August 2010 Interim Report
Download
1 / 63

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

August 2010 Interim Report Subgroup 2: Issues Related to Co-Product Credit s Presented to the LCFS Expert Workgroup August 17, 2010 Sacramento, CA. Subgroup 2 Membership. Alan Glabe, ARB Staff Phil Heirigs, Chevron (Subgroup Chair) Paul Hodson/Oyvind Vessia, European Commission

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 '' - zamora


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
Slide1 l.jpg

August 2010 Interim ReportSubgroup 2:Issues Related to Co-Product CreditsPresented to the LCFS Expert Workgroup August 17, 2010Sacramento, CA

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE --


Subgroup 2 membership l.jpg
Subgroup 2 Membership

  • Alan Glabe, ARB Staff

  • Phil Heirigs, Chevron (Subgroup Chair)

  • Paul Hodson/Oyvind Vessia, European Commission

  • Stephen Kaffka, U.C. Davis

  • Don O’Connor, (S&T)2

  • Mark Stowers, POET, Inc.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Three main tasks were outlined in the scope of work for this subgroup l.jpg
Three Main Tasks were Outlined in the Scope of Work for this Subgroup

  • Task 1: Identify methodologies and inputs used to assess co-product impacts in ARB’s current carbon intensity estimates and those used in other researchers’ LCA modeling

  • Task 2: Identify, prioritize, and analyze issues related to co-product impacts that can be addressed in the short-term

  • Task 3: Identify, prioritize, and analyze issues related to co-product impacts that can be addressed in the long-term

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide4 l.jpg

Task 1: Identify Methodologies and Inputs Used to Assess Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

  • Work continues on compiling information on the treatment of co-products in various LCA evaluations. This is taking the form of a spreadsheet table that identifies the fuel pathway, co-products from that pathway, the co-product accounting method and assumptions, value of the credit, and the basis for the estimates.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Accounting for co products l.jpg
Accounting for Co-Products Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

  • Displacement/Substitution – In this method, co-products emissions are accounted for by estimating the emissions associated with a substitute product (e.g., excess electricity from sugarcane ethanol displaces electricity that would otherwise be generated for the grid). This results in a numerical credit that is subtracted from the total emissions of the pathway.

  • Allocation – In this method, emissions are allocated across all products of the process according to the mass, energy, or economic value of the products. This approach is often used when there is no clear product vs. co-product in a process (e.g., oil refining).

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Task 1 progress co product treatment in the lcfs dry mill corn ethanol l.jpg

Phil Heirigs Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

Task 1 ProgressCo-Product Treatment in the LCFSDry Mill Corn Ethanol

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Task 1 progress co product treatment in the lcfs wet mill corn ethanol l.jpg

Phil Heirigs Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

Task 1 ProgressCo-Product Treatment in the LCFSWet Mill Corn Ethanol

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Task 1 progress co product treatment in the lcfs soy biodiesel sugarcane ethanol l.jpg

Phil Heirigs Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

Task 1 ProgressCo-Product Treatment in the LCFSSoy BiodieselSugarcane Ethanol

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Iso 14044 life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

ISO 14044 Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines

  • Allocation procedures shall be uniformly applied to similar inputs and outputs of the system under consideration.

  • Wherever possible, allocation should be avoided by:

    > Dividing the unit process to be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the input and output data related to these sub-processes, or

    > Expanding the product system to include the additional functions related to the co-products.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Iso 14044 life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines continued l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

ISO 14044 Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines (Continued)

  • Where allocation cannot be avoided, the inputs and outputs of the system should be:

    > partitioned between its different products or functions in a way that reflects the underlying physical relationships between them (mass or energy).

    • Where physical relationships alone cannot be established or used as the basis for allocation, the inputs should be:

      > allocated between the products and functions in a way that reflects other relationships between them (economic).

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Current situation for co product accounting l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

Current Situation for Co-Product Accounting

  • Direct emissions are:

    > sometimes allocated by displacement (corn ethanol),

    > sometimes by mass (soybean biodiesel),

    > sometimes by energy value (soybean biodiesel), and

    > sometimes by process energy (gasoline and diesel fuel).

  • Indirect emissions are:

    > determined by displacement but some displacement is determined based on economics and not on physical displacement.

  • For compliance with ISO LCA Standards there should be more consistency in the approach taken.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide12 l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling

Brander et al., 2009. Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. Econometrica Presswww.econometrica.co.uk

“Allocation methods are required where a single process produces two or more products, and the emissions from the process need to be allocated between the outputs. ALCA allocates emissions by economic value, energy content or mass, whereas CLCA avoids allocation by using system expansion.

