Environmental implications associated with sweet … · Environmental implications associated with sweet sorghum ... material flow analysis ... Sweet Sorghum bioethanol can contribute

Environmental implications associated with sweet sorghum production and use for biofuels

Nils Rettenmaier

EUROCLIMA Workshop Campinas, Brazil, 30 November 2011

ifeu –

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg

Background

„Assessment of energy and greenhouse gas inventories of Sweet Sorghum for first and second generation bio-

ethanol“Report commissioned by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome

Authors: Susanne Köppen, Guido

Reinhardt, Sven Gärtner

Final report: March 2009

Assessment of energy and greenhouse gas inventories of Sweet Sorghum for first and second generation bio-ethanol

ifeu –Institut

für Energie-und UmweltforschungHeidelberg gGmbH

Assessment of energy and greenhouse gasinventories of Sweet Sorghum for first and second generation bio-ethanol

Susanne Köppen

Guido Reinhardt

Sven Gärtner

Commissioned by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Heidelberg, March 2009

ifeu –Institut

für Energie-und UmweltforschungHeidelberg gGmbH

Characteristics of Sweet Sorghum

Sorghum bicolor

• Geographical distribution: in semi-arid to humid climates; 40° N to 40° S

• Physical characteristics: Annual; grows from seeds; stalk contains a sugar-rich

juice (sucrose, fructose, glucose); panicles produce up to 4 000 starch containing grains.

C4 crop, very drought resistant; good adaptability to poor soil types and to saline soils; very short vegetation period and thus is ideal for double cropping.

Characteristics of Sweet Sorghum

IFEU 2009

Crop part Possible use optionsGrains Feed, food, 1st generation bioethanol

Juice Sugar, 1st generation bioethanol

Bagasse Feed, pulp, bioenergy, 2nd generation bioethanol, compost, fertilizer

Outline

• Introduction

• Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology

• Energy and GHG balances of Sweet Sorghum EtOH• Sweet Sorghum vs. fossil fuel –

main scenarios

• Sweet Sorghum vs. fossil fuel –

sensitivity analyses• Sweet Sorghum vs. other ethanol crops

• Additional environmental impacts

• Conclusions

• Outlook: The SWEETFUEL project

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


Sw. sorghum ethanol vs. fossil fuel

IFEU 2009

Grains Juice Bagasse

Ethanol from grains

Power / Heat

Combustion

ConversionVinasse

Sweet Sorghum

Bioenergy

Ethanol from juice

Fusel oils

Auxiliary products

Lime

Stillage

Calcium carbonate

Seeds Miner. Fert.

Pesti-

cides

Diesel fuel

Soy meal

Convent. power production

Convent. heat production

Soy meal

Mineral fertilizer

Greenhouse effect


-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Balance

Fossil gasoline

Sweet

Sorghum ethanol

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

Credits Expenditures

Advantage for

bioethanol Disadvantages

Machine workAgricultural systemTransport biomassEthanol production

Transport ethanolEthanol usage

LimeVinasse/stillageFusel oilPower

Fossil equiv. productionFossil equiv. usage

Expenditures: Credits: Fossil fuel:

IFEU 2009

Balance

Fossil gasoline

Sweet

Sorghum ethanol

GJ PE / (ha*yr)

Machine workAgricultural systemTransport biomassEthanol production

Transport ethanolEthanol usage

LimeVinasse/stillageFusel oilPower

Fossil equiv. productionFossil equiv. usage


Energy savings

IFEU 2009

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100


Advantage for

bioethanol Disadvantages


Overview on scenarios

IFEU 2009

N° Scenario Juice Grains Bagasse1 Standard 1st gen. bioethanol 1st gen. bioethanol Process energy &

bioelectricity2 EtOH 2

extended autarkic

1st gen. bioethanol 1st gen. bioethanol 2nd gen. bioethanol (autarkic)

3 EtOH 2 maximum fossil

1st gen. bioethanol 1st gen. bioethanol 2nd gen. bioethanol (fossil fuel input)

4 Grains food 1st gen. bioethanol Food Process energy & bioelectricity

5 Food & EtOH 2 1st gen. bioethanol Food 2nd gen. bioethanol (autarkic)

6 Grains & juice food

Food (fossil fuel input)

Food 2nd gen. bioethanol (autarkic)


IFEU 2009

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

6 Grains

& juice

food5 Food & EtOH 24 Grains

food

3 EtOH 2 max.2 EtOH 2 extended

autarkic

1 Standard

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

6 Grains

& juice

food5 Food & EtOH 24 Grains

food

3 EtOH 2 max.2 EtOH 2 extended

autarkic

1 Standard

GJ PE / (ha*yr)

Outline

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


1. Agricultural reference system

Cultivation

Auxilliary Products

Alternative land use or land cover

Crude oil extraction and pre-treatment

Processing

Transport

Gasoline Bio-

Ethanol

Product Process Equivalent Product

VinasseMilling

FermentationDehydration

Transport

Feed

Power Conventional power production

Conventional feed production (soy

meal)

Conventional

fuelSweet

Sorghum

bioethanol

IFEU 2009


Europe: expanding domestic biomass production

for biofuel

(1) (certified) good practiseproduction of biomass

(2) replaces previously givencultivation on the same acreage, e.g. animal food

(3) animal food will be imported increasingly, e.g. from tropical countries

(4) the required area for animal food production is likely to be forest

INDIRECT INDUCTION OF FOREST LOGGING

Fehrenbach et al. 2008


Cultivation

Auxilliary Products

Fallow

Crude oil extraction and pre-treatment

Processing

Transport

Gasoline Bio-

Ethanol

Product Process Equivalent Product

VinasseMilling

FermentationDehydration

Transport

Feed

Power Conventional power production

Conventional feed production (soy

meal)

Conventional

fuelSweet

Sorghum

bioethanol

IFEU 2009

Wheat

Soy

US prairie

Brazilian rainforest

Wheat

Soy

USAEurope

Europe Brazil

Europe


IFEU 2010

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Replacement

soyto Brazilian

forests

Replacement

wheat to US prairie

Standard

Greenhouse effect

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

Advantage Disadvant. for

bioethanol

2. Different yields

Cultivation

Ancillary products

Bio-

Ethanol

VinasseProcessing (e. g. milling, fermentation, combustion)

Transport

Feed

Bioenergy


Stillage

Leaves

Fuseloil

Calcium carbonate

Feed

Fertiliser

Wheat

Soy meal

Soy meal

Convent. prod. power

Convent. prod. heat

Mineral fert. (N, P)

Heat

Power

Feed

Fuel Gasoline

OptionProduct Process Equivalent Product IFEU 2009

2. Different yieldsGreenhouse effect

IFEU 2009

-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

High juice

yield

Low

juice

yield

High biomass

yield

Medium biomass

yield

Low

biomass

yield

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

Advantage for

bioethanol

3. Substituted energy carriers

Cultivation

Ancillary products

Bio-

Ethanol

VinasseProcessing (e. g. milling, fermentation, combustion)

Transport

Feed

Bioenergy


Stillage

Leaves

Fusel oil

Calcium carbonate

Feed

Fertiliser

Wheat

Soy meal

Soy meal

Convent. prod. power

Convent. prod. heat

Mineral fert. (N, P)

Heat

Power

Feed

Fuel Gasoline

OptionProduct Process Equivalent Product IFEU 2009

3. Substituted energy carriers

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Natural

gas

Coal

(standard)

Fossil equivalent

Natural

gas

Coal

(standard)


Advantage for

ethanol Disadvantages

Biomass productionBiomass transportEthanol production

Ethanol creditsCredit power

Ethanol transportEthanol usage

Foss. equiv. EtOH grainFoss. equiv. EtOH juice

Balance


Greenhouse effect

IFEU 2009

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

4. External energy carriers


Ethanol grains

Conversion

Vinasse

Sweet Sorghum

Ethanol juice

FuseloilsAuxiliary products

Lime Stillage

SeedsMiner. Fert.

