Effect of Biodiesel Production on Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... of Biodiesel Production...
Transcript of Effect of Biodiesel Production on Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... of Biodiesel Production...
1
Effect of Biodiesel Production on
Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Energy Use for
Canada
Brian G. McConkey1, Stephen Smith2, James
Dyer3, Ravinderpal Gil2, Suren
Kulshreshtha4, Cecil Nagy4, Murray
Bentham4, Darrel Cerkowniak4, Bob
MacGregor2, Marie Boehm5
1,2,4Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,1Swift Current, SK, 2Ottawa, ON, 4Saskatoon, SK; 3Consultant, Cambridge,
ON; 4University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada,[email protected]
2
Background
• Low agricultural commodity prices in early 2000s• Agriculture to produce food was widely viewed as an
industry with limited economic future in Canada
• Intense interest in non-food products as means of rural development
• Canada introduced mandated content of ethanol (5% of gasoline) and biodiesel (2% of diesel and heating fuels) by 2012• Environmental benefits, particularly greenhouse
gases (GHG), were important rationale
• (Energy security not an issue since Canada is major exporter of oil, natural gas, electricity, coal, wood pellets, and uranium)
3
Life-cycle analysis of biofuels is difficult
• Boundaries
• Co-products
• Direct and indirect effects on agricultural
sector
• Indirect land-use change
4
Indirect Land Use Change from Biofuel
Development
• Land-use change that results from biofuel development
• New land development to compensate for agricultural land that was producing food that is now producing feedstock for biofuel
• Farigone et al. (2008) uses simplistic analysis suggesting that take 0 to 423 years for the GHG benefits of biofuel to repay the emission of GHG from deforestation induced from the production of those biofuels
• Has emerged as major consideration in biofuel development
• Requirement for biofuels for the United States
• Canada requires consistency with United States for trade reasons
5
Canada deforests to increase agricultural land
Forest clearing in frontier area of Canada
Clearing forests to agriculture has involved 30 000 to 80 000 ha per
year over last two decades
6
1800 t CO2/ha
200 t CO2/ha
Deforestation typically releases 450-600 t CO2/ha in Canada
480 t CO2/ha
720 t CO2/ha
520 t CO2/ha
7
Canada’s GHG Emissions from agriculture
including land use and land-use change
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Em
issio
n o
r re
mo
val (M
t C
O2 e
q)
Ag soils (N2O)
Livestock
land management change
(tillage, bare fallow)
Clearing to agriculture
Net
Sin
k
So
urc
e
8
Indirect effects
• The complexity of problem requires that project outputs can only be determined accurately in a context of a scenario of production for Canada• Capture land-use and land management changes
• Need to capture structural changes in agriculture due to bioenergy demand
• Decision to use Canadian Regional Agricultural Model (CRAM) • Primary tool for agricultural policy analysis by
Government of Canada
• Solves system of non-linear equations to maximize economic surpluses within Canadian agricultural systems
9
CRAM
General
Scenario
Economically and
physically sensible
resource allocation
Energy and GHG
Module
(Energy inputs &
GHG emissions)
Life-cycle inventory values of energy
and GHG for primary production,
transportation, bioenergy, and
primary food processing
$ GHG budget
Energy I:O
National GHG
Accounting
C Change
10
Life-cycle inventory
• Representative values of net GHG emissions for separable pieces of larger system
• Derived emissions for field operations from the Canadian F4E2 model (Dyer and Desjardins, 2005)
• Other agricultural emissions using methods of the Canadian National GHG Inventory (Environment Canada, 2009)
• Co-products based on emissions to produce those things the co-products can substitute• Feed grains for oilseed meal
• Petroleum glycerin for glycerin from biodiesel manufacture
11
Life-cycle inventory values for biodiesel
for Canada
Units Canola Soybean
Oilseed production and
transport
kg CO2 equiv. per
tonne of oilseed
988 570
kg CO2 equiv. per L of
biodiesel
2.8 3.2
Biodiesel production
(to pump)
kg CO2 equiv. per L of
biodiesel
0.3 0.5
Displacement from use
of co-products
-1.4 -2.4
Diesel fuel emissions
displaced (well to
pump plus final use)
-3.5 -3.5
Net -1.8 -2.2
12
Method - Scenarios
• Biodiesel will be part of broader bioenergy strategy in Canada
• Developed a range of bioenergy scenarios for 2017
• Based on existing medium-term economic outlook for 2017
• Scenario assumes various petroleum and carbon price
• Carbon price to reflect willingness of world to pay to reduce emissions
13
Name
Crude
Oil Price
$/bbl
Carbon
Price
$/Mg
CO2e
Proportion of
Biogenic
Ethanol
(% of
gasoline)
Biodiesel
(% of
Petroleum
diesel)
Bioenergy
(% of Coal
based
energy
substituted)
Lo Oil-Lo C 72 20 10 4 5
Lo Oil-Hi C 72 50 10 4 20
Hi Oil-Hi C 120 50 20 8 20
Hi Oil-Lo C 120 20 20 8 5
Bioenergy Scenarios
14
CRAM
General
Scenario
Economically and
physically sensible
resource allocation
CEEMA
(Energy inputs &
GHG emissions)
Life-cycle inventory values of energy
and GHG for primary production,
transportation, bioenergy, and
primary food processing
$ GHG budget
Energy I:O
National GHG
Accounting
C Change
15
Hay,
pasture
Grain Land
Biomass
crops
LAND
Food
Feed
Fuel
Livestock
Biomass
Residues
Forest
16
Current extent of agriculture in Canada
17
What is the Potential for
Expansion of the Agricultural
Land Base in Canada?
