Copernicus Institute - Faap

faap.br

Copernicus Institute - Faap

Este conteúdo é protegido por direitos autorais. Não é permitido

modificar, reproduzir, expor, distribuir ou usar o conteúdo para

quaisquer fins público ou comercial. O material está autorizado

para consulta, desde que referenciado como produção da

CONFERÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL DE BIOCOMBUSTÍVEIS.

FAAIJ, André. Como medir o impacto dos biocombustíveis nas

mudanças climáticas. In: CONFERÊNCIA INTERNACIONAL DE

BIOCOMBUSTÍVEIS, 2010, São Paulo. Apresentações (Painel

I). São Paulo: Faculdade de Engenharia - FAAP, 2010.

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


Good afternoon

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


iLUC Sucks

Panel: How to measure the impact of biofuels

on climate change

1ST BIOFUELS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

ENGINEERING COLLEGE

ARMANDO ALVARES PENTEADO FOUNDATION

Sao Paulo – Brazil, May 26th to 28 th 2010

André Faaij

Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University

Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


Current main Shipping Lanes for

biomass and biofuels for energy

Ethanol

Wood pellets

Veg. oils &

biodiesel

Canada

USA

Wood Pellets

Brazil

Ethanol

Palm Oil & Ag Residues

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

E. Europe &

Russia

W. Europe

S. Africa

Malaysia &

Indonesia

Australia

Japan


Global production and trade of the

major biomass commodities (2008)

Mton in 2008

Global

production

Global net trade

Main exporters

Main importers

Bioethanol

52.9

3.72 (*)

Brazil

USA,

Japan,

EU

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Biodiesel

10.6

2.92

US,

Argentina,

Indonesia

Malaysia

EU

Wood pellets

11.5

Approx. 4

Canada,USA,

Baltic countries,

Finland, Russia

Belgium,

Netherlands,

Sweden, Italy

(*) An estimated 75% of the traded bioethanol is used as transport fuel.


A future vision on global

bioenergy…

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

[GIRACT FFF Scenario project; Faaij, 2008]


New assessment paper GHG

balances Biofuels:

Ric Hoefnagels, Edward Smeets,

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Andre Faaij,

The footprint of biofuels; production chains

and methodologies for GHG balances

compared,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

Available online 6 March 2010


Selected biofuels +key

Biofuel type

Ethanol

Ethanol

Ethanol

Methyl ester

Methyl ester

Ethanol

Ethanol

Methyl ester

Methyl ester

Ethanol

Ethanol

Ethanol

FTdiesel

FTdiesel

producing regions.

Energy crop

Maize

Wheat

Sorghum

Palm fruit

Rapeseed

Sugar cane

Sugar beet

Soybean

Jatropha

Switchgrass

Miscanthus

Eucalyptus

Switchgrass

Miscanthus

Copernicus FTdiesel Institute Eucalyptus

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Key producing regions

US, West Europe, East Europe

US, West Europe, East Europe

US, West Europe, East Europe

South-East Asia

West Europe, East Europe,

Canada

Brazil

West Europe, East Europe

US, Brazil

Africa, India

US, West Europe, East Europe

US, West Europe, East Europe

Brazil

US, West Europe, East Europe

US, West Europe, East Europe

Brazil

Conversion technology

Fermentation

Fermentation

Fermentation

Transesterification

Transesterification

Fermentation

Fermentation

Transesterification

Transesterification

Hydrolysis & Fermentation

Hydrolysis & Fermentation

Hydrolysis & Fermentation

Gasification & FT-synthesis

Gasification & FT-synthesis

Gasification & FT-synthesis


Methodology…

• Carbon stock

dynamics

• Trade-offs

• Permanence

• Emission factors

• Efficiency

• Up stream energy

inputs

• By-products

• Leakage

• Other GHG’s

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System

Net C-

Net GHG emissions uptake/loss

ass. with specific

technologies

Plants,

litter & soil,

agricult./forestry

waste

Biol. feedstock

Production

Transport

Storage I

Processing

Transport

Storage II

Transp.

A A ?

? fuel

A A ?

? Byproducts

A A ?

? Byproducts

Te Te ?

? Conversion

A A ?

?

and/or

Comb.

DistriDistributionbution Comb.

Conversion

Heat

Mech.

energy

Carbon flow

GHG flow (incl. C)

Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy

Fossil

deposits

Production,By-

A A ?

?

products

Transport,

Electricity

Processing

Comb. Te Te ?

?

Conver- Transp. A A ?

?

sion fuel

FU FU ?

?

Net C loss

Te Te ?

?

