GHG emissions of biomass: Consequence of modelling choices

1. GHG emissions of biomass: Consequence of modelling choices Dr. Heinz StichnotheJohann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut Institute of Agricultural Technology and Biosystems Engineering Braunschweig, Germany

2. Outline • Methodological approaches • Basis of comparison and allocation • Indirect Emissionen (default values) • Lack of knowledge • Bio-based economy - limited resource • Limits • Conclusions

3. Waste management Land use change Life cycle of biofuels RM Transp. Co-products Field Transp. Convers. Transp. Use

4. Methodological approaches • Attributional LCAdirect impacts due to diesel, fertiliser and pesticide usestandardised procedure (system boundaries, allocation, etc.)used for product declaration and certification systems Advantage: comparable Disadvantage: blind spots • Consequentional LCAstudies the consequences of changeactivities in- and outside the LC effected by changes are investigatedincludes alternative uses of constrained production factors Advantage: more complete Disadvantage: less precise

5. Basis of comparison • Carbon intensity per energy output • Annual emissions Not suitable for material use Cascade use (all burdens to first life) Catch crops, crop rotation  shift of emissions Allocation • Energy content • Exclusion of agricultural co-products

6. Specialities of palm oil • Used as food, raw material and energy source • Yield (PO 3.7, rapeseed 0.6; soja 0.4 t/ha) • World production 45-50 Mt • 86% occurs in Malaysia and Indonesia • Export (approx. 80%) • 250.000 ha/a  3. GHG-emitter

7. Diesel Pesticides Fertilizer Fertilizer 22 kg Compost Compost Diesel Water Fibre Shells Electr . Steam Diesel Agricultural residues EU-RED Annex 5 (18) Exclusion of nut shells, husk, etc Input Input Process Process Output Output Diesel Diesel Pesticides Pesticides Plantation Plantation FFB FFB 1000 kg 1000 kg Fertilizer Fertilizer 22 kg 22 kg Products Products Compost Compost CPO CPO Diesel Diesel Oil Oil mill mill Kernel Kernel Water Water By By - - Products Products Energy Shells EFB EFB POME POME Fibre Fibre Shells Shells Electr Electr . . Steam Steam 230 kg 230 kg 650 kg 650 kg carrier Emissions Emissions 0.07 L 0.07 L Compost Compost Biogas Biogas Air Air Power plant Power plant Biogas Biogas Diesel Diesel plant plant plant plant Water Water Soil Soil 8.7 m 8.7 m ³ ³ CH CH 4 4 Compost Compost Ash Ash 92 kg 92 kg

8. CH4 from POME • Default value 27 g/MJ (1.5 times higher) • CH4 capture - Yes or no • No difference between flaring and utilisation • Use of biogas hampered by exclusion of by-products (nut shells) • Efficiency of biogas capture is not considered (THREAT: leackage can outbalance the benefits)

9. Biowaste management Biowaste “treatment” on palm oil plantations 35% GHG reduction 50% reduction 1 t FFB = 0.2 t palm oil;  150 – 1125 kg CO2eq. per t Palm oil  4 – 30 g CO2eq/MJ Biodiesel: 37 g CO2eq/MJ Currently not specified in palm oil production systems according to EU-RED

10. Indirect emissions • Nitrogen fertiliser production18 g N2O per kg N (average without N2O removal) • After implementation of catalytic N2O reduction measures in Western Europe9 g N2O per kg N (current average) • Technically possible 3 g N2O per kg N (future average in Western Europe) • In comparison approx. 10 g N2O is formed per kg N applied • Emission intensive fertiliser production is treated preferentially if Global default values are used; consequently GHG reduction from imported biomass might be overestimated

11. Direct emissions • Organic Nitrogen is currently excluded in GHG calculations(examples in Annex V) • IPCC 2006 Guidelines (table 11.1), the default emission factor is 1% of applied (inorganic and organic) N. • Example total N demand per t palm oil: 25 kg N, thereof 3,7 kg „returned“ • 15% N input is not considered and consequently nitrous oxide from this input is also not taken into account Advantage: Nutrient recycling is fostered; simplified approach Disadvantage: GHG emission savings are overestimated

12. 4,9 5 4,4 3,9 4 3,7 3,4 3,3 3,0 3 Area [M ha] 2,5 2 1,2 1 0,7 0 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Land use change - Indonesia Assuming 100 t CO2e/ha = 25 Mt CO2e= 50% GHG German agriculture Mit 100 t CO2e/ha = 25 Mt CO2e = 50% THG LW in D.

13. Context 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 Palm oil [1000*t] 10000 8000 9% 16% 1% 6% 6000 4000 55% 38% 2000 6% 0 India/China EU- Indonesia Malaysia EU-27 EU-Food EU-Energy Industry 18075 16100 14150 5400 2988 2100 312

14. Limited resource - Oil

15. Limited resource - P

16. Limits • National versus international responsibilitywho is contributing what to which extent • Influence sphere • Default values versus „real values“, management practise • Lack of knowledge – organic nitrogen, soil carbon • Focus on GHG  blind spots • Crude oil and phosphorous are limited

17. Conclusions • Do we want to be accurate or comparable?Indirect land use change, soil carbon storage • Technology - European average values for developing countries? • Right incentives for imported biomass? • Simplification - overestimation of savings • For imported biomassLearning curve yes, but GHG savings?