1

Yogurt and bioethanol: biofuel choices

Dr. Richard Venditti Professor

richard_venditti@ncsu.edu

go.ncsu.edu/venditti

North Carolina State University

Department of Forest Biomaterials

College of Natural Resources, Scholarship Day

December 6, 2011

2

3

4

Yogurt is good! Or is it?

5

What is a Life Cycle Assessment ?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the potential environmental impacts of products, systems, or services at all stages in their life cycle [ISO 14001:2004].

Production Transportation Use Disposal

Recycle

Energy Energy Energy Energy

Waste

Waste

Waste Waste

Emissions to

air and water Emissions to

air and water Emissions to

air and water Emissions to

air and water

Recycled Materials

Raw

Materials

Energy

Waste

6

Life Cycle Assessment

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis

Goal and Scope

Definition

Objective

Parts of this are Subjective

Parts of this are Subjective

Parts of this are Subjective

(allocation)

7

Why is LCA Important?

• decrease the environmental impact of a product

• ensure compliance with government regulations

• reshape company strategy

• help marketing

7

8

Yogurt LCA : One Kilogram of yogurt consumes/emits:

• 1450 grams of CO2e

• 8.9 MJ of energy

• 245 g O2e for eutrophication

• 0.50 g ethene eq. for photochemical

ozone creation potential

Berlin (2008).

9

Yogurt: Carbon footprint:

52% milk production

3% non milk ingredients

10% packaging

6% transportation of ingredients

13% manufacturing

9% distribution

7% refrigeration

2% end of life

Stonyfield Organics, stonyfield.com

10

Yogurt LCA : Livestock in total:

• 9% CO2 from human activities

• 65% of N2O from human activities

(manure)

• 37% of methane from human activities

(enteric fermentation)

• 64% of ammonia from human activities

(manure) – acid rain

• Approximately 30% of entire land surface-

dominated by economics

Livestocks long shadow: environmental issues and options –

FAO, www.fao.org, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2006

11

Yogurt LCA :

• Dairy livestock contributes 1.2% to all

GHG emissions worldwide

• Cradle to farm gate milk emissions

contribute 3% to all GHG emissions

worldwide

• Cradle to dairy gate milk emissions

contribute ~3.5% to all GHG emissions

worldwide

• Sevenster and de Jong, 2008

12

Yogurt LCA :

• Controversial issue: how to partition environmental

issues between dairy, beef, hide and other products?

• What about the pasture lands and croplands to feed

the livestock and their impact on the environment and

landscape?

13

Yogurt LCA :

• …..we found a strong association between an increased consumption

of refined carbohydrates in the form of corn syrup, a decreased

consumption of dietary fiber, and an increasing trend in the prevalence

of type 2 diabetes in the United States…..

• Lee S Gross, Li Li, Earl S Ford and Simin Liu, American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 5, 774-779, May 2004

Dots – corn syrup

14

Yogurt LCA :

• Yoplait Yogurt ingredients:

Serving Size: 1 container/ 6oz / 170g

Calories: 170 (about 8% of your daily max)

Calories from Fat: 15 (less than 3% of

recommended daily max)

No fiber

Carbs – 33 grams (11% of the

recommended daily value)

Sugars – 27 grams (more than 5 tsp)

Cultured Pasteurized Grade A Low Fat

Milk, Sugar, Strawberries, Modified Corn

Starch, High Fructose Corn Syrup,

Nonfat Milk, Kosher Gelatin, Citric Acid,

Tricalcium Phosphate, Natural Flavor,

Pectin, Colored with Carmine, Vitamin A

Acetate, Vitamin D3.

Fooducate.com, accessed 12/5/11.

15

Yogurt is good?! Actually it is a seemingly innoculous appearing product that

has significant consequences.

Every product or service we use has a consequence, and they

add up.

Its cheap and delicious in the United States!

It turns out that we must make careful decisions about all of the

products and services we think we need!

16

1983 Stonyfield Farm is born in Wilton, New Hampshire. The

founding premise: A company can make a great product, make money,

and at the very least not harm the planet!

