Website: LAE.MIT.EDU

Transcription

1 A comparison of LC GHG accounting for alternative fuels in the US and EU Robert Malina, Mark Staples (MIT) Michael Wang, Amgad Elgowainy, Jeongwoo Han (ANL) Website: LAE.MIT.EDU 1

2 Motivation There are differences between EU and US policy decisions regarding biofuels for aviation We are aiming to understand the differences in regulatory regimes and their execution, and to quantify how these differences lead to differences in the evaluation of different biofuels under these regimes 2

3 Context Previous work on policy/regulatory scheme comparisons: Argonne National Lab (S&T) 2 Consultants Life cycle associates This analysis is the first to quantitatively disentangle differences in GHG emission results between US and EU for pathways particularly relevant to alternative jet fuel The purpose is to engender discussion on the prospects for harmonizing regulatory attitudes towards alternative jet between the US and EU 3

4 Potential sources of discrepancy Renewable fuel (proposed or actual) LCA accounting framework Δ LCA result LCA ruling / policy decision Modeling decisions & inputs Modeling frameworks 4

5 Technical Issues with LCA Modeling decisions & inputs: Allocation methodology System boundary definition Data inputs Regional/geo-spatial assumptions References & databases used Technology development over time Modeling framework: Consequential vs. attributional US EPA: DAYCENT, GREET, FASOM & FAPRI- CARD EU: JRC WTW, BioGrace, & feedstock sustainability certification 5

6 Potential sources of discrepancy Renewable fuel (proposed or actual) LCA accounting framework Δ LCA result LCA ruling / policy decision Δ Modeling decisions & inputs Modeling frameworks Policy mechanisms 6

7 US Federal Framework on biofuels: RFS 2 Renewable Fuels Standard under the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (RFS 2) Contains mandates for several renewable fuel categories with minimum GHG reductions relative to 2005 conventional gasoline and diesel emissions 40! 35! 30! Using data from the ini0al rulemaking Biomass Based Diesel! Billions of gallons! 25! 20! 15! 10! 5! 0! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2015! 2016! 2017! 2018! 2019! 2020! 2021! 2022! Year! Cellulosic Biofuel! Undifferentiated Advanced Biofuel! Conventional Renewable Fuel (Corn Ethanol)! Threshold GHG savings: conventional renewable fuel: -20% (Only new installations), undifferentiated advanced, and biomass based diesel: -50%, cellulosic biofuel: -60%. 7

8 RFS 2 Company-specific renewable fuel volume obligations & trading mechanism Compliance of fuel with RFS 2 determined by EPA based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions LUC emissions included Initial 2010 ruling: Full suite of models for certain pathways. Subsequent rulings: Based on comparative analyses of additional pathways to the original pathways 8

9 EU regulatory framework for biofuels Main legislation: Renewable Energy Directive RED (2009/28/EC) Fuel Quality Directive FQD (2009/30/EC) Target: 20% share of renewable energy in the EU by 2020; 10% of transportation energy demand to come from renewable sources by 2020 (fuels from non-food biomass and waste oils count double), national targets in place as well. Achievement of the target is responsibility of the member states who are obliged to introduce support schemes and other measures to promote energy from renewable sources. 9

10 EU regulatory framework for biofuels Biofuel produced needs to be meet sustainability criteria, otherwise it does count towards the EU target and is not eligible for public support (biofuel mandates, tax breaks, subsidies) through the member states Sustainability has been defined in the EU legislation in terms of Lifecycle GHG emission reductions: 35%, will be increased to 50% and 60%: Default values available, companies can show in certification that their pathway is better, emission accounting must include direct land-use change Land usage for biomass cultivation: Restrictions for, inter alia, use of wetland, forested areas, peatland, protected areas Feedstock needs to be certified 10

11 Select GHG estimates employed under EU regulation Table taken from RED and FQD Note: Values are without emissions from land-use change 11

12 Proposed regulatory EU framework for biofuels EU Commission proposal for RED/FQD revision: Limitation of contribution of biofuels from food crops to 5% of transportation energy demand Default values for ILUC GHG emissions: 12 gco 2 e/mj for starchy crops 13 gco 2 e/mj for sugars 55 gco 2 e/mj for oily crops Quadruple counting (in addition to double-counting) for biofuels from low-iluc feedstocks such as algae, straw, bagasse EU Commission Policy framework for climate and energy (January 22 nd, 2014): Aims at implementing target for renewable energy usage of 27% by 2030, no dedicated target for biofuels 12

13 Quantitative analysis Renewable fuel (proposed or actual) LCA accounting framework Δ LCA result LCA ruling / policy decision Δ Modeling decisions & inputs Modeling frameworks Policy mechanisms 13

