bioenergy from marginal land: an overview of environmental

SEEMLA 5th THEMED WEBINAR

9 November 2018

Nils Rettenmaier & Dr Heiko Keller

IFEU

Bioenergy from marginal land: an overview

of environmental potentials and pitfalls

SEEMLA 5th THEMED WEBINAR:

How sustainable is bioenergy from lignocellulosic crops

cultivated on marginal land (MagL)?

IFEU - Institute for Energy and Environmental

Research Heidelberg, since 1978

• Independent scientific research institute

• Organised as a private non profit company with

currently about 70 employees

• Research / consulting on environmental aspects of

- Energy (including Renewable Energy)

- Transport

- Waste Management

- Life Cycle Assessment

- Environmental Impact Assessment

- Renewable Resources

- Environmental Education

Who we are – What we do



• Our clients (selection)


World Bank, UNEP, FAO, etc.European Union

Departments of Federal, State and LocalGovernments

Federal Ministry Department (Environment, Economy, Transport)

State Departments

Non-governmental Organisations

Transport and Logistic Service Providers



• Our clients (selection)


Organisations of Development cooperation

Schools, Public Services, ASEW, Consumer Advice Centre

Foundations

CompaniesIndustrial Associations


Department Head of Department

Guido Reinhardt

PhD, biologist, chemist, mathematician

Bernd Franke MSc, biologist

Udo Lambrecht

MSc, physicist

Lothar Eisenmann MSc, physicist

Martin PehntDr. Ing. PhD physicist

Horst Fehrenbach

Dipl.- biologist

Biomass and Food

Resources and Recycling Management

Industry and Products

Mobility

Energy

Sustainability assessment in SEEMLA

3. SEEMLA Approach

Communication and Dissemination

Wo

rk P

ac

ka

ge

2

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing M

arg

ina

l

La

nd

s

Work Package 3

Policy and Administrative

Regulations

Work Package 4

Environmental and Socio-

economic assessment

Work Package 6

SEEMLA approach

development:

Applications,

guidebooks and

policy

recommendations

Work Package 5

Bioenergy production

on marginal land

pilot cases

2. Pilot Implementation 1. Sustainability* Assessment

Work Package 7 – Communication and Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement

Work Package 1 – Project Management

Definitions and settings

Life cycle

assessment

Life cycle

envir. impact

assessment

Socio-econom.

assessment

Sustainability assessment in SEEMLA

WP 3: Policy, regulation and engagement

WP 5: Pilot actions

WP 6: SEEMLA approach development

WP 7: Communication and dissemination

Task 4.1

Tasks 4.2 – 4.4

Environmental assessment


Methodology: Life cycle thinking

Image copyright:

© Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN environment

Life cycle assessment • Screening LCAs according to

ISO standards 14040 & 14044

Generic scenarios for 2030

Comparative LCA

• Goal: Policy information on the

environmental impacts of using

marginal land for the provision of

bioenergy

• Main system characteristics:

Cultivation on marginal

idle/unused land (→no iLUC)

Logistics: technical drying and

pelleting of biomass


Methodology: Dual approach

Life cycle environmental

impact assessment • Envir. impacts occurring at local

scale (e.g. land use) not yet

state-of-the-art in LCAs

LCA has to be supplemented

by elements borrowed from

other tools (for the time being).

• Our approach: elements from

envir. impact assessment (EIA)

+ life cycle perspective

• Qualitative risk assessment


Methodology: Life cycle comparison

Resource

extraction

Conventional

equivalent

product

Cultivation

Biomass

Conversion

Bioenergy

Use &

end of life

Use &

end of life

Crude oil /

natural gas

Transport

Transport

Product Legend: Process Use &

end of life Process

Reference

system

Biomass

conditioning

Pesticides Fertiliser Diesel Water

Alternative

land use

Equivalent

products Co-products

Agenda

❶ Introduction and methodology

❷ Life cycle assessment: Results

❸ Life cycle environmental impact assessment: Results

❹ Synopsis and recommendations

Life cycle assessment: Results

Example: Miscanthus → small CHP

Heat

CHP

Biomass

Transport

Pellets

Upstream processes

Power

Conversion efficiency:

Low

Typical

High

SA: substituted

power mix

Power

Upstream

processes

Transport

Heat

Combustion

In boiler

Resource

extraction

Natural

gas

Image c

opyrig

ht:

© W

ikim

edia

Com

mons: H

am

ste

rdancer

(Mis

canth

us),

Axel M

auru

szat

(HK

W R

eute

r E

ingang)


Example: Two impact categories

Normalisation of results needed

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

t CO2 eq / (ha ∙ year)

kg N eq / (ha ∙ year)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Net result

Net result

Agriculture: diesel Agriculture: fertiliser Agriculture: field emissions

Agriculture: irrigation Agriculture: others (inkl. aLUC) Harvesting

Transports Drying Pelleting

Use phase Credits: power provision Credits: fuel provision for heat

Credits: fuel combustion heat Net result

Credits Emissions

Climate change

Marine eutrophication


Example: All impact categories

Entire life cycle must be considered, incl. use phase !

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Non-renewable energy use

Climate change

Acidification


Freshwater eutrophication

Photochem. oxidant formation

Ozone depletion

Particulate matter formation

Land use

Phosphate rock demand

Non-renewable energy use Climate change Acidification Marine eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication Photochem. oxidant formation Ozone depletion Particulate matter formation Land use Phosphate rock demand

Inhabitant equivalents / (10 ha ∙ year)

Agriculture: aLUC Agriculture: diesel

Agriculture: fertiliser

Agriculture: field emissions Agriculture: irrigation

Agriculture: others

Harvesting Transports

Drying Pelleting

Use phase

Credits: power provision Credits: fuel provision for heat

Credits: fuel combustion heat

Net result

Emissions

Advantages Disadvantages

Credits

Continental zone, Miscanthus


Example: Influence of soil quality

SQR

score

Marginal 2 Marginal 1 Standard High

0 20 60 80 10040

Results dependent on soil quality

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

SEEMLA definition

of ‘marginal’

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Standard land

Net result

Marginal land (M1)

Net result

Very marg. land (M2)

Net result

Range

Inhabitant equivalents / (10 ha ∙ year) Agriculture: diesel Agriculture: fertiliser

Agriculture: field emissions Agriculture: irrigation

Agriculture: others (incl. aLUC) Harvesting

Transports Drying

Pelleting Use phase

Credits: power provision Credits: fuel provision for heat

Credits: fuel combustion heat Net result

Advantages Disadvant.

Emissions Credits Climate change

Lig

nocellu

losic

cro

ps

Woody

Trees

Black locust Black pine Calabrian pine

SRC

Black locust Poplar Willow

Herb

aceous Grasses

Miscanthus Switchgrass Giant reed

Investigated lignocellulosic crops

Image c

opyrig

ht:

© W

ikim

edia

Com

mons: P

rzykuta

(B

lack p

ine),

Fra

nz X

aver

(Cala

bria

n p

ine),

Nasenbär

(Popla

r),

Bra

veheart

(W

illo

w),

Ham

ste

rdancer

(Mis

canth

us),

Jebulo

n (

Sw

itchgra

ss),

Justle

tters

andnum

bers

(Gia

nt

reed);

© P

ixelio

.de:

Uschi D

reiu

cker

(Bla

ck lo

cust)


Lignocellulosic crops in comparison

Typical pattern of environmental advantages & disadvantages

Crops qualitatively similar, but quantitative differences

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Climate change

Eutrophication



-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Climate change

Eutrophication

Black locust (trees)

Black pine

Willow

Poplar

Black locust (SRC)

Miscanthus

Switchgrass

Giant reed


Inhabitant equivalents per 10 ha per year

BOREAL

(BOR)

• Basis: Metzger et al. 2005

• Aggregation into three

larger climatic zones:

Mediterranean (MED)

Continental (CON)

Atlantic (ATL)

[Boreal (BOR) excluded]

Investigated climatic zones

ATLANTIC

(ATN, ATC & LUS)

MEDITERRANEAN

(MDN, MDM & MDS)

CONTINENTAL

(NEM, CON &

PAN)

So

urc

e:

Me

tzg

er

et

al.

20

05


Climatic zones in comparison

Herbaceous crops show greater advantages AND disadvantages

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

-20 -10 0

Black locust (tree) MEDCONATL

Black pine (tree) MEDCONATL

Calabrian pine (tree) MED

Willow (SRC) CONATL

Poplar (SRC) MEDCONATL

Black locust (SRC) MEDCONATL

Miscanthus MEDCONATL

Switch grass MEDCONATL

Giant reed MED



Climate change

0 10 20

Disadvantages

Eutrophication

Investigated biomass use options

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

Direct

combustion

(boiler)

Wood

pellets

Wood

chips

Domestic

heat

Convent.

heat

Direct

combustion

(boiler)

District

heat

Convent.

heat

Direct

combustion

(boiler)

Power

Convent.

power

Direct

combustion

(CHP plant)

Indust. heat

& power

Convent.

heat & power

Hydrolysis &

fermentation

2nd gen.

ethanol

Convent.

gasoline

Upstream processes

Grass

pellets

Product Legend: Process Use &

end of life Process

Reference

system


Biomass use options in comparison

Large bandwidth of results; stationary use beats biofuels

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Non-renewable energy use

Climate change

Acidification


Freshwater eutrophication

Ozone depletion

Particulate matter formation

Land use

Phosphate rock demand


Domestic heat

District heat

Small CHP

Large CHP

Power

2G Ethanol


743

Continental zone, Miscanthus


Excursus: Photovoltaic systems

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

PV: lower land use footprint and less GHG emissions per kWh

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Photo

vo

lta

ic

Bla

ck lo

cu

st

(tre

es)

Bla

ck p

ine (

tre

es)

Ca

lab

rian

pin

e (

tree

s)

Will

ow

(S

RC

)

Popla

r (S

RC

)

Bla

ck lo

cu

st

(SR

C)

Mis

ca

nth

us

Sw

itchg

rass

Gia

nt re

ed

PV SEEMLA bioenergy systems

g C

O2

eq

/ k

Wh

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Photo

vo

lta

ic

Bla

ck lo

cu

st

(tre

es)

Bla

ck p

ine (

tre

es)

Ca

lab

rian

pin

e (

tree

s)

Will

ow

(S

RC

)

Popla

r (S

RC

)

Bla

ck lo

cu

st

(SR

C)

Mis

ca

nth

us

Sw

itchg

rass

Gia

nt re

ed

PV SEEMLA bioenergy systems

m²

eq

∙ y

ear

natu

ral

lan

d u

se

/ kW

h


Excursus: SEEMLA case studies

So

urc

e:

IFE

U 2

01

8

Case studies fall within the result range of the generic scenarios

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Black locust (tree) MED GR

Black pine (tree) MEDGR

Calabrian pine (trees MEDGR

Willow (SRC) CONUA

Poplar (SRC) CONUA

Miscanthus CONUA

Poplar (SRC) ATLDE

Black locust (SRC) ATLDE

Climate change


Advantages

Comparison between bioenergy and conv. energy supply

• Well-known pattern of environmental impacts confirmed

No significant differences between standard land and marginal land

• Energy and GHG emission savings possible

Except om the case of large carbon stock changes due to LUC

• Tendency towards disadvantages with other envir. impacts

Negative effects due to N- and P-related emissions of fertilisation

• Results range wider than usual

Due to many energy crops, use options and different site qualities

• Entire life cycle and all envir. impacts to be considered

Avoidance of indirect land-use changes (iLUC) of central importance

Only land with low biomass carbon stock to be converted

Biomass drying expenditures must be minimised

Life cycle assessment

Conclusions I

© kamilpetran / Fotolia

© Wolfgang Jargstorff

/ Fotolia

© IFEU

© Image'in / Fotolia

Comparison of bioenergy paths with each other

• Environmental advantages and disadvantages increase with

increasing site quality

Greater energy and GHG emission savings on less marginal land

Discussion: Coarse resolution (2 classes only); lower SQR limit

• Woody biomass is partly better than herbaceous biomass

Perennial grasses: greater energy and GHG emission savings

but also greater disadvantages

Woody biomass: hardly any disadvantages + greater P use efficiency

• Stationary use for electricity & heat generation beats biofuels

Combined heat and power generation much better than 2G ethanol

• Photovoltaics tend to be much more environmentally

friendly than bioenergy

Bioenergy competes with other renewables, e.g. ground-mounted PV,

which result in significantly greater energy and GHG emission savings

an option for very marginal land?

