Aae Report Final 22-05-2007

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aae-report-final-22-05-2007 1/113

Life Cycle Analysis of Fuels Derived FromAgricultural Products

Beatrice Ethanol

Beatrice Biodiesel

NSW Ethanol

Final Report and AppendicesPrepared for

By

David Toyne&

Peter Shaw

May 2007

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007


AAE Life Cycle Analysis 22/05/2007 3:06 PM

Toyne/Shaw Life Cycle Analysis of Fuels Derived From Agricultural Products Page 2

Table of Contents

1 Key Findings .......................................................................................................... 6 Greenhouse Gas Performance of AAE’s Biofuels ........................................................ 6

NSW Ethanol: .......................................................................................................... 6 Beatrice Ethanol: ..................................................................................................... 7

Beatrice Biodiesel: ................................................................................................... 7

2 Executive Summary............................................................................................... 9 Table 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Balance .................................... 12 Figure 1: Beatrice Ethanol (Corn) .......................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Beatrice Biodiesel (Soy Bean Oil) ........................................................... 13 Figure 3: NSW Ethanol (Corn, Wheat, Barley, Sorghum) ....................................... 13 Figure 4: Beatrice Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy ............................................. 14 Figure 5: Beatrice Biodiesel Comparative Nett Energy .......................................... 15 Figure 6: NSW Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy ................................................. 15

3 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Study Overview ............................................................................................... 16 3.2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Global Warming and Climate Change ............... 16

3.3 USA’s Response ............................................................................................. 17 3.4 Australian Governments’ Response ................................................................ 18 3.5 The Australian Public’s Response ................................................................... 18

4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1 General Principles ........................................................................................... 19 4.2 Global Warming Potential ................................................................................ 20

Table 2: Global Warming Potential ........................................................................ 20 4.3 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 20

Table 3: Ranking Scheme for US Data .................................................................. 22 Table 4: Ranking Scheme for Australian Data ....................................................... 23

4.4 Study Boundaries ............................................................................................ 23 4.4.1 Ethanol ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7: Ethanol Study Boundaries ...................................................................... 24 4.4.2 Biodiesel .................................................................................................. 25 Figure 8: Biodiesel Study Boundaries .................................................................... 25

4.5 Allocation of Emissions to Co-products ........................................................... 26 Table 5: Co-Products Allocation Table ................................................................... 27

4.6 Accounting for Biomass Carbon Dioxide Emissions ........................................ 27 5 Production Process ............................................................................................. 27

5.1 Ethanol ............................................................................................................ 27 5.2 Biodiesel ......................................................................................................... 28

6 Beatrice Ethanol .................................................................................................. 30 6.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 30 6.2 Determination of Emissions Factors ................................................................ 30 6.3 Emissions Associated With Beatrice Ethanol Production ................................. 30 6.4 Beatrice Ethanol Input Data ............................................................................. 30

Table 6: Beatrice Ethanol Input Data ..................................................................... 31 6.5 Beatrice Ethanol Output Data and Emissions .................................................. 31

Table 7: Beatrice Ethanol Plant Output Data ......................................................... 32 Table 8: Beatrice Ethanol Emissions ..................................................................... 33

6.6 Compare and Contrast Beatrice Ethanol Based Fuels ..................................... 33 Figure 9: Beatrice Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy ............................................. 34

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




6.7 Beatrice Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison .......................................... 34 Table 9: Tail Pipe Comparison ............................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels – g CO2-e/MJ.............................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 11: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/L.............................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 12: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/LEnergy Equivalent Basis ........................................................................................ 38 Figure 13: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Versus PULP ........................ 39

6.8 Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance .................................................................... 39 Table 10: Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance ........................................................... 40

6.9 Use of Beatrice Biodiesel as a Replacement for Gas for Boiler Fuel ............... 40 Table 11: Beatrice Ethanol – Biodiesel Fuel Replacement ..................................... 40 Figure 14: Replacement of Natural Gas with Biodiesel for Heat Energy – Effect onGreenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels ............................................................... 41 Figure 15: Replacement of Natural Gas with Biodiesel for Heat Energy – Comparison of Greenhouse Emissions of E100 and E85 ...................................... 41

7 Beatrice Biodiesel................................................................................................ 42 7.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 42 7.2 Determination of Emissions Factors ................................................................ 42 7.3 Emissions Associated With Biodiesel Production ............................................ 42 7.4 Beatrice Biodiesel Input Data .......................................................................... 42

Table 12: Beatrice Biodiesel Input Data ................................................................. 43 7.5 Beatrice Biodiesel Output Data and Emissions ................................................ 43

Table 13: Beatrice Biodiesel Plant Output Data ..................................................... 44 Table 14: Beatrice Biodiesel Emissions ................................................................. 45

7.6 Compare and Contrast Beatrice Bio Diesel Based Fuels ................................. 45 Figure 16: Beatrice Biodiesel Comparative Nett Energy ........................................ 46

7.7 Beatrice Bio Diesel Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison ...................................... 46 Table 15: Beatrice Biodiesel Tail Pipe Comparison................................................ 47 Figure 17: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – g CO2-e/MJ.............................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 18: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/L 48 Figure 19: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/LEnergy Equivalent ................................................................................................. 49

7.8 Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance .................................................................. 49 Table 16: Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance ........................................................ 50

8 New South Wales Ethanol Plants ....................................................................... 51 8.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 51 8.2 Determination of Emissions Factors ................................................................ 51 8.3 Emissions Associated With NSW Ethanol Production ..................................... 51 8.4 NSW Input Data .............................................................................................. 51

Table 17: NSW Ethanol Data Plant Input ............................................................... 52 Table 18: NSW Ethanol Agricultural Feedstock (Corn) Input Data ......................... 53 8.5 NSW Output Data and Emissions .................................................................... 53

Table 19: NSW Ethanol Plant Output Data ............................................................ 54 Table 20: NSW Ethanol Emissions ........................................................................ 55

8.6 Compare and Contrast NSW Ethanol Based Fuels ......................................... 55 Figure 20: NSW Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy................................................ 56

8.7 NSW Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison ............................................... 56 Table 21: NSW Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions.......................................................... 58

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 21: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – g CO2-e/MJ ...... 59 Figure 22: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/L ....... 59 Figure 23: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kg CO2-e/LEnergy Equivalent ................................................................................................. 60 Figure 24: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Versus PULP............................. 61

8.8 NSW Ethanol Energy Balance ......................................................................... 61 Table 22: NSW Ethanol Energy Balance ............................................................... 62

Appendix 1 – Bibliography ......................................................................................... 63 Appendix 2 – Glossary ................................................................................................ 70 Appendix 3 – Comparison of NSW Emissions – Further Discussion ...................... 73 Appendix 4 – Factors and Constants General........................................................... 75 Appendix 5 – Factors and Constants Beatrice Ethanol ............................................ 77 Appendix 6 – Emissions Calculations Beatrice Ethanol .......................................... 79

Determination of Emissions Factors .......................................................................... 79 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................... 79 Electricity ................................................................................................................... 79 Diesel Transport Fuel ................................................................................................ 79 Process Water ........................................................................................................... 80 Corn Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 80 Waste Water Treatment............................................................................................. 80 Solid Waste to Landfill ............................................................................................... 80

Appendix 7 – Energy Balance Beatrice Ethanol ........................................................ 81 Determination of Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance ................................................... 81 Corn Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 81 Grain Transport (Road only) ...................................................................................... 82 Electricity Used in Ethanol Production ....................................................................... 82 Natural Gas Used in Ethanol Production ................................................................... 83 Process Water Used in Ethanol Production ............................................................... 83 Denaturant (Gasoline) Used in Ethanol Production Including Transportation ............. 84 Ethanol Transportation .............................................................................................. 84

Appendix 8 – Factors and Constants Beatrice Biodiesel ......................................... 86 Appendix 9 – Emissions Calculations Beatrice Biodiesel ........................................ 89 Determination of Beatrice Biodiesel Emissions Factors ............................................. 89 Natural Gas: .............................................................................................................. 89 Electricity. .................................................................................................................. 89 Diesel Transport Fuel ................................................................................................ 89 Process Water ........................................................................................................... 90 Methanol Production .................................................................................................. 90 Soy Bean Agriculture ................................................................................................. 90 Soy Bean Transportation to Crusher ......................................................................... 91 Soy Bean Crushing and Oil Extraction ....................................................................... 92 Waste Water Treatment............................................................................................. 92 Solid Waste to Landfill ............................................................................................... 92 Appendix 10 – Energy Balance Calculations Beatrice Biodiesel ............................. 94 Determination of Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance ................................................. 94 Energy in Biodiesel Produced .................................................................................... 94 Fossil Energy Used to Produce Biodiesel .................................................................. 94 Soy Bean Agriculture ................................................................................................. 94 Soy Bean Transport to Oil Extraction Facility ............................................................. 95 Soy Bean Crushing.................................................................................................... 95 Soy Bean Oil Transport (Road only) .......................................................................... 95

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Electricity Used in Biodiesel Production ..................................................................... 96 Natural Gas Used in Biodiesel Production ................................................................. 96 Methanol Production .................................................................................................. 98

Appendix 11 – Factors and Constants NSW Ethanol .............................................. 100 Appendix 12 – Emissions Calculations NSW Ethanol ............................................ 104

Determination of NSW Ethanol Emission Factors .................................................... 104 LPG/LNG or a Mixture of Both: ................................................................................ 104 Bio Fuels ................................................................................................................. 104 Electricity. ................................................................................................................ 105 Diesel Transport Fuel .............................................................................................. 105 Process Water ......................................................................................................... 105 Grain Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 106 Waste Water Treatment........................................................................................... 106 Solid Waste to Landfill ............................................................................................. 107

Appendix 13 – Energy Balance NSW Ethanol ......................................................... 108 Determination of NSW Ethanol Energy Balance ...................................................... 108 Grain Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 108 Grain Transport (Road only) .................................................................................... 109 Electricity Used in Ethanol Production ..................................................................... 109 Natural Gas Used in Ethanol Production ................................................................. 110 Process Water Used in Ethanol Production ............................................................. 110 Denaturant (Gasoline) Used in Ethanol Production Including Transportation ........... 110 Ethanol Transportation ............................................................................................ 111

Appendix 14 – Comparative Energy Balances - Additional Information ............... 112

http://0.0.0.0/

http://0.0.0.0/

http://0.0.0.0/

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




1 Key Findings

Greenhouse Gas Performance of AAE’s Biofuels In the context of increasing government and public awareness and action ongreenhouse gas emissions, Agri Energy (AAE) commissioned independent consultants

to conduct a Life Cycle Analysis to establish the greenhouse gas emission performanceand Energy Balance of its products.

The Study focused on biofuel products from five plants: 3 Ethanol plants at Condobolin, Coleambally and Oaklands, NSW, Australia Ethanol plant in Beatrice, Nebraska, USA Biodiesel plant in Beatrice, Nebraska, USA

Greenhouse emission estimates have been calculated using principles andmethodologies developed by The Australian Greenhouse Office over a number of years.Net Energy Balance estimates have been calculated using US Department of Agriculturemethodologies. The NSW Ethanol plants have been modelled on the Beatrice plant.

Some of the calculations in this Study have been based on technical data andengineering parameters provided by AAE prior to the plants being commissioned. It isreasonable to assume that some of these estimates (such as electricity or LPGconsumption) may have been overestimated reflecting engineering conservatism duringthe design phase. Consequently, it is possible that the Nett Energy Balance1 of the plantin full operation may be higher, and the emissions lower than the estimates calculated inthis report.

The key findings of the Study are:

NSW Ethanol:

Displacing premium unleaded petrol with the total ethanol output of one of theNSW plants as E85 blended fuel will reduce greenhouse emissions byapproximately 170,000 t per annum on an energy equivalent basis. This isequivalent to taking about 37,700 cars off the road.2 3

E85 generates 32% less greenhouse gas emissions than premium unleadedpetrol (on an energy equivalent basis). 4

E85 generates 13% less greenhouse gas emissions than LPG (on an energy

equivalent basis).

E100 contains 47% more energy than is required to produce it.

5

1 The energy content per unit volume of the product less the primary fossil fuel energy used to produce and distribute it. 2 On average each car produces 4.5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year (CO2-e) Source - Department of

Energy Utilities and Sustainability 3

Total E85 production per plant = 235 ML x emissions rate of 1,520 t CO 2-e/ML. 235 ML E85 = 173 ML PULP on anenergy equivalent basis. 173 ML PULP x emissions rate of 3,030 t CO2-e/ML. Energy equivalent basis means volumes ofthe fuels have been adjusted to reflect their relative energy contents.4 A blend of 85% ethanol and 15% petrol (gasoline) used as a fuel for vehicles.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




E85 contains 38% more energy than is required to produce it.

Premium unleaded petrol in Australia contains 12% less energy than is required

to produce it.6

LPG in Australia contains 6% less energy than is required to produce it.

Beatrice Ethanol:

Displacing premium unleaded petrol with the total ethanol output of the Beatriceplant as E85 blended fuel will reduce greenhouse emissions by approximately281,000 US tons (255,000 metric tonnes) per annum on an energy equivalentbasis. This is equivalent to taking approximately 56,600 cars off the road. 7

E85 generates 46% less greenhouse gas emissions than premium unleadedpetrol (on an energy equivalent basis).

E85 generates 31% less greenhouse gas emissions than LPG (on an energy

equivalent basis).

E100 has 54% more energy than is used to produce it.

E85 contains 43%, more energy than is used to produce it.

Premium unleaded petrol in the USA contains 19% less energy than is required

to produce it.

LPG in the USA contains 1% less energy than is required to produce it.

Beatrice Biodiesel:

Displacing petroleum diesel by using the total output of the Beatrice biodieselplant as B100 will reduce greenhouse emissions by approximately 465,800 UStons (422,500 metric tonnes) per annum on an equivalent energy basis. Thisequivalent to taking approximately 93,800 cars off the road.8

B100 generates 62% less greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum diesel (on

an energy equivalent basis).9

5

Fossil fuel energy values uplifted to primary energy values – see Appendix 136 Energy required to produce fossil fuel products includes the initial crude oil energy value less energy expended in

production and other losses7 Total E85 production = 245 ML x emissions rate of 1,200 t CO2-e/ML. 245 ML E85 = 181 ML PULP on an energy

equivalent basis. 181 ML PULP x emissions rate of 3,030 t CO 2-e/ML. Energy equivalent basis means volumes of thefuels have been adjusted to reflect their relative energy contents. 8 Total B100production = 189 ML x emissions rate of 1,420 t CO2-e/ML. 189 ML B100 = 184 ML diesel on an energy

equivalent basis. 184 ML diesel x emissions rate of 3,700 t CO 2-e/ML. Energy equivalent basis means volumes of thefuels have been adjusted to reflect their relative energy contents. 9 Pure biodiesel (100%)

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




B20 generates 12% less greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum diesel (on

an energy equivalent basis).10

B100 contains 234% more energy than is required to produce it.

B20 contains 34% more energy than is required to produce it.

Petroleum diesel contains 15% less energy than is required to produce it.

10 A blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




2 Executive SummaryStudy Overv iew

In the context of increasing government and public awareness and action on

greenhouse gas emissions, Agri Energy (AAE) commissioned independent consultantsto conduct a Life Cycle Analysis to establish the greenhouse gas emission performanceand Energy Balance of its products.

The primary aim of this Study is to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and EnergyBalance on a life cycle assessment (LCA) basis for the biofuels produced by Agri Energyplants at the Beatrice and proposed NSW sites. No attempt has been made to addressother environmental issues such as impact on biodiversity and acidification from growingbiomass for liquid fuel production. An interactive Excel Spreadsheet Model (the Model)was developed for the Beatrice and NSW facilities that will estimate both greenhousegas emissions and the Energy Balance for ethanol and biodiesel production.

An equally important purpose of this Study is to compare the greenhouse emissions fromthe use of the AAE’s biofuel outputs (ethanol and biodiesel) with those from alternativefuels such as gasoline, LPG, compressed natural gas (CNG) and conventional diesel.

Key Results

E85 produced at Beatrice will generate 46% less greenhouse gas emissionsthan premium unleaded petrol (on an energy equivalent basis). 11

E85 produced at AAE’s NSW plants will generate 32% less greenhouse gasemissions than premium unleaded petrol (on an energy equivalent basis).

B100 produced at Beatrice will generate 62% less greenhouse gas emissionsthan petroleum diesel (on an energy equivalent basis).

Beatrice ethanol contains 154% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs. Gasoline(USA) contains 80.5% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs. 12 13

Beatrice biodiesel contains 334% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs. Dieselcontains 84.3% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs.

NSW ethanol contains 147% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs. premiumunleaded petrol (Australia) contains 87.7% of the energy in its fossil fuel inputs.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of Beatrice ethanol are estimatedto be 1,118 g CO2-e /L (47.16 g CO2-e /MJ), about half the emission rate estimatedby the leading USA EBAMM meta-model.

11Emissions have been adjusted to reflect the higher energy value of PULP on a volumetric basis

12Fossil fuel energy values uplifted to primary energy values – see Appendix 13

13 Energy required to produce fossil fuel products includes the initial crude oil energy value less energy expended in

production and other losses

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of Beatrice biodiesel areestimated to be 679g CO2-e /L (18.1 g CO2-e /MJ), about 59% higher than theemission rate estimated by Sheehan (1998) (11.37 g/MJ).

Biodiesel has less than half greenhouse gas emissions per mega joule producedthan ethanol probably due to inherently different production processes.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of NSW ethanol are estimated tobe 1,471g CO2-e /L (62.07 g CO2-e /MJ). The higher rate of emissions in Australiacompared to the Beatrice plant is due mainly to Australia’s reliance on coal toproduce electricity that results in a higher electricity emission co-efficient (about 1t CO2-e /MWh in NSW compared with about 0.7 t CO2-e / MWh in Nebraska).

AAE’s NSW plants are estimated to each consume about 2 peta joules (PJ) ofenergy per annum and emission reporting will be compulsory for these plants ifproposed Federal Government initiatives that require facilities that consume morethan 0.5PJ of energy annually to report, become law.

Methodology

Our approach is based on the underlying principles of management and financialaccounting. As a result, we have taken the approach that the greenhouse gas emissionperformance and energy consumption associated with the production of AAE’s productsmust be allocated between biofuels and co-products such as distiller’s grain andglycerine. We believe that this Study uses credible and supportable co-product allocationmethodologies. See section 4.5.

Greenhouse emission estimates have been calculated using principles andmethodologies developed by The Australian Greenhouse Office over a number of years.

See Appendices 6, 9 and 12. Net Energy Balance estimates have been calculated usingUS Department of Agriculture methodologies as detailed in Appendices 7, 10 and 13.

Some of the calculations in this Study have been based on technical data andengineering parameters provided by AAE prior to the plants being commissioned. It isreasonable to assume that some of these estimates (such as electricity or LPGconsumption) may have been overestimated reflecting engineering conservatism duringthe design phase. Consequently, it is possible that the Nett Energy Balance of the plantin full operation may be higher, and the emissions lower than the estimates calculated inthis report.

Literature Review

An extensive Internet literature review of publicly available material was conducted todetermine the current status of emission estimates and methodologies that relate to lifecycle assessments of emissions from biofuel and fossil fuel production. The reviewidentified that:

There are a limited number of studies in the US containing estimates ofgreenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of ethanol andbiodiesel.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Tail pipe data is difficult to find in either the USA or Australia. Tail pipe data andcomparisons used in this report have been drawn from CSIRO (Appropriatenessof a 350 million litre biofuels target, Main report and Appendix 1 – see ref 24 inAppendix 1 of this report).

The majority of US studies have concentrated on determining Nett Energy

Balance of biofuels, especially ethanol. Even so there is sufficiently reliable datathat, we believe, allows for meaningful estimates of greenhouse emissions andEnergy Balance to be made on a “well to tank” basis.

There is a shortage of Australian data for emission from the agriculture sector.

Recent Australian reviews that culminated in the Report by the BiofuelsTaskforce14 have set a benchmark for the methodology used to estimategreenhouse gas and other tailpipe emissions from the use of biofuels in Australia.

Energy Balance remains a debatable topic in the United States, however, themajority of researchers have found that biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel

have a positive Energy Balance.

In order to make the estimates as supportable as possible the authors developed asystem of data ranking. The main principle behind the ranking system is that data fromgovernment sources is preferred because the authors believe it will be relied upon bygovernments to formulate policy. Non-government sources are ranked depending ontheir degree of perceived independence. Subject to a “reality test” by the authors, datafrom AAE is assumed to be correct.

Accounting for Biomass Carbon Dioxide

The Kyoto Protocol and Intergovernmental Framework Convention on Climate Control

methodologies for determining greenhouse gas emissions only include carbon dioxidederived from fossil fuel. Therefore, carbon dioxide generated from the combustion ofAAE’s biofuels has not been included in the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions inthis Study.

14Australian Government Biofuels Taskforce (2005)

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Results After Allocation for Co-Products

Table 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Balance

BeatriceEthanol

(Corn)

BeatriceBiodiesel

(Soy BeanOil)

NSW Ethanol(Corn, Wheat,

Barley, Sorghum)

Unit*

AgriculturalEmissions

0.49125 0.23611 0.63778 kg /L

20.73 6.30 26.91 g/MJ

ProcessingEmissions

0.59415 0.41295 0.81050 kg/L

25.07 11.01 34.20 g/MJ

Product TransportEmissions

0.03350 0.03341 0.03814 kg/L

1.41 0.89 1.61 g/MJ

Total Emissions 1.118 0.679 1.471 kg/L

47.16 18.10 62.07 g/MJEnergy Balance 154% 334% 146% %

* Units for greenhouse gas emissions are all CO2-e

Fuel Comparison

Figure 1: Beatrice Ethanol (Corn)

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 2: Beatrice Biodiesel (Soy Bean Oil)

Figure 3: NSW Ethanol (Corn, Wheat, Barley, Sorghum)

Comparative Nett Energy

The following graphs and associated tables show the comparative nett energy of AAEbiofuels compared to their petroleum equivalents. Nett energy is defined as:

B100 B20 Diesel

Production 0.68 0.49 0.44

Combustion 0.68 2.73 3.26

Total 1.36 3.22 3.70

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

k g / l i t r e

Greenhouse Emissions kg CO2-e/LProduction

Combustion

Total

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




For biofuels, the energy content per unit (litre or gallon) of the product, less theprimary fossil fuel energy (see Appendix 2 Glossary) required to produce anddistribute it. Nett energy in this report has been calculated for E100 and B100, withthe nett energy for E85, E10 and B20 being a blended result using the appropriateproportions of fossil fuel input. It should be noted that the nett energy for E85 does

not include product distribution as AAE has advised that this product will be sold atthe plant gate.

For petroleum based products, the energy content per unit (litre or gallon)of theoriginal crude oil base stock less the energy required to extract, refine and distributethe product, plus other losses. (see Appendix 4).

It can be clearly seen that AAE biofuels deliver a greater nett energy in all cases.

Figure 4: Beatrice Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 5: Beatrice Biodiesel Comparative Nett Energy

Figure 6: NSW Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy

Diesel B20 B100At tank -15.7% 34% 234%

-50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

150.0%

200.0%

250.0%

L o

s s / g a i n o v e r p r i m a r y e n e r g y

Comparative nett energy of alternative fuels

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




3 Introduction

3.1 Study Overview In the context of increasing government and public awareness and action on

greenhouse gas emissions, Agri Energy (AAE) commissioned independent consultantsto conduct a Life Cycle Analysis to establish the greenhouse gas emission performanceand Energy Balance of its products.

The main purpose of this Study was to develop an interactive Excel Spreadsheet Model(the Model) that will estimate both greenhouse gas emissions and an Energy Balance.(See sections 6.5, 6.8 7.5, 7.8, 8.5, 8.8). In this report and the Model, the EnergyBalance is expressed as the proportion of energy contained in a unit of biofuel relative tothe fossil fuel energy required to produce that unit of biofuel.

Energy balance results of greater than “100%” indicate that ethanol and biodieselcontains more potential energy than the fossil fuel energy required to produce those

biofuels. Energy balance results less than 100% indicate that more fossil fuel energy isrequired than is contained in the biofuel.

An equally important purpose of this Study is to compare tailpipe emissions from ethanoland biodiesel with alternative fuels such as gasoline, LPG, compressed natural gas(CNG) and conventional petro-diesel.

Some of the calculations in this Study have been based on technical data andengineering parameters provided by AAE prior to the plants being commissioned. It isreasonable to assume that some of these estimates (such as electricity or LPGconsumption) may have been overestimated reflecting engineering conservatism duringthe design phase. Consequently, it is possible that the Nett Energy Balance of the plant

in full operation may be higher, and the emissions lower than the estimates calculated inthis report.

3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Global Warming and Climate Change

The greenhouse effect is the term used for the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere byheat energy from the sun being trapped by naturally occurring atmospheric gases.Without the natural greenhouse effect created by our atmosphere the world’s averagetemperature would be minus 18oC rather than the 16 oC which supports our ecosystem.In simple terms, sunlight passes through the atmosphere, warming the Earth. In turn, theEarth radiates this energy back towards space. As it passes back out through theatmosphere, greenhouse gases (primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide) absorb part of the outgoing heat energy. This means the greatergreenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, the greater the amount of the sun’sheat energy that becomes trapped rather than being released to space, resulting in awarming of the lower part of the atmosphere, land masses and oceans.

Since the Industrial Revolution the concentration of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide and methane has been increasing as a result ofhuman activities. The main contributors to the increase are industrial processes, fossil

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




fuel combustion and changes in land use such as de-forestation. The majority ofscientific opinion is that the increasing concentration of these gases has led, and willcontinue to lead, to an increase in the world’s average temperature. This is called theenhanced greenhouse effect because it is additional to the naturally occurringgreenhouse effect.

Scientists predict that the major consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect is thatthe Earth’s climate systems will change. The exact impact of the enhanced greenhouseeffect on climate systems (climate change) is difficult to predict but scientists warn thatthe increased incidence of extreme weather events such as damaging storms andprolonged drought periods are a likely consequence. As the global average temperaturerises (predicted to rise by as much as 4oC by 2100) sea levels will also rise fromexpansion of the seas and from melting ice caps.

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released asummary of the Fourth Assessment Report that concluded that scientists have a higherconfidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, includingchanges in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice.

3.3 USA’s Response During 1992 the United States signed and ratified the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As a result of continued participation in theUNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP), in 1997 the United States helped formulate theKyoto Protocol at COP 3. The United States is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol but,together with Australia, has not proceeded to ratification of the Protocol. That meansthat, even though the Protocol came into effect on 16 February 2005 for ratifying partiessuch as New Zealand and Japan, the United States is not bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Even though the US Government has not ratified the Protocol a number of States andcities have been more supportive of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Forexample, twelve states, including Massachusetts, California and New York, three majorcities and American Samoa joined environmental groups in filing suit against the EPA,challenging the agency’s decision not to be responsible for the control of carbon dioxideand other greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, ten states, including Michigan,Texas and Alaska, and several trade associations joined the EPA as interveners.

Under a 1992 Act, the Department of Energy developed a voluntary greenhouse gasreporting program that commenced in 1994. The 2004 annual summary reported thatthere were 226 participants, a comparatively small number when the size of the UnitedStates economy is considered. Sadly, it appears that annual summary reporting hasbeen suspended because of budgetary constraints.

In January 2007 in his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the“Twenty in Ten” energy policy designed to strengthen America’s energy security and tocut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 10% (175 million metric tons) by 2017. Therelevant initiative announced was an increase in the Mandatory Fuels Standard torequire the fuel industry to include 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels inits fuel mix by 2017, almost a five times increase over the current 2012 target.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




President George Bush has supported the CEOs of Ford, GM Holden and Daimler-Chrysler who have committed to make at least 50% of the vehicles they produce in theUSA Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV) by 2012. These will be designed to take either a gasoholmix up to 85% or biodiesel mix up to 100%.

3.4 Australian Governments’ Response Australia’s response to the Kyoto Protocol has generally been the same as the UnitedStates, and it has not ratified the Protocol. Notwithstanding that Australia has not ratifiedthe Protocol, the Commonwealth Government has committed to meeting Australia’sKyoto target (108% of 1990 emissions during the period 2008 – 2012) and continues tomeet its requirements to report national greenhouse gas emissions under the UNFCCC.

In November 1997, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the AustralianGreenhouse Office (AGO) as the Commonwealth’s lead agency on greenhouse gasemissions, global warming and climate change. The AGO was formally established on24 April 1998. Since then the AGO has established voluntary partnerships with thecommunity and business, developed greenhouse emissions estimation methodologiesand administered Government greenhouse abatement expenditure. The most successfulof the Commonwealth partnerships is Greenhouse Challenge Plus that currently hasabout 840 business partners that have agreed to put in place programmes to reducetheir greenhouse gas emissions and report progress annually.15

In 2006, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a single, streamlinedsystem of greenhouse gas emission reporting that will be mandatory for companies withenergy production/use or greenhouse gas emissions above certain thresholds.Mandatory reporting will be through the new streamlined reporting system that wouldremain open to companies below the threshold. The threshold will be progressivelylowered over three years from 125 kt CO2-e (CO2 equivalent) gross greenhouse gasemissions or 500TJ energy produced or consumed in Year 1 to 50kt and 100 TJ in year3.16 This initiative may become law sometime during 2007. AAE’s NSW plants are estimated to each consume about 2 PJ of energy per annum and emission reporting will be compulsory for these plants if this initiative becomes law.

State Governments have also implemented significant programs to address Australia’sgreenhouse gas emissions. The most notable of these programs is the NSWGreenhouse Benchmark Scheme that imposes an emission benchmark on the State’selectricity retailers and establishes a compliance mechanism that is essentiallyemissions trading.17

3.5 The Australian Public’s Response Over the past decade the Australian public has become both more aware of the need to

control greenhouse gas emissions and more active in changing their behaviour to helpreduce emissions. For example, 132,000 customers, including 6,000 businessespurchased accredited Green Power from renewable energy sources in 2006. Theincreased demand for clean power over the past decade has resulted in the installation

15Australian Greenhouse Office website.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/challenge/members/index.html16

COAG Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Group (2006) www.greenhouse.gov.au/reporting17

For more detail see http://www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au/

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




across Australia of 150 additional accredited clean power generators such as windfarms. Increasing Government and public awareness and responses to the need toreduce greenhouse gas emissions have become more evident over the past decade.This has resulted in more businesses paying attention to greenhouse gas emissionsfrom products and services offered by them. Some industry groups like the Aluminiumproducers have responded to public opinion by attempting to defend and improve the

greenhouse gas performance of their products.18 Evidence of this increasing awarenesscan be seen in the growing popularity of businesses reporting their greenhouse gasemission performance in publicly available sustainability reports.

4 Methodology

4.1 General Principles

As a general principle we have approached this Study as a management accountantmight when determining the cost of a specific product from a range produced from a

single resource or one facility but in this case the “cost” is in greenhouse gas emissionsnot money. As a result, we consider that the greenhouse gas emission performance ofAAE’s products must be considered separately, i.e., the biofuels and co-products suchas distiller’s grain must be accounted for separately from a greenhouse gas emissionsperspective.

Our approach is consistent with other allocation studies but is not as rigid or complex asthe Environmental Management Accounting system developed by the Institute ofChartered Accountants, Environment Australia and EPA Victoria (see following websitefor details)http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/publications/pubs/ema-project.pdf

We assert that all goods and services have a greenhouse emission cost that can beallocated to them in a meaningful way. In the case of multi output processes, the point inthe supply chain at which emissions are estimated is critical to determining a businessentity’s emissions footprint. It is our opinion that the most logical point to measure aproduct’s footprint is when it is ready for sale to the consumer. Therefore, the emissionsassociated with co-products that are sold to a third party for further processing ortreatment before they are ready for consumption can be excluded from the vendor’sfootprint.

In the case of AAE’s biofuels we consider the products are in a state ready for theconsumer when they leave the plant gate even though they may be blended with other

fuel products by a third party.

The United States uses, mostly, the Imperial system of weights and measures and dataprovided by AAE (USA) was in Imperial units. Where practical, all Imperial units wereconverted to metric units prior to calculating emission estimates because theinternationally recognised units of greenhouse gas reporting are metric.

18Australian Aluminium Council Sustainability Report. http://www.aluminium.org.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/publications/pubs/ema-project.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/publications/pubs/ema-project.pdf

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




4.2 Global Warming Potential

Equal amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methanedo not produce equal warming responses in the atmosphere. In order to be able tocompare the relative atmospheric impact of different greenhouse gases, scientists

calculate the relative effect of the same mass of each gas over a one hundred yearhorizon compared to carbon dioxide. The results of this calculation is called the “globalwarming potential - GWP” of a particular gas and can be multiplied by the weight of non-carbon dioxide gases to determine the theoretical weight of carbon dioxide that wouldhave the same warming effect as the weight of non-carbon dioxide gas beingconsidered. The result of that calculation is known as the “carbon dioxide equivalent” ofthe particular gas and is expressed as CO2-e.

The accepted, International standard of GWP is published by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Control (IPCC). At the time of writing, the IPCC has released threeassessment reports and GWP has changed slightly between the Second AssessmentReport (SAR) (released in 1996) and the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (released in

2001). The IPCC GWPs in SAR and TAR are shown in Table 2 ;

Table 2: Global Warming Potential

SAR (1996) TAR(2001)Carbon dioxide 1 1

Methane 21 23Nitrous Oxide 310 296

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that bothAustralia and the Unite States have ratified and adopted into law, is the Internationalagreement under which the Kyoto Protocol was developed. For Kyoto accountingpurposes, the GWPs from SAR are used.

In this report and the spreadsheet models, GWP from TAR have been used for theBeatrice ethanol and biodiesel Study because US emission co-efficient data for theagricultural stage of ethanol production use GWP from TAR. However, The AustralianGreenhouse Office use Kyoto accounting principles to determine greenhouse gasemission co-efficients and as a result, GWP from SAR have been used in the Australianethanol model.

4.3 Literature Review

An extensive Internet literature review of publicly available material was conducted todetermine the current status of emission estimates and methodologies that relate to lifecycle assessments of emissions from biofuel and fossil fuel production. The literaturereview revealed that;

There are a limited number of studies in the US containing estimates ofgreenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of ethanol andbiodiesel. Tailpipe emission data is even less abundant and subject toconsiderable uncertainties.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




The majority of US studies have concentrated on determining Nett EnergyBalance of biofuels, especially ethanol but even so there is sufficiently reliabledata that, we believe, allows for meaningful estimates of greenhouse emissionsand Energy Balance to be made on a “well to tank” basis.

There is a shortage of Australian data for emissions from the agricultural sector.Whilst the CSIRO has compiled some information and modelling (see ref 24Appendix 1), the AGO has noted that more work is required (personalcommunication – Shaw).

Recent Australian reviews that culminated in the Report by the BiofuelsTaskforce19 have set a benchmark for the methodology used to estimategreenhouse gas and other tailpipe emissions from the use of biofuels in Australia.

Energy Balance remains a debatable topic in the United States, however, themajority of researchers have found that biofuels such as ethanol and biodieselhave a positive Energy Balance.

The relatively short time frame of this Study has precluded the authors from verifying allstudies and data sets from third parties (other than AAE). To address the problem ofchoosing the most appropriate data set when contradictory data sets were found, wehave developed a system of data ranking.

Data supplied by AAE was largely of a technical and/or engineering nature, and subjectto intuition testing against our experience, is assumed to be correct and the reforeassigned Rank 1. Data used for the US Study has been ranked in accordance with Table3 and data used for the New South Wales Study has been ranked using Table 4. In allcases, comparable data or studies that are chronologically later were preferred to earlierstudies or data of equal ranking. Within the constraints of time available for the Study,

data relevant to developing the models was chosen from the highest available Rank.

19Australian Government Biofuels Taskforce (2005)

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 3: Ranking Scheme for US Data

RANK SOURCE OF INFORMATION COMMENTS

1 AAE Subject to “reality” check byauthors, assume client data

correct.2 US Government Agencies Even if doubt exists, assumethat Government reports etc will

be relied upon to formulateGovernment policy.

3 North American Government Agencies Similar assumptions to 2 but oflesser importance to US

Government policy making.4 Independent Reports and Articles Assume peer review and/or

independence reduced the riskof author bias but carry less

weight than Government

Reports. Non US reports givenequal ranking provided they canbe applied to US situation and

no domestic sources exist.5 Other (Non- US) Government Reports Similar assumptions to 3 but

lower ranked than 4 as lesslikely to apply to US situations.

6 US Industry Association and Lobby GroupReports

Reasonable to assume theremay be a degree of author bias.

7 Non-US Reports and Articles Non-US reports and articles thatdo not relate to US situation

have been rejected.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 4: Ranking Scheme for Australian Data

RANK SOURCE OF INFORMATION COMMENTS

1 AAE Subject to “reality” check byauthors, assume client data

correct.1 Imperial to Metric Unit Conversion Factorsand Scientific Constants

Assumed to be Correct

2 Australian Government Agencies Even if doubt exists, assumethat Government reports etc will

be relied upon to formulateGovernment policy.

3 Independent Reports and Articles Assume peer review and/orindependence reduced the risk

of author bias but carry lessweight than Government

Reports. Non Australian reports

given equal ranking providedthey can be applied toAustralian situation or nodomestic sources exist.

4 Other (Non-Australian) Government Reports Similar assumptions to 2 butlower ranked than 3 as lesslikely to apply to Australian

situations.5 Australian Industry Association and Lobby

Group ReportsReasonable to assume there

may be a degree of author bias.6 Non-Australian Reports and Articles Non-Australian reports and

articles that do not relate to

Australian situation have beenrejected.

4.4 Study Boundaries

The estimation of greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis of specificmanufacturing processes includes emissions from direct and indirect sources within theboundaries of the Study. Direct sources of emissions include fossil fuels consumed onsite and emissions from the actual process. Indirect sources include upstream emissionsassociated with process inputs such as feedstock, electricity and water. In this Study wehave not drawn a distinction between direct and indirect emissions; we have attemptedto draw the Study boundaries sufficiently wide enough to encompass all significant directand indirect emissions from the production of ethanol and biodiesel at the Beatrice plant.Where a co-product will be sold to a third party, emissions relating to that product havebeen excluded from total emissions associated with AAE’s biofuel plants. Emissionsfrom fossil fuels have been calculated using full fuel cycle emission factors published bythe United States and Australian governments. CO2 released during fermentation isdiscussed in section 4.6.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Subject to intuition testing, data supplied by AAE are assumed to be correct. Data hasbeen ranked in accordance with Table 3.

Below is a brief description of the various elements included within the data boundariesand those reviewed, but placed outside those boundaries.

4.4.1 Ethanol

Agriculture: Included – Fertiliser (N,P,K), lime, herbicide, insecticide, transport, irrigation,

gasoline, diesel, natural gas, LPG, electricity, embodied in farm machinery,transportation of corn to Beatrice plant

Excluded – Land use change, labour transportation, seed production, co-productemissions

Production process: Included – Electricity, natural gas, process water use, denaturant transport ,

denaturant production emissions, product transport (EtOH only) Excluded – Fermentation CO2 emissions, co-product emissions, co-product

transport, emissions embodied in plant machinery and infrastructure

Figure 7: Ethanol Study Boundaries

Agriculture

•Fertiliser

•Agrochemicals

•Gasoline

•Diesel

•LPG

•Electricity

•Embodied Farm Machinery•Transport Corn

Ethanol P roduction

•Process water•Electricity

•Natural Gas

•Denaturant Production

•Denaturant Transpo rt

•Product Transport

•Land Use Change

•Co-products

•Farm Labour

•Seed Production

•Co-Products

•Embodied Energy

•Co-products

•Fermentation CO2

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




4.4.2 Biodiesel

Soy Bean Agriculture: Included – Fertiliser (N,P,K) and agrochemicals production and transport,

gasoline, diesel, natural gas, LPG, electricity

Excluded – Land use change, labour transportation, seed production, co-productemissions

Soy Bean Transport

Included – Truck transport, truck loading Excluded – Emissions embodied in vehicles and infrastructure

Soy Bean Crushing

Included – Natural gas, steam production, electricity, hexane production Excluded – Emissions embodied in crushing plant machinery

Production Process

Included – Process water use, electricity, natural gas, methanol productionemissions, methanol transport, product transport

Excluded – Solid catalyst production, emissions embodied in biodiesel plantmachinery

Figure 8: Biodiesel Study Boundaries

Agriculture•Fertiliser

•Agrochemicals•Gasoline

•Diesel

•LPG

•Electricity

Soy Bean Transport•Truck transport

•Truck loading

Crushing and Oil Extraction

•Natural Gas

•Steam Production•Electricity

•Hexane Production

Biodiesel Production

•Process water

•Electricity

•Natural Gas•Methanol Production

•Methanol Transport

•Product Transport

•Land Use Change

•Co-products

•Embodied Energy•Co-products

•Embod ied Energy

•Co-products

•Embod ied Energy

•Co-products•Catalyst productio

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




4.5 Allocation of Emissions to Co-products

The allocation of total life cycle emissions to co-products in a multi-input/outputproduction process is one of the most critical issues in life cycle assessment ofgreenhouse gas emissions.

In determining the allocation of agriculture emissions to ethanol production we considerthat ethanol and distiller’s grain are equally important co-products. This has beenconfirmed by AAE who advised that ethanol plants are generally not economical withoutsales of distiller’s grain. In dry mills, about 59% of the total energy purchased isexpended on the production of ethanol.20 Therefore, the total emissions associated withAAE’s plants have been allocated to ethanol (59%) and distiller’s grain (41%) on thatbasis. Emissions associated with the production of grain have been allocated on thesame basis.

The situation is slightly different in relation to the Beatrice biodiesel plant. Beatrice buyssoy bean oil as a feedstock from third parties that extract the oil from soy beans. The

residue, soy bean meal, is also a valuable stockfeed but it remains the property of thethird party. Biodiesel production is by chemical reaction rather than fermentation anddistillation. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how much of the energy consumedin the plant relates to the production of glycerine as the energy is consumed to controlthe reaction from which biodiesel and glycerine are produced. Because no allocation ofenergy can be made in the plant between co-products and the fact that soy bean meal isnot produced as a co-product at Beatrice, in our view it is logical to allocate emissionsfrom the agricultural phase on the percentage of oil contained in soy beans.

A co-product of biodiesel production is glycerine. In output weight (approximately 1/10thof the biodiesel produced), glycerine is a relatively minor co-product. Processing plantemissions have been allocated on a weight of co-product basis because we believe an

allocation of process energy streams is not possible as it is in the ethanol plant.Similarly, allocation on an energy content basis of glycerine and biodiesel is notappropriate because the likely use of the glycerine is in the cosmetic industry. Allocationon a displacement basis has not been considered for the reasons given for the ethanolplant.

This Study includes an Energy Balance estimates for ethanol and biodiesel production.Energy credits have been allocated to the co-products on the same basis that thegreenhouse gas emissions were allocated.

20Shapouri et al (2004)

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 5: Co-Products Allocation Table

CO-PRODUCT EMISSION AND ENERGY ALLOCATION SUMMARY TABLEPROCESS ALLOCATION METHOD

Beatrice Ethanol Grain Production Same as Production PlantBeatrice Ethanol Grain Transport Same as Production PlantBeatrice Ethanol Production Plant Energy consumption split between ethanol

and distiller’s grain as estimated byShapouri (2004).

Beatrice Ethanol Product Transport Emissions from transport of distiller’s grainnot included as it is sold ex plant.

Beatrice Biodiesel Grain Production Percentage of oil content of soy beans.Beatrice Biodiesel Soy Oil Transport Relative mass of co-products (biodiesel

and glycerine).Beatrice Biodiesel Production Plant Relative mass of co-products (biodiesel

and glycerine).

Beatrice Biodiesel Product Transport Emissions from transport of glycerine notincluded as it is sold ex plant.

NSW Ethanol Same as Beatrice Ethanol

4.6 Accounting for Biomass Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The Kyoto Protocol and Intergovernmental Framework Convention on Climate Controlmethodologies for determining greenhouse gas emissions only include carbon dioxidederived from fossil fuel. Carbon dioxide generated from the combustion of a renewablefuel such as biodiesel or biomass ethanol is not included in the calculation. Carbon

dioxide emitted from the burning of renewable fuel is offset by that which is absorbed bythe plant from the atmosphere during growth. It is the authors’ opinion that the sameapplies to carbon dioxide emitted from fermentation of biomass to produce ethanol. Thisview is in line with the majority of studies conducted in the USA and Australia over thelast 20 years. Therefore, fermentation carbon dioxide emissions have also beenexcluded.

5 Production Process

5.1 Ethanol A full technical description of the ethanol production process is beyond the scope of thisreport but the following is an abridged description of the process included in a report toAAE by Kleinfelder has been included for completeness. The description starts after thegrain has been received and milled into a powdered meal.

Milled grain is transferred from the hammermills to the mixer. In the mixer, the groundgrain is mixed with recycled water from the distillation operation and evaporationoperations to form slurry. The slurry is cooked to liquefy and breakdown the starch tosugars. The slurry is cooled in two stages.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Cooled slurry is sent to fermenter process vessels where the fermentation process,along with added yeast, converts the sugars to ethanol and carbon dioxide. The processproduces a fermented mash called beer. The beer is pumped from the fermenter to thebeer well. The beer well is a tank that provides continuous flow of beer to the distillationcolumn.

The beer contains about 10% ethanol in addition to non-fermentable corn solids. Theethanol is separated from the beer by distillation as is extracted as 190-proof (95%)ethanol. A portion of the 190-proof ethanol is condensed and returned to the distillationsystem as reflux material. The remaining 190 proof ethanol passes through a molecularsieve to remove the remaining water to make 200-proof (100%) ethanol.

The residual mash, called whole stillage, is transferred from the distillation system to thestillage processing area. The whole stillage is centrifuged to remove the majority of thewater. Up to 50% of the underflow from the centrifuge, called wet distiller’s grain istransferred to driers where it is dried to 10% moisture content. The balance of the underflow is wet distiller’s grain.

The overflow from the centrifuge, called thin stillage, enters an evaporation system toreduce the water content. The concentrated stream from the evaporator system is mixedwith the centrifuge underflow before entering the driers. The water stream from theevaporator system is used as process water or f lows to the plant’s wastewater treatment,which then discharges to sewage system.

Prior to shipping the 200-proof ethanol it is combined with gasoline to make it unfit forhuman consumption

5.2 Biodiesel A full technical description of the biodiesel production process is beyond the scope ofthis report but the following is an abridged description of the process from a submissionto Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality supplied by AAE has been includedfor completeness. The description starts after the soy bean oil has been received at theplant.

Refining Process

Prior to the transesterification process, the gums and free fatty acids are removed fromthe crude soy bean oil. The by-products of the refining process are wet gums and soapstock.

Degumming

The feedstock is heated regeneratively in a plate and frame oil economizer. Phosphoricacid is injected and intensively contacted with the oil. The oil is passed to a reactorwhere gums, metal compounds and other impurities precipitate.

Alkaline Refining

Next a prescribed quantity of dilute caustic soda is injected, neutralizing the acidconditioned oil and to act as a flocculent. Water is added to the mixture to enhance

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




hydration, agglomeration and formation of large gum particles. The mixture is cooled andallowed to react for about 3 hours.

Separation

The reacted oil is heated to crack the hydrated gums and reacted fatty acids from the oil

stream. The resulting product is then centrifuged to separate wet gums and soap stockfrom the refined oil.

Drying

The refined oil contains about 1% water and is dried to remove water and any traces ofhexane from the oil extraction process. The water vapour is condensed and residualhexane is flared. The dried oil is cooled and stored for further processing

Transesterification Reaction

The chemical reaction that produces biodiesel is the transesterification of the

triglycerides in the soy bean oil and methanol to form esters and glycerol via sequenceof three catalysed reactions. The only product purification needed is the separation ofmethyl esters from glycerol that occurs spontaneously when non-reacted methanol hasbeen removed. No chemical treatment or water wash is required.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




6 Beatrice Ethanol

6.1 Overview AAE is currently establishing a grain ethanol plant near Beatrice Nebraska in the USA.

The plant will have a nominal capacity of 55 million gallons of fuel ethanol per annum.The general operation of the plant and process is described in Section 5.1. AAE hasprovided the authors with the basic input data for the plant and process, with additionalinformation being sourced through the literature review process.

6.2 Determination of Emissions Factors

Estimated natural gas and electricity consumption data was supplied by AAE for itsethanol plant at Beatrice, Nebraska for a 12 month period. Diesel consumed infeedstock, denaturant and product transport was estimated from average trip estimatessupplied by AAE and assumed fuel consumption rates. Emissions associated with corn

agriculture have been estimated using feedstock requirements supplied by AAE andthird party emission co-efficients.

Details of the formula used to estimate emissions are included in Appendix 6.

6.3 Emissions Associated With Beatrice Ethanol Production A model has been constructed using Microsoft Excel to calculate the emissionsassociated with the AAE Beatrice ethanol operation. In addition the model also providesan Energy Balance of energy inputs required to produce fuel ethanol and the energy ofthe ethanol as a fuel. The model outputs have then been used to compare and contrastethanol based fuels against petroleum based alternatives in terms of emissions, tail pipeemissions, Energy Balance and using biodiesel from the AAE Beatrice biodiesel facility

as an alternative boiler fuel for the ethanol plant.

Some of the data for the model has been provided by AAE, predominantly on thetechnical, logistical and design parameters of its plants. Where other specific data hasbeen required it has been gathered from the extensive literature review conducted by theauthors.

6.4 Beatrice Ethanol Input Data Input data for the Beatrice Ethanol operation has been given in US imperial units by AAEand in most cases in US imperial units from data sourced via the literature review. Itshould be noted that this data has been converted to metric for calculation purposes,using recognised conversion factors.

Table 6 has been extracted from the Beatrice ethanol model. It shows the inputs for themodel that are variable at a process level. Additional input data which is not variable(e.g. emissions coefficients, fuel heating values etc.) are not shown in the input datatable.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 6: Beatrice Ethanol Input Data

6.5 Beatrice Ethanol Output Data and Emissions The following two tables give the Beatrice ethanol model outputs. Table 7 shows theoutputs and requirements of the operation. It should be noted that AAE has provided theauthors with estimates of grain usage based on current engineering parameters. Thetheoretical grain usage has also been calculated from the given starch content of thegrain. A minimal error of 0.28% has been calculated and on that basis, all emissionscalculations related to corn production have been made using the corn volume given byAAE. The output numbers shown in Table 7 have been used to calculate the emissionsassociated with the supply of fuel ethanol, from farm to distributor.

Table 8 shows the specific Beatrice emissions. These have been given on pounds perUS Gallon, grams per litre and grams for mega joule of fuel energy basis. In addition thetable shows a break up of emissions for the agricultural phase (paddock to mill gate), theproduction phase and the transport of denatured fuel ethanol to the bulk distributionpoints as specified by AAE. Total CO2-e emissions are 9.33 lb/gal, 1.118 kg/L or 47.16g/MJ. It should be noted that any variation in the model inputs will result in arecalculation of these emissions factors. They have been calculated using AAE data

Item Amount Unit

Ethanol Production/yr 55,000,000 US Gals

Ethanol heating value 23.7 MJ/L

Ethanol density 0.79 kg/L

Corn Feedstock/yr 543,250 US TonsCorn production 133.66 Bushells/acre

Average STARCH content of corn W/W 64% Percent

Average moisture content corn W/W 15% Percent

Solids - non starch content of corn W/W 21% Percent

Ethanol recovery from starch W/W 52% Percent

Average Corn Haulage Distance (one way) 30.00 Miles

Average nett load/load corn 25 Tons

Average truck round trip fuel economy 4.3 MPG

WDGS production per anum 456,068 US Tons

Moisture content WDGS 65% Percent

DDGS production per annum 160,000 US Tons

Moisture DDGS 10% Percent

W&DDGS heating value 19,000 kJ/kgAllocation of process energy to ethanol 59% Percent

Allocation of process energy to co-products 41% Percent

Water Ratio 5.00 Gals/Gal Ethanol

Electricity Usage 1.14 kWh/Gal Ethanol

Gas Usage 300 MMBtu/hr

De-naturing gasoline 2.5% Percent

De-naturing gasoline average haul distance 50 Miles

Ethanol hauled road 60% Percent

Ethanol road haulage distance 200 Miles

Average nett road tanker load 8,000 Gals

Ethanol hauled rail 40% Percent

Ethanol rail haulage distance 1,500 MilesRail fuel consumption 2.49 Gals/1000 NTM

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




where given and additional data collected during the literature review. All data has beenranked as per the tables in Section 4.3.

Table 7: Beatrice Ethanol Plant Output Data

Item Amount Unit Metric Unit

Ethanol production (given) 55,000,000 Gals 208.20 Ml

Ethanol production (theoretical) 54,845,193 Gals 207.61 ML

Error 0.28% Percent

Area of corn production 145,159 Acres 58,745 ha

Crop transport fuel/yr 303,209 Gals 1,147.77 kl

Allocation of agri-emissions to ethanol 59% Percent

Allocation of agri emissions to co-products 41% Percent

Allocation of process energy to ethanol 59% Percent


Gross Water usage/yr from municipal supply 275,000,000 Gals 1,041 Ml

Gross Electricity use/yr 62,700,000 kWh 62.7 GWh

Gross Gas use/yr 2,628,000 MMBtu 2,772,540 GJ

De-naturing gasoline usage/yr 1,375,000 Gals 5.20 Ml

De-naturing gasoline transport fuel/yr 3,997 Gals 15 kl

Ethanol hauled by road 33,825,000 Gals 128,042 Ml

Ethanol hauled by rail 22,550,000 Gals 85,361 Ml

Road transport fuel/yr 393,314 Gals 1,488.86 kl

Rail transport fuel/yr 277,364 Gals 1,049.94 kl

Beatrice Ethanol Outputs

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 8: Beatrice Ethanol Emissions

6.6 Compare and Contrast Beatrice Ethanol Based Fuels A number of compare and contrast scenarios have been prepared for the Beatriceethanol operation. These are Comparative Nett Energy, Direct Greenhouse Emissions,Greenhouse Emissions on a per mega joule Basis and greenhouse gas emissions on aper Litre of PULP Equivalent basis.


The Comparative Nett Energy table and associated chart, Figure 9, shows the energyavailable on a percentage basis, from one unit of raw material. The zero line on the chartrepresents the raw material energy and the energy inputs required to make the variousproducts. For instance 1 unit of PULP will deliver 19.5% less energy than the sum of thecrude oil and process energy required to produce it. One unit of ethanol on the otherhand will deliver 54%, or over 1 ½ times the energy required to produce and deliver it.E85 and E10 are proportionally less due to the volume of petroleum product used in theirmanufacture.

Emissions/yr Amount Unit Metric Unit

Agriculture

Corn production 110,739 Tons 100,461 t CO2-e

Corn haulage 2,002 Tons 1,816 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Corn 112,741 Tons 102,277 t CO2-e

Corn emissions in Ethanol 4.10 lb/Gal 491.25 g/lPercentage 44% 20.73 g/MJ

Process

Fermentation - Tons - t CO2-e

Water provision 16,926 Tons 15,355 t CO2-e

Electricity 28,490 Tons 25,845 t CO2-e

Gas 90,767 Tons 82,343 t CO2-e

De-naturing gasoline transport 43 Tons 39 t CO2-e

Emissions associated with gasoline provision 43 Tons 39 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Plant 136,269 Tons 123,621 t CO2-e

Production emissions in Ethanol 4.96 lb/Gal 593.77 g/l

Percentage 53% 25.05 g/MJ

Product Transport

Road transport 4,402 Tons 3,993 t CO2-e

Rail transport 3,104 Tons 2,816 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Product Transport 7,506 Tons 6,810 t CO2-e

Transport emissions in Ethanol 0.27 lb/Gal 32.71 g/l


Total Emissions 256,516 Tons 232,708 t CO2-e

Total emissions Ethanol 9.33 lb/Gal 1,118 g/lPercentage 100% 47.16 g/MJ

Beatrice Ethanol Emissions (Allocation Made For Coproducts)

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 9: Beatrice Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy

From the results above it can be seen that both E10 and E85 have a higher comparativeenergy value than PULP. LPG has a higher nett energy value than E10 but is less thanE85. It should be noted that these figures are comparative only and do not represent theactual energy of one product compared to another. Refer to Section 6.8 and Appendix 7,Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance for additional information.

6.7 Beatrice Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison Actual measurement of tailpipe emissions was outside the scope of this Study. Sometailpipe emissions data for ethanol is available for the United States and Australia.Tailpipe data from the highest ranked data source in each country has been presentedas part of the Model. These numbers have been modified to include the modelledproduction greenhouse emissions for Beatrice. The combustion greenhouse emissionsand all other emissions data are as given in the original data tables sourced during theliterature review.

In this Section the CSIRO, ABARE and BTRE (2003) report has been relied upon forcombustion emissions because it is the latest comprehensive report that could belocated. Even though that report relates to Australia it has drawn on local and

international literature, studies and scientific reports including leading works from theUSA such as the GREET Model from Argoone National Laboratories and Sheehan(1998).

Table 9 shows the shows the comparative tail pipe emissions for PULP, E10 and E85 ona kilogram, gram and milligram per mega joule basis, assuming the productionemissions profile of the Beatrice ethanol plant. It will be noted that total greenhouseemissions from E10 are slightly higher than for PULP. This is due largely to thegreenhouse emissions associated with the production of ethanol being about 2.5 times

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




higher than those associated with the production of PULP on a MJ/MJ basis. The actualcombustion emissions of E10 are slightly lower, reflecting the fact that carbon dioxideemissions from burning the biofuel ethanol component of E10 are not counted asgreenhouse gas emissions. It is only in higher ethanol blends such as E85 that theadvantage of carbon dioxide emissions from burning biofuels not being counted asgreenhouse gas emissions overcomes the much higher emission rate in the production

phase of biofuels.

Even though carbon dioxide generated from the combustion of renewable fuels such asbiodiesel or biomass ethanol is not counted as a greenhouse gas, the burning of biofuelscreates the greenhouse gases nitrous oxide and methane. In this report emissions ofnitrous oxide and methane from the burning of E100 have been ignored. No data couldbe found on their rate of production from burning E100. It is reasonable to assume theirrate of production will be less than the 0.006 kg CO2-e/MJ for E85. This rate of emissionis considered to not be significant when compared with the emission rate from PULPcombustion of 0.071 kg CO2-e /MJ. Test undertaken by Toyota (Effects of Ethanol onEmissions of Gasoline LDVs – Crary B. May 2000) indicate that E10 increases NOxemissions by 5.5%. A component gas of the NOx group is Nitrous Oxide (N2O) a

powerful greenhouse gas which has a GWP of c. 300 (300 times worse than CO2).

Table 9: Tail Pipe Comparison

Source: CSIRO, ABARE and BTRE (2003)

Emissions Production Combustion Total

Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.0177 0.071 0.0887

HC Total g/MJ 0.0543 0.116 0.1703

NOx Total g/MJ 0.094 0.091 0.1850

CO Total g/MJ 0.021 0.909 0.9300

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 5.19 33.06 38.2500


Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.021 0.07 0.0906

HC Total g/MJ 0.554 0.087 0.6410

NOx Total g/MJ 0.107 0.078 0.1850

CO Total g/MJ 0.068 0.766 0.8340

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 6.38 33.06 39.4400


Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.0416 0.006 0.0476

HC Total g/MJ 0.0673 0.112 0.1793

NOx Total g/MJ 0.265 0.06 0.3250

CO Total g/MJ 0.62 0.986 1.6060

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 20.4 33.06 53.4600

PULP

E 10

E 85

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 10 shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 on a g/MJ basis.

Figure 10: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels –g CO2-e/MJ

E85 LPG PULP E10

Production 41.57 7.80 17.70 20.65

Combustion 6.00 61.50 71.00 70.00

Total 47.57 69.30 88.70 90.65

-10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

g r a m s / M e g e J o u l e

Greenhouse Emissions g CO2-e/MJ Production

Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 11, shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 on a kg/litre basis.

Figure 11: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels –kg CO2-e/L

E85 LPG E10 PULP

Production 1.05 0.20 0.68 0.61

Combustion 0.15 1.60 2.32 2.43

Total 1.20 1.80 3.00 3.03

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

k g / l i t r e


Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 12, shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 on a kg/litre energy equivalent basis. This givesa clearer picture as the actual comparative emissions, as due to the lower calorific valueof E10, E85 and LPG as compared to PULP; a larger volume of the fuel is required to beburnt to give the same power output. It should be noted that this graph is for comparativepurposes only, as the actual difference between the greenhouse emissions for various

fuels is dependent to some extent on the engine efficiency of the vehicle using the fuel.

Figure 12: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels –kg CO2-e/L Energy Equivalent Basis

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




For comparative purposes, Figure 13 shows the emissions associated with E100 versusPULP.

Figure 13: Beatrice Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Versus PULP

6.8 Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance The Energy Balance for Beatrice ethanol has been determined by comparing the energycontained in the ethanol output to the total fossil fuel energy required to produce thecorn, process the corn to produce ethanol and transport of corn, product and denaturant

(gasoline). The energy consumed to produce the denaturant has also been included. Allenergy inputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption has been adjusted to accountfor losses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the point of consumption.

The fossil energy inputs have been allocated between the ethanol and distiller’s grainco-products on the same basis as the greenhouse gas emissions were allocated (59%and 41% respectively).

Details of the formula used to estimate energy inputs and outputs are included inAppendix 7.

Table 10 shows the Energy Balance for Beatrice ethanol on a co-product allocated

basis. It shows the total energy requirement on an allocated basis to produce 55 milliongallons of fuel ethanol in the Beatrice plant. Additionally it shows the energy value of theoutputs with the Energy Balance percentage being the ratio of the two.

The Nett Energy Balance as shown in Figure 9 makes allowance for the energy inputrequired in producing the fuel. Hence the Energy Balance for E100 is 154%, whereasthe Nett Energy Balance is 54%.

For additional discussion on Energy Balances, please see Appendix 14.

E100 PULP

Production 1.61 0.61

Combustion - 2.43

Total 1.61 3.03

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

k g / l i t r e

Greenhouse Emissions kg CO2-e/L Equivalent Energy Basis

Production

Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 10: Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance

6.9 Use of Beatrice Biodiesel as a Replacement for Gas for Boiler Fuel

AAE has requested the authors provide a review of the potential emissions savings (orotherwise) of replacing gas for heat energy with Biodiesel from the adjacent AAEBeatrice Biodiesel facility (when constructed). Table 11 shows the nett benefit inemissions terms of doing this. It should be noted that there is a potential nett emissionssaving of 87,161 tonnes CO2-e in the Beatrice ethanol production process if biodieselreplaces gas. It should also be noted that the Beatrice ethanol plant heating fuel energyrequirement will account for 74 million litres or 39% of the total proposed Beatricebiodiesel production. It would seem that as the requirement is a very significantproportion of the biodiesel facility’s annual output, the decision whether or not to proceedis likely to be a commercial rather than an environmental one.

Table 11: Beatrice Ethanol – Biodiesel Fuel Replacement

Figure 14 below shows the effect of using Beatrice biodiesel as a heat source for theproduction of ethanol. It can be seen that the emissions for E85 and E10 are reduced by32% and 2% respectively. E100 is included for reference only. The reduction in E100emissions is approximately 37%. Figure 15 below shows the direct comparison of E85using natural gas and B100 as alternative sources of heat energy.

Item GJ Item GJ

Agriculture 747,450 Ethanol 4,934,284

Grain transport 31,008 Denaturant 178,009 Electricity 398,846

Gas 1,740,211

Water 79,119 Total 5,112,293

Denaturant 213,392

Ethanol transport 107,738 Ratio 154%

Total 3,317,764

Beatrice Ethanol weighted average energy balance (Allocated)

Energy Inputs Energy outputs

Item Amount Unit Comment

Energy requirement/yr 2,772,540 GJ

Energy Biodiesel 37.5 GJ/kL

Biodiesel Requirement 73,934 kL

Proportion of Biodiesel Output 39 % Assumes 50 M gals BD

Emissions from Biodiesel Production 50,185 t CO2-e Emissions from Beatrice Calcs

Emissions from Biodiesel Combustion 2,218 t CO2-e Based on 0.8 kg/GJ from AGO

Original Emissions from Gas 139,564 t CO2-e

Biodiesel Lowers Emissions By 87,161 t CO2-e

NOTE: Direct point source emissions from biodiesel encompass hydrocarbon

input only. No emissions are associated with the bio component.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 14: Replacement of Natural Gas with Biodiesel for Heat Energy – Effect on Greenhouse Emissions of Various Fuels

Figure 15: Replacement of Natural Gas with Biodiesel for Heat Energy – Comparison of Greenhouse Emissions of E100 and E85

E100 E85 LPG PULP E10

Production 1.01 0.91 0.26 0.61 0.65Combustion - 0.21 2.09 2.43 2.39

Total 1.01 1.11 2.35 3.03 3.04

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

k g C O 2 - e

GHG Emissions kg CO2-e/L Energy Equivalent

E85 with B100 as boiler fuelE85 with natural gas boiler as

fuel

Production 0.91 1.42

Combustion0.21 0.21

Total 1.11 1.63

-

0.200.400.60

0.801.00

1.201.401.601.80

k g C O 2 - e

GHG Emissions kg CO2-e/L Energy Equivalent

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




7 Beatrice Biodiesel

7.1 Overview AAE, through its subsidiary Beatrice Biodiesel LLC, is currently establishing a soy oilbiodiesel plant near Beatrice Nebraska. The plant will have a nominal capacity of 55

million gallons of biodiesel per annum. The general operation of the plant and process isdescribed in Section 5.2. AAE has provided the authors with the basic technical inputdata for the plant and process, with additional information being sourced through theliterature review process.

