1 / 28

Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation. Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA. * Uwe Schneider, Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos + Edward Smeets, Iris Lewandowski, André Faaij * Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University

ownah
Download Presentation

Non-Food Options at Farm Level Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Copernicus Institute Sustainable Development and Innovation Non-Food Options at Farm LevelAgricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA * Uwe Schneider, Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos + Edward Smeets, Iris Lewandowski, André Faaij *Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University + Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University Final Meeting ENFA, 23-24 April 2008, Brussels, Belgium

  2. Table 1: Food/ Non-Food Production Lines in ENFA

  3. Non-food Product Applications Selection • Selection of applications are based on the following parameters: • market size • economic performance • technical feasibility • environmental performance

  4. Miscanthus & switchgrass chains • C4 grasses • high light, water, and nitrogen use efficiency • high yield potential • miscanthus field • miscanthus harvesting

  5. Table 2: Miscanthus & switchgrassapplications selected

  6. Total costs of production were calculated Discounted cash flow methodology Considered the supply chain in the calculations includes growing, harvesting, storing, compacting and transporting Regional variation were accounted in terms of yield, transportation distance, input costs (labor, fuel, agrochemicals, etc.) Calculations done for the base case and 2030 Economic performance calculations

  7. Based on GHG emissions during the production and transportation stages Direct emissions Emissions from fuel use in agricultural machineries or transportation equipment Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use Indirect emissions Emissions generated from the bioenergy or biomaterial production during the production and transportation stages Spreadsheet modeling Environmental performance calculations

  8. Miscanthus and switchgrass production – an overview Table 3: Number of application of production stages over the miscanthus and switchgrasslifetimes* *Assumed to be applicable in all EU regions

  9. 20,000 rhizomes/ha 0.16 Euro/rhizome Fertilization (example for Germany): N 24 kg/ha/y (incl. atm. deposition) P 10 kg/ha/y K 91 kg/ha/y Ca 14 kg/ha/y based on 0.27% N, 0.07% P, 0.65% K, and 0.10% Ca of odt and a yield of 14 ton/ha/y Inputs (example for miscanthus)

  10. Sample costs Table 4: Farm machinery costs for a self propelled big baler harvester • Sources: Huisman, 1997; Lazarus & Selly, 2003; EUROSTAT, 2006

  11. Key variables/uncertainties for economic performance of miscanthus production: On-field transportation costs Farm size Yield harvest cost factor (YF): YF = 4.33 Y-0.589where Y = yield (ton/ha) http://www.pictokon.net http://blog.futurelab.net

  12. tons/ha/yr 0- 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 Yields • MiscanMod • crop growth model • Average yield EU25: Base: 13 tons/ha/yr2030: 16 tons/ha/yr Figure 1: Field yields of miscanthus in the EU region • Source: Stampfl et al., 2006

  13. Storing Storage options are available (costs < 10 Euro/ton) for existing farm and roofed timber buildings Risk of self heating and dry matter loss during storage Pelletizing On-field and on-farm pelleting is expensive Large scale effect: 3 t/h ≡ 55 Euro/ton (Austria) 10 t/h ≡ 30 Euro/ton (Sweden) Pelletizing to reduce transportation costs is unprofitable! http://www.peer-span.ch

  14. http://www.walesbiomass.org Table 5: Transportation costs • Sources: NEA, 2004; • IFEU, 2005; Hamelinck, 2004

  15. 40 2.2 Energy 35 1.9 Labor 1.7 30 Capital 1.4 25 Euro/ton Euro/GJ 1.1 20 0.8 15 0.6 10 0.3 5 0 0 PL - PL - HU - HU - UK - UK - IT - IT - LI - LI - 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 Figure 2: Pelletizing costs PL = Poland; HU = Hungary; UK = United Kingdom; IT = Italy; LI = Lithuania • Key uncertainties are the moisture content and the source and price of energy • Only attractive in the case of very long distance transport (>700 km) in the case of low energy costs (e.g. in combination with a CHP plant)

