Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities
18
Task 38 Australia New Zealand Participating Countries USA Croatia Austria Germany Belgium Sweden Finland Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird
description
Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities. Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird. Finland. Sweden. Germany. Belgium. Austria. Croatia. USA. Australia. New Zealand. Participating Countries. Australia Annette Cowie Co-Task Leader. Austria - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities
Task 38
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries
USA
CroatiaAustria
GermanyBelgium
SwedenFinland
Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy SystemsTask 38 Activities
Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird
Page 2
Task 38
AustraliaAnnette CowieCo-Task Leader
AustriaSusanne Woess-Gallasch Neil Bird, Task Leader
BelgiumFlorence Van Stappen
FinlandSampo SoimakallioKim Pingoud
SwedenKenneth Möllersten
CroatiaAna Kojakovic
GermanySebastian Rüter
United StatesMark Downing
Participating Countries and NTLs 2008
Page 3
Task 38 Objectives of Task 38
Develop, demonstrate and apply standard methodology for GHG balances
Increase understanding of GHG outcomes of bioenergy and carbon sequestration
Address policy relevant issues on GHG mitigation
Promote international exchange of ideas, models and scientific results
Aid decision makers in selecting mitigation strategies that optimize GHG benefits
Page 4
Task 38
Page 5
Task 38
Compare project with reference
Define System boundary Deliver equivalent service All greenhouse gases: CO2, N2O and CH4
Consider whole system life cycle Direct emissions (e.g. fossil fuels during cultivation, harvesting, Land
LUC and carbon stocks…) Indirect emissions (e.g. upstream emissions from production of
fertilizer, displacement of land use activities…)
Land Use Change Direct LUC is quantifiable (C stock changes in carbon pools of
forests and agricultural land) Indirect LUC more difficult to assess (CDM tool ignores indirect LUC)
Efficiencies of energy production/conversion By-products (expansion of system or energy allocation)
In compliance with ISO 14040 and 14044
Methodology for GHG balance
Page 6
Task 38 Soil carbon paper
Does soil carbon loss in biomass production systems negate the greenhouse benefits of bioenergy?
(Author: Annette Cowie, 2006)
Review includes: natural processes impacts of farming and forestry potential impacts of bioenergy systems management practices to promote soil carbon monitoring soil carbon
Systems modelled (with FullCAM): conventional forestry (2 different systems) short rotation forestry
Page 7
Task 38
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time [years]
Cum
ulat
ive
C s
eque
str.
[tC
ha-1
]
Credit for energy substitution
TreesLitter
Soil
Fossil fuel input isgenerally a negative
value and brings the topline of the pattern down
to the ultimate total(thick black line)
Austria and USA: GORCAMModel results: Carbon balance of a fuelwood plantation on agricultural land and bioenergy use of the fuel wood
Page 8
Task 38 T38 Case studies - GHG balances Australia:
co-firing biomass with coal; wood fired power plant using timber plantations
Char as a soil amendment Austria: Maize to biogas for electricity
Ireland: peat use for energy municipal solid waste as a energy fuel
Netherlands: biomass import options
New Zealand: bioenergy CHP plant using sawmill residues
UK: small heating systems using conventional forestry and miscanthus
Canada: pyrolysis plant for bio-Oil production using sawmill residues and
thinnings Pellet production
Finland and Sweden: timber for house construction and residues for energy
Croatia: biodiesel in the Joint Implementation context
USA: anaerobic digestion of animal manure
Reports available at: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/projects/
Seite 9
Task 38 Case Study Biogas Plant Paldau
Results on covered / uncovered storage of digested material (measurements):
Concerning Biogas: More production of biogas when storage covered: circa
34.000 Nm3/a (+1,5%)
Concerning el. energy output: covered storage: 4.02 MWh/a +1,9%: CH4 concentration higher in biogas from