7.2 Determination of Emissions Factors Estimated natural gas and electricity consumption data was supplied by AAE for itsbiodiesel plant at Beatrice, Nebraska for a 12 month period. Diesel consumed infeedstock, methanol and product transport was estimated from average trip estimatessupplied by AAE and assumed fuel consumption rates. Emissions associated with soybean agriculture and oil extraction have been estimated using feedstock requirementssupplied by AAE and third party emission co-efficients.

Details of the formula used to estimate emissions are included in Appendix 9.

7.3 Emissions Associated With Biodiesel Production A model has been constructed using a Microsoft Excel platform to calculate theemissions associated with the AAE Beatrice biodiesel operation. In addition the modelalso provides an Energy Balance of energy inputs required to produce biodiesel and theenergy of the biodiesel as a fuel. The model outputs have then been used to compareand contrast biodiesel based fuels against petroleum based alternatives in terms ofemissions, tail pipe emissions and Energy Balance.


7.4 Beatrice Biodiesel Input Data Input data for the Beatrice biodiesel operation has been given in US imperial units byAAE and in most cases in US imperial units from data sourced via the literature review. Itshould be noted that this data has been converted to metric for calculation purposes,using recognised conversion factors.

Table 12 below has been extracted from the Beatrice biodiesel model. It shows the

inputs for the model that are variable at a process level. Additional input data which isnot variable (e.g. emissions coefficients, fuel heating values etc.) are not shown in theinput data table.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 12: Beatrice Biodiesel Input Data

7.5 Beatrice Biodiesel Output Data and Emissions The following two tables give the Beatrice biodiesel model outputs. Table 13 shows theoutputs and requirements of the operation. In the case of biodiesel, AAE is purchasingsoy oil as the raw feed stock as opposed to unprocessed grain which it is doing forethanol production. From the literature review it was determined that the average soy oilcontent of soy beans is 19.2% and the emissions from agriculture have been allocatedon this basis, as the balance of the emissions (80.8%) are allocated to other products ofthe crushing process and therefore are not to AAE’s account. The output numbersshown in Table 13 have been used to calculate the emissions associated with the supplyof biodiesel from farm to distributor.

Table 14 shows the specific Beatrice biodiesel emissions. These have been given onpounds per US Gallon, grams per litre and grams for mega joule of fuel energy basis. Inaddition the table shows a break up of emissions for the agricultural phase (paddock tomill gate), the production phase and the transport of biodiesel to the bulk distributionpoints as specified by AAE. Total CO2-e emissions are 5.66 lb/gal, 679 g/L or 18.10g/MJ. It should be noted that any variation in the model inputs will result in a

Item Amount Unit

Biodiesel Production/yr 50,000,000 US Gals

Production days/annum 333 Days

Biodiesel heating value 37.5 MJ/L

Biodiesel density 0.88 kg/LGlycerol output 19,050 Tons

Glycerol heating value 19.0 MJ/kg

Glycerol density 1.26 kg/L

Refinery by-products 10,000 Tons

Refinery by-products heating value 15.0 MJ/kg

Refinery by-products density 0.90 kg/L

Soy Oil Feedstock/yr 180,650 US Tons

Soy oil recovery - HIGH 20.0% Percent

Soy oil recovery - LOW 18.4% Percent

Average Soy oil Haulage Distance (one way) 150 Miles

Average load/tanker Soy oil 25 Tons

Average truck fuel economy 4.3 M/US Gal

Water Ratio 0.73 Gals/Gal BiodieselElectricity Usage 0.88 kWh/Gal Biodiesel

Gas Usage 115 MMBtu/hr

Methanol 19,650 Tons

Methanol average haul distance 150 Miles

Include Sodium Hydroxide (1 = yes - 0 = no) - Put 1 or 0

Include Hydrocloric Acid (1 = yes - 0 = no) - Put 1 or 0

Include Sodium Methoxide (1 = yes - 0 = no) - Put 1 or 0

Average nett road tanker load 8,000 Gals

Biodiesel hauled road 60% Percent

Biodiesel road haulage distance 200.00 Miles

Biodiesel hauled rail 40% Percent

Biodiesel rail haulage distance 1,500 MilesRail fuel consumption 2.49 Gals/1000 NTM

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




recalculation of these emissions factors. They are given, using AAE data where givenand additional data from the literature review, ranked as per the tables in Section 4.3.

Table 13: Beatrice Biodiesel Plant Output Data

Item Amount Unit Metric UnitBiodiesel production 50,000,000 Gals 189.27 Ml

Glycerol production 19,050 Tons 17,282 t

Refinery products production 10,000 Tons 9,072 t

Soy Oil transport from crusher fuel/yr 504,140 Gals 1,908.38 kL

Allocation of agri-emissions to biodiesel 19.2% Percent

Allocation of agri emissions to co-products 80.8% Percent

Allocation of process energy to biodiesel 86.3% Percent

Allocation of process energy to co-products 13.7% Percent

Error in process allocation 0.0% Percent

Gross Water usage/yr from municipal supply 36,500,000 Gals 138 ML

Gross Electricity use/yr 43,956,000 kWh 43.956 GWh

Gross Gas use/yr 919,080 MMBtu 969,629 GJ

Methanol usage/yr 5,951,192 Gals 22.53 ML

Methanol transport fuel/yr 51,900 Gals 190 kL

Methanol production emissions 7,763 Tons 7,042 t CO2-e

Biodiesel hauled by road 30,000,000 Gals 113,562 ML

Biodiesel hauled by rail 20,000,000 Gals 75,708 ML

Road transport fuel/yr 348,837 Gals 1,320.49 kL

Rail transport fuel/yr 274,024 Gals 1,037.30 kL

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 14: Beatrice Biodiesel Emissions

7.6 Compare and Contrast Beatrice Bio Diesel Based Fuels A number of compare and contrast scenarios have been prepared for the Beatricebiodiesel operation. These are Comparative Nett Energy, Direct Greenhouse Emissions,Greenhouse Emissions on a per mega joule Basis and Greenhouse Emissions on a perLitre of PULP Equivalent basis.


The Comparative Nett Energy table and associated chart (Figure 16) shows the energyavailable on a percentage basis, from one unit of raw material. The zero line representsthe total energy required to produce one unit of product and includes the energy of theraw material. For instance 1 unit of diesel will deliver 15.7% less energy than that of thesum of the crude oil and the process energy required to produce it. One unit of B100 onthe other hand will deliver an additional 234% or over 3 times the energy required toproduce and deliver it. One unit of B20 will deliver 34% more energy than that requiredto produce and deliver it.

Emissions/yr Amount Unit Metric Unit

Agriculture

Soy Oil production (Grow/truck/crush) 43,618 Tons 39,569 t CO2-e

Soy Oil haulage (Crusher to plant) 4,872 Tons 4,419 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Soy Oil 48,489 Tons 43,989 t CO2-e

Soy OIl emissions in Biodiesel 1.94 lb/Gal 232.41 g/l


Process

Water provision 3,287 Tons 2,982 t CO2-e

Electricity 29,227 Tons 26,515 t CO2-e

Gas 46,453 Tons 42,141 t CO2-e

Methanol transport 486 Tons 441 t CO2-e

Emissions associated with Reagent production 6,702 Tons 6,080 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Plant 86,156 Tons 78,159 t CO2-e

Production emissions in Biodiesel 3.45 lb/Gal 412.95 g/lPercentage 61% 11.01 g/MJ

Product Transport

Road transport 3,904 Tons 3,542 t CO2-e

Rail transport 3,067 Tons 2,782 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Product Transport 6,971 Tons 6,324 t CO2-e

Transport emissions in Biodiesel 0.28 lb/Gal 33.41 g/l


Total Emissions 141,616 Tons 128,472 t CO2-e

Total emissions Biodiesel 5.66 lb/Gal 679 g/lPercentage 100% 18.10 g/MJ

Allocation Made for Co-Products

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 16: Beatrice Biodiesel Comparative Nett Energy

7.7 Beatrice Bio Diesel Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison Actual measurement of tailpipe emissions was outside the scope of this Study. Sometailpipe emissions data for biodiesel is available for the United States and Australia.Tailpipe data from the highest ranked data source in each country has been presentedas part of the Model. These numbers have been modified to include the modelledproduction greenhouse emissions for Beatrice. The combustion greenhouse emissionsand all other emissions data are as given in the original data tables sourced during theliterature review.

In this Section the Sheehan 1998 report has been relied upon for combustion emissionsbecause it is the latest comprehensive report that could be located referring specificallyto the United States.

Table 15 shows the shows the comparative tail pipe emissions for Diesel, B20 and B100on a kilogram, gram and milligram per mega joule basis, assuming the productionemissions profile of the Beatrice biodiesel plant. It will be noted that greenhouseemissions from B20 and B100 are lower than for Diesel. Whilst the greenhouseemissions associated with the production of biodiesel are higher than those associatedwith the production of diesel, the actual combustion emissions from combustion areslightly lower in the case of B20 and much lower in the case of B100, reflecting the fact

that carbon dioxide emissions from burning the biofuel component of these fuels is notcounted as a greenhouse gas.

Diesel B20 B100

At tank -15.7% 34% 234%

-50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

150.0%

200.0%

250.0%

L o s s / g a i n o v e r p r i m a r y e n e r g y

Comparative nett energy of alternative fuels

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 15: Beatrice Biodiesel Tail Pipe Comparison

Source: Sheehan (1998) and this report

Figure 17, shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of B100, B20 and Diesel on a g/MJ basis.

Figure 17: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels –g CO2-e/MJ

Emission B20 B100

g/MJ g/MJ g/MJ

CO2 (Production) 11.37 12.72 18.10

CO2 (Fossil) 84.45 71.23 18.20

CO2 (Biomass) - - - CO 0.16 0.15 0.09

Hydrocarbons 0.01 0.01 0.01

PM 10 0.01 0.01 0.00

SO2 0.02 0.02 -

NO2 0.64 0.65 0.70

Total CO2-e 95.82 83.94 36.30

Diesel

B100 B20 Diesel

Production 18.10 12.72 11.37

Combustion 18.20 71.23 84.45

Total 36.30 83.94 95.82

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

g r a m s / M e g e

J o u l e

Greenhouse Emissions g CO2-e/MJProduction

Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 18 shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of B100, B20 and Diesel on a kg/litre basis.

Figure 18: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels –kg CO2-e/L

Figure 19 shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of B100, B20 and Diesel on a kg CO2-e/litre energy equivalent basis. Thisgives a clearer picture as the actual comparative emissions, as due to the slightly lowercalorific value of B100 and B20 as compared to Diesel. A consequent larger volume of

the fuel is required to be burnt to give the same power output. It should be noted that thisgraph is for comparative purposes only, as the actual difference between thegreenhouse emissions for various fuels is dependent to some extent on the engineefficiency of the vehicle using the fuel.

B100 B20 Diesel


Combustion 0.68 2.73 3.26

Total 1.36 3.22 3.70

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

k g / l i t r e


Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 19: Beatrice Biodiesel Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels –kg CO2-e/L Energy Equivalent

7.8 Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance The Energy Balance for Beatrice biodiesel has been determined by comparing theenergy contained in the biodiesel output to the total fossil fuel energy inputs required toproduce and transport the soy bean oil, process the oil and transportation of biodiesel tothe blending point. All energy inputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption hasbeen adjusted to account for losses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the

point of consumption.

Fossil fuel energy inputs in the production of soy bean oil have been allocated betweenthe co-products soy bean oil and soy bean meal on the basis of the average oil contentof soy beans i.e., is 19.2% and 80.8% respectively. Fossil fuel inputs in the conversion ofsoy bean oil have been allocated to the co-products biodiesel and glycerine on the basisof the relative mass of output of each co-product i.e., 86.3% and 13.7% respectively.


Table 16 shows the Energy Balance for Beatrice biodiesel on a co-product allocated

basis. It shows the total energy requirement on an allocated basis to produce 55 milliongallons of biodiesel from the Beatrice plant. Additionally it shows the energy value of theoutputs with the Energy Balance percentage being the ratio of the two. The Nett EnergyBalance as shown in Figure 16 makes allowance for the energy input required inproducing the fuel. Hence the Energy Balance for B100 is 334%, whereas the NettEnergy Balance is 234%.


B100 B20 Diesel


Combustion 0.70 2.75 3.26Total 1.40 3.24 3.70

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

k g / l i t r e

Greenhouse Emissions kg CO2-e/L Energy Equivalent BasisProduction

Combustion

Total

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 16: Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance

Item GJ Item GJ

Agriculture 204,003 Biodiesel 7,097,647

Soy Oil transport 75,445

Electricity 409,177

Gas 890,604

Water 15,367 Total 7,097,647

Methanol transport 7,523

Reagent production 417,511

Biodiesel transport 107,960

Ratio 334%

Total 2,127,591


Beatrice Biodiesel Nett Energy (Allocation made for co-products)

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




8 New South Wales Ethanol Plants

8.1 Overview AAE is proposing to construct three grain to ethanol plants in New South Wales,Australia. These are to be located at Condobolin, Coleambally and Oaklands. These

proposed plants are to be based on the Beatrice model and will only differ in the natureof the raw material inputs (grains and energy) and co-product mix. These variables arefully configurable in the model that has been prepared for the NSW operations.

8.2 Determination of Emissions Factors Estimated gas and electricity consumption data was supplied by AAE for its ethanol plantat Beatrice, Nebraska for a 12 month period. We have been advised by AAE that, exceptfor Swan Hill, the ethanol plants planned for Australia will be based on the Beatriceethanol plant design. Therefore, subject to adjustment for lower output estimates, wehave assumed that the same inputs will be required for the NSW plants. The model is,as noted, configurable, should these inputs change in the future.

Estimates of emissions from the NSW plants have been made using the formula inAppendix 12.

8.3 Emissions Associated With NSW Ethanol Production A model has been constructed using Microsoft Excel to calculate the emissionsassociated with the AAE’s proposed NSW ethanol operations (excluding Swan Hill). Inaddition the model also provides an Energy Balance of energy inputs required toproduce fuel ethanol and the energy of the ethanol as a fuel. The model outputs havethen been used to compare and contrast ethanol based fuels against petroleum basedalternatives in terms of emissions, tail pipe emissions and Energy Balance. The model isconfigurable to allow for a mix of different feedstock grains (wheat, corn, barley and

sorghum) and for other inputs such as energy requirements under AAE’s control.


8.4 NSW Input Data AAE provided the authors with technical and process information for the initial modellingof the NSW operations. The plants themselves are replicas of the Beatrice plant and assuch the emissions from the proposed NSW operations have been modelled on thatbasis, with due regard to the differing emission factors for Australian derived fuels,

electricity, agricultural emissions etc.

Unlike Beatrice, which is to run on a diet of 100% corn, the NSW plants will use a mix ofcorn, wheat, barley and sorghum. The model is configurable to use a mixture of thesegrains in any proportion. Likewise, whilst Beatrice will use natural gas for boiler fuel, theNSW operations may use a mixture (not necessarily concurrently) of natural gas, LNG,LPG and biofuel. Once again the model is configurable to accommodate any mix ofthese fuels.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 17: NSW Ethanol Data Plant Input

In addition to the plant input data table, there are separate data input tables for each ofthe four grain feedstocks: corn, wheat, barley and sorghum. The model calculatesemissions and Energy Balances for each of these inputs separately and then uses aweighted average to determine the final outputs. A sample of a grain input table isshown in Table 18 below. The full set of input tables are contained in Appendix 11.

Item Amount Unit

Ethanol Production/yr 200 ML

Ethanol heating value 23.7 MJ/L

Ethanol density 0.79 kg/L

Percentage Corn in Feedstock 45%

Percentage Wheat in Feedstock 35%

Percentage Barley in Feedstock 20%

Percentage Sorghum in Feedstock 0%

Check Crop Proportions OK Must be "OK"

Water Ratio 5.00 L/L Ethanol

Electricity Usage 0.30 kWh/L Ethanol

Heating Energy 304.3 GJ/hr

Percentage Natural Gas 0% Percent

Percentage Liquified Natural Gas 0% Percent

Percentage LPG 100% PercentPercentage Bio-fuels 0% Percent

Check Fuel Proportions OK Must be "OK"

Bio-fuels haulage distance 50 km

Bio-fuels heating value 17 GJ/t

Average nett load Bio-fuels 25 t

Denaturant 2.5% Percent

Denaturant average haul distance 320 km

Ethanol hauled road 100% Percent

Average truck round trip fuel economy 54.7 l/100km

Ethanol road haulage distance 332 km

Average nett road tanker load 30,000 LEthanol hauled rail 0% Percent

Ethanol rail haulage distance - km

Rail fuel consumption 5.31 L/1000 Ntkm

Plant Input Data

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 18: NSW Ethanol Agricultural Feedstock (Corn) Input Data

8.5 NSW Output Data and Emissions The following two tables give the NSW ethanol model outputs. Table 19 shows theoutputs and requirements of the operation. The output numbers shown in Table 19 havebeen used to calculate the emissions associated with the supply of fuel ethanol, fromfarm to distributor.

Table 20 shows the estimated emissions associated with a NSW plant like the ones tobe built at Condobolin, Coleambally and Oaklands. These have been given grams perlitre and grams per mega joule of fuel energy basis. In addition the table shows a breakup of emissions for the agricultural phase (paddock to mill gate), the production phase

and the transport of denatured fuel ethanol to the bulk distribution points as specified byAAE. Total CO2-e emissions are 1.471 kg/L or 62.07 g/MJ. It should be noted that anyvariation in the model inputs will result in a recalculation of these emissions factors. Theyhave been calculated using AAE data where provided and additional data collectedduring the literature review. All data has been ranked as per the tables in Section 4.3.

For further discussion on comparative emissions, please see Appendix 3.

Item Amount Unit

Corn production 14,000 kg/ha

Average STARCH content of corn W/W 60.0% Percent

Average moisture content corn W/W 15.0% PercentSolids - non starch content of corn W/W 25.0% Percent

Check Grain Composition OK Must be "OK"

Ethanol recovery from starch W/W 52% Percent

Average Corn Haulage Distance (one way) 50 km

Average nett load/load corn 25 t

WDGS production per anum 50% Percent

Moisture content WDGS 65% Percent

DDGS production per annum 50% Percent

Moisture DDGS 10% Percent

W&DDGS heating value 19,000 kJ/kg



Corn Input Data

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 19: NSW Ethanol Plant Output Data

Item Amount Unit

Ethanol production (given) 200.00 ML

Ethanol production (theoretical) 200.00 MLError 0.00% Percent

Area of Crop production 134,736 ha

Crop transport fuel/yr 1,153 kL

Allocation of agri-emissions to ethanol 59% Percent

Allocation of agri emissions to co-products 41% Percent



Gross Water usage/yr from municipal supply 1,000 Ml

Gross Electricity use/yr 60,200,000 kWh

Gross heating energy use/yr 2,665,668 GJ

Denaturant usage/yr 5.00 Ml

Denaturant transport fuel/yr 58.35 kLEthanol hauled by road 205 Ml

Ethanol hauled by rail - Ml

Road transport fuel/yr 2,481.97 kL

Rail transport fuel/yr - kL

NSW Ethanol Outputs TOTAL

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 20: NSW Ethanol Emissions

8.6 Compare and Contrast NSW Ethanol Based Fuels A number of compare and contrast scenarios have been prepared for the NSW ethanoloperation. These are Comparative Nett Energy, Direct Greenhouse Emissions,Greenhouse Emissions on a per mega joule Basis and Greenhouse Emissions on a perLitre of PULP Equivalent basis.


The Comparative Nett Energy table and associated chart (Figure 20) shows the energyavailable on a percentage basis, from one unit of raw material. The zero line on the chartrepresents the raw material energy and the energy inputs required to make the various

Emissions/yr Amount Unit

Agriculture

Crop production 125,515 t CO2-e

Crop haulage 2,041 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Crop 127,556 t CO2-e

Crop emissions in Ethanol 637.78 g/l

26.91 g/MJ

Percentage 43%

Process Amount Unit

Fermentation - t CO2-e

Water provision 14,750 t CO2-e

Electricity 37,933 t CO2-e

Heat Energy 106,318 t CO2-e

Bio-fuels transport - t CO2-e

Denaturant transport 175 t CO2-eEmissions from denaturant production 38 t CO2-e

Total Emissions Plant 159,214 t CO2-e

Production emissions in Ethanol 796.07 g/l

33.59 g/MJ

Percentage 54%

Product Transport Amount Unit

Road transport 7,446 t CO2-e

Rail transport - t CO2-e

Total Emissions Product Transport 7,446 t CO2-e

Transport emissions in Ethanol 37.23 g/l1.57 g/MJ

Percentage 3%

Amount Unit

Total Emissions 294,215 t CO2-e

Total emissions Ethanol 1,471 g/l

62.07 g/MJ

Percentage 100%

Allocation Made for Co-Products TOTAL

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




products. For instance 1 unit of PULP will deliver 12.3% less energy than the sum of thecrude oil and process energy required to produce it. One unit of ethanol on the otherhand will deliver 47%, or almost 1 ½ times the energy required to produce and deliver it.E85 and E10 are proportionally less due to the volume of petroleum product used in theirmanufacture.

Figure 20: NSW Ethanol Comparative Nett Energy

From the results above it can be seen that both E10 and E85 have a higher comparativeenergy value than PULP, with E10 being almost on par with LPG. It should be noted thatthese figures are comparative only and do not represent the actual energy of oneproduct compared to another. Refer to Section 8.8 and Appendix 13, NSW EthanolEnergy Balance for additional information.

8.7 NSW Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions Comparison Actual measurement of tailpipe emissions was outside the scope of this Study. Sometailpipe emissions data for ethanol is available for the United States and Australia.Tailpipe data from the highest ranked data source in each country has been presentedas part of the Model. These numbers have been modified to include the modelledproduction greenhouse emissions for the NSW plants. The combustion greenhouse

emissions and all other emissions data are as given in the original data tables sourcedduring the literature review.

