Life cycle GHG emissions in the EU biofuels legislation Luisa Marelli and Robert Edwards

Transcription

1 Life cycle GHG emissions in the EU biofuels legislation 1 Luisa Marelli and Robert Edwards European Commission DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Energy and Transport

2 Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) Policy framework Directive 2009/30/EC (FQD) 10% target for RES in transport 10% GHG reduction by fuel suppliers (6% through alternative fuels) Sustainability Criteria and Life-cycle GHG emissions calculation identical in the two Directives 2 GHG Impact Biodiversity Land use Good agricultural conditions Minimum 35% GHG Emissions saving (50% from 2017, 60% from 2018) Not be made from raw materials obtained from biodiverse areas (including primary forests) Not be made from land with high carbon stock (i.e. wetlands, forested areas ) Not be grown on peatlands Requirement for good agricultural conditions and social sustainability

3 GHG emissions saving calculated by: 1. Actual values Methodology in Annex V 3 Producers calculate actual emissions for cultivation or other steps. (Guidelines published by the Commission). Voluntary schemes: the Commission can recognize voluntary schemes that could cover all producers in a region. The Commission would then check whether the voluntary scheme ensures that the claimed emissions would be correct. 2. Default values JRC input database 3. Combination of Disaggregated default values in Annex V

4 1. Actual values Methodology in Annex V - RED 4 Total emissions from the use of fuel: E b = e ec + e l + e p + e td + e u e sca e ccs e ccr e ee, GHG SAVING = (E f E b )/E f (min. 35%) Where E f = emissions from the fuel comparator E = total emissions from the use of the fuel; e ec =emissions from cultivation of raw materials; e l =annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change; e p =emissions from processing; e td =emissions from transport and distribution; eu = emissions from the fuel in use; e sca = emission saving from soil C accumulation via improved agricultural management; e ccs = emission saving from carbon capture and geological storage; e ccr = emission saving from carbon capture and replacement; e ee = emission saving from excess electricity from cogeneration.

5 2. Default values if you can t (or don t want to) calculate actual emissions for your batch of biofuels (and are not in a recognised voluntary scheme) (and your LUC emissions are zero) 5 Default values Listed in Annex V - RED JRC calculates the default values of GHG emissions from different biofuels from different feedstocks (Values now in Annex V from JEC WTW input database) Values in annex V will likely be updated soon

6 The path to Default Values (1) 1. Request from stakeholders / Initiative from JRC / request from DG ENER The definition / update of a new default value is initiated either by the needs of stakeholders or by JRC / DG ENERGY initiative based on significant technical developments in the field. 2. Definition of the pathway and transport schemes The pathway needs to be defined in all of its processes, from cradle to the final biofuel. This includes the definition of typical import routes to EU and typical transport means. Collaboration with external consultants is very frequent during this step. 3. Data collection for each process For each process involved, data are collected from several sources: peer reviewed publications, published handbooks, LCA databases, consultation with stakeholders and external consultants etc The data are chosen (whenever possible) to be representative of the European situation. Critical evaluation of the data is done by JRC experts. 6

7 The path to Default Values (2) 7 4. Data conversion to common energy basis The data collected need to be converted to a common energy basis based on the dry LHV of the materials. A common set of fuel properties is used. 5. GHG emissions calculations The data gathered and converted, are inserted into a LCA calculation tool that, applying a set of emission factors, produces the final typical value. 6. Definition of the DEFAULT VALUE The default value is finally obtained by increasing processing emissions by 40%.

8 Example of default values in Annex V - RED Biofuel production pathway Typical GHG emission saving Default GHG emission saving sugar beet ethanol 61 % 52 % wheat ethanol (process fuel not specified) wheat ethanol (lignite as process fuel in CHP plant) wheat ethanol (straw as process fuel in CHP plant) 32 % 16 % 32 % 16 % 69% 69% sugar cane ethanol 71% 71% rape seed biodiesel 45% 38% 8 = Typical + 40% increase on the estimated processing emissions palm oil biodiesel (process not specified) palm oil biodiesel (process with methane capture at oil mill) 36% 19% 62% 56% waste wood ethanol 80% 74%

9 9 Default values do not include: - emissions for farm machinery manufacture - energy for irrigation - emissions from direct LUC Direct LUC emissions (e l ): Commission s decision on Guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks (2010/335/EU of 10/06/2010) based on JRC work:

