Task 38
Greenhouse Gas Balances
of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems
Task 38 Activities
Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird
Finland
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Croatia
USA
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries
Participating Countries
and NTLs 2008
Task 38
Page 2
Australia
Austria
Annette Cowie
Co-Task Leader
Susanne Woess-Gallasch
Neil Bird, Task Leader
Belgium
Croatia
Florence Van Stappen
Ana Kojakovic
Finland
Germany
Sampo Soimakallio
Kim Pingoud
Sebastian Rüter
Sweden
United States
Kenneth Möllersten
Mark Downing
Task 38
Objectives of Task 38





Page 3
Develop, demonstrate and apply standard
methodology for GHG balances
Increase understanding of GHG outcomes of
bioenergy and carbon sequestration
Address policy relevant issues on GHG
mitigation
Promote international exchange of ideas,
models and scientific results
Aid decision makers in selecting mitigation
strategies that optimize GHG benefits
Task 38
Page 4
Methodology for GHG balance
Task 38


Compare project with reference
Define System boundary



Consider whole system life cycle



Direct emissions (e.g. fossil fuels during cultivation, harvesting, Land
LUC and carbon stocks…)
Indirect emissions (e.g. upstream emissions from production of
fertilizer, displacement of land use activities…)
Land Use Change




Deliver equivalent service
All greenhouse gases: CO2, N2O and CH4
Direct LUC is quantifiable (C stock changes in carbon pools of
forests and agricultural land)
Indirect LUC more difficult to assess (CDM tool ignores indirect LUC)
Efficiencies of energy production/conversion
By-products (expansion of system or energy allocation)
In compliance with ISO 14040 and 14044
Page 5
Task 38
Soil carbon paper
Does soil carbon loss in biomass production
systems negate the greenhouse benefits of
bioenergy?
(Author: Annette Cowie, 2006)
 Review includes:





natural processes
impacts of farming and forestry
potential impacts of bioenergy systems
management practices to promote soil carbon
monitoring soil carbon
 Systems modelled (with FullCAM):
Page 6
 conventional forestry (2 different systems)
 short rotation forestry
Austria and USA: GORCAM
Task 38
Model results: Carbon balance of a fuelwood plantation on
agricultural land and bioenergy use of the fuel wood
Cumulative C sequestr. [tC ha-1]
600
Fossil fuel input is
generally a negative
value and brings the top
line of the pattern down
to the ultimate total
(thick black line)
500
400
300
Credit for energy substitution
200
Litter
100
Trees
Soil
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time [years]
Page 7
70
80
90
100
T38 Case studies - GHG balances
Task 38



Australia:
 co-firing biomass with coal; wood fired power plant using timber
plantations
 Char as a soil amendment
Austria: Maize to biogas for electricity

Ireland:
 peat use for energy
 municipal solid waste as a energy fuel
Netherlands: biomass import options

New Zealand: bioenergy CHP plant using sawmill residues

UK: small heating systems using conventional forestry and miscanthus


Canada:
 pyrolysis plant for bio-Oil production using sawmill residues and
thinnings
 Pellet production
Finland and Sweden: timber for house construction and residues for energy

Croatia: biodiesel in the Joint Implementation context

USA: anaerobic digestion of animal manure
Reports available at: www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/projects/
Page 8
Task 38
Case Study Biogas Plant Paldau
Results on covered / uncovered storage of
digested material (measurements):
 Concerning Biogas:
 More production of biogas when storage covered: circa
34.000 Nm3/a (+1,5%)
 Concerning el. energy output:
 covered storage: 4.02 MWh/a
+1,9%: CH4 concentration higher in biogas from
storage: 63,8% instead 48,8%
 uncovered storage: 3.95 MWh/a
 Concerning heat:
 7.250 MWh/a potential: only 1.15 MWh/a used
Seite 9
 Concerning methane losses in the uncovered storage:
 covered:
~ 0 t/a
 Uncovered:
+15.6 t/a CH4 (+360 CO2 –eq t/a)
Task 38
LCA Biogas Plant Paldau
CO2–Eqivalents per year
Biogas plant
Paldau
CO2-Equivalents t/a
Effect of
methane slip in
gas engines
6.000
P3
5.000
Biogas plant
Using manure
P4
Reference system
100 % use of
heat from biogas
plant
4.000
3.000
P2
P1
Biogas plant
open storage
Biogas plant
closed
storage
2.000
1.000
Reference system
17 % use of heat
from biogas plant
0
0
- 1.000
Seite 10
5
10
15
20
CH4 – Losses %
25
30
35
Key Findings 1
Task 38

