Niels Jungbluth ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Rainer Zah EMPA and ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen Switzerland ecoinvent: Methodological issues around LCA GHG.

Niels JungbluthESU-services Ltd., Uster,

Rainer ZahEMPA and ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen

Switzerland

ecoinvent: Methodological issues around LCA GHG emissions - the

Swiss approach

Expert meetingLCA GHG methodologies for bioenergy: Beyond biofuels

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 10 June 2008

www.esu-services.chPage 2

Status in Switzerland

• Full LCA is basis for tax reduction for biofuels– 40% GWP reduction– <125% of overall environmental impacts (UBP)

than fossil reference– Cradle to grave LCA one prerequisite

• Data provision by importers or producers of biofuels not from waste

• Common background database and methodology: ecoinvent v2.0

Harmonization of data collection in ecoinvent

• Collaboration of several research institutes and consultants

• Clear definition of product properties

• Guidelines for methodology e.g. allocation, land transformation

• Standard assumptions, e.g. prices in allocation, distances for biomass transports, regional storage

Allocation: Example Biogas

use, digested matter(0.71 kg)

disposal, organic waste(1 kg)

biogas(0.1 Nm3)

biogas plant

organic waste, to biogas plant(1 kg)

cleaning, filling station

agriculture

Allocation• Multi-output processes are stored in the database – BEFORE allocation

• Input- and output-specific allocation factors, i.e.individual allocation factor allowed per pollutant and input

• Allocation executed after import of dataset into database-> calculation of allocated unit processes-> matrix becomes invertible

• NO system expansion,NO creditsNO double counting of impacts

• All products included: fuel, electricity, heat, material, fertilizer, waste management, fodder, food, etc.

• Cut-off applied for outputs without economic value and wastes for recycling

Land use change:Clear cutting of primary forests

• Agricultural area is increased by clear cutting

• Land transformation leads to CO2 emissions from soil

and biomass

• Burning of residues with further emissions

• Loss of biodiversity

• CO2 from land transformation accounts for about

90% of Brazil CO2 emissions

• Particles from residue burning are an important problem in South-East Asia

Principle of investigation

• Increase in agricultural area for the production in the reference year?

• Emissions per m2 of clear cut land?

• Allocation of emissions between wood production and stubbed land

• Stubbed land assumed the main driver

• New elementary flow „CO2, land transformation“ as

used by IPCC for different possibilities of analysis

• No indirect effects – double counting in a database!

Plant oil production

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

rape oil CH rape oil RER palm oil MY palm kernel oilMY

soybean oil BR soybean oil US Soya oil RER

fossil, non-CO2 CH4, biogenic CO2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

rape oil CH rape oil RER palm oil MY palm kernel oilMY

soybean oil BR soybean oil US Soya oil RER

fossil, non-CO2 CH4, biogenic CO2 CO2, land trans

kg CO2-eq per kg oil at plant

Models for agricultural emissions

Indirect N2O emissions due to nitrate leaching are taken into account

www.esu-services.chPage 10

Capital goods must be included

• Share in GWP up to 10-30%

• Especially important in agriculture with low usage intensity

• Exclusion would give wrong picture

• Article published in the Int.J.LCA that gives further details and recommendations

Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, et al., The environmental

relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and

services. Int. J. LCA, 2007. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.309.

(Jungbluth et al. 2008: LCA of biomass-to-liquid fuels)

GWP reduction of BTL-Diesel

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001

diesel

BTL

passenger car roadevaporation and tyre abrasion provision fuelcombustion, fuel

52%

65%

Neglecting parts of the life cycle leads to different conclusions

concerning reduction potentials expressed as a percentage

www.esu-services.chPage 12

UBP 06

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%

Eco-indicator 99

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%

GWP

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Methane manure, optimized

Methane manure+cosubstrate, optimized

100% Recycled plant oil ME FR

Ethanol whey CH

100% Recycled plant oil ME CH

Methanol fixed bed CH

Methane wood

Methanol fluidized bed CH

Ethanol sugar cane BR

Ethanol grass CH

Ethanol wood CH

Ethanol sweet sorghum CN

Ethanol sugar beets CH

Methane sewage sludge

Methane grass biorefinery

100% Soy ME US

Methane biowaste

100% P almoil ME MY

100% Rape ME CH

Methane manure+cosubstrate

Methane manure

100% Rape ME RER

Ethanol corn US

Ethanol rye RER

Ethanol potatoes CH

100% Soy ME BR

BTL-fuel, miscanthus, ICFB-D

BTL-fuel, short-rotation wood, CFB-D

BTL-fuel, short-rotation wood, ICFB-D

BTL-fuel, short-rotation wood, cEF-D

BTL-fuel, forest wood, cEF-D

BTL-fuel, straw, CFB-D

BTL-fuel, straw, dEF-D

BTL-fuel, straw, cEF-D

BTL-fuel, straw, CH, cEF-D

Natural gas, EURO3

Diesel, low sulphur EURO3

P etrol, low sulphur EURO3

Comparison of biofuels

Conclusion from biofuels study

• A broad variety of investigated biofuels have a significant GWP-reducing potential

