Greenhouse gas balances, impacts and sustainability criteria Lecture part IV for Bioenergy Theory an

1
Greenhouse gas balances, impacts and
sustainability criteriaLecture part IV for
Bioenergy Theory and Applications"  at Helsinki
University of Technology, Laboratory of Applied
Thermodynamics, October 6, 2005,
Helsinki-Finland-

• André Faaij
• Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University

2
Contents part I - IV.

• Biomass potentials, from global to regional
  supplies.
• Conversion technologies
• Logistics, scaling issues, chain performance and
  optimisation.
• Greenhouse gas balances, impacts and
  sustainability criteria

3
GHG-impacts of Bio-energy systems

• Carbon stock dynamics
• Reference systems
• Permanence
• Emission factors
• Efficiency
• Up stream energy inputs
• By-products
• Leakage
• Other GHGs

4
Successive disaggregating of data Different
tiersare used for calculation and data
input Also carbon dynamics and cost data based
on this approach
5
Pellet import keten
6
GHG emissies
7
Recycling possibilities of SR poplar applications
considered in this study with a maximum of three
successive material applications
8
Current key markets for biomaterials in Western
Europe

• Pulp and paper (34 Mton)
• Chemicals Ethylene (20 Mton), Bio-based polymers
  (34 Mton), Fibre reinforced composites (2 Mton),
  Acids, Solvents (4 Mton), Lubricants (5 Mton),
• Contruction materials Sawn timber (80 Mton),
  Engineered wood products (1 Mton), Insulation (52
  Mton), Fibre/boards (40 Mton)

9
Potential future demand for biomaterials
Source Faaij et al., 2000 (GRAIN study)
10

• Biomass
• wheat or SR wood
• Bioenergy
• heat and electricity
• By-products
• fodder, gypsum
• Products
• PLA packaging or fibers
• Substitution
• reference applications
• BTM recycling
• Waste treatment
• incineration or digestion

• Case1
• Multi-functional
• PLA bio-refinery
• system in Poland

11
Chain analysis

• Performance of every part of biomass system
  calculated
• Products, by-products and electricity substitute
  reference products
• Different system configurations compared, e.g.
  intense agriculture, no recycling

• Parameters
• Costs,
• Savings of non-renewable energy consumption
• GHG emission reduction
• gt per kg PLA and per ha biomass production

12
demand for land demand for
products
Market analysis

• Price of products and land depend on demand
  curves
• literature estimates of elasticity based on
  empirical data and economic models

13
Results of chain analysis
14
Results of market analysis
Source Dornburg, Faaij 2004
15
Selected Technologies

• Criteria
• potentially large market volume in the year 2015
• reduces a large amount of GHG emissions per unit
• of biomass used
• rather low initial GHG emission mitigation costs.

• Two Material and two energy uses
• (incl. use of residues and waste-to-energy
  recovery)
• PLA
• MDF Board
• Methanol as transportation fuel
• Electricity

16
Biomass potential on country level (in EJ).
Residues energy crops (Willow) 5 scenarios
from open trade to ecological agriculture
17
Biomass and GHG emission mitigation supply curves
for Poland
Source Dornburg, Faaij 2004
Example V1 Scenario (A1)
18
'Integral' GHG emission mitigation cost supply
curves for the different scenarios
Source Dornburg, Faaij 2004
19
Key concepts for large scale bio-refining

• Improved systems connected to Forestry and paper
  pulp industry (paper, construction, power,
  transport fuels).
• Biochemical systems with ethanol as key output
  (chemicals, plastics, power, transport fuels).
• C1-chemistry based on gasification (co-use with
  fossil fuels). (chemicals, transport fuels,
  power).

20
remarks (I)

• Large, economic biomass potentials (but needs
  complex, sustainable, development and a working
  international market).
• Competitive biomass-technology combinations
  within reach for the world market (but needs
  serious, consistent development and market
  introduction).
• Biorefining offers advantages (but those should
  not be over-estimated (limited market volumes and
  price elasticity effects).

21
remarks (II)

• Large scale and flexible concepts (with respect
  to feedstock and outputs)
• Costs on shorter term perhaps less important
• Different concepts serve different markets.
• Combination of biomass and fossil fuel fed
  conversion platforms offer strong flexibility and
  can respond to CO2 price up to negative emissions
  with CCS.

22
Sustainability of bio-energy elements

• Pre-conditions and concepts for a framework
• Identifying, formulating and using.
  sustainability criteria for bio-energy.
• Impact of criteria on potentials and costs
• Country examples (Brazil, Ukraine).
• Some suggestions

23
This group of pictures is only to recall the
variety of bioenergy sources,technologies and
social and scientific implications. Bioenergy
has to do with
it is about people, resources and knowledge
crop development and selection, land tenure
issues, biodiversity impacts, rural
employment...............
24
Areas of concern relevant for sustainability of
the biomass production and trading chains

• General criteria
• e.g. Traceability
• Avoidance of leakage effects

Economic criteria e.g. Viability of the
business Yields
Social criteria e.g. Labor conditions Human
safety and health .
Ecological criteria e.g. Preservation of existing
sensitive ecosystems Conservation of ground and
surface water ..
?Many criteria, but quantitative and measureable
indicators are often missing
Lewandowski Faaij, 2004
25
Dealing with criteria

• Common understanding criteria, framework and
  procedures (international level).
• Determine criteria (levels) for regional
  conditions and their respective weight.
• Participatory approaches with (regional/national)
  stakeholders seems best (but not perfect) model
  to date.
• Implement sound monitoring and verification not
  prohibitive for market parties (weak spot in
  certification in general!)