In this Section the CSIRO, ABARE and BTRE (2003) report has been relied upon forcombustion emissions because it is the latest comprehensive report that could belocated. Even though that report relates to Australia it has drawn on local andinternational literature, studies and scientific reports including leading works from theUSA such as the GREET Model from Argoone National Laboratories and Sheehan(1998).

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 21 shows the comparative tail pipe emissions for PULP, E10 and E85 on akilogram, gram and milligram per mega joule basis, assuming the production emissionsprofile of the NSW ethanol plant. It will be noted that total greenhouse emissions fromE10 are slightly higher than for PULP. This is due largely to the greenhouse emissionsassociated with the production of ethanol being about 2.5 times higher than those

associated with the production of PULP on a MJ/MJ basis. The actual combustionemissions of E10 are slightly lower, reflecting the fact that carbon dioxide emissions fromburning the biofuel ethanol component of E10 are not counted as greenhouse gasemissions. It is only in higher ethanol blends such as E85 that the advantage of carbondioxide emissions from burning biofuels not being counted as greenhouse gas emissionsovercomes the much higher emission rate in the production phase of biofuels.

Even though carbon dioxide generated from the combustion of renewable fuels such asbiodiesel or biomass ethanol is not counted as a greenhouse gas, the burning of biofuelscreates the greenhouse gases nitrous oxide and methane. In this report emissions ofnitrous oxide and methane from the burning of E100 have been ignored. No data couldbe found on their rate of production from burning E100. It is reasonable to assume their

rate of production will be less than the 0.006 kg CO2-e/MJ for E85. This rate of emissionis considered to not be significant when compared with the emission rate from PULPcombustion of 0.071 kg CO2-e /MJ. Test undertaken by Toyota (Effects of Ethanol onEmissions of Gasoline LDVs – Crary B. May 2000) indicate that E10 increases NOxemissions by 5.5%. A component gas of the NOx group is Nitrous Oxide (N2O) apowerful greenhouse gas which has a GWP of c. 300 (300 times worse than CO2).

For additional information on a comparison of Greenhouse Emissions for fuels, pleasesee Appendix 3.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Table 21: NSW Ethanol Tail Pipe Emissions

Source: CSIRO, ABARE and BTRE (2003) and this report.


Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.0177 0.071 0.0887

HC Total g/MJ 0.0543 0.116 0.1703

NOx Total g/MJ 0.094 0.091 0.1850

CO Total g/MJ 0.021 0.909 0.9300

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 5.19 33.06 38.2500


Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.022 0.07 0.0921

HC Total g/MJ 0.554 0.087 0.6410

NOx Total g/MJ 0.107 0.078 0.1850

CO Total g/MJ 0.068 0.766 0.8340

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 6.38 33.06 39.4400


Greenhouse kg/MJ 0.0541 0.006 0.0601

HC Total g/MJ 0.0673 0.112 0.1793

NOx Total g/MJ 0.265 0.06 0.3250

CO Total g/MJ 0.62 0.986 1.6060

PM 10 Total mg/MJ 20.4 33.06 53.4600

PULP

E 10

E 85

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 21 shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 on a g/MJ basis.

Figure 21: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – gCO2-e/MJ

Figure 22, shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 on a kg/litre basis.

Figure 22: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kg

CO2-e/L

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Figure 23 shows the relative greenhouse emissions associated with the production andcombustion of E85, LPG, PULP and E10 and a kg/litre energy equivalent basis. Thisgives a clearer picture as the actual comparative emissions, as due to the lower calorificvalue of E10, E85 and LPG as compared to PULP; a larger volume of the fuel is requiredto be burnt to give the same power output. It should be noted that this graph is forcomparative purposes only, as the actual difference between the greenhouse emissions

for various fuels is dependent to some extent on the engine efficiency of the vehicleusing the fuel.

Figure 23: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Various Fuels – kgCO2-e/L Energy Equivalent

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




For comparative purposes, Figure 24 shows the greenhouse emissions associated withNSW ethanol versus PULP.

Figure 24: NSW Ethanol Greenhouse Emissions Versus PULP

8.8 NSW Ethanol Energy Balance The Energy Balance for NSW ethanol has been determined by comparing the energycontained in the ethanol output to the total fossil fuel energy required to produce the

grain, process the grain to produce ethanol and transport of grain, product anddenaturant (gasoline). The energy consumed to produce the denaturant has also beenincluded. All energy inputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption has beenadjusted to account for losses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the pointof consumption.


AAE have advised that either alone or as a combination, wheat, barley, corn or sorghumcould be used as a feedstock. The formulae are common to all grain types although

each grain type will have slightly different data mainly in the agricultural phase. In caseswhere more than one grain type is used as a feedstock, the input energy in the EnergyBalance is the sum of energy inputs for each grain used.

AAE have further advised that the proposed NSW plants will be substantially the samedesign as the Beatrice plant with an estimated annual output of 200ML each. Subject toadjustments to account for a 4% lower output, assumptions and estimates applied to theBeatrice plant have been applied to this model.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007





Table 22 shows the Energy Balance for NSW ethanol on a co-product allocated basis. Itshows the total energy requirement on an allocated basis to produce 200ML of fuelethanol in an NSW plant. Additionally it shows the energy value of the outputs with the

Energy Balance percentage being the ratio of the two. The Nett Energy Balance asshown in Figure 20 makes allowance for the energy input required in producing the fuel.Hence the Energy Balance for NSW E100 is 147%, whereas the Nett Energy Balance is47%.


Table 22: NSW Ethanol Energy Balance

Item GJ Item GJ

Agriculture 895,356 Ethanol 4,740,000

Grain transport 31,151 Denaturant 171,000

Electricity 382,943

Heating Fuel 1,673,132

Bio-fuels transport -

Water 49,719 Total 4,911,000

Denaturant 194,705

Ethanol transport 113,647 Ratio 147%

Total 3,340,653

Australian Ethanol Weighted Average Energy Balance (Allocated)


http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 1 – Bibliography

1. American Coalition for Ethanol. Claims that Ethanol has a Negative Energy Balance are Outrageous. Press release dated19 July 2005.www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm

2. AGL (1996). Natural Gas Technical data Book; 4 th Ed.

3. Argonne National Laboratory. Greenhouse Gases Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Operating Manual, User Guide and Stochastic Model Guide . http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

4. Australian Government Biofuels Taskforce (2005). Report of the Biofuels Taskforce to the Prime Minister. www.dpmc.gov.au/ biofuels /final_ report.cfm

5. Australian Greenhouse Office. Australian Methodology for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 2005; Energy (Transport)

6. ibid (2005). Australian Methodology for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 2005; Waste

7. ibid. AGO Factors and Methods Workbook; December 2006 .

8. ibid (2006). Agriculture Sector Greenhouse Gas Projections 2006.

9. Australian Training Products. Management Accounting Principles: Learner’s Resource. Produced on behalf of State of Victoria (TAFEVC.com.au)www.atpl.net.au/sample/pdf/atpsample_10532.pdf

10. Beer,T. et al (2000). Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles; Stage 1. CSIRO Atmospheric Research Report C/0411/1.1/F2http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lifecycle.html

11. Beer T, et al. (2001) Comparison of Transport Fuels: Final Report (EV45A/2/F3C)to the Australian Greenhouse Office. CSIROhttp://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/index.html

12. Beer,T. et al (2004). Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis of Fuels for Light Vehicles: Report (HA93A-C837/1F5.2E) to the Australian Greenhouse Office.http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lightvehicles.html

13. Beer,T. et al (2005). Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Agriculture in Relation to Marketing and Regional Development.www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i05/meyer.htm

14. Biodiesel Association of Australia (2001). Biodiesel; Solar Energy Through Photosynthesis. http://biodiesel.vtrekker.com

http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/biofuels/final_report.cfm





http://www.atpl.net.au/sample/pdf/atpsample_10532.pdf

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lifecycle.html

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/index.html

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lightvehicles.html

http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i05/meyer.htm


http://biodiesel.vtrekker.com/




http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lightvehicles.html

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/comparison/index.html

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lifecycle.html

http://www.atpl.net.au/sample/pdf/atpsample_10532.pdf


http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




15. British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils (undated). Emissions From Liquid Biofuels. www.biodiesel.co.uk/emissions_from_liquid_biofuels.html

16. Burtis, B. (undated). Chapter IV B; Biofuels and Energy Production Options for the Farm. www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheet/IV.B.1Energy.pdf

17. Calais, P. and Sims, R. A Comparison of Life-Cycle Emissions of Liquid Biofuels and Liquid and Gaseous Fossil Fuels in the Transport Sector.http://biodiesel.org.au/Documents/Calais_Sims_Life%20cycle%20comparison.pdf

18. Clean Fuels Development Coalition (2006). A Guide for Evaluating the Requirements of Ethanol Plant.http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/ethanol_plant_guide.pdf

19. COAG Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Group (2006). A National System for Streamlined Greenhouse and Energy Reporting by Business.www.greenhouse.gov.au/reporting

20. Contadini, J.F. et al (2000). Life-Cycle Emissions of Alternative Fuels for Transportation: Dealing With Uncertainties. Society of Automotive Engineers.SAE 2000 World Congress, Detroit, Michigan March 6-9 2000.www.uctc.net/papers/492.pdf

21. Cook, J. and Beyea, J. (undated). An Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Energy Crops in the USA: Methodologies, Conclusions and Recommendations.www.panix.com/~jimcook/data/ec-workshop.html

22. Crary, B. (2000). The Effects of Ethanol on Emissions of Gasoline LDVs. ToyotaMotor Corporation 4 May 2000. Toyota Technical Centre, Ann Arbor MI

23. CRC for Greenhouse Accounting (Accessed 27 Feb 2007).www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/greenhouse_in_agriculture/grains.cfm

24. CSIRO, ABARE and BTRE (2003). Appropriateness of a 350 Million litre Biofuels Target: Report to Australian Government. Main Report and Appendices.http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=36D82CF9-C8FA-FF51-2B468B7DD287B9E9 http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectid=368DFAF4-B1EE-271E-C3594350873BD6F8&indexPages=/content/sitemap.cfm?objectid=48A3B39B-20E0-68D8-ED6A35FE6FDB3B55

25. Dale S, Fesmire B and Janardhan V (2002) Public Utilities Reports Inc (2002).Loss Modelling in T&D Systems: Is $25 Billion Worth Losing? www.pur.com/pubs/4003.cfm

26. Delucchi, M.A. (2004). Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Lifecycle Analyses of Transport Fuels. www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-04-45.pdf

http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/emissions_from_liquid_biofuels.html

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheet/IV.B.1Energy.pdf

http://biodiesel.org.au/Documents/Calais_Sims_Life+cycle+comparison.pdf

http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/ethanol_plant_guide.pdf

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/reporting

http://www.uctc.net/papers/492.pdf

http://www.panix.com/jimcook/data/ec-workshop.html


http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/greenhouse_in_agriculture/grains.cfm

http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=36D82CF9-C8FA-FF51-2B468B7DD287B9E9

http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectid=368DFAF4-B1EE-271E-C3594350873BD6F8&indexPages=/content/sitemap.cfm?objectid=48A3B39B-20E0-68D8-ED6A35FE6FDB3B55

http://www.pur.com/pubs/4003.cfm


http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-04-45.pdf

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-04-45.pdf


http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectid=368DFAF4-B1EE-271E-C3594350873BD6F8&indexPages=/content/sitemap.cfm?objectid=48A3B39B-20E0-68D8-ED6A35FE6FDB3B55

http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=36D82CF9-C8FA-FF51-2B468B7DD287B9E9

http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/greenhouse_in_agriculture/grains.cfm


http://www.uctc.net/papers/492.pdf

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/reporting

http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/ethanol_plant_guide.pdf

http://biodiesel.org.au/Documents/Calais_Sims_Life+cycle+comparison.pdf

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheet/IV.B.1Energy.pdf

http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/emissions_from_liquid_biofuels.html

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




27. Department of Energy (USA) (2000). Carbon Dioxide Emission From the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf

28. Dermaut,J. and Geeraert, B.E.A. A Better Understanding of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Different Energy Vectors and Applications.

www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_18.asp

29. Duxbury, J.M. (undated). Energy and Greenhouse Gas Budgets for Biomass Fuels. www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.B.2Biomass.pdf

30. Energy Information Administration. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. Fuel and Energy Resource Codes and Emission Co-efficients.www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

31. ibid. Updated State-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients for Electricity Generation 1998-2000. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/e-

supdoc-u.pdf

32. ibid. Reducing Oil-Based Transportation Fuel Use www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr96rpt/chap4.html

33. ibid. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Average Electricity Factors by State and Region. www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html

34. ibid. (2001). Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000.www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg01rpt/pdf/057300.pdf

35. Environment Australia (2003). A Testing Based Assessment to Determine

Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet. Report by Orbital Engine Company.www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/testing-passenger-fleet/comparison.html#7-5

36. EPA (US) (2002). A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions; Draft Technical Report. www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf

37. ibid. (2006). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2004.

38. Erickson, D.R. and Wiedermann, L.H. Soybean Oil Modern Processing and Utilisation. American Soybean Association www.asa-europe.org/pdf/sboprocess.pdf

39. Ethanol Across America (2004). Issue Brief: Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production. www.ncga.com/ethanol/main

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf


http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_18.asp

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.B.2Biomass.pdf


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/e-supdoc-u.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr96rpt/chap4.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg01rpt/pdf/057300.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/testing-passenger-fleet/comparison.html7-5

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf

http://www.asa-europe.org/pdf/sboprocess.pdf

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main



http://www.asa-europe.org/pdf/sboprocess.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/testing-passenger-fleet/comparison.html7-5

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg01rpt/pdf/057300.pdf


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr96rpt/chap4.html

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/e-supdoc-u.pdf



http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_18.asp


8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




40. Farrell, A.E. et al (2006). Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science Vol 311 pp. 506 – 508.

41. ibid. EBAMM Excel Spreadsheet Model and Use Guide. http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/

42. Graboski, M.S. (2002). Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol.Prepared for the National Corn Growers Association.www.ncga.com/ethanol/main

43. Graboski, M.S. (undated). A Rebuttal to “Ethanol Fuels: Energy, Economics and Environmental Impacts” by D. Pimental. www.ncga.com/ethanol/main

44. Greenfleet. Technical Information.www.greenfleet.com.au/transport/technical.asp

45. Heede, R. (2006). LNG Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Cabrillo Deepwater Port: Natural Gas from Australia to California.

www.edcnet.org/ProgramPages/LNGrptplusMay06.pdf

46. Hicks, K.B et al (2005). Current and Potential Use of Barley in Fuel Ethanol Production. 2005 EWW/SSGW Conference May 9-12 Bowling Green, KY.

47. Hicks,K.B. (2005). New Varieties and Techniques Make Barley Better for Fuel and Food. Agricultural Research, July 2005.

48. Higgins, P. (2006). Report for GRDC: Possibilities for Biomass Ethanol.Emergent Futures (by personal communication with GRDC)

49. Ho, W-M (2006). Biofuels for Oil Addicts; Cure Worse than the Addiction. www.i-

sis.org.uk/BFOA.php

50. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg, Germany (2004).CO2 Mitigation Through Biofuels in the Transport Sector: Main Report.www.ifeu.de/co2mitigation.htm

51. International Energy Agency (1995). Production of Alcohols and Other Oxygenates From Fossil Fuels and Renewables. Final Report for Annexe IV Phase II. Natural Resources Canada.http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/amf/pdf/annex_iv_final_report.pdf

52. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy Makers.www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

53. ibid (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol 2; Energy. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.htm

54. Kim, S. and Dale, B.E. (2002). Allocation Procedure in Ethanol Production Systems from Corn Grain: I System Expansion. 7 LCA (4) 237, 243 (2002)

http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/






http://www.greenfleet.com.au/transport/technical.asp

http://www.edcnet.org/ProgramPages/LNGrptplusMay06.pdf


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php

http://www.ifeu.de/co2mitigation.htm


http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/amf/pdf/annex_iv_final_report.pdf


http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf


http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.htm

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.htm




http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php


http://www.greenfleet.com.au/transport/technical.asp




8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




55. Larson, E.D. (2006). Lifecycle Analysis of GHG Impacts of Biofuels for Transport.Presented at Energy Week, The World Bank 7 March 2006, Washington DC ).

56. Lilley, S. (2006). Green Fuels Dirty Secret.www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646

57. Natural Resources Canada (2004). GHGenius: A Model for Lifecycle Assessment of Transportation Fuels. www.ghgenius.ca

58. Nebraska Government (2004). Nebraska’s Total Energy Consumption by Fuel Type and by Sector. www.neo.ne.gov/stashtml/o4.html

59. Niven, R. (2005). Submission to Biofuels Taskforce: Serious Scientific Concerns : Ground Water Contamination + Air Pollution Impacts of E10.www.dpmc.gov.au/biofuels/submissions/submission62.pdf

60. O’Neill, G. The Biofuels Promise: Updated Thinking. 22 ECOS 133 Oct-Nov2006. www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC133p22.pdf

61. Patzek, T.W. (July 22, 2006). Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle (Web Version). http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

62. ibid. (2006). A Statistical Analysis of the Theoretical Yields of Ethanol From Corn Starch.http://petroleum.berkley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/NRRCornYield.pdf

63. Pimental, D. and Patzek, T.W. (2005). Ethanol Production Using Corn,Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower.Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14,No.1 March 2005 pp. 65 – 76.

http://petroleum.berekeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

64. Piringer, G. and Steinberg, L.J. (2006). Re-evaluation of Energy Use in Wheat Production in the United States.http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/108819806775545420

65. Queensland Government (DPI) (2006). Seasonal Crop Outlook – Wheat October 2006.

66. Queensland Government (DPI) (2007). Seasonal Crop Outlook – Sorghum February 07. www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/14206.html

67. Rainford, C. (ed.) (2005). Ethanol’s Energy Balance Sparks Debate Ahead of House Energy Bill Vote. Agriculture On-Line. www.agriculture.com

68. Rendell, S. and Australian Biofuels Pty Ltd (2004). Fuel Ethanol Production in the Murray and Murrumbidgee River Regions of Australia. Grain ResearchDevelopment Corporation.http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i04/rendell.html

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646


http://www.ghgenius.ca/

http://www.neo.ne.gov/stashtml/o4.html

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/biofuels/submissions/submission62.pdf

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC133p22.pdf

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

http://petroleum.berkley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/NRRCornYield.pdf




http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/108819806775545420

http://www.agriculture.com/


http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i04/rendell.html

http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i04/rendell.html


http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/108819806775545420



http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC133p22.pdf

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/biofuels/submissions/submission62.pdf

http://www.neo.ne.gov/stashtml/o4.html

http://www.ghgenius.ca/


8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




69. Rodriguez, D. et al (2003). Background Study Into Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Grains Industry (DAV478). Grains Research & DevelopmentCorporation. www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/GHGGrainsEmissions.pdf

70. Rollefson, J., Fu, G. and Chan, A. (2004). Assessment of the Environmental Performance and Sustainability of Biodiesel in Canada. National Research

Council Canada.www.studio255.com/crfa/pdf/res/2004_11_NRCBiodieselProjectReportNov04.pdf

71. Santos, M.A. (undated). Energy Analysis of Crops Used for Producing Ethanol and Co2 Emissions.

72. Shapouri, H. et al (2004). The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. USDept of Agriculture.www.iogen.ca/issues_environment/resourcesnet_energy_balance_2004.pdf

73. Shapouri, H. et al (2002). The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update.USDA www.ncga.com/ethanol/main

74. Sheehan, J. et al (1998). Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus; Final Report. USDA and USDE.http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf

75. Slattery, B. (2007). AGO, Personal Communication

76. The White House (Pres. George W. Bush) (2007). 2007 State of the Union Policy Initiatives: Twenty in Ten: Strengthening America’s Energy Security.www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

77. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (Accessed 14 March 2007).

Carbohydrate. Corporate Document Repository.www.fao.org/docrep/T0818E/T0818E0c.htm

78. U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (2005). 1.3.2 Transmission and Distribution Technologies. www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-132.pdf

79. US Dept of Energy. Ethanol Vehicles: What Type of Vehicles Use Ethanol? www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/eth_vehicles.html

80. van Gerpen, J. and Shrestha, D. (undated). Biodiesel Energy Balance. www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsRelease/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a

.pdf

81. von Blottnitz, H. and Curran, M.A. (2007). A Review of Assessments Conducted on Bio-ethanol as a Transportation Fuel From a Net Energy, Greenhouse Gas,and Environmental Life-cycle Perspective. Accepted for Publication in the Journalof Cleaner Production (1 March 2006),http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2006/03/21/Blottnitz_ReviewofAssessmentsConductedonBioethanolAsATransportationFuelFromANetEnergyGHGAndEnvLCPerspective.doc.

http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/GHGGrainsEmissions.pdf

http://www.studio255.com/crfa/pdf/res/2004_11_NRCBiodieselProjectReportNov04.pdf


http://www.iogen.ca/issues_environment/resourcesnet_energy_balance_2004.pdf



http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf


http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0818E/T0818E0c.htm


http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-132.pdf

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/eth_vehicles.html


http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsRelease/Biodiesel+Energy+Balance_v2a.pdf

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/gdrg/readings/2006/03/21/Blottnitz_ReviewofAssessmentsConductedonBioethanolAsATransportationFuelFromANetEnergyGHGAndEnvLCPerspective.doc

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/gdrg/readings/2006/03/21/Blottnitz_ReviewofAssessmentsConductedonBioethanolAsATransportationFuelFromANetEnergyGHGAndEnvLCPerspective.doc

http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsRelease/Biodiesel+Energy+Balance_v2a.pdf


http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-132.pdf


http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html



http://www.iogen.ca/issues_environment/resourcesnet_energy_balance_2004.pdf


http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/GHGGrainsEmissions.pdf

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




82. Wang, M. (2005). Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol. The 15th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels. 26 – 28 Sept.2005, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 2 – Glossary

B20 – A blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel.

B100 – Pure biodiesel (100%)

Biodiesel – Produced through a process in which organically derived oils are combined withalcohol (ethanol or methanol) in the presence of a catalyst to form ethyl or methylester.

CNG – Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a substitute for gasoline or diesel fuel. It ismade by compressing purified natural gas, and is typically stored and distributed

in hard containers.

CO2 –e -Symbol used to indicate that greenhouse gas emissions have been expressed ascarbon dioxide equivalents by applying the appropriate Global Warming Potentialto each type of gas emitted.

Diesel – A mixture of different hydrocarbons with a boiling range between 2500 C and3500 C used as a fuel for compression ignition or diesel engines.

E10 –

A blend of 10% ethanol and 90% petrol (gasoline) used as a fuel for vehicles.

E85 – A blend of 85% ethanol and 15% petrol (gasoline) used as a fuel for vehicles.

E100 – Pure ethanol (100%).

Energy Balance (biofuels) -The total amount of energy in a unit volume of biofuel compared with the totalprimary fossil fuel energy required to produce it.

Energy Equivalent BasisRefers to results in this report presented on a volumetric basis that are adjustedto account for the different energy content of various fuels.

Global Warming Potential – The index used to translate the level of emissions of various gases into acommon measure in order to compare the relative radiative forcing of differentgases without directly calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations.GWPs are calculated as the ratio of the radiative forcing that would result from

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




the emissions of one kilogram of a greenhouse gas to that from emission of onekilogram of carbon dioxide over a period of time (usually 100 years).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Emissions into the atmosphere of gases that affect the temperature and climateof the earth's surface. The main greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity

are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Intergovernmental Framework Convention on Climate Control – The Convention sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tacklethe challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system isa shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and otheremissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Conventionenjoys near universal membership, with 189 countries having ratified includingAustralia and the United States.

Kyoto Protocol – The result of negotiations at the third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) in Kyoto,

Japan, in December of 1997. The Kyoto Protocol sets binding greenhouse gasemissions targets for countries that sign and ratify the agreement. The gasescovered under the Protocol include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride.

Life Cycle Assessment -Methodology developed to assess a product's full environmental costs, from rawmaterial to final disposal.

LPG – Propane, butane, or propane-butane mixtures derived from crude oil refining ornatural gas fractionation. For convenience of transportation, these gases are

liquefied through pressurization.

Nett Energy Balance (biofuels) -The energy content per unit volume of the product less the primary fossil fuelenergy used to produce and distribute it.

Primary Energy (fossil fuels) – The amount of fossil fuel energy prior to extraction required to supply a unit ofuseable fossil fuel such as natural gas, LPG, petrol or diesel

PULP –

Premium unleaded petrol.

Radiative Forcing – The extent to which injecting a unit of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphereraises global average temperature.

Transesterification –

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




A reaction between an ester and an alcohol in which the -OR of the ester and the-OR' group of the alcohol trade places.

ULP – Unleaded petrol.

Unit Definitions and Conversion-Refer to http://www.simetric.co.uk/sibasis.htm

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 3 – Comparison of NSW Emissions – FurtherDiscussion

The table and chart below compares the greenhouse gas emission co-efficients of anumber of fossil fuels and biofuels. The data is drawn from a number of different sources

including AGO, CSIRO and this report. The reader needs to be careful comparing thisdata because it is from a range of sources. In the case of biofuels, the allocation methodused for emissions between co-products is critical in determining life cycle emissions.For example, Beer (2001) calculated the emissions of biodiesel from tallow (B100) usingthe system expansion and economic allocation methods with slightly differing results.

Product Pre combustion Combustion Total Source US Rank Aust Rank

E85 (PULP mol exp sys bound) 37.70 6.00 43.70 Beer (2001) 5 2

B 100 (Tallow) 54.30 0.80 55.10 AGO 5 2

E85 (AAE Aust) 54.08 6.00 60.08 Authors 1 1

E100 (AAE Aust) 62.07 1.00 63.07 1 1

CNG (Elec Comp) 11.70 54.80 66.50 Beer (2001) 5 2

E85 (PULP mol econom alloc) 61.60 6.00 67.60 Beer (2001) 5 2

CNG (NG Comp) 13.50 54.80 68.30 Beer (2001) 5 2LPG 7.80 61.50 69.30 AGO 5 2

E10 (ULP molasses) 14.80 61.30 76.10 CSIRO (2003) 5 2

Diesel 7.80 69.80 77.60 AGO 5 2

ULP 13.00 65.90 78.90 CSIRO (2003) 5 2

PULP 17.70 71.00 88.70 Beer (2001) 5 2

E10 (AAE Aust) 22.14 70.00 92.14 Authors 1 1

Comparison of GHG Emissions Australia - g/MJ

E85

(PULP

mol exp

sys

bound)

B 100

(Tallow)

E85

(AAE

Aust)

E100

(AAE

Aust)

CNG

(Elec

Comp)

E85

(PULP

mol

econom

alloc)

CNG

(NG

Comp)

LPG

E10(ULP

molasse

s)

Diesel ULP PULP

E10

(AAE

Aust)

Pre combustion 37.70 54.30 54.08 62.07 11.70 61.60 13.50 7.80 14.80 7.80 13.00 17.70 22.14

Combustion 6.00 0.80 6.00 1.00 54.80 6.00 54.80 61.50 61.30 69.80 65.90 71.00 70.00

Total 43.70 55.10 60.08 63.07 66.50 67.60 68.30 69.30 76.10 77.60 78.90 88.70 92.14

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

g C O 2 - e / M J

Comparison of GHG Emissions Australia - g CO2-e/MJ

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Using the system expansion method Beer (2001) determined that the emissions fromB100 (tallow) was 42 g /MJ but using the economic allocation method it was 49 MJ/MJ.This is a clear example of the impact the allocation method used can have on life cycleassessment outcomes.

The authors of this report have not used either the system expansion method or the

economic allocation as employed by other authors. The system expansion method wouldrequire separate full life cycle assessments of products displaced by the product underconsideration and that is considered to be outside the scope of this Study. As well, theauthors have not accepted the traditional economic allocation method based on themarket value of the co-products because of the volatile nature of most commoditymarkets. Rather the authors have developed a modified economic allocation method thatis based loosely on management accounting principles. The authors’ allocation methodconsiders the greenhouse emission cost of bringing a product to it marketable state. Inthe case where a co-product is passed on to a third party not in its final marketable state,then emission and energy input credits are allowed.

Notwithstanding that the data must be approached with a reasonable degree of caution it

is possible to say that, regardless of the allocation method used, and with the exceptionof E10, that biofuels have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In the case ofE10, the fact that the ethanol percentage is low it would not be expected to have muchof an impact on the significant greenhouse gas emissions of ULP and PULP.

Some of the calculations in this Study have been based on technical data andengineering parameters provided by AAE prior to the plants being commissioned. It isreasonable to assume that some of these estimates (such as electricity or LPGconsumption) may have been overestimated reflecting engineering conservatism duringthe design phase. Consequently, it is possible that the Nett Energy Balance of the plantin full operation may be higher, and the emissions lower than the estimates calculated inthis report.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




S

o ur c e

U S R a n k

A u s t R a n k

3 .7 8 5 U S G a l l o n s -L i t r e s

h t t p : / / www. o n l i n e c o n v e r s i o n . c o m /

1

1

1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 L i t r e s -ML


1

1

1 , 0 0 0 k Wh -MWh


1

1

0 . 3 6 5 MWh / d a y - G Wh / y r


1

1

3 .7 C t o C O 2

P e r i o d i c T a b l e

1

1

0 .4 2 5 1 k m / L p e r MP G


1

1

0 .7 5 5 k g / m 3 D e n s i t y N a t ur a l G

a s


1

1

2 , 0 0 0 P o un d s - U S t o n


1

1

0 . 9 0 7 M e t r i c T o n n e / U S t o n


1

1

2

,2 0 4 . 6 2

P o un d s / M e t r i c T o n n e


1

1

2 .2 0

P o un d s / K g


1

1

1 6 . 0 1 8 l b / c uf t -k / m 3

h t t : / / www. o n l i n e c o n v e r s i o n . c o m /

1

1

0 . 0 0 1 k J / k g - G J / t


1

1

0

. 0 0 1 0 5 5 M J / B t u


1

1

9 4 7 . 8 2 0 B t u / M J


1

1

1 . 0 5 5 G J / mi l l i o n B t u


1

1

8 ,7 6 0 H o ur s p e r Y e a r

C a l c ul a t e d

1

1

1 . 6 0 9 k m / Mi l e


1

1

5 6 l b / B u s h e l c o r n

F a r r e l l ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( E B A MM )

4

3

2 5 .4 0 1 k g / B u s h e l c o r n

F a r r e l l ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( E B A MM )

4

3

2 .4 7 1 a c r e s / h a


1

1

3 0 1 2 . 0 5 S e e d s / k g

F a r r e l l ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( E B A MM )

4

3

2 3 8 . 9 k c a l / M J


1

1

3 . 6 M J / k Wh


1

1

2 8 . 3 2

m 3 / 1 , 0 0 0 f t 3


1

1

1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 B T U / MMB T U

h t t p : / / www.r r c . s t a t e . t x . u s / d

i v i s i o n s / o g / g l o s s a r y .h t ml

1

1

1 , 0 0 0 c uf t g a s / M C F

h t t p : / / www. e n e r g y . c a . g o v / l n g / g l o s s a r y .h t ml

1

1

1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 B T U / M C F

h t t p : / / www. e n e r g y . c a . g o v / l n g / g l o s s a r y .h t ml

1

1

F a c t o r

Appendix 4 – Factors and Constants General

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




NOTE: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE COMPARATIVE ENERGYBALANCES AND THEIR IMPACT – SEE APPENDIX 13.

Product Initial energy At tank Net Source US Rank Aust Rank

PULP (Aust) 100% 88% -12% Beer (2001) 5 2

PULP (USA) 100% 81% -19% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

ULP 100% ? ? N/A N/A N/A

Diesel 100% 84% -16% Shapouri (2004) 5 2

LPG (USA) 100% 99% -1% Shapouri (2004) 5 2

LPG (Aust) 100% 94% -6% Beer (2001) 2 4CNG (Elec Comp) 100% 92% -8% Beer (2001) 2 4CNG (NG Comp) 100% 87% -13% Beer (2001) 2 4

E10 (Beatrice) 100% 88% -12% Authors 1 1

E85 (Beatrice) 100% 143% 43% Authors 1 1

Ethanol (Beatrice) 100% 154% 54% Authors 1 1

E10 (Aust) 100% 87% -13% Authors 1 1E85 (Aust) 100% 140% 40% Authors 1 1

Ethanol (Aust) 100% 151% 51% Authors 1 1

BD 100 (Beatrice) 100% 303% 203% Authors 1 1


BD 100 (Tallow Sys Exp ) 100% 244% 144% Beer (2001) 5 2

BD 100 (Tallow Econom Alloc) 100% 588% 488% Beer (2001) 5 2

E10 (ULP molasses) 100% ? ? N/A N/A N/A

E85 (PULP mol Sys Exp) 100% 164% 64% Beer (2001) 5 2

E85 (PULP mol Econom Alloc) 100% 151% 51% Beer (2001) 5 2

Comparative Energy Balances

1996 2001 Source US Rank Aust Rank

CO2 1 1 IPCC 4 2

CH4 21 23 IPCC 4 2

N20 310 296 IPCC 4 2

Global Warming Potential

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 5 – Factors and Constants Beatrice Ethanol

Item Unit Source US Rank Aust Rank

Natural gas 38.8 MJ/m3 HHV AGL 4 3

W&DDGS 19,000 kJ/kg AAE 1 1

Diesel 38.6 GJ/kL HHV AGO 5 2

Diesel 45.4 GJ/t Calculated 5 2

Diesel density 0.85 Kg/L Shell 4 3

Biodiesel 37.5 GJ/KL AAE 1 1

Biodiesel densit 0.88 Kg/L AAE 1 1

Petrol 34.2 GJ/kL AGO 5 2

Petrol 45 GJ/t Calculated 5 2

Petrol density 0.76 Kg/L Shell 4 3

LPG 26.2 GJ/KL AGO 5 2

LPG density 0.51 Kg/L www.aegpl.com 1 1

Ethanol 23.7 GJ/kL AAE 1 1

Ethanol density 0.79 kg/L AAE 1 1E10 33.2 GJ/kL Calculated 1 1

E85 25.3 GJ/kL Calculated 1 1

Natural gas 94.0% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

Diesel 84.3% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

Petrol 80.5% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

LPG 98.9% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

Electricity 33.4% Shapouri (2004) Inc T&D 2 4

FARM OUTPUT FACTORS

Corn Yield 133.66 Bushel/acre 8,398 (kg/Ha) Shapouri (2004) 2 4Corn Yield Ran 8746 to 8389 kg/ha Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

Primary Energy Factors

Energy Factors

US Emission Co-efficients Source US Rank Aust Rank

Diesel 22.384 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin 2 6161.386 lbCO2/million BTU (EIA)

LPG 12.805 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin 2 6139.039 lbCO2/million BTU

Gasoline 19.564 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin 2 6

156.425 lbCO2/million BTU

Natural Gas 120.593 lbCO2/1000 Ft3 Energy Information Admin 2 6


Anthracite 5685 lbCO2/short ton Energy Information Admin 2 6


Source US Rank Aust Rank

0.635 CO2 metric tons/MWh EIA 2 60.0095 CH4 lb/MWh EIA 2 6

0.0219 N2O lb/MWh EIA 2 6

* Must be adjusted for T&D losses

T&D Losses

Public Utility

Reports 4 6

Electricity Nebraska Emission Co-efficient *

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007





Process Water Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

Grain production Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

OTHER EMISSION COEFFICIENTS

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 6 – Emissions Calculations Beatrice Ethanol

Determination of Emissions Factors Estimated natural gas and electricity consumption data was supplied by AAE for itsethanol plant at Beatrice, Nebraska for a 12 month period. Diesel consumed in

feedstock, denaturant and product transport was estimated from average trip estimatessupplied by AAE and assumed fuel consumption rates.

Natural Gas

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QNG x EFNG/1000

Where: QNG (GJ) is the estimated quantity of natural gas consumed annually (US Rank1).

EFNG is the full fuel cycle emission factors for natural gas use reported by the USEnergy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 50.34 kg CO2–e /GJDivision by 1000 converts kg to tonnes.

Electricity

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QE x EFE x TDLF

Where: QE (MWh) is the estimated annual electricity used (US Rank 1).

EFE is the full fuel cycle emission factors for electricity generated in Nebraskareported by the US Energy Information Administration for use in the VoluntaryReporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 0.638 tCO2-e /MWh.

TDLF is the adjustment required for transmission and distribution losses betweenthe generator and consumer, average of estimates supplied by Public UtilitiesReports Inc = 1.095

Diesel Transport Fuel

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QD x EFD

Where: QD (kL) is the estimated annual quantity of diesel consumed to transport,denaturant, feedstock and product (US Rank 1).

EFD is the full fuel cycle emission factors for diesel use reported by the USEnergy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 2.68 tCO2-e /kL.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Process Water

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QW x EFW

Where:

QW (ML) is the estimated annual quantity of process water consumed (US Rank1).

EFW is the emission factor for municipal use reported by ERG Biofuels AnalysisMeta Model (EBAMM) = 25 tCO2-e /ML

Corn Agriculture

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (CFS / CY) x EFCP

Where; CFS (t) is annual estimated corn feedstock requirement.

CY (t/ha) is estimated corn yield from EBAMM = 8.389 t/ha.

EFCP is the emissions factor from EBAMM for corn production in the US (USRank 4) = 2.9 t CO2-e /ha

Waste Water Treatment

Project consultants, Kleinfelder, on behalf of AAE, have advised that waste watertreatment will be aerobic and therefore, no methane emissions will be produced.This information has been accepted for the purposes of greenhouse gasemission modelling, therefore, no methane emissions from waste water treatmenthave been included. If waste water treatment at the plant is found to be emittingmethane at a later date then the model will need to be updated to include theseemissions.

Solid Waste to Landfill

No details of solid waste disposal to landfill have been provided and it isaccepted that there will probably be minimal amounts of putrescibles solid wastedisposed to landfill. The main solid waste, distiller’s grain, will be sold as stockfodder and any sludge left over from waste water treatment will be disposed tothe municipal sewage system. It is considered that any emissions from the

municipal sewage system are outside the boundaries of this Study as being toohard to quantify and it is reasonable to assume they may not be significant giventhat waste water will be treated aerobically to remove waste organic matterbefore discharge to the sewage system

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 7 – Energy Balance Beatrice Ethanol

Determination of Beatrice Ethanol Energy Balance The energy ratio for Beatrice ethanol has been determined by dividing the energycontained in the ethanol output by the total fossil fuel energy required to produce the

corn, process the corn to produce ethanol and transport of corn, product and denaturant(gasoline). The energy consumed to produce the denaturant has also been included. Allenergy inputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption has been adjusted to accountfor losses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the point of consumption.


Energy Ratio = Energy in Ethanol Produced/Total Fossil Energy Used

Energy in Ethanol Produced = Energy in Ethanol + Energy in Denaturant

EEP = (EtOH) x EC ETH) + ((EtOH x DNP) x ECP)

Where; EEP (GJ) is total energy in annual denatured ethanol production.

EtOH (kL) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant addedas advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

EC ETH (GJ/kL) is the energy content of ethanol as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1) = 23.7GJ/kL.

DNP (%) is the denaturant addition percentage as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1) = 5%.

ECP (GJ/kL) is the energy content of petrol (gasoline) from Australian GreenhouseOffice (US Rank = 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it isreasonable to assume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 34.2GJ/kL

Total Fossil Energy Used = Energy Used in (Corn Agriculture + Grain Transport +Process Water Production + Producing Denaturant (including transport) + EthanolTransport) + Gas Used + Electricity Used

Corn Agriculture

C = ((CFS/Y) x CEC) x AP

Where; C (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce corn feedstock.

Y (t/ha) is average corn yield as advised by Shapouri (US Rank 2) = 8.389 t/ha.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




CFS (t) is estimated annual corn feedstock requirement as advised by AAE (US Rank =1).

CEC is the average corn energy co-efficient for primary energy consumed in cornagriculture from EBAMM (US Rank 4) = 21.565 GJ/ha.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to ethanol agriculture as determinedby the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Grain Transport (Road only)

CT = ((((CFS/ANL) x 2D) x FE)/1000) x EC)/EE) x AP

Where; CT(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to transport cornfeedstock.

CFS (t) is estimated annual corn feedstock requirement as advised by AAE (US Rank =1).

ANL (t) is the average nett load for a heavy vehicle (estimated by the authors) = 22.68 t.

D (km) is the average haulage distance of corn advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).Multiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.

FE (L/km) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors) =0.547 L/km.

EC (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (US Rank= 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it is reasonable toassume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 38.6 GJ/kL.

EE is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to corn feedstock transport asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres.

Electricity Used in Ethanol Production

EFF = (EP x ECF)/EEx AP

Where; EFF (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce electricityconsumed in the production of ethanol.

EP (MWh) is estimated annual amount of electricity purchased as advised by AAE (USRank = 1) = 62,700 MWh.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




ECF is the factor used to convert MWh to GJ = 3.6 GJ/MWh.

EE is the energy efficiency of electricity i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.334.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to electricity used in ethanol

production as determined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Natural Gas Used in Ethanol Production

NG = (NGP/EE) x AP

Where; NG(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce natural gasconsumed in the production of ethanol.

NGP (GJ) is estimated annual amount of natural gas purchased as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

EE is the energy efficiency of natural gas i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.94.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to natural gas used in ethanolproduction as determined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Process Water Used in Ethanol Production

PWFF = (PWP x WEF)/( EFE x TDLF) x ECF x AP

Where; PW(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to provide water used inthe production of ethanol.

PWP (ML) is estimated annual amount of process water purchased as advised by AAE(US Rank = 1).

WEF (tCO2e/ML) is the greenhouse gas emission factor based on primary energyrequirements to supply as advised by EBAMM (US Rank = 4).

EFE is the full fuel cycle emission factors for electricity generated in Nebraska reportedby the US Energy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting of

Greenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 0.638 tCO2-e /MWh.

TDLF is the adjustment required for transmission and distribution losses between thegenerator and consumer, average of estimates supplied by Public Utilities Reports Inc(US Rank 4) = 1.095.


8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to water used to produce ethanol asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Denaturant (Gasoline) Used in Ethanol Production Including Transportation

DN = (((((EtOH x DNP)/ANL)/1000) x 2D)/FE)/EED) x ECD) + (((EtOH x DNP)/1000) xECP) + (((EtOH x DNP)/1000) x ECP) x (1 - EEP))

Where; DN(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to provide denaturantused in the production of ethanol, including the energy content of the denaturant.

EtOH (L) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant added asadvised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

DNP (%) is the denaturant addition percentage as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

ANL is the average nett truck load of denaturant estimated by the authors = 30,283 L.

D (km) is the average haulage distance of corn advised by AAE (US Rank = 1) = 80 kmMultiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.

FE (km/L) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors) =1.83 km/L.

EED is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843.

ECD (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (USRank = 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it is reasonableto assume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 38.6 GJ/kL.

ECP (GJ/kL) is the energy content of petrol (gasoline) from Australian GreenhouseOffice (US Rank = 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it isreasonable to assume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 34.2GJ/kL.

EEP is the energy efficiency of petrol (gasoline) i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.805Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres

Ethanol Transportation

ET = (((((EtOH x HPRAIL) x (DRAIL/1000)) x FCRAIL) + ((((EtOH x HPROAD)/ANL) x 2DROAD)x FE) + ((((DN x HPRAIL) x (DRAIL)/1000)) x FCRAIL) + ((((DN x HPROAD)/ANL) x 2DROAD) xFE) x ECD)/EED

Where: ET(GJ) is primary energy required to transport denatured ethanol to blending point.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




EtOH (t) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant added asadvised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

HPRAIL is percentage of denatured ethanol product hauled by rail as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

DRAIL (km) is average rail haulage distance as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1)FCRAIL (kL/1000 nett ton km) is rail fuel consumption rate as advised by EnvironmentCanada (US Rank = 3) = 0.00531kL/1000 nett ton km.

