Sustainable Bioenergy and Biofuels: The Success Story of Brazil
Manoel Regis L. V. LealCTBE – Brazilian Bioethanol Science and technology
Laboratory
Bangkok, Thailand – June 05, 2013
Renewable Energy Asia 2013
Contents
BiodieselBioelectricityBioethanol
•Brief history•Technology•Production model•Sustainability•Certification•GHG emissions• Land use issues
Key to Success With Bioenergy
A good combination of:
Driving forces Technology development and use Public policies Capacity building Proper choice of feedstock Size and tradition of the agriculture sector
Biodiesel, Bioelectricity and Bioethanol Three Different Stories in Brazil
Different driving forces, past experience and legal frameworkCompetitiveness in face of conventional energy alternativesGovernment interestExisting experience and technology
Biodiesel
Biodiesel• Tentatives in the 1980s without success• Launching of the Biodiesel Production and Use National Program (PNPB) targeting B5 – Legal Framework established in 2004
• Driving forces: decrease diesel imports and support family agriculture
• Today: B5 countrywide, 2.8 billion liter production and 7.7 billion installed capacity
• Sales through auctions organized by government with a reference price
• Needs subsidies
Biodiesel – Support to Family Agriculture
The PNPB introduced rules to favor family agriculture providing technical assistance and tax reduction for biodiesel produced from feedstocks derived from family agriculture and poor regions
Tax reduction (Social Seal)• Family agriculture in North, Northeast and Semiarid Regions: castor
beans and palm 100% social tax reduction; in other regions 68% social tax reduction
• Large scale agriculture in North, Northeast and Semiarid Regions: castor beans and palm 32% social tax reduction; in other regions there is no tax reduction
• In 2010 there were more that 100,000 qualified family agriculture units
Biodiesel Feedstocks
Source: EPE, 2012
Biodiesel Outlook
Source: EPE. 2012
Bioelectricity
There are two types of markets for electricity: the regulated market(ACR) and free market (ACL)ACR: E.E. sold though auctions organized by government with reference prices (app. 80% of market)ACL: E.E. sold by direct negotiation between supplier and userProblems for sugarcane E.E.: competition with wind power and difficulties and high costs of interconnection with the grid
Bioenergy Generation Profile in 2008
Biofuel E.E. (GWh)
Capacity(MW)
Tarrif1(R$/MWh)
Wood wastes 460 130 101.35Sugarcane residues 8,357 2,845 93.77
Rice straw 264 10 103.20Black liquor2 5,199 696 101.35
Biogas ‐ 0.03 169.08
Total 14,279 3,681 ‐
Source: MME, COGENNotes:1. PROINFA tariffs referred to March 2004 (R$ 1.70/US$); today all types o
bioelectricity dispute the market with the same reference price. PROINFA is a National Program aimed at supporting renewable energy in power generation
2. Residue from pulp/paper industry
Bioelectricity Potential
The potential is mainly in the surplus electricity from the sugarcane mills
New mills are being built with state of the art energy sector and several old mills are retrofitting the energy sector
In 2009 111 mills (28% of the 393) were selling EE; those mills crushed 47% of the total cane
Competition from wind power is slowing down the expansion
Interconnection with the grid needs be discussed
The Mill E.E. Generation Profile
Units selling EE Units not selling EE TotalNo. of Units 111 282 393
% of units 28 72 100Milled cane (Mtc/a) 283 320 603% of milled cane 47 53 100Avg mill capacity (Mtc/a) 2,550 1,134 1,534
Installed capacity (MW) 3,844 1,731 5,575EE generation (GWh/a) 13,472 5,648 19,120EE sale (GWh/a) 7,318 ‐ 7,318Specific EE sale (kWh/tc) 26 ‐ ‐
Source: CONAB, 2010
Mills Surplus Power Generation Potential
Source: EPE, 2012
Note: using bagasse only
Surplus Power Potential VS Contracted Energy
Source: EPE, 2012
Note: Using bagasse only
Future of Surplus EE Generation in the Mills
There is a reasonable probability that the potential do not materializeMain problems are lack of public policies to solve the competitiveness and interconnection problemsAlthough the present situation is the mills genera EE only during the crushing season (7 months) the period is very dry and coincides with low levels in the hydro plants reservoirs
Ethanol ‐ A Brief History
1905‐1920 Trials to develop ethanol fuel applications1920s Trials continued and government support the research in ethanol in Otto cycle
engines1931 Government mandated 5% ethanol blend in the gasoline1933 Creation of Sugar and Alcohol Institute (IAA)to control the sugarcane sector1940‐1945 Increased use of ethanol fuel use due to oil supply import problems (WWII)1945‐1975 Ethanol fuel use on an as available base (5‐7% blend, mostly)1969‐1970 Creation of the two main sugarcane breeding programs (SP and RB varieties)1975 Launching of the National Alcohol Program (Proalcool)1975‐1979 Fast growth of ethanol production in distilleries annexed to existing mills1979 Auto industry starts to offer neat ethanol cars; CTC is created1980‐1985 Building of autonomous distilleries (cane juice) – ethanol production increase1990‐2000 Deregulation of the sugarcane sector – free market operation, no subsidies1990 Extinction of IAA – sector under self control2003 Introduction of the Flexible Fuel Vehicles2005 New fast expansion phase2008 Financial crisis
Ethanol Car ‐ 1925
Sugarcane, Sugar and Ethanol Production
Source: CTBE based on information from UNICA, UDOP, MAPA, ALCOPAR
Main Technology Improvements
Agriculture• Breeding: four programs, with two dominating with around 90% of planted area;
varieties RB (Planalsucar/Ridesa) and SP (CTC) are introduced in the canefields;GM sugarcane varieties started to be developed in 1994
• Agriculture management: full integration with factory, TI, fleet optimization, cane transport improvements, residues application, entomology and biocontrol, satellite images, benchmarking
• Mechanization: harvesting and plating, GPS/automatic pilot
Industry• Gains in efficiency, yields and scale• Automation• Benchmarking
Energy• From an energy buyer (EE and firewood) to an energy seller (EE and bagasse)• Increase in steam pressure : 15 bar to 21 bar to 67/100 bar• Turbo‐generators from single stage/back pressure to multi stage condensing/extraction• Use of trash (incipient)
Increase in Availability of Commercial Varieties
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
`84 `85 `86 `87 `88 `89 `90 `91 `92 `93 `94 `95 `96 `97 `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03
NA56-79 SP70-1143
RB72454
SP71-1406
SP71-6163
CB45-3
SP81-3250
SP79-1011
RB835486
RB855536
SP80-1842
SP80-1816
RB785148IAC52-150
CB41-76
Source: CTC
Technology Improvement ‐ Industry
1975 2005Milling capacity‐ 6x78” tandem (tc/day)
5,500 14,000
Fermentation time (h) 16 8
Extraction efficiency (%) 93 97
Fermentation efficiency(%) 82 91
Distillation efficiency (%) 98 99.5
Distillery global efficiency (%) 66 86
Boiler efficiency (%) 66 88
Source: DEDINI, CTC
Global Improvements
66%
36%
125%
-69%
42%
135%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Ano
Efficiency improvements and cost reductions in the sugarcane sector from 1975 to 2008
Sugarcane yield (from 46.8 to 77.5 ton/ha) Ethanol yield (from 59.2 to 80.4 L/ton of sugarcane)
Ethanol yield (from 2,772 to 6,234 L/ha) Sugarcane cost (from 44.4 to 13.8 US$/ton)
Ethanol cost(from 1.20 to 0.38 US$/L) Sugar yield (from 99.9 to 142.0 kg/ton of sugarcane)
Sugar yield (from 4.7 to 11.0 ton/ha)
Production Model
In the beginning of Proalcool: distilleries were annexed to existing mills In the Proalcool stagnation phase (1986 – 20010) sugar factories were
annexed to the autonomous distilleries New expansion phase (from 2005): both autonomous distilleries and
sugar/ethanol integrated plants were installed After the power sector deregulation there has been and increasing
modernization of the old mills to generate surplus electricity and most of the new mills already come with the state of the art energy section
• There has been a change from a food industry to a food and power industry
• In 2009, there were 111 mills, out of 393, selling surplus electricity (26 kWh/tc, avg) and they represented 47% of the crushed cane
Sustainability – The Challenges
It is a highly subjective concept There is a significant quantity of criteria and indicators that are
dependent on the local conditions Methodologies are still in developing stage Lack of reliable and traceable data in a level of spatial and
temporal disaggregation adequate for the case under study Too many certification systems available Different requirements from different countries
Biofuels Sustainability Certification Initiatives
Main Biofuels Certification Systems
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) BONSUCRO: by the end of 2012 there were 28 mills certified,
two in Australia and 26 in Brazil
GBEP Sustainability Pillars
GBEP Indicators
Main International Legislations
Renewable Energy Directive (RED): EU• Minimum 10% renewable energy in transport by 2020 • Threshold values for GHG emission reduction: 35% in 2013, 50% in 2017
and 60% in 2018, including LUC/ILUC emissions• No cropping in areas that are protected, with high carbon stock or with a
high biodiversity value
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2): USA• Target of 136 billion L (36 billion gallons) in 2022• Threshold values for GHG emission reduction of 20% for renewable
fuels, 50% for advanced biofuels, 60% for 2G biofuels• No cropping in areas that are protected, with high carbon stock or with a
high biodiversity value
Some Key Points of Sustainability
GHG emission reduction Displacement of fossil fuels Natural resources demand (land, water) Impacts on soil and water quality Production costs Land use change (LUC) Impacts on food production Social impacts Impacts on biodiversity
All these items bear a strong dependence on land demand, thus on the biofuel feedstock productivity
Brazilian Ethanol Energy Balance and GHG LCA
Source: Macedo et al., 2008
Note: LUC and ILUC derived emissions are not included
Energy Balance and LCA GHG Emissions
The agriculture area is responsible for 90% of fossil energy consumption and 94% of GHG emissions
Soil and straw burning GHG emissions (non‐CO2) represent around 55% of agricultural area emissions
Agricultural operations consume 40% of fossil energy related to cane production
More than 2/3 of GHG emissions depend solely on cultivated area
LUC and ILUC emissions also depend only on the cropped area, and they can have a significant impact on the total LCA GHG emissions
US EPA – 1st Round
Source: EPA, 2010
US EPA – 2nd Round
Source: EPA, 2011
RED Default Values
Biofuel Production Pathway
Typical GHG Emission Saving
(%)
Default GHGEmission Saving
(%)
Wheat ethanol (lignite in CHP plant)
32 16
Wheat ethanol (NG in CHP) 53 47
Corn ethanol, Community produced (NG in CHP)
56 49
Sugar beet ethanol 61 52
Sugarcane ethanol 71 71
Farmed wood ethanol (2G) 76 70
Farmed wood Fischer‐Tropsch diesel (2G)
93 93
Source: Directive 2009/28/EC (RED)Note: ILUC derived emissions not included
ILUC Derived Emissions Simulation
Biofuel ILUC Derived Emissions(gCO2e/MJ)
Net Emission Reduction(%)1
Ethanol‐sugar beet 13 ‐36
Ethanol‐sugarcane 132 ‐56
Ethanol‐corn 12 ‐35
Ethanol‐wheat 12 ‐7
Source: EC, 2012
Notes:1Negative values represent emission reduction with respect to displaced fossil fuels.2 GHG emissions in LCA= 20.6 gCO2e/MJ (Macedo et al. 2008)
Only sugarcane ethanol will meet the minimum threshold values of RED after 2017
Sugarcane Agroecological Zoning
Notes:1. 64.5 Mha of land available for sugarcane
cultivation with low impacts2. This means that 92.5 % of Brazilian territory
is not available for sugarcane cultivation
Sugarcane Expansion: 2003 to 2012
Source: CTC
Brazilian GHG Emissions By Sector (2005)
Sector GWP2005 (Mt CO2e) Participation (%)
Energy 328.8 15.0Industrial processes 77.9 3.6Agriculture 415.8 18.9
LULUCF 1,329.1 60.6Waste treatment 41.0 1.9Total 2,194.6 100.0
Source: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Dynamics of Sugarcane Expansion in CS Brazil (LUC)
Agricultural Area Outlook
Actions to Reduce Brazil GHG Emissions
• Deforestation: establish targets, monitor and enforce the law
• LU: AEZ, cattle/forestry/agricultural integration• Energy: maintain or improve the participation of renewable energies in the energy matrix
• Transport: increase the use of biofuels and improve vehicle efficiency
