Niels Jungbluth ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Rainer Zah EMPA and ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen Switzerland 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

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

Allocation: Example Biogas

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 credits NO 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

Land use change: Clear cutting of primary forests Agricultural area is increased by clear cutting Land transformation leads to CO 2 emissions from soil and biomass Burning of residues with further emissions Loss of biodiversity CO 2 from land transformation accounts for about 90% of Brazil CO 2 emissions Particles from residue burning are an important problem in South-East Asia

Principle of investigation Increase in agricultural area for the production in the reference year? Emissions per m 2 of clear cut land? Allocation of emissions between wood production and stubbed land Stubbed land assumed the main driver New elementary flow „CO 2, land transformation“ as used by IPCC for different possibilities of analysis No indirect effects – double counting in a database!

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

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, DOI:

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

12 Comparison of biofuels

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

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

Niels Jungbluth ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Rainer Zah EMPA and ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen Switzerland Annexe

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

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, 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd generation

Resources, conversion techniques and “bioenergy” products investigated

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

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

Raw data biogas

Inventory Clear Cutting

Inventory agricultural product

24 Share capital goods (starting point, MJ fuel)

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 Calculations of potential reduction 100% 38% 20% 15% 12%

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 for background paperwww.esu-services.ch/btl/

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

Mileage per hectare

Outlook Full LCA based on investigated data published in the framework of the project ( services.ch/bioenergy.htm) services.ch/bioenergy.htm Life cycle inventories of BTL-fuels are published in EcoSpold format in a European project ( services.ch/renew.htm) 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