storage: 63,8% instead 48,8% uncovered storage: 3.95 MWh/a
Concerning heat: 7.250 MWh/a potential: only 1.15 MWh/a used
Concerning methane losses in the uncovered storage: covered: ~ 0 t/a Uncovered: +15.6 t/a CH4 (+360 CO2 –eq t/a)
Seite 10
Task 38
LCA Biogas Plant PaldauCO2–Eqivalents per year
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
- 1.000
CH4 – Losses %
CO2-Equivalents t/a
P1 P2
P3 P4
Biogas plant Paldau
Biogas plant Using manure
Reference system 100 % use of heat from biogas plant
Reference system 17 % use of heat from biogas plant
Biogas plant open storage Biogas plant
closed storage
Effect of methane slip in gas engines
Page 11
Task 38 Key Findings 1
GHG mitigation through bioenergy technology specific site specific (LUC)
Bioenergy systems using process residues and wastes have usually greatest GHG benefits and least negative impacts;
Synergies between bioenergy, wood production and management for carbon sinks;
Project sites without competing land-use (e.g. non-productive, marginal or set aside land) have less negative impacts on land-use;
Better benefits by cascading use (e.g. production of HWP by log wood, and woody residuals for bioenergy);
Page 12
Task 38 Key Findings 2
GHG benefits to be optimized (in dependance of goal)
Per ha of land Per ton of biomass used Per unit of capital invested Per unit of energy output (T38 paper on “Optimizing the GHG benefits of bioenergy systems”.
Proceedings of the 14th EU Biomass Conference, Paris, October 2005)
In case of a / reforestation timing carbon sequestration and release during growth and harvest is of high importance
Technology development for efficient production / conversion of biomass energy is essential to keep costs down and use land efficiently
Page 13
Task 38 Task 38 Workshops
Joint Task 29/38/40 Expert Meeting on “Sustainable Bioenergy” Dubrovnik October 25-27, 2007 presentations available: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/dubrovnik07/
Task 38 International Workshop in Salzburg, Austria, Feb. 5th 2008, “Transportation biofuels: For GHG mitigation, energy security or other reasons?” presentations available: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/salzburg08/
Page 14
Task 38Draft Position Paper: GHG of
Bioenergy and other Energy Systems
Based on key statements, supported by literature. The aim is to
Discuss importance of LCA and to cover key aspects Compare the most important bioenergy chains with
their fossil and renewable competitors
Main issues to be covered: Energy and GHG aspects of bioenergy chains Comparison with reference energy systems Deployment strategies for bioenergy
www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/reimpact
RE-Impact: Forestry based Bioenergy for Sustainable Development
RE-Impact• Europe AID - Programme on Tropical Forests and other Forests in Developing
Countries
• Rural Energy Production from Bioenergy Projects: Providing regulatory and impact assessment frameworks, furthering sustainable biomass production policies and reducing associated risks
• Emphasis concerning biomass resources– Jatropha– Forest resources
• Outputs– Tools to assess the bioenergy production impacts:
• Water, GHGs, Social, Biodiversity– Case studies
• China, India, South Africa, Uganda– Modular impact assessment guidelines– Policy support
• Assess likely land-use changes caused by policies• Assess impacts on forests of increased energy requirements
Biofuel and Biorefinery Research at Joanneum Research – 28 May 2008
Rethinking Propulsion.
GrazGrazGrazGrazGrazGraz
Wood
Biofuel
FT Diesel Polygeneration Plant(Feasibility, incl. GHG and energy balance based on life cycle )
Heat
Electricity
Wood chips 35,000 t/a
BiofuelGHG red.
3.4 Mio. l/a> 80%
FuelElectricityHeat (70/90°C)
15 MWf
1.6 MWel
5.8 MWth
Efficiency (11%e, 40%h, 29%f)
80%
Institute ofEnergy Research
Class 3, Area : 2.6 ha
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Time [yrs]
[tC]
Vegetation [tC]
Dead organic matter [tC]
Soil [tC]
Change of Land Use: From Cotton to Cynara as Energy Crop
Land use change
Source: ACISA
Task 38
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries
USA
CroatiaAustria
GermanyBelgium
SwedenFinland
Thank you for your attention
[email protected]@joanneum.at
www.ieabioenergy-task38.org