GHG mitigation through bioenergy
 technology specific
 site specific (LUC)




Page 11
Bioenergy systems using process residues
and wastes have usually greatest GHG
benefits and least negative impacts;
Synergies between bioenergy, wood
production and management for carbon sinks;
Project sites without competing land-use (e.g.
non-productive, marginal or set aside land)
have less negative impacts on land-use;
Better benefits by cascading use (e.g.
production of HWP by log wood, and woody
residuals for bioenergy);
Key Findings 2
Task 38

GHG benefits to be optimized (in dependance
of goal)






Page 12
Per ha of land
Per ton of biomass used
Per unit of capital invested
Per unit of energy output
(T38 paper on “Optimizing the GHG benefits of bioenergy systems”.
Proceedings of the 14th EU Biomass Conference, Paris, October 2005)
In case of a / reforestation timing carbon
sequestration and release during growth and
harvest is of high importance
Technology development for efficient
production / conversion of biomass energy is
essential to keep costs down and use land
efficiently
Task 38 Workshops
Task 38
Page 13

Joint Task 29/38/40 Expert Meeting
on “Sustainable Bioenergy”
Dubrovnik October 25-27, 2007
presentations available:
www.ieabioenergytask38.org/workshops/dubrovnik07/

Task 38 International Workshop in
Salzburg, Austria, Feb. 5th 2008,
“Transportation biofuels: For GHG
mitigation, energy security or
other reasons?”
presentations
available: www.ieabioenergytask38.org/workshops/salzburg08/
Task 38
Draft Position Paper: GHG of
Bioenergy and other Energy Systems
Based on key statements, supported by
literature. The aim is to
 Discuss importance of LCA and to cover key aspects
 Compare the most important bioenergy chains with
their fossil and renewable competitors
Main issues to be covered:
 Energy and GHG aspects of bioenergy chains
 Comparison with reference energy systems
 Deployment strategies for bioenergy
Page 14
www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/reimpact
RE-Impact
•
Europe AID - Programme on Tropical Forests and other Forests in Developing
Countries
•
Rural Energy Production from Bioenergy Projects: Providing regulatory and
impact assessment frameworks, furthering sustainable biomass production
policies and reducing associated risks
•
Emphasis concerning biomass resources
–
–
•
Jatropha
Forest resources
Outputs
–
Tools to assess the bioenergy production impacts:
•
–
Case studies
•
–
–
Water, GHGs, Social, Biodiversity
China, India, South Africa, Uganda
Modular impact assessment guidelines
Policy support
•
•
Assess likely land-use changes caused by policies
Assess impacts on forests of increased energy requirements
RE-Impact: Forestry based Bioenergy for Sustainable Development
FT Diesel Polygeneration Plant
(Feasibility, incl. GHG and energy balance based on life cycle )
Biofuel
Wood
Electricity
Wood chips
35,000 t/a
Biofuel
GHG red.
3.4 Mio. l/a
> 80%
Fuel
Electricity
Heat (70/90°C)
Efficiency
(11%e, 40%h, 29%f)
Heat
15 MWf
1.6 MWel
5.8 MWth
80%
Rethinking Propulsion.
Biofuel and Biorefinery Research at Joanneum Research – 28 May 2008
Institute of
Energy Research
Change of Land Use: From
Cotton to Cynara as Energy Crop
Class 3, Area : 2.6 ha
220
Land use
change
200
[tC]
180
160
140
Vegetation [tC]
120
Dead organic matter [tC]
Soil [tC]
Source: ACISA
100
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Time [yrs]
2030
2040
2050
Task 38
Thank you for your attention
susanne.woess@joanneum.at
neil.bird@joanneum.at
www.ieabioenergy-task38.org
Finland
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Croatia
USA
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries