggregatingof data and calculations to cope with data diversity / availability

Translation to software design:


Soil preparations

ResourceGHG & costs

Annual cropsCosts / GHG

Perennial crops

Waste and residues

Short rotation coppice

OperationsGHG / ha*yrcosts

InputsGHG / ha*yrcosts

Carbon poolsGHG / ha*yrcosts

MachinesGHG / ha*yrcosts

Allocation

Set of operations:

Soil preparation

Sowing / drilling

Crop husbandry

Collecting crop

Other operations

Set of Inputs:

Phosphate

Potash

Lime

CaO fertiliser

Pesticides generic

Herbicides generic

Seedlings

Other

Sub-soiling

Ploughing

Harrowing

Level 0

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

SupplyGHG & costs

Successive disaggregating of data:

Different “tiers”are used for calculation and data input

Also: carbon dynamics and cost data based on this approach


Aim 3: Standard methodology for calculation greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness

Survey: collectionLiterature studies (500 references)

1st selection based on expert knowledge and indexed keywords

Evaluation selected papers based on three key questions

Summary main findings of review methodologies

Unification of methodologies

Output: standard methodology to calculate greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness

Approach used in project


Review methodologies: evaluation selected papers

Approaches in selected papers were evaluated on their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the objectives of the BIOMITRE project

Three key questions for evaluation methodologies:

• Accuracy of the methodology considering comprehensiveness (i.e. functional unit) and consistency

• Transparency (i.e. assumptions clear)• Efficiency (i.e. comparable output parameters)


Mech.energy

Heat Electri-city

Plants,litter & soil,

agricult./forestrywaste

Pro-duction

By-products

TransportStorage I

Pro-cessing

TransportStorage II

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

By-products

and/or

Transp.fuel

Biol. feedstock

Fossildeposits

Pro-duction,

Transport,

Pro-cessing

By-products

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

and/or

Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy

Net C loss

Net C-uptake/lossNet GHG emissions

ass. with specifictechnologies

Comb.

Comb.Transp.

fuel

Comb.

Comb.

Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

FU ?FU ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Mech.energy

Heat Electri-city



Pro-duction

By-products

TransportStorage I

Pro-cessing

TransportStorage II

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

By-products

and/or

Transp.fuel

Biol. feedstock

Fossildeposits

Pro-duction,

Transport,

Pro-cessing

By-products

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

and/or


Net C loss



Comb.

Comb.Transp.

fuel

Comb.

Comb.


Mech.energy

Heat Electri-city



Pro-duction

By-products

TransportStorage I

Pro-cessing

TransportStorage II

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

By-products

and/or

Transp.fuel

Biol. feedstock

Fossildeposits

Pro-duction,

Transport,

Pro-cessing

By-products

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

and/or


Net C loss



Comb.

Comb.Transp.

fuel

Comb.

Comb.


Mech.energy

Heat Electri-city





Pro-duction

By-products

TransportStorage I

Pro-cessing

TransportStorage II

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

By-products

and/or

Transp.fuel

Biol. feedstock

FossildepositsFossil

deposits

Pro-duction,

Transport,

Pro-cessing

By-products

Conver-sion

Conver-sion

Distri-bution

Distri-bution

and/or



Net C loss



Comb.

Comb.Transp.

fuel

Comb.

Comb.


A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

A ?A ?

FU ?FU ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Te ?Te ?

Points of special methodological interest:A? AllocationT? Time factorR? Regional variationTe? Choice of technology

Evaluated on:TransparencyConsistencyComprehensivenessEfficiency

Example for Schlamadinger et al. 1997 (slightly modified)


Some key lessons (1)Methodological

issueKey lesson from review Translation to tool

Reference system

Choice of technology, same technology level affects accuracyresults

Consistent selection of reference system. Clear explanation in manual.

Uncertainty Approach by 1) different scenarios or 2) sensitivity analysis. Often included.

Sensitivity analysis included in tool. Working with “warnings” if data input is inaccurate.

Functional unit includes end-use efficiency. Accurate and consistent use of system boundaries. Using different input data for different regions

Often treated differently > reduces accuracy and makes comparisons uncertain.

Recognized as important factor for accuracy system.

System boundary

Site specificity


Key lessons (2)

Methodological issue

Key lesson from review Translation to tool

Time dynamics Little attention on project level. Lack of transparency in choice time frame. IPCC data often used.

Carbon dynamics included (working with “tier” approach).

Allocation Allocation should as far as possible be avoided, transparency in methodology

User can select allocation procedure (clear explanation in manual). Biomaterials will be substituted or allocated.

Costs Assessments are not frequent. Different methods (I.e. partial cost analysis) or lack of transparency

Cost analysis for complete system. Working with “tier” approach.


Aim 4: Tool is user friendly and transparent for user

Set of established case studiesincluded in tool

• Demonstrate calculations to user

• Cover diversity in technologies and resources

• Costs are included in case studies

Manual / guide is provided to user:

• Serve as background material

• Explains calculations to user• Gives information about

references (for example international databases)

Translation to software design:


Selection case studies:Case study:

Resource Use Reference system

1 Rapeseed RME plant Diesel

2 Forest residues F-tropsch Diesel, grid (electricity)

3 Wood CHP plant Heat and electricity

4 Miscanthus Domestic heat Oil fired heat


Status of the project:

• Project BIOMITRE is still in implementation• The review of methodologies is completed• Partners agreed on the design of the tool

• Currently, data for the case studies are collected and the building of the software tool is in process

• The results of the project will be available in 2005 and to become distributed via IEA Task 38


Thank you!

E-mail: [email protected] 38: www.joanneum.at/iea-bioenergy-task38

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.joanneum.at/iea-bioenergy-task38

Documents

Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse …task38.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/15_biomitre... · Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse