Assessing availability and greenhouse gas emissions of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock supply – case study for a catchment in England

© 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Feedstocks from lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) include crop residues and dedicated per¬ennial biomass crops. The latter are often considered superior in terms of climate change mitigation potential. Uncertainty remains over their availability as feedstocks for biomass provision and the net greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) during crop production. Our objective was to assess the optimal land allocation to wheat and Miscanthus in a specific case study located in England, to increase bio¬mass availability, improve the carbon balance (and reduce the consequent GHG emissions), and mini¬mally constrain grain production losses from wheat. Using soil and climate variables for a catchment in east England, biomass yields and direct nitrogen emissions were simulated with validated process-based models. A ‘Field to up-stream factory gate’ life-cycle assessment was conducted to estimate indirect management-related GHG emissions. Results show that feedstock supply from wheat straw can be supplemented beneficially with LCB from Miscanthus grown on selected low-quality soils. In our study, 8% of the less productive arable land area was dedicated to Miscanthus, increasing total LCB provision by about 150%, with a 52% reduction in GHG emission per ton LCB delivered and only a minor effect on wheat grain production (−3%). In conclusion, even without considering the likely carbon sequestration in impoverished soils, agriculture should embrace the opportunities to provide the bioeconomy with LCB from dedicated, perennial crops.Peer reviewe

Prioritising the best use of biomass resources: conceptualising trade-offs

02.09.13 KB. Ok to add report to Spiral. Authors hold copyrightUsing biomass to provide energy services is one of the most versatile options for increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the existing system. This report reviews metrics used to compare alternative bio-energy pathways and identifies limitations inherent in the way that they are calculated and interpreted. It also looks at how companies and investors approach strategic decisions in the bio-energy area. Bio-energy pathways have has physical and economic attributes that can be measured or modelled. These include: the capital cost, operating cost, emissions to air, land and water. Conceptually, comparing alternative pathways is as simple as selecting the attributes and metrics you consider to be most important and ranking the alternative pathways accordingly. At an abstract level there is good agreement about which features of bio-energy pathways are desirable, but there is little agreement about which performance metrics best capture all the relevant information about a bio-energy pathway. Between studies there is also a great deal of variation and this impedes comparison. Common metrics describe energetic performance, economic performance, environmental performance (emissions, land and water use), and social and ecological performance. Compound metrics may be used to integrate multiple attributes but their highly aggregate nature may make them difficult to interpret. Insights that may be drawn from the analysis include:

The greenhouse gas emissions performance of cellulosic ethanol supply chains in Europe

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Calculating the greenhouse gas savings that may be attributed to biofuels is problematic because production systems are inherently complex and methods used to quantify savings are subjective. Differing approaches and interpretations have fuelled a debate about the environmental merit of biofuels, and consequently about the level of policy support that can be justified. This paper estimates and compares emissions from plausible supply chains for lignocellulosic ethanol production, exemplified using data specific to the UK and Sweden. The common elements that give rise to the greatest greenhouse gas emissions are identified and the sensitivity of total emissions to variations in these elements is estimated. The implications of including consequential impacts including indirect land-use change, and the effects of selecting alternative allocation methods on the interpretation of results are discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We find that the most important factors affecting supply chain emissions are the emissions embodied in biomass production, the use of electricity in the conversion process and potentially consequential impacts: indirect land-use change and fertiliser replacement. The large quantity of electricity consumed during enzyme manufacture suggests that enzymatic conversion processes may give rise to greater greenhouse gas emissions than the dilute acid conversion process, even though the dilute acid process has a somewhat lower ethanol yield.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The lignocellulosic ethanol supply chains considered here all lead to greenhouse gas savings relative to gasoline An important caveat to this is that if lignocellulosic ethanol production uses feedstocks that lead to indirect land-use change, or other significant consequential impacts, the benefit may be greatly reduced.</p> <p>Co-locating ethanol, electricity generation and enzyme production in a single facility may improve performance, particularly if this allows the number of energy intensive steps in enzyme production to be reduced, or if other process synergies are available. If biofuels policy in the EU remains contingent on favourable environmental performance then the multi-scale nature of bioenergy supply chains presents a genuine challenge. Lignocellulosic ethanol holds promise for emission reductions, but maximising greenhouse gas savings will not only require efficient supply chain design but also a better understanding of the spatial and temporal factors which affect overall performance.</p

Climate change mitigation potential of lignocellulosic succinic acid: assessing feedstock supply and integrated land use options in a UK Wheat-Miscanthus bio-succinic acid-based bioplastics production system

This research addresses emergent societal concerns driving national policies that seek to replace or reduce the use of petro-based plastics. Whilst environmental pollution by plastics is the dominant contemporary driver, alternatives will also need to demonstrate wider environmental and social benefits, not least the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Biodegradable plastics produced from bio-based Succinic Acid (SA) are evaluated as an alternative to petro-based plastics in the context of the transition to a post-petroleum era. A case study-based methodology was adopted that uses a feedstock catchment area near Hull, England, to provide high spatial and temporal resolution bio-physical, agronomic and climatic data to parameterise quantitative models for crop growth, nitrogen and carbon turnover and life cycle assessment (LCA). The main research questions are: (1) how can the feedstock availability of lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) be optimized, and; (2) can the associated GHG emissions of the commercial scale production of LCB-derived SA be reduced by the using agricultural residues and/or perennial, LCB crops? The results of this case study suggest that significant environmental benefits would result from the adoption of a mixed LCB resourcing strategy. Introducing the perennial grass crop Miscanthus into the arable landscape to replace winter wheat on selected low quality, and environmentally vulnerable soils (8% of the total area) is the main driver for the benefits. A ‘mixed production’ (MP) scenario, using Miscanthus and winter wheat, and a ‘winter wheat only’ single production (SP) scenario, were developed to investigate the productivity and the potential climate change mitigation impacts arising from the proposed land use change strategy i.e. a shift from the SP to MP scenarios. LCAs were conducted to explore the climate mitigation potential of LCB-based SA production. Integrated feedstock provision strategies that include perennial-derived LCB are found to be crucial for the overall climate mitigation performance of bio-plastics. A significant bioeconomy and agricultural opportunity has been identified for the provision of LCB-derived bio-plastics from dedicated, perennial crops. Scenarios without the perennial crop resulted in GHG emission balances of bio-SA based plastics that were similar to grain and petro-based plastics. In the scenario of Miscanthus being cultivated on low-quality soils, the LCB-based SA life cycle results in a persistent net carbon sink being generated.Open Acces

Environmental assessment of biofuel pathways in Ile de France based on ecosystem modelling, including land-use change effects

International audienceThe greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of biofuels largely hinges on the magnitude of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from arable soils during feedstock production, which are highly variable. Here, used an agro-ecosystem model to generate these emissions at a high resolution over the Ile-de-France region in Northern France, for a range of feedstocks. The emissions were input to a life-cycle assessment of candidate biofuel pathways: bioethanol from wheat and sugar-beet, biodiesel from oilseed rape, and ethanol from miscanthus. Compared to the widely-used methodology based on fixed emission factors, ecosystem modelling lead to 55% to 70% lower estimates for N2O emissions, emphasizing the importance of regional factors. The life-cycle GHG emissions of 1st generation biofuels were 50% to 70% lower than fossile-based equivalents, and 85% lower for cellulosic ethanol. Indirect land-use change effects negated these savings for bio-diesel and wheat ethanol, but were offset by direct effects for cellulosic ethanol

Mobilizing Sustainable Bioenergy Supply Chains

Analysis of the five globally significant supply chains conducted by IEA Bioenergy inter-Task teams – boreal and temperate forests, agricultural crop residues, biogas, lignocellulosic crops, and cultivated grasslands and pastures in Brazil – has confirmed that feedstocks produced using logistically efficient production systems can be mobilized to make significant contributions to achieving global targets for bioenergy. However, the very significant challenges identified in this report indicate that changes by all key members of society in public and private institutions and along the whole length of supply chains from feedstock production to energy product consumption are required to mobilize adequate feedstock resources to make a sustainable and significant contribution to climate change mitigation and provide the social and economic services possible. Notably, this report reveals that all globally significant bioenergy development has been underpinned by political backing, which is necessary for passing legislation in the form of mandates, renewable energy portfolios, carbon trading schemes, and the like. The mobilization potential identified in this report will depend on even greater policy support than achieved to date internationally.JRC.F.8-Sustainable Transpor

