JRC activities on biofuels Luisa Marelli

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "JRC activities on biofuels Luisa Marelli"

Sheena Atkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 JRC activities on biofuels Luisa Marelli European Commission DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) Biofuels action coordinator

2 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 2 nd generation biofuels

3 The JRC response JRC Biofuels Thematic Programme (2009): working platform to address the most relevant policy questions Biomass conversion GHG emissions 2 nd generation Coordinates and reports to the Commission JRC key scientific activities of three institutes Tropical deforestation Water impact Land Use Economic modelling Vehicle compatibility Life Cycle Analysis Supports the Commission in implementation and reporting requirements of the Directives (Interservice WGs and Comitology)

4 Priorities 1. Sustainability assessment on the use of 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 2. Cost and availability of 2 nd generation biofuels. 3. Technical compatibility, emissions and energy efficiency of vehicles fuelled with biofuels.

5 Sustainability Assessment RED and FQD Policy demand in Biofuels/Bioliquids sustainability scheme C stock guideline Voluntary schemes /certification schemes GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuel pathways 2. National Renewable Energy Action Plans (June 2010) 3. ILUC Public consultation (July October 2010) Commission report to EP and Council ( December 2010)

1. Sustainability scheme 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):

6 1. Sustainability scheme 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): JRC Ref. report n. EUR EN - Accompanying global data layers on climate regions and soil type: RenewableEnergy/ (IES Soil and GHG-AFOLU Actions)

7 1. Sustainability scheme Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution b) Communication on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels sustainability scheme and on counting rules for biofuels - 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.) - Definition of an approach to calculate N 2 O 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

8 1. Sustainability scheme Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution 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 - 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 d) JRC Report "Status of the Implementation of Biofuels and Bioenergy Certification Systems" EN - technical contribution to the ongoing process of recognition of biofuels sustainability schemes.

9 2. NREAP - JRC contribution Is there enough biomass to reach these targets? Primary biomass Consumption in the EU27 Biomass domestic supply (EU27 NREAPs) Mtoe Mtoe Electricity Heating&Cooling Biofuels direct wood indirect wood crops by-products MSW industrial waste sewage sludge total actual data according to the NREAPs actual data according to EurObserv ER projections according to the NREAPs Data sources: National Renewable Action Plans (NREAPs) EEA, How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? EurObserv ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe 2010 AEBIOM, European Biomass Statistics 2009.

3. Commission s report on ILUC June 2010 (IPTS) July 2010 (IE) September

(Brussels, 17/09/2010 and 26/10/2010) JRC EXPERT CONSULTATIONS (on

feedstocks on the world agricultural markets and areas (Ispra, 10-11

10 3. Commission s report on ILUC June 2010 (IPTS) July 2010 (IE) September 2010 (IES/IE) Public consultation on ILUC: - Stakeholder meeting (Brussels, 17/09/2010 and 26/10/2010) 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, February 2010) Critical issues in estimating ILUC emissions (Arona, 9-10 November 2010)

11 1. Assess of the market impacts of RED Simulations with partial equilibrium models: AGLINK-COSIMO: worldwide and EU as two blocks CAPRI: NUTS2 in the EU and simplified for other countries ESIM: 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 %, also oilseed area (1.5%) and wheat (less than 1%)

12 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

13 JRC economic model comparison: Biodiesel scenarios Ethanol scenarios Changes in crop area per Toe of biofuel AGLINK Biod EU AGLINK Biod US GTAP Biod mix EU LEITAP Biod INDO GTAP Biod Ind/Mal LEITAP Wht Eth EU-Fra FAPRI Wht Eth EU AGLINK Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth EU GTAP Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth US LEITAP Maize Eth US AGLINK Coarse grains Eth US GTAP Coarse grains Eth US IMPACT Maize Eth US IMPACT Coarse grains Eth EU AGLINK Sugar cane Eth Bra IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix BAU Scenario IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix FT Scenario All models show significant land use change LEITAP Biod EU-Deu FAPRI Biod EU LUC [Ha per toe]

14 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: 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 consumption To 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)

15 JRC economic model comparison: and IMPACT (for JRC) Both show the lowest LUC, Biodiesel scenarios There 1.4 are 2 models from IFPRI: MIRAGE (study for DG-TRADE) 0.0 LUC [Ha per toe] due to Ethanol scenarios LEITAP Biod EU-Deu FAPRI Biod EU AGLINK Biod EU AGLINK Biod US GTAP Biod mix EU LEITAP Biod INDO GTAP Biod Ind/Mal LEITAP Wht Eth EU-Fra FAPRI Wht Eth EU AGLINK Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth EU GTAP Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth US LEITAP Maize Eth US AGLINK Coarse grains Eth US GTAP Coarse grains Eth US IMPACT Maize Eth US IMPACT Coarse grains Eth EU AGLINK Sugar cane Eth Bra IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix BAU Scenario IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix FT Scenario - high fraction sugar cane in MIRAGE - relatively large benefit from reduced food consumption

16 JRC economic model comparison: LEITAP shows the highest results, due to Little benefit from by-products (work in Biodiesel scenarios Ethanol scenarios progress) Little reduction in food consumption AGLINK Biod EU AGLINK Biod US GTAP Biod mix EU LEITAP Biod INDO GTAP Biod Ind/Mal LEITAP Wht Eth EU-Fra FAPRI Wht Eth EU AGLINK Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth EU GTAP Wht Eth EU IMPACT Wht Eth US LEITAP Maize Eth US AGLINK Coarse grains Eth US GTAP Coarse grains Eth US IMPACT Maize Eth US IMPACT Coarse grains Eth EU AGLINK Sugar cane Eth Bra IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix BAU Scenario IFPRI-MIRAGE Biofuels mix FT Scenario LEITAP Biod EU-Deu FAPRI Biod EU LUC [Ha per toe]

