LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF NET ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FARM SCALE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND BIOENERGY SCENARIOS

INSTRUCTIONS

Example drop-down box...

START

1. M

ETHO

DS

Field ammonia and nitrate emissions

MANNER NPK

Indirect land use change

100%

TOOL FUNCTIONS AND INFORMATION

SCEN

ARIO

S

LCAD SCENARIO TOOL (v. 27.11.2013)

This tool was developed by Bangor University and the Thunen Institute with funding provided by DEFRA under project code AC0410. The tool provides life cycle environmental burden changes for a specified set of bioenergy scenarios based on methodology detailed in an accompanying report. Users may extract data from the tool to compare the performance of different on-farm bioenergy options, and vary certain parameters to identify the effect of management practices and methodological assumptions on results. Life cycle boundaries were expanded as per the consequential LCA approach to compare scenarios against baseline farms with no bioenergy provision, and any other relevant baseline processes, such as composting or landfilling of food waste. Econoimic data are included to provide estimates of net margins and CO2 abatement costs across scenarios. Users are advised to read the accompanying report, in particular the methodology section, in order to interpret results correctly. Bangor University, the Thunen Institute and DEFRA do not accept any liability for use of this tool.

This tool provides detailed LCA and economic analyses for eight pre-defined dairy bioenergy scenarios and eight pre-defined arable bioenergy scenarios in relation to four baseline farm types: (i) a large (481 milking cow) dairy farm; (ii) a medium (142 milking cow) dairy farm; (iii) a 400 ha arable farm with first and second winter wheat, spring barley and oil seed rape each occupying 100 ha in rotation; (iv) the same arable farm receiving 5,098 m 3 per year of pig slurry. Scenarios were defined based on stakeholder consultation to represent likely outcomes on the specified baseline farm types. Users of this tool can select between scenarios for relevant baseline farms, and across a range of management options for the baseline and scenario farms, to identify net environmental and economic effects attributable to particular feedstocks and management practices. Scenario feedstock quantities are summarised in the "SCENARIOS" tab.

IMPA

CT C

ATEG

ORY

RES

ULT

SResults are expressed as global burden changes relative to the baseline farms and relevant counterfactuals such as landfilling of food waste or combined cycle gas turbine electricity generation. Environmental burdens are expressed as mass loading changes, or percentage changes, based on characterisation using CML 2010 life cycle impact assessment methology, as per the table below. Emissions and resource flows that dominate burdens in this tool are highlighted in bold and blue.

Impact category Abbreviation Characterisation factors per kg mass flow Indicator Impact

Global warming potential GWP

CO2 (1) N2O (298) CH4 (25)

CO2e Climate change

Eutrophication (RER) EP

NO3 (1 x 10-1) P (3.06) NH3 (3.5 x 10-1) NOx (1.3 x 10-1) N (4.2 x 10-1)

PO4e Reduced water quality and algal blooms

Acidification (RER) AP NH3 (1.6); NOx (5 x 10-1) SOx (1.2)

SO2e Health impacts and ecosystem damage

Resource depletion (fossil fuels) RDP

Hard coal (27.91) Soft coal (13.96) Natural gas (38.84 per m3) Crude oil (41.87)

MJe Fewer fossil energy resources for future use

Abiotic Resource depletion (elements) ARDP See CML (2010); e.g. P (5.52 x 10-6) Sb e Fewer abiotic resources such as phosphorus and

metals for future use

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF NET ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FARM SCALE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND BIOENERGY SCENARIOS

INSTRUCTIONS

START

TOOL FUNCTIONS AND INFORMATION

LCAD SCENARIO TOOL (v. 27.11.2013)

This tool was developed by Bangor University and the Thunen Institute with funding provided by DEFRA under project code AC0410. The tool provides life cycle environmental burden changes for a specified set of bioenergy scenarios based on methodology detailed in an accompanying report. Users may extract data from the tool to compare the performance of different on-farm bioenergy options, and vary certain parameters to identify the effect of management practices and methodological assumptions on results. Life cycle boundaries were expanded as per the consequential LCA approach to compare scenarios against baseline farms with no bioenergy provision, and any other relevant baseline processes, such as composting or landfilling of food waste. Econoimic data are included to provide estimates of

abatement costs across scenarios. Users are advised to read the accompanying report, in particular the methodology section, in order to interpret results correctly. Bangor University, the Thunen Institute and DEFRA do not accept any liability for use of

Select the parameters you wish to compare in the white bordered boxes with blue text (example on left). Start with 1. METHODS (below), then move to the DAIRY or ARABLE sheet and select parameters in sequentially numbered sections, moving down and to the right (2. BASELINE FARM; 3. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SCENARIO; 4. OTHER BIOENRGY SCENARIO; 5. GRAPH DISPLAY; 6. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT). Methodological details and explanations are provided in an accompanying DEFRA report. The LCAD tool employs a consequential LCA approach, therefore does not generate PAS 2050 compliant C footprints.