  16. 25 100 20 80 15 Euro/ton 60 10 40 Transportation 5 20 Storage Production 0 0 IRE FIN UKI LIT CZE ITA BEL NET DEN GER GRE HUN EST FRA LUX SVE LAT MAL POR AUS POL SPA SVA SWE 120 100 25 80 20 Euro/ton 15 60 0 10 40 Transportation Storage 5 20 Production 0 0 IRE LIT FIN ITA CZE UKI NET BEL DEN LAT EST FRA SVE GER LUX GRE HUN AUS POL SVA SPA MAL POR SWE Figure 3: Total production, storage & transportation costs of miscanthus and switchgrass yields Yield (ton/ha/yr)

  17. 25 20 15 Yield (ton /ha/y) 10 5 0 Figure 4: Total miscanthus production costs - EU25* • * From the field to the farm gate • Yields from MiscanMod (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000) • Including labor costs/margins

  18. Sources: Energy: OECD/IEA (2006) Fuels: Well-to-Wheels study (JRC-IES, EUCAR, Concawe, 2006) Materials: BREW project (Patel et al., 2006) Assumptions: Aggregated data Cradle-to-grave basis No regional variation Key variables: Plant scale, fuel conversion efficiency, interest rate, oil price (reference system) Results: Economic performance evaluation

  19. Ethylene now Ethylene future PLA now PLA future 2500 PTT now PTT future 2000 1500 Euro/ton 1000 500 0 FINL IREL PORT SLVN BELG FRAN ITAL SWED UNIK POLA DENM GERM LITH Production costs conventional processes (Euro/ton) Ethylene PET PTT 724 1200 1177 Figure 5: Chemical production costs (Biomaterials)

  20. 0.04 Estonia 0.04 Germany 0.03 Italy 0.03 Euro/km 0.02 Latvia 0.02 Lithuania 0.01 Slovenia 0.01 United Kingdom 0.00 now future now future now future now future now future now future now future SI SI SI, SI, CI CI CI, CI, FC, FC, FC FC FC, FC, hyrbrid hybrid hyrbrid hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid Gasoline Diesel Methanol Hydrogen 0.07 Estonia 0.06 Germany 0.05 Italy 0.04 Euro/km Latvia 0.03 Lithuania 0.02 Slovenia 0.01 United Kingdom 0.00 now future now future now future now future now future now future CI CI CI, CI, SI SI SI, SI, CI CI CI, CI, hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid FT diesel Ethanol DME Figure 6: Biofuel production costs

  21. 5.6 100 5.0 90 4.4 80 3.9 70 Transport 60 3.3 Unloading kg CO2 eq/ GJ 50 2.8 Storage 40 P - Machines production 2.2 30 P - Machines use 1.7 20 P - N2O N fertilizer 1.1 10 P - Fertilizers and agrochem prod. 0.6 0 P - Planting material 0 PL- PL- PL- PL- HU- HU- HU- HU- UK- UK- UK- UK- IT- IT- IT- IT- LI- LI- LI- LI- M-B- M-B- M-C- M-C- M-B- M-B- M-C- M-C- M-B- M-B- M-C- M-C- M-B- M-B- M-C- M-C- M-B- M-B- M-C- M-C- 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 2004 2030 eq/ton 2 kg CO Results: Environmental performance evaluation P = production, PL = Poland - Lubelski, HU = Hungary - Del-Dunantal, UK = United Kingdom - Devon, IT = Italy – Lombardia, LI = Lithuania, M = miscanthus, S = switchgrass, B = baled, C = chopped. Figure 7: GHG emissions from miscanthus production

  22. Summary of the different food and non-food bioenergy options: Yields Production costs Labor intensity Fertilizer use Energy use http://www.eubia.org/ Agricultural Bioenergy Options in ENFA

  23. Figure 8: Average production yields of different bioenergy options

  24. Figure 9: Production costs of different bioenergy options

  25. Figure 10: Labor intensities of different bioenergy options

  26. Figure 11: Amount of fertilizer use by different bioenergy options

  27. Figure 12: Amount of fuel use by different bioenergy options

  28. Figure 13: Input data parameters for different bioenergy options

More Related