1 / 26

The impacts of lignocellulosic biomass-based biofuel production on land use changes in Europe

The impacts of lignocellulosic biomass-based biofuel production on land use changes in Europe. By Anabelle Couleau (PhD Student) & Dr. David Laborde (IFPRI). International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR ), 2013, Ravello . Introduction. Introduction.

vivian
Download Presentation

The impacts of lignocellulosic biomass-based biofuel production on land use changes in Europe

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. The impacts of lignocellulosic biomass-based biofuel production on land use changes in Europe By Anabelle Couleau (PhD Student) & Dr. David Laborde (IFPRI) International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR), 2013, Ravello

  2. Introduction Introduction • 4.7% share of 1st gen biofuels is estimated to have generated 25.5 Million Tons CO2eq savings, based on NREAPs • BUT account for ILUC may reduce or cancel GHG savings attributed to biofuels • Growing interest for 2nd generation biofuels and design of EU biofuel policy led us to consider ILUC for cellulosic feedstocks & biofuels • Although some are arguing that second generation would not be in competition with food markets, and so ILUC free • Lignocellulosic biomass (2 types : Ag. Residues and Dedicated Energy Crops) is competing on production factors and so on land with food cropsand pasture.

  3. Introduction EU biofuellegislation • iLUC are not subject to reporting requirements under current legislation ! • Limiting 1st generation ? • October, 2012 => European Commission : Proposed to limit 1st gen biofuels in transport mix at 5% by 2020 (currently 10%) • April, 2013 => Parliament (Lepage's proposal) : No limitation 1st gen but iLUC reporting and binding + incentives 2nd generation => In both they are considering 2nd generation biofuels.

  4. Introduction European 2G biofuelsconsumptionforecasts ?

  5. Introduction EU cellulosic ethanol plants Source : Author’s compilations from http://biomap.kcl.ac.uk, accessed in June 2013

  6. Introduction Technologies Second-GenerationBiofuels Cellulosicbiomass Processing routes Thermochemical=> gazeification (700 C, Syngas) Cellulosic Fischer Tropsch Diesel (FTD) Cropsresidues -corn stover -wheatstraw Dedicatedenergycrops -Miscanthus -Switchgrass Cellulosic Ethanol Biochemical => Enzymatic digestion

  7. Introduction Research Question • Are 2nd generation really ILUC “free”? • In the negative, • what are the main drivers related to ILUC for 2nd generation biofuel? • From different ligno-cellulosic materials ? • In comparison with 1st generation ?

  8. Literature Review Some Results from the Literature • Taheripour et al., (GTAP-BIO-ADV, general equilibrium) • Gurgel et al., (EPPA, general equilibrium)

  9. Literature Cropsresidues : ISSUES • Removalrate and reductionyields • Corn stover is considered the main feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production, but crop residues from small grains can also be used as bioenergy feedstock (Tarkalson et al., 2011). • In Europe, wheat straw is expected to be a potential important feedstock for bioenergy production (Powlson et al., 2011). • Crops residues are a direct soil organic carbon (SOC) pool. Large-scale removal of crop residues at high rates can deplete SOC pools (Blanco-canqui & Lal, 2009). So, we assume the yield will be a decreasing function of the removal rate.

  10. Methodology MIRAGE-BioF: Main characteristics model • A computable generalequilibrium model (CGE) • Multi-regions (11), multi sectors (43), • A recursive, dynamic model : up to 2020 • Databaseused: GTAP (2004) • Used in perfect competition • In this study : extended version of MIRAGE Biof by Laborde (2011) • Reminder : • Baseline :from 2008 up to 2020 • Scenario : National Renewable Energy Action Plans (each members states has to released its own renewable biofuel consomptions estimations with this NREAPs document, each year).

