1

The impacts of lignocellulosic biomass-based biofuel production on land use changes in EuropeBy Anabelle Couleau (PhD Student)& Dr. David Laborde (IFPRI)

International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR), 2013, Ravello

2

Introduction• 4.7% share of 1st gen biofuels is estimated to have generated 25.5

Million Tons CO2eq savings, based on NREAPs

• BUT account for ILUC may reduce or cancel GHG savings attributed to biofuels

• Growing interest for 2nd generation biofuels and design of EU biofuel policy led us to consider ILUC for cellulosic feedstocks & biofuels

• Although some are arguing that second generation would not be in competition with food markets, and so ILUC free

• Lignocellulosic biomass (2 types : Ag. Residues and Dedicated Energy Crops) is competing on production factors and so on land with food crops and pasture.

Introduction

3

EU biofuel legislation• iLUC are not subject to reporting requirements

under current legislation !

• Limiting 1st generation ?

• October, 2012 => European Commission : Proposed to limit 1st gen biofuels in transport mix at 5% by 2020 (currently 10%)• April, 2013 => Parliament (Lepage's proposal) : No limitation 1st gen but iLUC reporting and binding + incentives 2nd generation => In both they are considering 2nd generation biofuels.

Introduction

4

European 2G biofuels consumption forecasts ?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

127

166

38

292

261

0

180

50

156

022

1

400

40

0 013

155

242

8

111

60

0

252

94

0

Biofuel estimation consumption in transportation in European countries by 2020. (Source: NREAPs, 2011) Austria

BelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUK

Kto

e

Introduction

5Introduction

Plants demonstration start date feedstock Final product location Plant Owner technology provider enzyme provider

INBICON EC demonstration Dec-09 Wheat straw Lignocellulosic

EthanolKalundborg, Denmark DONG Energy A/S Inbicon A/S

- Vogelbusch

Abengoa Salamanca EC demonstration

Sep-09 Straw (barley, wheat, …)

Lignocellulosic Ethanol

Babilafuente, Salamanca Spain

Abengoa Bioenergy, S.A.

Abengoa Bioenergy New Technologies, S.A.

Abengoa Bioenergy, S.A. + Genencor + Novozymes

Chemtex EC demonstration Jul-11 Giant Reed (perennial

Grass)Lignocellulosic Ethanol

Piedmont Region, Italy Chemtex Italia srl

Technology will be developed in the BIOLYFE project.

Novozymes

Abengoa Arance EC demonstration Jun-13 Forest residues,

Agricultural residuesLignocellulosic Ethanol

Arance (64) (France)

Abengoa Bioenergy, S.A.

Abengoa Bioenergy, S.A. Abengoa

Bioenergy, S.A. + Novozymes

Source : Author’s compilations from http://biomap.kcl.ac.uk, accessed in June 2013

EU cellulosic ethanol plants

6

Technologies

Biochemical=> Enzymatic digestion

Thermochemical=> gazeification (700 C, Syngas)

Cellulosic Ethanol

Cellulosic Fischer Tropsch

Diesel (FTD)Crops residues-corn stover-wheat strawDedicated energy crops-Miscanthus-Switchgrass

Cellulosic biomass

Processing routes Second-Generation Biofuels

Introduction

7

Research Question•Are 2nd generation really ILUC “free”?

•In the negative,

Introduction

what are the main drivers related to ILUC for 2nd generation biofuel? From different ligno-cellulosic materials ?

In comparison with 1st generation ?

8

Some Results from the Literature•Taheripour et al., (GTAP-BIO-ADV, general

equilibrium)•Gurgel et al., (EPPA, general equilibrium)

Literature Review

9

Crops residues : ISSUES• Removal rate and reduction yields

• Corn stover is considered the main feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production, but crop residues from small grains can also be used as bioenergy feedstock (Tarkalson et al., 2011).

• In Europe, wheat straw is expected to be a potential important feedstock for bioenergy production (Powlson et al., 2011).

• Crops residues are a direct soil organic carbon (SOC) pool. Large-scale removal of crop residues at high rates can deplete SOC pools (Blanco-canqui & Lal, 2009). So, we assume the yield will be a decreasing function of the removal rate.

Literature

10

MIRAGE-BioF: Main characteristics model

• A computable general equilibrium model (CGE)• Multi-regions (11), multi sectors (43),• A recursive, dynamic model : up to 2020• Database used: GTAP (2004)• Used in perfect competition

• In this study : extended version of MIRAGE Biof by Laborde (2011)

• Reminder : ▫ Baseline : from 2008 up to 2020▫ Scenario : National Renewable Energy Action Plans (each members

states has to released its own renewable biofuel consomptions estimations with this NREAPs document, each year).

