Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities

1. Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy SystemsTask 38 Activities Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird Finland Sweden Germany Belgium Austria Croatia USA Australia New Zealand Participating Countries

2. Australia Annette Cowie Co-Task Leader Austria Susanne Woess-Gallasch Neil Bird, Task Leader Participating Countries and NTLs 2008 Belgium Florence Van Stappen Croatia Ana Kojakovic Finland Sampo Soimakallio Kim Pingoud Germany Sebastian Rüter Sweden Kenneth Möllersten United States Mark Downing

3. Objectives of Task 38 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 3

4. Task 38 Page 4

5. 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 Task 38 Page 5

6. 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

7. Austria and USA: GORCAM 600 ] -1 Fossil fuel input is generally a negative 500 value and brings the top line of the pattern down 400 to the ultimate total (thick black line) Cumulative C sequestr. [tC ha 300 Credit for energy substitution 200 Litter 100 Trees Soil 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time [years] Model results: Carbon balance of a fuelwood plantation on agricultural landand bioenergy use of the fuel wood

8. 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/

9. 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)

10. LCA Biogas Plant PaldauCO2–Eqivalents per year

11. 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);

12. 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

13. 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/

14. Draft 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

15. 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 RE-Impact: Forestry based Bioenergy for Sustainable Development

16. Biofuel Wood Electricity Heat FT Diesel Polygeneration Plant(Feasibility, incl. GHG and energy balance based on life cycle )

17. Change of Land Use: From Cotton to Cynara as Energy Crop Land use change Source: ACISA

18. Thank you for your attention susanne.woess@joanneum.atneil.bird@joanneum.at www.ieabioenergy-task38.org Finland Sweden Germany Belgium Austria Croatia USA Australia New Zealand Participating Countries