Life cycle assessment

Conclusions II

© Spantomoda / Fotolia

© IFEU

Agenda





Type of

risk

Affected environmental factors

Soil

Ground

water

Surface

water

Plants/

Biotopes Animals

Climate

/air

Land-

scape

Human health

and recreation

Biodi-

versity

Erosion

Soil compaction

Loss of soil organic

matter

Soil chemistry /

Fertiliser

Eutrophication

Nutrient leaching

Water demand

Weed control /

pesticides

Loss of landscape

elements

Loss of habitat

types

Loss of species

Life cycle environmental impact assessment

Methodology: Conflict matrices

Qualitative risk

assessment

Life cycle environmental impact assessment: Results

Example: Miscanthus

Risks associated with Miscanthus (vs. idle land)

Issues: high water demand & potential invasiveness

Type of risk

Affected environmental factors

Soil Ground water

Surface water

Plants / Biotopes

Animals Climate /

Air Land- scape

Human health &

recreation

Bio-diversity

Soil erosion neutral1 neutral

1

Soil compaction

neutral neutral neutral neutral neutral

Loss of soil organic matter

neutral / neutral neutral neutral

pos. / neg.

Soil chemistry / fertiliser

neutral neutral /

neutral negative

2

Eutrophi- cation

neutral1

neutral1 /

neutral1 neutral

1 neutral

1 neutral

1

negative2

Nutrient leaching

neutral /

negative

2

Water demand neutral /

neutral / neutral /

neutral /

negative3 negative

3 negative

3 negative

3

Weed control / pesticides

neutral1 neutral

1 neutral

1 neutral

1 neutral

1

Loss of landscape elements

negative / negative / negative / negative / negative / negative /

positive4 positive

4 positive

4 positive

4 positive

4 positive

4

Loss of habitat types

negative / negative /

negative /

positive4 positive

4 positive

4

Loss of species

neutral / neutral /

neutral /

negative negative negative


Lignocellulosic crops in comparison

Risks associated with all investigated crops (vs. idle land)

Trees pose the least risks, followed by short rotation coppice

Type of risk Perennial crop / feedstock

Black pine / Calabrian pine

Black locust (tree)

Willow / poplar / black locust (SRC)

Miscanthus / switchgrass

Giant reed

Soil erosion A A B B B

Soil compaction A A A B B

Loss of soil organic matter B B B B B

Soil chemistry / fertiliser A A B B / C C

Eutrophication A A A / B B / C C

Nutrient leaching A A A / B B / C C

Water demand B B C D D

Weed control / pesticides A A B B B

Loss of landscape elements C C C C C

Loss of habitat types C D* C / D* C C

Loss of species C D* C / D* C C


Fossil feedstocks in comparison

Risks associated with fossil feedstocks (vs. no use)

Fairly similar impacts associated with the different feedstocks

Technological factor Crude oil / gas

provision Coal

provision Uranium ore

provision

Prospection C C C

Drilling / Mining E E E

Waste D D E

Demand of water (process water) C / D3 D / E

2 D

Emissions (exhaust fumes, dust, water, metal)

C / D3 C / E

2 E

Land requirements C / D1 C / E

2 E

Demands of steel (tubes, equipment) D C C

Transportation (carriers, pipelines) D D D

Refining / processing / enrichment D D D

Accidents (traffic, pipeline leakage) E C C


Biomass vs. conventional feedstock

Comparison of impacts associated with feedstock provision

Types of risk differ, but comparison of impacts possible

Biomass feedstock,

Type of risk

Environmental factors

affected

Fossil feedstock,

Type of risk

Soil erosion

Water

Water

Prospection

Soil compaction Drilling / mining

Loss of soil organic matter

Soil Soil

Waste (oil based and water based mud)

Soil chemistry / fertiliser

Flora Flora

Demand of water (process water)

Eutrophication

Fauna

Fauna

Emissions (exhaust fumes, water, metal)