14 GREET modeling framework DOE EERE has been sponsoring GREET development and applications since 1995 GREET is available at Argonne s GREET website: greet.es.anl.gov A new GREET version (GREET1_2013) was released on Oct

15 GREET aviation module includes the following jet fuel pathways q Petroleum Jet Fuel Ø Conven2onal Crude Ø Oil Sand Fuels and Feedstocks q Pyrolysis Oil Jet Fuel Ø Crop Residues Ø Forest Residues Ø Dedicated Energy Crops q Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuel Ø Soybeans Ø Palm Oil Ø Rapeseeds Ø Jatropha Ø Camelina Ø Algae q Fischer- Tropsch Jet Fuel Ø North American Natural Gas Ø Non- North American Natural Gas Ø Renewable Natural Gas Ø Shale Gas Ø Biomass via Gasifica2on Ø Coal via Gasifica2on Ø Coal/Biomass via Gasifica2on AircraA Types q Passenger AircraA Ø Single Aisle Ø Small Twin Aisle Ø Large Twin Aisle Ø Large Quad Ø Regional Jet Ø Business Jet q Freight AircraA Ø Single Aisle Ø Small Twin Aisle Ø Large Twin Aisle Ø Large Quad q LCA Func2onal Units Ø Per MJ of fuel Ø Per kg- km Ø Per passenger- km 15

16 BioGrace modeling framework BIOfuel GReenhouse gas emissions: Alignment of Calculations in Europe Goal: Harmonization and standardization of GHG accounting for transportation fuels in the EU, avoidance of cherry picking by operators Freely available, Excel-based GHG calculation tool Covers 22 feedstock to fuel pathways, does not contain jet fuel specific calculations Can serve as part of fuel certification, needs to be supplemented by feedstock sustainability analysis 16

17 Scope of quantitative analysis Conventional fuel Rapeseed HEFA Soybean HEFA Camelina HEFA Tallow HEFA BTL from farmed wood & waste wood Direct comparison US EU possible Direct comparison US EU possible Direct comparison US EU possible Relevant in terms of treatment of ILUC Showcases the importance of system boundary definitions Direct comparison US EU possible 17

18 Conventional fuels (jet & diesel) Combus0on Fuel transp. Refining Crude oil transp. Crude oil prod gco 2 e per MJ JRC v4 (marginal) EU (diesel) BioGrace NETL (jet) NETL (diesel) GREET 2013 (jet) GREET update (jet) GREET update (diesel) MIT P28 low (jet) MIT P28 baseline (jet) MIT P28 high (jet) US Note: For comparison purposes in this presentation, conventional jet fuel will be assumed to have lifecycle GHG emissions of ~ 87.5 gco 2 e/mj from MIT P28 report 18

19 Conventional fuels (jet & diesel) zoom in 40 Combus0on Fuel transp. Refining Crude oil transp. Crude oil prod gco 2 e per MJ JRC v4 (marginal) EU (diesel) BioGrace NETL (jet) NETL (diesel) GREET 2013 (jet) GREET update (jet) GREET update (diesel) MIT P28 low (jet) MIT P28 baseline (jet) MIT P28 high (jet) US Note: For comparison purposes in this presentation, conventional jet fuel will be assumed to have lifecycle GHG emissions of ~ 87.5 gco 2 e/mj from MIT P28 report 19

20 Differences in emission thresholds for biofuels 100 RFS2: must be 50% or 60% below conventional fuel EU RED/FQD: For facilities operating from 01/23/2008, 35% reduction threshold à 50% as of 01/01/2017 For facilities beginning production on or after 01/01/2017 à 60% as of 01/01/2018 gco 2 e per MJ Req d of biomass based diesel and advanced biofuel Req d of cellulosic biofuel Currently req d Req d as of 2017 Req d of new facilities Baseline 50% 60% reduc0on reduc0on Baseline 35% reduc0on 50% reduc0on 60% reduc0on RFS 2 EU 20

21 Rapeseed HEFA/HVO gco 2 e per MJ Conventional jet fuel: ~ 87.5 gco2e/mj Fuel transp. Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock transp. Feedstock cult. & harvest 35% red. 50% red. 60% red EU RED default: 44.2 gco2e/mj Default (diesel) Default (jet) EU / BioGrace + energy alloc. + BG ag inputs + BG HVO conv & u0lity req's RFS2 / GREET + BG N2O field emissions + BG elec. emissions factor + diesel pathway PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 21

22 Soybean HEFA/HVO gco 2 e per MJ Conventional jet fuel: ~ 87.5 gco2e/mj Fuel transp. Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock transp. Feedstock cult. & harv. 35% red. 50% red. 60% red EU RED default: 37.7 gco2e/mj Default (diesel) Default (jet) + energy alloc. + BG ag inputs + BG HVO conv & u0lity req's EU / BioGrace RFS2 / GREET + BG N2O field emissions + BG elec. emissions factor + diesel pathway PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 22

