GHG balancing crop-by-crop vs. crop rotation cycles. how figures can differ

Transcription

1 GHG balancing crop-by-crop vs. crop rotation cycles how figures can differ International Workshop Greenhouse Gas Emission from Oilseed Rape Cropping and Mitigation Options Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig 1

2 Content 0. Introduction 1. Issue 2. Proposal for solution 3. Impact on the GHG balance 4. Pros / Cons 5. Outlook 2

3 Introduction Who s IFEU? Presently there are approximately 70 people from several fields of study, working on current. environmental topics. IFEU is an independent ecological research, without any party political and economical influence, Financing solely through project-bounded means approx. orders 2/3 from public sector 1/3 from private enterprises. 3

4 Introduction Fields of work Waste Management and Resource Conservation Environmental Education Energy (and Renewable Energies) Industry and Products Nutrition and Biomass Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Risk Assessment Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) & Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Traffic and Transport a.o.. 4

5 Introduction Key activity in the field of LCA, GHG and sustainability assessment for bioenergy With special regard on the European legislation Renewable Energy Directive RED Developing of recognized GHG calculation tools, such as:. BioGrace spreadsheet (version 4c recognized by the EU Commission, version 5 in work) ENZO2 developed by IFEU Germany recognized by the BLE 5

6 1 Issue Issue Usual approach in LCAs: Temporal system boundary for crops in crop rotation systems: start: after harvesting the previous crop end: after harvesting the assessed crop. ( harvest - harvest ). Attribution of fertilizer input does not match with the effective uptake of nutrients by the single crops within the crop rotation cycle. 6

7 1 Issue Usual approach in LCAs No real field data applied but theoretical crop-specific uptake ratios (see German Düngeverordnung Annex 1). several further problems: 1. Nutrient losses due to More or less unavoidable mechanisms (small scale) Excessive application of fertilizers (over-fertilization no good agricural practice) Poor seasonal situations (low yield despite sufficient fertilization) 2. The actuality of the results 7

8 2 Proposed solution Standard solution harvest-harvest balance rley rapeseed wheat barley harvest harvest harvest harvest fertilizer BioGrace calculation rule 3.5 Actual input data for use of fertilisers If a GHG calculation is made using actual input data for mineral and/or organic fertilisers, then all mineral and organic fertiliser shall be taken into account that were used between the harvest of the Rapeseed biodiesel Wheat ethanol previous crop and the harvest of the crop that is input for the calculation 8

9 Rape seed wheat barley 2 Proposed solution Proposed solution rley rapeseed wheat barley harvest harvest harvest harvest fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer 9

10 barley wheat Rape seed 2 Proposed solution Proposed solution fertilizer Düngemittel Düngemittel fertilizer fertilizer Re-allocation of total fertilizer application (whole cycle) proportional with standard nutrient uptake ratios 10

11 2 Proposed solution Proposed solution (numerical example) Rape seed wheat barley SUM Harvest (dt/ha) N-fertilizing (kg/ha) (kg N/dt) 4,26 2,06 1,86 N-uptake (kg N/dt) 3,35 2,11 1,65 Demand uptake (kg/ha) Allocation in relation to uptake (kg N/ha)

12 Ferrtilizer input in kg N/ha 2 Proposed solution Proposed solution (numerical example) , , Entzug "Ernte-Ernte" "Fruchtfolge IFEU" Standard uptake Actual value harvest-havest Actual value rotation cycle 13

13 3 Impact on the GHG balance How results might change Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler) Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler) Overview Results All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Total g CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results Cultivation e ec 27,0 Cultivation of rapeseed 45,40 58,6% 26,60 Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42 Processing e p 21,6 Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81 Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01 Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75 Transport e td 1,4 Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17 Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47 Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80 Land use change e l 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0 Bonus or e sca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0 e ccr + e ccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0 Totals 72,7 50,0 Cultivation of rapeseed Yield Rapeseed kg ha -1 year -1 Moisture content 10,0% Co-product Straw n/a kg ha -1 year -1 Default values RED Annex V.D 29 28,51 0, , ,88 0,17 0,82 0,44 Overview Results All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Total g CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results Cultivation e ec 24,6 Cultivation of rapeseed 41,32 58,6% 24,21 Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42 Processing e p 21,6 Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81 Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01 Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75 Transport e td 1,4 Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17 Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47 Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80 Land use change e l 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0 Bonus or e sca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0 e ccr + e ccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0 Totals 68,7 47,6 Cultivation of rapeseed Yield Rapeseed kg ha -1 year -1 Moisture content 10,0% Co-product Straw n/a kg ha -1 year -1 Energy consumption Diesel MJ ha -1 year -1 Energy consumption Diesel MJ ha -1 year -1 Agro chemicals N-fertiliser (kg N) 200,0 kg N ha -1 year -1 Manure 0,0 kg N ha -1 year -1 CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha -1 year -1 K 2 O-fertiliser (kg K 2 O) 49,5 kg K 2 O ha -1 year -1 P 2 O 5 -fertiliser (kg P 2 O 5 ) 33,7 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 year -1 Pesticides 1,2 kg ha -1 year -1 Agro chemicals N-fertiliser (kg N) 175,0 kg N ha -1 year -1 Manure 0,0 kg N ha -1 year -1 CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha -1 year -1 K 2 O-fertiliser (kg K 2 O) 49,5 kg K 2 O ha -1 year -1 P 2 O 5 -fertiliser (kg P 2 O 5 ) 33,7 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 year -1 Pesticides 1,2 kg ha -1 year -1 Seeding material Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha -1 year -1 Seeding material Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha -1 year -1 Field N 2 O emissions 4,78 kg ha -1 year -1 Field N 2 O emissions can be calculated in the sheet N2O emissions IPCC Field N 2 O emissions 4,38 kg ha -1 year -1 Field N 2 O emissions can be calculated in the sheet N2O emissions IPCC 14

14 g CO 2 e/mj 3 Impact on the GHG balance Results numerical example ,6 Transport Transport Verarbeitung Processing Anbau cultivation 0 Standardwert RED Actual "Ernte-Ernte" value "Fruchtfolge harvest-havest IFEU" Standard value Actual value rotation cycle 15

15 4 Pros / Cons Advantages of the proposal Increasing eveness of the GHG results Farms usually operate long-term viewed methods are rarely changed. broadening the time frame of the balance more adequately reflects the characater of agricultural practice than a strict focus on season and plot. Viceverse the focussed approach invites to allocate liberately GHG friendly management activities to bioenrgy crops and the less positive ones to the other crops e.g.: organic manure selectively applied for rapeseed (if Biodiesel), synthetic fertilizer for common wheat, barley etc. Pathway to further expansion to balance at farm level 16

16 4 Pros / Cons Possible drawback Risk of greening the figures? The really applied amount of fertilizer within the crop season for e.g. rapeseed might be decreased systemically inadequatly. No general consensus under cropping system experts. Systematically high preceding crop effect might be responsible for overrall higher losses? Application of method shall not be optional. cherry-picking shall be prohibited! Technical issue: how deal with N 2 O emissions? E.g. how to combine with the GNOC model? 17

17 5 Outlook Outlook The proposed approach should provide food for discussion within the community of GHG experts in the agricultural area; the proposal is open for further useful developments and refinements. We intent to test the proposed approach at farm-level under real conditions In case the approach turns out to be useful and sound: Intention to introduce it as an officially recognized rule for GHG in line with the RED Integration into recognized tools like BioGrace and ENZO2 18

18 Thank you The ifeu BioGrace/ENZO2 team BioGrace is supported by the IEE programme of the EU ENZO2 is supported by the German Government (project number: 03MAP243) 19