Methodology

11

Main general assumptions• At this stage, there is no trade of 2nd generation

biofuels and specific feedstocks => design of 100% EU production

• We are first focusing on cellulosic ethanol

• Constant 1st generation ethanol consumption in the EU is assumed but the source of ethanol can still vary

• No competition between type of lignocellulosic feedstocks

Methodology

12

Modeling ChoiceWhat are initial use of crops residues ? • Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover)

stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER

• Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

Methodology

13

Modeling ChoiceWhat are initial use of crops residues ?

• Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER

• Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

Methodology

14

Modeling ChoiceWhat are initial use of crops residues ?

• Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER▫ Soil fertilizer is not directly compensated by fertilizers. The dominant

effect is a decrease in yield▫ SOIL FERTILIZER =

Carbon and Nitrogen Soil Humidity Can not be compensated by Mineral Fertilizers

• Option 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

Methodology

15

Modeling ChoiceWhat are initial use of crops residues ?

• Option 1 : Crop residues (Wheat Straw or Corn Stover) stay on field as a SOIL FERTILIZER▫ Soil fertilizer is not directly compensated by fertilizers. The

dominant effect is a decrease in yield

▫ Soil fertilizer is directly compensated by an add-on fertilizers. Assumption : no direct effect on the price of wheat

• Options 2 : Off-field use of Crops residues : livestock (feed, litter, …) => too many uncertainties are surrounding this option

Methodology

16

How to integrate crops residues in the model ?

▫We assume a removal rate of 30% for the EU grain harvested area supplying 2nd generation plants

▫We account for the technical constraint of carrying biomass

▫The yield is a decreasing function of the removal rate

Methodology

17

How to integrate crops residues in the model ? Two options allow to have yield endogenous to the scale of second generation production at the EU level:1. Assume a homogenous removal rate of X% on each hectare of

wheat (e.g) and yield will be a decreasing function of the removal rate (X);

2. Assume two management techniques for wheat/corn and endogenous choice of management method for each ha:

▫ normal management (crop residues stay on the field), ▫ removal of crop residues with a fixed rate of 30%.

Methodology

The second option has been selected since it has two main advantages:

▫ well suited to account for technical constraint of carrying biomass (minimal threshold of removal to cover logistics costs).;

▫ Do not need to define the full relation between removal rate and yield decrease at the field level. Only a point estimate is needed.

18

Cropland Expansion in Ha by TJ

Results

Brazil CAMCarib China CIS EU27 IndoMalay LAC RoOECD RoW SSA USA World0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Wheat Straw Ethanol Corn Stover ethanol

Ha

by T

J

Source: MIRAGE-BioF Simulation

19

• The increase in demand for cellulosic ethanol leads to a net extension of the land area used for crops.

• This is the result of an increase in land area for wheat production (wheat straw scenario) and corn production (corn stover scenario) but a decrease in cropland mainly absorbed by oilseed crop production.

• In the first generation ethanol scenario (DL, 2011), the increased demands led to the extension of the land area used for the production sugar beet.

Cropland Expansion in Ha by TJ

20

Annual LUC of EU consumption, 20 years

Results

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

1012

14

16

gCO

2eq/

MJ

1st generation Ethanol

2nd generation Ethanol

21

Discussion on ILUC results• Differences within 2nd gen. : yield/conversion

rate.

• Differences 1st vs 2nd gen. :▫No DDGS effects in 2nd generation case,▫Required cropland expansion for 2nd generation

case is significantly reduced,▫Conversion rate.

• Differences 2nd gen in MIRAGE-Biof & GTAP-BIO-ADV : design of cropland-pasture land use allocation.

Interpretation / Discussion

22

Sensitivity Analysis•We still need to test the sensitivity of

ILUC results with respect to changes in :▫Conversion rate of biomass into cellulosic

ethanol,

▫Relaxing assumptions that no added fertilizer to offset the reduction in yields.

Sensitivity Analysis

23

Conclusion : ongoing stages• Account for cellulosic ethanol co-products (Molasse, Lignin pellets)

• New feedstocks => working differently than crops residues : perennial grasses « Miscanthus » (high biomass potential in EU compared to Switchgrass)

• Integrating new technology : cellulosic biodiesel => Biomass to Liquid Fuel (FTD)

• Cellulosic biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) industry design

• Alternatives closures

• Non linearity behavior for second gen. Biofuels

Conclusion

24

Thank you for your attention !!

25

CaveatsMay drive ILUC factors results of 2nd gen biofuels :

•Design of fertilizers markets (inherent to the model)

•Multicropping, crop rotation: general problem for land use. For 2nde gen., specific crops rotation could resolve the problem of soil fertilizer. (Farmers => crop protection, especially designed for crop residues).

Conclusion

26

EU Crop Residues specific LUC emissions Breakdown by source of emissions

Results

50%46%

4%

49%45%

6% Annual carbon release from forest biomass (gCO2eq/MJ)Annual carbon release from carbon in mine-ral soil (gCO2eq/MJ)Annual carbon release from Palm extension on Peat (gCO2eq/MJ)

Wheat straw Corn Stover