10 10 N 2 O emissions from cultivation: (Now default values in disaggregated e ec factor) JRC methodology: combined Stehfest&Bouwmanstatistical model with IPCC Tier1 Approach - Mineral fertilizer data based on IFA - Input data from several global databases and is disaggregated on a ~9km grid - Harmonized method for all feedstocks, global application is possible. - Cover a wide range of potential biofuel feedstock defined by the EU Commission

11 Uncertainties (1): Accounting for co-products How to divide emissions between fuels and coproducts? 11 a. Substitution approach: discount GHG emissions of the substituted product from the total fuel + co-product emissions b. Allocation approach: emissions divided between fuel and co-product in proportion according to: - mass - energy content (excluding residues) - Economic value

12 SUBSTITUTION More appropriate for policy analysis purposes (e.g. JEC-WTW) It tells you how much GHG you save in the whole economy caused by a particular pathway to making biofuel does not say in which sector the GHG is saved 12 May bring to non desired effects: increase LUC by using co-products for energy (higher GHG saving) rather then for animal feed undesired incentives : GHG savings from by-products in all sectors are attributed to biofuel the more by-products and the less biofuel you have, the better! investor uncertainty

13 Allocation The calculation for the GHG saved in the transport fuel sector should be simpler because it should not depend on the use of the by-products SIMPLE RULE: The upstream emissions for making by-products are proportional to: 1. Their dry mass 2. Their Energy content 3. Their price (economic value) None of the options is strictly rational, but there are some advantages compared to substitution: Allow Estimation in the transport sector (All options) no undesired incentives (the use of co-products is irrelevant) (All options) Doesn t change in time (like price) (1 and 2) Gives values more close to those calculated with substitution (2 and 3) 13

14 Main uncertainties: Allocation of emissions between fuel and co-products, in proportion to their energy content (Lower Heating Value) Issues: Most of the emissions from soy cultivation and crushing is attributed to the meal Definition of LHV in the directive: There are 2 definitions for moist material: 1. Heat from burning the dry part of the material (not including the energy in steam in the exhaust) 2. Heat of the entire co-product stream, i.e. Like (1) but subtracting the energy to evaporate the water in the material The Commission says in a 2010 Communication: for allocation you must use the second definition

15 Main uncertainties: Consequences of allocation using the wet LHV definition 15 - In case of ethanol, the LHV depends on its dilution (while dry LHV is a fixed quantity per dry-matter mass of material) - The Lower Heat Value of wet materials decreases. Therefore wet by-products (like undried DDGS) get less allocation than dry ones JRC emissions calculation tool works internally with the first definition, and all per MJ results are per MJ LHV of the dry matter Fortunately, for (dry) final fuels there is only one LHV

16 Harmonisation 16 Need to define and harmonize conversion factors from input data to GHG emissions 1. Significant variations possible in actual GHG values from the same batch of biofuels: Different sources to convert kg, MJ or m 3 into CO 2,eq give different emissions Which causes different pathways emissions for the same input data 2. This allows cherry-picking : Economic operators can choose most beneficial values to get better GHG performance of their biofuel without effectively improving the production chain!

17 17 On-going harmonization initiatives: BioGrace project RSB (Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels) tool Harmonise calculations of biofuel GHG emission List of standard conversion values Software to allow stakeholders to perform calculations themselves

18 18 Indirect land use change effects are not included But the RED and FQD include obligation to review the impact of ILUC to GHG emissions, and if needed to accompaign with a policy proposal by 2010 Commission s report (Dec.2010) concluded that: Although with uncertainties, ILUC can reduce GHG savings it should be addressed with precautionary approach Impact Assessment to be prepared by 2011

19 CONCLUSIONS 19 Sustainability sine qua non condition for biofuels promotion in the EU No negative environmental and social impacts No negative impacts on food availability Life Cycle Analysis methodology is defined, but economic operators need additional tools (e.g. N 2 O emissions methodology) to calculate GHG emission savings The use default values is not compulsory: economic operators can calculate actual values for their specifi batch of biofuels following RED methodology Harmonised conversion factors are necessary. Scientific studies indicated that ILUC affects GHG saving and should be accounted for in legislation.