‹#›

JRC activities on biofuels

European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre (JRC)“Biofuels” action coordinator

Luisa Marelli

‹#›

Policy demand

Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) Directive 2009/30/EC (FQD)

10% target for RES in transport 10% GHG reduction by fuel suppliers (6% through alternative fuels)

• Sustainability Criteria to reduce the impact caused by land use change (emissions, biodiversity, deforestation etc)

• Commission’s monitoring and reporting requirements to EP and Council (sustainability scheme):

- Guide on Carbon stocks- Guide on areas with lower GHG values from agriculture- How to address Indirect Land Use Change (2010)- Criteria for biodiverse areas and degraded lands- Report on typical and default GHG emissions values - Availability of 2nd generation biofuels

‹#›

Land Use

2nd generation

GHG emissions

Tropical deforestation

Economic modelling

Vehicle compatibility

Water impact

Life Cycle Analysis

Biomass conversion

The JRC response

JRC Biofuels Thematic Programme (2009): working platform to address the most relevant policy questions

• Coordinates and reports to the Commission JRC key scientific activities of three institutes

• Supports the Commission in implementation and reporting requirements of the Directives (Interservice WGs and Comitology)

‹#›

Priorities

1. Sustainability assessment on the use of biofuels.

2. Cost and availability of 2nd generation biofuels.

3. Technical compatibility, emissions and energy efficiency of vehicles fuelled with biofuels.

• Assessment of the impact of direct and indirect effects due to land use change and related GHG emission

• Development of biofuels certification systems

• Impact of biofuels on tropical deforestation in South East Asia

• Calculation of (direct) GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuels pathways

‹#›

RED and FQD Policy demand in 2010

3. ILUC

1. Biofuels/Bioliquids sustainability scheme

• C stock guideline• Voluntary schemes /certification schemes• GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuel pathways

• Public consultation (July – October 2010)• Commission report to EP and Council ( December 2010)

2. National Renewable Energy Action Plans (June 2010)

Sustainability Assessment

‹#›

Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution

a) Commission’s decision on Guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks (2010/335/EU of 10/06/2010):

- Accompanying global data layers on climate regions and soil type: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/RenewableEnergy/

JRC Ref. report n. EUR 24573 EN

(IES Soil and GHG-AFOLU Actions)

1. Sustainability scheme

‹#›

b) Communication on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels sustainability scheme and on counting rules for biofuels

1. Sustainability scheme

Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution

- Definition of an approach to calculate N2O emissions from biofuel feedstock calculations (combination of a statistical model and IPCC)

Spatial variability of environmental conditions and management are taken into account

applicable on global scale reproducible by by economic operators or public sector entities

- Technical assistance in the calculation of typical GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuel pathways (Art. 19 and Annex V RED)

Calculation of global emission based on the defined method for updates of existing default values in the RED and introduction of new pathways (e.g. barley, safflower, cassava….)

‹#›

c) Commission’s report to EP and Council on “ Feasibility of drawing up lists of areas in EU and third countries with low GHG emissions from cultivation”

d) JRC Report "Status of the Implementation of Biofuels and Bioenergy Certification Systems" - 24650 EN

- technical contribution to the ongoing process of recognition of biofuels sustainability schemes.

Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution

1. Sustainability scheme

- Calculation of typical greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of agricultural raw materials for NUTS2 in Europe and regional level for ROW based on a single methodology and harmonized datasets

‹#›

Is there enough biomass to reach these targets?Primary biomass Consumption in the EU27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020

Mto

e

Electricity Heating&Cooling Biofuels

2005 - actual data according to the NREAPs

2006-2009 - actual data according to EurObserv’ER

2010-2020 – projections according to the NREAPs

Data sources: National Renewable Action Plans (NREAPs) EEA, 2006. How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? EurObserv’ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe 2010AEBIOM, European Biomass Statistics 2009.