MANNER NPK used for N leaching and volatilisation according to the timing and technique of slurry/digestate application; for mineral fertiliser-N (assumed to be ammonium-nitrate), a fixed N leaching factor of 0.1 applied, and a fixed volatilisation factor of 0.018 applied (Misselbrook et al., 2012). Alternatively, IPCC default leaching and volatilisation factors applied to all N additions. In both cases, direct N 2O based on IPCC Tier 1 factors.

The percentage of displaced food production in the arable bioenergy scenarios and additional animal feed requirements in dairy bioenergy scenarios that is associated with indirect land use change (grassland-to-arable conversion in the UK). Where soybean meal extract is selected as the marginal feed type in the dairy scenarios, this percentage determines the percentage of that marginal soybean meal production to which conversion of forest/grassland to arable land in source countries is attributed. Note that direct (on farm) land use change is always accounted for.

This tool provides detailed LCA and economic analyses for eight pre-defined dairy bioenergy scenarios and eight pre-defined arable bioenergy scenarios in relation to four baseline farm types: (i) a large (481 milking cow) dairy farm; (ii) a medium (142 milking cow) dairy farm; (iii) a 400 ha arable farm with first and second winter wheat, spring barley and oil seed rape each occupying 100 ha in rotation; (iv) the same arable farm receiving 5,098 m 3 per year of pig slurry. Scenarios were defined based on stakeholder consultation to represent likely outcomes on the specified baseline farm types. Users of this tool can select between scenarios for relevant baseline farms, and across a range of management options for the baseline and scenario farms, to identify net environmental and economic effects attributable to

Scenario feedstock quantities are summarised in the "SCENARIOS" tab.

relative to the baseline farms and relevant counterfactuals such as landfilling of food waste or combined cycle gas turbine electricity generation. Environmental burdens are expressed as mass loading changes, or percentage changes, based on characterisation using CML 2010 life cycle impact assessment methology, as per the table below. Emissions and resource flows that dominate burdens in this tool are highlighted in bold and blue.

Impact category Abbreviation Characterisation factors per kg mass flow Indicator Impact

Global warming potential GWP

CO2 (1) N2O (298) CH4 (25)

CO2e Climate change

Eutrophication (RER) EP

NO3 (1 x 10-1) P (3.06) NH3 (3.5 x 10-1) NOx (1.3 x 10-1) N (4.2 x 10-1)

PO4e Reduced water quality and algal blooms

Acidification (RER) AP NH3 (1.6); NOx (5 x 10-1) SOx (1.2)

SO2e Health impacts and ecosystem damage

Resource depletion (fossil fuels) RDP

Hard coal (27.91) Soft coal (13.96) Natural gas (38.84 per m3) Crude oil (41.87)

MJe Fewer fossil energy resources for future use

Abiotic Resource depletion (elements) ARDP See CML (2010); e.g. P (5.52 x 10-6) Sb e Fewer abiotic resources such as phosphorus and

metals for future use

S C E N A R I O D E C S R I P T I O N P A G E O N L Y Feedstocks CHP kWe Slurry

Tonnes per year fresh weight feedstock produced

Larg

e da

iry fa

rm

LD-BL NA NA 0

LD-S Slurry 72 0 12016

LD-SG total Slurry, grass 135 38 12628

LD-SMZ total Slurry, maize 130 26 13111

LD-SF total Slurry, food waste 185 0 12016

LD-M Miscanthus NA 25

MD-BL NA NA 0

Slurry 0 2366

MD-SGMZ Slurry, grass, maize 112 66 168

SD-M Miscanthus NA 8.5

Arab

le fa

rm

A-BL NA NA 0

A-F Food waste 484 0

A-MZ Maize in rotation 1000 40

A-MZ100 Maize monculture 882 400

A-G Grass 1000 40

A-M Miscanthus NA 40

A-Eth Winter wheat NA 100

A-Biod Oil seed rape NA 100

AP-BL NA NA 0

AP-SF total Pig slurry, food waste 324 0 5098

Bioenrgy crop area on

scenario farms

Aver

age

dairy

farm MD-S (heat only)

