Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Development of Standard Tool for Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Balances
and Cost-effectiveness of Biomass Energy Technologies
Rome, May 14 2004Jinke van Dam, A. Faaij. I. LewandowskiCopernicus Institute - Dept. Science, Technology & SocietyUtrecht University
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
BIOMITREEuropean Commission project
Financed jointly by DG-Tren and Energy Agency Task 38
Partners in the project are:
• Department of Science, Technology and Society, University Utrecht, the Netherlands• Institute of Energy Research, Joanneum Research, Austria• Department of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Mid-Sweden University, Sweden• Forest Research, UK• Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, UK• VTT processes at the Technical Research Centre, Finland
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Background of the projectMain Developments in EU:• Promotion of biomass energy in EU• Targets EU countries (almost 10% total EU energy supply in 2010)• Question: Which technologies in the EU have the best potential in GHG
reduction and cost-effectiveness?
Development software tool• GHG reduction and cost-effectiveness are complex calculations• Several tools are in circulation• Most specific and focused on 1 concept / country• Different methodological approaches
Need: general tool with accepted framework
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
DEMANDS TO TOOL
Translation to aims tool:
Calculate cost-effectiveness and GHG balances
Different groups of stakeholders can use the results
Results for projects in different EU countries
Results for wide range of biomass sources
Many factors influence GHG reduction
Transparency oftool
User friendliness, not too complicated to use
Results of different projects have to be comparable
Results for wide range of biomass technologies
1.Cope with wide diversity of biomass technologies and resources
2. Tool has to be applicable for different user groups (universities, policy makers, companies)
3. Standard methodology for calculation greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness
4. Transparency and user friendliness
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Aim 1: Tool has to cope with a diversity of biomass resources and technologies
Biomass resources:Perennial crops, annual crops, SRC, forestry, waste
Technologies: Diverse, output is solid, liquid or gaseous fuels, electricity or heat
Translation to tool: flow chart design
Advantages:• Flow charts and modules summarize the
characteristics of any given biomass technology• Modules are specified in clear, transparent manner• Flowcharts represent interlinked processes• Flexible (modules can be extended)
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Flow chart design tool
Biomass system Production biomassTon / ha * yearYield over time
Carbon stocks (changes)
Amount of carbon in soil
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Supply systemA.----B.----
Harvest
Transfer
Storage
Pre-treatment
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----
Reference system
Energy system (time dependent)
Material system (quality, lifetime material)
Efficiency (type of end-user)
Result GHG balance and cost-effectiveness
Role of leakage
Performance over time
Original use
i.e. landfill municipal waste
Energy system (time dependent)
Carbon intensity may go down. Efficiency system.
Material system (quality, lifetime material)
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Original land useA ----B ----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Reference use and supply system
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----
Biomass system Production biomassTon / ha * yearYield over time
Carbon stocks (changes)
Amount of carbon in soil
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Supply systemA.----B.----3.
A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Supply systemA.----B.----
Harvest
Transfer
Storage
Pre-treatment
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----3.
A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----
Reference system
Energy system (time dependent)
Material system (quality, lifetime material)
Efficiency (type of end-user)
Result GHG balance and cost-effectiveness
Role of leakage
Performance over time
Original use
i.e. landfill municipal waste
Energy system (time dependent)
Carbon intensity may go down. Efficiency system.
Material system (quality, lifetime material)
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----3.
A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Biomass resourceA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Original land useA ----B ----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Reference use and supply system3.
A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. Reference use and supply system
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. ConversionA.----B.----
3. A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----3.
A.----B.----
2. A.----B.----
1. End-UseA.----B.----
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Aim 2: Tool is applicable for different user groups
Meaning:•Knowledge about biomass resources and technologies will be diverse.•Users will not have the same access to data resources
Possibility for different levels of data input(case studies, international references, own project data)
Successive disaggregatingof data and calculations to cope with data diversity / availability
Translation to software design:
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Soil preparations
ResourceGHG & costs
Annual cropsCosts / GHG
Perennial crops
Waste and residues
Short rotation coppice
OperationsGHG / ha*yrcosts
InputsGHG / ha*yrcosts
Carbon poolsGHG / ha*yrcosts
MachinesGHG / ha*yrcosts
Allocation
Set of operations:
Soil preparation
Sowing / drilling
Crop husbandry
Collecting crop
Other operations
Set of Inputs:
Phosphate
Potash
Lime
CaO fertiliser
Pesticides generic
Herbicides generic
Seedlings
Other
Sub-soiling
Ploughing
Harrowing
Level 0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
SupplyGHG & costs
Successive disaggregating of data:
Different “tiers”are used for calculation and data input
Also: carbon dynamics and cost data based on this approach
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Aim 3: Standard methodology for calculation greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness
Survey: collectionLiterature studies (500 references)
1st selection based on expert knowledge and indexed keywords
Evaluation selected papers based on three key questions
Summary main findings of review methodologies
Unification of methodologies
Output: standard methodology to calculate greenhouse gas balances and cost-effectiveness
Approach used in project
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Review methodologies: evaluation selected papers
Approaches in selected papers were evaluated on their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the objectives of the BIOMITRE project
Three key questions for evaluation methodologies:
• Accuracy of the methodology considering comprehensiveness (i.e. functional unit) and consistency
• Transparency (i.e. assumptions clear)• Efficiency (i.e. comparable output parameters)
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Mech.energy
Heat Electri-city
Plants,litter & soil,
agricult./forestrywaste
Pro-duction
By-products
TransportStorage I
Pro-cessing
TransportStorage II
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
By-products
and/or
Transp.fuel
Biol. feedstock
Fossildeposits
Pro-duction,
Transport,
Pro-cessing
By-products
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
and/or
Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy
Net C loss
Net C-uptake/lossNet GHG emissions
ass. with specifictechnologies
Comb.
Comb.Transp.
fuel
Comb.
Comb.
Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
FU ?FU ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Mech.energy
Heat Electri-city
Plants,litter & soil,
agricult./forestrywaste
Pro-duction
By-products
TransportStorage I
Pro-cessing
TransportStorage II
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
By-products
and/or
Transp.fuel
Biol. feedstock
Fossildeposits
Pro-duction,
Transport,
Pro-cessing
By-products
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
and/or
Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy
Net C loss
Net C-uptake/lossNet GHG emissions
ass. with specifictechnologies
Comb.
Comb.Transp.
fuel
Comb.
Comb.
Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System
Mech.energy
Heat Electri-city
Plants,litter & soil,
agricult./forestrywaste
Pro-duction
By-products
TransportStorage I
Pro-cessing
TransportStorage II
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
By-products
and/or
Transp.fuel
Biol. feedstock
Fossildeposits
Pro-duction,
Transport,
Pro-cessing
By-products
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
and/or
Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy
Net C loss
Net C-uptake/lossNet GHG emissions
ass. with specifictechnologies
Comb.
Comb.Transp.
fuel
Comb.
Comb.
Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System
Mech.energy
Heat Electri-city
Plants,litter & soil,
agricult./forestrywaste
Plants,litter & soil,
agricult./forestrywaste
Pro-duction
By-products
TransportStorage I
Pro-cessing
TransportStorage II
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
By-products
and/or
Transp.fuel
Biol. feedstock
FossildepositsFossil
deposits
Pro-duction,
Transport,
Pro-cessing
By-products
Conver-sion
Conver-sion
Distri-bution
Distri-bution
and/or
Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy
Carbon flowGHG flow (incl. C)Flow of electricity, heat or mech. energy
Net C loss
Net C-uptake/lossNet GHG emissions
ass. with specifictechnologies
Comb.
Comb.Transp.
fuel
Comb.
Comb.
Bioenergy System (Fossil) Reference Energy System
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
A ?A ?
FU ?FU ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Te ?Te ?
Points of special methodological interest:A? AllocationT? Time factorR? Regional variationTe? Choice of technology
Evaluated on:TransparencyConsistencyComprehensivenessEfficiency
Example for Schlamadinger et al. 1997 (slightly modified)
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Some key lessons (1)Methodological
issueKey lesson from review Translation to tool
Reference system
Choice of technology, same technology level affects accuracyresults
Consistent selection of reference system. Clear explanation in manual.
Uncertainty Approach by 1) different scenarios or 2) sensitivity analysis. Often included.
Sensitivity analysis included in tool. Working with “warnings” if data input is inaccurate.
Functional unit includes end-use efficiency. Accurate and consistent use of system boundaries. Using different input data for different regions
Often treated differently > reduces accuracy and makes comparisons uncertain.
Recognized as important factor for accuracy system.
System boundary
Site specificity
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Key lessons (2)
Methodological issue
Key lesson from review Translation to tool
Time dynamics Little attention on project level. Lack of transparency in choice time frame. IPCC data often used.
Carbon dynamics included (working with “tier” approach).
Allocation Allocation should as far as possible be avoided, transparency in methodology
User can select allocation procedure (clear explanation in manual). Biomaterials will be substituted or allocated.
Costs Assessments are not frequent. Different methods (I.e. partial cost analysis) or lack of transparency
Cost analysis for complete system. Working with “tier” approach.
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Aim 4: Tool is user friendly and transparent for user
Set of established case studiesincluded in tool
• Demonstrate calculations to user
• Cover diversity in technologies and resources
• Costs are included in case studies
Manual / guide is provided to user:
• Serve as background material
• Explains calculations to user• Gives information about
references (for example international databases)
Translation to software design:
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Selection case studies:Case study:
Resource Use Reference system
1 Rapeseed RME plant Diesel
2 Forest residues F-tropsch Diesel, grid (electricity)
3 Wood CHP plant Heat and electricity
4 Miscanthus Domestic heat Oil fired heat
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Status of the project:
• Project BIOMITRE is still in implementation• The review of methodologies is completed• Partners agreed on the design of the tool
• Currently, data for the case studies are collected and the building of the software tool is in process
• The results of the project will be available in 2005 and to become distributed via IEA Task 38
Copernicus InstituteResearch Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Thank you!
E-mail: [email protected] 38: www.joanneum.at/iea-bioenergy-task38