Conver-

Comb.

sion

Te Te ?

?

Distri-

A A ?

?

and/or

Distributionbution


EtOH sugar cane

EtOH sorghum

Dsl eucalyptus

Dsl miscanthus

Dsl sw itchgrass

EtOH eucalyptus

EtOH miscanthus

EtOH sw itchgrass

Dsl soy

Dsl rapeseed

Dsl palm

EtOH sugar beet

EtOH w heat

EtOH maize

GHG emissions from biofuel production

7.2

7.7

22.3

21.5

15.3

21.1

18.6

24.5

26.7

26.9

31.8

37.8

36.0

63.8

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.000.00

0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

g. CO2 eq./MJ biofuel (LHV)

Cultivation Net N2O emissions Pre-treatment and transport

Conversion 1 Biofuel transport Gasoline (EU)

Diesel (EU)

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Fossil energy requirement for biofuel production

0.12

0.09

0.14

0.15

0.13

0.24

0.24

0.25

0.37

0.47

0.45

0.60

0.59

0.64

MJp/MJ biofuel (LHV)

Fossil energy

requirement and

GHG emissions

from biofuel

production for the

base cases.

Allocation of coproducts

by energy,

no reference land

use (no LUC). JRC

DNDC model for

N2O emissions

from sugar cane,

wheat, sugar beet,

maize and

rapeseed. IPCC

model for

miscanthus, palm

fruit, soy beans,

switchgrass,

eucalyptus and

jatropha.


Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

iLUC

Excluded

Lifecycle

greenhouse

gas emissions

saved per

hectare land for

different fossil

reference fuel

types.

Hoefnagels et al.,

Renewable &

Sustainable

Energy Reviews,

Feb 2010.


Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Net GHG emissions

due to land use

change. Based on

IPCC, Fargione et al.

, Wicke et al.,

Bioshape. For

emissions from

peatland, 20 years of

emissions were

allocated to land use

change due to palm

oil production

whereas Wicke et al.

assume 25 years and

Fargione et al.

assume 50 years.


a

n

d )

n

e

r

a

d

o

a

r

g

io

C

e (F

d

y

o r

a

d

ã

o

e

W C

d

n

r

a

s

sla

G

b

y s

n ic

m

c

a

tio

o

n

lo c

o

A e

-52.05n

sio

n

e

x

te

m

S

y

ste

y

rg

e

n

e

b

y

n

c

a

tio

lo

A

Best, future

Default, future

Worst, future

Best, present

Default, current

Worst, current

Best, future

Default, future

Worst, future

Best, present

Default, current

Worst, current

Best, future

Default, future

Worst, future

Best, present

Default, current

Worst, current

Best, future

Default, future

Worst, future

Best, present

Default, current

Worst, current

Best, future

Default, future

Worst, future

Best, present

Default, current

Worst, current

5.79

8.13

9.92

12.35

7.48

-7.47

2.51

10.70

11.32

9.66

11.08

15.03

17.21

16.90

18.13

18.13

12.66

16.17

18.63

23.71

18.13

27.60

32.42

49.68

51.86

53.28

74.42

80.09

-20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Cultivation Development Feedstock transport and Innovation Conversion Management Biofuel transport Credit LUC

98.03

GHG balance

Sugar cane ethanol

(In CO2eq/MJ)

using different

management

Levels, reference

Systems and

Allocation

methods


Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

iLUC factors…

• Searchinger: 1

• Later global (macro-economic) analyses: 0.3

-> 0.2.

• More detailed regional studies: depends

highly (Fully…) on rate of improvement in

agricultural and livestock management (e.g

Apola, et al. PNAS, 2010)

• This was also & already the case in Hoogwijk,

Smeets, REFUEL, etc.etc.


What’s it gonna be?

A1

population:

GDP:

technological growth: high

trade: maximal

globally oriented

B1

population:

GDP:

2050: 8.7 billion

2100: 7.1 billion

2050: 24.2 10 3 billion $95/y

2100: 86.2 10 3 billion $95/y

2050: 8.7 billion

2100: 7.1 billion

2050: 18.4 10 3 billion $95/y

2100: 53.9 10 3 billion $95/y

technological growth: high

trade: high

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

material/economic

environmental/social

A2

population:

GDP:

2050: 11.3 billion

2100: 15.1 billion

2050: 8.6 10 3 billion $95/y

2100: 17.9 10 3 billion $95/y

technological growth: low

trade: minimal

B2

population:

GDP:

technological growth: low

trade: low

regionally oriented

2050: 9.4 billion

2100: 10.4 billion

2050: 13.6 10 3 billion $95/y

2100: 27.710 3 billion $95/y


2000

Courtesy of

Gunther Fischer

IIASA

2080

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Percent of cultivated land in grid cell, scenario A2, 2000

Percent of cultivated land in grid cell, scenario A2, 2080

16/6

0.00

6.25

12.50

18.75

25.00

31.25

37.50

43.75

50.00

56.25

62.50

68.75

75.00

81.25

87.50

93.75

100.00

0.00

6.25

12.50

18.75

25.00

31.25

37.50

43.75

50.00

56.25

62.50

68.75

75.00

81.25

87.50

93.75

100.00


A2 scenario: roughly

doubling of food production

• Agricultural land: 1567 -> 1751 Mha (11%)

• Grassland: 4634 -> 4688 Mha (1%)

• Forest: 3805 -> 3497 Mha

• Built: 153 -> 233 Mha

iLUC factor for A2: total increase land for food with doubled

output: 3.8%

iLUC for A1 and B1; negative…

This was true for (e..g) cereal production over the past 5

decades as well. (and sugar cane + livestock in SE Brazil)

Main reasons: improved management with pressure of increased

demand.

Q: Is competition a bad thing?

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


Area (Gha)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Potential land-use pattern changes

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

year

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

A1

Area (Gha)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

A2

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

year

Bioresreve

Forest

Cropland

Grassland

Restland

low-productivity

Abandoned

[Hoogwijk, Faaij et al., 2006]


Contributors to land use

change…

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


EJ / Year

1500

1250

1000

600

500

Global biomass potentials 2050…

World energy demand (2008)

World Technical

Energy biomass

demand potential

(2050) (2050)

Agricultural productiv ity

Sustainable

biomass

potential

improvement

Crops w /o ex clusion

250

200 World

(2050)

Crops w ith ex clusion

World biomass

biomass

demand

Surplus forestry

50 demand (2008) (2050) Forestry and

agriculture residues

Current world energy demand (500 EJ/year)

Current world biomass use (50 EJ/year)

Total world primary energy demand in 2050 in World Energy Assessment (600 - 1000 EJ/year)

Modelled biomass demand in 2050 as found in literature studies. (50 - 250 EJ/year)

Technical potential for biomass production in 2050 as found in literature studies. (50 - 1500 EJ/year).

Sustainable biomass potential in 2050 (200-500 EJ/year). Sustainable biomass potentials consist of: (i) residues from agriculture

and forestry; (ii) surplus forest material (net annual increment minus current harvest); (iii) energy crops, excluding areas with

moderately degraded soils and/or moderate water scarcity; (iv) additional energy crops grown in areas with moderately degraded

soils and/or moderate water scarcity and (v) additional potential when agricultural productivity increases faster than historic

trends thereby producing more food from the same land area.

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Assessment

and synthesis

of available

information

[Bioenergy

Revisited:

Dornbug et al.,

Energy &

Environmental

Science, 2010]


Negative vision, ahead of SRREN…

Low biomass scenario

Largely follows A2

SRES scenario

conditions, assuming

limited policies,

slow technological

progress in both the

energy sector and

agriculture, profound

differences in

development remain

between OECD and

DC’s.

High fossil fuel prices

expected due to high demand

and limited innovation,

which pushes demand for

biofuels for energy security

perspective

Increased biomass demand

directly affects food markets

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Increased biomass demand partly

covered by residues and wastes,

partly by annual crops.

Total contribution of bioenergy

about 100 EJ before 2050.

Additional crop demand leads to

significant iLUC effects and

impacts on biodiversity.

Overall increased food prices

linked to high oil prices.

Limited net GHG benefits.

Socio-economic benefits suboptimal.


Positive vision (ahead of SRREN…)

Storyline Key preconditions Key impacts

High biomass scenario

Largely

follows

A1/B1

SRES

scenario

conditions,

Assumes:

well working sustainability

frameworks and strong

policies

well developed bioenergy

markets

progressive technology

development (biorefineries,

new generation biofuels,

successful deployment of

degraded lands.

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Energy price (notably oil) development is moderated

due to strong increase supply of biomass and biofuels.

Some 300 EJ of bioenergy delivered before 2050; 35%

residues and wastes, 25% from marginal/degraded

lands (500 Mha), 40% from arable and pasture lands

300 Mha).

Conflicts between food and fuel largely avoided due to

strong land-use planning and aligning of bioenergy

production capacity with efficiency increases in

agriculture and livestock management.

Positive impacts with respect to soil quality and soil

carbon, negative biodiversity impacts minimised due to

diverse and mixed cropping systems.


Good news on criteria frameworks

and frontline of debate:

• Debate has come to it’s senses a bit.

• Recognition that iLUC for biofuels is

inconsistent: it is about management of

land use.

• Spillover effect from biofuels (< 1% of land

for food) to agriculture & livestock; COOL!!!.

• More attention for synergies (e.g.:

Committee Corbey, Netherlands, 2010,

GSB initiative, 2010)

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management


Overview and comparison

of initiatives to guarantee sustainability of bioenergy

Preliminary results: 67 initiatives (regulation + systems)

included

• All relevant for (some) sustainability issues and/or

• Various parts of the bioenergy value chain

Overview of amount of initiatives and certification systems included in review on biomass and bioenergy

certification (*substantially more systems exist).

17

11

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

3

Biomass and Bioenergy Biofuels Forestry* Agriculture* Social*

16

20

Dam et al., RSER, 2010 (forthcoming)


overview and comparison

of sustainability certification schemes (2)

• 28 initiatives cover the sustainability of biofuels

• From which 17 are developing principles

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

7

Worldwide

11

Europe

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

6

USA

4

Other regions

10

Government

11

Market/NGOs

7

International

bodies

17

Set of principles

(more than 1) in

development*

11

Regulation in

place*

Dam et al., RSER, 2010 (forthcoming)


The bad news on frameworks:

• The overview of 67 initiatives shows that

concerns in various parts of the world are

focused on food security and on the socioeconomic

impacts of bioenergy production.

Strikingly, these concerns are generally not

included in the existing initiatives.

• The overview shows a strong proliferation of

standards and, consequently, the risk for

confusion in the market, abuse and

“shopping” of standards.

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Dam et al., RSER, 2010 (forthcoming)


Macro-meso-micro level

Examples are: Impacts of Biodiversity, water, socio-economic impacts…

Micro scale

Agrobiodiversity

Key: Sustainability performance on various levels is influenced by external and

internal factors and performance

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Meso scale:

Ecological services,

Agroecolocial areas

Macro scale:

Genetic diversity species in the world


Palm oil for energy: GHG Balances and land

3372 g CO2-eq / kWh

conversion issues in Indonesia

GHG emissions (g CO2-eq/kWh CPO)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-200

-400

-600

Base case

Natural rain forest

Degraded land

Peatland forest

Peatland grass

Copernicus Institute CPO electricity Fossil reference electricity

Sustainable Development Cases and Innovation Management production

Claus power plant

Average Dutch

Modern natural gas

Coal

Average EU

Forested peatland: extremely

high emissions

Natural rainforest: high

emissions

Base case - Logged over

forest: emissions about half

of modern natural gas power

Degraded land: CO2 uptake

[Wicke, et al.,

Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]


Land area (Mha)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

LUC in Indonesia

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Rest

degraded land

immature palm oil

mature palm oil

permanent pastures

permanent crops w/o

palm oil

arable land

grassland

shrubland and

savannah

Forest plantation

forest cover

[Wicke, et al., 2010 (forthcoming)]


Land are (Mha)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

LUC until 2020 Indonesia

Business as Usual –

Provincial plans (base)

Land

area

(Mha)

180

160

140

120

100

immature palm oil degraded land

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development

rest

and Innovation Management

80

60

40

20

0

Sustainability –

Past trends (improved)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Projection Projection

forest cover Forest plantation

shrubland and savannah grassland

agricultural land mature palm oil

[Wicke, et al., 2010

(land use policy)]


Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Am I optimistic?

• Development in governance is poor and too slow; too

many parties mess around.

• This is not about optimism, it is about necessity; rural

development, (re)storing soil (C) and smart farming are

essentials anyway; but nobody is paying!

• Climate change and energy security cannot do without

bioenergy (SRREN…); 2 nd gen biofuels likely

gamechanger as well as bio-CCS…

• Hard work ahead for science, policy and the market.

Would be nice if they work together really.

• Get rid of iLUC; it is only a reactive concept while we

should be pro-active via proper policies and analyses.


Thanks for your attention

For more information, see:

www.bioenergytrade.org:

Key References:

• Dornburg et al.,2010, Energy & Environmental Science (EES)

• Hoogwijk et al., 2005 & 2009, Biomass & Bioenergy

• Van Dam et al., 2010, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews

(forthcoming)

• Wicke et al., 2009, Biomass & Bioenergy

• Wicke et al., 2010, Land Use Policy (forthcoming)

• Hoefnagels, et al., 2010 Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews

• IPCC-SRREN, 2011, (Forthcoming)

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines