Life cycle assessments of future crops for fiber and fuels

Transcription

1 ifeu Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg Life cycle assessments of future crops for fiber and fuels Dr Guido Reinhardt & Nils Rettenmaier 3 rd Workshop of the 4F CROPS project Poznan, 17 November 2009

2 Who we are - What we do IFEU - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg, since 1978 Independent scientific research institute organised as a private non profit company with currently about 40 employees Research / consulting on environmental aspects of - Energy (including Renewable Energy) - Transport - Waste Management - Life Cycle Analyses - Environmental Impact Assessment - Renewable Resources - Environmental Education

3 Who we are - What we do IFEU focuses regarding the topic of biomass Research / consulting on environmental aspects of - transport biofuels - biomass-based electricity and heat - biorefinery systems - biobased materials - agricultural goods and food - cultivation systems (conventional agriculture, organic farming, etc.) Potentials and future scenarios Technologies / technology comparisons CO 2 avoidance costs Sustainability aspects / valuation models

4 Who we are - What we do TREMOD: Transport Emission Model Modelling emissions of road vehicles, trains, ships and airplanes Official database of the German Ministries for emission reporting Life cycle analyses (LCA) and technology impact assessments since 1990: Biofuels (all biofuels, all applications) Alternative transportation modes Renewable Energy

5 Who we are - What we do IFEU - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg, since 1978 Our clients (on biomass studies) - World Bank - UNEP, FAO, UNFCCC, GTZ, etc. - European Commission - National and regional Ministries - Associations (industrial, scientific) - Local authorities - WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. - Companies (Daimler, German Telecom, Shell etc.) - Foundations (German Foundation on Environment, etc.)

6 ifeu Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg Life cycle assessments of future crops for fiber and fuels Dr Guido Reinhardt & Nils Rettenmaier 3 rd Workshop of the 4F CROPS project Poznan, 17 November 2009

7 Background CO 2 Mitigation through Biofuels in the Transport Sector Status and Perspectives Dr. Guido Reinhardt Sven Gärtner Markus Quirin Martin Pehnt ifeu Institut für Energieund Umweltforschung Heidelberg ggmbh CO 2 Mitigation through Biofuels in the Transport Sector. Status and Perspectives Commissioned by the Research Association for Combustion Engines (FVV), Frankfurt Authors: Guido Reinhardt, Sven Gärtner, Markus Quirin & Martin Pehnt Project duration: Commissioned by the Research Association for Combustion Engines (FVV) Heidelberg, 2004

8 Background Bioenergy chains from perennial crops in South Europe WP4. Environmental assessment Final report November 2005 Bioenergy chains from perennial crops in South Europe Environmental assessment Project funded by the European Commission s FP 5 programme. Authors: Karl Scheuerlen, Guido Reinhardt & Sven Gärtner Project duration: Jan 2001 Dec 2005 IUS Weisser & Ness GmbH ifeu Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg ggmbh

9 Background Renewable raw materials for the chemical industry Options and potentials for the future Dr. Guido Reinhardt Andreas Detzel Sven Gärtner Nils Rettenmaier Martina Krüger Supported by the German chemical industry association (VCI) ifeu Institut für Energieund Umweltforschung Heidelberg ggmbh Renewable raw materials for the chemical industry Options and potentials for the future Report prepared under support of the German chemical industry association (VCI), Frankfurt. Authors: Guido Reinhardt, Andreas Detzel, Sven Gärtner, Nils Rettenmaier & Martina Krüger Project duration: Dec 2005 Jan 2007 Heidelberg, 2007

10 IFEU s role in 4F CROPS W P 8 : C o ord in a tio n M a n a gem ent a n d R ep ortin g WP leader of WP4 WP1. Land Use in EU27 WP2. Cropping Possibilities WP3. Economic Analysis and Social impacts WP4. Environmental Analysis WP5. Regulatory Framework Task leader of Tasks 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 W P 6. B e st P ractices for S u ccessfu l E stab lish m ent o f N o n -fo o d C rops W P 7: D issem in a tio n a n d S u p p o rts A ctio n s

11 WP 4: Environmental analysis Goal Assessment of environmental implications and identification of best options for each region or country. Task 4.1 Environmental impact assessment Task 4.2 Life cycle analysis Task 4.3 Modelling of dependencies and sensibilities Task 4.4 Identification of best options

12 Biofuels and bio-based materials Environmental advantages and disadvantages: CO 2 neutral Save energetic resources Organic waste reduction Less transport etc. Land use Eutrophication of surface water Water pollution by pesticides Energy intensive production etc. Total: positive or negative?

