Download - JRC activities on biofuels Luisa Marelli
‹#›
JRC activities on biofuels
European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre (JRC)“Biofuels” action coordinator
Luisa Marelli
‹#›
Policy demand
Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) Directive 2009/30/EC (FQD)
10% target for RES in transport 10% GHG reduction by fuel suppliers (6% through alternative fuels)
• Sustainability Criteria to reduce the impact caused by land use change (emissions, biodiversity, deforestation etc)
• Commission’s monitoring and reporting requirements to EP and Council (sustainability scheme):
- Guide on Carbon stocks- Guide on areas with lower GHG values from agriculture- How to address Indirect Land Use Change (2010)- Criteria for biodiverse areas and degraded lands- Report on typical and default GHG emissions values - Availability of 2nd generation biofuels
‹#›
Land Use
2nd generation
GHG emissions
Tropical deforestation
Economic modelling
Vehicle compatibility
Water impact
Life Cycle Analysis
Biomass conversion
The JRC response
JRC Biofuels Thematic Programme (2009): working platform to address the most relevant policy questions
• Coordinates and reports to the Commission JRC key scientific activities of three institutes
• Supports the Commission in implementation and reporting requirements of the Directives (Interservice WGs and Comitology)
‹#›
Priorities
1. Sustainability assessment on the use of biofuels.
2. Cost and availability of 2nd generation biofuels.
3. Technical compatibility, emissions and energy efficiency of vehicles fuelled with biofuels.
• Assessment of the impact of direct and indirect effects due to land use change and related GHG emission
• Development of biofuels certification systems
• Impact of biofuels on tropical deforestation in South East Asia
• Calculation of (direct) GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuels pathways
‹#›
RED and FQD Policy demand in 2010
3. ILUC
1. Biofuels/Bioliquids sustainability scheme
• C stock guideline• Voluntary schemes /certification schemes• GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuel pathways
• Public consultation (July – October 2010)• Commission report to EP and Council ( December 2010)
2. National Renewable Energy Action Plans (June 2010)
Sustainability Assessment
‹#›
Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution
a) Commission’s decision on Guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks (2010/335/EU of 10/06/2010):
- Accompanying global data layers on climate regions and soil type: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/RenewableEnergy/
JRC Ref. report n. EUR 24573 EN
(IES Soil and GHG-AFOLU Actions)
1. Sustainability scheme
‹#›
b) Communication on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels sustainability scheme and on counting rules for biofuels
1. Sustainability scheme
Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution
- Definition of an approach to calculate N2O emissions from biofuel feedstock calculations (combination of a statistical model and IPCC)
Spatial variability of environmental conditions and management are taken into account
applicable on global scale reproducible by by economic operators or public sector entities
- Technical assistance in the calculation of typical GHG emissions and life cycle of biofuel pathways (Art. 19 and Annex V RED)
Calculation of global emission based on the defined method for updates of existing default values in the RED and introduction of new pathways (e.g. barley, safflower, cassava….)
‹#›
c) Commission’s report to EP and Council on “ Feasibility of drawing up lists of areas in EU and third countries with low GHG emissions from cultivation”
d) JRC Report "Status of the Implementation of Biofuels and Bioenergy Certification Systems" - 24650 EN
- technical contribution to the ongoing process of recognition of biofuels sustainability schemes.
Commission Reporting requirement: JRC contribution
1. Sustainability scheme
- Calculation of typical greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of agricultural raw materials for NUTS2 in Europe and regional level for ROW based on a single methodology and harmonized datasets
‹#›
Is there enough biomass to reach these targets?Primary biomass Consumption in the EU27
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020
Mto
e
Electricity Heating&Cooling Biofuels
2005 - actual data according to the NREAPs
2006-2009 - actual data according to EurObserv’ER
2010-2020 – projections according to the NREAPs
Data sources: National Renewable Action Plans (NREAPs) EEA, 2006. How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? EurObserv’ER, The state of renewable energies in Europe 2010AEBIOM, European Biomass Statistics 2009.