26
Qualitative Assessment
27
Sustainability criteria
Economic criteria Economic viability of
bioenergy production Long term perspective
Strength and diversification of local
economy Reliability of resources Yields No
blocking of other desirable developments
Ecological criteria Protection of the
atmosphere Preservation of existing sensitive
ecosystems Conservation of biodiversity Conserva
tion of soil erosion and fertility Conservation
of ground and surface water Combating of
deforestation Combating desertification and
drought Landscape view Conservation of
non-renewable resources Waste management
Environmental additionally
127 criteria!
Social criteria Labor conditions Protection of
human safety and health Rights of children,
women, indigenous people Access to resources
ensuring adequate quality of life Food and
energy supply and safety Capacity building
Combating Poverty Democratic participation
Land ownership Community (institutional)
well-being Fair trade conditions
50 criteria included
12 criteria analysed
General criteria Compliance with laws and
international agreements Traceability
Avoidance of leakage effects Strengthening the
role of non-governmental organisations Improvement
of conditions at local level
28
Sustainability criteria

• 12 criteria included ? 3 key areas of concern 
• land use
• social issues
• natural resources environment
• first effort (no existing certification systems)
• no definition on what is sustainable or not!
• strict and loose set of criteria are included

29
Operationalisation of sustainability criteria
Criteria
land availability
deforestation competition with food
production biodiversity soil erosion fresh
water nutrient leaching pollution from
chemicals employment child labour wages
Impact
yield
quantity
costs
cost supply curve
crop management system
Smeets et al., 2005
30
Key elements for assessing future bioenergy
potentials (bottom-up approach)
Source Smeets, Faaij 2004
31
Regional selection

• potentials on short term (2015), modest
  assumptions
• Ukraine central region poplar
• Brazil southern region eucalyptus

Smeets et al., 2005
32
Erosion

• Loose Strict
• improvement reduction of erosion rate to
  natural soil formation rate
• calculation present soil erosion rates
• calculation of natural soil formation rates
• calculation of soil erosion under bioenergy crop
  production
• average costs to prevent soil erosion

Soil erosion map
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) A R K
LS C P   A soil loss   R rainfall
(intensity, duration, size) K soil
erodibility factor (the cohesive character of a
soil type) LS slope length and slope
gradient factor C cropping cover management
factor P agricultural practice factor
(dimensionless)
33
Water use

• Loose Strict
• improvement no overuse
• calculation of evaporation rates current land use
• calculation of evaporation rates bioenergy crop
  production
• no costs to prevent overuse were included

Evapotranspiration poplar, Ukraine
34
Nutrient leaching

• Loose Strict
• improvement minimal use
• nutrient balance for conventional land use is
  composed
• nutrient balance for bioenergy crop production is
  composed
• nutrient losses are reduced by increasing
  fertilizer application

Nutrient leaching (kg/ha/y)
35
Pollution from chemicals

• Loose Strict
• improvement minimal use
• assessment of pollution for conventional land use
• assessment of pollution for SRC
• pollution is reduced by increasing manual and
  mechanical weeding (higher machinery and labour
  costs)

Table 1. Sustainability scores for agricultural
chemicals use
36
Wages

• Loose Strict
• minimum wage average wage
• labour costs are included in the costs of
  bioenergy crop production

Child labour

• Loose Strict
• not allowed not allowed
• (no costs included) (costs included)
• estimate childrens wages included in the wage
  of parents
• estimate costs for schooling included in labour
  costs

37
Education

• Loose Strict
• not included national average
• national average costs per average family are
  added up to the labour costs

Health care

• Loose Strict
• not included national average
• national average costs per average family are
  added up to the labour costs

38
 
Cost supply curve Brazil with sustainability
demands

Smeets et al., 2005
39
 
Cost supply curve Ukraine with sustainability
demands

Smeets et al., 2005
40
 
Indicative cost impacts of applying
sustainability criteria
Smeets et al., 2005
41
Closing remarks

• Sustainable biomass production achieving multiple
  benefits is possible (but needs strong frameworks
  and control of market forces).
• Diversity in ecological and socio-economic
  conditions to be recognized (asking for regional
  approaches in a global setting stakeholder
  approaches (PIA) seem best model).
• Sense of urgency is needed market forces are
  already steering development of international
  bio-energy markets.

42
Further actions

• Considerable knowledge base to build on (see
  given examples learn from experience!)
• International consensus and collaboration, for
  example on sustainability frameworks.
• Flagship projects (needed to demonstrate multiple
  benefits under different conditions gradual
  proces optimize over time).