uncertainty in lifecycle ghg emissions from camelina jet fuel
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
1/59
Uncertainty Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment
for Camelina Jet Fuel Production
By Musab Qureshi
Photo credit: United States Federal Aviation Administration
A thesis submitted in conformity with the partial requirements for the degree of
Bachelors of Applied Science.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
15 April, 2013
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
2/59
Abstract
This thesis studies the presence of uncertainty in the well-to-pump GHG emissions of
Camelina oil based jet fuel. The first part of the thesis identifies Camelina oil as a promising
candidate for Hydro-processed Renewable Jet Fuel. Camelina HRJ fuel was found to be compatible
with aviation infrastructure and thus its use will not require much change in current aviation
practices. Camelina also has agronomic and economic advantages over its competitors; it has higher
lipid oil content and lower unit production cost. Moreover it also satisfies a key criterion of being a
non food based crop.
The second part of this thesis studies the uncertainty present in GHG emissions from the
production of Camelina based HRJ fuel. LCA analysis is carried out using the GREET model
developed by Argonne National Laboratory. Uncertainties addressed include parameter uncertainty
in Camelina crop characteristics and fuel processing, as well as scenario uncertainty concerning how
Camelina co-products are accounted for. The work of this thesis, motivated by lack of uncertainty
analysis in LCA studies, uses a Monte Carlo approach to estimate range of expected values for
GHG emissions by incorporating parameter and scenario uncertainty with distribution functions.
Results show that large uncertainties exist in GHG emissions, mainly due to uncertainty in
parameters of lipid content and the percentage of final HRJ fuel formed. The type of co-product
allocation methodology adopted also has a significant effect on the uncertainty. Findings of this
thesis agree with earlier studies on the renewable and environmentally sustainable nature of
Camelina oil jet fuel. It was found that regardless of uncertainty, WTP LCA results are GHG
emission negative. However, results obtained do emphasize the need to reduce uncertainty in GHG
emissions and highlight the importance of integrating uncertainty into the interpretation of results.
Presenting LCA results as ranges, and not as single values, will be more effective in giving decision
makers a holistic view point on the expected performance of jet fuel produced from Camelina oil.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
3/59
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and regards to my advisors Dr. Heather Maclean and
Dr. Bradley Saville for providing me the opportunity to work on this project. They kindly accepted
me despite my minimal experience with biofuel LCA. The research definitely gave me sufficient
knowledge of biofuel systems. In addition, I also learned how to approach LCA problems and reach
its goals with scientific insight.
I would like to mention my special appreciation for Jason Luk for having guided me through
the GREET Model. I would also like to thank my family and friends for giving me the support to
work on my thesis and helping me achieve my goal. Finally I would like to thank God for giving me
the strength to pursue such a wonderful opportunity.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
4/59
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1
1.1Aviation Industry..... 11.2Impact of Conventional Jet Fuel......21.3Renewable Jet Fuel...... 41.4Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment.....51.5Goal and Scope.... 51.6Thesis Structure... 6
Chapter 2: Renewable Jet Fuel Selection...... 7
2.1Candidate Fuels....72.2System Compatibility .....92.3Camelina based HRJ fuel.....11
Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives....14
Chapter 4: Literature Review.....15
4.1 Camelina HRJ Fuel......15
4.2 Life Cycle Assessment.....17
4.3 Uncertainty Analysis....18
Chapter 5: Materials and Methods.... 24
5.1 Methodology....24
5.2 GREET Model.....25
5.3 Scope of Thesis....25
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
5/59
5.4 Monte Carlo Method....31
Chapter 6: Results and Discussion..... 33
6.1 Scenario Uncertainty....33
6.2 Parameter Uncertainty..... 36
6.3 Comparison with Conventional Jet Fuel Emissions.... 39
6.4 Implications of Uncertainty..... 39
6.5 Limitations of Study and Future Work.... 42
Chapter 7: Conclusion.....44
References..... 46
Appendices.....49
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
6/59
List of Figures
Figure 1: Graph showing price of jet fuel between 1970 and 2010....... 3
Figure 2: Chart showing the projected decline in global petroleum production...... 4
Figure 3: Camelina production test sites in Canada and USA.......16
Figure 4: LCA uncertainty in energy return ratios for algal biofuel systems..... 23
Figure 5: Methodology adopted by the thesis........ 24
Figure 6: Biofuel systems available for analysis in the GREET Model.....25
Figure 7: System boundary for the Camelina jet fuel LCA analysis......26
Figure 8: Plot showing a single histogram of values obtained form the Monte Carlo analysis.. 32
Figure 9: Chart showing the combined uncertainty in WTP GHG emissions for individual allocation
methods........ 33
Figure 10: WTP GHG Emissions results showing individual parameter uncertainties for the Mass Based,
Energy Based and Economic allocation methods........ 37
Figure 11: Chart comparing WTP GHG emissions from conventional jet fuel with WTP emissions from
Camelina based HRJ Fuel....... 39
Figure 12: Uncertainty analysis results obtained in this thesis...... 40
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
7/59
List of Tables
Table 1: List of candidate renewable jet fuels for the aviation industry.....7
Table 2: Table summarizing the system compatibility of candidate jet fuels considered.....10
Table 3: Jet fuel candidates satisfying the system compatibility criterion.... 11
Table 4: Uncertainty classifications by previous studies...... 20
Table 5: Types of uncertainties and their introduction points in LCA...... 22
Table 6: Uncertainty types that were studied by past biofuel LCA uncertainty papers..... 23
Table 7: Key Camelina cultivation, processing and fuel production parameters.... 27
Table 8: Final co-product percentages formed during Camelina jet fuel production.. 27
Table 9: Distribution of the Canadian Electricity mix used by the GREET model... 28
Table 10: Uncertainty ranges for the lipid content and moisture content parameters. .. 29
Table 11: Uncertainty ranges for the farming energy and oil use parameters .... 31
Table 12: Uncertainty ranges for the co-product formation parameters..... 31
Table 13: Main coproducts form the Camelina fuel production process along with mass, energy and market
values....... 34
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
8/59
List of Abbreviations
CH4: Methane
CO: Carbon Monoxide
CO2: Carbon Dioxide
CCS: Carbon Capture and Sequestration
DOE: Departmetn of Energy
HC: Hydrocarbon
GHG: Green House Gas
GREET: The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model
HRJ Fuel: Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet Fuel
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
g per MJ: gram per Mega Joule
N20: Nitrous Oxide
NG: Natural Gas
N/A: Not Applicable
PATNER: Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction
PM: Particulate Matter
SOx: Sulphur Oxides
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound
WTP: Well-to-Pump
WTW: Well-to-Wake
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
9/59
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that man-made emissions, a large portion from carbon based fuels,
are causing major changes to the earths climate. The worlds transportation is heavily dependent
upon crude oil and the aviation sector is no exception. Majority of the jet engines currently in use
run on kerosene based fuel, which is an extract from crude oil. Aviation accounts for over 3 percent
of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is one of the fastest growing sectors (Air
Transport Association 2008). Controlling this growth in GHG emissions is seen as an important part
of reducing emissions from the aviation sector. With environmental, economic and social concerns
on the rise, there has been a lot of focus towards shifting from a crude oil based fuel to more
renewable and cleaner jet fuels.
1.1 Aviation Industry
Aviation is a critical part of the overall global economy, providing for the movement of people
and goods from one location to another, enabling economic growth. The aviation industry carries
approximately 2.3 billion passengers and 38 million metric tons of freight annually, while
contributing 8 percent of the global gross domestic products and 2 percent of the global carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions (Air Transport Association 2008). These numbers are at a rise since the
aviation industry is expanding at a rapid rate. Worldwide air traffic is expected to grow annually by
an average of 5.1 percent for passengers and 5.6 percent for cargo by 2030 (Daggett et al. 2008).
