presented at the joint iea bioenergy exco/nordic energy workshop biofuels for transport – part of...
Post on 26-Mar-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
presented at the Joint IEA Bioenergy ExCo/Nordic Energy Workshop “Biofuels for Transport – Part of A Sustainable Future?”
Oslo, May 14, 2008
Uwe R. FritscheCoordinator, Energy & Climate Division
Öko-Institut e.V. (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt Office
Environmental Issues of Biofuels
private, non-profit environmental research, founded in 1977; staff > 100 in 2006; local to global scope of (net)work
Öko-Institut
Research Divisions
Energy & Climate
Industry & Infrastructure
Nuclear &Plant Safety
Products & Material Flows
Governance & Environmental
Law
Freiburg OfficeDarmstadt Office
Berlin Office
Sustainable Energy
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 … 2100
Glo
ba
l Pri
ma
ry E
ne
rgy
in E
J/y
ea
r
EE
geoth.
solar
wind
biomass
hydro
nuclear
gas
coal
oil
solar transition
energy efficiency
bioenergy challenge
Source: IEA (2007), IPCC (2007), UNPD (2004) and WBGU (2003)
Sustainable Bioenergy
Source: IEA (2007), and Best et al. (2008)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
2005 2030-REF 2030-AP
Pri
mar
y E
ner
gy
Su
pp
ly in
m
illio
n t
on
nes
oil
equ
ival
ent
[MtO
E]
-50
100
250
400
550
700
850
Pri
ma
ry E
ne
rgy
Su
pp
ly in
E
xa
Jo
ule
[E
J]
transport fuels other
World Energy Outlook Global Bioenergy Potential
0
20000
low high
pasture land
arable land
degraded land
residues, wastes
0
20000
low high
pasture land
arable land
degraded land
residues, wastes
low high
• Bioenergy could have positive impacts:
– GHG reduction (through fossil-fuel substition);
– more agrobiodiversity; soil carbon increase, less erosion …
• But impacts could also be negative:
– GHG from cultivation, soil carbon, life-cycle, direct + indirect land-use changes
– Loss of biodiversity from land-use changes, water use, agrochemicals, erosion…
Environmental Issues
Consider all Bioenergy Flows
Source: www.eea.europa.eu
Biodiversity & Climate Change
Global Biomass Potential
Source: IIASA, Kraxner 2007, Rokiyanskiy et al. 2006
Global Biodiversity
Source: UNEP IMAPS
Global Loss of Forests
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment
Endangered Biodiversity
Countries with highest number of globally threatened birds
Source: Lambertini 2006
Biodiversity & Agriculture
Number of Species
New agro policies
Biodiversity and HNV Farming
Source: JRC/EEA 2006 (Proceedings Sust. Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)
Examples of HNV farming which could become „extinct“ due to direct or indirect intensification:Dehesas/Montados in Portugal/Spain
Land Use and Biodiversity
Areas of high natural conservation value (HNV)
Degraded land and “idle” land
Used landUnused land
Protected area
Potential for biomass: no competition with food, no displacement, increase organic C in soils, but: risk for biodiversity if not properly mapped
Map “key” biodiversity areas
Protected Areas (PA) HNCV Areas (not yet PA) Forests and wetlands
Global and national land cover maps
- GIS data based on LCCS, update available in March 2008 (FAO, 300 m resolution)
- National land cover mapping (high resolution)- Change detection possible for monitoring
PA+HNV areas are “no-go” other areas might be suitable for biomass development, depending of further qualification (water, social issues…)
satellite monitoring possible
Screening with criteria
Water and Soil
• Water Use of (Bioenergy) Farming Systems
– Model and data research ongoing
– Spatial data are key, but (yet) unclear
• Soil Impacts
– Mapping of biophysical soil properties
– Qualitative Impact Definition (for farming systems/AEZ)
– Quantification?
More from FAO BIAS Project (mid-2008)
Which Standards?
