Impact of the renewable Energy Directive (RED) on GHG ... of the Renewable Energy... · Impact of the renewable Energy Directive (RED) on GHG emission ... Scope WtW WtW WtW WtW WtW

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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Impact of the renewable Energy Directive (RED) on GHG ... of the Renewable Energy... · Impact of the renewable Energy Directive (RED) on GHG emission ... Scope WtW WtW WtW WtW WtW