Effect of Biodiesel Production on Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use for Canada

Transcription

1 Effect of Biodiesel Production on Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use for Canada Brian G. McConkey 1, Stephen Smith 2, James Dyer 3, Ravinderpal Gil 2, Suren Kulshreshtha 4, Cecil Nagy 4, Murray Bentham 4, Darrel Cerkowniak 4, Bob MacGregor 2, Marie Boehm 5 1,2,4 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1 Swift Current, SK, 2 Ottawa, ON, 4 Saskatoon, SK; 3 Consultant, Cambridge, ON; 4 University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, Brian.McConkey@agr.gc.ca 1

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) 2

3 Life-cycle analysis of biofuels is difficult Boundaries Co-products Direct and indirect effects on agricultural sector Indirect land-use change 3

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 4

5 Canada deforests to increase agricultural land Forest clearing in frontier area of Canada Clearing forests to agriculture has involved to ha per year over last two decades 5

6 Deforestation typically releases t CO 2 /ha in Canada 720 t CO 2 /ha 480 t CO 2 /ha 1800 t CO 2 /ha 200 t CO 2 /ha 520 t CO 2 /ha 6

7 Emission or removal (Mt CO2 eq) Sink Source Canada s GHG Emissions from agriculture including land use and land-use change Ag soils (N2O) Livestock land management change (tillage, bare fallow) Clearing to agriculture Net

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 8

9 General Scenario CRAM Life-cycle inventory values of energy and GHG for primary production, transportation, bioenergy, and primary food processing Economically and physically sensible resource allocation National GHG Accounting C Change Energy and GHG Module (Energy inputs & GHG emissions) $ GHG budget Energy I:O 9

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 10

11 Life-cycle inventory values for biodiesel for Canada Oilseed production and transport Biodiesel production (to pump) Displacement from use of co-products Diesel fuel emissions displaced (well to pump plus final use) Units Canola Soybean kg CO2 equiv. per tonne of oilseed kg CO2 equiv. per L of biodiesel kg CO2 equiv. per L of biodiesel Net

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 12

13 Bioenergy Scenarios Name Crude Oil Price $/bbl Carbon Price $/Mg CO2e Biogenic Ethanol (% of gasoline) Proportion of Biodiesel (% of Petroleum diesel) Bioenergy (% of Coal based energy substituted) Lo Oil-Lo C Lo Oil-Hi C Hi Oil-Hi C Hi Oil-Lo C

14 General Scenario CRAM Life-cycle inventory values of energy and GHG for primary production, transportation, bioenergy, and primary food processing Economically and physically sensible resource allocation National GHG Accounting C Change CEEMA (Energy inputs & GHG emissions) $ GHG budget Energy I:O 14

15 Biomass Residues Food Fuel Grain Land Feed Biomass crops Forest LAND Hay, pasture Livestock 15

16 Current extent of agriculture in Canada 16

17 What is the Potential for Expansion of the Agricultural Land Base in Canada? Was unknown so undertook analysis to answer 17

18 18

19 % Class 5 20% Class 4 30% Class 7 Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil Capability for Agriculture 19

20 20

21 21

22 Expansion Potential of Canadian Agricultural Land Land Area (ha) Area (%) of current cropland Class 1 and 2* land in shrubs 157, Class 3 and 4** land in shrubs 1,913, Class 1 and 2 land in forest 753, Class 3 and 4 land in forest 7,176, *Land with no significant limitations to production of common field crops ** Land suited to crop production but having limitations 22

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 23

24 Results 24

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 25

26 Change in Production and Exports with Aggressive Bioenergy Policy (Hi Oil Hi C scenario) Compared with Minimum Bioenergy Canola Soybean Production Change to Hi Oil Hi C Export Product tonnes % tonnes % Grain Oil Meal Grain Oil 0 0 Meal Wheat Maize (increased imports) +388 Barley Other grains No change 26

27 Emission Changes for Hi Oil Hi C scenario Source Change in emissions (Mt CO 2 equiv.) Agricultural Soil (N 2 O) -2.9 Livestock -2.7 Soil C -3.4 Fossil fuel substitution Total 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. 27

28 Deforestation Aggressive bioenergy development increases land values and induces increased deforestation 28

29 Emissions from deforestation Emission Scenario Area (ha/yr) (Mt CO 2 equiv.) Lo Oil Hi C * Hi Oil Hi C * *Total emissions for year 0-10 after deforestation event 29

30 Emission Changes for Aggressive Bioenergy Scenario Source Change in emissions (Mt CO 2 equiv.) Agricultural Soil (N2O) -2.9 Livestock -2.7 Soil C -3.4 Fossil fuel substitution Total Deforestation Total with deforestation

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 31

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 32

33 Thank you for your attention Questions? Supported by PERD (Panel on Energy Research and Development) 33