1. GHG emissions of biomass: Consequence of modelling choices Dr. Heinz Stichnothe Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut Institute of Agricultural Technology and Biosystems Engineering Braunschweig, Germany

2. Outline Methodological approaches Basis of comparison and allocation Indirect Emissionen (default values) Lack of knowledge Bio-based economy - limited resource Limits Conclusions

3. Life cycle of biofuels RM Transp. Field Transp. Convers. Transp. Land use change Use Waste management Co-products

4. Methodological approaches Attributional LCA direct impacts due to diesel, fertiliser and pesticide use standardised procedure (system boundaries, allocation, etc.) used for product declaration and certification systems Advantage: comparable Disadvantage: blind spots Consequentional LCA studies the consequences of change activities in- and outside the LC effected by changes are investigated includes alternative uses of constrained production factors Advantage: more complete Disadvantage: less precise

5. Basis of comparison Carbon intensity per energy output Annual emissions Not suitable for material use Cascade use (all burdens to first life) Catch crops, crop rotation shift of emissions Energy content Exclusion of agricultural co-products Allocation

6. Specialities of palm oil Used as food, raw material and energy source Yield (PO 3.7, rapeseed 0.6; soja 0.4 t/ha) World production 45-50 Mt 86% occurs in Malaysia and Indonesia Export (approx. 80%) 250.000 ha/a 3. GHG-emitter

7. Agricultural residues EU-RED Annex 5 (18) Exclusion of nut shells, husk, etc Compost plant FFB InputProcess Diesel Water Biogas plant EFBPOME Power plant FibreShells Electr. Biogas Compost Ash Plantation 1000 kg 92 kg 650 kg230 kg Output CPO Kernel Air Water Soil Energy carrier Products By-Products Emissions Oilmill Diesel Fertilizer 22 kg PesticidesDiesel 0.07 L Steam 8.7 m³CH 4 Compost plant FFB InputProcess Diesel Water Biogas plant EFBPOME Power plant Fibre Shells Electr.. Biogas Compost Ash Plantation 1000 kg 92 kg 650 kg230 kg Output CPO Kernel Air Water Soil Shells Products By-Products Emissions Oilmill Diesel Fertilizer 22 kg Fertilizer 22 kg Pesticides Diesel 0.07 L Steam 8.7 m³CH 4 Compost

8. CH 4 from POME Default value 27 g/MJ (1.5 times higher) CH 4 capture - Yes or no No difference between flaring and utilisation Use of biogas hampered by exclusion of by-products (nut shells) Efficiency of biogas capture is not considered (THREAT: leackage can outbalance the benefits)

9. Biowaste management Biowaste treatment on palm oil plantations 1 t FFB = 0.2 t palm oil; 150 – 1125 kg CO 2eq. per t Palm oil 4 – 30 g CO 2eq /MJ Biodiesel: 37 g CO 2eq /MJ 50% reduction 35% GHG reduction Currently not specified in palm oil production systems according to EU-RED

10. Indirect emissions Nitrogen fertiliser production 18 g N 2 O per kg N (average without N 2 O removal) After implementation of catalytic N 2 O reduction measures in Western Europe 9 g N 2 O per kg N (current average) Technically possible 3 g N 2 O per kg N (future average in Western Europe) In comparison approx. 10 g N 2 O is formed per kg N applied Emission intensive fertiliser production is treated preferentially if Global default values are used; consequently GHG reduction from imported biomass might be overestimated

11. Direct emissions Organic Nitrogen is currently excluded in GHG calculations(examples in Annex V) IPCC 2006 Guidelines (table 11.1), the default emission factor is 1% of applied (inorganic and organic) N. Example total N demand per t palm oil: 25 kg N, thereof 3,7 kg returned 15% N input is not considered and consequently nitrous oxide from this input is also not taken into account Advantage: Nutrient recycling is fostered; simplified approach Disadvantage: GHG emission savings are overestimated

12. Land use change - Indonesia Mit 100 t CO 2e /ha = 25 Mt CO 2e = 50% THG LW in D. 0,7 1,2 2,5 3,0 3,3 3,4 3,7 3,9 4,4 4,9 0 1 2 3 4 5 1990199520002001200220032004200520062007 Area [M ha] Assuming 100 t CO 2e /ha = 25 Mt CO 2e = 50% GHG German agriculture

13. Context 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Palm oil [1000*t] 180751610014150540029882100312 IndonesiaMalaysia India/China EU-27EU-Food EU- Industry EU-Energy 16% 9% 6% 1% 55% 38% 6%

14. Limited resource - Oil

15. Limited resource - P

16. Limits National versus international responsibility who is contributing what to which extent Influence sphere Default values versus real values, management practise Lack of knowledge – organic nitrogen, soil carbon Focus on GHG blind spots Crude oil and phosphorous are limited

17. Conclusions Do we want to be accurate or comparable? Indirect land use change, soil carbon storage Technology - European average values for developing countries? Right incentives for imported biomass? Simplification - overestimation of savings For imported biomass Learning curve yes, but GHG savings?