ERIA work onGHG LCA of bioenergy
in selected East Asian countries
Dr. Yuki KudohResearch Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability (RISS),
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
Presented at Session “Examples of GHG LCA of bioenergy in action”,
Capacity Building Workshop on GHG LCA and Policy Applications,
Tokyo International Forum, 15 November, 2011
Background of the project
Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security@ 2nd East Asia Summit, Jan. 15, 2007
…
Encourage the use of biofuels and work towards freer trade on biofuels and a
standard on biofuels used in engines and motor vehicles;
…
Encourage collective efforts in intensifying the search for new and renewable energy
East Asian countries: High potential for biomass resources as energy
2
Encourage collective efforts in intensifying the search for new and renewable energy
resources and technologies, including research and development in biofuels;
…
Biomass should be utilised in a sustainable manner
Need definition of biomass sustainability and its evaluation method
An expert working group (WG) started from 2007 to provide methodology to evaluate sustainability of bioenergy utilisation in East Asian countries under
the support of ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia)
East Asia Summit (EAS)ASEAN 10, Australia, China, India,Japan, Korea and New Zealand+ Russia, USA (from 2011)
ERIA WG on “Sustainability Assessment of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia”
Top down Policy recommendations
ERIA: Economic Research Institutefor ASEAN and East Asia
3
A think tank to analyse regional issues and make policy recommendations for East Asian economic integration
(“Deepening Economic Integration”, “Narrowing Development Gaps” and “Sustainable Economic Development”)
An international project as to sustainability of biomass utilisation as energy in EAS countries is being implemented as one of the energy projects
ERIA WG on“Sustainability Assessment of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia”
for ASEAN and East AsiaEstablished June 2008
WG members list 2010/2011 (As of August 2011)Consisted of 12 researchers from 7 EAS countries
WG LeaderMasayuki SAGISAKA
Senior Researcher, RISS, AIST Japan
Tentative WG LeaderYuki Kudoh
Research Scientist, RISS, AIST Japan
Sau Soon CHENSenior General Manager, Environment & Bioprocess Technology Centre, SIRIM Berhad
Malaysia
Jessie C. ELAURIAProfessor, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, University of the Philippines Los Baños
Philippines
4
Shabbir H. GHEEWALAProfessor, The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Thailand
Udin HASANUDINHead, Department of Agroindustrial Technology, University of Lampung
Indonesia
Hsien Hui KHOOSenior Research Fellow, Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences (ICES), A*STAR
Singapore
Tomoko KONISHI-NAGANO Researcher, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. Japan
Jane ROMEROPolicy Researcher, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Japan
Yucho SADAMICHI Post Doctoral Research Scientist, RISS, AIST Japan
Vinod K. SHARMA Professor, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR) India
Xunpeng SHIAssociate Researcher, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Indonesia
Worldwide initiatives for bioenergy sustainability
Regulatoryframeworks
Biomass Sustainability Order (BioNachV) – Germany, EU Renewable Energy Directive, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) – US, Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) – UK, Social Fuel Seal – Brazil, “Cramer Criteria” – the Netherlands
Voluntary standard / Certificationscheme
Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production, Better Sugarcane Initiative, Council on Sustainable Biomass Production, Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), Green Gold Label 2: Agriculture Source Criteria (GGLS2), International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC), Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), Roundtable on Sustainable Palm oil (RSPO), SEKAB Verified Sustainable Ethanol Initiative
Scorecards IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard, WB/WWF Biofuels Environmental
5
Scorecards IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard, WB/WWF Biofuels EnvironmentalSustainability Scorecard
Initiatives in blue fonts include representatives / companies from EAS countries.Source: Ismail, M. & Rossi, A. 2010. A Compilation of Bioenergy Sustainability Initiatives. Rome: FAO
Major initiatives are led by developed countries
