Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Balances of Biofuels

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Balances of Biofuels�

Dr Mairi J Black

2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle. 11th-12th November 2009. Campinas, Brazil.

•  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

Presentation Overview

UK and EU Policy overview

Global interest and initiatives in biofuels have set out to address:

•  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

Interest in biofuels

The UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (the RTFO) requires suppliers of fossil fuels to ensure that a specified % of the road fuel supplied in the UK is made up of renewable fuels. The RTFO requires companies to submit reports 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)

UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

GHG / 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

UK RTFO – Carbon Reporting

Environmental 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 pollution

Social Principles – Feedstock and Biofuel Production

•  does not adversely affect workers rights and working relationships •  does not adversely affect existing land rights and community relations

UK RTFO - Sustainability Reporting

EU Energy and Climate Change Package agreed December 2008 - 27 EU Member States committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 and to target a 20% share of renewable energies in EU 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.

European Union Policy Snapshot

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

Objectives of EU Biofuel Policies

•  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

EU Biofuels Targets (FQD)

•  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

EU Biofuels Targets (RED)

To address biofuels issues within the RED Proposal, public consultation (including stakeholders, NGOs and governments across 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.

Biofuel sustainability in the RED

EU 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 2009

Biofuel 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

Biofuel sustainability activities in EU

Methodologies – GHG emission calculations

Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or “Cradle to Grave” assessment of the environmental input of a product.

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)

GHG Calculation Methodologies

Inputs: Fossil Fuels, Chemicals,

Output: Product and co-products, GHG, Particles, Sulphides,

Crop Harvest Processing Crop Production Utilization Disposal of

waste

Life 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)



CLCA Boundary (direct emissions and

all indirect effects)

ALCA Boundary (direct emissions

from life cycle

From Tipper, R.; Hutchinson, C. and Brander, M. (2009) “A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from indirect land use change associated with biofuels” Technical Paper TP-080212-A, Ecometrica Press.

ALCA – Attributional Life Cycle Analysis Provides information on impacts of all processes used to produce (consume and 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

CLCA has wider scope . Approach often used in policy making, instead of looking at specific supply chains

Issues in GHG emission calculations

•  The impacts of changing land use - Direct Land Use Change

- Indirect Land Use Change

(Bauen and Howes, 2008)

Issues in GHG calculations

Non agricultural land (e.g. forest, grassland or

wetland)

Cropland (food)


wetland)

Cropland (food)

biofuel crop


wetland)

Cropland (food)


wetland)

Cropland

Biofuel crop

new crop land

•  Indirect Land Use Change – a methodological issue?

•  GHG emissions from Land Use Change and Indirect Land Use Change – attribute all to biofuels?

Issues in GHG calculations

Direct effect of expanded biofuel crop area

Cropland (food)

Biofuel crop

Indirect effect of expanded biofuel crop area

Cropland (food)

Biofuel crop

•  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 emissions

1Beer et al., 2007

Methodological issues in GHG calculations

•  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 policy approaches. A more complete understanding of the methodologies and their implications is needed.

Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops

Some of the current modeling methodologies which are being reviewed 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

Dealing with ILUC for Biofuel Crops

Impact 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

Indirect Land Use (ILUC) in the EU

•  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)

The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction

Porter Alliance, Imperial College London

Advanced technologies 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 Rural Sciences (IBERS), The John Innes Centre and the Universities of

Cambridge, Southampton and York.

The Future for Biofuels – areas for interaction

•  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

Porter Alliance

Plants Process Products

Sustainability

Crop conversion routes for fuels/chemicals

Biochemical Conversion

Pyrolysis

Bioethanol Biodiesel

Synoil Syngas

Biochemicals

Acid Hydrolysis

Enzymatic Hydrolysis

Starches Oils Proteins

Platform Chemicals Biobutanol Hydrocarbons

Fermentation

Wheat Maize Sugar cane

Barley

Potato Cassava

Hexose C6 monomeric sugars

Soy

Palm

Oilseed Rape Willow Miscanthus Switchgrass Eucalyptus Spruce

Methyl esterification

Dedicated Lignocellulosic Production Systems Conventional Commodity Crops

Fischer-Tropsch

Sugar beet

Co-products/residues

Food and Feed

Energy

Lignin

Undifferentiated Biomass

Lignocellulosics Sugars

Pentose C5 monomeric sugars

Gasification

Thermochemical Conversion

Biochar

•  Bioethanol produced by fermentation of C6 sugars C6H12O6 →2C2H5OH+2CO2

+ CO2

•  Biodiesel produced by methyl esterification of vegetable oil triglycerides triglyceride + methanol methyl esters + glycerol

Biofuel Technologies - Current

catalyst

e.g. NaOH

•  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)

•  Current technological developments include innovative means of accessing C6 and C5 sugars and fermentation of C5 sugars

Biofuel Technologies - Advanced

Image from Dr Mike Ray, Porter Alliance, Imperial College

Potential pathways to biofuel

Currently over 200 biofuel pathways identified – not taking into account geographical sources of crop materials! – we use a modular approach to LCA and sustainability for making comparisons of biofuel chains using process 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)

GHG emission calculations – Porter Alliance approach to advance technology biofuels

How do we rationalise this?

