03.01.2014 Views

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Transport<br />

There are significant differences in the processing <strong>and</strong> energy balance depending <strong>of</strong> the route.<br />

Figure 7 shows energy balance for RFG, for ethanol from corn, for ethanol from sugarcane <strong>and</strong><br />

for ethanol from lignocellulosic materials.<br />

As observed, biomass-ethanol produced from lignocellulosic materials is able to transform 1 unit<br />

<strong>of</strong> fossil fuel energy into 4.07 units <strong>of</strong> fuel energy, while 1 unit <strong>of</strong> fossil fuel produces only 0.79<br />

units <strong>of</strong> RFG to be used in the car. Figure 8 shows that the production <strong>of</strong> 1 gal <strong>of</strong> ethanol (i.e.<br />

76,000 Btu) requires input energy in variable amounts depending <strong>of</strong> the technology in use.<br />

Present technology in use for production <strong>of</strong> ethanol from corn (dry or wet mill) uses a little over<br />

than 57,000 Btu as input energy, yielding a net balance <strong>of</strong> 18,000 - 16,000 Btu. Future<br />

technology for corn processing in ethanol promises some slight improvement. Lignocellulosic<br />

material conversion to ethanol (from wood biomass or Herbaceous biomass) is much more<br />

energy efficient yielding a net energy balance as high as 70,000 - 60,000Btu. This means that<br />

input energy is 1/10 to 1/5 <strong>of</strong> the final energy available in the fuel. As a natural consequence <strong>of</strong><br />

this favorable energy balance, GHG emission <strong>of</strong> ethanol is lower than that <strong>of</strong> gasoline, even<br />

when accounting for the complete fuel-cycle process. The situation for wood biomass is so<br />

favorable that total emission may be negative when assuming that the by-product residue will be<br />

used to generate electricity displacing coal, as shown for the high alcohol blends E85 <strong>and</strong> E95<br />

(USDOE, 1999). Results for sugarcane are also presented. Present energy balance evaluation<br />

concludes that one unit <strong>of</strong> fossil energy yields 8 units <strong>of</strong> energy as a renewable fuel. Such result<br />

is remarkable, since presently only sugarcane syrup is being used as a raw material for ethanol<br />

production, which represents 43% <strong>of</strong> the total energy value on sugarcane delivered to mills. 47%<br />

is lignocellulosic material that is already available at the mill <strong>and</strong> may be transformed to ethanol<br />

using the lignocellulosic conversion technology, improving even further the present energy<br />

balance. On top <strong>of</strong> that sugarcane residues which are mostly burned before harvesting are being<br />

collected to conform with environmental regulation <strong>and</strong> can be another source <strong>of</strong> lignocellulosic<br />

material to be converted to ethanol. Under this favorable situation GHGs emissions for ethanol<br />

from sugarcane tend to be as low as the ones evaluated for woody biomass in Figure 8.<br />

As a real example, with present technology in Brazil the use <strong>of</strong> 13 billion l <strong>of</strong> ethanol from<br />

sugarcane abates 9 MtC/yr (Moreira <strong>and</strong> Goldemberg, 1999).<br />

Assuming ethanol from sugarcane grown in tropical countries is exported to OECD countries to<br />

be used as fuel, the displacement <strong>of</strong> 50% gasoline could reduce C emission from cars from the<br />

expected amount <strong>of</strong> 730 MtC/yr in 2020 to 370 MtC/yr, or well below the 460 MtC emitted in<br />

1995.<br />

What is important to consider is that 360 MtC/yr <strong>of</strong> abatement may be obtained with a sugarcane<br />

planted area 33 times larger than the one being used in Brazil (2.7 Mha) if conventional practices<br />

are used. Based in the best practices commercial results from Brazil (9,000 l/ha/yr), we need only<br />

47.7 Mha <strong>of</strong> plantation instead <strong>of</strong> 89.1 Mha. With lignocellulosic material conversion technology<br />

the planted area may be reduced to 30M ha in the near future.<br />

Considering ethanol production cost around US$ 1.00/gal (present cost in Brazil is US$ 0.82, <strong>and</strong><br />

the lowest estimated cost from lignocellulosic material based ethanol is US$ 1.00 (CEC, 1999),<br />

when it will be commercially available in USA total annual production cost <strong>of</strong> 430 billion l is<br />

US$ 113 billion /yr. Assuming gasoline cost at US$ 0.75/gallon <strong>and</strong> correcting for the lower<br />

energy content <strong>of</strong> ethanol, ethanol use would avoid US$ 63 billion in gasoline expenditures. Net<br />

cost for using ethanol is US$ 50 billion/yr. Such figure should be compared with other <strong>costs</strong> for<br />

different alternatives already discussed for limiting CO 2 emission as such:<br />

202

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!