Comparison of three different fertilizer product types: environmental and economical aspects

Transcription

1 Comparison of three different fertilizer product types: environmental and economical aspects Kathrin Böhlendorf, Onno Omta, Stefanie Bröring & Hans-Werner Olfs

2 Agenda 1. Rahmenbedingungen Challenge and framework 2. Methods 3. Selected Offene Fragen results 4. Diskussion Summary and conclusions 2

3 Agenda 1. Rahmenbedingungen Challenge and framework 2. Methods 3. Selected Offene Fragen results 4. Diskussion Summary and conclusions 3

4 Framework General concept: What is the most sustainable option for using mineral fertilizers? sozial Jobs Job security Climate change (Carbon Footprint) Eutrophication Acidification ecological Costs Average cost composition economical 4 modified acc. to Rodriguez et al and Adams 2006

5 Framework Raw material price Cost Energy and Oil price Buying behavior Macro-economic development Raw material availability Social development Bulk blend fertilizer market Environmental development LCA Environmental awareness of customer Carbon Footprint (Label/Marketingstrategie) Sector development Competition Precision Farming New technologies Nature conservation Survey about perspectives 5

6 Model regions in Germany North-West: Very high density of animals, close to sea/cannels/rivers, small farm operations North-East: Arable farming region, close to the sea, large farm operations (> 500 ha) South-East: Arable farming region, high density of animals, small farm operations South-West: Small scale agriculture High density of horticulture and special crops North-West South-West North-East South-East 6

7 Fertilizer supply chain in Germany Single nutrient and complex fertilizer: Port or plant Wholesaler Agro trader Farmer Bulk blend fertilizer: Port or plant Wholesaler Blender Farmer Storage Transport Service Application 7

8 Agenda 1. Rahmenbedingungen Challenge and framework 2. Methods 3. Selected Offene Fragen results 4. Diskussion Summary and conclusions 8

9 What does LCA mean? LCA = Life Cycle Assessment LCA is a systematic analysis of the environmental impact of products during their whole life cycle (including production/use and all up- and downstream processes) Raw material extraction Resources Transport Processing Transport Manufacturing Transport Use Transport Disposal 9

10 What does LCA mean? Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Raw material extraction Transport Processing Transport Manufacturing Transport Use Transport Disposal 10

11 LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) Application Raw material Transport Manufacturing Agro trader Wholesaler 11

12 Agenda 1. Rahmenbedingungen Challenge and framework 2. Methods 3. Selected Offene Fragen results 4. Diskussion Summary and conclusions 12

13 Climate change potential in kg CO 2 - Eq. LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) for a NPK fertilizer Climate change: All bulk blend fertilizer have lower emissions compared to complex NPK fertilizers 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Industrial CAN/DAP CAN/TSP Urea/TSP N P K CAN/DAP CAN (175 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) CAN/TSP CAN (192 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/TSP Urea (111 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) 13

14 Acidification potential in kg SO 2 -Eq. LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) for a NPK fertilizer Acidification: Bulk blends containing CAN + DAP or Urea + TSP have lower emissions compared to a complex NPK fertilizer or a bulk blend containing CAN + TSP 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Industrial CAN/DAP CAN/TSP Urea/TSP N P K CAN/DAP CAN (175 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) CAN/TSP CAN (192 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/TSP Urea (111 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) 14

15 Eutrophication potential in kg N- or P- emission to waterbodies LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) for a NPK fertilizer Eutrophication: A bulk blend fertilizer with Urea + TSP has the lowest emissions 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Industrial CAN/DAP CAN/TSP Urea/TSP N P K CAN/DAP CAN (175 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) CAN/TSP CAN (192 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/TSP Urea (111 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) 15

16 Carbon Footprint of one kg fertilizer in CO 2 -Eq. Carbon Footprint The best Carbon Footprint for a NPK fertilizer can be achieved by using a bulk blend with CAN+DAP 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Industial CAN/DAP CAN/TSP Urea/DAP Urea/TSP N P K CAN/DAP CAN (175 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) CAN/TSP CAN (192 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/DAP Urea (101 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/TSP Urea (111 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) 16

17 Costs ( per ha; base year 2011) Costs for all four mixtures and the industrial fertilizer for the nutrient composition and 300 kg application per hectare The costs of bulk blends are always lower then the costs of industrial fertilizers. Bulk blends based on Urea have always lower costs compared to CAN based blends Industrial CAN/DAP CAN/TSP Urea/DAP Urea/TSP N P K N P K CAN/DAP CAN (175 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) CAN/TSP CAN (192 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/DAP Urea (101 kg) DAP (26 kg) MOP (97 kg) Urea/TSP Urea (111 kg) TSP (27 kg) MOP (97 kg) 17

18 Cost per tkm Transport costs Ship transportation is always by far the cheapest way of transportation. Train is cheaper than truck at approximately 400 km. 0,2 0,15 0,1 0, transport distance in km Truck Train Ship 18

19 Survey: Perspectives for the Bulk blend fertilizer market 6. In the future farmers will accept longer transportation distances to get adapted fertilizers. 7. In the future bulk blend fertilizers will have a larger tonnage compered to single nutrient fertilizers. 22. Bulk blend fertilizer can play an important role in reducing greenhouse gases. 27. With further development of precision farming, the bulk blend fertilizer market will decrease. Answers in per cent Answers in per cent N=45 N=25 very unlikely very likely very unlikely very likely 19

20 Knowledge sharing within the fertilizer supply chain stabilized N-fertilizer Fertigation Biofortification SRM 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 Fertilizer made from secondary raw materials 20

21 Agenda 1. Rahmenbedingungen Challenge and framework 2. Methods 3. Selected Offene Fragen results 4. Diskussion Summary and conclusions 21

22 Summary and conclusions Social: Environmental: Economical: Producing and using bulk blend fertilizer will increase level of employment and job security in several regions (especially regions with structural problems) Bulk blend fertilizer have in all cases lower emissions compared to industrial produced complex NPK fertilizer Urea has a high Carbon Footprint, but with newer technologies that can be reduced The costs for bulk blend fertilizer are lower Ship transportation is always the cheapest way of transportation Train transportation is a better choice than truck beyond 400 km transportation distance Conclusion: A bulk blend fertilizer based on CAN and DAP transported via ship or train to the target regions is the most sustainable option. 22