1992 A system is set up to track energy use, water, and waste.

1995 Started tracking carbon dioxide emissions from our facility

energy use.

1997 Became the first manufacturer in the U.S. (and likely the world) to

offset 100% of facility energy GHG emissions, and wrote a “cookbook”

for other businesses on how to do so.

2006 Began operation of wastewater pretreatment with an anaerobic

digester that converts waste into energy.

2007 Marked the 10th year of offsetting 100% of facility energy GHG

emissions with an investment in wind energy and manure methane

digestion.

2010 Introduced the first yogurt cup made from plants

2011 Began using biodiesel fuel—made from waste vegetable oil—in

some of the trucks delivering yogurt.

17

Firm Sales, $

Billions

Profits:

Gross

Profit

Margin

Profits:

Return on

Assets

People Environment

General Mills

Top 2 cereal producer.

2nd highest yogurt

producer

(11% US mkt)

15 39.4 8.8 Health and community Four goals: reducing water use,

energy use and greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions all by 20 percent,

as well as cutting solid waste

generation by 50 percent by 2015.

Kellog’s

Top 2 cereal producer

13 42.9 11.0 Market place,

workplace,

philanthropy/volunteeris

m for community pillars

Environmental impact reduction,

sustainable agriculture, packaging.

Danone

Top yogurt producer

(17.6% US mkt)

21 51.2 4.4 Values, health/nutrition,

employee wellness,

community service

Carbon footprint, LCA, reduction of

packaging, water use, energy use,

and waste

Stonyfield Farms

Largest and fastest

growing organic

yogurt producer, 1st in

natural food stores

and 4th in grocery

stores

0.09 Not avail. Not avail. Organic farming: don’t

use synthetic growth

hormones, antibiotics,

or genetically modified

organisms.

Intense efficiency of manufacturing

process and effective packaging.

Bought carbon offsets and became

nations first zero emissions

manufacturer.

Organic farming: no pesticides,

chemical fertilizers.

18

Sustainable forest products

life cycle analysis (LCA)

Dr. Richard Venditti Professor

richard_venditti@ncsu.edu

Website: go.ncsu.edu/venditti

(919) 515-6185

North Carolina State University

Department of Forest Biomaterials

19

Bio-refinery: Sustainable Products

Conversion

Process Biomass

Feedstock

Fuels, Energy,

Solid Wood,

Paper, materials,

chemicals

20

Fuel Mandates

Lifecycle GHG Thresholds Specified in

EISA

(percent reduction from 2005 baseline)

Renewable fuela 20%

Advanced biofuel 50%

Biomass-based diesel 50%

Cellulosic biofuel 60%

EISA Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements (billion gallons)

YearCellulosic

biofuel requirement

Biomass-based diesel

requirement

Advanced biofuel

requirement

Total renewable fuel requirement

2008 n/a n/a n/a 9.0

2009 n/a 0.5 0.6 11.1

2010 0.1 0.65 0.95 12.95

2011 0.25 0.80 1.35 13.95

2012 0.5 1.0 2.0 15.2

2013 1.0 a 2.75 16.55

2014 1.75 a 3.75 18.15

2015 3.0 a 5.5 20.5

2016 4.25 a 7.25 22.25

2017 5.5 a 9.0 24.0

2018 7.0 a 11.0 26.0

2019 8.5 a 13.0 28.0

2020 10.5 a 15.0 30.0

2021 13.5 a 18.0 33.0

2022 16.0 a 21.0 36.0

2023+ b b b b

Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007

Billion gallons/year

21

LCA Research Objectives: Develop tools to evaluate the life cycle of

forest-based or other sustainable

products relative to conventional products

Provide input on the discussion of biofuels

and biomaterials

Education

22

LCA Ongoing Efforts:

Personnel

Faculty: R. Venditti, S. Kelley, H. Jameel, D. Saloni, S.