Biomass domestic supply (EU27 NREAPs)
0102030405060708090
100110120130
2006 2015 2020
Mto
edirect wood indirect wood crops by-products
MSW industrial waste sewage sludge total
2. NREAP - JRC contribution
‹#›
3. Commission’s report on ILUC
Public consultation on ILUC:
June 2010 (IPTS)
July 2010 (IE)
September 2010 (IES/IE)
- Stakeholder meeting (Brussels, 17/09/2010 and 26/10/2010)
• “Critical issues in estimating ILUC emissions” (Arona, 9-10 November 2010)
JRC EXPERT CONSULTATIONS (on request of DG ENER/CLIMA):
• “The Effects of increased demand for Biofuels feedstocks on the world agricultural markets and areas” (Ispra, 10-11 February 2010)
‹#›
Simulations with partial equilibrium models:AGLINK-COSIMO: worldwide and EU as two blocksCAPRI: NUTS2 in the EU and simplified for other countriesESIM: EU member states, Turkey, USA and rest of world
Main effects of EU biofuel policies on world commodity balances and land use by 2020
• Much higher EU imports of biodiesel, with Argentina and the USA net exporters to satisfy extra world market demand• Considerably higher EU imports of ethanol, accompanied by an increase in Brazil's ethanol exports• Total land used for arable crops worldwide is 0.7% higher, • Sugar (cane and beet) area higher by 2.1-2.2%, also oilseed area (1.5%) and wheat (less than 1%)
1. Assess of the market impacts of RED
‹#›
2. Analysing differences between the models
JRC comparison of economic models for ILUC• Commissioned most major modeling groups to run comparable
scenarios.• Compares results• Analyses why results differ• Workshops with leading economists and scientists
Outcomes available at http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp
‹#›
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
LEITAP B
iod E
U-Deu
FAPRI Biod
EU
AGLINK B
iod E
U
AGLINK B
iod U
S
GTAP Biod
mix
EULE
ITAP Biod
INDO
GTAP Biod
Ind/M
al
LEITAP W
ht Eth
EU-Fra
FAPRI Wht
Eth EU
AGLINK W
ht Eth
EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
EU
GTAP Wht
Eth EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
US
LEITAP M
aize E
th US
AGLINK C
oarse
grain
s Eth
US
GTAP Coa
rse gr
ains E
th US
IMPACT M
aize E
th US
IMPACT C
oarse
grain
s Eth
EU
AGLINK S
ugar
cane
Eth
Bra
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix B
AU Sce
nario
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix F
T Sce
nario
LUC
[Ha
per t
oe]
Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios
All models show significant land use change
Changes in crop area per Toe of biofuel
JRC economic model comparison:
‹#›
How much price increases area compared to yield(IFPRI has higher ILUC savings from yield increases)
How much crops are released by reduced food+feed consumptionTo what extent crop production is shifted to countries with lower yield
How by-products are counted (LEITAP has much lower ILUC savings from by-products)
How and why do model results differ?
1. LUC impact vary considerably across feedstocks
2. For the same feedstock, models differ in terms of LUC [ha/toe] according to:
‹#›
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
LEITAP B
iod E
U-Deu
FAPRI Biod
EU
AGLINK B
iod E
U
AGLINK B
iod U
S
GTAP Biod
mix
EULE
ITAP Biod
INDO
GTAP Biod
Ind/M
al
LEITAP W
ht Eth
EU-Fra
FAPRI Wht
Eth EU
AGLINK W
ht Eth
EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
EU
GTAP Wht
Eth EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
US
LEITAP M
aize E
th US
AGLINK C
oarse
grain
s Eth
US
GTAP Coa
rse gr
ains E
th US
IMPACT M
aize E
th US
IMPACT C
oarse
grain
s Eth
EU
AGLINK S
ugar
cane
Eth
Bra
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix B
AU Sce
nario
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix F
T Sce
nario
LUC
[Ha
per t
oe]
Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios There are 2 models from IFPRI:MIRAGE (study for DG-TRADE)and IMPACT (for JRC)
Both show the lowest LUC,due to
- high fraction sugar cane in MIRAGE
- relatively large benefit from reduced food consumption
JRC economic model comparison:
‹#›
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
LEITAP B
iod E
U-Deu
FAPRI Biod
EU
AGLINK B
iod E
U
AGLINK B
iod U
S
GTAP Biod
mix
EULE
ITAP Biod
INDO
GTAP Biod
Ind/M
al
LEITAP W
ht Eth
EU-Fra
FAPRI Wht
Eth EU
AGLINK W
ht Eth
EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
EU
GTAP Wht
Eth EU
IMPACT W
ht Eth
US
LEITAP M
aize E
th US
AGLINK C
oarse
grain
s Eth
US
GTAP Coa
rse gr
ains E
th US
IMPACT M
aize E
th US
IMPACT C
oarse
grain
s Eth
EU
AGLINK S
ugar
cane
Eth
Bra