S C E N A R I O D E C S R I P T I O N P A G E O N L Y

Tonnes per year fresh weight feedstock produced

1536

1177

2600

315

905 1836

107.1

10000

1800

18000

1600

504

875

330

6000

Maize (30% DM)

Grass (25% DM)

Food waste (26% DM)

Miscanthus (DM basis)

Winter wheat grain (85% DM)

Rape seed (85% DM)

Comments

BASELINE. 481 milking cow dairy farm , cows indoors 10 months of the year, tank slurry storage with crust (unless lagoon storage specified in tool).

All slurry fed to AD unit.

Grass silage diverted to AD unit. Milk production maintained through additional concentrate feed and hay imports.

Maize silage diverted to AD unit. Milk production maintained through additional concentrate feed and hay imports.

Miscanthus grown on 10% farm area used to produce heating pellets that displace oil heating.

BASELINE. 142 milking cow dairy farm , cows grazing outdoors 6 months of the year, tank slurry storage with crust (unless lagoon storage specified in tool).

No CHP unit. Biogas combusted for on-farm heating only.

Farm converts to beef plus AD farm. Milk production displaced to a large dairy farm. Credit given for new beef production.

Miscanthus grown on 10% farm area used to produce heating pellets that displace oil heating.

BASELINE. 400 ha arable farm. 100 ha each first and second winter wheat, 100 ha spring barley, 100 ha oil seed rape.

Maize acts as break crop on 40 ha each of 11 supply farms, in optimised rotations so that grain yields remain almost the same. Results expressed per individual supply farm.

Maize monoculture displaces all food production on the farm.

Miscanthus grown on 40 ha of the baseline farm area (10 ha from each crop), to produce heating pellets that displace oil heating.

100 ha first winter wheat produces bioethanol to displace petrol. DDGS displaces animal feed.

100 ha oil seed rape produces biodiesel to displace mineral diesel. Rape seed cake displaces animal feed.

BASELINE. Arable farm with 5,098 tonnes per year pig slurry imported to replace some mineral fertiliser.

As per slurry AD but with food waste imported up to maximum K2O requirements (first nutrient to exceed recommended application rates).

Food waste imported for AD up to maximum K2O requirements (first nutrient to exceed recommended application rates).

Grass produced on 40 ha each of 15 supply farms; 10 ha from each crop in the rotation. Results expressed per individual supply farm.

Arable pig farm baseline, with pig slurry digested and food waste imported up to maximum K2O requirements (first nutrient to exceed recommended application rates).

Soil emissions L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S MANNER NPK

Indirect land use change100%

2. B

ASEL

INE

FARM

Baseline farm typeLarge dairy

Slurry storageTank DEFAULT

Application techniqueSplash plate DEFAULT

Marginal imported feed typeWinter wheat DEFAULT

3. A

NAE

ROBI

C DI

GEST

ION

AD feedstockDairy slurry only

AD unit design & managementDefault DEFAULT

Digestate applicationTrailing shoe DEFAULT

Use of excess heat0% DEFAULT

Counterfactual fate of food wasteLandfill DEFAULT

4. O

THER

BIO

ENER

GY

Alternative bioenergy optionsCLEAR - ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

1. M

ETHO

DS

SELE

CTED These are the methods selected on

the START tab. To change them, go back to START tab.

Impo

rted

feed

Ente

ric fe

rmen

tatio

nHo

usin

g/m

anur

e st

ore

Elec

trici

ty u

se

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

reSo

il em

issio

ns

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

CIn

dire

ct LU

CTr

ansp

ort/

proc

essin

gAD

uni

t/co

mbu

stion

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-1000000

-500000

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000 CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJe

per

yea

r

4. O

THER

BIO

ENER

GY

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

5. DISPLAY

CO2e

Impo

rted

feed

Ente

ric fe

rmen

tatio

nHo

usin

g/m

anur

e st

ore

Elec

trici

ty u

se

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

reSo

il em

issio

ns

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

CIn

dire

ct LU

CTr

ansp

ort/

proc

essin

gAD

uni

t/co

mbu

stion

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-1000000

-500000

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000 CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJe

per

yea

r

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

B A S E L I N E T O T A Lkg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

Total 4,174,643 17,333 35,121

Per ha 16,699 69 140Per L milk 0.90 0.0037 0.0076

A D E N T E R P R I S E kg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

Farm difference -537,223 -661 -6,838Displaced production 0 0 0

Feedstock trans/process 0 0 0AD unit 230,749 2,477 10,693Avoided electricity -245,726 -150 -436

