Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels: U E U E

Life cycle assessment of
biofuels
Niels Jungbluth
ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Switzerland
ESU
Kolloquium Umweltwissenschaften
ETH Zürich, 08.12.2008
Overview
• Aims and motivation

• General introduction to Life-Cycle Assessment
methodology (LCA)
• LCA Results
Page 2 www.esu-services.ch
Why a boom of biofuels?
• Climate protection, because carbon neutral

• Environmentally friendly, because natural production
• Resource protection, because renewable
• Independence from criminal crude oil countries
• Benefits for local economy
• Fits in the business model of car manufacturers
• Good application for genetically modified organisms
Everyone is happy ☺
Objectives of the LCA studies
Life cycle assessment of different agrofuels
• What are the environmental impacts of using
renewable fuels compared to fossil diesel?
• Which type of fuel has the best environmental
performance?
Life cycle assessment = from cradle to grave
Functional Unit: 1 pkm

ISO standard 14040: LCA
• System boundary:
from cradle to grave
• Functional Unit:
– 1 Person
transported over a
distance of 1km
Classification of fuels:
Marketing and brand names
• Sunfuel, Sundiesel: synthetic fuels from Choren process)

• Ökodiesel, Biodiesel: mainly used for XME with biomass
from different origin
• Naturgas: natural gas mixed with >10% biogas
• Kompogas: brand name of biogas plants
• 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation: unclear definition e.g. based
on today market share, resource types or edibility or
conversion processes
Marketing and brand names do not help for a discussion on renewable

Page 7
fuels
www.esu-services.ch
Classifications of powertrain fuels
• Resources used
– Non-renewable: crude oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear
– Renewable: energy crops (edible, non-edible), algae, forest wood, biomass
residues (e.g. straw), industrial residues (e.g. Black Liquor), sun, wind
• Conversion process technologies
– mechanical, chemical reaction, thermal treatment, fermentation, anaerobic
digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, biotechnical
• Chemical classification of the product
– methane, ethanol, methanol, dimethylether (DME), hydrogen, oils, methyl
ester, liquids (petrol, diesel, BtL, GtL), ETBE, MTBE
PageFuels
8 can only be classified by a combination of resource, process and product
www.esu-services.ch
Life cycle inventory analysis
• Flow chart with short technical description

• Balance of all material and energy flows:
– Inputs and Outputs (e.g. biomass, chemicals,
catalysts, products)
– Emissions to air, water and soil
– Resource uses (energy, water, land)
– Wastes
Environmental relevant goods for driving with agrofuels
• Fuel
– biomass production
– fuel conversion
– fuel distribution
• Powertrain and car
– Manufacture
– Maintenance
– Disposal
• Streets / tunnel / bridges
– Construction
– Maintenance
– Disposal
3
3
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Example:
Cumulative LCI results CO2, CH4: Greenhouse gases,
Classification Global warming potential (GWP)
Characterisation CO2=1; CH4=23kg CO2-equivalent.
GHG-emission Europe:6.5 Mia. t CO2-eq.

Normalization
Grouping Sorting and ranking
Weighting Aggregation based on weighting

principles
Environmental indicator
Environmental impacts covered by different LCIA
methods
environmental impacts cumulative global warming ecological eco-indicator
energy demand potential s carcity 99
(CED) (GWP ) 2006
√ ∅ √ √
emis s ions res ourc
abiotic res ources

biotic res ources ∅ ∅ √ ∅
land us e ∅ ∅ √ √
climate change ∅ √ √ √
ozone depletion ∅ ∅ √ √
human toxicity ∅ ∅ √ √
ecotoxicity ∅ ∅ √ √
photochemical oxidant ∅ ∅ √ √
formation
acidification ∅ ∅ √ √
nutrification ∅ ∅ √ √
odour ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅
nois e ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅
ionis ing radiation ∅ ∅ ∅ √
was te (incl. radioactive was te) ∅ ∅ √ ∅
Summary on LCA methodology
• Life cycle assessment (LCA) is for quantifying the

environmental impacts of products and services
• The focus of an investigation is from the
extraction of resources to the final disposal.
(from “cradle-to-grave”)
• Reliable, transparent and consistent LCI data are
crucial for such analyses.
• Results agrofuel
studies
• Interpretation
of results
How much better are renewable fuels?
GWP reduction of agrofuels
52%
BTL
65%
diesel
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001

passenger car road
evaporation and tyre abrasion provision fuel
combustion, fuel
Neglecting parts of the life cycle leads to different conclusions concerning

(Jungbluth et al. 2008: LCA of biomass-to-liquid fuels)
reduction
Page 18 potentials expressed as a percentage www.esu-services.ch
1st renewable energy study (Switzerland)
• Scope: from cradle-to-grave
• Goal: assess total environmental impacts of different
pathways for a possible tax redemption
• Overview of investigated renewable fuels:
Methane 96% Ethanol 99.7% Methanol Biodiesel
biowaste wood waste wood Waste cooking oil
sludge grass industrial wood Rape seed CH/RER
grass potatoes soya oil US / BR
manure sugar beets palm oil MY
wood whey
sugar cane BR
maize
rye DE / RER
sweet sorghum
100% R a pe M E C H
100% R a pe M E R ER
100% P a lm o il M E M Y GWP-Reduction of
Biodiesel
renewable fuels
100% S o y M E US
100% S o y M E B R
100% R e c yc le d pla nt o il M E C H
100% R e c yc le d pla nt o il M E F R
M e tha no l fixe d be d C H
M e tha no l fluidize d be d C H
Etha no l gra s s C H Conclusions:
Etha no l po ta to e s C H
Alcohol
Etha no l s uga r be e ts C H • 13 of 26 investigated fuels

reduce the GWP significant
Etha no l whe y C H
Etha no l wo o d C H
Etha no l s we e t s o rghum C N
(>50%)
Etha no l rye R ER
Etha no l c o rn US • 5 of them are from waste
Etha no l s uga r c a ne B R
M e tha ne gra s s bio re fine ry • Worst fuel: Brazilian soya oil
Methane
Infrastructure
with more GWP than fossil
M e tha ne m a nure
M e tha ne m a nure +c o s ubs tra te Cultivation
M e tha ne m a nure , o ptim ize d
Production reference (transformation of
M e tha ne m a nure +c o s ubs tra te , o ptim ize d
M e tha ne bio wa s te
Transport rainforest into agriculture)
M e tha ne s e wa ge s ludge Operation
M e tha ne wo o d
Fossil
Die s e l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3
P e tro l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3
Na tura l ga s , EUR O3
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Zah et al., 2007
Page 20 CO2-eq. [kg/pkm ] www.esu-services.ch
GWP is one environmental effect…
… others serious effects are: All effects can be aggregated:

• photochemical oxidation • Eco-indicator 99
• acidification • Ecological Scarcity 2006
• eutrophication or UmweltBelastungsPunkte
• ozone layer depletion
• human toxicity
• fresh water toxicity
• marine aquatic toxicity
• land competition
• abiotic depletion
100% R a pe M E C H
The whole picture

Biodiesel
100% P a lm o il M E M Y
100% S o y M E US
Maximal reduction:
100% S o y M E B R
40%
Conclusion:
• Most important aspect of
Etha no l gra s s C H
Etha no l po ta to e s C H agrofuels: cultivation of

Alcohol
Etha no l s uga r be e ts C H
biomass
Etha no l whe y C H
Etha no l wo o d C H • About 40% of environmental

impacts of transport services
Etha no l rye R ER
Etha no l c o rn US are infrastructur-related

M e tha ne gra s s bio re fine ry • Maximal reduction has
Methane
M e tha ne m a nure Infrastructure

Biodiesel from recycled plant
M e tha ne m a nure +c o s ubs tra te Cultivation
M e tha ne m a nure , o ptim ize d oil: 40%
Production
• Or with other words: driving a
M e tha ne bio wa s te Transport
M e tha ne s e wa ge s ludge Operation car with Biodiesel from
M e tha ne wo o d
recycled plant oil still cause
Fossil

P e tro l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3 60% of environmental impacts.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Zah et al., 2007 UBP [Pt/pkm ]

Conclusion from 1st study
• A broad variety of investigated renewable fuels have a

significant GWP-reducing potential
• Overall impact is lower in fuels from waste. -> Step of
cultivation is the most important one
• Share of infrastructure and transport-related impacts
can‘t be neglected
• Many fuels from agricultural biomass have higher impacts
than fossil fuels
BTL-fuel study
• Goal: assess total environmental impacts of
different synthetic fuel pathways and conversion
concepts
• Investigated BTL-fuels:
– Miscanthus
– Straw
– Wood
(Poplar / Salix) and from forest
0.20
Global warming potential
Remaining substances Carbon dioxide, fossil
0.18
Dinitrogen monoxide Methane, biogenic
0.16
Methane, fossil
kg CO2-eq/pkm
0.14
0.12
0.10
- 40%
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
H
H
H
-D
-D
-D
-D
-D
-D
D
-D
C
,C
,C
F-
F-
FB
EF
FB
FB
EF
EF
FB
cE
cE
l,
el
as
tro
,d
,C
C
IC
,c
,c
IC
es
lg
d,
d,
d,
pe
H
w
w
w
d,
s,
di
oo
oo
ra
,C
ra
ra
oo
ra
hu
oo
ur
ur
tu
st
st
w
st
w
w
nt
ph
ph
na
n
L,
st
L,
ra
L,
n
ca
io
ul
io
re
ul
BT
BT
st
BT
io
at
is
-s
at
-s
fo
at
L,
m
ot
w
ot
w
ot
L,
BT
t-r
lo
lo
L,
t-r
t-r
BT
or
BT
or
or
sh
sh
sh
L,
L,
L,
BT
BT
BT
PageGWP
26 reduction between 28% and 69% → lower than what has been assumed so far
www.esu-services.ch
The whole picture: overall env. impact
PageBig
27 differences between the production routes of the same biomass type
www.esu-services.ch
Comparison of renewable fuels
GWP UBP 06 Eco-indicator 99
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400
M e tha ne m a nure , o ptim ize d

Etha no l whe y C H
No clear advantage nor disadvantage of BTL compared to other agrofuels

M e tha ne wo o d
Type of biomass resource is most important for each type of fuel

Etha no l gra s s C H
Etha no l wo o d C H
Etha no l s uga r be e ts C H
M e tha ne s e wa ge s ludge
M e tha ne gra s s bio re fine ry
100% S o y M E US
M e tha ne bio wa s te
100% P a lm o il M E M Y
100% R a pe M E C H
M e tha ne m a nure +c o s ubs tra te
M e tha ne m a nure
Etha no l c o rn US
Etha no l rye R ER
Etha no l po ta to e s C H
100% S o y M E B R
B TL-fue l, m is c a nthus , IC F B -D
B TL-fue l, s ho rt-ro ta tio n wo o d, C F B -D
B TL-fue l, s ho rt-ro ta tio n wo o d, IC F B -D
B TL-fue l, s ho rt-ro ta tio n wo o d, c EF -D
B TL-fue l, fo re s t wo o d, c EF -D
B TL-fue l, s tra w, C F B -D
B TL-fue l, s tra w, dEF -D
B TL-fue l, s tra w, c EF -D
B TL-fue l, s tra w, C H, c EF -D
P e tro l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3
Again: How much better are renewable fuels?
• Sorry, no easy answer…

• Environmental performance depends on:
– Scope of investigation
– Choice of environmental indicators
– Type & cultivation of biomass
– Efficiency of conversion
– Impacts of associated infrastructure as streets,
manufacture of cars, etc.
Conclusions on agrofuels
from an environmental point of view
• Renewable fuels can help to save the climate, but they
are never climate neutral
• Many agrofuels have higher total environmental impacts
than fossil fuels
• The type of biomass is more important than the type of
fuel
• The use of waste-products for fuel-production makes
sense
• Agrofuels cannot reduce the environmental impacts from
Page 30
important non-fuel emissions (e.g. infrastructure)
www.esu-services.ch
Legislative status in Switzerland
• Full LCA is basis for tax reduction for renewable fuels

– 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 fuels not
from waste
• Common background database and methodology:
ecoinvent v2.0
How far can I get with fuel from
0.5 ha?
• Depending on the car: 5’000 – 30’000 km per soccer field

• By bicycle and food: 12’500 km (veal), 65‘000 km (wine), 400‘000
km (wheat), 600’000 km (potatoes)
Real alternatives to petrol?
Maxium reduction with

public transport: 89%
of total impacts
Recommendations for mobility
1. Use bicycle or public transport

2. Drive a car with suitable number of seats and
space for loading ( Carsharing)
3. Buy a car with low fuel consumption
4. Drive with fuels from waste
5. Other agrofuels with proof of origin and possibly a
label
Thank you for your attention!
Publications:
• LCA of Bioenergy Products (http://www.esu-services.ch/bioenergy.htm)
• LCA of Biomass-To-Liquid fuel production (www.esu-services.ch/renew.htm)
• LCA of Biomass-To-Liquid fuel use (www.esu-services.ch/btl)
Niels Jungbluth
jungbluth@esu-services.ch
www.esu-services.ch
ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Switzerland

Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels: U E U E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels: U E U E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life cycle assessment of

• Aims and motivation

• Climate protection, because carbon neutral

Functional Unit: 1 pkm

• Sunfuel, Sundiesel: synthetic fuels from Choren process)

Marketing and brand names do not help for a discussion on renewable

• Flow chart with short technical description

Classification Global warming potential (GWP)

Characterisation CO2=1; CH4=23kg CO2-equivalent.

GHG-emission Europe:6.5 Mia. t CO2-eq.

Grouping Sorting and ranking

Weighting Aggregation based on weighting

abiotic res ources

• Life cycle assessment (LCA) is for quantifying the

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001

Neglecting parts of the life cycle leads to different conclusions concerning

Etha no l s uga r be e ts C H • 13 of 26 investigated fuels

Die s e l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3

P e tro l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3

-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

… others serious effects are: All effects can be aggregated:

The whole picture

Etha no l po ta to e s C H agrofuels: cultivation of

Etha no l wo o d C H • About 40% of environmental

Etha no l c o rn US are infrastructur-related

M e tha ne m a nure Infrastructure

Die s e l, lo w s ulphur EUR O3

Zah et al., 2007 UBP [Pt/pkm ]

• A broad variety of investigated renewable fuels have a

M e tha ne m a nure , o ptim ize d

No clear advantage nor disadvantage of BTL compared to other agrofuels

Type of biomass resource is most important for each type of fuel

• Sorry, no easy answer…

• Full LCA is basis for tax reduction for renewable fuels

• Depending on the car: 5’000 – 30’000 km per soccer field

Maxium reduction with

1. Use bicycle or public transport

You might also like