13

14 Life cycle analysis (LCA) ISO & Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Interpretation Impact assessment

15 Fossil fuel LCA: Life cycle comparison Biofuel Fertiliser Credits Fuel Pesticides Resource extraction Raw material production Agriculture Fallow maintenance Transport Processing Co-products Equivalent products Utilisation

16 Life cycle analysis (LCA) ISO & Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Interpretation Impact assessment

17 LCA: Inventory Analysis Inputs Outputs e.g.: - natural gas - crude oil - brown coal - hard coal - uranium - water Fossil fuel Resource extraction Raw material production Transport Processing Utilisation Biofuel Fertiliser Fuel Pesticides Agriculture e.g.: - CO 2 - SO 2 - CH 4 - NO X - NH 3 - N 2 O - HCl - CO - C 6 H 6 - VOC

18 Life cycle analysis (LCA) ISO & Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Interpretation Impact assessment

19 LCA: Impact assessment Impact category Resource demand Greenhouse effect Ozone depletion Parameter Sum of depletable primary energy carriers Mineral resources CO 2 equivalents CFC-11 equivalents Substances (LCI) Crude oil, natural gas, coal, Uranium, Lime, clay, metal ores, salt, pyrite, Carbon dioxide, dinitrogen monoxide, methane, different CFCs, methyl bromide, Dinitrogen monoxide, CFC, halone, methyl bromide, Acidification Eutrophication Photosmog Human toxicity SO 2 equivalents PO 4 equivalents C 2 H 4 equivalents PM10 equivalents Sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, Nitrogen oxides, ammonia, phosphate, nitrate Hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, chlorinated hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, diesel particles, dust, ammonia, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, sulphur dioxide, dioxines (TCDD),

20 Life cycle analyses for 4F CROPS 4F CROPS deliverable D13: Life cycle analyses (LCA) 4F Crops: Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fiber and Fuel Authors: Guido Reinhardt, Nils Rettenmaier, Susanne Köppen, Sven Gärtner & Sebastian Häfele D 13: Life cycle analyses (LCA) WP leader: ifeu-institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH Dr. Guido Reinhardt Grant agreement no: Duration: 01/07/ /06/2010 Heidelberg, November 2009

21 Selection of crops WP 2: Selection of crops, provision of yields according to env. zone CLIMATIC AREA MAIN PRODUCT Nemoral Continental Atlantic Central Atlantic North Lusitanian Mediterranean North Mediterranean South Oil Rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera D.C.) Rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera D.C.) Rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera D.C.) Rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera D.C.) Rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera D.C.) Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) Fiber Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Flax (Linum usitaissimum L.) SRF Poplar (Populus spp.) Willow (Salix humilis Marsh.) Poplar (Populus spp.) Willow (Salix humilis Marsh.) Willow (Salix humilis Marsh.) Poplar (Populus spp.) Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) Lignocellulo sic Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus Greef. et Deu.) Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus Greef. et Deu. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus Greef. et Deu.) Giant reed (Arundo donax L.) Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis) Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench Sugar - Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) - Source: IFEU 2009

22 Selection of conversions & products IFEU has selected Conversion representative path Main product conversion Use Combustion Heat and / or power paths and products for each crop group taking Transesterification Biodiesel (FAME) into account Hydrotreatment relevant studies Biofuel from (HVO) literature. Crop category Oil crops Fiber crops Lignocellulose from woody and herbaceous biomass Sugar crops Fleece production Combustion Thermochemical conversion (gasification) Biochemical conversion (biorefinery) Refining Fermentation Lubricant Surfactant Fiber composite Insulation mat Heat and / or power FT-diesel Ethylene Fuel ethanol Chemical ethanol 1,3-PDO Ethylene 1,3-PDO Fuel ethanol Chemical ethanol Ethylene Bioenergy Biomaterial Biomaterial Bioenergy Biomaterial Bioenergy Biomaterial Biomaterial Bioenergy Biomaterial

23 Basic scenarios: Sugar crops I Auxiliary products Sugar beet cultivation Alternative land use Beet earth Fertiliser Mineral fertiliser Syrup production Pressed pulp Feed Soy meal Carbon lime Fertiliser Lime fertiliser Syrup a Refining Purified sugar 1,3-PDO OPTION bio-based materials Fossil 1,3-PDO Ethanol production Fusel oils Vinasse Heat Feed Fossil fuel oil Soy meal Bioethanol b Biofuel OPTION energetic use Fossil gasoline c d Ethylene synthesis Ethylene Biochemical OPTION bio-based materials Fossil ethylene Chem. ethanol Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

24 Detailed results: Sugar beet Sugar beet Fuel ethanol Advantages Disadv. Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Cultivation Conversion Co-product Usage Fossil equiv. production Fossil equiv. usage Balance Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

25 Results: Sugar beet Advantages Fuel EtOH Chem. EtOH 1,3-PDO Ethylene Disadv. 106 Bioenergy Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g R11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 Biomaterials Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

26 Basic scenarios: Sugar crops II Auxiliary Products Cultivation Leaves Feed Wheat Bagasse Process energy Juice Grains a Crystallisation, refining Purified sugar 1,3-PDO Fossil 1,3-PDO OPTION bio-based materials Stillage Feed Soy meal Vinasse Feed Soy meal Processing (e. g. milling, fermentation) Power Power mix Fusel oil Heat Heat Fossil fuel oil Calcium carbonate Fertiliser Mineral fertiliser Bioethanol b OPTION energetic use Gasoline Fossil gasoline c d Ethylene synthesis Biochemical OPTION bio-based materials Ethylene Fossil ethylene Chem. ethanol Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

27 Results: Sweet sorghum Advantages Disadv. Bioenergy Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 Biomaterials Fuel EtOH Chem. EtOH Ethylene 1,3-PDO & Chem. EtOH 1,3-PDO & Ethylene Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

28 Basic scenarios: Oil crops Auxiliary products Cultivation Alternative land use Apiary products Honey, wax etc. Equivalent products Extraction & refining Meal Feed * Soy meal * Restricted use of cake/meal from Ethiopian mustard seeds SVO a b c CHP Heat plant Power plant Heat & power Heat Power OPTION energetic use Fossil fuel oil & power mix Fossil fuel oil Power mix g f Processing d e Lubricant Surfactant OPTION bio-based materials Fossil lubricant Fossil derived surfactant Hydrotreatment Transesterification Glycerine Pure glycerine Chemicals FAME Biofuel Fossil diesel HVO Biofuel OPTION energetic use Fossil diesel Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

29 Results: Rapeseed oil Advantages Disadv. Bioenergy Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 FAME (biofuel) HVO (biofuel) SVO (heat & power) Lubricant Surfactant Biomaterials Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

30 Basic scenarios: Fiber crops Auxiliary products Cultivation Alternative land use Seed Drying, cleaning Birdseed Conv. birdseed Straw Fibre conditioning Shives Comp. panel production Lightweight building board Loam lathwork Fleece fibre Fleece production a b Fiber composite production OPTION bio-based materials Fiber composite Insulation mat Synthetic fiber composite Rock wool mat Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

31 Results: Flax Advantages Fiber composite Insulation mat Disadv. Biomaterials Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

32 Basic scen.: Lignocellulosic crops I Auxiliary products Cultivation Alternative land use Lignocellulose feedstock a b CHP Heat plant Heat & power Heat Fossil fuel oil & power mix Fossil fuel oil c Power plant Power OPTION energetic use Power mix Gasification Power Power mix Slag Synthesis gas Gas purification d FT synthesis FT diesel Fossil diesel OPTION energetic use e Ethylene synthesis OPTION bio-based materials Ethylene Fossil ethylene Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

33 Basic scen.: Lignocellulosic crops II Auxiliary products Cultivation Alternative land use Lignocellulose feedstock a b c CHP Heat plant Power plant Heat & power Heat Power OPTION energetic use Fossil fuel oil & power mix Fossil fuel oil Power mix Sugar pulping Gypsum Lignin contain. biomaass CHP Gypsum Fossil fuel oil & power mix Sugar Ethanol production Bioethanol d e Fermentation 1,3-PDO Fossil 1,3-PDO OPTION bio-based materials Fusel oils Biomass CHP CHP Biofuel OPTION energetic use Fossil fuel oil & power mix Fossil fuel oil & power mix Fossil gasoline f g Ethylene synthesis Ethylene Biochemical OPTION bio-based materials Fossil ethylene Chem. ethanol Options (a,b,...) Product Process Reference system

34 Results: Miscanthus Advantages Disadv. Bioenergy Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 Biomaterials Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Heat & power (CHP) FT diesel (gasif.) Fuel EtOH (bioref.) Chem. EtOH (bioref.) 1,3-PDO (bioref.) Ethylene (bioref.) Ethylene (gasif.) Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Summer smog (POCP) [100 g C 2 H 4 Ozone depletion [g CFC-11 Human toxicity [kg PM10 Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

35 Synopsis of LCIA results: Fuels Biofuel Energy savings Acidification Greenhouse effect Eutrophication Summer smog Ozone depletion Human toxicity Rapeseed FAME Rapeseed HVO Rapeseed SVO Miscanthus CHP / / Miscanthus FT diesel / / / Miscanthus Ethanol Sugar beet Ethanol Sweet sorghum Ethanol / / Advantage for biofuel Disadvantage for biofuel / Insignificant or ambiguous

36 Synopsis of LCIA results: Fibers Biomaterials Rapeseed Lubricant Rapeseed Surfactant Flax Fiber composite Flax Insulation mat Miscanthus Ethanol Miscanthus 1,3-PDO Miscan. Ethylene (bioref.) Miscan. Ethylene (gasif.) Sugar beet Ethanol Sugar beet 1,3-PDO Sugar beet Ethylene Sweet sorghum Ethanol Sweet sorghum Ethylene Sw. sorgh. 1,3-PDO & EtOH Sw. sorgh. 1,3-PDO & Ethylene Energy savings Greenhouse effect Eutrophication Acidification / / / Summer smog Ozone depletion Advantage for biomat. Disadvantage for biomat. / Insignificant or ambiguous Human toxicity / /

37 Life cycle analysis (LCA) ISO & Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Interpretation Impact assessment

38 LCA: Interpretation Statistics about Heidelberg Inhabitants School buildings (including university) Bridges Dogs Tourists per day Total

39 LCA: Interpretation Impact category Resource demand Greenhouse effect Ozone depletion Acidification Eutrophication Parameter Cumulative energy demand (non-renew.) CO 2 equivalents CFC-11 equivalents SO 2 equivalents PO 4 equivalents Ecological significance important very important (very) important medium relevance medium relevance Human- and Ecotoxicity Human- and Ecotoxicity Nitrogen oxide Diesel particulates medium relevance very important

40 Results: Bio vs. non-renewable 1. All assessed biofuels and biomaterials show environmental advantages as well as disadvantages when compared to their fossil / conventional equivalents. 2. Most biofuels and biomaterials show advantages with regard to energy savings, greenhouse effect and summer smog. 3. In contrast, most biofuels and biomaterials show disadvantages with regard to acidification, eutrophication and ozone depletion. 4. The results don t show clear tendencies with regard to human toxicity.

41 Results: Bio vs. non-renewable 5. An objective decision for or against a particular fuel or biomaterial cannot be made. However, based on a subjective value system a decision is possible. 6. If, for example, energy savings and greenhouse effect is given the highest priority, all biofuel and biomaterial applications assessed are to be preferred over their fossil equivalents. 7. The amount of energy and greenhouse gases that can be saved greatly differs depending on the crops, conversion paths and main products.

42 WP 4: Environmental analysis Goal Assessment of environmental implications and identification of best options for each region or country. Task 4.1 Environmental impact assessment Task 4.2 Life cycle analysis Task 4.3 Modelling of dependencies and sensibilities Task 4.4 Identification of best options

43 Variations & sensitivity analyses Variations & sensitivity analyses to be done: Variation of yields Geographical differences (between environmental zones) Yield increase over time (2008 vs vs. 2030) Variation of co-product use Variation of co-product allocation Variation of substituted fossil energy source Variation of substituted power mix

44 Sensitivity analysis: Yield Advantages Nemoral Atlantic North Continental Atlantic Central Lusitanian Range Disadv. Range Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Range Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Range Unit / (ha*yr) Yield significantly influences the LCA results Source: IFEU 2009

45 Sensitivity analysis: Co-product use Advantages Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Acidification [kg SO 2 Eutrophication [100 g PO 4 Disadv. Rapeseed (Lubricant) Meal: feed * Meal: CHP Hemp (Fiber composite) Shives: panel * Shives: animal bedding Willow (Chem. EtOH) Lignin: CHP * Lignin: plastics Sweet sorghum (Chem. EtOH) Bagasse: energy * Stillage: feed * Bagasse: EtOH Co-product use has a strong influence Stillage: on feedlca results Bagasse: energy Stillage: DDGS Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

46 WP 4: Environmental analysis Goal Assessment of environmental implications and identification of best options for each region or country. Task 4.1 Environmental impact assessment Task 4.2 Life cycle analysis Task 4.3 Modelling of dependencies and sensibilities Task 4.4 Identification of best options

47 Synopsis: Which products to make? Advantages FAME (biofuel) HVO (biofuel) EtOH (biofuel) FT diesel Power Heat & power Heat Energy savings [GJ] Greenhouse effect [100 kg CO 2 Lubricant Surfactant Fibre composite Insulation mat Type of product has a strong influence on LCA results Chem. EtOH 1,3-PDO Ethylene Unit / (ha*yr) Source: IFEU 2009

48 Results: Optimisation potentials 1. The use of biomass can be significantly optimized from an environmental point of view by taking into account different different biomass and co-product uses or site-specific conditions, e.g. power mixes in different countries 2. As land-use competitions are increasing, it is necessary to allocate the limited amount of biomass to the different sectors (food / feed / fiber and fuel) in such a way which achieves the highest environmental benefits.

49 Thank you for your attention! Sven Gärtner Susanne Köppen Nils Rettenmaier Regine Vogt Horst Fehrenbach Jürgen Giegrich Downloads: Bernd Franke Guido Reinhardt Contact: