Winrock's White Paper on GHG Implications Biofuel

Reads:

2,575

Uploaded:

04/22/2009

Category:

Research

Rated:

Copyright:

Attribution Non-commercial

The Impact of Expanding Biofuel
Production on GHG emissions
White paper #1: Accessing and interpreting existing data.
WINROCK INTERNATIONAL
... (More) The Impact of Expanding Biofuel
Production on GHG emissions
White paper #1: Accessing and interpreting existing data.
WINROCK INTERNATIONAL

Winrock just published a white paper that synthesizes existing scientific data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the production and expansion of biofuels. It is specifically focused towards assisting organizations that are developing sustainability standards for biofuels with the collection and interpretation of data.

For instance, the paper points out that, “Sugarcane demonstrates particularly robust GHG savings through the use of bagasse as an energy source but potential still exists to improve boiler efficiency in many instances that would enable greater electricity production and export which would further improve GHG emissions.”

The paper is based on peer-reviewed data and published GHG calculation methodologies and is principally focused on currently commercial biofuel production from sugarcane, corn, soy, rapeseed, palm oil and on future feedstocks (lignocellulosic material); switchgrass, miscanthus, agricultural and woody residues and short rotation coppice.
[More...] While this blog is most interested in sugarcane, we note that the white paper illustrates that:

* Existing modeling approaches cannot yet effectively and robustly define the global GHG impact of expanding biofuel production.
* Studies with system boundaries that measure "well-to-wheel" GHG emissions can identify key contributing parameters within the biofuel supply chain. This approach can be used to develop appropriate guidelines to reduce GHG emissions.
* The well-to-wheel system boundaries as currently defined in many tools could provide future risks of double counting emissions or reductions e.g. emissions associated with fertilizer production counted in the chemical industry are also counted in the biofuel calculation.
* Reported well-to-wheel GHG emissions can vary according to methodological decisions, the use of different emission factors and uncertainties in data e.g. N2O emissions from soil.
* Well-to-wheel GHG emissions can also vary substantially on the basis of different cultivation practices and fuels used to process biofuel. It is not possible to classify biofuel as "good" or "bad" on the basis of the feedstock they are developed from alone.
* The uncertainty associated with N2O emissions from soil is significant and yet is a key component of the GHG emission profile of biofuels. Many tools being developed for sustainability standards rely on default IPCC calculations for N2O emissions. Detailed models for calculating emissions exist in the US and Europe.
* Emissions associated with fertilizer manufacture differ between different types and play a key role in the emissions associated with biofuel crop cultivation. Opportunities to substantially reduce these emissions for ammonium nitrate production through GHG pricing mechanisms exist and would positively impact the GHG balance for biofuel.
* Emissions associated with some types of land use change can negate GHG savings associated with biofuels and lead to long „carbon payback times?.
* Co-product treatment method has a large impact on the GHG savings reported. There is no internationally agreed and consistent approach.
* Cultivation management practices to increase soil carbon sequestration and effective utilization of co-products can play a role in improving the GHG balance of biofuels, providing they are maintained long-term. Some emerging co-product markets (food grade CO2) and their GHG implications have not yet been addressed.
* The reported GHG savings for biofuels differ depending on the reference they are compared to. A fuel that demonstrated an 80% GHG saving against a high carbon intensity reference translates into greater savings calculated as gCO2eq/MJfuel than if the 80% GHG saving is related to a lower carbon intensity reference. If GHG benefits were mon (Less)