Biomass domestic supply (EU27 NREAPs)

0102030405060708090

100110120130

2006 2015 2020

Mto

edirect wood indirect wood crops by-products

MSW industrial waste sewage sludge total

2. NREAP - JRC contribution

‹#›

3. Commission’s report on ILUC

Public consultation on ILUC:

June 2010 (IPTS)

July 2010 (IE)

September 2010 (IES/IE)

- Stakeholder meeting (Brussels, 17/09/2010 and 26/10/2010)

• “Critical issues in estimating ILUC emissions” (Arona, 9-10 November 2010)

JRC EXPERT CONSULTATIONS (on request of DG ENER/CLIMA):

• “The Effects of increased demand for Biofuels feedstocks on the world agricultural markets and areas” (Ispra, 10-11 February 2010)

‹#›

Simulations with partial equilibrium models:AGLINK-COSIMO: worldwide and EU as two blocksCAPRI: NUTS2 in the EU and simplified for other countriesESIM: EU member states, Turkey, USA and rest of world

Main effects of EU biofuel policies on world commodity balances and land use by 2020

• Much higher EU imports of biodiesel, with Argentina and the USA net exporters to satisfy extra world market demand• Considerably higher EU imports of ethanol, accompanied by an increase in Brazil's ethanol exports• Total land used for arable crops worldwide is 0.7% higher, • Sugar (cane and beet) area higher by 2.1-2.2%, also oilseed area (1.5%) and wheat (less than 1%)

1. Assess of the market impacts of RED

‹#›

2. Analysing differences between the models

JRC comparison of economic models for ILUC• Commissioned most major modeling groups to run comparable

scenarios.• Compares results• Analyses why results differ• Workshops with leading economists and scientists

Outcomes available at http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp

‹#›

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

LEITAP B

iod E

U-Deu

FAPRI Biod

EU

AGLINK B

iod E

U

AGLINK B

iod U

S

GTAP Biod

mix

EULE

ITAP Biod

INDO

GTAP Biod

Ind/M

al

LEITAP W

ht Eth

EU-Fra

FAPRI Wht

Eth EU

AGLINK W

ht Eth

EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

EU

GTAP Wht

Eth EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

US

LEITAP M

aize E

th US

AGLINK C

oarse

grain

s Eth

US

GTAP Coa

rse gr

ains E

th US

IMPACT M

aize E

th US

IMPACT C

oarse

grain

s Eth

EU

AGLINK S

ugar

cane

Eth

Bra

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix B

AU Sce

nario

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix F

T Sce

nario

LUC

[Ha

per t

oe]

Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios

All models show significant land use change

Changes in crop area per Toe of biofuel

JRC economic model comparison:

‹#›

How much price increases area compared to yield(IFPRI has higher ILUC savings from yield increases)

How much crops are released by reduced food+feed consumptionTo what extent crop production is shifted to countries with lower yield

How by-products are counted (LEITAP has much lower ILUC savings from by-products)

How and why do model results differ?

1. LUC impact vary considerably across feedstocks

2. For the same feedstock, models differ in terms of LUC [ha/toe] according to:

‹#›

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

LEITAP B

iod E

U-Deu

FAPRI Biod

EU

AGLINK B

iod E

U

AGLINK B

iod U

S

GTAP Biod

mix

EULE

ITAP Biod

INDO

GTAP Biod

Ind/M

al

LEITAP W

ht Eth

EU-Fra

FAPRI Wht

Eth EU

AGLINK W

ht Eth

EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

EU

GTAP Wht

Eth EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

US

LEITAP M

aize E

th US

AGLINK C

oarse

grain

s Eth

US

GTAP Coa

rse gr

ains E

th US

IMPACT M

aize E

th US

IMPACT C

oarse

grain

s Eth

EU

AGLINK S

ugar

cane

Eth

Bra

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix B

AU Sce

nario

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix F

T Sce

nario

LUC

[Ha

per t

oe]

Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios There are 2 models from IFPRI:MIRAGE (study for DG-TRADE)and IMPACT (for JRC)

Both show the lowest LUC,due to

- high fraction sugar cane in MIRAGE

- relatively large benefit from reduced food consumption

JRC economic model comparison:

‹#›

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

LEITAP B

iod E

U-Deu

FAPRI Biod

EU

AGLINK B

iod E

U

AGLINK B

iod U

S

GTAP Biod

mix

EULE

ITAP Biod

INDO

GTAP Biod

Ind/M

al

LEITAP W

ht Eth

EU-Fra

FAPRI Wht

Eth EU

AGLINK W

ht Eth

EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

EU

GTAP Wht

Eth EU

IMPACT W

ht Eth

US

LEITAP M

aize E

th US

AGLINK C

oarse

grain

s Eth

US

GTAP Coa

rse gr

ains E

th US

IMPACT M

aize E

th US

IMPACT C

oarse

grain

s Eth

EU

AGLINK S

ugar

cane

Eth

Bra

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix B

AU Sce

nario

IFPRI-MIR

AGE Biof

uels

mix F

T Sce

nario

LUC

[Ha

per t

oe]

Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios

LEITAP shows the highest results, due to…

• Little benefit from by-products (work in progress)

• Little reduction in food consumption

JRC economic model comparison:

‹#›

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

LEIT

AP B

iod

EU

FAPR

I Bio

d EU

GTAP

Bio

d m

ix E

U

GTAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT W

ht E

U

FAPR

I Wht

EU

LEIT

AP W

ht E

UIM

PACT

Mai

ze E

U GT

AP M

aize

US

IMPA

CT M

aize

US

LEIT

AP M

aize

US

Sear

chin

ger (

2008

)IF

PRI b

iofu

els

mix

LUC

(ha

per t

oe)

Those reported results again…

‹#›

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

LEIT

AP B

iod

EU

FAPR

I Bio

d EU

GTAP

Bio

d m

ix E

U

GTAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT W

ht E

U

FAPR

I Wht

EU

LEIT

AP W

ht E

UIM

PACT

Mai

ze E

U GT

AP M

aize

US

IMPA

CT M

aize

US

LEIT

AP M

aize

US

Sear

chin

ger (

2008

)IF

PRI b

iofu

els

mix

LUC

(ha

per t

oe)

area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC

area saved by higher yields

area saved by less food consumption.

‹#›

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

LEIT

AP B

iod

EUFA

PRI B

iod

EUGT

AP B

iod

mix

EU

GTAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT W

ht E

UFA

PRI W

ht E

ULE

ITAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT M

aize

EU

GTAP

Mai

ze U

SIM

PACT

Mai

ze U

SLE

ITAP

Mai

ze U

SSe

arch

inge

r (20

08)

IFPR

I bio

fuel

s m

ix

LUC

(ha

per t

oe)

area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC

area saved by higher yieldsarea saved by less food consumption.

Main factors influencing ILUC area….

‹#›

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

LEIT

AP B

iod

EUFA

PRI B

iod

EUGT

AP B

iod

mix

EU

GTAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT W

ht E

UFA

PRI W

ht E

ULE

ITAP

Wht

EU

IMPA

CT M

aize

EU

GTAP

Mai

ze U

SIM

PACT

Mai

ze U

SLE

ITAP

Mai

ze U

SSe

arch

inge

r (20

08)

IFPR

I bio

fuel

s m

ix

LUC

(ha

per t

oe)

area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC

area saved by higher yieldsarea saved by less food consumption.

Main factors influencing ILUC area….

These two model characteristics explain most of the differences.

‹#›

3. GHG emissions from global LUC

“Biofuels: a New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions Due to Global Land Use Change”

Institute for Environment and Sustainability & Institute for Energy – available at http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp/

Roland Hiederer, Fabien Ramos, Claudia Capitani, Renate Koeble, Viorel Blujdea, Oscar Gomez, Declan Mulligan and Luisa Marelli

A methodology involving spatial allocation of agricultural land demand and estimation CO2 and N2O emissions

‹#›

2. Locate geographically where the land use change predicted by models could occur, based on:

• Land suitability• Existing cropland• Land availability

3. Estimate the resulting GHG emissions: SOC (Soil Organic Carbon), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), ABCS (Above and Below-ground biomass Carbon Stocks)

1. Use as input data agro-economic models results (IFPRI-MIRAGE and JRC AGLINK-COSIMO)

The JRC methodology

Higher resolution then previous models (~10 x 10 Km grids)

‹#›

Soil Organic Carbon Stock Changes by Country

Changes in SOC [Mt C] no < 0.01 0.01 - 0.05 - 0.1 - > 0.5data 0.05 0.1 0.5

N2O soil emissions related to mineralized N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks over a period of 20 years

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.005.506.006.507.007.508.008.509.00

AU

S

AR

G

BR

A

CA

N

CH

N

EU

27 IND

JPN

ME

X

OA

F

OA

S

OE

C

OLA

RU

S

TUR

US

A

ZAF

Region

Mt C

O2e

q

IPTS CG scenarioIPTS GM scenario

Change in Above- and Belowground Biomass Carbon Stock (CG)

-70

-65

-60

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

AU

S

AR

G

BR

A

CA

N

CH

N

EU

27 IND

JPN

KO

R

ME

X

NZL

OA

F

OA

S

OE

C

OLA

RU

S

TUR

US

A

ZAF

IPFRI Region

AB

CS

cha

nge

in M

t C

Sparse VegetationShrublandOpen ForestClosed ForestGrasslandVegetables and FruitsOilseedsSugar Crops

Source Unit Total emissions

Annualized total GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20years) Mt CO2eq 54.6

Extra Energy produced in 2020 (Scenario - Baseline) MJ 865Annual GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20 years) g CO2eq/MJ 63

Changes in Soil Organic CarbonN20 emissions from soils

Emissions from changes in above/below ground biomass

The JRC methodology

‹#›

Cost and availability of 2nd

generation biofuels.

Objectives:addressing the efficiency of production processes of

alternative fuels/biofuels from agricultural residues monitoring of technology progress and performance of new

fuels life cycle assessment of alternative biofuels production

- Status reports on 2nd generation biofuel industrial demonstration projects and sustainability-related information (data for productivity, economics and CO2 savings )- Market opportunities of bio-refinery products- Life Cycle Guidance for Biowaste analysis- Assessment of the Availability of Agricultural Crop Residues in the European Union - Potential and Limitations for Bioenergy Use (Journal of Waste Management)

Main outcomes (2010)

‹#›

Vehicle compatibility and energy efficiency

a. Compatibility of Biofuels with existing and new vehicles

- Engine durability and proper functioning- Interaction between biofuels and advanced after-treatment systems

Examples: Can DPF equipped vehicles tolerate more than 7% of biodiesel in diesel fuel?What is the impact of biodiesel on SCR and NOx traps systems efficiency?Is any toxic compound generated inside the after-treatment systems?

- Optimization of engine system for application of biofuel- Compatibility of Polymeric materials- Need of standards and certification to guarantee the use of the fuel with

confidence

b. Emissions and energy efficiency of vehicles fuelled with biofuels- Special emphasis on bio-ethanol and biodiesel blends- Generation of more reliable emission factors

‹#›

Influence of RME biodiesel on regulated emissions from EURO4 passenger car.

Reference fuel is conventional 10 ppm S diesel, increased biodiesel content (from 10% to neat biodiesel) from RMEB10 to RMEB100.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

HC

0

4

8

12

16

20

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

mg/

km

PM

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

NOx

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

HC

0

4

8

12

16

20

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

mg/

km

PM

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

NOx EURO 4 limit

EURO 4 limit

EURO 4 limi 0.25 g/km

EURO 4 limit: 25 mg/km

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

COEURO 4 limit

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel

g/km

COEURO 4 limit 0.50 g/km

The Experimental program carried out in JRC-VELA laboratory in a conventional chassis Dynamometer for Light Duty (LD) Passenger cars. Data from JRC IES- Transport and Air Quality Unit

Vehicle Emissions

‹#›

Energy efficiency

Experimental program: passenger cars running on ethanol/petrol blends

(Programme carried out jointly with EUCAR and CONCAWE)

1.0%

1.7% 1.6%

0.8%

2.1%2.5%

1.3%

3.4%3.2%

2.2%2.6% 2.4%

-2.0%

-0.5%-0.8%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

Urban Extraurban Theoretical COLD START Cycle THEORETICALHOT START Cycle

FUELS

5% eth.*

10% eth.*

10% eth.**

15% ETBE

98 RON petrol

* Splash blended

** Match blended

1.0%

1.7% 1.6%

0.8%

2.1%2.5%

1.3%

3.4%3.2%

2.2%2.6% 2.4%

-2.0%

-0.5%-0.8%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

Urban Extraurban Theoretical COLD START Cycle THEORETICALHOT START Cycle

FUELS

5% eth.*

10% eth.*

10% eth.**

15% ETBE

98 RON petrol

* Splash blended

** Match blended

Fuel Consumption Variations (compared to base fuel, %)

‹#›

Development of the implementing measures of Euro 5/6 Regulation

• Proposal of E75 reference fuel specifications:Define the fuel specifications for the winter quality of E85 (ref. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 692/2009).

• Type 6 (Low temperature) emission limits for FFVExperimental campaign on 5 gasoline vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 4) and on 1 FFV (Euro 4, tested with E5 and E85 at 22 °C and E5 and E75 at –7 ° C )

• Revision of the evaporative test (Type 4) for type approval of gasoline vehicles.

Vehicle compatibility and energy efficiency

On-going work: