ecoinvent: Methodological issues around LCA GHG emissions - the Swiss approach

1. ecoinvent: Methodological issues around LCA GHG emissions - the Swiss approach Expert meeting LCA GHG methodologies for bioenergy: Beyond biofuels European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 10 June 2008

2. Status in Switzerland • Full LCA is basis for tax reduction for biofuels • 40% GWP reduction • <125% of overall environmental impacts (UBP) than fossil reference • Cradle to grave LCA one prerequisite • Data provision by importers or producers of biofuels not from waste • Common background database and methodology: ecoinvent v2.0 www.esu-services.ch

3. Harmonization of data collection in ecoinvent • Collaboration of several research institutes and consultants • Clear definition of product properties • Guidelines for methodology e.g. allocation, land transformation • Standard assumptions, e.g. prices in allocation, distances for biomass transports, regional storage

4. Allocation: Example Biogas

5. Allocation • Multi-output processes are stored in the database – BEFORE allocation • Input- and output-specific allocation factors, i.e.individual allocation factor allowed per pollutant and input • Allocation executed after import of dataset into database-> calculation of allocated unit processes-> matrix becomes invertible • NO system expansion,NO creditsNO double counting of impacts • All products included: fuel, electricity, heat, material, fertilizer, waste management, fodder, food, etc. • Cut-off applied for outputs without economic value and wastes for recycling

6. Land use change:Clear cutting of primary forests • Agricultural area is increased by clear cutting • Land transformation leads to CO2 emissions from soil and biomass • Burning of residues with further emissions • Loss of biodiversity • CO2 from land transformation accounts for about 90% of Brazil CO2 emissions • Particles from residue burning are an important problem in South-East Asia

7. Principle of investigation • Increase in agricultural area for the production in the reference year? • Emissions per m2 of clear cut land? • Allocation of emissions between wood production and stubbed land • Stubbed land assumed the main driver • New elementary flow „CO2, land transformation“ as used by IPCC for different possibilities of analysis • No indirect effects – double counting in a database!

8. Plant oil production kg CO2-eq per kg oil at plant

9. Models for agricultural emissions • Indirect N2O emissions due to nitrate leaching are taken into account

10. Capital goods must be included • Share in GWP up to 10-30% • Especially important in agriculture with low usage intensity • Exclusion would give wrong picture • Article published in the Int.J.LCA that gives further details and recommendations Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, et al., The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int. J. LCA, 2007. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.309. www.esu-services.ch

11. 52% 65% GWP reduction of BTL-Diesel • Neglecting parts of the life cycle leads to different conclusions concerning reduction potentials expressed as a percentage (Jungbluth et al. 2008: LCA of biomass-to-liquid fuels)

12. Comparison of biofuels www.esu-services.ch

13. Conclusion from biofuels study • A broad variety of investigated biofuels have a significant GWP-reducing potential • Environmental impacts of biofuel pathways are more dependent on the raw material and its production, not on the type of product or conversion process • Many biofuels from energy crops have higher overall impacts than fossil fuels

14. Conclusions (2) • Differences of biomass production to be considered: • Natural variation: sun, soil, water, climate • Agricultural technology: Fertilization, irrigation, pesticides use, machinery use • Specific issues: land transformation, burning • ecoinvent data provides the best basis for such assessments: transparent, harmonized, unit processes that can be reworked, numerous background data

15. Annexe

16. Problem setting“Ökobilanz von Energieprodukten” • Diverging results for bioenergy and biofuels in separate studies in 2004 • ecoinvent data v1.3 covered only a part of bioenergy chains. No common database • Aims to fully investigate the most important bioenergy chains transparent and publically available • Main issue biofuels in Switzerland or imported • Support for energy policy (fuel tax reductions) • Examination for GHG reduction potential • Investigation of several environmental aspects of “biofuels” supply chains

17. Possible classifications of fuels • Chemical classification of energy carrier • methane, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, oils, methyl ester, liquids (petrol, diesel), ETBE, MTBE • Resources used • Non-renewable: crude oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear • Renewable: energy crops (edible, non-edible), algae, forest wood, biomass residues, sun, wind • Type of conversion process • mechanical, chemical reaction, thermal treatment, fermentation, anaerobic digestion, gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, biotechnical • Marketing: • Sunfuel, Sundiesel, Ökodiesel, Biodiesel, Naturgas, 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation

18. Resources, conversion techniques and “bioenergy” products investigated

19. Investigated biofuels XME Waste cooking oil Rape seed CH/RER soya oil US / BR palm oil MY Methanol waste wood Industrial wood Ethanol 99.7% wood grass potatoes sugar beets whey sugar cane BR maize rye DE / RER BTL forest wood short-rotation wood miscanthus straw Methane 96% agriculture biowaste sludge whey grass wood

20. Eners / LASEN • Synthetic fuels • Plant oils • Methyl ethers (XME) • Ethanol ESU-services Carbotech • Project organisation • Methodology • Clear cutting • Gas upgrading and distribution • Validation • Agriculture • Biogas PSI • Transports Infras • Transports ETH Doka • Biogas • Chemicals • Agriculture • Ethanol Chudacoff • Waste • management • Chemicals Data contributions Data base v1.3

21. Raw data biogas

22. Inventory Clear Cutting

23. Inventory agricultural product

24. Share capital goods(starting point, MJ fuel) www.esu-services.ch

25. Questions to be answered • Using BTL reduces the GWP by X% compared to fossil fuel • Using a specific amount (e.g. 1 MJ or 1 kg) of BTL reduces the GWP by Y kg (or another appropriate unit) compared to fossil fuel

26. 100% 38% 20% 15% 12% Calculations of potential reduction www.esu-services.ch

27. And again: How much better are biofuels? • If we want an answer like „the use of biofuel has ???% lower GWP than fossil fuels“ than we have to include the all parts of the life cycle, e.g. for transports also cars and streets • Neglecting certain parts of the life cycle, even if the same for both options, will bias the results • System boundaries must be stated correctly if comparing reduction figures, e.g. well-to-wheel should include the wheel • See www.esu-services.ch/btl/ for background paper

28. Aggregated Environmental Impact fossil benchmark GHG emissions LCA of Biofuels: Main Results Biodiesel Ethanol Methane Fossil

29. Mileage per hectare

30. Outlook • Full LCA based on investigated data published in the framework of the project (http://www.esu-services.ch/bioenergy.htm) • Life cycle inventories of BTL-fuels are published in EcoSpold format in a European project (www.esu-services.ch/renew.htm) • Ongoing discussion on guidelines for tax exemption will further increase the need for reliable LCI data • Shift of focus from fuel to fuel consumption