Avoided heat -42,244 -13 -93Avoided waste 0 0 0Net -594,444 1,652 3,327Net per ha used for AD NA NA NAChange as % farm burden -14% 10% 9%

W H O L E F A R M Total 3637420 16672 28283Per L milk (after allocation) 0.65 0.0030 0.0051

B I O E N E R G Y E N T E R P R I S E kg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

Dairy enterprise difference 0 0 0Displaced production 0 0 0Cultivation 0 0 0Feedstock trans/process 0 0 0Combustion 0 0 0Avoided fossil fuel 0 0 0

Impo

rted

feed

Ente

ric fe

rmen

tatio

nHo

usin

g/m

anur

e st

ore

Elec

trici

ty u

se

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

reSo

il em

issio

ns

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

CIn

dire

ct LU

CTr

ansp

ort/

proc

essin

gAD

uni

t/co

mbu

stion

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-1000000

-500000

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000 CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJe

per

yea

r

Net 0 0 0Net per ha used for BE 0 0 0Change as % farm burden 0% 0% 0%

W H O L E F A R M Total 4,174,643 17,333 35,121Per L milk (after allocation) 0.00 0.0000 0.0000

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

B A S E L I N E T O T A LMJ e kg Sb e7,170,394 3,449

28,682 141.55 0.0007

A D E N T E R P R I S E MJ e kg Sb e Conventional energy replaced per year-103,175 -50 517,120

0 00 0 124,1750 0

-4,148,285 -1,995-565,061 -272

0 0-4,816,521 -2,317 MJ biofuel 5,409,452

NA NA-67% -67% 43 a.LCA

W H O L E F A R M -57 c.LCA7067218 3399

1.27 0.0006 -0.67 c.LCA

B I O E N E R G Y E N T E R P R I S E MJ e kg Sb e Conventional energy replaced per year

0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0

Elec kWhe

Heat kWhth

gCO2e/MJ

gCO2e/MJ

kg CO2e/kWhe

kWhth

0 0 MJ biofuel 00 0

0% 0% #DIV/0! a.LCA

W H O L E F A R M #DIV/0! c.LCA7,170,394 3,449

0.00 0.0000 #DIV/0! c.LCA

gCO2e/MJfuel

gCO2e/MJfuel

kg CO2e/kWh

6. E C O N O M I C A S S E S S M E N TCapital cost scalar 1 DEFAULT

RHI > 200 kWth? No DEFAULT RHI domestic? No

Waste gate fee £/t 10 DEFAULT£/yr

Ex. Subsidy Incl. subsidy

Baseline net margin 279,977

Net margin change -29,255 -29,255

Annualised capital cost -67,376 -67,376

O&M -27,283 -27,283 48

Transport 0 0

Electricity 42,691 123,517

Heat 9,658 15,803

Gate fee 0 0

Digestate 43,256 43,256

Net change -28,309 58,662

Heating value 0 0#DIV/0!

Biofuel price 0 0

Annualised boiler cap ex 0 0

Net change -29,255 -29,255

Mitigation cost (£/t CO2e)

Mitigation cost (£/t CO2e)

DEFAULT

Soil emissions L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S MANNER NPK

Indirect land use change100%

Baseline farm typeArable

Application techniqueNA

3. A

NAE

ROBI

C DI

GEST

ION

AD feedstockFood waste

AD unit design & managementDefault DEFAULT

Digestate applicationShallow injection DEFAULT

Use of excess heat0% DEFAULT

Counterfactual fate of food wasteLandfill DEFAULT

4. O

THER

BIO

ENER

GY

Alternative bioenergy optionsCLEAR - ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

Animal feed replaced by co-productsWinter wheat DEFAULT

1. M

ETHO

DS

SELE

CTED

These are the methods selected on the START tab. To change them, go back to START tab.