Pesti-

cides

Diesel fuel

Ethanol bagasse

Coal

Calcium carbonate

Soy meal

Convent. heat production

Mineral fertilizer

Soy meal

IFEU 2009

Scenario ‚EtoH 2 max.‘

4. External energy carriers

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Natural

gas

Coal

(standard)

Fossil equivalent

Natural

gas

Coal

(standard) Credits Expenditures

Advantage Disadvantages

f. bioethanol

Biomass productionBiomass transportEthanol production

Ethanol creditsCredit power

Ethanol transportEthanol usage

Foss. equiv. EtOH grainFoss. equiv. EtOH juice

Balance


Greenhouse effect

IFEU 2009

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

Outline

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


Comparison with biofuel

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

EtOH corn

EtOH wheat

EtOH sugar

beet

EtOH potatoe

EtOH sugar

cane

EtOH sweet

sorghum

EtOH poplar

EtOH triticale

t CO2

equiv. / (ha*yr)

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

GJ PE / (ha*yr)

Primary

energyGreenhouse

effect

Advantage for

bioethanol

1st generation

1st & 2nd generation

2nd generation

IFEU 2010

Outline

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


Environmental

impacts

of biofuels

• Like with any other product, a number of environmental impacts are usually associated with the

production and use of biomass for biofuel.

• The main environmental concerns

related to biofuels are land use and associated impacts

on natural

environment and resources such as GHG emissions, biodiversity, water and soil.

• A number of assessment techniques are available for environmental assessment which differ in the subject of study and show strengths and weaknesses

Review

of environmental

studies criteria

communication management

eco audit

risk

social aspects SocioEco-Effiency Analysis

economics

Eco-

technology assessment

comprehensive environmental aspects

material flow analysis

LCA efficiency analysis

single environ-mental aspects

test on chemicals

eco audit

EIA SEA

PCF

subject of study

substancematerial

product produc-tion site

project technology policies plans programs

LCA is less suitable for site-specific env. impacts

Other

environmental

impacts

Impact parameter Sweet Sorghum production systemsLarge-scale Small-scale/ low input

Acidification - -Eutrophication - 0 to -Ozone depletion - -Photo smog - -Soil erosion/ soil compaction

- / - - / 0

Water consumption + +Impact on ground and surface water

0 to - 0

Impact on soil + to - + to -(Agro-)Biodiversity 0 to - 0 to ++ positive; 0 no impact; –

negative

LCA

EIA

Example: EIA of energy

crops

in EU

I

II IIII

II III

I

II IIII

II III

I

IIIII

I

IIIII

I

II III

III

III

III III

III III I II

III

III

III III III

III III I

IIIII

I

II III I

II III

I II III

0,0

2,5

5,0

7,5

10,0R

apes

eed

(NE

M, C

ON

, ATN

, ATC

, LU

S)

Sun

flow

er (M

DN

)

Eth

iopi

an m

usta

rd (M

DS

)

Sug

ar b

eet (

CO

N, A

TC)

Sw

eet s

orgh

um (L

US

, MD

N, M

DS

)

Hem

p (N

EM

, ATN

, LU

S, M

DN

)

Flax

(CO

N, A

TC, M

DS

)

Ree

d ca

nary

gra

ss (N

EM

)

Mis

cant

hus

(CO

N, A

TN, A

TC, L

US

)

Sw

itchg

rass

(ATN

, ATC

)

Gia

nt re

ed (M

DN

)

Car

doon

(MD

S)

Pop

lar (

NE

M, A

TC, M

DN

)

Will

ow (C

ON

, ATN

, LU

S)

Euc

alyp

tus

(LU

S, M

DS

)

Whe

at (a

ll re

gion

s)

Pot

ato

(all

regi

ons)

Fallo

w (a

ll re

gion

s)

Wei

ghte

d an

d no

rmal

ized

sco

res

EmissionsSoilResourcesWasteBiodiversityLandscape

Fernando et al. 2010

Conclusions

• Sweet Sorghum bioethanol can contribute significantly to the conservation of fossil energy resources and to the mitigation of greenhouse gases.

• Also combination of 1st and 2nd

generation bioethanol leads to savings of energy and greenhouse gases

• If grains are used as food, bioethanol from the stalk’s sugar juice still shows clear advantages to fossil fuels.

Only crop to combine food and bioenergy production with available technologies

Outline

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


Conclusions

• Sweet Sorghum bioethanol can contribute significantly to the conservation of fossil energy resources and to the mitigation of greenhouse gases.

• Also combination of 1st and 2nd

generation bioethanol leads to savings of energy and greenhouse gases

• If grains are used as food, bioethanol from the stem’s sugar juice still shows clear advantages to fossil fuels.

Only crop to combine food and bioenergy production with available technologies

Conclusions

• If both sugar and grains are used as food, all energy and greenhouse gas expenditures can be compensated by ethanol production from the bagasse (2nd

generation).

Conclusions

• Optimization potentials: If 1st

and 2nd

generation bioethanol are to be

combined, part of the bagasse should be used for process energy generation

Land use change: indirect land use change due to the replacement of food or feed crops can lead to significant carbon emissions and thus to a disadvantageous greenhouse gas balance; Sweet sorghum should not compete with food/feed production

Conclusions

• Optimization potentials: Yields: higher biomass yields can lead to higher

savings in energy and greenhouse gasesEnergy carrier: the higher the specific emissions of

greenhouse gases are in the replaced energy carriers, the better results can be obtained by replacing it.

• In comparison with other ethanol crops no clear advantage or disadvantage; depends on specific boundary conditions

Outline

• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


• Introduction



main scenarios




• Conclusions


Outlook

Sweet Sorghum –

an alternative energy crop• EU FP7 project (no. 227422)

• Duration: 01/2009 –

12/2013 (60 months)

• Total budget: 4.9 M € (EC contrib.: 3.0 M €)

• Coordinator: CIRAD

• Partners: ICRISAT, EMPRABA, KWS, UNIBO, UCSC, ARC-CGI, UANL, WIP

• Objective:

Develop

bio-ethanol

production

in temperate

and semi-

arid

regions

from

sweet

sorghum

through

genetic

enhancement

and improvement

of cultural

and harvest

practices

http://www.sweetfuel-project.eu/

Sweet FuelSweet Fuel


Project Number: 227422 Web site: www.sweetfuel-project.eu

Sweet

sorghum

: an alternative energy

crop

1/8



STAKE HOLDERS

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTWP6

CULTURAL PRACTICES & CROP MODELLING

WP5

DISSEMINATION OF ESULTSWP7

Organisation of

WPs

WP2DroughtLow

Temp.

MarginalSoils

WP1

BREEDING EFFORT

WP3

5/8

MANAGE

MEN

T OF

THE

PROJE

CT

Expe

rt in

ethics

WP8

FUNCTIONALANALYSIS

WP4



Target ideotype

for WP1Sorghum

with

high

biomass, good

adaptation tolow

temperature

and

good

digestibility

(low

contentof

lignin, bmr trait)

suitable

for 2nd

generation

bioethanol

Target ideotype

for WP2Double purpose

sorghum

(grain + sugars) suitablefor humane and/or animal feeding, with

a good

drought

adaptation, juicy

stalks

with

high

sugar

content and

good

digestibility

suitable

for 1st

generation

bioethanol

Target ideotype

for WP3Double purpose

sorghum

(grain + sugars) suitable

forhumane and/or animal feeding, with

a good

adaptation to marginal soils

(acidity, high

Al, low

P) and

good

digestibility

suitable

for 1st

generation

bioethanol

Breeding

objectives

Specific

objectives of

breeding

programmesWP1, WP2

and

WP3

are to develop

new sorghum

lines

or hybrids.The

target

ideotype

depends

on the

target

environment

as well

as the

system

of

transformation

6/8



Other

objectivesOther

specific

objectives of

SweetFuel

are:

Provide

a multicriteria

evaluation

of

the

sustainability

of

the

bioethanol productionfrom

sweet

sorghum

on a social, economic

and

environmental

point of

viewWP6

7/8

Environmental assessment

Economic assessment SWOT analysis

Integrated assessmentof sustainability

Definitions and settings &Technological assessment

Task leader:IFEU

Task leader:ICRISAT

Task leader:WIP

Task leader: CIRAD

Task leader: IFEU

Tasks 6.2 – 6.4

Task 6.1

Task 6.5

SWEETFUEL scenarios

Basic life cycle comparisonPesti-cides

Ethanol from juice

Processing (e. g.

fermentation, distillation)

Juice

Product Process Reference system

Ferti-liser Seeds Diesel

fuelIrri-

gation

Milling

Alternative land use

Cultivation / Harvesting

Conventional productBy-product

Conventional productBy-product

Gasoline

Processing (refining)

Crude oil extraction & pre-

treatment

Mineral oil


SWEETFUEL scenarios

Semi-arid / tropical climate –

centralised• Sweet sorghum crops are cultivated in villages and transported to

central units where further processing steps follow

• Grains for feed / food in order to set off food security problems

• Bagasse used for process energy generation in ethanol production


Tropical climate –

centralisedPesti-cides

Ethanol from juice

Vinasse

Grains

Leaves

Fusel oil

Calcium carbonate

Processing (fermentation,

distillation)

Bagasse

Juice

ProductProcess Reference system

Process energy


fuelIrri-

gation

SurplusBagasse

Milling


Stalks


OptionOption

Villa

gele

vel

1B

1C

1a

1b

Processing

Ethanol1

Gasoline

Bioenergy

Feed

N,P,K fertilizer

Conventional heat

Lime fertilizer

Cereals1

Conventional power

Cereals1

Cereals1

N.P,K fertilizer

Paraffin

LPG

Fertilizer

Fertilizer

Heat

Feed / Food

Fertilizer

Feed

Transport fuel

Fuel

Dehydration

Wood

1I

1II

Scenario1 needs to be discussed / clarified


SWEETFUEL scenarios

Semi-arid / tropical climate –

decentralised• Two levels of decentralisation:

a)

Syrup is cultivated from sweet sorghum juice in villages and transported to central ethanol units

Bad infrastructure for biomass transportation might require partial local production and syrup is more advantageous for ethanol production as longer storable

b)

All production steps until ethanol processing are realized at village level

Opportunity to gain access to own energy and to provide a healthier energy source than wood or paraffin; contribution to rural development

• Grains for feed / food in order to set off food security problems

• Bagasse used for process energy generation in syrup and ethanol production



decentralised IPesti-cides

Ethanol from juice

Vinasse

Grains

Leaves

Fusel oil

Calcium carbonate


distillation)

Bagasse

Juice

Process energy


fuelIrri-

gation

SurplusBagasse

Milling


Stalks


Villa

gele

vel

Processing

Ethanol1

Gasoline

Bioenergy

Feed

N,P,K fertilizer

Conventional heat

Lime fertilizer

Cereals1

Conventional power

Cereals1

Cereals1

N,P,K fertilizer

Paraffin

LPG

Fertilizer

Fertilizer

Heat

Feed / Food

Fertilizer

Feed

Transport fuel

Fuel

Dehydration

Wood

Heat (Cooking)

Wood

Fertilizer N,P,K fertilizer

Processing

Syrup

Parrafin

LPG

2a

2b

2d

2c

2B

2C

2I

2II

ProductProcess Reference systemOptionOptionScenario1 needs to be discussed / clarified



decentralised IIPesti-cides

Ethanol from juice

Vinasse

Grains

Leaves

Fusel oil

Calcium carbonate


distillation)

Bagasse

Juice

Process energy


fuelIrri-

gation

SurplusBagasse

Milling


Stalks


Villa

gele

vel

Processing

Ethanol1

Gasoline

Bioenergy

Feed

N,P,K fertilizer

Conventional heat

Lime fertilizer

Cereals1

Conventional power

Cereals1

Cereals1

N,P,K fertilizer

Paraffin

LPG

Fertilizer

Fertilizer

Heat

Feed / Food

Fertilizer

Feed

Transport fuel

Fuel

Wood

Heat (Cooking) Paraffin

Fertilizer N,P,K fertilizer

Wood

LPG

3a

3b

3d

3c

3B

3C

3I

3II

ProductProcess Reference systemOptionOptionScenario

Cereals1Feed3б

3е

1 needs to be discussed / clarified


SWEETFUEL scenarios

Temperate climate• Only large scale centralised production

• Whole crop is used focus on high biomass yield instead of high sugar / juice yields

• Focus on 2nd

generation production technology

• Four pathways are assessed:a)

Biogas production

b)

2nd generation ethanol production from lignocellulose c)

Direct combustion

d)

Gasification for BtL-production


Thank you for your attention !Nils Rettenmaier

Contact:[email protected]

+ 49 -

6221 -

4767 -

0 / -

24

Downloads:www.ifeu.de

AcknowledgementPart of this work was funded by the European Commission through the FP7 project SWEETFUEL (GA number 227422).

Guido Reinhardt

Susanne Köppen

Sven Gärtner

Documents

Environmental implications associated with sweet … · Environmental implications associated with sweet sorghum ... material flow analysis ... Sweet Sorghum bioethanol can contribute