GHG emissions of biomass:

Consequence of modelling choices Dr. Heinz Stichnothe Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut Institute of Agricultural Technology and Biosystems Engineering Braunschweig, Germany

Outline

• Methodological approaches • Basis of comparison and allocation • Indirect Emissionen (default values) • Lack of knowledge • Bio-based economy - limited resource • Limits • Conclusions

Life cycle of biofuels

RM Co-products Transp.

Field Transp.

Convers.

Transp.

Use Waste management Land use change

Methodological approaches

• Attributional LCA direct impacts due to diesel, fertiliser and pesticide use standardised procedure (system boundaries, allocation, etc.) used for product declaration and certification systems Advantage: comparable Disadvantage: blind spots • Consequentional LCA studies the consequences of change activities in- and outside the LC effected by changes are investigated includes alternative uses of constrained production factors Advantage: more complete Disadvantage: less precise

Basis of comparison

• Carbon intensity per energy output • Annual emissions Not suitable for material use Cascade use (all burdens to first life) Catch crops, crop rotation  shift of emissions

Allocation

• Energy content • Exclusion of agricultural co-products

Specialities of palm oil

• Used as food, raw material and energy source • Yield (PO 3.7, rapeseed 0.6; soja 0.4 t/ha) • World production 45-50 Mt • 86% occurs in Malaysia and Indonesia • Export (approx. 80%) • 250.000 ha/a  3. GHG-emitter

Agricultural residues

EU-RED Annex 5 (18) Exclusion of nut shells, husk, etc carrier

8.7 m ³ CH 4

CH

4

from POME

• Default value 27 g/MJ (1.5 times higher) • CH 4 capture - Yes or no • No difference between flaring and utilisation • Use of biogas hampered by exclusion of by-products (nut shells) • Efficiency of biogas capture is not considered (THREAT: leackage can outbalance the benefits)

Biowaste management

Biowaste “treatment” on palm oil plantations 300 250 200 35% GHG reduction 150 50% reduction 100 50 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Anaerobic condition in the pile

80% 90% 100% 1 t FFB = 0.2 t palm oil;  150 – 1125 kg CO 2eq.

per t Palm oil  4 – 30 g CO 2eq /MJ Biodiesel: 37 g CO 2eq /MJ Currently not specified in palm oil production systems according to EU-RED

Indirect emissions

• Nitrogen fertiliser production 18 g N 2 O per kg N (average without N 2 O removal) • After implementation of catalytic N 2 O reduction measures in Western Europe 9 g N 2 O per kg N (current average) • Technically possible 3 g N 2 O per kg N (future average in Western Europe) In comparison approx. 10 g N 2 O is formed per kg N applied  Emission intensive fertiliser production is treated preferentially if Global default values are used; consequently GHG reduction from imported biomass might be overestimated

Direct emissions

• Organic Nitrogen is currently excluded in GHG calculations(examples in Annex V) • IPCC 2006 Guidelines (table 11.1), the default emission factor is 1% of applied (inorganic and organic) N.

Example total N demand per t palm oil: 25 kg N, thereof 3,7 kg „returned“  15% N input is not considered and consequently nitrous oxide from this input is also not taken into account Advantage: Nutrient recycling is fostered; simplified approach Disadvantage: GHG emission savings are overestimated

Land use change - Indonesia

5 4 3 Mit 100 t CO 2e /ha = 25 Mt CO 2e = 50% THG LW in D.

= 50% GHG German agriculture 3,7 3,4 3,3 3,0 2,5 3,9 2 1,2 1 0,7 4,4 4,9 0 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Context

20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 16% 2000 0 Indonesia Malaysia India/China 18075 16100 14150 EU-27 5400 9% 6% 1% 55% EU-Food 2988 38% 6% EU Industry 2100 EU-Energy 312

Limited resource - Oil

Limited resource - P

Limits

• National versus international responsibility who is contributing what to which extent • Influence sphere • Default values versus „real values“, management practise • Lack of knowledge – organic nitrogen, soil carbon • Focus on GHG  blind spots • Crude oil and phosphorous are limited

Conclusions

• Do we want to be accurate or comparable?

Indirect land use change, soil carbon storage • Technology - European average values for developing countries?

• Right incentives for imported biomass?

• Simplification - overestimation of savings • For imported biomass Learning curve yes, but GHG savings?