System expansion involves identifying the products which are substituted by the co-products of the product studied; then quantifying the emissions associated with the substituted products; and deducting the results from the total for the multifunctional process.

Identifying the correct products that are substituted by co-products can have a large impact on the results of consequential LCA. A recent CLCA for soybean meal reported 721 gCO2e/kg of soybean meal if palm oil is the marginal oil, or 344 gCO2e/kg of soybean meal if rape seed oil is the marginal oil (Dalgaard et al 2008). Identifying the correct marginal product is often dependent on the judgment of the LCA practitioner, and therefore reduces the certainty of the results.”

Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., and Pengue, W. A. “LCA of Soybean Meal”, Int. J. Life Cycle Anal. 13, (3), 2008, pp. 240 – 254.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide13 l.jpg

August 2010 Interim Report Co-Product Impacts in ARB’s Current Carbon Intensity Estimates and those Used in Other Researchers’ LCA Modeling Subgroup 2: Issues Related to Co-Product CreditsTask 2: Identify, Prioritize, and Analyze IssuesRelated to Co-Product Impacts that can beAddressed in the Short-Term

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide14 l.jpg
Task 2: Identify, Prioritize, and Analyze Issues Related to Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Work continues on the high priority issues identified in the work plan:

  • Diet substitution effects/displacement ratios for co-products used in animal feed: Meetings were held on June 30 and July 26 with a number of animal nutrition and feed experts. We are likely to hold one more meeting to wrap-up this issue.

  • Treatment of co-products in GTAP and GREET: In progress.

  • Co-product issues related to soy oil: Don O’Connor has prepared a summary of the issue.

  • Co-product treatment for other virgin oils: In progress; will be discussed during next meeting with feed experts.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Diet substitution effects displacement ratios l.jpg
Diet Substitution Effects/Displacement Ratios Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

  • ARB’s analysis of dry mill corn ethanol utilizes a displacement/substitution approach to account for distiller’s grains and solubles (DGS) in which 1 lb. of DGS is assumed to displace 1 lb. of feed corn.

  • Research by other parties indicates that:

    > DGS typically displaces both feed corn and soybean meal (SBM) in animal rations (as well as other nutrition components).

    > For some animals (e.g., beef cattle), DGS may displace feed corn and SBM on a greater than 1:1 basis (by mass).

    > For example, the current version of Argonne’s GREET model assumes that 1 lb. of DGS displaces 0.947 lb. of feed corn, 0.303 lb. of SBM, and 0.025 lb. of urea (note that domestic vs. export displacement ratios were developed for GREET1.8d).

  • Because assumptions regarding displacement of feed corn and SBM by DGS impact both direct and indirect emissions estimates, this was identified as a high priority item by the Co-Products Subgroup.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Animal feed and nutrition invited experts participating in the june 30 july 26 meetings l.jpg
Animal Feed and Nutrition Invited Experts Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermParticipating in the June 30/July 26 Meetings

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Summary of june 30 2010 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting uc davis and via conference call l.jpg
Summary of June 30, 2010 Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermAnimal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting(UC Davis and via Conference Call)

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


June 30 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting fred owens pioneer hi bred international l.jpg
June 30 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermFred Owens, Pioneer Hi-Bred International

  • High variability of DGS is a concern; feedlots want a material that is consistent as possible to prevent metabolic upsets in animals.

  • Waste management of phosphorus is a concern. Corn hybrids differ in phosphorus level, and therefore DGS differs in phosphorus level.

  • Nutritional value of DGS varies as a function of extent of fermentation (i.e., residual starch), amount of solubles added to DGS solids, and whether oil is removed during processing.

  • For swine, data indicate that particle size impacts digestibility; smaller particles = more efficient use of feed.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


June 30 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting galen erickson university of nebraska lincoln l.jpg
June 30 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermGalen Erickson, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

  • The UNL work shows that wet DGS is used more efficiently than dry DGS for inclusion rates ranging from 20% to 40% on a dry-matter basis.

  • Depending on inclusion rate (10 to 40%) and whether dry, modified, or wet, DGS displaced from 110% to 150% of corn in beef cattle diets on a dry matter basis.

  • For dairy cattle, 1 kg DGS replaces 0.45 kg corn and 0.55 kg SBM (from Schingoethe, 2008).

