non-food options at farm level agricultural bioenergy options in enfa * uwe schneider, chrystalyn...

Non-Food Options at Farm Level

Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

* Uwe Schneider, Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos+ Edward Smeets, Iris Lewandowski, André Faaij

* Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University+ Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University

Final Meeting ENFA, 23-24 April 2008, Brussels, Belgium

Copernicus InstituteSustainable Development and Innovation

Final Meeting European Non-Food Agriculture Project, 23-24 April 2008, Brussels, Belgium22

Table 1: Food/ Non-Food Production Lines in ENFA Land use options

Non-food product options

Non-food product applications

Contributor(s)

Miscanthus, Switchgrass

Pellets, Bales Biofuels, Bioelectricity, Bioheat, Biomaterials

UUTR, A&F, INRA, IGER, AUA, TCD, JR

Red canary grass Pellets and briquettes Hot water energy SLU

Willow, Poplar, Eucalyptus, Giant reed, Cardoon

Pellets, Chips Bioenergy generation SLU, ECBREC, INRA, AUA, JR

Hemp, Flax, Kenaf Fiber and shive products Biomaterials A&F

Maize, Sugar beet, Potatoes

Oilseeds Bioethanol UHOH, UUTR, INRA, JR

Rape, Sunflower Oilseeds Biodiesel UHOH, ECBREC, INRA, JR

Forest Management

Pulp, Timber Paper, Bioelectricity Bioheat, Biofuels (Methanol, FT-diesel, Hydrogen)

OCE, ECBREC, JR

Livestock options UHH

Manure treatment Methane Biogas UHH, UHOH, INRA


Non-food Product Applications Selection

Selection of applications are based on the following parameters:

• market size• economic performance• technical feasibility• environmental performance


Miscanthus & switchgrass chains

C4 grasses

high light, water, and nitrogen use efficiency

high yield potential

miscanthus field

miscanthus harvesting


Table 2: Miscanthus & switchgrass applications selected

Land use options Non-food product options

Non-food product applications

Contributor(s)

Miscanthus, Switchgrass Pellets, Bales Bioelectricity, Bioheat, Biofuels, Biomaterials

UUTR, A&F, INRA, IGER, AUA, TCD, JR

Bioenergy Biofuels Biomaterials

Combustion combined heat and power

Methanol Dimethyl Ether

Integrated gasification and combined cycle

Ethanol Ethylene

Indirect co-combustion with coal

Hydrogen Poly Lactic Acid

Gasification and co-combustion with coal

Fischer-Tropsch diesel Poly Trimethylene Tetraphalate

Small scale heating Medium Density Fiberboard


• Total costs of production were calculated• Discounted cash flow methodology

• Considered the supply chain in the calculations – includes growing, harvesting, storing, compacting and

transporting

• Regional variation were accounted – in terms of yield, transportation distance, input costs

(labor, fuel, agrochemicals, etc.) • Calculations done for the base case and 2030

Economic performance calculations


Environmental performance calculations

• Based on GHG emissions during the production and transportation stages– Direct emissions

• Emissions from fuel use in agricultural machineries or transportation equipment

• Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use

– Indirect emissions

• Emissions generated from the bioenergy or biomaterial production during the production and transportation stages

• Spreadsheet modeling


Miscanthus and switchgrass production – an overview

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Ploughing 1Power harrowing 2Planting 1Rolling 1Fertilizing 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1Liming 1 1 1Spraying 1Weeding 1 1Mowing 1Harvest 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Rotary cultivating 2Spraying 1

Table 3: Number of application of production stages over the miscanthus and switchgrass lifetimes*

* Assumed to be applicable in all EU regions


Inputs (example for miscanthus)

• 20,000 rhizomes/ha 0.16 Euro/rhizome

• Fertilization (example for Germany):– N 24 kg/ha/y (incl. atm. deposition)

– P 10kg/ha/y – K 91 kg/ha/y – Ca 14 kg/ha/y – based on 0.27% N, 0.07% P, 0.65% K, and 0.10%

Ca of odt and a yield of 14 ton/ha/y


Sample costs

Fixed costs Value Unit Variable costs Value Unitpurchase price (PP) 234470 € power 164 kWresale value (10% of PP) 23447 € fuel 37 l/hinterest 3.61 €/h fuel price 0.81 €/ldepreciation 84 €/h fuel 29.97 €/hrepair and maintenance coeff.1 0.1 lubrication 0.118 l/hrepair and maintenance coeff.2 1.8 lubrication price 3.4 €/lrepair and maintenance 49 €/h lubrication 0.41 €/hdepreciation period 5 y other costs (e.g., rope) 16 €/hhours of use 500 h/y labour 1.2 h/hstorage (1.75% of PP/year) 8.21 €/h labour price 29.75 €/hinsurance (0.5% of PP/year) 2.34 €/h labour 35.7 €/hgeneral cost (3% of PP/year) 14.07 €/h

Total fixed costs 161.4 €/h Total variable costs 82 €/h

Total costs 243.0 €/hwork capacity 0.9 h/haTotal costs 218.7 €/ha

Sources: Huisman, 1997; Lazarus & Selly, 2003; EUROSTAT, 2006

Table 4: Farm machinery costs for a self propelled big baler harvester


http://blog.futurelab.net http://www.pictokon.net

• Key variables/uncertainties for economic performance of miscanthus production:– On-field transportation costs

– Farm size

– Yield harvest cost factor (YF):

YF = 4.33 Y-0.589 where Y = yield (ton/ha)


Yields

0- 56 - 1011 - 1516 - 2021 - 2526 - 3031 - 3536 - 4041 - 45

tons/ha/yr

MiscanMod crop growth model

Average yield EU25: Base: 13 tons/ha/yr

2030: 16 tons/ha/yr

Source: Stampfl et al., 2006

Figure 1: Field yields of miscanthus in the EU region


• Storing– Storage options are available (costs < 10 Euro/ton)

for existing farm and roofed timber buildings– Risk of self heating and dry matter loss during

storage

• Pelletizing– On-field and on-farm pelleting is expensive

• Large scale effect: 3 t/h ≡ 55 Euro/ton (Austria) 10 t/h ≡ 30 Euro/ton (Sweden)

– Pelletizing to reduce transportation costs is unprofitable!

http://www.peer-span.ch


Truck Train UnitFixed costs 0.38 19 €/kmLabour costs country factor 1 1.0 €/hVariable costs - labour 23 85 €/hVariable costs - fuel 0.33 6.21 €/vkm

Fuel consumption 0.33 95.01 l/vkm or Fuel price 1.00 0.07 €/l or €/kWh

Variable costs - other 0.11 0.65 l/vkmAverage speed 48.1 53.5 km/hMaximum load (mass) 27 1625 tMaximum load (volume) 120 4063 m3Effective distance 100 100 kmEmpty returns 50 50 %Total distance 200 200 kmFixed costs 77 3768 €/kmVariable costs - labour 95 319 €/vkmVariable costs - fuel 67 1243 €/vkmVariable costs - other 22 129 €/vkmTotal costs 260 5459 €Total costs 2.60 55 €/ekmLoad (% of max. ton) 100 100 %Effective load 27 1625 tTotal costs 0.096 0.034 €/tekm

Sources: NEA, 2004; IFEU, 2005; Hamelinck, 2004

http://www.walesbiomass.org

Table 5: Transportation costs


• Key uncertainties are the moisture content and the source and price of energy• Only attractive in the case of very long distance transport (>700 km) in the case of low energy costs (e.g. in combination with a CHP plant)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

PL -2004

PL -2030

HU -2004

HU -2030

UK -2004

UK -2030

IT -2004

IT -2030

LI -2004

LI -2030

Eur

o/to

n

Energy

Labor

Capital1.7

1.4

0.8

1.9

0.6

1.1

Eur

o/G

J

2.2

0.3

0

PL = Poland; HU = Hungary; UK = United Kingdom; IT = Italy; LI = Lithuania

Figure 2: Pelletizing costs


Figure 3: Total production, storage & transportation costs of miscanthus and switchgrass yields

Yie

ld (

ton

/ha/

yr)

0

20

40

60

80

100

SVE

LAT

LIT

POL

HUN

SVA

CZE

MAL

EST

BEL

FRA

AUS

ITA

GER

LUX

UKI

SPA

POR

GRE

SWE

IRE

NET

FIN

DEN

Euro/ton

Transportation

Storage

Production

20

15

10

5

0

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SVE

LAT

LIT

POL

HUN

SVA

CZE

MAL

EST

BEL

FRA

AUS

ITA

GER

LUX

UKI

SPA

POR

GRE

IRE

SWE

NET

FIN

DEN

Euro/ton

Transportation

Storage

Production

20

10

5

0

25

15

0


Figure 4: Total miscanthus production costs - EU25*

• Yields from MiscanMod (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000)• Including labor costs/margins

* From the field to the farm gate

5

10

15

20

25

0

Yie

ld (

ton

/ha/

y)


Results: Economic performance evaluation

• Sources:– Energy: OECD/IEA (2006)– Fuels: Well-to-Wheels study (JRC-IES, EUCAR, Concawe,

2006) – Materials: BREW project (Patel et al., 2006)

• Assumptions:– Aggregated data– Cradle-to-grave basis– No regional variation

• Key variables:– Plant scale, fuel conversion efficiency, interest rate, oil price

