Copernicus Institute
Download
1 / 28

Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on

Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation. Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA. * Uwe Schneider, Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos + Edward Smeets, Iris Lewandowski, André Faaij * Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA' - ownah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Copernicus Institute

Sustainable Development and Innovation

Non-Food Options at Farm LevelAgricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

* Uwe Schneider, Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos

+ Edward Smeets, Iris Lewandowski, André Faaij

*Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University

+ Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University

Final Meeting ENFA, 23-24 April 2008, Brussels, Belgium



Non-food Product Applications Selection

  • Selection of applications are based on the following parameters:

  • market size

  • economic performance

  • technical feasibility

  • environmental performance


Miscanthus & switchgrass chains

  • C4 grasses

  • high light, water, and nitrogen use efficiency

  • high yield potential

  • miscanthus field

  • miscanthus harvesting


Table 2 miscanthus switchgrass applications selected
Table 2: Miscanthus & switchgrassapplications selected


Economic performance calculations

Total costs of production were calculated

Discounted cash flow methodology

Considered the supply chain in the calculations

includes growing, harvesting, storing, compacting and transporting

Regional variation were accounted

in terms of yield, transportation distance, input costs (labor, fuel, agrochemicals, etc.)

Calculations done for the base case and 2030

Economic performance calculations


Environmental performance calculations

Based on GHG emissions during the production and transportation stages

Direct emissions

Emissions from fuel use in agricultural machineries or transportation equipment

Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use

Indirect emissions

Emissions generated from the bioenergy or biomaterial production during the production and transportation stages

Spreadsheet modeling

Environmental performance calculations


Miscanthus and switchgrass production transportation stages

– an overview

Table 3: Number of application of production stages over the miscanthus and switchgrasslifetimes*

*Assumed to be applicable in all EU regions


Inputs example for miscanthus

20,000 rhizomes/ha 0.16 Euro/rhizome transportation stages

Fertilization (example for Germany):

N 24 kg/ha/y (incl. atm. deposition)

P 10 kg/ha/y

K 91 kg/ha/y

Ca 14 kg/ha/y

based on 0.27% N, 0.07% P, 0.65% K, and 0.10% Ca of odt and a yield of 14 ton/ha/y

Inputs (example for miscanthus)


Sample costs transportation stages

Table 4: Farm machinery costs for a self propelled big baler harvester

  • Sources: Huisman, 1997; Lazarus & Selly, 2003; EUROSTAT, 2006


Key variables/uncertainties for economic performance of miscanthus production:

On-field transportation costs

Farm size

Yield harvest cost factor (YF):

YF = 4.33 Y-0.589where Y = yield (ton/ha)

http://www.pictokon.net

http://blog.futurelab.net


tons/ha/yr miscanthus production:

0- 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

31 - 35

36 - 40

41 - 45

Yields

  • MiscanMod

  • crop growth model

  • Average yield EU25: Base: 13 tons/ha/yr2030: 16 tons/ha/yr

Figure 1: Field yields of miscanthus in the EU region

  • Source: Stampfl et al., 2006


Storing miscanthus production:

Storage options are available (costs < 10 Euro/ton) for existing farm and roofed timber buildings

Risk of self heating and dry matter loss during storage

Pelletizing

On-field and on-farm pelleting is expensive

Large scale effect:

3 t/h ≡ 55 Euro/ton (Austria)

10 t/h ≡ 30 Euro/ton (Sweden)

Pelletizing to reduce transportation

costs is unprofitable!

http://www.peer-span.ch


http://www.walesbiomass.org miscanthus production:

Table 5: Transportation costs

  • Sources: NEA, 2004;

  • IFEU, 2005; Hamelinck, 2004


40 miscanthus production:

2.2

Energy

35

1.9

Labor

1.7

30

Capital

1.4

25

Euro/ton

Euro/GJ

1.1

20

0.8

15

0.6

10

0.3

5

0

0

PL -

PL -

HU -

HU -

UK -

UK -

IT -

IT -

LI -

LI -

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

Figure 2: Pelletizing costs

PL = Poland; HU = Hungary; UK = United Kingdom; IT = Italy; LI = Lithuania

  • Key uncertainties are the moisture content and the source and price of energy

  • Only attractive in the case of very long distance transport (>700 km) in the case of low energy costs (e.g. in combination with a CHP plant)