Systems assessment of biofuels: Modelling of future cost and greenhouse gas abatement competitiveness between biofuels for transport on the case of Germany

Biofuels are a renewable alternative for reducing the climate impact of transport. Due to the versatility of biomass and complexity of economics and impacts, biofuels are part of a complex system, which is here analysed from a systems perspective. Several models are developed in order to assess the competitiveness of various crop based biofuel options as part of a system, using different economic and environmental functional units. The scope is set to Germany until 2050. The capital and feedstock costs were revised to higher levels compared to common assumptions. The different functional units result in different merit orders for the biofuel options. Currently used biofuels, rape seed based biodiesel and starch crop based bioethanol, were found not to be competitive when considering differentiated and increasing feedstock costs. Advanced liquid fuels were only competitive at extreme assumptions, contrary to common expectations. Instead, sugar beet based ethanol dominated for most of the time span when comparing energetic cost, whereas Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) was competitive on a greenhouse gas abatement (GHG) cost basis, especially at a rapid decarbonisation of the power mix. With a land use GHG abatement functional unit, silage maize based biomethane was the best, with SNG converging only at very high renewables shares of the background systems. Switching from current practise to higher yielding biofuel options can treble the abatement per land area for the present day, and potentially increase it by a factor five in the future. A focus on GHG abatement per area of arable land results in the land passenger transport sector to be of the highest priority due to the suitability of higher yielding biofuel options, followed by land goods transport, shipping and finally aviation. If gaseous fuels are not possible to introduce on a large scale, sectors where liquefied gaseous fuels are suitable become the priority, i.e. goods transport and shipping. The current practise of applying admixture quotas to sub-sectors of land transport renders a significantly lower climate benefit compared to an overall optimal usage, and a large societal transition is required before aviation biofuels become the climate optimal biomass usage. The direct importance of land use has thus far not received enough attention in terms of the economics of biofuels from dedicated crops, as well as for the greenhouse gas emissions policy. Biofuels produced from arable land can provide a strong GHG benefit if an expansion of arable land is hindered through redirecting land use, which requires a holistic policy approach.:Abstract ix Acknowledgments xi List of Publications xiii List of Acronyms xv I Introductory chapters 1 1 Background 3 1.1 Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Technological Change and Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Aim and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Methodology 9 2.1 Systems modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Results and discussion 17 3.1 Biofuel techno-economic potential and competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.1 Resource base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.2 Biomass climate benefit in other sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.3 Other renewable fuel options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2.5 Applicability of results to other regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4 Conclusions 25 4.1 Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Bibliography 29 Contribution to Appended Papers 33 Curriculum Vitae 35 CONTENTS II Appended papers 37 1 Competitiveness of advanced and conventional biofuels: Results from least-cost modelling of biofuel competition in Germany 39 2 Biomass price developments inhibit biofuel investments and research in Germany: The crucial future role of high yields 51 3 Relative greenhouse gas abatement cost competitiveness of biofuels in Germany 63 4 Climate optimal deployment of biofuels from crops in Germany 85Biokraftstoffe sind eine erneuerbare Alternative zur Verringerung der Klimaauswirkungen des Verkehrs. Aufgrund der Vielseitigkeit der Biomasse und der Komplexität der Ökonomie und der Auswirkungen sind Biokraftstoffe Teil eines komplexen Systems, das hier aus einer Systemperspektive analysiert wird. Es werden mehrere Modelle entwickelt, um die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit verschiedener biogener Biokraftstoffoptionen als Teil eines Systems unter Verwendung verschiedener wirtschaftlicher und ökologischer Funktionseinheiten zu bewerten. Der Umfang ist auf Deutschland bis 2050 festgelegt. Die Kapital- und Rohstoffkosten wurden