23 Camelina HEFA jet Camelina HEFA jet qualifies under RFS2: This was determined by comparison to the qualified soybean bio-diesel pathway (no full analysis) EPA does not consider LUC because camelina is assumed to be grown on fallow land According to MIT modeling for the CLEEN program, camelina HEFA is likely to be able to meet a 50 or 60% reduction threshold gco 2 e per MJ 35% red. 50% red. 60% red Fuel transp. Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock transp. Feedstock cult. & harv. Conventional jet fuel: ~ 87.5 gco2e/mj Proposed change of system boundary in EU: ILUC factor of 55 gco 2 e/mj for oilseed feedstocks is proposed 20 0 CLEEN (low) CLEEN (baseline) CLEEN (high) PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 23

24 Camelina HEFA jet + LUC factor Camelina HEFA jet qualifies under RFS2: This was determined by comparison to the qualified soybean bio-diesel pathway (no full analysis) EPA does not consider LUC because camelina is assumed to be grown on fallow land According to MIT modeling for the CLEEN program, camelina HEFA is likely to be able to meet a 50 or 60% reduction threshold gco 2 e per MJ 35% red. 50% red. 60% red LUC factor Fuel transp. Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock transp. Feedstock cult. & harv. Conventional jet fuel: ~ 87.5 gco2e/mj Proposed change of system boundary in EU: ILUC factor of 55 gco 2 e/mj for oilseed feedstocks is proposed 20 0 CLEEN (low) CLEEN (baseline) CLEEN (high) PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 24

25 System boundaries: Tallow example Animal growth lifecycle Transport Slaughtering SYSTEM 2 Hides Animal by- products Meat Transport SYSTEM 1 Jet fuel Rendering Transport Other fuel products Tallow Transport Fuel producing Meat and bone meal (MBM) 25

26 Tallow lifecycle GHG emission results 90 Conventional jet fuel: ~ 87.5 gco2e/mj 80 Fuel transp. Feedstock to fuel conversion gco 2 e per MJ Feedstock transp. Feedstock produc0on 35% red % red % red LOW BASELINE HIGH LOW BASELINE HIGH System 1 System 2 Note: These values are for max jet fuel production case. Assumes market based allocation upstream & energy allocation among fuel products PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 26

27 FT pathways (all diesel) Fuel transp. Feedstock transp. Farmed wood Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock cult. & harvest gco 2 e per MJ 8 6 Waste wood Default Default + JRC feedstock transp. EU/ JRC + JRC ag inputs Default Default + JRC feedstock transp. EU/ RFS2/ JRC GREET PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE RFS2/ GREET + JRC ag inputs 27

28 FT pathways (all diesel) gco 2 e per MJ Conventional diesel fuel: ~90.1 gco2e/mj Fuel transp. Feedstock- to- fuel conv. Feedstock transp. Feedstock cult. & harvest 35% red. 50% red. 60% red Farmed wood Waste wood 10 0 Default EU/ Default + JRC feedstock transp. JRC RFS2/ GREET + JRC ag inputs Default Default + JRC feedstock transp. EU/ JRC PRELIMINARY RESULTS PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE RFS2/ GREET + JRC ag inputs 28

29 Conclusions (1 of 2) Decisions made within framework Main focus Jet-fuel relevant emission reduction thresholds Eligibility scope Allocation rules System boundary for land use change Consequences of eligibility US GHG emissions 50%, 60% Feedstock to fuel pathway approval Energy (for RIN generating products), Displacement LUC in general Access to RIN markets EU GHG emissions+ feedstock sustainability 35% currently, will change to 50%, 60% Company & feedstock-specific fuel certification Energy (with exceptions) Only DLUC (subject to revision) Access to support schemes by member states 29

30 Conclusions (2 of 2) Differences in lifecycle results for pathways assessed due to: Allocation rules (Energy vs. Displacement): Δ 7-12 gco 2 e/mj for HEFA pathways no impact on FT results since no non-fuel co-products System boundaries, including land-use change: Δ 55 gco 2 e/mj for camelina, if camelina becomes subject to ILUC factor in EU (relevant for all oily crops) Agricultural inputs Δ 2-9 gco 2 e/mj for HEFA pathways, 0.7 gco 2 e/mj for FT pathways BUT: Not all differences are indicative of a need for harmonization (systematic vs. parametric differences) 30

31 Acknowledgements The MIT side of this work was sponsored by the FAA and DLA Energy through the PARTNER Center of Excellence The ANL effort was sponsored by DOE EERE BETO and A4A Work presented may not represent the views of the sponsors 31

32 Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Malina Website: LAE.MIT.EDU 32