17 Those reported results again GTAP Biod mix EU GTAP Wht EU IMPACT Wht EU FAPRI Wht EU LEITAP Wht EU IMPACT Maize EU GTAP Maize US IMPACT Maize US LEITAP Maize US Searchinger (2008) IFPRI biofuels mix FAPRI Biod EU LEITAP Biod EU LUC (ha per toe)

18 IFPRI biofuels mix area saved by less by food higher consumption yields area saved by higher yields area saved by less food consumption. Reported LUC FAPRI Biod EU GTAP Biod mix EU GTAP Wht EU IMPACT Wht EU FAPRI Wht EU LEITAP Wht EU IMPACT Maize EU GTAP Maize US IMPACT Maize US LEITAP Maize US Searchinger (2008) LEITAP Biod EU LUC (ha per toe)

19 Main factors influencing ILUC area. area saved by higher yields area saved by less food consumption area saved by higher yields area saved by less food consumption. Reported LUC FAPRI Biod EU GTAP Biod mix EU GTAP Wht EU IMPACT Wht EU FAPRI Wht EU LEITAP Wht EU IMPACT Maize EU GTAP Maize US IMPACT Maize US LEITAP Maize US Searchinger (2008) IFPRI biofuels mix LEITAP Biod EU LUC (ha per toe)

20 Main factors influencing ILUC area. area saved by higher yields area saved by less food consumption area saved by higher yields area saved by less food consumption. Reported LUC These two model characteristics explain most of the differences. FAPRI Biod EU GTAP Biod mix EU GTAP Wht EU IMPACT Wht EU FAPRI Wht EU LEITAP Wht EU IMPACT Maize EU GTAP Maize US IMPACT Maize US LEITAP Maize US Searchinger (2008) IFPRI biofuels mix LEITAP Biod EU LUC (ha per toe)

3. GHG emissions from global LUC Biofuels: a New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions Due to Global Land Use Change A methodology involving spatial allocation of agricultural land demand and

21 3. GHG emissions from global LUC Biofuels: a New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions Due to Global Land Use Change A methodology involving spatial allocation of agricultural land demand and estimation CO 2 and N 2 O emissions Roland Hiederer, Fabien Ramos, Claudia Capitani, Renate Koeble, Viorel Blujdea, Oscar Gomez, Declan Mulligan and Luisa Marelli Institute for Environment and Sustainability & Institute for Energy available at

22 The JRC methodology 1. Use as input data agro-economic models results (IFPRI- MIRAGE and JRC AGLINK-COSIMO) 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), N 2 O (Nitrous Oxide), ABCS (Above and Below-ground biomass Carbon Stocks) Higher resolution then previous models (~10 x 10 Km grids)

Changes in Soil Organic Carbon 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Soil Organic Carbon Stock Changes by Country Changes in SOC [Mt C] no < 0.

23 Changes in Soil Organic Carbon Soil Organic Carbon Stock Changes by Country Changes in SOC [Mt C] no < > 0.5 data Mt CO2eq The JRC methodology AUS N2O soil emissions related to mineralized N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks over a period of 20 years ARG BRA N20 emissions from soils CAN CHN EU27 IND JPN ABCS change in Mt C MEX Region OAF AUS OAS IPTS CG scenario IPTS GM scenario ARG OEC BRA OLA CAN RUS TUR USA ZAF Emissions from changes in above/below ground biomass Change in Above- and Belowground Biomass Carbon Stock (CG) CHN EU27 IND JPN KOR MEX NZL IPFRI Region OAF Sparse Vegetation Shrubland Open Forest Closed Forest Grassland Vegetables and Fruits Oilseeds Sugar Crops OAS OEC OLA RUS TUR USA ZAF Source Unit Total emissions Annualized total GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20years) Mt CO 2 eq 54.6 Extra Energy produced in 2020 (Scenario - Baseline) MJ 865 Annual GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20 years) g CO 2 eq/mj 63

24 Cost and availability of 2 nd 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 Main outcomes (2010) - Status reports on 2 nd generation biofuel industrial demonstration projects and sustainability-related information (data for productivity, economics and CO 2 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)

25 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

26 Vehicle Emissions Influence of RME biodiesel on regulated emissions from EURO4 passenger car HC NOx EURO 4 limit 0.25 g/km g/km g/km Ref. Fuel RME B10 RME B20 RME B Ref. Fuel RME B10 RME B20 RME B CO EURO 4 limit 0.50 g/km 20 PM EURO 4 limit: 25 mg/km g/km mg/km Ref. Fuel RME B10 RME B20 RME B100 Reference fuel is conventional 10 ppm S diesel, increased biodiesel content (from 10% to neat biodiesel) from RMEB10 to RMEB Ref. Fuel RME B10 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 RME B20 RME B100

27 Energy efficiency Experimental program: passenger cars running on ethanol/petrol blends (Programme carried out jointly with EUCAR and CONCAWE) Fuel Consumption Variations (compared to base fuel, %) 4.0% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -0.8% FUELS 5% eth.* 10% eth.* 10% eth.** 15% ETBE 98 RON petrol -2.0% -3.0% -2.0% COLD START Cycle HOT START Cycle THEORETICAL Urban Extraurban Theoretical * Splash blended ** Match blended

28 Vehicle compatibility and energy efficiency On-going work: 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 FFV Experimental 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.

Global biofuel growth Implications for agricultural markets and policies

Global biofuel growth Implications for agricultural markets and policies Martin von Lampe Trade and Agriculture Directorate OECD Regional Meeting on Agricultural Policy Reform Bucharest, Romania 24-26