impact of the renewable energy directive (red) on ghg ... of the renewable energy... · impact of...
TRANSCRIPT
Impact of the renewable Energy
Directive (RED) on GHG emission
reduction
Presented by:Dr. Johannes GedigaDr. Sabine Deimling
1. PE INTERNATIONAL
2. EU directive RED
3. Examples
Impact of the renewable Energy
Directive (RED) on GHG emission
reduction
3
PE International
Worldwide
PE INTERNATIONAL
established 1991
Employees: 58
Offices: Stuttgart
PE Asia established 1998
Employees : 4
Offices: Tokyo, Taipei
PE Australia established 2006
Employees : 3
Offices: Perth
Japan
Korea
Norway
Canada
USA
Australia
Taiwan
Spain
New Zealand
China
Malaysia
PE-Sites Software Sales Partner
Denmark
UKAustria
Germany
FinlandRussia
Kazakhstan
Brazil
Italy
PE CEE (Central Eastern Europe)
established 2006, Employees : 6
Office: Vienna
PE Americas established 1998
Employees : 11
Office: Boston
PE I Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
established 2008, Employees : 3
Offices: Kuala Lumpur
India
South Africa
4
Sustainability is a long-term issue – and has been a business model for
PE INTERNATIONAL for 20 years.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Energy efficiency studies
Strategy development
Monitoring and Reporting
Systems
Carbon Footprints
CDM and carbon offsetting
Compliance and risk
management
Renewable energy
Communication
Corporate Sustainability
Sustainability information
management and reporting
(e.g., GRI, ISO 14001, OHSAS
18000)
Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) systems
Corporate Carbon Footprint
Supply Chain Management
Product Sustainability
Life Cycle Assessment
Design for Environment
Product Carbon Footprint
PE International
Services
SoFi
Automotive Audi, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, GM,
Porsche, Renault, Toyota, VW,..
Automotive suppliers Autoliv, Behr, Bosch, Continental,
Delphi, Mann+Hummel,...
Electronics Bosch, LG Electronics, Motorola,
Nokia, Siemens, Sony,...
Materials Alcan, Alcoa, Arcelor-Mittal,
ThyssenKrupp, Baosteel, WISCO,
Samancor, Bayer, Solvay,...
Surface treatment ABB, BASF, Ciba, DuPont, Dürr,
Eisenmann, PPG, Wörwag,...
Construction BV Baustoffe, Steine und Erden,
HeidelbergCement, Sto,…
Heating Junkers, Vaillant, Viessmann,
Wilo, Grundfos, ...
PE International
Fields of Activity I
5
Associations Eurofer, IISI, ICDA, VEC, ECVM,
Jeita, GRI
Finance Allianz, ABN AMRO, BBVA,
WestLB, LBBW, SNB, …
Public bodies Europäische Kommission, UBA,
Bundesministerien (BMVBW,
BMVEL, BMBF),
Wirtschaftsministerium Baden-
Württemberg,…
Energy Esti, EnBW, Iberdrola, ….
PE International
Fields of Activity II
6
1. PE INTERNATIONAL
2. EU directive RED
3. Examples
Impact of the renewable Energy
Directive (RED) on GHG emission
reduction
Binding Targets of the EU Directive till 2020
10% share of renewable energy in transport
6% reduction in unit greenhouse gas emissions from road transport fuels (Fuel Quality
Directive)
Minimum rate of GHG savings
35% immediately
50% in 2017
60% in 2018 (new installations only)
Calculation methodology => Default Values given
Sustainability criterion
Avoid conversion for greenhouse gas reasons (land use changes)
Avoid taking of biomass for biodiversity reasons
Reporting every two years of sustainability certificate (to EU commission; trader import)
8
EU Directive on the promotion of Renewable Energies
Regarding Biofuels
EU Directive on the promotion of Renewable Energies
Default und Typical Values
Default and Typical values are given for the Life Cycle Steps
Cultivation
Processing
Transport
in gCO2-eq/MJ
Default values (40% higher than typical values for processing only)
Used for the actual calculation of the GHG emissions
Typical Values
Used for forcast purposes of the biofuel target
The Default values (gCO2-eq/MJ) are higher than the typical values. (for forecast
purposes)
stimulation is created
for the biofuels producer to use his actual values, but still the forecast values can be
more exact (assumption of improved processing technologies)
9
Default values OR Actual values can be used for the actual calculation
EU Directive on the promotion of Renewable Energies
Calculation methodology, Default und Typical Values
Calculation methodology
Total GHG-Emissions = Emissions from Cultivation + LUC (land use changes) +
Processing + Transport + Fuel in use + Cogeneration + CCS (carbon capture and
Storage)
CO2 - Savings (Fuel benchmark: Average CO2 from diesel and petrol of the country or 83,8
gCO2-eq/MJ)
Allocation method: energy content
Cultivation Processing
Biogenic CO2
No incorporation of biogenic CO2
Land use changes Cogeneration and CCS
Transportation
and DistributionUse face = 0
10
EU Directive on the promotion of Renewable Energies
Land Use Changes (LUC)
Direct Land Use Changes
Calculation Methodology given
Methodology after IPCC
20 years, not discounted
Fixed reference land use (2008)
Guideline till the end of 2009
Indirect Land Use Changes
Shall be included in the future
11
EU Directive on the promotion of Renewable Energies
Reporting System of the EU Directive
4. Monitoring and interpretation
3. Supervision
AccreditationCertification operators Member states
Sustainability criteria
1. Life Cycle pathway of palm methyl ester
(eight operators involved)2. Evidence
EU CommissionEU Parliament
RegistrationCertification
Approval
ReportingApproval
Sustainability certificate needs to be added at point of sale
12
1. PE INTERNATIONAL
2. EU directive RED
3. Examples
Experience in the biofuel sector
and the RED EU Directive
Comparison of LCA studies
EU Directive Concawe RFA UFOP
Others
EMPA, FNR,
etc.