The WG’s final goal is to propose a sound and standardised methodology to evaluate sustainability of biomass utilisation as energy suitable for EAS countries considering the needs and socio-economic situations in this region
WG Concept: Triple bottom lines for sustainable development
3. Social3. Social PillarPillarDomestic/Regional GapDomestic/Regional GapAbatementAbatement(Culture, Education, Poverty, (Culture, Education, Poverty, Health, Peace, Human Rights ..)Health, Peace, Human Rights ..)by HDI (Human Development Index)by HDI (Human Development Index)
6
Environmental Environmental Improvement(Improvement(Global & Global & RegionalRegionalEnvironment…)Environment…)by LCAby LCA
by HDI (Human Development Index)by HDI (Human Development Index)
Economic Economic Sustainability(EconoSustainability(Economic Development)mic Development)by Total Value Addedby Total Value Added
2. Economic Pillar2. Economic Pillar
1. Environmental1. EnvironmentalPillarPillar
Summary of WG progress (2007-2011)Sustainability assessment of biomass utilisation in East AsiaConcept: Triple bottom lines (environment, economic and social pillars)
2007-2008 Extracted issues to be concerned for sustainability assessment of biomass utilisation as energy in EAS counties
“Sustainable Biomass Utilisation Vision in East Asia”Scientific backup for adoption of “Asia Biomass Energy Principles” endorsed by 2nd EAS Energy Ministers’ Meeting in 2008
2008-2009 Developed a methodology to evaluate sustainability of biomass as energy from three
“Guidelines to Assess Sustainability of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia”
7
biomass as energy from three pillars in EAS countries
2009-2010 Conducted pilot studies in fourselected EAS countries to field-test the methodology developed
“Sustainability Assessment of Biomass Energy Utilisation in Selected East Asian Countries”
2010-2011 Proposed an upgraded methodology by reflectinglessons learned from the pilot studies
“Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Biomass Energy Utilisation for Small and Large Scale Initiatives: Lessons Learned from Pilot Studies in Selected East Asian Countries” (Now editing)
WG methodologyfor biomass sustainability assessment
Environment: Life cycle GHG emissionsSystem boundary:Feedstock cultivation, feedstock collection, bioenergy production
Economic::::Total value addedBenefit by bioenergy utilisation
Social: HDI (Human Development Index)Definition by UNDP
Calculation method and required data for calculation are provided in the guideline
Direct users of the methodology:Academics, consultants,
8
Definition by UNDPEndpoint impact by employment
Academics, consultants, technical officers, etc.
Results of sustainability assessment:Support decision makers (politicians, stakeholders, etc.) …• compare the sustainability of biomass energy options• make decision on whether or not to start / continue biomass energy initiatives
Ex ante evaluation: biomass energy initiatives being plannedEx post evaluation: biomass energy initiatives being implemented
Indicator for environmental pillar• LCA: Life cycle GHG emissions (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
• Inventory analysis
– Data collection from study sites (foreground data)
• Agricultural feedstock cultivation
• Feedstock transport
• Energy conversion plants
– Process of energy conversion
– Utilisation of byproducts
9
– All input-output inventories
» Emissions to air, water, soil
» Emissions by waste treatment
– Data collection from literatures / database (background data)
• Impact Assessment
– Environmental impact category (EIP) considered: Global warming
– EIP = Σ(QxxGWPx)
– where
• Qx: Amount of substance “x”
• GWPx: GWP of substance “x” (IPCC AR4 GWP for a 100 year horizon)
Relevance to GBEP common methodological framework for GHG LCA of bioenergy
Example of system boundary for biomass energy LCAa) Cradle to grave: production of feedstock to final bioenergy use
= Well to wheel studies for automotive fuelsb) Cradle to gate: production of feedstock to production of bioenergy
= Well to tank studies for automotive fuelsc) Gate to grave: production of feedstock, production of bioenergy, use
of bioenergy are separate entities
GBEP GHG methodological framework ERIA project
GBEP
ERIA
10
Step 1 GHGs covered ✓
Step 2 Source of biomass ✓
Step 3 Land use change −
Step 4 Biomass feedstock production ✓
Step 5 Transport of biomass ✓
Step 6 Processing into fuel ✓
Step 7 By-products and co-products ✓
Step 8 Transport of fuel −
Step 9 Fuel use −
Step 10 Comparison with replaced fuel ✓