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix B
AU Sce
nario
IFPRI-MIR
AGE Biof
uels
mix F
T Sce
nario
LUC
[Ha
per t
oe]
Ethanol scenariosBiodiesel scenarios
LEITAP shows the highest results, due to…
• Little benefit from by-products (work in progress)
• Little reduction in food consumption
JRC economic model comparison:
‹#›
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
LEIT
AP B
iod
EU
FAPR
I Bio
d EU
GTAP
Bio
d m
ix E
U
GTAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT W
ht E
U
FAPR
I Wht
EU
LEIT
AP W
ht E
UIM
PACT
Mai
ze E
U GT
AP M
aize
US
IMPA
CT M
aize
US
LEIT
AP M
aize
US
Sear
chin
ger (
2008
)IF
PRI b
iofu
els
mix
LUC
(ha
per t
oe)
Those reported results again…
‹#›
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
LEIT
AP B
iod
EU
FAPR
I Bio
d EU
GTAP
Bio
d m
ix E
U
GTAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT W
ht E
U
FAPR
I Wht
EU
LEIT
AP W
ht E
UIM
PACT
Mai
ze E
U GT
AP M
aize
US
IMPA
CT M
aize
US
LEIT
AP M
aize
US
Sear
chin
ger (
2008
)IF
PRI b
iofu
els
mix
LUC
(ha
per t
oe)
area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC
area saved by higher yields
area saved by less food consumption.
‹#›
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
LEIT
AP B
iod
EUFA
PRI B
iod
EUGT
AP B
iod
mix
EU
GTAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT W
ht E
UFA
PRI W
ht E
ULE
ITAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT M
aize
EU
GTAP
Mai
ze U
SIM
PACT
Mai
ze U
SLE
ITAP
Mai
ze U
SSe
arch
inge
r (20
08)
IFPR
I bio
fuel
s m
ix
LUC
(ha
per t
oe)
area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC
area saved by higher yieldsarea saved by less food consumption.
Main factors influencing ILUC area….
‹#›
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
LEIT
AP B
iod
EUFA
PRI B
iod
EUGT
AP B
iod
mix
EU
GTAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT W
ht E
UFA
PRI W
ht E
ULE
ITAP
Wht
EU
IMPA
CT M
aize
EU
GTAP
Mai
ze U
SIM
PACT
Mai
ze U
SLE
ITAP
Mai
ze U
SSe
arch
inge
r (20
08)
IFPR
I bio
fuel
s m
ix
LUC
(ha
per t
oe)
area saved by less food consumptionarea saved by higher yields Reported LUC
area saved by higher yieldsarea saved by less food consumption.
Main factors influencing ILUC area….
These two model characteristics explain most of the differences.
‹#›
3. GHG emissions from global LUC
“Biofuels: a New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions Due to Global Land Use Change”
Institute for Environment and Sustainability & Institute for Energy – available at http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp/
Roland Hiederer, Fabien Ramos, Claudia Capitani, Renate Koeble, Viorel Blujdea, Oscar Gomez, Declan Mulligan and Luisa Marelli
A methodology involving spatial allocation of agricultural land demand and estimation CO2 and N2O emissions
‹#›
2. Locate geographically where the land use change predicted by models could occur, based on:
• Land suitability• Existing cropland• Land availability
3. Estimate the resulting GHG emissions: SOC (Soil Organic Carbon), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), ABCS (Above and Below-ground biomass Carbon Stocks)
1. Use as input data agro-economic models results (IFPRI-MIRAGE and JRC AGLINK-COSIMO)
The JRC methodology
Higher resolution then previous models (~10 x 10 Km grids)
‹#›
Soil Organic Carbon Stock Changes by Country
Changes in SOC [Mt C] no < 0.01 0.01 - 0.05 - 0.1 - > 0.5data 0.05 0.1 0.5
N2O soil emissions related to mineralized N resulting from loss of soil organic C stocks over a period of 20 years
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.005.506.006.507.007.508.008.509.00
AU
S
AR
G
BR
A
CA
N
CH
N
EU
27 IND
JPN
ME
X
OA
F
OA
S
OE
C
OLA
RU
S
TUR
US
A
ZAF
Region
Mt C
O2e
q
IPTS CG scenarioIPTS GM scenario
Change in Above- and Belowground Biomass Carbon Stock (CG)
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
AU
S
AR
G
BR
A
CA
N
CH
N
EU
27 IND
JPN
KO
R
ME
X
NZL
OA
F
OA
S
OE
C
OLA
RU
S
TUR
US
A
ZAF
IPFRI Region
AB
CS
cha
nge
in M
t C
Sparse VegetationShrublandOpen ForestClosed ForestGrasslandVegetables and FruitsOilseedsSugar Crops
Source Unit Total emissions
Annualized total GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20years) Mt CO2eq 54.6
Extra Energy produced in 2020 (Scenario - Baseline) MJ 865Annual GHG emissions from land use change (over a period of 20 years) g CO2eq/MJ 63
Changes in Soil Organic CarbonN20 emissions from soils
Emissions from changes in above/below ground biomass
The JRC methodology
‹#›
Cost and availability of 2nd
generation biofuels.