2. B

ASEL

INE

FARM

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

re

Soil e

miss

ions

Pig

farm

diff

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

C

Indi

rect

LUC

Tran

spor

t/pr

oces

sing

AD u

nit/

com

busti

on

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

Was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-7000000

-6000000

-5000000

-4000000

-3000000

-2000000

-1000000

0

1000000

2000000CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJ e

per

yea

r

4. O

THER

BIO

ENER

GY

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

5. DISPLAY

CO2e

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

re

Soil e

miss

ions

Pig

farm

diff

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

C

Indi

rect

LUC

Tran

spor

t/pr

oces

sing

AD u

nit/

com

busti

on

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

Was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-7000000

-6000000

-5000000

-4000000

-3000000

-2000000

-1000000

0

1000000

2000000CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJ e

per

yea

r

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

B A S E L I N E T O T A Lkg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

Total 1,273,099 7,613 6,116

Per ha 3,183 19 15

Per DM t grain/seed 453 2.71 2.17

A D E N T E R P R I S Ekg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

dLUC total 0 0 0iLUC total 0 0 0

Pig enterprise difference 0 0 0Arable enterprise difference -93909 4150 2285Displaced production 0 0 0

Feedstock cultivation 0 0 0Feedstock trans/process 0 0 0AD Unit 605690 1043 4449

Avoided electricity -1462955 -223 -786

Avoided heat 0 0 0

Avoided waste -5171726 -1446 -4191

Net -6122900 3524 1757

Net per ha used for AD NA NA NAChange as % farm burden -481% 46% 29%

B I O E N E R G Y E N T E R P R I S Ekg CO2e kg PO4e kg SO2e

dLUC total 0 0 0iLUC total 0 0 0

Arable enterprise difference 0 0 0

Displaced production 0 0 0Feedstock cultivation 0 0 0Feedstock trans/process 0 0 0Combustion 0 0 0Avoided fossil fuel 0 0 0Avoided animal feed 0 0 0Net 0 0 0Net per ha used for BE 0 0 0Change as % farm burden 0% 0% 0%

Dies

el u

seFe

rt/li

me

man

ufac

ture

Chem

/see

d m

anuf

actu

re

Soil e

miss

ions

Pig

farm

diff

Disp

lace

d pr

oduc

tion

Dire

ct LU

C

Indi

rect

LUC

Tran

spor

t/pr

oces

sing

AD u

nit/

com

busti

on

Repl

aced

ene

rgy

Was

te d

ispos

al

Net e

ffect

-7000000

-6000000

-5000000

-4000000

-3000000

-2000000

-1000000

0

1000000

2000000CO2e Baseline CO2e Bioenergy scenario

Tonn

es p

er y

ear o

r GJ e

per

yea

r

L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S

B A S E L I N E T O T A LMJe kg Sb e

7,428,620 3,57318,572 9

2,641 1.27

A D E N T E R P R I S EMJe kg Sb e Conventional energy replaced per year

0 0 kWhe 3,485,2170 00 0 kWhth 0

-2370041 -11400 00 00 0 MJ biofuel 34,464,0000 0

-25505121 -12268 18 a.LCA0 0

15631076 7519 -135 c.LCA-12244085 -5889

NA NA -1.34 c.LCA-165% -165%

B I O E N E R G Y E N T E R P R I S EMJe kg Sb e Conventional energy replaced per year

0 0 00 00 00 00 0 MJ biofuel 00 00 0 #DIV/0! a.LCA0 00 00 0 #DIV/0! c.LCA0 0

0% 0% #DIV/0! c.LCA

gCO2e/MJ

gCO2e/MJ

kg CO2e/kWhe

kWhth

gCO2e/MJfuel

gCO2e/MJfuel

kg CO2e/kWh

6. E C O N O M I C A S S E S S M E N TCapital cost scalar 1 DEFAULT

RHI > 200 kWth No DEFAULT

Waste gate fee £/t 10 DEFAULT£/yr

Ex. Subsidy Incl. subsidy

Baseline net margin 171,363

Net margin change 0 0

Annualised capital cost -190,709 -190,709

O&M -98,650 -98,650 -2

Transport 0 0

Electricity 174,261 679,269

Heat 0 0

Gate fee 100,000 100,000

Digestate 26,818 26,818

Net change 11,720 516,728

Heating/trans value 0 0#DIV/0!

Biofuel price 0 0

Annualised boiler cap ex 0 0

Net change 0 0

Mitigation cost (£/t CO2e)

Mitigation cost (£/t CO2e)