GHG emissions by LULUCWorldwide recognition that impact of land use and land use change (LULUC) towards life cycle GHG emissions of bioenergy could be significant
Direct effect: ex) Tier approaches of IPCC GPG-LULUCFTier 1: Using default valuesTier 2: Using country-specific emission factors (when available)Tier 3: Using more complex models or detailed surveys (when available)
Indirect effect: Difficult to demonstrate its causal effect and quantify
11
The WG thinks that …• There is still limited consensus on various aspects of methodology and
conversion factors used in the calculation• Studies are still on-going and expected to provide more scientific evidence of
the appropriate values that can be adopted to calculate the GHG emissions associated with LULUC in future
GHG emission from LULUC are excluded from the system boundary of the present WG methodologyHowever, future considerations for relevant environmental impacts will be included, especially on losses of carbon stock from LULUC
Andhra Pradesh, India: Biodiesel from Oil Trees(Jatropha, Pongamia)
Pilot study sites in selected EAS countriesCollection of primary and secondary data (interviews and statistics) from actual biomass energy projects/sites����Field-tested the methodology developed (2009-2010) and reflect experiences and lessons learned to the upgraded methodology (2010-2011)
AIST:Lead the discussion,WG management
12
Khon Kaen, Thailand:Bioethanol from Sugarcane
Lampung, Indonesia:Biofuels fromCassava and Jatropha
(Jatropha, Pongamia)
Quezon, the Philippines:
Biodiesel from Coconut Oil
Pilot study in Khon Kaen, Thailand
KHON KAEN
13
Khon Kaen Sugar Industry Public Co., Ltd. Khon Kaen Sugar Power Plant Co., Ltd.Khon Kaen Alcohol Co., Ltd. (Ethanol and fertilizer plant)
KHON KAENSUGAR INDUSTRY PUBLICCO., LTD. (KSL Group)
ESTABLISHED IN 1976
Sugar biorefinery complex
Sugar
Molasses
Ethanol (Alcohol 99.5%)
Fertiliser
14
Farmer Sugar factory
Molasses
Fertiliser plant
Bagasses; Cane fibre Electricity
Waste waterEthanol plant
Power plantFilter cake; Cane dirties
Steam
70% of cane leaf:Direct burning
• Plantation area: 320~480km2• 80% of raw materials from farmer• 4,000 contracts: year by year• 2% of raw materials from factory• Average distance farms-factory = 50km
Inventory data collection• Sugarcane production
– Fuel, fertiliser, herbicide, cane trash burning
• Sugar/molasses production
– Production capacity, fuel use, electricity use, surplus electricity sold to the grid, chemical use, waste management/utlisation
• Ethanol conversion
– Production capacity, fuel use, electricity use, waste management/utlisationsuch as biogassuch as biogas
• Biomass power plant
– Production capacity, fuel use, electricity use, surplus electricity sold to the grid, chemical use, waste management/utilisation
• Fertiliser production
– Production capacity, fuel use, electricity use, chemical use, waste utilisation
• All transport activities
– Distance, transport mode, capacity
15
Information collected via questionnaire surveys, interviews, factory reports, literature
Sugarcane
species
Fuel
Water
Fertiliser
Herbicide
Land preparation
New cane cultivation
Cane maintenance
Harvesting
Ratooning
Ratooncane
Air emission
Water emission
Cane trash (open
burning)
Chemicals
Sugarcane
Water
Electricity
Syrup
Juice extraction
Sugar production
Juice clarification
EvaporationCrystallisationCentrifugaling
Filter cake
Molasses
Raw sugarWhite sugarRefined sugar
Waste
Wastewater
Sugarcane
cultivation
Steam and Electricity
Steam and Electricity generation
Bagasses
Sugarcane production Sugar production
Sugarcane production
Sugarproduction
Input Output Input
Output
16
cultivation
Enzyme
Molasses
Chemicals
Water
Fermentation
Distillation
Dehydration
Spent wash
Fusel oil
99.5% EtOH
Fertiliserproduction
Organic fertiliser
Water
Bagasses BoilerSteam turbine
Cooling tower
Air emission
Electricity
Steam
Wastewater
CO2
EtOH + fertiliser production Biomass power plant
EtOHproduction
Fertiliserproduction
Electricity generation
Reference flow:1t-sugarcane↔ 160m2 of land↔ 15.48kWh of electricity from bagasse↔ 14.95L of EtOH from molassess↔ 0.018kg of fertiliser from cake and spent wash
Input
Output
Input
Output
OutputInput
Life cycle GHG emissions results
EtOH [kg-CO2eq.]Gasoline [kg-
CO2eq.]Base
scenario
Scenario 1Scenario 2
0% 35%
Production 13.50 5.91 8.38 11.20 5.04
Use - - - - 21.66
Total 13.50 5.91 8.38 11.20 26.70
17
Total 13.50 5.91 8.38 11.20 26.70
Note: Results based upon reference flow of 1t-sugacane = 14.95l-EtOH,which is equivalent to 9.89l-gasolineScenario 1: Percentage of cane trash burning (base case is assumed as 70%)Scenario 2: Utilisation of excess steam