The advantage of covering long distances in short durations of time has made travel easier. By
making business and tourism easier, aviation contributes significantly to the overall global
economy. Aviation also plays an important role in national security and has extensive military
applications.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
10/59
2
For over 100 years, aviation has been driven by fossilized fuels. Current day jet fuel is a
mixture of a variety of hydrocarbons. The type of hydrocarbons in the final mixture depends on the
properties required for the final product fuel, for example, the freezing point or smoke point. For
commercial aviation Jet A and Jet A-1 are the most commonly used fuels whereas for military
applications, JP-8 and JP-4 are more widely used as fuels for the jet engines. The commercial and
military jet fuel counterparts differ only by the amounts of a few additives; Jet A-1 is similar to JP-8
and similarly Jet B is similar to JP-4 (American Society for Testing and Materials. 2006).
The aviation industry is facing political and social pressure to reduce its GHG emissions.
Market based measures such as The EU Emissions Trading System, which came into place in 2007,
have put restrictions on the GHG emissions from jet fuels. The United States Obama administration
is also considering implementing a cap and trade system to limit global warming. In Canada,
political concern has been rising steadily with British Columbia in 2008 implementing a carbon tax
of 10 dollars per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (Bureau of Economics 2010).
1.2 Impact of Conventional Jet Fuel
There are two main motivations for a move away from crude oil based jet fuel; environmental
impacts and fuel prices. There is a broad agreement in the scientific community that GHG emissions
from the combustion of fossil fuels lead to a rise in global temperature. This rise in temperature
contributes to overall climate change and ecological damage. In Antarctica, warmer temperatures
may result in more rapid melting of ice which increases sea levels and compromises the
composition of surrounding waters. Rising sea levels can also impede processes ranging from
settlement, agriculture and fishing.
Aviation accounts for 3% of the global greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the largest
growing sources of emissions in the transportation sector. Research has found that aviation
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
11/59
3
emissions have a greater climate impact than the same emissions made at ground level. It has been
reported that emission from aircrafts flying at cruising altitude between 8km to 13km affect
atmospheric contribution in a height region where through changes in the chemical and physical
processes, the climate change impact is more significant (Baughcum 1996).
High price of jet fuel increases the cost of aviation. As shown by Figure 1 jet fuel prices have
been on the rise and have overtaken labour as the primary expense for airlines. In addition, the price
of jet fuel has a great deal of volatility associated with it. As can be seen from Figure 1, price of jet
fuel increased almost seven folds form 2002 to 2009. This complicates airline planning for future
fuel purchase since the trajectory of future fuel price is uncertain.
Figure 1: Graph showing price of jet fuel between 1970 and 2010 (Air Transport Association 2010).
Another issue with continued use of fossil fuels is that these are a non renewable source of
energy and are expected to dry out eventually. Its been argued that global petroleum production and
the supply of comparatively cheap, available oil will soon peak and then decline as shown in Figure
2. Some economists believe this has already happened. After the turning point ofpeak oil,
remaining reserves will be difficult to reach and expensive to extract. The result will be heavier oils
that are harder to process.
http://www.climateandenergy.org/Explore/EnergySecurity/Index.htmhttp://www.climateandenergy.org/Explore/EnergySecurity/Index.htm -
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
12/59
4
Figure 2: Chart showing the projected decline in global petroleum production highlighting the concept of
peal oil (Fargione et al2008).
1.3 Renewable Jet Fuel
Renewable Jet Fuel is a broad category that encompasses those aviation fuels that are derived
from renewable sources of energy. Renewable jet fuels can be broadly split into four main
categories (Marker 2005).
i. Synthetic jet fuel from thermochemical processes involving lignocellulosic biomass-to-liquid (BTL) such as Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis and pyrolysis;
ii. Advanced fermentation, catalytic, and other means of converting sugar, including those inlignocellulosic materials, and starches to jet fuel.
iii. Hydroprocessing of renewable oils to synthetic jet fuel known as hydroprocessed renewablejet (HRJ), also known as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids jet (HEFA-J) fuels;
iv. Conversion of calorific liquids from micro-organisms to synthetic jet fuel [5].Other alternative jet fuels such as those derived from unconventional sources of petroleum (oil
sands, oil shale), coal-to-liquid process and natural gas-to-liquid process are not considered since
these fuels are derived from fossil fuels and their usage could potentially lead to the same economic
and environmental issues being faced by conventional jet fuels. The long-term viability and success
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
13/59
5
of an aviation fuel depends on both economic and environmental sustainability. Renewable Jet fuels
have the potential to reduce the world demand for petroleum, consequently reducing the world price
of oil and products derived from it and therefore benefiting aviation. By being based on a renewable
source of energy (biomass), they also offer the potential to reduce life-cycle GHG emissions and
therefore reduce aviations contribution to global climate change.
1.4 Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment
Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that has found widespread use in the
analysis and comparison of environmental impacts from fuel systems. It considers the full life-cycle
of a fuel from extraction to disposal. Uncertainty in LCA results is seen as something that arises due
to lack of knowledge. There can be many types of uncertainty. The focus of this thesis will be on
parameter uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. Other sources of uncertainty were left out primarily
due to reasons of feasibility. Moreover, past studies have found parameter and scenario uncertainty
to have a more significant impact on LCA results (Huijbregts 1998, Weber 2012).
Uncertainty might be due to lack of knowledge of a particular parameter or a process.
(parameter uncertainty) and due to the normative choices that one has to make (scenario
uncertainty). Treating LCA uncertainties represents a challenge at different levels. However
quantification of uncertainties is important since it adds credibility to LCA results. It is only natural
that decision makers and life cycle experts be interested in the credibility of the results of LCA.
1.5 Goal and Scope
The main goal of this study is to quantify the effect of uncertainty in the well-to-pump GHG
emissions of Camelina oil based jet fuel. Possible implications as a result of this uncertainty in
emissions are also studied. A key objective is to demonstrate the need for employing uncertainty
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
14/59
6
analysis before drawing conclusions from LCA analysis. In addition, the thesis also identifies
critical parameters that LCA of Camelina jet fuel is most sensitive to.
The 2012 GREET version is used to conduct the LCA analysis. Parameter uncertainty resulting
from Camelina crop characteristics and fuel processing are studied. In addition to parameter
uncertainty, scenario uncertainty also contributes to the overall uncertainty of the life cycle study.
The thesis studies scenario uncertainty resulting from choices in co-product allocation methods.
1.6 Thesis Structure
This thesis is organized in six chapters, each consisting of multiple sub chapters. The current
chapter, Chapter 1 introduces the core relevant topics along with the motivation for carrying out the
thesis. Chapter 2 provides a listing of the different biofuels available for use as jet fuel. A set of
criteria are established which are then used to identify promising biofuel options for jet fuel
applications. Chapter 3 defines the goals and objectives the thesis is aiming to achieve. Chapter 4
provides a literature review of the topics at the core of the thesis.
Chapter 5 outlines the methods used by the thesis to obtain the results. The chapter details the
LCA and simulation tools used to formulate the results. The scope of the thesis, LCA uncertainties
and data collection methods are also defined. In Chapter 6 the main results are presented and
discussed. Results from scenario and parameter uncertainty are analyzed and possible implications
are studied. Limitations of the study are presented along with areas for future work. The thesis
closes with concluding remarks and recommendations in Chapter 7.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
15/59
7
Chapter 2: Renewable Jet Fuel Selection
For a perspective aviation fuel to be used safely and effectively in the air-transportation
industry it must meet a set of important criteria. This section provides a listing of the different
biofuels available for use as jet fuel. System compatibility is established as a primary constraint for
any alternative fuel. A set of criteria are established which are then used to identify promising
biofuel options for jet fuel applications.