  • For finishing pigs, 1 kg of DGS replaces 0.57 kg corn and 0.43 kg SBM (from Stein, 2008).

  • The greatest displacement is for wet DGS fed to beef cattle (1.28 to 1.45 ratio).

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


June 30 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting kirk klasing uc davis l.jpg
June 30 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermKirk Klasing, UC Davis

  • Dr. Klasing presented information on non-ruminants (e.g., poultry and swine), as much of the discussion during the first meeting was centered on dairy and beef cattle.

    > These animals are late in “coming to the party” with respect to DGS use.

    > Use of DGS for poultry has come on strong in the past few years; most growers use about 10% DGS in poultry rations.

    > There has also been a large increase in the use of DGS in swine operations over the last two to three years.

    > However, young animals do not utilize DGS well, and DGS is typically used for finishing for poultry and swine.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Summary of july 26 2010 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting uc davis and via conference call l.jpg
Summary of July 26, 2010 Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermAnimal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting(UC Davis and via Conference Call)

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


July 26 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting jerry shurson university of minnesota l.jpg
July 26 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermJerry Shurson, University of Minnesota

  • Estimated DGS market share across animal types: dairy (42%), beef (38%), swine (14%), and poultry (6%).

  • Opportunity for increased DGS use for swine and poultry exists, particularly during periods of high grain prices. Economics, DGS supply, and research to develop solutions for overcoming nutritional barriers for increased DGS use will influence future market penetration of DGS.

  • Current DGS inclusion rates range from 10-20% for lactating diary cows, 20-40% for beef cattle, 10-40% for swine, and 5-30% for poultry.

  • Estimated displacement ratios:

    > Dairy = 1.364 (0.731 corn; 0.633 SBM)

    > Beef = 1.252 (1.196 corn; 0.056 urea)

    > Swine = 1.000 (0.669 corn; 0.295 SBM; + trace nutrients)

    > Poultry = 0.997 (0.589 corn; 0.446 SBM; + trace nutrients)

    > Overall Average = 1.249 (compares to 1.271 from 2008 GREET analysis)

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


July 26 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting michael wang argonne national laboratory l.jpg
July 26 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermMichael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory

  • Argonne first investigated co-product credits for DGS in the late-1990s.

  • Displacement ratios were updated in 2008, but they have since discovered that they need to update their 2008 estimates (paper in review).

  • Two aspects of co-product displacement ratios to consider:

    (1) the direct credit that can be calculated within GREET (more corn displaced = larger co-product credit); and

    (2) the impact on iLUC estimates because of the displacement effect (more SBM displaced = less of an indirect impact).

    • Dr. Wang noted that they are not feed experts, but they need co-product estimates for LCA purposes.

    • GREET is a bottom-up model, and they are still unsure if a bottom-up approach to feed co-products reflects the marketplace. Perhaps the way to get to a resolution of the issue is looking at both bottom-up and top-down methods.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


July 26 animal feed and nutrition expert meeting may wu argonne national laboratory l.jpg
July 26 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermMay Wu, Argonne National Laboratory

  • Dr. Wu discussed Argonne’s latest displacement ratio estimates:

    > Used data from board-invited reviews for beef (Klopfenstein, 2008), dairy (Schingoethe, 2009), and swine (Stein and Shurson, 2009), which covered a much broader range of studies than Argonne’s 2008 report. The inclusion rate and performance evaluation were based on recommendations from these reviews.

    > Swine – inclusion rate increased to 20%; same performance as conventional feed.

    > Dairy – remains 20% inclusion rate; no performance change based on the 2009 review by Dr. Schingoethe.

    > Beef – remains 20% and 40% inclusion rate for dry and wet DGS respectively; 1.313 displacement ratio. Slight change in numbers due to recalculated market share.

    > Added poultry – inclusion rate of 10%; displacement ratio similar to that used in Dr. Shurson’s analysis (~ 1).

    > Considered displacement of corn, SBM, and urea based on the above assumptions; did not consider phosphates.

  • They are still finding uncertainties in their estimates, especially in consumption reporting which is very inconsistent

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide25 l.jpg
July 26 Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meeting Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermPresentation by Don O’Connor, (S&T)2“Top-Down” Assessment of DGS Displacement Ratios

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Top down approach to displacement ratios l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Top Down Approach to Displacement Ratios

  • In earlier EWG meetings, CARB emphasized the need for data to support alternative DDG displacement ratio.