im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Annahmen auf ein höheres Niveau angepasst. Die verschiedenen Funktionseinheiten führen zu unterschiedlichen Merit Order für die Biokraftstoffoptionen. Die derzeit verwendeten Biokraftstoffe, Raps-Saatgut-Biodiesel und Stärkepflanzen-Bioethanol, erwiesen sich als nicht wettbewerbsfähig, wenn man differenzierte und steigende Rohstoffkosten in Betracht zieht. Fortschrittliche flüssige Kraftstoffe waren nur unter extremen Annahmen wettbewerbsfähig, entgegen den üblichen Erwartungen. Stattdessen dominierte Ethanol auf Zuckerrübenbasis für einen Großteil der Zeitspanne beim Vergleich der Energiekosten, während synthetisches Erdgas (SNG) auf der Basis der Treibhausgasvermeidungskosten wettbewerbsfähig war, insbesondere bei einer schnellen Dekarbonisierung des Strommixes. Mit einer Funktionseinheit zur Reduzierung der Treibhausgasemissionen war Silagemais-basiertes Biomethan die beste Option, wobei SNG bei sehr hohen Anteilen an erneuerbaren Energien der Hintergrundsysteme konvergierte. Der Wechsel von der derzeitigen Praxis zu ertragreicheren Biokraftstoffoptionen kann die Verringerung pro Landfläche für die Gegenwart verdreifachen und in Zukunft möglicherweise um den Faktor fünf erhöhen. Die Fokussierung auf die Reduzierung von Treibhausgasen pro Ackerfläche führt dazu, dass der Landpersonenverkehr aufgrund der Eignung ertragreicherer Biokraftstoffoptionen, gefolgt von Landverkehr, Schifffahrt und schließlich Luftfahrt, höchste Priorität genießt. Wenn es nicht möglich ist, gasförmige Kraftstoffe in großem Maßstab einzuführen, werden Sektoren, in denen verflüssigte gasförmige Kraftstoffe geeignet sind, zur Priorität, d.h. Güterverkehr und Schifffahrt. Die aktuelle Praxis der Anwendung von Beimischungsquoten für Teilbereiche des Landverkehrs führt zu einem deutlich geringeren Klimanutzen im Vergleich zu einer insgesamt optimalen Nutzung, und es ist ein großer gesellschaftlicher Wandel erforderlich, bevor Biokraftstoffe aus der Luftfahrt zur klimaoptimalen Biomassenutzung werden. Die direkte Bedeutung der Landnutzung hat bisher nicht genügend Beachtung gefunden, sowohl in Bezug auf die Wirtschaftlichkeit von Biokraftstoffen aus Sonderkulturen als auch in Bezug auf die Treibhausgasemissionen. Biokraftstoffe, die von Anbaubiomasse hergestellt werden, können einen starken Treibhausgasvorteil bieten, wenn eine Ausweitung der Ackerfläche durch eine Neuausrichtung der Landnutzung behindert wird, was einen ganzheitlichen politischen Ansatz erfordert.:Abstract ix Acknowledgments xi List of Publications xiii List of Acronyms xv I Introductory chapters 1 1 Background 3 1.1 Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Technological Change and Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Aim and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Methodology 9 2.1 Systems modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Results and discussion 17 3.1 Biofuel techno-economic potential and competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.1 Resource base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.2 Biomass climate benefit in other sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.3 Other renewable fuel options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2.5 Applicability of results to other regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4 Conclusions 25 4.1 Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Bibliography 29 Contribution to Appended Papers 33 Curriculum Vitae 35 CONTENTS II Appended papers 37 1 Competitiveness of advanced and conventional biofuels: Results from least-cost modelling of biofuel competition in Germany 39 2 Biomass price developments inhibit biofuel investments and research in Germany: The crucial future role of high yields 51 3 Relative greenhouse gas abatement cost competitiveness of biofuels in Germany 63 4 Climate optimal deployment of biofuels from crops in Germany 8

Analysis of the economic impact of large-scale deployment of biomass resources for energy and materials in the Netherlands : macro-economics biobased synthesis report

The Bio-based Raw Materials Platform (PGG), part of the Energy Transition in The Netherlands, commissioned the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) and the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University to conduct research on the macro-economic impact of large scale deployment of biomass for energy and materials in the Netherlands. Two model approaches were applied based on a consistent set of scenario assumptions: a bottom-up study including technoeconomic projections of fossil and bio-based conversion technologies and a topdown study including macro-economic modelling of (global) trade of biomass and fossil resources. The results of the top-down and bottom-up modelling work are reported separately. The results of the synthesis of the modelling work are presented in this report