Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 7 Table 3. Distance that can be driven per hectare of feedstock for several combinations of fuels and engines, derived from the net energy yield and vehicle efficiency as reported in (Hamelinck and Faaij, 2006). ICEV = Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, FCV = Fuel Cell Vehicle. Feedstock Fuel Engine Distance (thousands km/ha) Short term Long term Lignocellulose Hydrogen ICEV 26-37 80-97 FCV 44-140 189-321 Methanol ICEV 34-49 75-287 FCV 68-83 113-252 FT ICEV 22-38 56-167 FCV 50-67 97-211 Ethanol ICEV 29-30 82-238 FCV 38-72 129-240 Sugar beet Ethanol ICEV 15-37 57-88 FCV 19-93 58-138 Rapeseed RME ICEV 5-28 15-79 FCV 6-84 19-137 Some projections as published by the International Energy Agency (World Energy Outlook) and the OECD (Agricultural Outlook) focus on �rst generation biofuels only (even for projections to 2030 in the IEA-WEO). Biofuels meet 2.7% of world road-transport fuel demand by the end of the projection period in the Reference Scenario, up from 1% today. In the Alternative Scenario, the share reaches 4.6%, thanks to higher demand for biofuels but lower demand for road-transport fuels in total. �e share remains highest in Brazil, though the pace of market penetration will be fastest in the European Union in both scenarios. �e contribution of liquid biofuels to transport energy, and even more so to global energy supply, will remain limited. By 2030, liquid biofuels are projected to still supply only 3.0-3.5 percent of global transport energy demand. �is is however also due to the key assumption that 2 nd generation biofuel technology is not expected to become available to the market (IEA, 2006). In the Agricultural Outlook, similar reasoning is followed be it for a shorter time frame (up to the year 2016), focusing on 1 st generation biofuels. �e outlook focuses in this respect on the implications of biofuel production on demand for food crops. In general, a slowdown in growth is expected (OECD, 2007). Projections that take explicitly 2 nd generation options into account are more rare, but studies that do so, come to rather di�erent outlooks, especially in the timeframe exceeding 2020. 176 Sugarcane ethanol
Biofuel conversion technologies �e IPCC, providing an assessment of studies that deal with both supply and demand of biomass and bioenergy. It is highlighted that biomass demand could lay between 70 – 130 EJ in total, subdivided between 28-43 EJ biomass input for electricity and 45-85 EJ for biofuels (Barker and Bashmakov, 2007; Kahn Ribeiro et al., 2007). Heat and biomass demand for industry are excluded in these reviews. It should also be noted that around that timeframe biomass use for electricity has become a less attractive mitigation option due to the increased competitiveness of other renewables (e.g. wind energy) and e.g. [ and storage. At the same time, carbon intensity of conventional fossil transport fuels increases due to the increased use lower quality oils, tar sands and coal gasi�cation. In De Vries et al. (2007; based on the analyses of Hoogwijk et al. (2005, 2008)), it is indicated that the biofuel production potential around 2050 could lay between about 70 and 300 EJ fuel production capacity depending strongly on the development scenario. Around that time, biofuel production costs would largely fall in the range up to 15 U$/GJ, competitive with equivalent oil prices around 50-60 U$/barrel. �is is con�rmed by other by the information compiled in this chapter: it was concluded that the, sustainable, biomass resource base, without con�icting with food supplies, nature preservation and water use, could indeed be developed to a level of over 300 EJ in the �rst half of this century. 5. Final remarks Biomass cannot realistically cover the whole world’s future energy demand. On the other hand, the versatility of biomass with the diverse portfolio of conversion options, makes it possible to meet the demand for secondary energy carriers, as well as bio-materials. Currently, production of heat and electricity still dominate biomass use for energy. �e question is therefore what the most relevant future market for biomass may be. For avoiding CO 2 emissions, replacing coal is at present a very e�ective way of using biomass. For example, co-�ring biomass in coal-�red power stations has a higher avoided emission per unit of biomass than when displacing diesel or gasoline with ethanol or biodiesel. However, replacing natural gas for power generation by biomass, results in levels of CO 2 mitigation similar to second generation biofuels. Net avoided GHG emissions therefore depend on the reference system and the e�ciency of the biomass production and utilisation chain. In the future, using biomass for transport fuels will gradually become more attractive from a CO 2 mitigation perspective because of the lower GHG emissions for producing second generation biofuels and because electricity production on average is expected to become less carbon-intensive due to increased use of wind energy, PV and other solar-based power generation, carbon capture and storage technology, nuclear energy and fuel shi� from coal to natural gas. In the shorter term however, careful strategies and policies are needed to avoid brisk allocation of biomass resources away from e�cient and e�ective utilisation in power and heat production or in other markets, e.g. food. How this is to be done optimally will di�er from country to country. Sugarcane ethanol 177
Page 1 and 2:
Sugarcane ethanol Contributions to
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contents Foreword 11 José
Page 5:
Chapter 8 �e global impacts of US
Page 8 and 9:
Foreword �e use of biofuels as a
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Do biofuels help
Page 13 and 14:
Executive summary 12. Projections o
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 Introduction to sugarcane
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol A
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol C
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol F
Page 23:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol H
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 Production (million tons)