Nutrient leaching Land requirements

Water demand Climate / air

quality

Climate /

air quality

Demands of steel (tubes, equipment)

Weed control / pesticides

Landscape Landscape

Transportation (carriers, pipelines)

Loss of landscape elements

Human health

Human health

Refining / processing

Loss of habitat types

Biodiversity

Biodiversity

Accidents (traffic, pipeline leakage)

Loss of species

Heavy impact; long-term change expected

Medium impact; change expected to be reversible

Low impact; mitigation measures possible

• High land footprint of bioenergy, especially on marginal areas

Land use for bioenergy >> land use for conventional energy (per MJ)

Land use on marginal land > land use on standard land (per MJ)

• Grasses require less land than SRC or trees, but this is

more strongly affected

Higher intensity and frequency of agricultural activities, but positive

effect of higher area yield of perennial grasses predominates.

Importance of harvest time

• Predominantly neutral effects on soil and water

In comparison to idle land, effects on soil are neutral or even positive

Miscanthus, willow or giant reed may reduce groundwater recharge

• Individual consideration of impacts on fauna, flora,

biodiversity and landscape necessary

Effects on flora and biodiversity are highly location-dependent

Conversion of species-rich grassland very negative for biodiversity

Impacts to be assessed on individual basis (incl. neighbouring areas)


Conclusions I

© JLLH / Fotolia

© Creativemarc / Fotolia

• Photovoltaics (PV) tend to be more compatible with nature

conservation than bioenergy

Land footprint of PV electricity << electricity from biomass

Ecological added value (compared to bioenergy) if well-managed

• Biodiversity at risk due to (further) intensification of land use

Marginal land is often the last retreat for species that already suffer

from the intensive agricultural use of standard land

Broad public discussion needed as to which proportion of marginal

land should be reserved for which purpose land allocation plans

• Guidelines for environmentally compatible cultivation of

energy crops on sensitive sites are necessary

Marginal land often has special site conditions which often imply a

high nature conservation value

‘Good farming practice’ is not sufficient, at least not for sensitive sites


Conclusions II

© Ruud_Morijn / Fotolia

© inacio_pires / Fotolia

© REDPIXEL / Fotolia

Agenda





Synopsis

• LCA and LC-EIA complement each other well.

• Energy and GHG emissions can be saved, however, at the

cost of other negative environmental impacts and a high risk

of biodiversity loss. Priority on biodiversity protection. GHG emissions savings secondary.

• No general ‘certificate of compliance’ can be issued for bio-

energy from marginal land from an environmental viewpoint.

• Financial incentives will be needed. This offers possibilities

to consider sustainability aspects in support programmes

Recommendations

• Previous non-utilisation of land is most important. Low land

quality is only a secondary criterion. Only in this way indirect land-use changes (iLUC) can be avoided.


Synopsis and recommendations I

© grafikplusfoto / Fotolia

• Land worthy of protection should be excluded Land with high carbon stock and peatland

Land with high biodiversity value, e.g. highly biodiverse grasslands

Land under agri-environmental programmes in the past 10 years

High nature value farmland (HNV)

• Stationary use for electricity & heat generation beats bio-fuels, but other renewables (e.g. PV) should be considered

• Guidelines for environmentally compatible cultivation of energy crops on sensitive sites are necessary ‘Good farming practice’ is insufficient, at least not for sensitive sites

Lessons learnt from the evaluation of pilot cases could be helpful

• Land allocation plans at EU, national or regional level + biomass use concepts + stakeholder involvement

• Research funding should be continued New varieties, loss-reducing cultivation systems, biomass composition

• Farmers’ competencies need to be built up Harvest time, varieties and cultivation systems, yield security


Synopsis and recommendations II

© progarten/ Fotolia

© REDPIXEL / Fotolia

© PointImages / Fotolia

Thank you for your attention

• Any questions ? …don‘t hesitate to ask !

• Contact: …[email protected]

…+49-6221-4767-24

Dr. Heiko Keller Dr. Guido Reinhardt Sven Gärtner Meike Schmehl

Acknowledgement:

The SEEMLA project has received funding

from the European Union’s Horizon 2020

research and innovation programme under

grant agreement No 691874.

bioenergy from marginal land: an overview of environmental

Documents