How produce biomass for energy without competing for food while avoiding ILUC related GHG emissions

Transcription

1 How produce biomass for energy without competing for food while avoiding ILUC related GHG emissions Wolter Elbersen (FBR) and Jan Peter Lesschen (ALTERRA) Kiev Biomass Conference September 20-21, 2011.

2 NTA 8080 issues to be discussed Greenhouse gas Emissions = GHG Greenhouse gas balance Important carbon stocks Competition with food and local applications of biomass Indirect land use change (and related GHG emissions)

3 The Greenhouse effect broeikaseffect Korte golf straling (zichtbaar) dringt zonder hinder door de atmosfeer heen. De aarde absorbeert de straling en emitteert die gedeeltelijk als infrarode straling. IR straling wordt gedeeltelijk onderschept door broeikasgassen in de atmosfeer zoals water, CO 2 CH 4, en N 2 O. Een hogere concentratie van broeikasgassen leidt zo tot opwarming van de atmosfeer

4 Greenhouse gas forcing: CO 2 = 1, CH 4 = 23, N 2 O = 296

5 More emissions than uptake More GHG effect

6 Biomass GHG neutral???

7 Biomass for energy is neutral if: GHG emissions of the biomass system are significantly less than the fossil fuel comparator. So limit the use of energy in the chain, do not reduce the natural carbon stocks (forest/soil C). Avoid CH 4 and N 2 O emissions

8 Sustainability criteria and GHG emissions EU Renewable Energy Directive NTA 8080 / 8081 (Netherlands) ISCC (Germany) GHG balance of biomass chain must be positive For RED 2009/28/EC (transportation fuels): Till 2017 at least 35% better than fossil reference From 2017 at least 50% better than fossil reference From 2018 at least 60% better than fossil reference

9 GHG calculation for EU RED 2009/28/EC E = e ec + e l + e p + e td + e u e sca e ccs e ccr e ee E = total emissions from the use of the fuel; e ec = emissions from the extraction or cultivation of raw materials; e l = annualised emissions from carbon stock changes from land use change; e p = emissions from processing; e td = emissions from transport and distribution; e u = emissions from the fuel in use; e sca = emission saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management; e ccs = emission saving from carbon capture and geological storage; e ccr = emission saving from carbon capture and replacement; and e ee = emission saving from excess electricity from cogeneration e ILUC = emissions related to Indirect Land Use Change effects (ILUC)???

10 RED 2009/28/EC Typical and default values for GHG reduction Region specific default values are under development Own calculation Sugarbeet ethanol Wheat ethanol Wheat ethanol (straw as fuel) Biodiesel rapeseed Biodiesel sunflower Cultivation Processing Transport Biodiesel palmoil Biogas manure GHG compared to reference chain (%)

11 Indirect land use change iluc Competition for biomass or arable land lead to: Higher prices for biomass and arable land, which might lead to: Less demand (hunger food vs fuel?) or Higher productivity per ha or Using more land Land use changes often negative impact loss of carbon and biodiversity

12 Indirect effect of soybean for biodiesel Good Lord! I can earn more with corn for ethanol, so I ll stop growing soy. reduced soy exports increased global soy price Muito interessante, this high soy price: I ll convert some Amazon forest to grow soy!

13 iluc related GHG emissions in Brazil loss Mg C.ha 1 Soybean loss Mg C.ha 1 Grassland Amazon Wood/ Charcoal Sugarcane Avoided emissions: Mg C.ha 1 y -1 = 10 Mg CO2 loss Mg C.ha 1 Cerrado Uit Elbersen el al., (Cerrado) 100 (Amazon) years to make up for losses (sugarcane)

14 Avoiding iluc? Use land and biomass efficiently: Use unused and underutilised by-products Crop resudues, biomass from nature High productivity per ha Multi-purpose crops Biorefinery Use marginal/abandoned land What yields on marginale land?

15 Soil carbon simulations for straw management Century model Process based model for soil carbon stock simulation Monthly time steps Input data representative for Poltava region Simulated runs Initiation with 4000 years natural grassland Cereals (wheat and barley) with straw management No removal Yearly removal Burning Removal once every two years

16 Results simulation (wheat on Eutric Fluvisol)

17 Results simulation SOC losses over first 20 years: Yearly removal: 2.99 ton CO 2 -eq/ha/year Fire: No removal: 2.75 ton CO 2 -eq/ha/year 1.53 ton CO 2 -eq/ha/year 50% removal: 2.30 ton CO 2 -eq/ha/year Options for improvement No straw harvest every year Higher yields more fertilizer more GHG Combine with reduced or zero tillage

18 l Low Low GHG balance switchgrass pellets good versus bad soil quality soil= l Good soil = iluc no iluc GHG emission component gco2-e/mj pellet gco2-e/mj pellet Eec1 (Emissions from inputs) 4,7 5,1 Eec2 (Cultivation operations) 0,5 0,8 (Emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change) El 0,0 0,0 Ep (Pellet production) 14,2 14,2 Etd Esca (Switchgrass transport to pelletizer) (emission saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management) 6,2 6,2-22,6-12,5 Total: 3,0 13,8 ILUC????????? 0 Fossil fuel reference % saved emissions 98,5 93,1 Good soil (Vasili Podil) Bad soil (Yeltushkiv) Yield 12 ton/ha/year Yield 7 ton/ha/year When we use switchgrass pellets instead of coal GHG emissions are between 98,5 and 93,1 % less. NTA8080 demands 80% improvement over fossil equivalent So we will be able to comply!!! Unless an iluc factor is implemented...?? Good soil SOC change: +5.0 ton CO 2 /ha/year Low quality soil SOC change: +1.8 ton CO 2 /ha/year

19 End Wageningen UR