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 Table 2. Sugarcane produc
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 Harvested area (million h
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 million hectares 8 7 6 5
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 Table 5. Global significa
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 (FAOSTAT, 2008). �e lan
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 indicating that sugarcane
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 and vinasse produced duri
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 • • • • Harvested
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 2.2. AEZ assessment of la
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 The quantified descriptio
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 Table 8 summarizes by reg
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 Table 9. Suitability of u
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 Table 10. Suitability of
Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 2 of bio-diversity and land
Page 56 and 57:
Chapter 2 FAO, 1987. 1948-1985 Worl
Page 58 and 59:
Chapter 2 Smeets, E., M. Junginger,
Page 60 and 61:
Chapter 3 Considering that this deb
Page 62 and 63:
Chapter 3 1,000 ha 9,000 8,000 7,00
Page 64 and 65:
Chapter 3 Another source of data on
Page 66 and 67:
Chapter 3 Figure 3. Different land
Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 3 1-Pastureand crops expans
Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 3 Given that the model is u
Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 3 to the case studies; (d)
Page 74 and 75:
Chapter 3 Mato Grosso do Sul in 200
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 3 the Pasture class increas
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 3 Table 5. Number of sugarc
Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 3 of 12.6% from 2001 to 200
Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 3 Table 6. South-Centre: ex
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 3 4.5. Options for approach
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 3 states that have lost pas
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 3 It is important to contex
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 4 Mitigation of GHG emissio
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1. Basic data: sugarcane prod
Page 95 and 96:
Mitigation of GHG emissions using s
Page 97 and 98:
GHG emission (kg CO 2 eq/m 3 etOH)
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Table 7. Soil carbon content for di
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
5. Conclusions Mitigation of GHG em
Page 107:
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 5 Oil reserves - Gasoline/d
Page 112 and 113:
Chapter 5 in research and developme
Page 114 and 115:
Chapter 5 Table 3. Summary of main
Page 116 and 117:
Chapter 5 3. Environmental indicato
Page 118 and 119:
Chapter 5 Table 4. Carbon stock in
Page 120 and 121:
Chapter 5 3.2. Water Total carbon i
Page 122 and 123: Chapter 5 3.3. Soil and fertilizers
Page 124 and 125: Chapter 5 3.4. Management of diseas
Page 126 and 127: Chapter 5 Table 10. Sugarcane and v
Page 128 and 129: Chapter 5 in the implementation of
Page 130 and 131: Chapter 5 Table 11. Continued. Crit
Page 132 and 133: Chapter 5 Brazilian Government. Lei
Page 134 and 135: Chapter 5 São Paulo State Governme
Page 136 and 137: Chapter 6 2. Development of the eth
Page 138 and 139: Chapter 6 blends by car manufacture
Page 140 and 141: Chapter 6 Brazil have been roughly
Page 142 and 143: Chapter 6 Overall there are few di
Page 144 and 145: Chapter 6 3.2.1. The impact of exis
Page 146 and 147: Chapter 6 �e use of ethanol in he
Page 148 and 149: Chapter 6 cropping systems that pro
Page 150 and 151: Chapter 6 certainty, the supply of
Page 152 and 153: Chapter 6 De Vries, B.J.M., D.P. va
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 7 Biofuel conversion techno
Page 157 and 158: Biofuel conversion technologies �
Page 159 and 160: Biofuel conversion technologies In
Page 161 and 162: Biofuel conversion technologies the
Page 163 and 164: Biofuel conversion technologies Imp
Page 165 and 166: Biofuel conversion technologies Pro
Page 167 and 168: Investment costs (Euro/kWth input c
Page 169 and 170: 4.2. Greenhouse gas balances Biofue
Page 171: Reduction in CO equivalent emission
Page 175 and 176: Biofuel conversion technologies pot
Page 177 and 178: Chapter 8 The global impacts of US
Page 179 and 180: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 187 and 188: Table 1. Change in output due to EU
Page 191 and 192: Forest cover Pasture cover USEU 201
Page 193: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 196 and 197: Chapter 9 also risks and serious tr
Page 198 and 199: Chapter 9 Box 2. Bioethanol stoves
Page 200 and 201: Chapter 9 �e highest impact on po
Page 202 and 203: Chapter 9 the increased generation
Page 204 and 205: Chapter 9 o�ers to support the MD
Page 206 and 207: Chapter 9 Price variation (%) 14 12
Page 208 and 209: Chapter 9 Dufey et al., 2007a). Leg
Page 210 and 211: Chapter 9 manufactured directly fro
Page 212 and 213: Chapter 9 in mechanical aid for the
Page 214 and 215: Chapter 9 Table 1. Import tariffs o
Page 216 and 217: Chapter 9 3.8. Improving efficiency
Page 218 and 219: Chapter 9 some minimum transport in
Page 220 and 221: Chapter 9 IEA, 2004. Biofuels for T
Page 223 and 224:
Chapter 10 Why are current food pri
Page 225 and 226:
Why are current food prices so high
Page 227 and 228:
2.4 Long-term drivers of supply Why
Page 229 and 230:
3.1. Effects on the supply side Why
Page 231 and 232:
3.3 Policy responses to rising food
Page 233 and 234:
3.4. Other effects • Why are curr
Page 235 and 236:
- - - - Why are current food prices
Page 237 and 238:
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5. The fut
Page 239 and 240:
• • • Why are current food pr
Page 241 and 242:
6.1. Policy implications Why are cu
Page 243:
Why are current food prices so high
Page 247 and 248:
Authors Dr. Marcos Adami, senior re
Page 249 and 250:
Keyword index A Africa 204, 205, 20
Page 251:
M maize 20, 83, 104, 173, 184, 187,
show all

Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?