Benefits of sugarcane biorefinery:• A reduction of GWP by 50% of EtOH as compared to gasoline (Base scenario)• A further reduction by 70% and up to 80% when cane trash burning is reduced
or avoided (Scenario 1)• A potential additional 10% GHG savings from utilisation of unused steam
(Scenario 2)
Environmental: Life cycle GHG emissions• Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a well established, standard technique for
quantifying GHG emissions and is applicable at any biomass initiatives
Economic: Total value added• Understanding the components of total value added (net profit, personnel
remuneration, tax revenue) will help stakeholders decide to proceed with/continue the biomass initiatives
Lessons learned from pilot studiesWG advantage: Field-tested the methodology developed(Only a few other biomass sustainability initiative have gone through)
with/continue the biomass initiatives
Social: HDI (endpoint impact by employment)• HDI can be used for macro scale initiatives but is difficult to assess for micro
scale initiatives because of data unavailability• Midpoint indicators which can directly capture the social effect by biomass energy
utilisation initiatives are required for quantitative evaluation
18
By reflecting the above lessons learned and the latest trend of bioenergy sustainability initiatives, the WG proposed an upgraded methodology suitable for biomass utilisation as energy in EAS countries• Sustainability indicators applicable for micro and macro scale biomass utilisation• Issues to be concerned for more scientific and practical sustainability assessment
Indicators for micro and macro scale initiatives
Project Community Province State NationalMicro scale initiatives Macro scale initiatives
Environment:LC GHG
Applicable at any level(Follow internationally accepted methodologies such as ISO and IPCC for LCA and LULUC emissions)
Economic:Total value added
Applicable at any levelIncome approach Production approach
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
19
Employment generation
Access to modern energy
“A long and healthy life”(Improvement in health, life expectancy, etc.)
“Knowledge”(Enrolment in education, improvement in adult literacy rate, etc.)
“A decent standard of living”(Increase in personal income, etc.)
Social:
Midpoint indices
Endpoint
indices HDI and other endpoint indices
The way forward of the WGTo propose sound and standardised methodology for
sustainability assessment of bioenergy in EAS countries
Dissemination of the WG methodology
• Hold training/seminar on the methodology for EAS country representatives
Extend and accumulate the WG research experience
• Conduct case studies using the upgraded methodology� Evaluate sustainability of biomass energy initiatives using various
feedstocks in EAS countries
20
feedstocks in EAS countries• Extend the environmental impact from GHG emissions to other impact
categories (emissions to air, soil, water, etc.)• From “biomass utilisation as energy” to “biomass utilisation”
• Some feedstock can create higher value added by biomass utilisation as material than energy
• Discuss the role of biomass energy within the total energy system in EAS countries, etc.� Comparison with conventional and other renewable energy options
Policy support on what kinds of and how bioenergy should be utilised and implemented in a sustainable manner in each EAS country
Other pilot study site:Andhra Paradesh, India (Oil trees)
Plantation site (Jatropha)FAME from oil trees
21
Jatropha seed Pongamia seed
Crude Jatropha oil extraction Crude Pongamia oilEsterification plant
FAME from oil trees
Other pilot study site:Lampung, Indonesia (Cassava)
Cassava production Ethanol productionCassava transport
Fuel
UreaNPK fertiliser
Fuel
EthanolCoal
CO2
22
Waste waster
Cassava root
Biogas(CH4)
CompostPeelWet cake
Chemicals
Other pilot study site:Lampung, Indonesia (Jatropha)
Jatropha plantation village Crude Jatropha oil extraction Crude Jatropha oil
23
Jatropha plantation village
Jatropha as intercrop
Crude Jatropha oil extraction Crude Jatropha oil
Jatropha cake Biogas from Jatropha cake(Gas for cooking)
Other pilot study site:Quezon, the Philippines (Coconuts)
Mature Coconut Coconut shell and copra
24
Coconut tree
Mature Coconut Coconut shell and copra
Coconut oil extractionfrom dried copra
FAME from coconut
Thank you very much for yourkind attention!
Dr. Yuki Kudoh
“Sustainability Assessment of Biomass Energy Utilisationin Selected East Asian Countries” edited by the WG is available at:
http://www.eria.org/research/y2009-no12.html
The latest WG report 2010-2011 shall be available at ERIA website soon