  • USDA reports feed usage data but it excludes co-products from fuel ethanol.

  • Nevertheless the dataset is informative and can be adjusted to include ethanol co-products.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Usda dataset results l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

USDA Dataset Results

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Data set issues l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Data Set Issues

  • Two of the main issues with this dataset are:

    • DDG from fuel ethanol plants and co-products from wet milling fuel plants are not included, although co-products from wet milling plants producing food products are included.

    • Feed usage is not typically measured but it calculated from production and other measured disappearances. This means that there can be some year to year variability due to harvest timing. Each of the feedstuffs also has a slightly different starting point for the year.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Revised dataset results l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Revised Dataset Results

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Dataset analysis l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Dataset Analysis

  • Using the revised dataset, a comparison of the three year average feed consumption in 1999-2002 (to reduce year to year variability in the feed estimates) to the most recent year of data (2009) can be made.

  • The 1999-2002 data was normalized to the same number of GCAU as the recent dataset (although there is very little increase in GCAU over this time period) and then the change in energy feeds and other low protein by-product feeds (mostly corn) and protein feeds (mostly soybean meal) was compared to the increase in DG use.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Results l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Results

  • The results were that for every unit of DG used, the energy feeds decreased by 1.12 units and the protein feeds decreased by 0.12 units, for a total reduction of 1.24 units of feed for every unit of DG consumed.

  • Generally consistent with other bottom up calculations with the exception that less SBM was displaced.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Key take aways from the june 30 and july 26 animal feed and nutrition expert meetings l.jpg
Key Take-Aways from the Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermJune 30 and July 26Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meetings

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Animal feed and nutrition expert meetings key take aways l.jpg
Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meetings Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermKey Take-Aways...

  • With respect to displacement of animal feed by DGS:

    > Some animal species see an increase in feed efficiency when DGS is used and some do not.

    > For some species DGS will replace SBM as well as corn and in other species it will not.

    > For species that show an increase in feed efficiency (e.g., beef cattle), DGS primarily replaces corn.

  • Recent studies show DGS displacement ratios for dairy cattle are roughly 1:1 on a mass basis. This value impacts the overall displacement of feed corn and SBM by DGS.

  • High DGS inclusion rates may reduce efficiency in some animals because corn oil interferes with ruminant nutrition; some studies have shown a decrease in efficiency for lactating dairy cows at DGS inclusion rates above 8% - 10%.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Animal feed and nutrition expert meetings key take aways continued l.jpg
Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meetings Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermKey Take-Aways... (continued)

  • The forage diet used in conjunction with DGS should be accounted for in estimating impacts (e.g., corn stocks and other AG residue).

  • The ultimate mix of feed material depends on economics and is regionally specific:

    > California dairy rations may contain 15-20 ingredients.

    > Real-world feed rations are developed based on LP models that minimize cost, thus, it is difficult to extrapolate research studies to practice.

    > The feed industry is dynamic and highly dependent on prices of feed ingredients; feed mfrs will formulate on a weekly basis. Information on feed rations is not reported by feed mfrs, which makes it difficult to obtain real-world data.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Animal feed and nutrition expert meetings key take aways continued35 l.jpg
Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meetings Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermKey Take-Aways... (continued)

  • Inclusion rates for DGS could ultimately be constrained by elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which lead to manure management issues.

  • With respect to saturation of the U.S. DGS market:

    > Although saturation may become a regional issue, it is thought that DGS at the 15 BGY level can be absorbed into the U.S. feed market because it displaces soybean meal (SBM) and there is strong worldwide demand for SBM.

    > While the domestic market is important to address, the export market needs attention; we have much less understanding of DGS used in other countries.

  • An open question moving forward is whether the nutritional value of DGS (and corresponding displacement ratios) will change as corn hybrids are formulated to maximize ethanol yield.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Animal feed and nutrition expert meetings key take aways continued36 l.jpg
Animal Feed and Nutrition Expert Meetings Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermKey Take-Aways... (continued)

  • There remains a difference in opinion and concern among the animal feed and nutrition experts regarding the translation of research results on displacement values to the real world.

  • Among the issues that need to be addressed are:

    > How roughage is handled (and changed) when DGS is fed.

    > Whether DGS is fed wet or dry (note that Argonne has developed a dry vs. wet split).

    > How the protein source replaced by DGS is handled (e.g., urea, SBM, cottonseed meal, etc.).

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS?

  • By-product feeding is based on least-cost, ration balancing (optimization) models which integrate the use of diverse feeds based on species-specific nutritional objectives and price. Optimum solutions change constantly due to price, learning (formal research and industry trial and error) and other non-obvious localized constraints. Most rations for ruminants are optimized for energy density targets, secondarily for protein and other critical components.

  • This issue is especially complicated in CA, where numerous by-products are available and fed (> 15 commonly in dairy rations). Currently, for example, a large amount of canola meal is being used in CA.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs38 l.jpg
How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS? Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Steve Kaffka

This means that the feeding value of a by-product feed depends on the feeding values of the other feeds used in the ration and the animal species, and is not absolute. Learning is involved. Actual performance is difficult to predict in high performing ruminant animals, perhaps less so in monogastric animals like poultry and swine.

Substitution ratios are used in LCA to indicate the effect of using DDGS instead of corn and soybean meal in livestock rations. Currently, GREET uses a ratio of 1.27:1 for DDGS fed to beef and dairy cattle. Previously, this ratio was 1:1.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Comparative feeds feeding values nrc 1989 l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Comparative Feeds/Feeding Values (NRC, 1989)

DM: dry matter; TDN: total digestible nutrients; CP: crude protein; NEL : Net energy (lactation); NDF: neutral detergent fiber.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


As fed rations on california dairies high groups p h robinson an feed sci tech in press l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

As-fed Rations on California Dairies: High GroupsP.H. Robinson (An. Feed Sci. Tech., in press)

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


As fed rations on california dairies high groups p h robinson an feed sci tech in press41 l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

As-fed Rations on California Dairies: High GroupsP.H. Robinson (An. Feed Sci. & Tech., in press)

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE

*beet pulp + barley / ** linseed meal


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs42 l.jpg
How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS? Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Steve Kaffka

From the perspective of ration balancing, there is no large substitution effect to be achieved. Rations with DDGS and without DDGS can be (and are) created to achieve the same livestock performance targets.

But by-product feeds do displace purpose-grown feed crops. The proper questions are (1) how many acres of crops are displaced, and (2) what GHG savings can be attributed to that displacement?

Given the dynamic nature of livestock feeding and the diversity of feed options available, this is also difficult to determine with certainty. Actual feed usage at the national scale provides one coarse approach to estimation.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs43 l.jpg
How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS? Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Steve Kaffka

Substitution ratios are used in LCA to indicate the effect of using DDGS instead of corn and soybean meal in livestock rations. Currently, GREET uses a ratio of 1.27:1 for DDGS fed to beef and dairy cattle. Previously, this ratio was 1:1.

In reality, the substitution depends on the ration used for comparison. Adding an energy rich feed to an energy deficient diet will appear to provide an increase in livestock performance (substitution ratio > 1.0), but if comparably optimized diets are compared, this ratio will remain essentially 1:1.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs44 l.jpg
How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS? Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Steve Kaffka

The LCFS depends on the idea that GHG can be determined with sufficient certainty that a particular biofuel can be determined to reduce the GHG intensity of a transport fuel.

In the area of by-product feeding, substitution ratios cannot be determined with finality or sufficient certainty.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Issues related to translating diet substitution effects displacement ratios into gtap model inputs l.jpg
Issues Related to Translating Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermDiet Substitution Effects/Displacement Ratiosinto GTAP Model Inputs

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Gtap modeling of diet substitution effects displacement ratios l.jpg
GTAP Modeling of Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermDiet Substitution Effects/Displacement Ratios

Don O’Connor

Even if the physical displacement ratios can be determined there remains the issue of translating those into GTAP, which uses elasticity parameters to determine the substitution of DDG with corn and protein meals. The change in price of DDG determines the substitution rate for the competing feeds.

DDG selling price is the price which matches the supply and demand. The value of DDG is different in the different market segments depending on what is being displaced. The price is set by the lowest value market segment. For the other market segments, value is transferred from the producer to the consumer.

Therefore DDG price alone may not allow the model to determine what is physically displaced and thus provide the real changes in land demand.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Issues related to gtap modeling of soy biodiesel presentation by don o connor s t 2 l.jpg
Issues Related to GTAP Modeling of Soy Biodiesel Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermPresentation by Don O’Connor, (S&T)2

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Soybean biodiesel co products l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Soybean Biodiesel Co-Products

  • The modeling that was done for soybean biodiesel has some fundamental economic issues.

    • The crush margin (value of the products less the cost of inputs) goes negative in the modelled scenario. Soybean meal price drops by 44%.

    • Soybean meal prices in linked economies are vastly different.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Crush margins l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Crush Margins

Negative crush margins are not possible in a sustainable environment.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Regional variation l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Regional Variation

  • Soybean meal is traded internationally.

  • Price in various global centres differs by the transportation costs.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Gtap results sbm price l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

GTAP Results SBM Price

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Which is the co product l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Which is the Co-Product?

  • When the animal nutrition experts were asked what happens in a world with increased supply of DDG and SBM, they said there is strong international demand for SBM.

  • What happens when GTAP is shocked for an equivalent increase in SBM instead of SBO?

    • Both scenarios require additional soybeans to be grown but do they respond the same way?

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Issues related to co product treatment for other virgin oils l.jpg
Issues Related to Co-Product Treatment for Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermOther Virgin Oils

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Feeding oilseed meals l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Feeding Oilseed Meals

  • Soybean, Canola, Palm, Other

  • Variation in quality depending on crop species and processing methods

  • Role of oilseed meals in ruminant diets and monogastric diets will be different.

  • Different substitution ratios will be appropriate and necessary

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide55 l.jpg

Example: Potential markets for Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermCamelina oil and oilseed meal

Pilgeram et al., 2007.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide56 l.jpg

August 2010 Interim Report Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermSubgroup 2: Issues Related to Co-Product CreditsTask 3: Identify, Prioritize, and HighlightResearch Needs for Co-Product Issues to beEvaluated in the Long-Term

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


New products l.jpg

Don O’Connor Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

New Products

  • Markets are always changing and responding to new opportunities and threats.

  • Glycerine from biodiesel production world wide has led to the closure of most synthetic glycerine production facilities.

  • Continuing increase in supply result in opportunities.

    • 100,000 tpy glycerine to propylene glycol facility has been built and is being commissioned.

    • This will take the production from about 430 million gallons of biodiesel.

    • GHG emissions from bio-process are 1.72 kg CO2eq/kg PG vs. 8.61 for petroleum based process. GHG savings are about 12.2 g/MJ biodiesel vs. 0.24 by energy allocation.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Future directions in biofuel processing and co products l.jpg

Mark Stowers Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Future Directions inBiofuel Processing and Co-Products

  • New Co-Products

    • Corn Oil, as a biodiesel feedstock

    • Zein protein, as a petrochemical feedstock replacement

    • DDG(S) as filler (replacing high density polyethylene)

    • Energy from land-fill gas or biomass

  • Future Co-Products

    • Petrochemical replacements

      • Fermentation products using carbohydrate in DDG(S) such as lactic acid, succinic acid

      • Use of corn oil to offset petrochemicals

    • Lignin and other waste stream components for biogas, steam or electricity production

    • Lignin as a bio-based petrochemical replacement

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE

Source: POET Company Information


Slide59 l.jpg

Steve Kaffka Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Integrated Biorefineries: Biorefineries are similar to petroleum refineries in concept; however, biorefineries use biological matter (as opposed to petroleum or other fossil sources) to produce transportation fuels, chemicals, and heat and power_NREL

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Slide60 l.jpg

Potential future cellulosic biorefinery- Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Termmodified

Feedstock chemicals

Pyrolysis

Biochar

Pyrolysis oils

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Biorefinery process schematic l.jpg
Biorefinery PROCESS Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term(schematic)

A proposed new bio-refinery for California

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


How to calculate ghg values for the lcfs62 l.jpg
How to calculate GHG values for the LCFS? Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-Term

Steve Kaffka

Bio-refineries, with multiple inputs and multiple products, complicate LCA. For multi-feedstock, multi-product biorefineries, the difficulties associated with LCA are more complex than for a single feedstock-fuel pathway. Methodological difficulties have not been resolved, but are more difficult for consequential analysis, which with respect to biofuels and the reality of by-product feeding, may be more appropriate, but much more difficult and uncertain.

ARB uses attributional LCA to estimate direct GHG intensity values for individual biofuels. In contrast, US EPA uses consequential analysis for this purpose.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


Co products subgroup remaining effort l.jpg
Co-Products Subgroup Co-Product Impacts that can be Addressed in the Short-TermRemaining Effort

  • Hold one more meeting with feed experts.

  • Continue assessment/comparison of co-products treatment in GREET and GTAP.

  • Continue with Task 1 comparison of co-product treatment across fuel pathways and researchers.

  • Continue discussion of attributional vs. consequential LCA.

17-AUG-2010 INTERIM WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE EWG -- DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE


ad