Scope WtW WtW WtW WtWWtW or CO2e-
Savings
Goal
Calculation
method for
estimating the
GHG (EU)
Transparent
and scientific
survey for
reference
Calculation
method for
estimating the
GHG (UK)
Calculation
method for
estimating the
GHG (DE)
Calculation of
GHG Savings
for specific
pathways
AllocationEnergy content Substitution
Substitution or
market valueEnergy content
Different
approaches
RFA Renewable Fuels Agency
UFOP (Union für Förderung von Öl und Proteinpflanzen e.V.)
WtW Well to Wheel
14
LCA Comparison using the example of palm oil
WtW – CO2-eq/MJ for the Life Cycle Stages
14 14 14 14 16 16 16 168
35
49
1318
5
30 32 34
30
5
5
55
2
2 2 2
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Eu
dir
ective
T n
.s.
Eu
dir
ective
D n
.s.
Eu
dir
ective
T m
eth
an
e c
ap
t.
Eu
dir
ective
D m
eth
an
e c
ap
t.
Co
nca
we
me
tha
ne
ca
pt. g
lyce
rin
e
as c
he
mic
al
Co
nca
we
gly
ce
rin
e a
s c
he
mic
al
Co
nca
we
gly
c. a
s c
he
m., n
o h
ea
t
cre
dit
Co
nca
we
gly
ce
rol to
bio
ga
s
RF
A -
In
do
ne
sia
Cultivation Processing Transport
Different transport
distance e.g.
Tanker transport
EU: 10.186 km (5)
Concawe: “ km (2)
RFA: 15.500km(9)
Google-Maps
check was
positive
(gCO2-eq/MJ)
EU: Allocation via
energy content
EU: Allocation via
energy content
„Red circle“ Differences: Allocation decisions, Assumptions, Scope
(gC
O2-e
q/M
J)
T. n. s. typical not specified
D. n. s. default not specified
15
LCA Comparison using the example of palm oil
WtW – CO2-Savings excl. LUC in %
19%
36%
62% 56%
71%
74%
64%
35%
46%39%
41%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Eu
dir
ective
T n
.s.
Eu
dir
ective
D n
.s.
Eu
dir
ective
T m
eth
an
e c
ap
t.
Eu
dir
ective
D m
eth
an
e c
ap
t.
Co
nca
we
me
tha
ne
ca
pt.
gly
ce
rin
e a
s c
he
mic
al
Co
nca
we
gly
ce
rin
e a
s
ch
em
ica
l
Co
nca
we
gly
c. a
s c
he
m., n
o
he
at cre
dit
Co
nca
we
gly
ce
rol to
bio
ga
s
RF
A -
In
do
ne
sia
EM
PA
CH
UF
OP
FN
RCO2 Savings excl. LUC
EU Directive Concawe EMPA, UFOP, FNRRFA
Comparison
Similar Values of Concawe
and EU, but still differences up
to 10 percent)
EMPA, nearly the same value
as Typical n.s. (small amount
of LUC incl.)
vs. 58% savings compared to
gasoline
UFOP, nearly the same value
as Typical value with methane
capture
FNR has the highest value,
similar to Concawe with
methane capture
RFA: Savings are higher than
other values without methane
capture
T. n. s. typical not specified
D. n. s. default not specified
16
Differences between the values using the example palm oil with and without
methane capture
Average of 35 % without methane capture vs. 63 % with methane capture
Have to be proven by supplier of palm oil that CH4 capture is used
LCA Comparison using the example of palm oil
WtW – CO2-Savings excl. LUC in %
Without Methane capture With Methane capture
36%
19%
43% 41% 39%
62%56%
71%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Eu
directive T
n.s.
Eu
directive D
n.s.
Concaw e
glyc. as
chem.
Concaw e
glyc. as
chem., no
heat credit
Concaw e
glycerol to
biogas
Eu
directive T
methane
capt.
Eu
directive D
methane
capt.
Concaw e
methane
capt.
glycerine
as
chemicalCO2 Savings excl. LUC
17
Existing Plantation – Conversion from Forest
Has to be proven that plantation was already existing in 2008
=> no LUC factor necessary
LCA Comparison using the example of palm oil
WtW – CO2-Savings incl. LUC in %
46%
-55%
44%
-60%-9%
-238%
64%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
RF
A -
Indonesia
incl. L
UC
Fore
sts
RF
A -
Indonesia
incl. L
UC
Cro
p
RF
A I
ndonesia
excl. L
UC
UF
OP
incl. L
UC
UF
OP
excl. L
UC
Ifeu -
Prim
ery
Fore
st
Ifeu -
Rubber
pla
nt.
CO2 Savings incl. LUC
GHG
Savings
18
LCA Comparison
Key Findings
Default Values nearly the same as
CONCAWE STUDY
Confirmed by the EU Commission!
Difference of both studies towards CONCAWE:
allocation decisions
Incorporation of biogenic CO2
CONCAWE: SUM GHG emissions in gCO2-eq/MJ
- Renewable Credit
+ Use Phase
EU: SUM GHG emissions in gCO2-eq/MJ
19
Thank You
for your attention
Dr. Johannes Gediga
Phone: +49 (0)711 341817-14
Fax: +49 (0)711 341817-25
E-mail: j. [email protected]
PE INTERNATIONAL GmbH
Hauptstr. 111 - 113
70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen
Germany