(reference system)


Figure 5: Chemical production costs (Biomaterials)

Production costs conventional processes (Euro/ton)Ethylene PET PTT

724 1200 1177

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

BELG

DENMFIN

L

FRAN

GERMIR

ELIT

AL

LITH

POLAPORT

SLVN

SWED

UNIK

Eur

o/to

nEthylene now

Ethylene future

PLA now

PLA future

PTT now

PTT future


Figure 6: Biofuel production costs

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.07

now future now future now future now future now future now future

CI CI CI,hybrid

CI,hybrid

SI SI SI,hybrid

SI,hybrid

CI CI CI,hybrid

CI,hybrid

FT diesel Ethanol DME

Euro

/km

Estonia

GermanyItaly

Latvia

Lithuania

SloveniaUnited Kingdom

0.000.010.010.020.020.030.030.040.04

now future now future now future now future now future now future now future

SI SI SI,hyrbrid

SI,hybrid

CI CI CI,hyrbrid

CI,hybrid

FC,hybrid

FC,hybrid

FC FC FC,hybrid

FC,hybrid

Gasoline Diesel Methanol Hydrogen

Euro

/km

Estonia

GermanyItaly

Latvia

Lithuania

SloveniaUnited Kingdom


Results: Environmental performance evaluation

P = production, PL = Poland - Lubelski, HU = Hungary - Del-Dunantal, UK = United Kingdom - Devon, IT = Italy – Lombardia, LI = Lithuania, M = miscanthus, S = switchgrass, B = baled, C = chopped.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PL-

M-B-

2004

PL-

M-B-

2030

PL-

M-C-

2004

PL-

M-C-

2030

HU-

M-B-

2004

HU-

M-B-

2030

HU-

M-C-

2004

HU-

M-C-

2030

UK-

M-B-

2004

UK-

M-B-

2030

UK-

M-C-

2004

UK-

M-C-

2030

IT-

M-B-

2004

IT-

M-B-

2030

IT-

M-C-

2004

IT-

M-C-

2030

LI-

M-B-

2004

LI-

M-B-

2030

LI-

M-C-

2004

LI-

M-C-

2030

Transport

Unloading

Storage

P - Machines production

P - Machines use

P - N2O N fertilizer

P - Fertilizers and agrochem prod.

P - Planting material

3.9

2.8

1.7

5.0

0

2.2

kg C

O2

eq/ G

J

5.6

4.4

3.3

1.1

0.6

k

g C

O2

eq/t

on

Figure 7: GHG emissions from miscanthus production


Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

• Summary of the different food and non-food bioenergy options:– Yields– Production costs– Labor intensity– Fertilizer use– Energy use

http://www.eubia.org/


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Corn Rape Miscanthus GiantReed Switchgrass Cardoon Poplar Eucalyptus

Ave

rage

Yie

lds

in d

ry to

ns/h

a/yr

AustBelg

DenmFinl

FranGermGree

HungIrelItal

NethPolaPortSlvnSpan

SwedUnik

Figure 8: Average production yields of different bioenergy options


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Corn Rape Miscanthus GiantReedSwitchgrass Cardoon Poplar Eucalyptus

Pro

duct

ion

cost

s ex

clud

ing

labo

r, la

nd, f

uel i

n E

uro/

ha/y

rAustBelg

DenmFinl

FranGermGree

HungIrelItal


SwedUnik

Figure 9: Production costs of different bioenergy options


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Corn Rape Miscanthus Switchgrass Poplar Eucalyptus

Fie

ld L

abor

in h

rs/h

a/yr

AustBelg

DenmFinl

FranGermGree

HungIrelItal


SwedUnik

Figure 10: Labor intensities of different bioenergy options


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Miscanthus GiantReed Switchgrass Cardoon Poplar Eucalyptus

Fer

tiliz

er U

se in

kg/

ha/y

rAustBelg

DenmFinl

FranGermGree

HungIrelItal


SwedUnik

Figure 11: Amount of fertilizer use by different bioenergy options


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Corn Rape Miscanthus Switchgrass

Fue

l Use

in li

/ha/

yrAustBelg

DenmFinl

FranGermGree

HungIrelItal


SwedUnik

Figure 12: Amount of fuel use by different bioenergy options


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Fuel Fertilizer Cost Yield Labour

CornRape

MiscanthusGiantReed

SwitchgrassCardoon

PoplarEucalyptus

Figure 13: Input data parameters for different bioenergy options

non-food options at farm level agricultural bioenergy options in enfa * uwe schneider, chrystalyn...

Documents

nonfood options

inra slide

food nonfood production

innovation slide

jr hemp

jr rape

co combustion

switchgrass pellets