1 Bioenergy LCA analysis: Beyond biofuels Expert meeting 10 June 2008 André Jol Head of group climate change and energy European Environment Agency.

1

Bioenergy LCA analysis: Beyond biofuels

Expert meeting

10 June 2008

André Jol

Head of group climate change and energy

European Environment Agency

2

What is our mandate?What is our mandate?

• To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability

• To coordinate the European environment information and observation network (Eionet)

3

What is our mandate?What is our mandate?

• To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability

• To coordinate the European environment information and observation network (Eionet)

4

EEA member and collaborating countries

Member countries

Collaborating countries

5

EU bio energy policiesEU bio energy policies • Main policy drivers: all sectors to reduce GHG

emissions; EU to reduce energy import dependency, enhance employment (e.g. in agriculture)

• Directive on the promotion of biofuels for transport, target 5.75 % in 2010

• EU Biomass action plan (target of 150 Mtoe/year in EU)• Directive that allows MS tax exemptions• EU not on track to targets currently

2008: • a mandatory EU target of 20% renewable energy by

2020 including a 10 % biofuels target in total EU transport fuel (petrol, diesel) (provided production is sustainable and second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available)

• Achieve at least a 20% reduction of greenhouse gasesby 2020 compared to 1990 levels

6

EEA report 2006EEA report 2006

Underlying technical reports on forestry (2006) and agriculture (published 29 Jan 2008)

7

Environmental assumptions EEA studyEnvironmental assumptions EEA study

• 30% of agricultural land dedicated to ‘environmentally oriented farming’

• Extensive farmland to be maintained (e.g. grassland not to be transformed into arable land)

• 3% set aside for ecological compensation areas on intensive arable land

• Bioenergy crops with low environmental pressures• Current protected forest areas maintained (no

residue removal and complementary fellings)• No removal of foliage and roots in forest areas• Ambitious waste minimization strategies

8

Sustainability of biofuelsSustainability of biofuels

• GHG impacts• Minimum requirement for GHG saving

• Land use• no conversion of wetland or “continuously forested

area”• no raw material from forest undisturbed by significant

human activity or from grassland with highly biodiversity

• no raw material from nature protection areas unless compatible with nature protection

• environmental requirements for agriculture-diversification of feedstocks• all biofuel production must comply with the “cross

compliance" rules

9

Why GHG methodologyWhy GHG methodology

• Proposed Fuel Quality Directive: fuel suppliers must reduce unit GHGemissions by 1% a year from 2010

• Proposed Renewable Energy Directive: biofuels used to meet renewable energy targets

must save emissions of at least 35% compared to petrol/diesel

10

Current GHG LCA work on bioenergy-Current GHG LCA work on bioenergy-biofuelsbiofuels

• GBEP Task Force on GHG methodologies - harmonizing greenhouse gas (GHG) methodologies

• UNEP-review the most relevant sustainability impacts of the production and use of biofuels in the framework of LCA methodology

• IEA Task Force 38-Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems

• JRC IES with EUCAR and CONCAWE- estimate greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and industrial costs of all significant automotive fuels and power-trains for the European Union after 2010

• CEN- working group on sustainable criteria for biomass• Informal consultation meeting between OECD, EEA and

invited technical experts: Linking economic and bio-physical modelling in relation to bioenergy (30 June 2008, Paris)

11

Objectives of this expert meeting and Objectives of this expert meeting and intended outcomesintended outcomes

• Present and discuss methodological and data issues of life-cycle GHG emissions of bioenergy, beyond biofuels, by a group of experts from EEA countries, US, European Commission (DG TREN, JRC), international organisations (UNEP, FAO)

• Prepare/improve technical background paper with a summary of main methodological and data issues

• Discuss how the technical paper can be used to inform other ongoing processes towards harmonized methodologies for bioenergy (i.e GBEP, EC)

• Propose possible follow-up meeting and/or other work by EEA in 2009

12

Questions proposed for discussionQuestions proposed for discussion1. System boundaries, wastes, and by-product allocation

Methodological key questions• Are there cases for which bioenergy should be part of the

“background” system?• How to consistently define residues, wastes, and by-/-co-

products?• Can the EU RES-D approach for energy-based allocation and the

system boundary assumptions for residues/wastes be used also for the wider area of bioenergy?

Data questions• Which factors need to be considered when developing the

reference system for electricity?• Should the reference system for electricity/heat be the EU

average or country specific, and should it be average or marginal?

• Should seasonal influence on the energy mix (e.g., hydroelectricity and wind fluctuations) be taken into account?

• Should specific future developments (e.g. ultra-low sulfur oil; PM10 restrictions for small-scale systems) be considered?

13

2. Direct Land-use change• How to develop emission factors and calculation methods for

feedstocks (such as perennials) that are not covered by IPCC?• How to deal with soil carbon releases from direct LUC with

respect to time (distribution over which time span)? Is the IPCC default of 20 years an appropriate choice?

• Should GHG emissions from removal of pre-project above-ground biomass be discounted over the same time horizon, or treated differently (e.g. direct emissions from slash burning)?

3. Indirect land use change• Which approach is adequate to address indirect LUC, and ho to

express and allocate GHG emissions from indirect LUC quantitatively?

• If the “iLUC factor” concept is used, which level of risk is appropriate for which time horizon?

• How to deal with methodological issues linked to system boundaries and projected changes in background factors such as increasing global food demand?

• If future climate change negotiations lead to caps on GHG emissions from a majority of countries (including e.g., Brazil, Indonesia) and sectors (including agriculture and LUC), will this take care of GHG emissions from indirect LUC also

14

4. Data uncertainities:CH4 and N20• What are the key factors to be considered when dealing with

reference background systems for CH4 and N2O emissions in a spatial manner?

• How can relevant reference data sets / systems be most efficiently developed?

• Which data for N2O emissions should be used (IPCC default, tier1/2,…)?

• Which data for CH4 emissions from biogas systems (e.g. leakage from manure storage), and biogas processing (upgrade to biomethane, compression to CNG) are to be used?

• Should credits for avoided CH4 and N2O emissions be included, and, if yes, based on which data sources?

5. Data for land use change• To what extend is the disaggregation of GHG emission from LUC

needed for “adequate” results?• What are the most suitable approaches and data sets for dealing

with this issue?

15

Thank you !