• Environmental impacts of biofuel pathways are more dependent on the raw material and its production, not on the type of product or conversion process

• Many biofuels from energy crops have higher overall impacts than fossil fuels

Conclusions (2)

• Differences of biomass production to be considered:– Natural variation: sun, soil, water, climate– Agricultural technology: Fertilization, irrigation,

pesticides use, machinery use– Specific issues: land transformation, burning

• ecoinvent data provides the best basis for such assessments: transparent, harmonized, unit processes that can be reworked, numerous background data

Niels JungbluthESU-services Ltd., Uster,

Rainer ZahEMPA and ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen

Switzerland

Annexe

Problem setting“Ökobilanz von Energieprodukten”

• Diverging results for bioenergy and biofuels in separate studies in 2004

• ecoinvent data v1.3 covered only a part of bioenergy chains. No common database

• Aims to fully investigate the most important bioenergy chains transparent and publically available

• Main issue biofuels in Switzerland or imported

• Support for energy policy (fuel tax reductions)

• Examination for GHG reduction potential

• Investigation of several environmental aspects of “biofuels” supply chains

Possible classifications of fuels• Chemical classification of energy carrier

– methane, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, oils, methyl ester, liquids (petrol, diesel), ETBE, MTBE

• Resources used– Non-renewable: crude oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear– Renewable: energy crops (edible, non-edible), algae, forest wood,

biomass residues, sun, wind

• Type of conversion process– mechanical, chemical reaction, thermal treatment, fermentation,

anaerobic digestion, gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, biotechnical

• Marketing: – Sunfuel, Sundiesel, Ökodiesel, Biodiesel, Naturgas, 1st, 2nd, 3rd

generation

Resources, conversion techniques and “bioenergy” products investigated

biomass ressources (crops, wood, residues)

biogas

transport devices

wood pellets

heating

combined heat and power plant

electricity

methanolBTL-fuelshydrogen

synthetic gasethanol

filling station

plant oils

fatty acid methyl ester

wood chips

Investigated biofuels

Methane 96%agriculturebiowastesludgewheygrasswood

Ethanol 99.7%woodgrasspotatoessugar beetswheysugar cane BRmaizerye DE / RER

Methanolwaste woodIndustrial wood

XMEWaste cooking oilRape seed CH/RERsoya oil US / BRpalm oil MY

BTLforest woodshort-rotation woodmiscanthusstraw

Data contributions

ESU-services•Project organisation•Methodology•Clear cutting•Gas upgrading and distribution•Validation

Carbotech•Agriculture•Biogas

ETH•Biogas•Chemicals•Agriculture•Ethanol

Infras•Transports

PSI

•TransportsData base

v1.3

Doka•Waste management

Eners / LASEN•Synthetic fuels•Plant oils•Methyl ethers (XME)•Ethanol

Chudacoff•Chemicals

Raw data biogas

Name

Loca

tion

Uni

t biowaste, to anaerobic digestion

biogas, from biowaste, at

storage

disposal, biowaste, to anaerobic digestion

digested matter,

application in agriculture

Location 0 0 CH CH CH CH InfrastructureProcess 0 0 0 - - -

Unit 0 0 kg Nm3 kg kg biogas, from biowaste, at storage CH Nm3 1.00E-1 100.00 - - disposal, biowaste, to anaerobic digestion CH kg 1.00E+0 - 100.00 - digested matter, application in agriculture CH kg 7.12E-1 - - 100.00 heat, natural gas, at boiler condensing modulating >100kW

RER MJ 5.94E-1 18.24 81.76 -

electricity, low voltage, at grid CH kWh 4.00E-2 18.24 81.76 -

disposal, municipal solid waste, 22.9% water, to municipal incineration

CH kg 1.00E-2 18.24 81.76 -

diesel, burned in building machine GLO MJ 1.80E-2 - - 100.00

transport, lorry 16t CH tkm 1.50E-2 - 50.00 50.00 solid manure loading and spreading, by hydraulic loader and spreader

CH kg 1.00E+0 - 50.00 50.00

Carbon dioxide, in air - kg 5.95E-1 55.00 - 45.00

Carbon dioxide, biogenic - kg 7.05E-1 18.26 81.79 0.05 - Methane, biogenic - kg 8.53E-3 18.24 81.76 -