2.1 Candidate Fuels
Table 1 summarizes the list of candidate fuels considered in this thesis. These fuels are derived
from one of three sources: Fischer Tropsch process, Renewable Oils and Biomass.
Table 1: List of candidate renewable jet fuels for the aviation industry
Fuel Source
Fischer-Troph Jet Fuel FT synthesis of biomass
HRJ FuelHydroprocessing of plant oil to create anoxygen-free jet fuel
BioalcoholsFermentation of sugars, grains and treatedcellulosic feedstocks
BiodieselChemically reacting lipids with an alcohol
2.1.1 Fischer-Troph Jet Fuel
The Fischer-Troph process is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons (Nigel et al. 1999). The input into the
process is a carbon containing feedstock (coal, natural gas or biomass) and the output is a liquid
hydrocarbon that can be used as jet fuel. The focus of this thesis will be on renewable feedstock.
Hence, coal and natural gas feedstocks will not be considered. The biomass feedstocks examined
include switch grass, corn stover and forest residue.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
16/59
8
All jet fuels produced by the FT process have similar characteristics, regardless of the
feedstock used. Since feedstock does not govern fuel properties, FT jet fuels share common
characteristics with regard to system compatibility and aircraft emissions. However, feedstock
choice does have a strong influence on production potential and life-cycle GHG emissions.
2.1.2 Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet Fuel
Renewable oils can be processed into a fuel which has properties that are similar to FT fuels.
The process involves hydrotreatment to deoxygenate oil with subsequent hydrocracking (Krbitz
1999). The output is liquid hydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel. As in the case of
FT fuels, all HRJ jet fuels have similar system compatibility regardless of feedstock. The difference
comes about in production potential and GHG emissions. This thesis examines feedstock sources
including Soybean oil, Palm oil, Rapeseed oil, Algae oil, Jatropha oil and Camelina oil.
2.1.3 Bioalcohols
Biologically produced alcohols, most commonly ethanol and butanol, are produced by the
action of microorganisms and enzymes through the fermentation of sugar or starches or cellulose.
Ethanol is a two-carbon alcohol while butanol is a four-carbon alcohol (Malca 2006). Because of
this fundamental chemical difference they each have unique properties. However since both are
typically made by fermentation of sugar, they share similarities in production potential and GHG
emissions. In North America, corn grain is used as the primary feedstock for fuel-alcohol
production.
2.1.4 Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a vegetable oil or animal fat based diesel fuel consisting of long-chain alkyl esters.
It is typically produced by chemically processing the fatty acid from plant or animal source with
methanol. Although similar to diesel in many ways, biodiesel is different from diesel in two ways.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
17/59
9
First, biodiesel contains oxygen, and second, the length of the carbon chains in biodiesel is inherited
from the feedstock (Nigel 1999). Common feedstocks for biodiesel include soybean oil, rapeseed oil
and coconut oil. As discussed earlier, only plant based renewable feedstocks are considered in this
thesis.
2.2 System Compatibility
For a prospective fuel to have an impact on aviation, the most important criterion is
compatibility with current aviation systems such as fuel delivery, storage and energy density. The
fuel must be able to drop-in or directly be able to be used in existing fleet of aircrafts without any
significant modifications. The use of a fuel should not significantly degrade safety or adversely
affect aircraft operation. Air Transport Association (2008) has identified a set of criteria for safe
aircraft operation. To enable the safe operation of current aircraft, an alternative fuel must possess
an array of characteristics including:
i. High energy density, which facilitates long-range flightii. High flash point, which is the temperature above which fuel produces vapours for ignition.
This is an essential safety consideration
iii. Low freezing point and vapour pressure, which enable high-altitude flightiv. High Thermal Stability, which enables the fuel to cool engine components without a change
in its chemical properties. This increases the overall aircraft performance.
Compatibility with current aviation infrastructure is an important criterion and a fuel not
meeting this criterion would not be feasible for use as a jet fuel. Hence in this thesis, system
compatibility is considered a constraint. Only fuels meeting this criterion are considered for further
evaluation. Table 2 summarizes the system compatibility characteristics of the fuels examined by
the thesis.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
18/59
10
Table 2: Table summarizing the system compatibility of candidate jet fuels considered.
Fuel Verdict Note
FT Fuel Compatible Compatible on blending
Biodiesel IncompatibleLow freeze point temperature, breaks down
during storage/operation
HRJ Fuel Compatible Compatible on blending
Bioalcohol Incompatible Low flash point temperature and high volatility
2.2.1 FT Fuels
In comparison to conventional jet fuels, FT fuels have lower lubricity and do not contain
aromatic compounds (Jet Fuel Network 2007). The absence of aromatic compounds can cause leaks
in certain types of aircraft fuel systems. However, both these issues can be resolved by blending the
fuel with conventional jet fuel and with appropriate use of additives. Blends that are 50 percent FT
fuels have been used by airlines leaving the International Airport in Cape Town, South Africa.
2.2.2 Biodiesel
Research on biodiesel has indicated that biodiesel is not appropriate for use as jet fuel (ASTM
2006, Kalnes et al. 2009). Biodiesel poses a risk of breaking down during storage or during use in
aircraft fuel systems, leaving that could compromise flight safety and performance. Moreover, pure
biodiesel freezes at temperatures typical of high-altitude flight. Even tests of light biodiesel with
conventional jet fuel have seen the problems persist. Based on these factors, biodiesel cannot be
considered as a drop-in fuel and hence is not considered for further analysis.
2.2.3 HRJ Fuel
Properties of HRJ fuel are similar to those of FT jet fuel; reduced lubricity and low aromatic
content and high thermal stability. As for FT fuel, problems due to reduced lubricity and aromatic
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
19/59
11
content can be addressed by use of conventional jet fuel blends and use of additives. HRJ Fuel has
been tested by several airlines and companies showing promising potential for use as a jet fuel.
2.2.4 Bioalcohols
The two types of bioalcohols considered by the thesis are ethanol and butanol. While alcohols
may be an attractive automotive fuel, they are not suitable for use in aircrafts (Bernesson et al.
2006). Ethanol has a low flash point, making it dangerous to handle and poses a risk to aircraft
occupants. It is highly volatile and could cause problems during high altitude flight. Moreover, its
energy content per unit mass is approximately 40 percent less than that of jet fuel. While not as
incompatible as ethanol, butanol still poses unacceptable safety risks due to its high volatility and
low flash point.
Hence, through the above analysis, HRJ fuel and FT fuel were found to meet the system
compatibility criteria. It has to be noted that in the above analysis feedstock types were not
considered. This is because the effect of feedstock type does not affect properties significantly
enough to influence jet fuel safety and performance.
2.3 Camelina based HRJ fuel
The thesis arrives at the following fuels that show promising potential for use as jet fuel.
Table 3: Jet fuel candidates satisfying the system compatibility criterion
Fuel Feedstock Source
Fischer-Troph Jet Fuel Switch grass and Corn stover
HRJ Fuel Soy bean oil, Rapeseed oil, Palm oil, Algae
oil, Jatropha oil and Camelina oil
The options listed above are all promising jet fuels and currently extensive research is ongoing
on all of the above. In recent years however, there has been heighted interest in use of Camelina
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
20/59
12
feedstock for production of jet fuel. In addition to its high compatibility with existing aviation
infrastructure, Camelina has some agronomic and economic advantages over its competitors.
Moreover it also satisfies a key criterion of being a non food based crop.
2.3.1 Agronomic Advantages
Camelina has several advantageous agronomic characteristics which make favorable for use as
a renewable jet fuel feedstock. With high seed oil content as well as high yield of oil per hectare,
Camelina feedstock can be efficiently converted into high quality renewable jet fuel. Camelina is
also well adapted to production in a variety of climatic zones. It germinates at low temperature, and
seedlings are very frost tolerant. Camelina crops perform well under drought stress conditions and
compared to most other oil seed crops, have shown better performance in low rainfall regions
(Frohlich 2005).
2.3.2 Unit Production Cost
Camelina is particularly attractive as an alternative feedstock for jet fuel production as a result
of its low unit production cost when compared with other fuel options. A recent study done by
School of Agricultural Engineering at Purdue University (Agusdinata 2011) found Camelina and
Corn Stover have the lowest total unit cost whereas Algae has the highest (refer appendix A). The
same study reports that Camelina-derived jet fuel will become financially viable at year 2015 and
algae by 2040.
2.3.3 Competition with Food Crops
Biomass sources like soybean and rapeseed are excellent candidates for biofuel feedstock.
However, these are also extensively used in the food industry for production of vegetable oil. A
dilemma facing decision makers and researchers is that of choosing to use the crop as food or fuel
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
21/59
13
(Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 2008). There have been fears that adopting food
crops as a source of feedstock for biofuel could lead to high food price levels and volatility. A study
for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development found that market driven
expansion of ethanol in the United States increased maize prices by 21 percent in 2009.
A key advantage of Camelina crop is that it is not predominantly a food based crop (Frohlich
2005). Although Camelina is also used in the food industry, its consumption is comparatively
limited and adoption of Camelina as a fuel is not expected to have significant effect on food prices.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
22/59
14
Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives
This thesis examines the uncertainties associated with life cycle GHG emissions of Camelina
based HRJ Jet Fuel. The research follows a well-to-pump approach, analyzing emission
uncertainties associated with the up stream feedstock and fuel processing stages. Emissions from the
use stage of the jet fuel are not considered. The GREET model developed by the Argonne National
Laboratory is used to conduct the LCA analysis. Uncertainty ranges of individual parameters are
modeled and scenario emissions are simulated by conducting a Monte-Carolo analysis using the
ModelRisk software.
The objectives of this thesis are not to compare the results with other systems or references,
rather it is meant to provide insight into the emission uncertainties associated with Camelina HRJ
fuel production practices. At the highest level the question is: To what extents do LCA uncertainties
in Camelina HRJ fuel affect final GHG emissions? In particular, the following questions are
examined:
1) What is the nature of uncertainty in estimates of life cycle GHG emissions of CamelinaHRJ Fuel? That is, quantitatively speaking, what is the extent of uncertainty in final
resultant emissions?
2) What parameters significantly affect the final outcome? On which parameters shouldefforts be focused on to reduce/address emission uncertainty?
3) What are the possible implications of the presence of uncertainty in emissions? Possibleimplications on decision making are examined.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
23/59
15
Chapter 4: Literature Review
This section reviews the literature pertinent to the thesis topic. It is split into three sections.
Firstly, Camelina crop cultivation and fuel processing is studied. This followed by an analysis of the
life cycle assessment approach towards biofuel systems. Finally, Uncertainty Analysis is studied by
looking at the sources and types of uncertainty.
4.1 Camelina HRJ Fuel
4.1.1 Camelina Crop
Camelina is an ancient oilseed crop that belongs to the family Cruciferae. Some examples of
this family include oilseeds like mustard, rapes, canola, crambe and vegetables like cabbage,
cauliflower and broccoli (Frolich 2005). Camelina is more commonly known as false flax. Camelina
sativa (most common Camelina species) is an annual summer or wintering plant which has branched
smooth or hairy stems that become woody at maturity and reach heights ranging from 1-3 feet.
Camelina is a short-seasoned (85-100 days) crop, and can be grown under different climatic and soil
conditions with the exception of heavy clay and organic soil (Zubr, 1997). Camelina is a low-input
crop with minimum nutrient requirements and can grow well in low-fertility or saline soils when
compared to other oilseed crops like canola, soybean or sunflower.
4.1.2 Geographical Distribution
Camelina sativa originated in Germany and its cultivation spread to Central Europe (Budin et
al. 1995). From the beginning of 20th century up to the 1930s Camelina sativa was grown
sporadically in France, Belgium, Holland, the Balkans and Russia. In 1950s Camelina was still
grown in Sweden and it was an important crop in the USSR (Zubr 1997).
Today, Camelina is found in almost all regions of Europe, Asia and North America. It has
especially seen rapid growth in North America. Montana State University (MSU) Agricultural
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
24/59
16
Experiment Research Centers (2004) conducted a study on nine different oilseed crops for biofuel
production and Camelina emerged as a potential oilseed crop for production across Montana and the
Northern Great Plains. Figure 3 shows the test sites for Camelina production for the year 2004 in US
and Canada by Sustainable Oils, Montana, USA.
Figure 3: Camelina production test sites in Canada and USA
4.1.3 Camelina Oil Extraction
Camelina oil is the main product from camelina seeds and the average yield of oil from the
seeds is 35-45% (Rode 2002, Zubr 2003). It is a golden yellow color liquid with a mild nutty and
characteristic mustard aroma. Extraction of oil from oilseeds yields a number of co-products out of
which Camelina oilcakes/meal are the most dominant. Other co-products such as glycerine and
propane are formed in minor quantities. Camelina meal consists of 5-10 % residual oil, 45 % crude
protein, 13 % fiber, 5 % of minerals and some minor levels of vitamins (Zubr 1997). Mikersch
(1952) reported the residual oil content as 13 %, ash (6.6%), crude fiber (11.7%), protein (32.8%)
and non-nitrogenous matter (27.2%) in Camelina meal. Because of the high crude protein content,
Camelina meal is considered economically important and can be used as nutritive supplement in
animal feed formulations.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
25/59
17
4.1.4 Camelina Oil to HRJ fuel
Before the Camelina oil is fit for use as a jet fuel it requires further processing. The processing
involves hydrotreatment to deoxygenate the oil with subsequent hydrocracking to create
hydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel (Hileman et al. 2009). The output from this
process, Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet fuel is considered a drop-in fuel meaning that the fuel is
compatible with existing production, storage, distribution, and combustion infrastructure. In the
process of producing HRJ fuel from Camelina naphtha range co-products are produced. The naphtha
can be upgraded for use as high-octane gasoline or can be directly used as process fuel for hydrogen
production feed.
4.2 Life Cycle Assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to help assess the total resource use and environmental
effects associated with products throughout their entire life cycle, from extraction (or cultivation),
through production, transportation, use, and disposal (ISO 2006). Initial studies on life cycle aspects
of products and processes date back from the late sixties and early seventies and the major focus
was on quantifying the material and energy consumption of a product (Bjorklund 2012). The oil
crisis of 1970s, energy debate, the environmental debate on waste disposal and the more recent
climate change concerns are considered to be the potential drivers behind LCA (Baumann et al.
2004). According to ISO standard 14040 (ISO 2006), LCA can assist in:
identifying opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products at variouspoints in their life cycle,
informing decision-makers in industry, government or non-government organizations (e.g.forthe purpose of strategic planning, priority setting, product or process design or redesign),
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
26/59
18
the selection of relevant indicators of environmental performance, including measurementtechniques, and
marketing (e.g. implementing an eco-labelling scheme, making an environmental claim, orproducing an environmental product declaration).
It must be emphasized that to determine the holistic impact of a product, an LCA must be taken
into account as opposed to simply considering just a single stage such as use stage within product.
In this study, the LCA is used to assess the GHG emissions from a Camelina based jet fuel. The
focus will primarily be on quantifying the uncertainties that are inherently present in LCA
outcomes.
4.3 Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainty in LCA results is seen as something that arises due to lack of knowledge (Heijungs
1996). This might be due to lack of knowledge of a particular parameter or a process. Treating LCA
uncertainties represents a challenge at different levels. However quantification of uncertainties is
important since it adds credibility to LCA results. It is only natural that decision makers and life
cycle experts be interested in the credibility of the results of LCA.
4.3.1 Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment
The LCA methodology has a wide range of applications and is no doubt a very useful tool for
the critical assessment of a product over its entire life cycle from cradle-to-grave(Tukker 1999).
However, the methodology is not without limitations. The limitations of the LCA methodology,
especially regarding uncertainty in the resultant outcomes, are the subject of many publications
(Heijungs 1996, Huijbregts 2003).
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
27/59
19
Results from an LCA are usually presented as point estimates, which overestimate its reliability
and do not address the uncertainty inherent in input variables. This can lead to decisions that are
unnecessarily costly or may mislead perception about the environmental profile of the product.
Treating uncertainty is a challenge at different levels. Currently, the analysis of the uncertainty in
LCA studies, even though crucial, is rarely done (Ross, 2002), because of the lack of simple
methods allowing its quantification. However, when data and resources are available, integrating
uncertainty of both human and natural systems is important since it provides decision makers useful
information to assess the reliability of LCA-based decision and also helps guide future research
towards reducing uncertainty.
Before proceeding to define the different types and sources of uncertainty, a contrast with
variability should be made. Variability is understood here as originating from inherent variations in
the real world. On the other hand uncertainty relates to lack of knowledge (inaccurate
measurements, lack of data etc.). Consider this example; the yield rate of a crop at a specific
farming location may be subject to uncertainty while the overall yield rate at a typical location may
be subject to variation. Variability stems from quality of data that is heterogeneous in nature while
uncertainty stems from lack of knowledge.
4.3.2 Types of Uncertainty
There are many ways of classifying uncertainty. Classification of uncertainty types has a
subjective element to it and different authors have adopted different approaches for classification.
Without going in details of defining these categories, Table 4 lists out how some past studies have
classified uncertainty.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
28/59
20
Table 4: Uncertainty classifications by previous studies
Bevington & Robinson (1992) Morgan & Henrion (1990)
Hofstetter (1998)
Huijbregts (2001)
systematic errors
random errors
statistical variation
subjective judgmentlinguistic imprecisionvariability
inherent randomnessdisagreement
approximation
parameter uncertainty
model uncertaintyuncertainty due to choicesspatial variability
temporal variabilityvariability between sources and
objects
Funtowicz & Ravetz (1990) Bedford & Cooke (2001) US-EPA (1989)
data uncertaintymodel uncertainty
completeness uncertainty
aleatory uncertaintyepistemic uncertainty
parameter uncertaintydata uncertaintymodel uncertainty
ambiguityvolitional uncertainty
scenario uncertaintyparameter uncertainty
model uncertainty
The focus of this study will be on parameter uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. Other
sources of uncertainty were left out primarily due to reasons of feasibility. Moreover, past studies
have found parameter and scenario uncertainty to have a more significant impact on LCA results.
4.3.3 Parameter Uncertainty
Parameter uncertainty reflects the incomplete knowledge about the true value of a parameter.
To give an example, consider the case of a crop based biofuel. When conducting an LCA to study
GHG emissions from this biofuel, parameter uncertainties could stem from aspects such as
uncertainty in crop yield, irrigation water consumption and required amount of fertilizer. Parameter
uncertainties mainly arise due to imprecise measurements, estimations, assumptions or lack of
quality data.
Monte Carlo simulation is a technique to quantify parameter uncertainty. The advantage of
conducting a Monte Carlo simulation is that it propagates known parameter uncertainties into an
uncertainty distribution of the variable output (Sonnemann et al. 2003). Hence the uncertainties
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
29/59
21
present in the input parameters are carried on to the final output result. To perform Monte Carlo
simulation, each uncertain input parameter has to be specified as an uncertainty distribution.
However, LCA studies generally involve many parameters and it is often unfeasible to characterize
ranges for all of these parameters. Hence it becomes important to identify parameters that have a
significant impact on the final LCA results and thereafter carry out a detailed uncertainty analysis of
these specific parameters.
4.3.4 Scenario Uncertainty
Scenario uncertainties result from the normative choices that are unavoidable in LCA studies.
Considering the example of a crop based biofuel again, scenario uncertainties could stem from
aspects such as choice in the type of co-product allocation method (energy, mass, market,
displacement) and choice in the approach to dealing with land use changes. Choosing one scenario
option over the other could lead to uncertainty because different choices may generate different
LCA outcomes. Treatment of scenario uncertainty entails two steps. First step is to identify the
normative choices in the LCA study and secondly, to quantify the consequences of these normative
choices in terms of output uncertainty.
4.3.5 Sources of Uncertainty
When discussing uncertainties, one of the first things that could arise in ones mind is the
actual source of the uncertainty, its presence in the LCA itself and where exactly is its point of
introduction in the LCA. Although a fully satisfying classification may be difficult to agree upon,
uncertainty can be roughly split into three following sources (Huijbregts 1998):
data for which no value is available data for which an inappropriate value is available data for which more than one value is available
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
30/59
22
Table 5 presents an overview of the types of uncertainties and the points of their introduction in
the life cycle assessment. There is a general consensus that the most important points of introduction
of uncertainties are the data inventory phase of the LCA and the phase of characterization of the
uncertainties by the user (Huijbregts 1998, Heijungs 2004, Peereboom et al. 1999).
Table 5: Types of uncertainties and their introduction points in LCA
4.3.6 LCA Uncertainty in Biofuel Systems
Although quantifying uncertainty in life cycle studies is not a new idea, its use in LCA for
biofuel systems is relatively new. From literature review two main research papers were identified
that studied uncertainty in biofuel systems; Uncertainty in LCA of Rape-seed Biodiesel (Malca
2010) and Uncertainty Analysis of LCA for Algal Biofuel Production (Sills et al. 2012). Both
these papers highlight the high degree of uncertainty in LCA results for biofuel systems. Figure 4
shows the degree of uncertainty in Energy Return ratios from previous algal biofuel systems studied
by Sills et al. The authors suggest that similar uncertainty ranges can be expected for other LCA
results including GHG emissions. Malca in his study of uncertainty in LCA of rapeseed oil
reinforces the same point of high uncertainty in LCA of biofuel systems.
Type LCA Phase
Goal and Scope InventoryChoice of impact
categoriesCharacterisations
Parameter
Uncertainty-
Inaccuratemeasurements, lack
of data-
Uncertainty in life timesof substance and relativecontribution to impact.
Lack of data
Scenario
Uncertainty
Choice offunctional unit,
systemboundaries
Choice of allocationmethod, technology
level, average data
Leaving out impactcategories (eg: land
use)
Choice of
characterisation methods
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
31/59
23
Figure 4: LCA uncertainty in energy return ratios for algal biofuel systems (Sills et al. 2012)
Camelinas use as a biofuel is relatively recent and data to conduct a similar analysis as in
Figure 4 is not readily available. However from the few LCA studies that have been conducted
significant uncertainty has been reported. Shonnard (2009) reports an uncertainty of over 10 g CO2
per MJ fuel for life cycle GHG emissions from Camelina fuel. Table 6 presents the uncertainty
types that were studied by past biofuel LCA uncertainty papers (Malca 2010, Sills et al. 2012).
These are used as a guide to identify parameters to study in this thesis.
Table 6: Uncertainty types that were studied by past biofuel LCA uncertainty papers
LCA Study Scenario Uncertainty Parameter Uncertainty
Rapeseed Oil Co-product Allocation
No Allocation Mass Energy Economic System Expansion
Fertilizer application ratePesticide application rateFuel consumption for agricultural machinery
Agricultural YieldSoil Carbon Stock Exchange
Oil extraction rateIndustrial process energy use
Algal Biofuel Productivity (Yield)Cultivation energy consumptionLipid Content
Nitrogen Loading
Fertilizer absorption efficiencyProcess Energy Use
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
32/59
24
Chapter 5: Materials and Methods
This chapter outlines the methods used by the thesis to obtain the results. The section details
the LCA and simulation tools used to formulate the results. The scope of the thesis, LCA
uncertainties and data collection methods are also defined.
5.1 Methodology
Figure 5 summarizes the methodology adopted in this thesis.
Figure 5: Methodology adopted by the thesis
Firstly, parameters essential to the production of Camelina jet fuel were identified from review
of existing biofuel LCA literature studies (Refer Chapter 4) and from those available in the GREET
Model version 2012. Uncertainty ranges for these parameters were then established from literature
values and in some cases appropriate assumptions were made. To study uncertainty, Monte Carlo
simulations were carried out on the GREET model based on the parameter ranges established.
Uncertainty analysis was conducted by studying the combined effect of all parameters on
uncertainty. To study effect of parameters, each parameter was simulated individually, keeping
other parameters at their baseline values. Finally, the results obtained were discussed and their
possible implications were explored.
Interpretation of Results
Uncertainty Analysis
Monte Carlo simulation on GREET Model
Selection of Essential Parameters
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
33/59
25
5.2 GREET Model
Developed by the Argonne National Laboratory, the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model is a publicly available LCA tool designed to
investigate numerous fuel cycles (Wang et al. 2011). The fuel-cycle model for transportation fuels
considers the operations involved in producing and using fuels, while the vehicle-cycle model
considers operations involved in manufacturing and decommissioning vehicles. The latter model is
not used in the analysis since this thesis is limited to WTP emissions.
Figure 6 presents the many biofuel systems available for analysis. GREET can be used to
compute fossil, petroleum, and total energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and
N2O). Moreover, it can also be used to compute emissions of five criteria pollutants: carbon
monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides
(SOx) and particulate matter.
Figure 6: Biofuel systems available for analysis in the GREET Model
5.3 Scope of Thesis
This section defines the scope of the thesis. It is split into two parts. Firstly the overall LCA
system is described along with the system boundary. The second part details the parameters that the
thesis examines to study uncertainty in LCA GHG emissions.
Corn Sugarcane
Cellulosic BiomassSwitchgrass
Fast Growing TreesCrop Residue
Forest Residue
Renewable Oil
Soybean
Palm OilJatropha
RapeseedCamelina
Ethanol
ButanolEthanol
Ethanol
HydrogenMethanolFT Diesel
FT Jet Fuel
Biodiesel
Renewable DieselRenewable Gasoline
HRJ Fuel
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
34/59
26
5.3.1 System Boundary and System Description
The main goal of this thesis is to quantify the effect of parameter and scenario uncertainty on
life cycle GHG emissions of Camelina HRJ fuel. GHG emissions are studied in units of grams per
mega joule of fuel (g per MJ fuel). Figure 7 depicts the system boundary for the LCA analysis in
this thesis. The boundary defines a well-to-pump fuel cycle analysis. Any analysis beyond the
pump stage such as emissions from usage of fuel is not included. Construction, replacement, and
decommissioning of equipment and facilities for the fuel cycle are also excluded from the analysis.
Figure 7: System boundary for the Camelina jet fuel LCA analysis
The 2012 GREET version is used to conduct the LCA analysis. The focus is on analyzing
Camelina jet fuel in a Canadian context. GREET has inbuilt default values for all model parameters.
It also allows the user to manually input values for these parameters. The following is a listing of
some of the key parameters used in the GREET model (Refer Appendix B for a breakdown of the
process parameters used in the GREET model). Since interest in Camelina as a potential biofuel is
relatively recent, data on cultivation, fuel processing and co-products is scarce. Hence, most default
values in the GREET model have not been changed. GREET bases these values on data from
literature while also in some cases correlating parameters with other biofuels. Certain default
parameters have been changed given the Canadian context of this thesis and the availability of new
data in recent literature.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
35/59
27
Camelina Cultivation and Fuel Processing: Cultivation and fuel processing stages entail a
wide array of parameters. Table 7 lists some of the key parameters along with the values used in the
analysis. GREET model provides an option of inputting appropriate values for these parameters and
calculates emissions based on the input values. Cultivation data was inputted based on a recent
Camelina cultivation study done by Agriculture Canada (2012). For fuel processing parameters
default values in the GREET model were used which are based on research done by Shonnard
(2009).
Table 7: Key Camelina cultivation, processing and fuel production parameters
Camelina Cultivationand Processing
Farming energy use 965 Btu/kg
Bio Oil extraction energy 842 btu/lb of bio oil
Biomass use for oil extraction 2.9 lb/lb bio oil
Camelina biofuel yield (system level) 1.2 lb/kg camelina
HRJ Fuel Production
Oil use 1.27 lb oil/lb jet fuel
Fuel Production energy use 3372 btu/lb jet fuel
HRJ Fuel Yield (system level) 1.1 lb/kg camelina
System Co-products: While obtaining a Camelina based HRJ fuel, the production processes
produce other products in addition to the fuel. Table 8 presents the mixture percentages of the
different co-products produced during the oil extraction and HRJ fuel production stages (Argonne
National Laboratory 2011).
Table 8: Final co-product percentages formed during Camelina jet fuel production
Oil Extraction
(Input: Camelina Grain)
Camelina Oil 35%
Camelina Meal 60%
Glycerine 3%
Others 2%
Fuel Production(Input: Camelina Oil)
HRJ Fuel 76 %
Naphtha 14 %
Propane mix 10 %
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
36/59
28
Electricity generation Mix: The GREET model gives an option of choosing between a United
States electricity mix and a Canadian electricity mix. Since this thesis is oriented towards Canadian
prospects, the Canadian energy mix is selected. Emissions due to electricity usage are calculated
based on this mix.
Table 9: Distribution of the Canadian Electricity mix used by the GREET model
Canadian Electricity Mix
Natural Gas 30.2%
Coal 11.3%
Nuclear Power 21.2%
Biomass 0.8%
Others 36.4%
Hydroprocessing: The hydrogen required for the Hydroprocessing stage of an HRJ fuel can be
obtained from multiple avenues (coal, natural gas, thermal chemical water cracking, electrolysis). In
Canada, the cheapest option is via natural gas (Nangia 2006). Hence, natural gas is chosen as the
source of hydrogen for the hydroprocessing stage.
Land use change: Land use change is an emergent and important topic the life cycle study of
biofuels. The GREET model does provide the option of accounting for land use change impacts.
However there is limited information and high degree of uncertainty in the data (Fargione et al.
2008, Halleux et al. 2008). Therefore, land use change effects are not considered in the analysis.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): CCS is a process of capturing carbon dioxide from
large point sources and storing it where it will not enter the atmosphere.However, deployment of
CCS is unproven. Moreover, some researchers have pointed out feasibility of implementing CCS at
a large (IPCC 2009). Given the uncertainty surrounding CCS, it is assumed emission capture does
not take place in the system.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
37/59
29
5.3.2 LCA Uncertainties for Camelina HRJ Fuel
This section details the parameters that the thesis examines to study uncertainty in life cycle
GHG emissions. Inherently there is uncertainty associated with these parameters which add on to
the overall uncertainty of LCA results. These parameters were identified as critical based on
literature review of biofuel system uncertainties. Moreover choice of these parameters was also
based on the option in GREET to change values for these parameters.
Camelina Crop Characteristics: The two parameters examined under this section are lipid
content and moisture content. These parameters play an important role in determining the oil that
can be extracted form the Camelina seed. It is desirable to have higher lipid content in seeds since
higher lipid content results in higher oil yield. Moisture content affects a number of aspects such as
seed spoilage and fuel yield. 10 percent moisture content has been found to give ideal performance.
Table 10 presents the uncertainty ranges found in literature for the (Agriculture Canada 2012)
Table 10: Uncertainty ranges for the lipid content and moisture content parameters.
Parameter Lower limit Baseline Upper limit
Lipid Content 38% 40.5% 43%
Moisture Content 8% 9.5% 11%
Co-Product Allocation: Camelina HRJ fuel production is a multi-output product system
which results in formation of co-products in addition to the final fuel. Allocation is a method which
distributes the input energy and material flows and output emissions amongst the product and co-
products (ISO 14044:2006). The choice of the allocation method has considerable impact on the
final LCA results, and is also an area where great uncertainties have been observed amongst the
reviewed studies (Curran 2007, PATNER 2009). This thesis studies the effect of three types of
allocation methodologies; energy based allocation, mass based allocation and economic allocation.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
38/59
30
The mass and energy allocation approaches distribute the life cycle GHG emissions based on
either the mass or energy content, respectively, of the fuel and co-products. The economic allocation
approach distributes emissions based on the market price of co-products and fuel product.
Uncertainty in emissions from all three allocation methodologies is studied.
It has to be noted that for allocation methodologies, ISO recommends use of a system
expansion approach. This approach requires an alternative way of generating the exported functions
by expanding the system limits to include the additional functions related to the co-products and
data can be obtained for this alternative production (Huijbregts 2003). GREET does provide the
option to adopt a system expansion approach. However, when system expansion was selected for
Camelina oil, the GREET model presented an error in results. There could be many reasons for the
error. It is postulated that the error might be due to the complex nature of the approach. Ekvall and
Finnveden (2000) suggest that in application of system expansion accurate results can be acquired
only when accurate data on the effects on the production of exported functions and on the indirect
effects of changes in the exported functions are used. Given the relative recent interest in Camelina
as a jet fuel, this data might not be part of GREETs in built parameters. Hence because of
modelling error, analysis on system expansion could not be carried out.
Process Energy and Efficiency: Since interest in Camelina jet fuel is relatively recent, data on
fuel production is scarce. Hence establishing uncertainties for production parameters becomes
challenging. However, uncertainty in parameters such as energy use shows surprising consistency
for different biofuel systems. For example, rapeseed and soybean both show uncertainties of 8 to 15
percent for farming energy use (Mortimer 2003, PARTNER 2009). Based on this, a 10 percent
uncertainty was set for Camelina farming energy. The default GREET farming energy value was
used for the baseline case. Similarly, a 10 percent uncertainty was also set for Oil Use during the
Hydroprocessing stage.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
39/59
31
Table 11: Uncertainty ranges for the farming energy and oil use parameters
Parameter Lower limit Baseline Upper limit
Farming Energy 865 Btu/kg 965 Btu/kg 1065 Btu/kg
Oil Use
(Hydroprocesing Stage) 1.3 lb-oil/lb-fuel 1.4 lb-oil/lb-fuel 1.5 lb-oil/lb-fuel
Co-product Formation: Another area of uncertainty is in the formation of co-products during
fuel processing. Extent and individual distribution of Co-products formed plays an important role in
estimating the lifecycle GHG emissions. For example, propane formed as a co-product has a much
larger environmental footprint when compared to glycerine. This thesis studies the effect on GHG
emissions for a variety of co-product ranges. These ranges are consistent with those found in
literature (PATNER 2009, Shonnard 2009)
Table 12: Uncertainty ranges for the co-product formation parameters
Parameter Lower limit Baseline Upper limit
Naphtha-propane co-product mix
(Fuel constant at 76%)17%-7% 14.5%-9.5% 12%-12%
Fuel- Naphtha-propane mix 82%-6%-4% 68%-14%-10% 54%-22%-16%
5.4 Monte Carlo Method
As suggested by Huijbregts (1998), parameter and scenario uncertainties were incorporated
using Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo method replaces point estimates with random variables
drawn from probability density functions (Sonnemann 2003). This thesis uses a simple normal
distribution function for all analyses. The software ModelRisk provides the required utilities to carry
out Monte Carlo simulations.
Once a probability distribution is incorporated into a spreadsheet cell, each time the
spreadsheet recalculates a new value of the variable from the distribution and is used for further
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
40/59
32
calculations. To conduct a credible analysis, the entire simulation has to be run at a sufficiently
high number of trials (around 10,000 times). The software allows for studying individual output
cells which in this thesis is the resultant life cycle GHG emissions. The results form the output GHG
emissions are summarised in a single histogram of values. Figure 8 shows a snap shot of such a
histogram.
Figure 8: Plot showing a single histogram of values obtained form the Monte Carlo analysis .
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
41/59
33
Chapter 6: Results and Discussion
The main results are presented and discussed in this section. The section starts off by analyzing
results from scenario and parameter uncertainty concerning WTP GHG emissions from Camelina
HRJ fuel. The implications of the presence of uncertainty in emissions are then studied. Lastly the
limitations of the study are presented along with areas for future work.
6.1 Scenario Uncertainty
For scenario uncertainty, WTP GHG emissions were calculated using different co-product
credit approaches-mass, energy and economic based (market value) allocations-to understand the
implications of these methods in the GHG emissions of Camelina HRJ fuel. It is explained in the
methodology section as to why the system expansion approach was not chosen for the study. From
the results it can be seen that GHG emissions range from -45.3 g per MJ fuel (95th
percentile mass
allocation) to -29 g per MJ fuel (5th percentile economic allocation), which means that regardless of
the scenario (i.e allocation methodology), the results are GHG emission negative. The uncertainty in
the scenario emissions comes about from the procedure used to account for co-product credits.
Figure 9: Chart showing the combined uncertainty in WTP GHG emissions for individual allocation
methods. For each bar, the top extreme represents the 5th percentile and the bottom extreme represents the
95th percentile. Red line illustrates mean value of emissions.
-47
-45
-43
-41
-39
-37
-35
-33
-31
-29
-27
-25
Energy BasedAllocation
Mass BasedAllocation
EconomicAllocation
GHG(gperMJfuel)
Allocation Type
AllocationType
Mean WTP GHGEmission
( g per MJ fuel)
Energy Based - 33.7
Mass Based - 43
Economic - 31
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
42/59
34
6.1.1 Sources of Difference in Results
Focusing on scenario uncertainty, Figure 9 shows that mean GHG emissions range from -43 g
per MJ fuel (mass allocation) to -31 g per MJ fuel (economic allocation). The differences in the
individual allocation methods are due to the nature of allocation unique to each method. Table 13
presents the main co-products form Camelina HRJ production (from the GREET model) along with
their mass, energy content and market values. Note the units for these parameters; they are defined
based on the original Camelina seed mass. Take the example of Camelina meal, one would interpret
the table as 0.33 lb of Camelina meal was obtained from 1 lb of Camelina seeds. The 0.33 lb of
Camelina meal had a combined energy of 2,300 Btu and a combined market value of 0.04 dollars.
