in the context of the EU RED and

Transcription

1 Carbon footprinting for biomethane in the context of the EU RED and the ETS BIOSURF FINAL CONFERENCE Results from BIOSURF WP Stefan Majer, Katja Oehmichen DBFZ

2 The DBFZ in a nutshell History: Founded in 2008 as a non-profit research institute Founded by the Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture Our Mission Support the efficient and sustainable integration of biomass into a changing future energy system. Development of technologies, methods, tools and strategies for stakeholders from industry, society and policy. Structure: ~ 200 staff members in 4 research departments and administration

3 Motivation In the recent years, the demonstration of GHG mitigation effects from the production and use of biofuels has gained significance importance: EU RED (EU Directive 2009/28/EC): 10% target for energy from renewable sources in the transport sector by 2020 Sustainability requirements for biofuels FQD (Fuel Quality Directive 2009/30/EC): Definition of a GHG reduction target in the national mixture of transportation fuels UK: Biofuel must meet a GHG emission target of 34.8 g CO 2-eq. /MJ Heat or 60% GHG savings against EU fossil fuel average

4 How to proof GHG-mitigation thresholds? According to EU RED Annex V three options do exist: 1. use the default values included in Annex V Biogas* from municipal organic waste 73% Biogas* from wet manure 81% Biogas* from dry manure 82% (* in the form of compressed biomethane compatible with natural gas) 2. calculate the GHG-mitigation potential with actual values 3. combine actual values with dissagregated default values

5 Calculation with actual values cultivation processing transport use CO 2 -capture surplus electricity Biomass production CO 2 Wastes and residues Transport Biogas production Biogas upgrading Distribution Manure source: DBFZ Digestate According to EU RED Annex V

6 Tools for GHG accounting (examples)

7 Main challenges Allocation of digestate Biomass production CO 2 Consideration of emission savings from the fermentation of manure Wastes and residues Transport Biogas production Biogas upgrading Distribution Averaging of emission values Manure Digestate source: DBFZ 7

8 Support provided by Biosurf Assessment and Improvement of the knowledge base for the quantification of D 5.1 Recommendations for the adaptation of the GHG calculation methodology D 5.2 Assessment of GHG reduction potentials due to the use of animal excrements and organic waste streams different GHG mitigation effects linked to biomethane production. Development of a number of recommendations for the adaptation of the RED GHG calculation methodology and Discussion of the most prominent drivers for emissions and potential GHG reduction Applicability of methodological framework Biomethane specialties Adaptation of methodological framework D 5.3 LCA for exemplary pathways Proof of concept (methodology) Environmental performance Credits as input to D 5.3 D 5.5 Methodology on entitlement to CO2 certificates Link to ETS D 5.4 Description of the most prominent drivers of emissions in LCA for biomethane production Main drivers à potential for optimisation measures source: DBFZ

9 source: BIOSURF D5.1 BIOSURF WP5 results Deliverable 5.1: Discussion of main Issues, specialities and challenges for GHGaccounting of Biomethane Methodological recommendations Deliverable 5.2: Comprehensive database on emission savings Deliverable 5.3: Calculation of GHG-emissions for various biomethane pathways Deliverable 5.4: Drivers for emissions and potential for optimisation Deliverable 5.5: GHG mitigation costs for biomethane in the EU ETS and EU RED context Source: BIOSURF

10 Source: BIOSURF D5.2 Source: BIOSURF D5.2 Exemplary results I Biomethane from slurry/manure Bandwith kg CO 2 eq. Bandwith 35-58kg CO 2 eq. Source: DBFZ based on BIOSURF D5.2

11 Exemplary results II Biomethane from slurry/manure Significant emission savings from avoided slurry/manure storage Impact of process energy supply Source: DBFZ; BIOSURF D5.3

12 Calculation of GHG mitigation costs in the context of the EU ETS and the EU RED based on D5.3 pathways Biomethane from Slurry Straw Exemplary results III GHG mitigation costs Slurry (20% of DM) + straw (80% of DM) Municipal organic waste Mixture of silage from corn stover (86% of DM) + catch crops (14% of DM) Mixture of silo maize (90% of DM) and catch crops (10% of DM) Scenario 1 ETS Scenario 2 ETS + agriculture Scenario 3 EU RED/FQD GHG mitigation costs for biomethane compared to natural gas in EUR*tCO 2 -Eq. -1 Available at: source: BIOSURF D5.5

13 Exemplary results IV GHG mitigation costs Relation between price difference and CO 2 -mitigation costs 400 GHG mitigation costs in * t CO 2 eq Municipal organic waste Slurry Straw Silage corn stover (86%) + catch crops (14%) Slurry (20%) + straw (80%) Silo maize (90%) + catch crops (10%) GHG mitigation costs for biomethane compared to natural gas in EUR*tCO 2 -Eq. -1 Slurry Straw Slurry (20% of DM) + straw (80% of DM) Municipal organic waste Mixture of silage from corn stover (86% of DM) + catch crops (14% of DM) Mixture of silo maize (90% of DM) and catch crops (10% of DM) Price difference between natural gas and biomethane in cent * kwh -1 Source: DBFZ; BIOSURF D5.5

14 Exemplary results V GHG mitigation costs EU ETS (Bioenergy is considered carbon neutral) EU ETS (incl. emission savings from agr.) Relation between price difference and CO 2 -mitigation costs Relation between price difference and CO 2 -mitigation costs GHG mitigation costs in * t CO 2 eq Municipal organic waste Slurry Straw Silage corn stover (86%) + catch crops (14%) Slurry (20%) + straw (80%) Silo maize (90%) + catch crops (10%) GHG mitigation costs in * t^co 2eq Silage corn stover (86%) Municipal organic waste Straw Silo maize (90%) + Slurry (incl. emission savings Slurry + straw (incl. emission savings Source: DBFZ; BIOSURF D5.5 Price difference between natural gas and biomethane in cent * kwh Price difference between natural gas and biomethane in cent * kwh -1

15 Exemplary results VI GHG mitigation costs EU RED context (comparison against nat. gas) EU RED context (comparison against gasoline) GHG mitigation costs in * tco 2-eq GHG mitigation costs in * tco 2eq Cost/price difference between natural gas and biomethane in cent * kwh -1 Slurry Straw Price difference between gasoline and biomethane in cent * kwh -1 Slurry (20%) + straw (80%) mixture of silage corn stover (86%) + catch crops (14%) municipal organic waste mixture of maize (90%) and catch crops (10%) Source: DBFZ; BIOSURF D5.5

16 Summary BIOSURF WP 5 has provided a set of methodologies and calculation examples for carbon footprinting in the EU RED and EU ETS context. The deliverabes produced are adressing uncertainties related to the methodology of GHG emission calculations and necessary data input. All reports are available at:

17 Thank you for your attention! Contact details: 17