Objectives:addressing the efficiency of production processes of
alternative fuels/biofuels from agricultural residues monitoring of technology progress and performance of new
fuels life cycle assessment of alternative biofuels production
- Status reports on 2nd generation biofuel industrial demonstration projects and sustainability-related information (data for productivity, economics and CO2 savings )- Market opportunities of bio-refinery products- Life Cycle Guidance for Biowaste analysis- Assessment of the Availability of Agricultural Crop Residues in the European Union - Potential and Limitations for Bioenergy Use (Journal of Waste Management)
Main outcomes (2010)
‹#›
Vehicle compatibility and energy efficiency
a. Compatibility of Biofuels with existing and new vehicles
- Engine durability and proper functioning- Interaction between biofuels and advanced after-treatment systems
Examples: Can DPF equipped vehicles tolerate more than 7% of biodiesel in diesel fuel?What is the impact of biodiesel on SCR and NOx traps systems efficiency?Is any toxic compound generated inside the after-treatment systems?
- Optimization of engine system for application of biofuel- Compatibility of Polymeric materials- Need of standards and certification to guarantee the use of the fuel with
confidence
b. Emissions and energy efficiency of vehicles fuelled with biofuels- Special emphasis on bio-ethanol and biodiesel blends- Generation of more reliable emission factors
‹#›
Influence of RME biodiesel on regulated emissions from EURO4 passenger car.
Reference fuel is conventional 10 ppm S diesel, increased biodiesel content (from 10% to neat biodiesel) from RMEB10 to RMEB100.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
HC
0
4
8
12
16
20
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
mg/
km
PM
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
NOx
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
HC
0
4
8
12
16
20
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
mg/
km
PM
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
NOx EURO 4 limit
EURO 4 limit
EURO 4 limi 0.25 g/km
EURO 4 limit: 25 mg/km
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
COEURO 4 limit
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
RME B100RME B20RME B10Ref. Fuel
g/km
COEURO 4 limit 0.50 g/km
The Experimental program carried out in JRC-VELA laboratory in a conventional chassis Dynamometer for Light Duty (LD) Passenger cars. Data from JRC IES- Transport and Air Quality Unit
Vehicle Emissions
‹#›
Energy efficiency
Experimental program: passenger cars running on ethanol/petrol blends
(Programme carried out jointly with EUCAR and CONCAWE)
1.0%
1.7% 1.6%
0.8%
2.1%2.5%
1.3%
3.4%3.2%
2.2%2.6% 2.4%
-2.0%
-0.5%-0.8%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Urban Extraurban Theoretical COLD START Cycle THEORETICALHOT START Cycle
FUELS
5% eth.*
10% eth.*
10% eth.**
15% ETBE
98 RON petrol
* Splash blended
** Match blended
1.0%
1.7% 1.6%
0.8%
2.1%2.5%
1.3%
3.4%3.2%
2.2%2.6% 2.4%
-2.0%
-0.5%-0.8%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Urban Extraurban Theoretical COLD START Cycle THEORETICALHOT START Cycle
FUELS
5% eth.*
10% eth.*
10% eth.**
15% ETBE
98 RON petrol
* Splash blended
** Match blended
Fuel Consumption Variations (compared to base fuel, %)
‹#›
Development of the implementing measures of Euro 5/6 Regulation
• Proposal of E75 reference fuel specifications:Define the fuel specifications for the winter quality of E85 (ref. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 692/2009).
• Type 6 (Low temperature) emission limits for FFVExperimental campaign on 5 gasoline vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 4) and on 1 FFV (Euro 4, tested with E5 and E85 at 22 °C and E5 and E75 at –7 ° C )
• Revision of the evaporative test (Type 4) for type approval of gasoline vehicles.
Vehicle compatibility and energy efficiency
On-going work: