Greenhouse%20gas%20balances%20of%20biofuels

1
ifeu Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research Heidelberg, Germany
Greenhouse gas balances of biofuels
Horst Fehrenbach and Dr. Guido
Reinhardt Sustainable Bioenergy Challenges
and Opportunities Bonn, 12-13 October 2006
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

• 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 (Fuel cells,
  FFV, etc.)
• Renewable Energy
• Waste-to-Energy

4
Who we are - What we do

• IFEU - Institute for Energy and Environmental
  Research Heidelberg, since 1978
• Our clients (on biofuel studies) - World
  Bank - UNEP, GTZ etc. - European
  Commission - National and regional
  Ministries - Associations (national and
  international) - Local authorities
• - WWF, Greenpeace etc. - Companies
  (DaimlerChrysler, German Telekom, etc.) -
  Foundations (German Foundation on Environment,
  British Foundation on Transport etc.)

5
Biofuels for transportation
Environmental advantages and disadvantages

• CO2 neutral
• Save energetic resources
• Organic waste reduction
• Less transport
• etc.

• Land use
• Eutrophication of surface water
• Water pollution by pesticides
• Energy intensive production
• etc.

6
Life cycle analysis (LCA)
ISO 14040-43
Goal and scope definition
Interpretation
Inventory analysis
Impact assessment
7
Life cycle comparison
Biofuel
Fossil fuel
Credits
Fertiliser
Fuel
Pesticides
Resource extraction
Agriculture
Raw material production
Transport
Processing
Utilisation
8
(No Transcript)
9
IFEU 2004, continuous updates

• CO2 Mitigation through Biofuels in the Transport
  Sector
• Status and Perspectives
• Analysis of all LCAs world wide published on
  current and innovative biofuels for
  transportation.
• Analysis of literature regarding costs and
  potentials.
• Conclusions including necessities for research.
• Download available
  from www.ifeu.de

10
Literature review
Analysis of all world-wide published LCAs about
current and innovative biofuels for
transportation
Procedure

• Literature compilation world wide by involving
  external experts more than 800 publications.
• Screening of the studies concerning state of the
  art data and fulfilment of ISO 14040/43 norms
  (Life cycle assessment).

11
Analysed biofuels for transportation




Number

Number



Biomethanol

Bioethanol


Bioethanol from sugar cane


5

1
Biomethanol from lignocellulose





Bioethanol from corn

7



MTBE

Bioethanol from wheat

9



1

MTBE from lignocellulose



Bioethanol from sugar-beet

8



Bioethanol from lignocellulose

DME

8


Bioethanol from potato

1



3

DME from lignocellulose



Bioethanol from molasses

2



BTL

ETBE


4

Sunfuels from lignocellulose



ETBE from wheat

2



Pyrolysis oil

ETBE a
us sugar-beet



8
ETBE from lignocellulose


0



Pyrolysis oil from lignocellulose

2


ETBE from potato



1

HTU
Diesel

Biodiesel


0

HTU
diesel from lignocellulose



Biodiesel from rapeseed



17

Biogas

Biodiesel from sunflower



7

3

Biodiesel from soybean



B
iogas from org. residues

3


Biodiesel from Canola



2

Hydrogen

Biodiesel from coconut oil



1

5

GH2 from lignocellulose



Biodiesel from recycled plant oil



1

1

GH2 from org. residues



Biodiesel from animal grease





1
3
LH2 from lignocellulose




Bio
diesel from used cooking oil



1
Plant oil

Analyses regarding energy and CO2 balances 112
Plant oil from rapeseed



4
Plant oil from sunflower



1


12
Energy and greenhouse gases
Result Not all LCA studies can be regarded to be
representative for this reason, deduction of
bandwidths necessary
13
Example RME versus diesel
Greenhouse effect
Expenditures
Credits
RME
Diesel
Contribution in favour of RME
Contribution in favour of diesel
Balance
(RME minus diesel)
-4
-2
0
2
4
kg CO2 eq. / kg diesel or diesel eq.
RME
Credits
Diesel
Machine work
Reference system
Production
Material inputs
Soy bean meal (agric.)
Utilisation
Oil pressing
Soy bean meal (transp.)
Transesterification
Glycerine
Utilisation
14
Deduction of bandwidths
Pimentel 2003
TU München 2003 (w/o alloc.)
USDA 2002
Ethanol from corn
Graboski 2002
Levelton 2000
Wang 1999
credits
expenditures
GM 2001
fossil fuel
result balance
TU München 2003 (w/ alloc.)
GJ/ha
Agriculture
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
Conversion
Byproduct
Provision fossil
GJ/ha
Usage fossil
biogenous - fossil
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
15
Deduction of bandwidths
ETSU 1996
(ST)2 2003
Levington 2000(1
IFEU 2002
Elsayed 2003
Levington 2000(2
Agriculture
Conversion
Byproduct
Ethanol from wheat
Total biogenous
Provision fossil
Usage fossil
biogenous - fossil
GJ/ha
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
-125
-100
(1