  11. Methodology Main general assumptions • At this stage, there is no trade of 2nd generation biofuels and specific feedstocks => design of 100% EU production • We are first focusing on cellulosic ethanol • Constant 1st generation ethanol consumption in the EU is assumed but the source of ethanol can still vary • No competition between type of lignocellulosicfeedstocks

  12. Methodology Modeling Choice What are initial use of crops residues ? • Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER • Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

  13. Methodology Modeling Choice What are initial use of crops residues ? • Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER • Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

  14. Methodology Modeling Choice What are initial use of crops residues ? • Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER • Soil fertilizer is not directly compensated by fertilizers. The dominant effect is a decrease in yield • SOIL FERTILIZER = • Carbon and Nitrogen • Soil Humidity  Can not be compensated by Mineral Fertilizers • Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

  15. Methodology Modeling Choice What are initial use of crops residues ? • Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER • Soil fertilizer is not directly compensated by fertilizers. The dominant effect is a decrease in yield • Soil fertilizer is directly compensated by an add-on fertilizers. Assumption : no direct effect on the price of wheat • Options 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

  16. Methodology How to integrate crops residues in the model ? • We assume a removal rate of 30% for the EU grain harvested area supplying 2nd generation plants • We account for the technical constraint of carrying biomass • The yield is a decreasing function of the removal rate

  17. Methodology How to integrate crops residues in the model ? Two options allow to have yield endogenous to the scale of second generation production at the EU level: • Assume a homogenous removal rate of X% on each hectare of wheat (e.g) and yield will be a decreasing function of the removal rate (X); • Assume two management techniques for wheat/corn and endogenous choice of management method for each ha: • normal management (crop residues stay on the field), • removal of crop residues with a fixed rate of 30%. The second option has been selected since it has two main advantages: • well suited to account for technical constraint of carrying biomass (minimal threshold of removal to cover logistics costs).; • Do not need to define the full relation between removal rate and yield decrease at the field level. Only a point estimate is needed.

  18. Results Cropland Expansion in Ha by TJ Source: MIRAGE-BioF Simulation

  19. Cropland Expansion in Ha by TJ • The increase in demand for cellulosic ethanol leads to a net extension of the land area used for crops. • This is the result of an increase in land area for wheat production (wheat straw scenario) and corn production (corn stover scenario) but a decrease in cropland mainly absorbed by oilseed crop production. • In the first generation ethanol scenario (DL, 2011), the increased demands led to the extension of the land area used for the production sugar beet.

  20. Results Annual LUC of EU consumption, 20 years 1st generation Ethanol 2nd generation Ethanol

  21. Interpretation / Discussion Discussion on ILUC results • Differences within 2nd gen. : yield/conversion rate. • Differences 1stvs 2nd gen. : • No DDGS effects in 2nd generation case, • Required cropland expansion for 2nd generation case is significantly reduced, • Conversion rate. • Differences 2nd gen in MIRAGE-Biof & GTAP-BIO-ADV : design of cropland-pasture land use allocation.

  22. Sensitivity Analysis SensitivityAnalysis • We still need to test the sensitivity of ILUC results with respect to changes in : • Conversion rate of biomass into cellulosic ethanol, • Relaxingassumptionsthat no addedfertilizer to offset the reduction in yields.

  23. Conclusion Conclusion : ongoing stages • Account for cellulosic ethanol co-products (Molasse, Lignin pellets) • New feedstocks => working differently than crops residues : perennial grasses « Miscanthus » (high biomass potential in EU compared to Switchgrass) • Integrating new technology : cellulosic biodiesel => Biomass to Liquid Fuel (FTD) • Cellulosic biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) industry design • Alternatives closures • Non linearity behavior for second gen. Biofuels

  24. Thank you for your attention !!

  25. Conclusion Caveats May drive ILUC factors results of 2nd gen biofuels : • Design of fertilizers markets (inherent to the model) • Multicropping, crop rotation: general problem for land use. For 2nde gen., specific crops rotation could resolve the problem of soil fertilizer. (Farmers => crop protection, especially designed for crop residues).

  26. Results EU Crop Residues specific LUC emissions Breakdown by source of emissions Wheat straw Corn Stover

More Related