25 miscanthus production:

100

20

80

15

Euro/ton

60

10

40

Transportation

5

20

Storage

Production

0

0

IRE

FIN

UKI

LIT

CZE

ITA

BEL

NET

DEN

GER

GRE

HUN

EST

FRA

LUX

SVE

LAT

MAL

POR

AUS

POL

SPA

SVA

SWE

120

100

25

80

20

Euro/ton

15

60

0

10

40

Transportation

Storage

5

20

Production

0

0

IRE

LIT

FIN

ITA

CZE

UKI

NET

BEL

DEN

LAT

EST

FRA

SVE

GER

LUX

GRE

HUN

AUS

POL

SVA

SPA

MAL

POR

SWE

Figure 3: Total production, storage & transportation costs of miscanthus and switchgrass yields

Yield (ton/ha/yr)


25 miscanthus production:

20

15

Yield (ton /ha/y)

10

5

0

Figure 4: Total miscanthus production costs - EU25*

  • * From the field to the farm gate

  • Yields from MiscanMod (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000)

  • Including labor costs/margins


Results economic performance evaluation

Sources: miscanthus production:

Energy: OECD/IEA (2006)

Fuels: Well-to-Wheels study (JRC-IES, EUCAR, Concawe, 2006)

Materials: BREW project (Patel et al., 2006)

Assumptions:

Aggregated data

Cradle-to-grave basis

No regional variation

Key variables:

Plant scale, fuel conversion efficiency, interest rate, oil price (reference system)

Results: Economic performance evaluation


Ethylene now miscanthus production:

Ethylene future

PLA now

PLA future

2500

PTT now

PTT future

2000

1500

Euro/ton

1000

500

0

FINL

IREL

PORT

SLVN

BELG

FRAN

ITAL

SWED

UNIK

POLA

DENM

GERM

LITH

Production costs conventional processes (Euro/ton)

Ethylene

PET

PTT

724

1200

1177

Figure 5: Chemical production costs (Biomaterials)


0.04 miscanthus production:

Estonia

0.04

Germany

0.03

Italy

0.03

Euro/km

0.02

Latvia

0.02

Lithuania

0.01

Slovenia

0.01

United Kingdom

0.00

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

SI

SI

SI,

SI,

CI

CI

CI,

CI,

FC,

FC,

FC

FC

FC,

FC,

hyrbrid

hybrid

hyrbrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

Gasoline

Diesel

Methanol

Hydrogen

0.07

Estonia

0.06

Germany

0.05

Italy

0.04

Euro/km

Latvia

0.03

Lithuania

0.02

Slovenia

0.01

United Kingdom

0.00

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

now

future

CI

CI

CI,

CI,

SI

SI

SI,

SI,

CI

CI

CI,

CI,

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

hybrid

FT diesel

Ethanol

DME

Figure 6: Biofuel production costs


5.6 miscanthus production:

100

5.0

90

4.4

80

3.9

70

Transport

60

3.3

Unloading

kg CO2 eq/ GJ

50

2.8

Storage

40

P - Machines production

2.2

30

P - Machines use

1.7

20

P - N2O N fertilizer

1.1

10

P - Fertilizers and agrochem prod.

0.6

0

P - Planting material

0

PL-

PL-

PL-

PL-

HU-

HU-

HU-

HU-

UK-

UK-

UK-

UK-

IT-

IT-

IT-

IT-

LI-

LI-

LI-

LI-

M-B-

M-B-

M-C-

M-C-

M-B-

M-B-

M-C-

M-C-

M-B-

M-B-

M-C-

M-C-

M-B-

M-B-

M-C-

M-C-

M-B-

M-B-

M-C-

M-C-

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

2004

2030

eq/ton

2

kg CO

Results: Environmental performance evaluation

P = production, PL = Poland - Lubelski, HU = Hungary - Del-Dunantal, UK = United Kingdom - Devon, IT = Italy – Lombardia, LI = Lithuania, M = miscanthus, S = switchgrass, B = baled, C = chopped.

Figure 7: GHG emissions from miscanthus production


Agricultural bioenergy options in enfa

Summary of the different food and non-food bioenergy options:

Yields

Production costs

Labor intensity

Fertilizer use

Energy use

http://www.eubia.org/

Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA








ad