global view on perspectives for biodiesel. · 2015. 7. 28. · global production 52.9 10.6 11.5...

Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation Management

Global view on perspectives for

biodiesel.

Biodiesel International Conference,

FAAP Convention Center, Armando Alvares Penteado

Foundation, Sao Paulo - Brazil, 18th November 2011

André Faaij Copernicus Institute – Utrecht University

Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40 CLA Bioenergy IPCC - SRREN


Biomass & bioenergy

flows according to IEA

+ other refs (2008)

[IPCC-

SRREN, 2011]


2050 Bioenergy Potentials &

Deployment Levels

2008 Global Energy Total

Chapter 2 Possible

Deployment Levels

2011 IPCC Review*

Land Use

3 and 5

million km 2

Chapter 10 Modelled

Deployment Levels for CO2 Concentration

Targets

Past Literature Range of Technical Potentials 0-1500 EJ

Glo

bal

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y Su

pp

ly, E

J/y

2008 Global Biomass Energy

2050 Global Energy AR4, 2007

2050 Global Biomass AR4,

2007

<440 ppm

440-600 ppm

Technical Potential

2050 Projections

Minimum

median 75th

Maximum

100

300

150 190

80

265 300

Technical Potential Based on 2008

Model and Literature Assessment

118

20 25

25th

Percentile

2000 Total Biomass Harvest for Food/Fodder/Fiber as Energy Content

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Global RE supply by source in Annex I

(ANI) and Non-Annex I (NAI) countries in

164 long-term scenarios (2030 and 2050).

Thick black line = median,

Coloured box = 25th-75th percentile,

Whiskers = total range across all reviewed scenarios.

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Global primary energy supply of biomass in

164 long-term scenarios in 2020, 2030 and

2050, grouped by different categories of

atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Range of LCOE for selected commercially

available RE technologies compared to

recent non-RE costs.

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Cost ranges various

current bioenergy systems.

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Projected production costs estimated

for selected developing technologies

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


GHG/MJ of major modern bioenergy chains vs.

conventional fossil fuel options

Excluding

(i)LUC

effects;

these can

have

strong

impacts

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Status iLUC (an opinion) • Diverging outcomes; more sophisticated approaches; from 0.8 to later analyses: 0.3 ->

0.2. • More detailed regional studies: depends highly (Fully…) on rate of improvement in

agricultural and livestock management. • CGE: extrapolates past developments, very sensitive to input data, poor in tackling

technological change… • iLUC is a reactive concept while we actually want to be proactive in avoiding it

altogether… • defining ilUC factors has received most attention versus very limited focus on

mitigation of iLUC

[Faaij, 2011]

Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation Management [IPCC-SRREN, 2011]

Driving forces, dimensions, scales…


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Lan

d a

rea (

Mh

a)

Rest

degraded land

immature palm oil

mature palm oil

permanent pastures

permanent crops w/o

palm oilarable land

grassland

shrubland and

savannahForest plantation

forest cover

LUC in Indonesia

[Wicke, et al., 2011, Land use policy]


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Lan

d a

re (

Mh

a)

forest cover Forest plantation

shrubland and savannah grassland

agricultural land mature palm oil

immature palm oil degraded land

rest

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

La

nd

are

(M

ha

)

forest cover Forest plantationshrubland and savannah grasslandagricultural land mature palm oilimmature palm oil degraded landrest

Sustainability –

Past trends (improved)

LUC until 2020 Indonesia

Projection Projection

Land

area

(Mha)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Lan

d a

re (

Mh

a)

forest cover Forest plantation

shrubland and savannah grassland

agricultural land mature palm oil

immature palm oil degraded land

rest

Business as Usual –

Provincial plans (base)

[Wicke, et al., 2011

(land use policy)]


GHG Balances and land conversion issues

Forested peatland: extremely

high emissions

Natural rainforest: high

emissions

Base case - Logged over

forest: emissions about half

of modern natural gas power

Degraded land: CO2 uptake

3372 g CO2-eq / kWh

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Ba

se

ca

se

Na

tura

l ra

in fo

rest

De

gra

de

d la

nd

Pe

atla

nd

fo

rest

Pe

atla

nd

gra

ss

Cla

us p

ow

er

pla

nt

Ave

rag

e D

utc

h

Mo

de

rn n

atu

ral g

as

Co

al

Ave

rag

e E

U

GH

G e

mis

sio

ns

(g

CO

2-e

q/k

Wh

CP

O)

Fossil reference electricity

production

CPO electricity

Cases

[Wicke, et al.,

Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]


Economic performance 2nd generation

biofuels s.t. & l.t.; 3 Euro/GJ feedstock

[Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006]


An ultimate energ transition

machine: flex-fuel IG/synfuel/power

+CCS

Power

Pre-treatment:

- grinding

- drying

feedstock is

poplar wood

Gasification:

- air or oxygen

- pressurised or

atmospheric

- direct/indirect

Gas cleaning:

- ‘wet’ cold or

‘dry’ hot

FT liquids

Offgas

Recycle loop

FT synthesis:

- slurry reactor

or fixed bed

Gas

turbine

Gas processing:

- reforming

- shift

- CO2

removal

Major investments in China.

- No oil for transport!

- 50 % biomass + CCS = net 0 CO2 emission.

About 50%

of carbon!

[See e.g Meerman et al. RSER, 2011]


Non commercial?

Yueyang

Sinopec-Shell

Coal gasification

project; (China)

Shell gasifier arriving

at site September 2006.

Few dozen licences in

China

Courtesy of Shell


GHG emissions per km

[Van Vliet et al, En Conv. & Mngt, 2009]


Direct and indirect energy use

algue production in open

(raceway) ponds

[Jonker & Faaij, Submitted for publication, 2011]


Cost breakdowns algue based biomass

(primary) for Raceway ponds and

Horizontal Tubular Systems

0

50

100

150

200

250

RWP heat RWP fuel RWP elec HTS heat HTS fuel HTS elec

To

tal

bio

en

erg

y p

rod

ucti

on

co

sts

[€/G

J] Bio-energy conversion

Harvesting

Cultivication

Total costs after reduction

[Jonker & Faaij, Submitted for publication, 2011]


Current main Shipping Lanes for

biomass and biofuels for energy

Wood Pellets

Ethanol

Palm Oil & Ag Residues

Canada

USA

W. Europe

E. Europe &

Russia

Brazil

Malaysia &

Indonesia

Japan

Arg

entina Australia S. Africa

Ethanol Wood pellets Veg. oils & biodiesel

[IEA Task 40]


Global production and trade of the

major biomass commodities (2008) Mton in 2008

Bioethanol Biodiesel Wood pellets

Global production 52.9 10.6 11.5

Global net trade 3.72 (*) 2.92 Approx. 4

Main exporters Brazil US, Argentina, Indonesia Malaysia

Canada,USA, Baltic countries, Finland, Russia

Main importers USA, Japan, EU

EU Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy

(*) An estimated 75% of the traded bioethanol is used as transport fuel.

Heinimö & Junginger, Biomass & Bioenergy, 2009


Global biodiesel trade streams

of minimum 1 PJ in 2009.

[Lamers et al., RSER, 2011.]

World biodiesel production

increased from

1.8 Mton in 2004 to

10.6 Mton in 2008.


Not all energy storage – vehicle

combinations make sense

Vehicle Liquid fuel Hydrogen Batteries

SUVs, light trucks

Mid-sized Small cars Trucks Busses/vans Planes Ships


The IEA on biofuels…

IEA-ETP, 2008


Opposing

sketches for

the scenario

preconditions,

technological

challenges,

and

impacts for

bioenergy

deployment

on long term

following

Typical

IPCC SRES.

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


A future vision on global bioenergy

markets (2050…)

[GIRACT FFF Scenario project; Faaij, 2008]

250 Mha = 100 EJ

= 5% ag land + pasture

= 1/3 Brazilie


Key conclusions (I)

• Technical potential of 500 EJ/year by 2050, with large uncertainty around market and policy conditions that affect this potential.

• 100-300 EJ/year possible deployment levels by 2050. Major challenge but would contribute up to 1/3 to the world’s primary energy demand in 2050.

• Bioenergy has significant potential to mitigate greenhouse gases if resources are sustainably developed and efficient technologies are applied.

• “For the increased and sustainable use of bioenergy, proper design, implementation and monitoring of sustainability frameworks can minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits with regard to social, economic and environmental issues.”

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Key conclusions (II) • The impacts and performance of biomass production and

use are region- and site-specific.

• Key options: – E.g. sugarcane ethanol production, waste to-energy systems,

efficient cookstoves, biomass-based CHP are competitive

– Lignocellulosic-based fuels, advanced bioelectricity options, and biorefinery concepts can offer competitive deployment of bioenergy in 2020 - 2030. Bio-CCS can offer negative carbon emissions.

– Advanced biomaterials promising but less understood.

– Potential role aquatic biomass (algae) highly uncertain.

• Rapidly changing policy contexts, recent market activity, increasing support for advanced biorefineries & lignocellulosic biofuel options, and in particular the development of sustainability criteria and frameworks, push bioenergy systems and their deployment in sustainable directions.

[IPCC-SRREN, 2011]


Thanks for your attention

For more information, see:

www.bioenergytrade.org

• Detailed activities • Background information • Results • Events • Subscribe to the newsletter (2x per year).

And Sciencedirect/Scopus

global view on perspectives for biodiesel. · 2015. 7. 28. · global production 52.9 10.6 11.5...

Documents