Identify commonalities and apply a modular approach to LCA 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)

Porter process chain

ENERGY CROPS

Optimising yield FRONT END PROCESSES

Optimising accessible carbon

PRIMARY CONVERSION

Optimising conversion to

biofuel

Sustainability and life cycle analysis

Miscanthus Willow Switchgrass Poplar Sugar cane bagasse Forest residues Crop residues

Fungi

Dilute acid / alkaline

Ionic liquids

Mild thermal

Thermochemical

Hydrothermal

Rumen microbes

Steam

Developmental front end processes

Proprietary microbial ethanologens

Direct fermentation of oligosaccharides

Butanologenic recombinant bacteria Long chain alkane / alkanol producing organisms

Developmental microbial ethanologens

Each module can be considered in isolation and applied to different supply chain scenarios

The Porter Matrix

•  How do we integrate technological innovations into this matrix?

Fundamental Plant science Photosynthesis Radiation Use Efficiency Genomics Plant Cell Wall Biosynthesis and Composition

Crop Research and Development Plant breeding Increasing yield Improving agronomic efficiency

Existing crop production systems Defining “typical” practices for crops Defining land reference systems

Process Procedures Defining “typical” processes Defining scale-up criteria

Processibility Plant material composition and physical characteristics

New Technologies Novel fungal pre-treatment Lignocellulosic solubility Novel enzymes

Fuel Characteristics Biodiesel variations Synfuel compatibility

Vehicle / Engine Specifications

Fundamental Plant Science

•  Understanding plant cell wall biosynthesis and external factors, to improve biomass quality and processability for bioenergy production

•  Identifying genotypic variation •  Not within LCA scope until reaches “crop status”

From Dr Thorsten Hamann, Imperial College London

•  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

Raw materials for lignocellulosic technology

Input activities cultivation: site preparation; planting crop; harvesting; machinery maintenance

crop processing: drying; milling; chipping, pelleting, extraction

storage: in-field; basic; heated or ventillated

transport: road; rail; marine

Crop Module LCA

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

Crop Processing Storage Cultivation Transport Conversion

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

Lignocellulosic Conversion Module LCA

•  Input activities for each process step

•  Variables to address efficiency Size Reduction

& Pretreatment

Hydrolysis Fermentation Alcohol Recovery

*Slides from Ali Hosseini, PhD student, Porter Alliance


•  Process probe – root cause analysis model Low yield of fermentation

Low yield of microorganism

Low tolerance to ethanol

Inefficient microorganism

Low tolerance to inhibitors

Microorganism Inhibitors

Inhibitors generated during

pretreatment

Inefficient pretreatment

Low digestability of entering fiber

Low yield of Enzymatic Hydrolysis

Low digestability of entering fiber


Cellulases inhibitors

Inhibitors generated during

pretreatment


*Slides from Ali Hosseini, PhD student, Porter Alliance


•  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

Porter Alliance approach

Identifying 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

Our structure Porter Alliance Board

Chair – Sir Richard Sykes Members – Heads of Partner Institutions

Division Director Biology and Sustainability Dr Angela Karp

Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability

Dr Jeremy Wood

Energy Crops and Biomass

Drs Iain Donnison and Angela Karp

Cell Walls and Composition Dr Richard

Murphy

Processing and Bioconversion Dr David Leak

Division Director Physical Science and Engineering

Prof Nilay Shah

Tools and Technology

Prof David Klug

Fuels and Combustion

Prof Alex Taylor

Chemicals and Materials

Dr Charlotte Williams

Biorefining Dr Claire

Adjiman and Prof Nilay Shah

Directorate

Research

Director Prof Richard Templer

Director Development and Policy

Lead for Business Relations Group Mr Rafat Malik

Administration and Communication

Ms Catherine Oriel

Event Organisation Ms Alison Parker

Research interactions Cell Walls and Composition

Dr Richard Murphy (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)

Dr Mike Ray (Post-Doc) Nick Brereton (PhD)

Dr Thorsten Hamann (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)

Dr Priya Madhou (Post-Doc) Dr Lucy Denness (Post-Doc)

Dr Alexandra Wormit (Post-Doc) Lars Kjaer (PhD)

Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability

Dr Jeremy Woods (CEP, Supervisor) )

Dr Calliope Panoutsou (CEP) Dr Rocio Diaz-Chavez (CEP)

Dr Mairi Black (CEP) Raphael Slade (CEP) Gareth Brown (CEP)

Alfred Gathorne-Hardy (CEP)

Biorefining Prof Nilay Shah

(Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Supervisor)

Ali Hosseini (PhD)

Chemicals and Materials

Prof Tom Welton (Dept of

Chemistry, Supervisor)

Agnieska Brandt (PhD)

Dr Laura Barter (Supervisor)

Energy Crops and Biomass

Drs Ian Donnison (IGER) and Angela

Karp (RRES) Nick Brereton

(PhD)

Processing and Bioconversion

Dr David Leak (Dept. of Biology, Supervisor)

Dr Velusamy Senthilkumar

Thank you Contact: Dr Mairi J Black

Porter Alliance Centre for Environmental Policy Imperial College London London SW7 2AZ [email protected] www.porteralliance.org.uk

2nd Workshop on the Impacts of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle. 11th-12th November 2009. Campinas, Brazil.

Documents

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Balances of Biofuels