HPROAD is percentage of denatured ethanol product hauled by road as advised by AAE(US Rank = 1).

ANL is the average nett truck load of denaturant estimated by the authors = 30,283 LDROAD (km) is average road haulage distance as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).Multiplication by 2 accounts for truck round trip. Rail transport assumes one way triponly.

FE (kL/km) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors)= 0.000547 kL/km.


EED is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843Division by 1000 to convert from nett ton km to 1000 nett ton km.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 8 – Factors and Constants Beatrice Biodiesel



W&DDGS 19,000 kJ/kg AAE 1 1Diesel 38.6 GJ/kL HHV AGO 5 2




Biodiesel density 0.88 Kg/L AAE 1 1







Ethanol density 0.79 kg/L AAE 1 1

E10 33.2 GJ/kL Calculated 1 1E85 25.3 GJ/kL Calculated 1 1


Diesel 84.3% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

Petrol 80.5% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

LPG 98.9% Shapouri (2004) 2 4Electricity 33.4% Shapouri (2004) Inc T&D 2 4

FARM OUTPUT FACTORS

Soy Oil Yield (Low Range) Sheehan(1998) 2 4Soy Oil Yield (High Range) Erikson & Wiedermann 6 6


Energy Factors


Diesel 22.384 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin (EIA) 2 6

LPG 12.805 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin 2 6

Gasoline 19.564 lbCO2/gal Energy Information Admin 2 6

Natural Gas 120.593 lbCO2/1000 Ft3 Energy Information Admin 2 6Anthracite 5685 lbCO2/short ton Energy Information Admin 2 6

Biodiesel Sheehan (1998) 2 6

US Emission Co-efficients


0.635 CO2 metric tons/MWh EIA 2 6

0.0095 CH4 lb/MWh EIA 2 6

0.0219 N2O lb/MWh EIA 2 6

* Must be adjusted for T&D losses

T&D Losses

Public

Utility

Reports 4 6

Electricity Nebraska Emission Co-efficient *

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Item Source Us Rank Aust Rank

Biodiesel Production/yr AAE 1 1

Biodiesel production/yr Calculated 1 1

Biodiesel Production/day Calculated 1 1

Electricity Use/US Gal BD AAE 1 1

Electricity use/day Calculated 1 1

Electricity use/yr Calculated 1 1CO2-e emissions from electricity/yr Calculated 1 1

Water use/gal BD AAE 1 1

Water Use/day Calculated 1 1

Water Use/yr Calculated 1 1

Gas consumption/hr AAE 1 1

Gas consumption/Day Calculated 1 1

Gas consumption/yr Calculated 1 1

Soy Oil feed stock US tons/yr AAE 1 1

Soy Oil feed stock US tons/dDay Calculated 1 1

Soy Oil feed stock/US Gal BD Calculated 1 1

Soy beans harvested yr Calculated 1 1

Soy Oil stock haulage distance AAE 1 1

Averavge nett load Authors 1 1

Number of Round Trips Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Miles Calculated 1 1

Average Fuel Economy of Truck Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Fuel Calculated 1 1

Nett haulage/annum Calculated 1 1

Glycerol output/yr AAE 1 1

Refinery by-products output AAE 1 1

Rail haulage distance DB AAE 1 1

Percent of DB by rail AAE 1 1

Road haulage distance BD AAE 1 1

Percent of BD by road AAE 1 1

BD hauled by rail/yr Calculated 1 1BD hauled by rail/yr Calculated 1 1

Nett rail haulage/yr Calculated 1 1

Rail fuel consumption Calculated 1 1

Rail fuel used Calculated 1 1

BD hauled by road/yr Calculated 1 1

BD hauled by road/yr Calculated 1 1

Nett road haulage/yr Calculated 1 1

Average nett load BD or Methanol Calculated 1 1

Total truck fuel DB Calculated 1 1

Methanol AAE 1 1

Methanol Calculated 1 1

Methanol haulage distance Calculated 1 1

Total truck fuel Methanol haulage Calculated 1 1


Process Water Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

Grain production Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

OTHER EMISSION COEFFICIENTS

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Agriculture Source US Rank Aust Rank

Fossil Fuel Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Methane Sheehan(1998) 2 4

N2O Sheehan(1998) 2 4

CO Sheehan(1998) 2 4Soy Bean Transport

Fossil Fuel Sheehan(1998) 2 4Methane Sheehan(1998) 2 4

N2O Sheehan(1998) 2 4CO Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Soy Bean Crushing

Fossil Fuel Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Methane Sheehan(1998) 2 4

N2O Sheehan(1998) 2 4CO Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Emissions From Soy Bean Processing


Methanol Sheehan(1998) 2 4

NaOH Sheehan(1998) 2 4

HCL Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Methoxide Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Production Emissions Reagents


Agriculture Sheehan(1998) 2 4

1st Transport Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Crushing Sheehan(1998) 2 4


Methanol Sheehan(1998) 2 4

NaOH Sheehan(1998) 2 4

HCL Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Methoxide Sheehan(1998) 2 4

Production Energy Methanol

Energy Input MJ/MJ of BD

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 9 – Emissions Calculations Beatrice Biodiesel

Determination of Beatrice Biodiesel Emissions Factors

Estimated natural gas and electricity consumption data was supplied by AAE for its

biodiesel plant at Beatrice, Nebraska for a 12 month period. Diesel consumed infeedstock, methanol and product transport was estimated from average trip estimatessupplied by AAE and assumed fuel consumption rates.

Natural Gas:

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QNG x EFNG/1000

Where: QNG (GJ) is the estimated quantity of natural gas consumed annually (US Rank1).

EFNG is the full fuel cycle emission factors for natural gas use reported by the USEnergy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 50.34 kg CO2–e /GJDivision by 1000 converts kg to tonnes.

Electricity.

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QDx EFE x TDLF

Where: QE (MWh) is the estimated annual electricity used (US Rank 1).

EFE is the full fuel cycle emission factors for electricity generated in Nebraskareported by the US Energy Information Administration for use in the VoluntaryReporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 0.638 tCO2-e /MWh.

TDLF is the adjustment required for transmission and distribution losses betweenthe generator and consumer, average of estimates supplied by Public UtilitiesReports Inc = 1.095



Where: QD (kL) is the estimated annual quantity of diesel consumed to transport,methanol, feedstock and product (US Rank 1).

EFD is the full fuel cycle emission factors for diesel use reported by the USEnergy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 2.68 tCO2-e /kL.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Process Water


Where:

QW (ML) is the estimated annual quantity of process water consumed (US Rank1).

EFW is the emission factor for municipal use reported by ERG Biofuels AnalysisMeta Model (EBAMM – US Rank 4) = 25 tCO2-e /ML

Methanol Production

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (QB x EFMFF) + (QB x EFCH4 x GWPCH4) + (QB xEFN2O x GWPN2O)/1,000,000

Where;

QB (kg) is annual estimated production of biodiesel (US Rank 1).

EFMFF (gCO2/kg biodiesel) is carbon dioxide emission factor for methanolproduction from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 35.8645 gCO2 /kg biodiesel.

EFCH4 (gCH4/kg biodiesel) is methane emission factor for methanol productionfrom Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.274471 gCH4 /kg biodiesel.

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane from IPCC ThirdAssessment Report as quoted by ERG Biofuels Analysis Meta Model (EBAMM)(US Rank 5) = 23.

EFN2O (gN2O/kg biodiesel) is nitrous oxide emission factor for methanolproduction from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.000349276 gN 2O/kgbiodiesel.

GWPN2O is the Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide from IPCC ThirdAssessment Report as quoted by ERG Biofuels Analysis Meta Model (EBAMM)(US Rank 5) = 296Divide by 1 million to convert from grams to tonne

Soy Bean Agriculture

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = ((QSBO/SBY) x EFAFF) + ((QSBO/SBY) x EFCH4 x

GWPCH4) + ((QSBO/SBY) x EFN2O x GWPN2O)/1,000,000

Where; QSBO (kg) is annual estimated soy bean oil feedstock requirement (US Rank 1)SBY is average percentage oil content (yield) from soy beans (US Rank 1 & 6) =19.2%.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




EFAFF (gCO2/kg soy beans) is carbon dioxide emission factor for soy beanagriculture from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 182.87 gCO2 /kg soy beans.

EFCH4 (gCH4/kg soy beans) is methane emission factor for soy bean agriculturefrom Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.18082 gCH4 /kg soy beans.


EFN2O (gN2O/kg soy beans) is nitrous oxide emission factor for soy beanagriculture from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.000835 gN2O/kg soybeans.


Soy Bean Transportation to Crusher

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = ((QSBO/SBY) x EFTFF) + ((QSBO/SBY) x EFCH4 xGWPCH4) + ((QSBO/SBY) x EFN2O x GWPN2O)/1,000,000

Where; QSBO (kg) is annual estimated soy bean oil feedstock requirement (US Rank 1).

SBY is average percentage oil content (yield) from soy beans (US Rank 1 & 6) =19.2%.

EFTFF (gCO2/kg soy beans) is carbon dioxide emission factor for soy beantransport from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 11.3255 gCO2 /kg soy beans.

EFCH4 (gCH4/kg soy beans) is methane emission factor for soy bean transportfrom Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.0040585gCH4 /kg soy beans.


EFN2O (gN2O/kg soy beans) is nitrous oxide emission factor for soy beantransport from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.0011253 gN2O/kg soybeans.


8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Soy Bean Crushing and Oil Extraction

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (QSBO x EFAFF) + (QSBO x EFCH4 x GWPCH4) + (QSBO x EFN2O x GWPN2O)/1,000,000

Where; QSBO (kg) is annual estimated soy bean oil feedstock requirement (US Rank 1).

EFAFF (gCO2/kg soy bean oil) is carbon dioxide emission factor for soy beancrushing from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 200.238 gCO2 /kg soy beanoil.

EFCH4 (gCH4/kg soy bean oil) is methane emission factor for soy bean crushingfrom Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.37326 gCH4 /kg soy bean oil.

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane from IPCC ThirdAssessment Report as quoted by ERG Biofuels Analysis Meta Model (EBAMM)

(US Rank 5) = 23.

EFN2O (gN2O/kg soy bean oil) is nitrous oxide emission factor for soy beancrushing from Sheehan et al (1998) (US Rank 2) = 0.00181 gN2O/kg soy beanoil.



AAE has advised that waste water treatment will be aerobic and therefore, nomethane emissions will be produced. This information has been accepted for thepurposes of greenhouse gas emission modelling, therefore, no methaneemissions from waste water treatment have been included. If waste watertreatment at the plant is found to be emitting methane at a later date then themodel will need to be updated to include these emissions.


No details of solid waste disposal to landfill have been provided and it is

accepted that there will probably be minimal amounts of putrescibles solid wastedisposed to landfill. Biodiesel at the Beatrice plant will be produced from soybean oil feedstock using a solid catalyst and it is reasonable to assume that therewill only be minimal amounts of solid waste. Aerobically treated waste water willbe disposed to the municipal sewage system. It is considered that any emissionsfrom the municipal sewage system are outside the boundaries of this Study asbeing too hard to quantify and it is reasonable to assume they may not be

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




significant given that waste water will be treated aerobically to remove wasteorganic matter before discharge to the sewage system.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 10 – Energy Balance Calculations BeatriceBiodiesel

Determination of Beatrice Biodiesel Energy Balance

The energy ratio for Beatrice biodiesel has been determined by dividing the energycontained in the biodiesel output by the total fossil fuel energy inputs required to produceand transport the soy bean oil, process the oil and transportation of biodiesel to theblending point. All energy inputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption has beenadjusted to account for losses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the pointof consumption.

Fossil fuel energy inputs in the production of soy bean oil have been allocated betweenthe co-products soy bean oil and soy bean meal on the basis of the average oil contentof soy beans i.e., is 19.2% and 80.8% respectively. Fossil fuel inputs in the conversion ofsoy bean oil have been allocated to the co-products biodiesel and glycerine on the basisof the relative mass of output of each co-product i.e., 86.3% and 13.7% respectively.

Energy Ratio = Energy in Biodiesel Produced/Total Fossil Energy Used to ProduceBiodiesel

Energy in Biodiesel Produced

EEP = BD x EC BIO

Where; EBP (GJ) is total energy in annual biodiesel production.

BD (kL) is estimated annual amount of biodiesel production as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

EC BIO (GJ/kL) is the energy content of biodiesel as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

Fossil Energy Used to Produce Biodiesel

Soy Bean Agriculture

SBA = ((BD x EC BIO ) x ECFA )x AP

Where; SBA (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce soy beanfeedstock.



8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




ECFA (GJ/GJ Biodiesel) is primary energy consumption factor for agriculturalproduction of soy beans as advised by Sheehan (1998) (US Rank = 2) = 0.0656 GJ/GJBiodiesel.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to biodiesel agriculture as determinedby the authors (see discussion above) = 0.192

Soy Bean Transport to Oil Extraction Facility

SBT = ((BD x EC BIO ) x ECFT )x AP

Where; SBT (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to transport soy beanfeedstock.



ECFT (GJ/GJ Biodiesel) is primary energy consumption factor for transportation of soybeans as advised by Sheehan (1998) (US Rank = 2) = 0.0034 GJ/GJ Biodiesel.


Soy Bean Crushing

SBC = ((BD x EC BIO ) x ECFC )x AP

Where;SBC (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to crush soy beanfeedstock and extract the oil.



ECFC (GJ/GJ Biodiesel) is primary energy consumption factor for production of soybeans as advised by Sheehan (1998) (US Rank = 2) = 0.803 GJ/GJ Biodiesel.


Soy Bean Oil Transport (Road only)

OT = (((((OFS/ANL) x 2D) x FE)/1000) x EC)/EE

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Where;OT (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to transport soy bean oilfeedstock.

OFS (t) is estimated annual soy bean oil feedstock requirement as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

ANL (t) is the average nett load of soy bean oil for a heavy vehicle (estimated by theauthors) = 25 t.

D (km) is the average haulage distance of soy bean oil feedstock advised by AAE (USRank = 1). Multiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.


EC (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (US Rank= 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it is reasonable to

assume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 38.6 GJ/kL.

EE is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres.

Electricity Used in Biodiesel Production

E = (EP x ECF)/EEx AP

Where;E(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce electricityconsumed in the production of biodiesel.

EP (MWh) is estimated annual amount of electricity purchased as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).


EE is the energy efficiency of electricity i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.334.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to soy bean oil conversion asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.863

Natural Gas Used in Biodiesel Production

NG = (NGP/EE) x AP

Where;NG(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce natural gasconsumed in the production of biodiesel.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




NGP (GJ) is estimated annual amount of natural gas purchased as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

EE is the energy efficiency of natural gas i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.94.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to corn feedstock transport asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.863Process Water Used in Biodiesel Production

PW = (PWP x WEF)/( EFE x TDLF) x ECF x AP

Where;PW(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to provide water used inthe production of ethanol.

PWP (ML) is estimated annual amount of process water purchased as advised by AAE

(US Rank = 1).

WEF (tCO2e/ML) is the greenhouse gas emission factor based on primary energyrequirements to supply as advised by EBAMM (US Rank = 4).

EFE is the full fuel cycle emission factors for electricity generated in Nebraska reportedby the US Energy Information Administration for use in the Voluntary Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases Program (US Rank 2) = 0.638 tCO2-e /MWh.

TDLF is the adjustment required for transmission and distribution losses between thegenerator and consumer, average of estimates supplied by Public Utilities Reports Inc(US Rank 4) = 1.095.


AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to corn feedstock transport asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.863

Methanol Transportation

MT = ((((M/ANL) x 2D)/100 x FE)/1000) x EC)/EE) x AP

Where;MT (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to transport corn

feedstock.

M (L) is estimated annual methanol requirement as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

ANL (L) is the average nett load for a heavy vehicle (estimated by the authors) =30,283L.

D (km) is the average haulage distance of corn advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).Multiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007





EC (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (US Rank= 5 but has a higher apparent ranking than actual ranking because it is reasonable to

assume that diesel has a similar energy content in both countries) = 38.6 GJ/kL.

EE is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to corn feedstock transport asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.863Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres.

Methanol Production

MP = ((BD x ECFM )x AP

Where;MP (GJ) is annual estimated primary energy required to produce methanolBD (t) is estimated annual amount of biodiesel production as advised by AAE (US Rank= 1).

ECFM (GJ/t Biodiesel) is primary energy consumption factor for production of methanolas advised by Sheehan (1998) (US Rank = 2) = 2.90323 GJ/t Biodiesel.

AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to biodiesel agriculture as determinedby the authors (see discussion above) = 0. 0.863.

Biodiesel Transportation

BT = (((((BD x HPRAIL) x (DRAIL/1000)) x FCRAIL) + ((((BD x HPROAD)/ANL) x 2DROAD) xFE) x FE) x ECD)/EED

Where:BT (GJ) is primary energy required to transport biodiesel to blending point.

BD (t) is estimated annual amount of biodiesel production as advised by AAE (US Rank= 1).

HPRAIL is percentage of denatured ethanol product hauled by rail as advised by AAE (USRank = 1).

DRAIL (km) is average rail haulage distance as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

FCRAIL (kL/1000 nett ton km) is rail fuel consumption rate as advised by EnvironmentCanada (US Rank = 3) = 0.00531kL/1000 nett ton km.

HPROAD is percentage of biodiesel hauled by road as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




ANL is the average nett truck load of biodiesel estimated by the authors = 30,283 L.

DROAD (km) is average road haulage distance as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1).Multiplication by 2 accounts for truck round trip. Rail transport assumes one way triponly.

FE (kL/km) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors)= 0.000547 kL/km.


EED is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank = 2) = 0.843Division by 1000 to convert from nett ton km to 1000 nett ton km.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 11 – Factors and Constants NSW Ethanol


Diesel 3.00 Kg/L AGO 5 2

LPG 1.80 Kg/L AGO 5 2

Gasoline 2.60 Kg/L AGO 5 2Natural Gas 2.70 Kg/m3 AGO 5 2

LNG 2.70 Kg/m3 Assume same NG 5 2

Bio Fuels - Kg/GJ AGO 5 2

Electricity NSW 1.068 t CO2-e/MWh AGO 5 2

Process Water 25 tCO2e/ML Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 4 6

Energy Emission Coefficients


Corn Yield Qld DPI 14,000 kg/ha 5 2

Wheat yield Qld DPI 3,000 kg/ha 5 2

Barley yield Qld DPI 2,000 kg/ha 5 2

Sorghum yield Qld DPI 2,730 kg/ha 5 2

Corn production emissions Beer et al (2005) 7.00 t CO2-e/ha 5 2Corn production energy Farrell (2006) (EBAMM) 21,566 MJ/ha 4 6

Wheat production emissions CSIRO 0.834 t CO2-e/ha 5 2

Wheat production energy Piringer/Steinberg 11,700 MJ/ha 4 6

Barley production emissions Assume Beer 0.834 t CO2-e/ha 5 2

Barley production energy Piringer/Steinberg 7,800 MJ/ha 4 6

Sorghum production emissions Authors 0.834 t CO2-e/ha

Sorghum production energy Authors 21,566 MJ/ha

FARM OUTPUT FACTORS



W&DDGS 19,000 kJ/kg AAE 1 1Diesel 38.6 GJ/kL HHV AGO 5 2




Biodiesel density 0.88 Kg/L AAE 1 1







Ethanol density 0.79 kg/L AAE 1 1




Diesel 84.3% Shapouri (2004) 2 4Petrol 87.7% Beer 2001 2 4

LPG 94.0% Beer 2001 2 4

Electricity 33.4% Shapouri (2004) Inc T&D 2 4

Energy Factors


8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Item Source US Rank Aust Rank

Ethanol Production/yr AAE 1 1

Ethanol production/yr Calculated 1 1Ethanol Production/day Calculated 1 1

Electricity Use/L EtOH AAE 1 1

Electricity use/day Calculated 1 1

Electricity use/yr Calculated 1 1CO2-e emissions from electricity/yr Calculated 1 1

Water use/L Ethanol AAE 1 1

Water Use/day Calculated 1 1Water Use/yr Calculated 1 1

Heat energy consumption/hr AAE 1 1

Heat energy consumption/Day Calculated 1 1Heat energy consumption/yr Calculated 1 1

Bio-fuels haulage distance Calculated 1 1

Average nett load Bio-fuels Calculated 1 1

Weight Bio-fuels per annum Calculated 1 1

Bio-fuels transport fuel Calculated 1 1

Rail haulage distance Ethanol AAE 1 1

Percent of ethanol by rail AAE 1 1

Road haulage distance Ethanol AAE 1 1

Percent of ethanol by road AAE 1 1

Ethanol hauled by rail/yr Calculated 1 1

Ethanol hauled by rail/yr Calculated 1 1

Nett rail haulage/yr Calculated 1 1

Rail fuel consumption Calculated 1 1

Rail fuel ethanol haulage Calculated 1 1

Ethanol hauled by road/yr Calculated 1 1

Etanol hauled by road/yr Calculated 1 1

Nett road haulage/yr Calculated 1 1

Average nett load Etoh or Denaturant Calculated 1 1

Total truck fuel Ethanol haulage Calculated 1 1Denaturant AAE 1 1

Denaturant volume Calculated 1 1

Average haul denaturant Authors 1 1Total truck fuel denaturant haulage Calculated 1 1

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Item Value Unit Source US Rank Aust Rank

Corn feed stock t/yr 506,410 t Calculated 1 1

Corn feed stock t/day 1,387 t Calculated 1 1

Corn feed stock/L Ethanol 2.53 kg/L Etoh Calculated 1 1

Corn feed stock haulage distance 50 km AAE 1 1

Averavge nett load 25 t Authors 1 1

Number of Round Trips 20,256 Trips Calculated 1 1

Total Truck km 2,025,641 km Calculated 1 1Average Fuel Economy of Truck 54.70 l/100km Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Fuel 1,108,047 L Calculated 1 1

Nett haulage/annum (moist grain) 25,320,513 Nett tkm Calculated 1 1

Moisture content corn feed stock 15% Percent AAE 1 1

Starch content of corn feedstock 60% Percent AAE 1 1

Solids content of corn feedstock 25% Percent AAE 1 1

Ethanol recovered from starch 52% Percent AAE 1 1

CO2 released from starch 48% Percent AAE 1 1

Tons starch/yr 303,846 t Calculated 1 1

Tons ethanol/yr f rom starch equation 158,000 t Calculated 1 1

Tons CO2 released during fermentation 145,846 t Calculated 1 1

WDGS/yr 289,377 t AAE 1 1

Moisture Content WDGS 65% Moisture AAE 1 1WDGS dry weight/yr 101,282 t Calculated 1 1

DDGS/yr 112,536 t AAE 1 1

Moisture content DDGS 10% Moisture AAE 1 1

DDGS bone dry weight/yr 101,282 t Calculated 1 1

Energy value W&DDGS (dry basis) 19,000 kJ/kg AAE 1 1

Wheat feed stock t/yr 533,063 t Calculated 1 1

Wheat feed stock t/day 1,460 t Calculated 1 1

Wheat feed stock/L Ethanol 2.67 kg/L Etoh Calculated 1 1

Wheat feed stock haulage distance 50 km AAE 1 1



Total Truck km 2,132,254 km Calculated 1 1

Average Fuel Economy of Truck 54.70 l/100km Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Fuel 1,166,366 L Calculated 1 1Nett haulage/annum (moist grain) 26,653,171 Nett tkm Calculated 1 1

Moisture content Wheat feed stock 13% Percent AAE 1 1

Starch content of Wheat feedstock 57% Percent AAE 1 1

Solids content of Wheat feedstock 31% Percent AAE 1 1




Tons ethanol/yr f rom starch equation 158,000 t Calculated 1 1




DDGS/yr 127,343 t AAE 1 1Moisture content DDGS 10% Moisture AAE 1 1



8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Item Value Unit Source US Rank Aust Rank

Barley feed stock t/yr 562,678 t Calculated 1 1

Barley feed stock t/day 1,542 t Calculated 1 1

Barley feed stock/L Ethanol 2.81 kg/L Etoh Calculated 1 1

Barley feed stock haulage distance 50 km AAE 1 1



Total Truck km 2,250,712 km Calculated 1 1Average Fuel Economy of Truck 54.70 l/100km Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Fuel 1,231,164 L Calculated 1 1

Nett haulage/annum (moist grain) 28,133,903 Nett tkm Calculated 1 1

Moisture content Barley feed stock 10% Percent AAE 1 1

Starch content of Barley feedstock 54% Percent AAE 1 1

Solids content of Barley feedstock 36% Percent AAE 1 1




Tons ethanol/yr from starch equation 158,000 t Calculated 1 1Tons CO2 released during fermentation 145,846 t Calculated 1 1



DDGS/yr 143,796 t AAE 1 1

Moisture content DDGS 10% Moisture AAE 1 1DDGS bone dry weight/yr 129,416 t Calculated 1 1


Sorghum feed stock t/yr 410,603 t Calculated 1 1

Sorghum feed stock t/day 1,125 t Calculated 1 1

Sorghum feed stock/L Ethanol 2.05 kg/L Etoh Calculated 1 1

Sorghum feed stock haulage distance 50 km AAE 1 1



Total Truck km 1,642,412 km Calculated 1 1

Average Fuel Economy of Truck 54.70 l/100km Calculated 1 1

Total Truck Fuel 898,417 L Calculated 1 1Nett haulage/annum (moist grain) 20,530,146 Nett tkm Calculated 1 1

Moisture content Sorghum feed stock 15% Percent AAE 1 1

Starch content of Sorghum feedstock 74% Percent AAE 1 1

Solids content of Sorghum feedstock 11% Percent AAE 1 1




Tons ethanol/yr from starch equation 158,000 t Calculated 1 1




DDGS/yr 59,309 t AAE 1 1Moisture content DDGS 10% Moisture AAE 1 1



8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 12 – Emissions Calculations NSW Ethanol

Determination of NSW Ethanol Emission Factors

LPG/LNG or a Mixture of Both:

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (QLPG x EFLPG)/1000 + (QLNG x EFLNG)

Where: QLPG (GJ) is the estimated quantity of LPG consumed annually (Aust Rank 1).

EFLPG (kgCO2e/GJ) is the full fuel cycle emission factor for LPG non-transport usedetermined by the Australian Greenhouse Office and it includes transport of LPGto distribution points (Aust Rank 2) = 67.6 kgCO2e /GJ

QLNG (t) is the estimated quantity of LNG consumed annually (Aust Rank 1)

EFLNG (tCO2e/tLNG) is the full fuel cycle emissions factor for LNG. The AGO doesnot supply an emission factor for LNG, it is very rarely used as a fuel in Australiathere being a fairly extensive system of natural gas pipelines. The AGO naturalgas emissions factor for large users of natural gas in NSW (68.0 kgCO2e /GJ) isconsidered an acceptable estimate and has been used. An emission factor hasbeen derived from a report on the Cabrillo Deepwater Port (California) by RichardHeede from Climate Mitigation Services (Aus Rank = 6) = 3.64 tCO2e /t LNG (67.5kgCO2e /GJ). The Heede study is Ranked 6 (Aust) because it is not applicable toAustralia and has been rejected. It is only included here as a check on the orderof magnitude of emission co-efficients for LNG generally. Logically, an emissionco-efficient for LNG should be higher because of the extra energy required toform the liquid. On the other hand, fugitive emissions from medium and low

pressure distribution systems that may be significant for natural gas will not beemitted in the transport and delivery of LNG. Therefore, we have assumed theemission factor for LNG will be about the same as for natural gas.Division by 1000 converts kg to tonnes.

Bio Fuels

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (QBF x EC x EFBF)/1000 + (QD x EFD)

Where: QLPG (t) is the estimated quantity of biofuel consumed annually (Aust Rank 1).

EC (GJ/t) is the energy content of the biofuel.

EFBF (kgCO2e/GJ) is the full fuel cycle emission factor for biofuel use determinedby the Australian Greenhouse Office (Aust Rank 2). The AGO advise that underinternational guidelines (IPCCC), the CO2 released from the combustion ofbiofuels is not reported under energy consumption. The AGO does not attributeany emissions to “fuel extraction” of the biofuels included (wood, wood waste andbagasse) but it is considered that emissions from the transport of biofuels should

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




be included in this case. The combustion of biofuels results in the formation ofnitrous oxide that must be reported. The AGO lists wood/wood waste emissionswhen used in a boiler. It is reasonable to assume that other woody wastes suchas almond shells will have similar emissions factor. An emissions factor of 1.4(kgCO2e /GJ) is recommended for biofuels derived from waste streams. In thecase of energy crops grown specifically it is considered that emissions from fossil

fuels, fertilisers etc must be determined and reported for that crop.

QD (kL) is the estimated annual quantity of diesel consumed to transport thebiofuel provided by AAE (Aust Rank 1).

EFD is the full fuel cycle emission factors for diesel use for transport reported bythe AGO (Aust Rank 2) = 3 tCO2-e /kL.Division by 1000 converts kg to tonnes.

Electricity.

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = QE x EFE /1000

Where: QE (kWh) is the estimated annual electricity use (Aust Rank 1).

EFE is the full fuel cycle emission factor for electricity purchased as determinedby the Australian Greenhouse Office (Aust Rank 2) for the State where theproposed plant will be located (see Appendix 10). Division by 1000 converts kg to tonnes.



Where: QD (kL) is the estimated annual quantity of diesel consumed to transport,denaturant, feedstock and product, excludes transport of biomass used for fuel (ifany – see Biofuels) (Aust Rank 1).EFD is the full fuel cycle emission factors for diesel use determined by theAustralian Greenhouse Office (Aust Rank 2) = 3 tCO2-e /kL.

Process Water


Where: QW (ML) is the estimated annual quantity of process water consumed (Aust Rank1).EFW is the emission factor for municipal water use. No Australian factor wasfound. It is reasonable to assume that Australian and United States watertreatment practices are similar, so we have used the emission factor for

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




municipal water use reported by ERG Biofuels Analysis Meta Model (EBAMM – Aust Rank 3) = 25 tCO2-e /ML.

Grain Agriculture

GHG emissions (t CO2-e) = (QCORN / YCORN) x EFCORN) + (QWHEAT / YWHEAT) xEFWHEAT) + (QBARLEY / YBARLEY) x EFBARLEY) + (QSORGHUM / YSORGHUM) x EFSORGHUM)

Where; QCORN (t) is annual estimated corn feedstock requirement supplied by AAE (AustRank = 1).

YCORN (t/ha) is estimated corn yield = 14t/ha QDPI (Aust Rank =2).

EFCORN is the emission factor for corn production in Australia from Beer 2006 AustRank = 2) = 7 t CO2-e /ha.

QWHEAT (t) is annual estimated wheat feedstock requirement supplied by AAE(Aust Rank = 1).

YWHEAT (t/ha) is estimated wheat yield = 3t/ha QDPI (Aust Rank =2).

EFWHEAT is the emission factor for wheat production in Australia from CSIRO2001(Aust Rank = 2) = 0.834 t CO2-e /ha.

QBARLEY (t) is annual estimated barley feedstock requirement supplied by AAE(Aust Rank = 1).

YBARLEY (t/ha) is estimated barley yield = 2t/ha QDPI (Aust Rank =2).

EFBARLEY is the emission factor for barley production in Australia. No Australianemissions data exists for Australia, it has been assumed that emissions frombarley production would be similar to wheat and we have used the factor fromCSIRO 2001(Aust Rank = 2) = 0.834 t CO2-e /ha.

QSORGHUM (t) is annual estimated sorghum feedstock requirement supplied byAAE (Aust Rank = 1).

YSORGHUM (t/ha) is estimated barley yield = 2.73 t/ha QDPI (Aust Rank =2).

EFSORGHUM is the emission factor for sorghum production in Australia. NoAustralian emissions data exists for Australia, it has been assumed thatemissions from sorghum production would be similar to wheat and we have usedthe factor from CSIRO 2001(Aust Rank = 2) = 0.834 t CO2-e /ha


AAE has advised that waste water treatment will be aerobic and therefore, nomethane emissions will be produced. This information has been accepted for thepurposes of greenhouse gas emission modelling, therefore, no methane

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




emissions from waste water treatment have been included. If waste watertreatment at the plant is found to be emitting methane at a later date then themodel will need to be updated to include these emissions.


No details of solid waste disposal to landfill have been provided and it isaccepted that there will probably be minimal amounts of putrescibles solid wastedisposed to landfill. The main solid waste, distiller’s grain, will be sold as stockfodder and any sludge left over from waste water treatment will be disposed tothe municipal sewage system. It is considered that any emissions from themunicipal sewage system are outside the boundaries of this Study as being toohard to quantify and it is reasonable to assume they may not be significant giventhat waste water will be treated aerobically to remove waste organic matterbefore discharge to the sewage system

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 13 – Energy Balance NSW Ethanol

Determination of NSW Ethanol Energy Balance

The energy ratio for NSW ethanol has been determined by dividing the energy contained

in the ethanol output by the total fossil fuel energy required to produce the grain, processthe grain to produce ethanol and transport of grain, product and denaturant (gasoline).The energy consumed to produce the denaturant has also been included. All energyinputs are primary energy i.e., energy consumption has been adjusted to account forlosses in the production and delivery of useful energy to the point of consumption.


AAE advised that either alone or as a combination, wheat, barley, corn or sorghum couldbe used as a feedstock. The formulae below are common to all grain types although

each grain type will have slightly different data mainly in the agricultural phase. In caseswhere more than one grain type is used as a feedstock, the input energy in the EnergyBalance is the sum of energy inputs for each grain used.

AAE have further advised that the proposed NSW plants will be substantially the samedesign as the Beatrice plant with an estimated annual output of 200ML each. Subject toadjustments to account for a 4% lower output, assumptions and estimates applied to theBeatrice plant have been applied to this model.

Energy Ratio = Energy in Ethanol Produced/Total Fossil Energy Used

Energy in Ethanol Produced = Energy in Ethanol + Energy in Denaturant

EEP = (EtOH) x EC ETH) + ((EtOH x DNP) x ECP)

Where; EEP (GJ) is total energy in annual denatured ethanol productionEtOH (kL) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant addedas advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1) EC ETH (GJ/kL) is the energy content of ethanol as advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1)DNP (%) is the denaturant addition percentage as advised by AAE (US Rank = 1)ECP (GJ/kL) is the energy content of petrol (gasoline) from Australian GreenhouseOffice (Aust Rank 2) = 34.2 GJ/kL

Total Fossil Energy Used = Energy Used in (Wheat Agriculture + Grain Transport +Process Water Production + Producing Denaturant (including transport) + EthanolTransport) + Gas Used + Electricity Used

Grain Agriculture

G = ((WFS/Y) x WEC) x AP

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Where; G (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce grainfeedstockY (t/ha) is estimated grain yieldGFS (t) is estimated annual grain feedstock requirement as advised by AAE (Aust Rank

1)WEG is the average energy co-efficient for primary energy consumed in grain agricultureapplicable to grain type under consideration.AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to ethanol agriculture as determinedby the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Grain Transport (Road only)

GT = ((((GFS/ANL) x 2D) x FE)/1000) x EC)/EE) x AP

Where; GT (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to transport grainfeedstock.GFS (t) is estimated annual grain feedstock requirement as advised by AAE (Aust Rank1)ANL (t) is the average nett load for a heavy vehicle (estimated by the authors).D (km) is the average haulage distance of corn advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1).Multiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.FE (L/km) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors) =0.547 L/kmEC (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office Aust Rank2 = 38.6 GJ/kLEE is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (Aust Rank = 4) = 0.843AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to grain feedstock transport asdetermined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres.

Electricity Used in Ethanol Production

E = (EP x ECF)/EEx AP

Where; E(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce electricityconsumed in the production of ethanol.

EP (MWh) is estimated annual amount of electricity purchased as advised by AAE (AustRank 1)ECF is the factor used to convert MWh to GJ = 3.6 GJ/MWhEE is the energy efficiency of electricity i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (Aust Rank = 4) = 0.334AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to electricity consumed to produceethanol as determined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Natural Gas Used in Ethanol Production

NG = (NGP/EE) x AP

Where;

NG(GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to produce natural gasconsumed in the production of ethanol.NGP (GJ) is estimated annual amount of natural gas purchased as advised by AAE(Aust Rank 1)EE is the energy efficiency of natural gas i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (Aust Rank = 4) = 0.94AP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to natural gas used to produceethanol as determined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Process Water Used in Ethanol Production

PW = ((PWP x WEF)/ EFE ) x ECF x AP

Where; PW (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to provide water used inthe production of ethanol.PWP (ML) is estimated annual amount of process water purchased as advised by AAE(Aust Rank 1)WEF (tCO2e/ML) is the greenhouse gas emission factor based on primary energyrequirements to supply as advised by EBAMM (Aust Rank 4)EFE (tCO2e/MWh) is the full fuel cycle emission factors for delivered electricity applicableto the State where the plant is located as advised by AGO (Aust Rank 2).ECF is the factor used to convert MWh to GJ = 3.6 GJ/MWhAP is co-product allocation percentage applicable to process water used in the

production of ethanol as determined by the authors (see discussion above) = 0.59

Denaturant (Gasoline) Used in Ethanol Production Including Transportation

DN = (((((EtOH x DNP)/ANL)/1000) x 2D)/FE)/EED) x ECD) + (((EtOH x DNP)/1000) xECP) + (((EtOH x DNP)/1000) x ECP) x (1 - EEP))

Where; DN (GJ) is annual estimated primary fossil fuel energy required to provide denaturantused in the production of ethanol, including the energy content of the denaturant.

EtOH (L) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant added asadvised by AAE (Aust Rank = 1)DNP (%) is the denaturant addition percentage as advised by AAE (Aust Rank = 1)ANL is the average nett truck load of denaturant estimated by the authorsD (km) is the average haulage distance of corn advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1).Multiplication by 2 is to account for round trip.FE (km/L) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles estimated by the authors.EED is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (US Rank 4) = 0.843

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




ECD (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (AustRank 2) = 38.6 GJ/kLECP (GJ/kL) is the energy content of petrol (gasoline) from Australian GreenhouseOffice (Aust Rank 2) = 34.2 GJ/kLEEP is the energy efficiency of petrol (gasoline) i.e., uplift factor required to convert fromconsumed energy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (Aust Rank 4) = 0.805

Division by 1000 converts from litres to kilolitres

Ethanol Transportation

ET = (((((EtOH x HPRAIL) x (DRAIL/1000)) x FCRAIL) + ((((EtOH x HPROAD)/ANL) x 2DROAD)x FE) + ((((DN x HPRAIL) x (DRAIL)/1000)) x FCRAIL) + ((((DN x HPROAD)/ANL) x 2DROAD) xFE) x ECD)/EED

Where: ET (GJ)is primary energy required to transport denatured ethanol to blending point.EtOH (t) is estimated annual amount of ethanol production before denaturant added asadvised by AAE (Aust Rank 1)HPRAIL is percentage of denatured ethanol product hauled by rail as advised by AAE(Aust Rank 1)DRAIL (km) is average rail haulage distance as advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1)FCRAIL (kL/1000 nett ton km) is rail fuel consumption rate as advised by EnvironmentCanada (Aust Rank 4) = 0.00531kL/1000 nett ton kmHPROAD is percentage of denatured ethanol product hauled by road as advised by AAE(Aust Rank 1)ANL is the average nett truck load of denaturant estimated by the authorsDROAD (km) is average road haulage distance as advised by AAE (Aust Rank 1).Multiplication by 2 accounts for truck round trip. Rail transport assumes one way triponly.FE (kL/km) is the estimated fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles (estimated by the authors)ECD (GJ/kL) is the energy content of diesel from Australian Greenhouse Office (AustRank 2) = 38.6 GJ/kLEED is the energy efficiency of diesel i.e., uplift factor required to convert from consumedenergy to primary energy as advised by Shapouri (Aust Rank 4) = 0.843Division by 1000 to convert from nett ton km to 1000 nett ton km.

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007




Appendix 14 – Comparative Energy Balances -Additional Information

The table in Appendix 3 and repeated below compares the Nett Energy Balance of anumber of fossil fuels and biofuels. The data is drawn from a number of different sources

including USDA, CSIRO and this report. The reader needs to be careful comparing thisdata because it is from a range of sources. In the case of biofuels, the allocation methodused for energy inputs between co-products is critical in determining Nett EnergyBalance. For example, Beer (2001) calculated the embodied energy of biodiesel fromtallow (B100) using the system expansion and economic allocation methods withdramatically differing results.

Using the system expansion method Beer (2001) determined that the energy embodiedin B100 (tallow) was 0.41 MJ/MJ (Energy Balance = 244%) but using the economicallocation method it was 0.17 MJ/MJ (Energy Balance = 488%). This is a clear exampleof the impact the allocation method used can have on life cycle assessment outcomes.

The authors of this report have not used either the system expansion method or theeconomic allocation as employed by other authors. The system expansion method wouldrequire separate full life cycle assessments of products displaced by the product underconsideration and that is considered to be outside the scope of this Study. As well, theauthors have not accepted the traditional economic allocation method based on themarket value of the co-products because of the volatile nature of most commoditymarkets. Rather the authors have developed a modified economic allocation method thatis based loosely on management accounting principles. The authors’ allocation methodconsiders the greenhouse emission cost of bringing a product to it marketable state. Inthe case where a co-product is passed on to a third party not in its final marketable state,then emission and energy input credits are allowed.

Product Initial energy At tank Net Source US Rank Aust Rank

PULP (Aust) 100% 88% -12% Beer (2001) 5 2PULP (USA) 100% 81% -19% Shapouri (2004) 2 4

ULP 100% ? ? N/A N/A N/A

Diesel 100% 84% -16% Shapouri (2004) 5 2

LPG (USA) 100% 99% -1% Shapouri (2004) 5 2LPG (Aust) 100% 94% -6% Beer (2001) 2 4

CNG (Elec Comp) 100% 92% -8% Beer (2001) 2 4CNG (NG Comp) 100% 87% -13% Beer (2001) 2 4

E10 (Beatrice) 100% 88% -12% Authors 1 1

E85 (Beatrice) 100% 143% 43% Authors 1 1

Ethanol (Beatrice) 100% 154% 54% Authors 1 1

E10 (Aust) 100% 87% -13% Authors 1 1

E85 (Aust) 100% 140% 40% Authors 1 1

Ethanol (Aust) 100% 151% 51% Authors 1 1



BD 100 (Tallow Sys Exp ) 100% 244% 144% Beer (2001) 5 2BD 100 (Tallow Econom Alloc) 100% 588% 488% Beer (2001) 5 2

E10 (ULP molasses) 100% ? ? N/A N/A N/A

E85 (PULP mol Sys Exp) 100% 164% 64% Beer (2001) 5 2E85 (PULP mol Econom Alloc) 100% 151% 51% Beer (2001) 5 2

Comparative Energy Balances

8/3/2019 Aae Report Final 22-05-2007



Notwithstanding that the data must be approached with a reasonable degree of caution itis possible to say that, regardless of the allocation method used, and with the exceptionof E10, that biofuels have a positive Nett Energy Balance and will reduce the use offossil fuels when used as a replacement. In the case of E10, the fact that the ethanolpercentage is low it would not be expected to have much of an impact on the significantnegative Energy Balance of ULP and PULP. It is also reasonable to say the data shows

that biodiesel has a greater benefit from a nett energy perspective than does ethanolproduced from grain by fermentation.

The Beatrice ethanol and biodiesel Energy Balances are both slightly less than theleading USA studies but are they both of the same order of magnitude (Beatrice EtOH =154% cf Shapouri = 167%; Beatrice B100 = 303% cf Sheehan = 320%). The Beatricecalculations were based on technical data and engineering parameters provided by AAEprior to the plants being commissioned. It is reasonable to assume that some of theseestimates (such as electricity or LPG consumption) may have been overestimatedreflecting engineering conservatism during the design phase. Consequently, it ispossible that the Energy Balance of the plant in full operation may be higher, and theemissions lower than the estimates calculated in this report.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-shaw
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times