Land Use/Biodiversity + GHG reduction have global scope + global conventions “WTO compatible“ EU currently implements these standards in mandatory certification schemes for biofuels
Standards: EU
• RES + FQ Directive proposals establish mandatory sustainability requirements for production of biofuels
• Minimum GHG reduction, incl. CO2 from direct land-use change
• Protection of natural habitats
• No “relevant” reduction of biological/ecosystem diversity
35% reduction
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
kg C
O2-
eq. p
er G
J b
iofu
el
direct land use change
production of biomass
transport of biomass
conversion step I
transport betw. conv. steps
conversion step II
transport to admixture
322 kg CO2-Eq./GJ
fossil reference: gasoline: 85 kg/GJ diesel: 86.2 kg/GJ
Ethanol from
corn sugar cane
FAME from
rapeseed oil soy bean oil palm oilwheat
tropicalrainforest
humid savannah
grasslandgrassland
GHG Defaults incl. direct LUC
Indirect LUC
Source: based on Girard (GEF-STAP Biofuels Workshop, New Delhi 2005)
Food & feed crops
Protected& otherhigh-nature value areas
Energy crops/ plantations
Loss of biodiversity
Forests, wetlands
Deforestation,carbon release
„unused“ land(marginal, degraded)
?
GHG from indirect LUC
• Displacement = generic problem of restricted system boundaries
– Accounting problem of partial analysis („just“ biofuels, no explicite modelling of agro + forestry sectors)
– All incremental land-uses imply indirect effects
• Analytical and political implications
– Analysis: which displacement when & where?
– Policy: which instruments? Partial certification schemes do not help, but have „spill-over“ effects
Indirect GHG: „iLUC Factor“
Accounting for CO2 from indirect land-use change using the “iLUC factor“ (aka “risk adder“) in GHG balances of biofuels*
*= By-product allocation using lower heating value; iLUC factor is zero for residues/wastes and for biocrops from unused/degraded lands
biofuel route, life-cycle max med min max med minRapeseed to FAME, EU 260 188 117 201% 118% 35%palmoil to FAME, ID 84 64 45 -3% -25% -48%soyoil to FAME, Brazil 101 76 51 17% -12% -41%sugarcane to EtOH, Brazil 48 42 36 -44% -52% -59%maize to EtOH, USA 129 101 72 50% 17% -16%wheat to EtOH, EU 144 110 77 67% 28% -11%SRC/SG to BtL, EU 109 75 42 26% -13% -51%SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, tropical 34 25 17 -61% -71% -80%SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, savannah 59 42 25 -32% -51% -71%
relative to fossil diesel/gasoline,
including conversion/by-products, without direct LUC including conversion/by-products
kg CO2eq/GJ with iLUC factor
EtOH sugarcane RME (rapeseed in EU)
A conservative: conversion of savannah
B real: replacing soy cropping
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
kg C
O2-
Eq
. per
GJ
Bio
fuel
PME Palm oil
Direct LUC:
A
B
A
A
C
C
C
B
B
C= B + iLUC factor
indirect LUC:
D
D: total
Direct LUC:
C =zero iLUC factor
indirect LUC: Direct LUC:
C= B + iLUC factor
indirect LUC:
land use change
production of biomass
transport of biomass
conversion step I
transport betw. conv. steps
conversion step II
transport to admixture
A conservative: conversion trop. rain forest
B real: conversion of degraded land
A conservative: conversion of pasture
B real: replacing wheat crops (small reduction of soil C)
BSO Default
Practical example (non-default)
D
D
D: total
D: total
GHG from LUC: Default vs. real
Conclusions
• GHG emissions become key issue in biofuels trade; certification needed up from 2010 for EU market access; will become linked to CDM
• GHG must include (real) direct land-use changes, and GHG from indirect LUC need „risk hedging“
• Methods for verification of GHG from direct LUC need elaboration and harmonization
• GHG limits for biofuels also reduce (but not avoid) risk of negative biodiversity impacts; mapping of HNV areas (also in degraded lands) needed
• Soil/water restrictions need more attention, but bioenergy also opportunity
Conclusions (2)
• So far, only few developing countries deal with life-cycle GHG emissions of biofuels, and biodiversity + social issues (BR, MZ…)
• Need to actively support countries in dealing with sustainability standards, and certification; role UNEP/GBEP Task Forces
• Biogas/biomethane have low GHG profile, but often ignored need more attention
Sustainable Biomass
Good practice: Agroforestry in Southern Ruanda – food, fiber and fuel from integrated systems
More than Jatropha…
Source: JRC/EEA 2006 (Proceedings Sust. Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)
More Information
www.oeko.de/service/biowww.oeko.de/service/bio
top related