Straw is ploughed in
(2
Stroh is taken in
GJ/ha
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
-125
-100
16
CO2 balance of biofuels
Advantages for biofuel
Disadvantages
1st generationbiofuels
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
t saved greenhouse gases (as CO2 equivalents) /
(haa)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Oil palm plantation through cutting of tropical
forests
19
(No Transcript)
20
Oil palm plantation instead of existing
plantations
21
Oil palm plantation instead of existing
plantations
22
CO2 balance of biofuels
Advantages for biofuel
Disadvantages
1st generationbiofuels
2nd generationbiofuels
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Source IFEU 2006
t saved greenhouse gases (as CO2 equivalents) /
(haa)
23
CO2 savings in Germany
Cumulated savings of greenhouse gases through
first generation biofuels in Germany
45
Mio. tons
40

• Equals to the average, yearly CO2 emissions
• of ca. 2,5 Mio. inhabitants in Germany or
• from 43 billion kWh of German electricity
  production

35
30
25
But Tax losses add up to ca. 6 billion Euro !
20
15
From 2006 estimate
10
from 2006
estimate
5
0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Source IFEU 2006
24
Results biofuels from residues
MJ saved Primary energy / MJ fuel
-1,5
-1,25
-1
-0,75
-0,5
-0,25
0
0,25
Advantages for biofuel
EtOH molasses
EtOH lignocellulose
ETBE lignocellulose
Biodiesel animal grease
Biodiesel used cooking oil
Greenhouse effect
Primary energy
MTBE lignocellulose
DME lignocellulose
BTL residues
Biogas residues
GH2 gasification lignocellulose
GH2 fermentation residues
LH2 gasification lignocellulose
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
Source IFEU 2006
g saved CO2 equivalents / MJ fuel

25
Results biofuels versus biofuels
Resource demand GJ CED/ha
Greenhouse effect kg CO2-equiv./ha
ETBE sugar beet
Coppice (poplar)
EtOH sugar beet
Miscanthus
Biogas (rape seed meal)
Biogas (silage corn)
SME
Whole crop (wheat)
Cocksfoot
RME
EtOH wheat
Rape seed oil (loc.)
Rape seed oil
EtOH potato
Resource demand
Source IFEU 2006
Greenhouse effect
26
Germany Sustainable biomass potentials 2010
Lignocellulose (wood and straw) gt 60
Straw
Straw
Small dimensioned wood
8
Forest border development
Animalexcre-ments
Smalldimen-sionedwood
Open land
Residual wood from industry
13
Wood fraction in household waste
Waste wood
22
Sewage sludge
Zoo mass
Green biomass compensation area
Woodfromerosionhazardland
Biotope network arable land
14
Extensive grassland
Energy crops erosion hazard land
3
Animal excrements and litter
Harvest residuals from agriculture
3
8
Waste from trade and industry
3
Organic municipal solid waste
Residual woodfrom industry
10
Sewage gas
Waste wood
Landfill gas
Total 677 PJ
Source DLR / IFEU / WI 2005
27
Key findings conclusions

• Environmental assessment
• In general, biofuels save fossil energy and GHG
  compared to conventional energy supply.
  Exemptions exist and explanations can be given.
• Solid biofuels usually perform better than liquid
  biofuels from energy crops.
• Biogas options based on energy crops lie within
  the range of liquid and solid biofuels. Detailed
  analyses are necessary to determine their
  impacts. Some biogas options have quite a high
  potential to save GHG.

28
Key findings conclusions

• Sustainable potentials
• Because of competition for land and competition
  in the usage of biomass the potentials for energy
  crops are limited.

• If energy crops are used for biofuels, biggest
  greenhouse gas savings are associated with high
  yield crops like SRF, sugar beet or wheat.
• Lignocellulose has by far the biggest sustainable
  mass potential (energy crops and residues). This
  comes along with very effective greenhouse gas
  savings.

29
Key findings conclusions

• Sustainable development
• There is a great potential to save GHG using
  biofuels for both, transportation and green
  energy / green heat. But they should be
  developed in accordance with other goals towards
  a sustainable development including alternative
  use of biomass for industry and chemistry.

30
The IFEU biofuel team
www.ifeu.de
Thank you for your attention
Dr. Guido Reinhardt
Contact details guido.reinhardt_at_ifeu.de 49
6221 4767 0 / - 31
Sven Gärtner
Nils Rettenmaier
Horst Fehrenbach
Contact details horst.fehrenbach_at_ifeu.de 49
6221 4767 0 / - 16