Was unknown so undertook
analysis to answer
18
19
Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil Capability for Agriculture
55 73 42
50% Class 5 20% Class 4
30% Class 7
20
21
22
Expansion Potential of Canadian Agricultural Land
Land Area (ha)
Area (%) of
current cropland
Class 1 and 2* land in shrubs 157,294 0.3
Class 3 and 4** land in shrubs 1,913,868 4.1
Class 1 and 2 land in forest 753,856 1.6
Class 3 and 4 land in forest 7,176,943 15.5
*Land with no significant limitations to production of common field crops
** Land suited to crop production but having limitations
23
Added increased land supply into
economic model
• Added in land supply expansion capability
• Based on land values and cost of conversion, extra
land can be cleared and brought into primary
production
• Highest quality land converted first
24
Results
25
Economics
• All biodiesel produced from canola, soybean was not competitive• Value of oilseed meal decreases so soybean
penalized compared to canola
• Soybean competes with maize • Maize is most profitable bioenergy crop because of high
grain and residue yields
• Using crop residues for bioenergy consistently more profitable than biodiesel• Canola and soybean do not produce quality or
quantity of residue to use for bioenergy
• Biodiesel only produced because of fuel mandate
• If no mandate, limited biodiesel production in Canada
26
Change in Production and Exports with Aggressive Bioenergy
Policy (Hi Oil Hi C scenario) Compared with Minimum Bioenergy
Change to Hi Oil Hi C
Production Export
Product tonnes % tonnes %
Canola
Grain -1404 -15.8 -537 -20.1
Oil -1152 -63.6
Meal -283 -8.9
Soybean
Grain -763 -32.3 0 0
Oil 0 0
Meal -321 -26.8
Wheat -1110 -2.8 -1917 -8.8
Maize +2539 10.7 -3459
(increased imports)
+388
Barley +2468 10.1 +1336 12.8
Other grains No change
27
Emission Changes for Hi Oil Hi C scenario
Source
Change in emissions
(Mt CO2 equiv.)
Agricultural Soil (N2O) -2.9
Livestock -2.7
Soil C -3.4
Fossil fuel substitution -78.7
Total -87.7
•Higher grain prices and competition for land producing pasture and forage
decreased livestock production.
•Value of C induced agricultural activities to choose those options with
lowest net GHG emissions.
28
Deforestation
• Aggressive bioenergy development increases
land values and induces increased
deforestation
29
Emissions from deforestation
Scenario Area (ha/yr)
Emission
(Mt CO2 equiv.)
2006 30 000 9.9
Lo Oil Hi C 81 000 31.2*
Hi Oil Hi C 319 000 133.7*
*Total emissions for year 0-10 after deforestation event
30
Emission Changes for Aggressive Bioenergy Scenario
Source
Change in emissions
(Mt CO2 equiv.)
Agricultural Soil (N2O) -2.9
Livestock -2.7
Soil C -3.4
Fossil fuel substitution -78.7
Total -87.7
Deforestation +133.7
Total with deforestation +46
31
Conclusions
• Biodiesel from canola and soybean in Canada provide GHG benefit
• At least 50% less than that emitted for displaced diesel fuel
• Life-cycle inventory values ignore structural changes to agriculture that result from economic effects of bioenergy development
• For Canada these reduced the emissions through indirect effects such as reductions in livestock
• GHG Reduction for biodiesel are greater life-cycle inventory• Need to consider for life-cycle analysis for policy development
• Neglecting potential deforestation, Canada can produce significant GHG savings with bioenergy
• With potential deforestation based on economics, bioenergy development causes net increase in GHG emissions
• Land-use policy regarding clearing is critical to biofuel development
• Need to consider for life-cycle analysis for policy development
32
Future work
• Use the economic modelling to refine life-cycle inventory values for biodiesel and other bioenergy pathways
• Adjust biodiesel production marginally
• Determine what grains are actually displaced by meal production
• Determine net GHG effects per unit of increased or decreased biodiesel production as an alternative life-cycle inventory value or adjustment to existing life-cycle inventory value
• More careful analysis of factors affecting decision to clear forest to include into economic modelling.
• Farmers have other values besides economics to retain forests
• Include effect land-use policy that controls deforestation
• Evaluate under future climates
• Expected climate change will shift areas of production
33
Supported by PERD (Panel on Energy Research and Development)
Thank you for your attention
Questions?