Dasmohopatra, A. Kirkmann

Ronalds Gonzalez (PD, economics, LCA, forestry), Jesse Daystar

(PhD student, process simulation, LCA), Trevor Treasure (PhD,

simulation)

Collaborators, NCSU Forestry, NCSU CE, NCASI

Projects:

Cofiring biomass at coal power plants

Thermoconversion of Biomass to Ethanol, Corrim and DOE

Carbon footprint of paper products, NCASI

NC Bioenergy Options: Biomass and Conversion Processes,

Biofuels Center of NC

Building a Biofuels Industry in the Southeast AFRI USDA

Integrated Biorefinery at Plymouth NC, Domtar, USDA BRDI

Pretreatments for Pellets, Daniel Saloni, SunGrant

Currently looking for graduate students

Multiple assistantships available, $20,000/yr plus tuition+benefits

23

Production Transportation Use Disposal

Raw Materials

Energy Energy Energy Energy

Waste Waste Waste Waste

Emissions to air and water

Emissions to air and water

Emissions to air and water

Emissions to air and water

1.Thermochemical for Low Pressure Gasification: Mixed Alcohols

2.Thermochemical for Low Pressure Gasification: Fischer-Tropsch Fuel

3.Thermochemical for High Pressure Gasification: Mixed Alcohols

4.Thermochemical for High Pressure Gasification: Fischer-Tropsch Fuel

5.Biochemical (enzyme hydrolysis/fermentation to Ethanol)

1.Unmanaged hardwood,

2.Managed hardwood,

3.Managed pine plantations,

4.Forest residues

5.Industrial wastes (organic sludges)

6.Agricultural residues

LCA of Production of Biofuels: Raw Materials and Processes

SimaPro LCA Software

Cradle Gate Grave

Process Simulation

Matrix of Cases:

24

Lignocellulosic ethanol (thermochemical conversion)

decreases GWP by 70%, Cradle-to-grave

8.66E-02

4.57E-03 7.24E-03 1.58E-04

7.45E-02

2.71E-02

-1.80E-01

3.07E-04

3.46E-03

1.29E-01

1.58E-04

7.45E-02

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Total SequesturedCarbon

Raw MaterailTransport

RawMaterials

FuelProduction

FuelTransport

FuelCombustion

kg

CO

2 E

qu

ivale

nts

per

MJ F

uel

Axis Title

Gasoline

Ethanol From Pine

25

Lignocellulosic ethanol (thermochemical conversion) :

consumes 1 unit of fossil energy to produce 4 units of energy

0.24

1.26

26

Biofuels summary

Lignocellulosic biofuels have been predicted to

Reduce GWP by 70%

Conserves non-renewable fuels

Can possibly reduce dependence on oil

A successful wide-spread lignocellulosic fuel industry will impact environment, landscapes and people

LCA’s will be critical to direct this new industry

Allocation issues

Landscape issues

Social and Economic issues

Government policy

27

Questions?

Raw materials Manufacturing Transportation End-use

Land-use

28

Life Cycle Analysis: Pulp and Paper Products

• Extremely difficult to perform LCA on paper:

• Paper is mainly derived from renewable

resources

• Complex furnish and manufacturing,

multitude of products with subtle but

important differences

• Extremely efficient/complex

manufacturing processes using a

majority of renewable fuels

• Paper manufacturing has air/water/solid

emissions

• Paper has several co-products

manufactured

• A recyclable product (open loop)

• Paper is the major component in landfills

and when degrades anaerobically forms

methane

29

LCA of Paper Catalog: Carbon Footprint

29

Kg C

O2/t

on

ne

pro

du

ct

Manufacturing Landfill/Incineration

30

LCA: Catalog System Boundary

NCASI LCA NA P&W Grades, 2010

31

Allocation Methods in LCA:

Choice of allocation method is critical:

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Cutoff MLWMBR 50/50 Closed LoopRecycling

Quality Loss RMAGWT

Virgin Burden Recycled Burden

Ne

t G

HG

, lb

CO

2e

q/t

on

Paper Task Force

Shared Burden:

# uses

Table 7. Net GHG of office paper from various life cycle stages from the Paper Task Force (2002, pg. 132), waste management is 80/20 landfill/incinerate.

32

Minimum Carbon Price Required to Promote

Biomass Systems:

Several alternatives exist for biomass residuals

from forest harvesting

Leaving biomass on ground

Co-firing green biomass with coal

Co-firing field dried biomass with coal

Co-firing torrefied biomass with coal

Co-firing charred biomass with coal

Applying char to agricultural lands

For a ton of biomass which system:

Has the smallest carbon footprint?

Has the lowest cost?

Has the lowest cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide

saved?

33

Minimum Carbon Price Required to Promote

Biomass Systems: Carbon Footprints

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Green Wood

Air Dried Wood

Torrefaction

Char

Char toGround

C F

oo

tpri

nt,

lb

CO

2e/t

on

of

gre

en

bio

mass

Note: leaving

residuals on ground

causes decay,

produces a -6 lb

CO2/ton carbon

footprint

34

Cost per Ton of Product

by Distance to Destination

$-

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

$/ To

n P

rod

uct

Miles

Green Wood Co-fire Dry Wood Co-fire Torrefied Wood Co-fire Coal Char Co-fire Char to Soil

35

Fuel Cost per MMBtu Electricity

by Distance to Plant

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

0 50 100 150 200

$/M

MB

tu (

ele

ctr

ica

l)

Miles

Green Wood Co-fire Dry Wood Co-fire Torrefied Wood Co-fire Coal Char Co-fire

36

-50

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Green Wood Co-fire

Dry Wood Co-fire

Torrefied Wood Co-fire

Char Co-fire

Char to Soil

Distance in Miles

Min

imum

Price,

$/m

etr

ic t

on C

O2

(Negative prices indicate that it is less expensive to

fire the biomass than it is for coal at equivalent

eletrical energy production)

Dashed lines: historical high (45) and price 7/2011 (15)

of CO2 as reported by http://www.nytimes.com

/2009/01/21/business/worldbusiness

Minimum Carbon Price Required to Promote Biomass System

37

Minimum Carbon Price Required to Promote

Biomass Systems: Summary

Char to ground has the lowest carbon footprint

Biomass growth and preprocessing and co-firing dominate the carbon

footprint

Transportation distance not important for carbon footprint, very

important for costs

Dried or torrefied wood, under the model assumptions, have the most

potential for commercial viability in a carbon market

38

LCA of bioethanol production via the

thermochemical conversion pathway

Jesse Daystar, Richard Venditti, Hasan Jameel, Mike Jett

North Carolina State University

Forest Biomaterials Department

Forest Products Society’s 65th International Convention on June 19-

21, 2011 in Portland, Oregon.

39

CORRIM Biofuels Research

• Gasification

• Pyrolysis

• Bioconversion

Ethanol

Pyrolysis Oil

40

Aspen Model Overview:

41

Global Warming Potential Cradle-to-grave

8.66E-02

4.57E-03 7.24E-03 1.58E-04

7.45E-02

2.71E-02

-1.80E-01

3.07E-04

3.46E-03

1.29E-01

1.58E-04

7.45E-02

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Total SequesturedCarbon

Raw MaterailTransport

RawMaterials

FuelProduction

FuelTransport

FuelCombustion

kg

CO

2 E

qu

ivale

nts

per

MJ F

uel

Axis Title

Gasoline

Ethanol From Pine

42

Thermochemical Conversion of

Biomass to Ethanol: 69% reduction in

GHG

100%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Global Warming Potential

Gasoline

Ethanol

Lifecycle GHG Thresholds

Specified in EISA

(percent reduction from

2005 baseline)

Renewable

fuela 20%

Advanced

biofuel 50%

Biomass-

based diesel 50%

Cellulosic

biofuel 60%

43

Fossil Fuel Depletion:

4 units of energy produced/1 unit of fossil fuel input

0.24

1.26

44

Conclusions

Biomass growth and emissions during thermochemical

conversion dominate the GHG balance for biothenol production

Production and use of TC bioethanol reduces GHG emissions

by 69% relative to gasoline, qualifies as cellulosic biofuel

The production of TC bioethanol produces 4 units of energy

per 1 unit of fossil fuel consumed

45

Questions?