Inventory Clear Cutting

Name

Lo

catio

n

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

Pro

cess

Un

it clear-cutting, primary forest

round wood, primary forest, clear-cutting, at forest road

provision, stubbed

land

Location BR BR BRInfrastructureProcess 0 0 0

Unit ha m3 m2round wood, primary forest, clear-cutting, at forest road

BR 0 m3 5.21E+1 100 -

provision, stubbed land BR 0 m2 1.00E+4 - 100 Wood, primary forest, standing - - m3 1.82E+2 29 71 Transformation, from tropical rain forest - - m2 1.00E+4 - 100 Transformation, to forest, intensive, clear-cutting

- - m2 1.00E+4 - 100

power sawing, without catalytic converter RER 0 h 1.24E+1 100 -

Carbon dioxide, land transformation - - kg 1.20E+5 - 100 Carbon monoxide, fossil - - kg 7.84E+3 - 100 Methane, fossil - - kg 5.14E+2 - 100

Inventory agricultural product

Name

Loca

tion Uni

t soybeans, at farm

Location BRInfrastructureProcess 0

Unit kgOccupation, arable, non-irrigated m2a 1.97E+0Transformation, to arable, non-irrigated m2 3.93E+0Transformation, from forest, intensive, clear-cutting m2 6.22E-2Transformation, from arable, non-irrigated m2 3.77E+0Transformation, from shrub land, sclerophyllous m2 1.03E-1provision, stubbed land BR m2 6.22E-2

www.esu-services.chPage 24

Share capital goods(starting point, MJ fuel)

0%

20%

40%

60%

MJ-Eq kg Sb eq kg CO2 eq kg C2H4 kg SO2 eq kg PO4--- eq m3 m2a

cumulativeenergy demand

abioticdepletion

global warming(GWP100)

photochemicaloxidation, non-

b

acidification eutrophication water use landcompetition

BTL-fuel, miscanthus TUV BTL-fuel, straw CUTEC

BTL-fuel, straw FZK BTL-fuel, straw UET

BTL-fuel, wood CUTEC BTL-fuel, wood TUV

BTL-fuel, wood UET dimethylether, black liquor Chemrec

Questions to be answered

• Using BTL reduces the GWP by X%

compared to fossil fuel

• Using a specific amount (e.g. 1 MJ or 1 kg)

of BTL reduces the GWP by Y kg (or another

appropriate unit) compared to fossil fuel

www.esu-services.chPage 26

Calculations of potential reduction

100%

38%

20%

15%

12%

And again: How much better are biofuels?

• If we want an answer like „the use of biofuel has ???% lower GWP than fossil fuels“ than we have to include the all parts of the life cycle, e.g. for transports also cars and streets

• Neglecting certain parts of the life cycle, even if the same for both options, will bias the results

• System boundaries must be stated correctly if comparing reduction figures, e.g. well-to-wheel should include the wheel

• See www.esu-services.ch/btl/ for background paper

0 200 400 600 800 1000

UBP [Pt/pkm]

Aggregated Environmental Impact

LCA of Biofuels: Main Results

-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

100% Rape ME CH

100% Rape ME RER

100% Palmoil ME MY

100% Soy ME US

100% Soy ME BR

100% Recycled plant oil ME CH

100% Recycled plant oil ME FR

Methanol fixed bed CH

Methanol fluidized bed CH

Ethanol grass CH

Ethanol potatoes CH

Ethanol sugar beets CH

Ethanol whey CH

Ethanol wood CH

Ethanol sweet sorghum CN

Ethanol rye RER

Ethanol corn US

Ethanol sugar cane BR

Methane grass biorefinery

Methane manure

Methane manure+cosubstrate

Methane manure, optimized

Methane manure+cosubstrate, optimized

Methane biowaste

Methane sewage sludge

Methane wood

Diesel, low sulphur EURO3

Petrol, low sulphur EURO3

Natural gas, EURO3

CO2-eq. [kg/pkm]

Cultivation

Production

Transport

Operation

Bio

die

sel

Eth

ano

lM

eth

ane

Fo

ssil

GHG emissions

fossil benchmark

Mileage per hectare

short-rotation wood, cEF-Dshort-rotation wood, CFB-D

miscanthus, ICFB-D

short-rotation wood, ICFB-Dforest wood, cEF-D

Outlook

• Full LCA based on investigated data published in the framework of the project (http://www.esu-services.ch/bioenergy.htm)

• Life cycle inventories of BTL-fuels are published in EcoSpold format in a European project (www.esu-services.ch/renew.htm)

• Ongoing discussion on guidelines for tax exemption will further increase the need for reliable LCI data

• Shift of focus from fuel to fuel consumption