Table 13: Main coproducts form the Camelina fuel production process along with mass, energy and market
values (GREET 2012)
Products Mass content(lb/ Camelina seed lb)
Energy Content(Btu/ Camelina seed lb)
Market Value(USD/Camelina seed lb)
Camelina Meal 0.33 2,300 0.04
Propane Mix 0.06 1,530 0.018
Naphtha 0.08 1,600 0.044
Total Coproduct 0.47 5,430 0.102
Camelina HRJ Fuel 0.42 8,000 0.231
From Table 13, it is clearly evident that when compared to the process co-products, Camelina
HRJ fuel has a much higher energy content. However, when mass is compared, co-products such as
meal have significant mass (33% of overall mix). This would explain the difference in results from
adopting the mass and energy based allocation methodologies. Since co-products have significant
mass, the mass based approach allocates considerable GHG emissions to the co-products. Whereas
in the case of the energy based approach, the low energy value of the co-products results in lower
lifecycle emissions being allocated to them. A similar explanation can be given for the high GHG
emissions from the economic based allocation approach. Table 13 lists the market values used by
GREET to allocate the emissions. As can be seen, the co-products are much less valuable than the
HRJ fuel. In fact the disparity in market value is larger than the disparity in mass and energy content
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
43/59
35
values. Hence in the market value based approach, a large portion of the emissions are allocated to
the fuel, larger than the mass and energy based approaches.
To summarize, the difference in results from the mass, energy and economic allocation
approaches can be attributed to their different approaches to allocation, based on mass, energy and
market value respectively. Camelina fuel co-products have high mass, low energy density and low
market value (high and low are based on relative terms on comparison with the fuel). The
difference in WTP GHG emissions is a reflection of these co-product characteristics.
6.1.2 Appropriateness of Allocation Methods
It was confirmed in the earlier section that the choice of allocation method has a significant
influence on the final LCA emission results. In literature, different studies have adopted different
allocation approaches and some even adopting a combination of approaches (PATNER 2009, Malca
2010). This implies that there is no perfect fit for all allocation method. There are advantages and
disadvantages in each allocation methodology.
Mass and energy allocation methods which are based on physical properties are easily
applicable (Kim and Dale 2005). Data on the properties are generally available and easily
interpreted. However, as reported by the LowCVP working group (2004), different dispositions of
co-products can produce different environmental impacts, which would not be reflected in the
calculation. The mass and energy might not have a direct correlation with the GHG emissions. For
mass based allocation, it seems strange that the more co-product one produces in the production of
Camelina HRJ fuel, the better the GHG emission performance of the Camelina fuel will be. Energy
based allocation also has similar problems (LowCVP 2004). However as Malca (2004) argues, use
of an energy allocation method would be particularly appropriate in cases where along with the
main product, majority of the co-products were also burned as fuels. In this thesis, only a small
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
44/59
36
fraction of the Camelina coproducts can be used as fuel. Hence, an energy based allocation method
would seem less appropriate given the criteria laid out by Malca.
The main advantage of Market based allocation is that it is universally applicable and reflects
the underlying economic reasons for production. Economic factors are important in determining
how co-products are used. These could change over time to reflect changing economic markets
(LowCVP, 2004). There have been concerns in literature (Jonassonm 2004, Malca 2006) about the
effect of short term price changes and their effect on emission calculations. Price changes change
LCA results, whereas in reality the use and environmental impact of the products may not really
change.
To summarize, there are advantages and disadvantages in each allocation methodology. It is
important to recognize that there is no single allocation procedure which is appropriate for all
Camelina fuel production process. In this thesis, both mass based and market value based
approaches seem appropriate. Hence, future Camelina LCA studies should consider conducting a
sensitivity analysis incorporating the two approaches.
6.2 Parameter Uncertainty
With respect to parameter uncertainty, WTP GHG emissions probability distributions,
expressed in the 95th
and 5th
percentiles, are presented in Figure 10.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
45/59
37
Figure 10: WTP GHG Emissions results showing individual parameter uncertainties for the Mass Based,
Energy Based and Economic allocation methods. For each bar, the right extreme represents the 95 th
percentile and the left extreme represents the 5th
percentile. Red lines illustrate mean value of emissions.
Comparing the three allocation methods, the figure shows that uncertainty ranges across the
three methods are mostly consistent. Both energy and economic methods have combined
uncertainty ranges of around 4 g per MJ fuel while the mass method has a range of around 6 g per
MJ fuel. The higher uncertainty range for mass based allocation can be attributed to the
corresponding higher uncertainty range in the Fuel-Coproduct mix parameter; varying the fuel-
coproduct mix results in significant mass uncertainty for the final HRJ fuel. Quantitatively speaking,
uncertainty in most model parameters is consistent across the three allocation methods. Effect of
some parameters on the WTP GHG emissions is dampened in the mass allocation method.
However, the dampening effect is very minor (less than 0.5 g per MJ fuel).
-48 -46 -44 -42 -40 -38 -36
Lipid Content
Moisture Content
Farming Energy
Hydroprocessing Stage- Oil Use
Co Product Naphtha - Propane Mix
Fuel- Co product Mix
Combined Uncertainty
GHG (g per MJ Fuel)
ParameterUncertainty
Mass Based Allocation
-38 -36 -34 -32 -30 -28
Lipid Content
Moisture Content
Farming Energy
Hydroprocessing Stage- Oil Use
Co Product Naphtha - Propane Mix
Fuel- Co product Mix
Combined Uncertainty
GHG (g per MJ Fuel)
Para
meterUncertainty
Energy Based Allocation
-34 -32 -30 -28 -26
Lipid Content
Moisture Content
Farming Energy
Hydroprocessing Stage- Oil Use
Co Product Naphtha - Propane Mix
Fuel - Co product Mix
Combined Uncertainty
GHG (g per MJ Fuel)
Para
meterUncertainty
Economic Allocation
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
46/59
38
6.2.1 Parameters contributing to combined uncertainty
From Figure 10, it can be derived that a large portion of the uncertainty in emissions occurs
primarily due to two parameters; fuel-coproduct mix (50-60% share of overall uncertainty) and
lipid content (30-40% share of overall uncertainty). Fuel-coproduct mix is the parameter that
varies the HRJ fuel output from the production process. Two main reasons are behind its significant
effect on the overall uncertainty. Firstly, the data for final process products itself was very broad,
ranging from 54% to 84% output HRJ fuel. This uncertainty in the input parameter value itself has
an effect in the overall output emission value. A secondary reason is the inherent nature of the
parameter that leads to large degree of uncertainty; final percentage of HRJ fuel greatly affects the
overall allocation of emissions. It is interesting to note that although the percentage of HRJ fuel has
a significant impact, the type of coproduct produced has very little impact. As shown by the
Coproduct Naphtha-Propane mix parameter, when the HRJ fuel was fixed and the naptha-propane
mix was varied, it was hardly found to have an effect on uncertainty. This implies that coproducts,
Naphtha and Propane mix have similar impact with regards to GHG emissions.
Pre processing parameters, moisture content and farming energy play a very minor role in the
overall uncertainty. However, as seen by Figure 10, lipid content plays an important role,
responsible for up to 40% share of the overall uncertainty. This is despite the fact that the data input
range for this parameter was relatively narrow (38% to 43%). The parameters significant effect on
uncertainty can be attributed to the critical inherent nature of the parameter. Amount of lipid content
in a Camelina seed plays a crucial role in determining the final oil that can be derived (Zubr 1997).
Hence, even a small increment in the lipid content can have a large effect on the final emissions
attributed to the fuel. More fuel produced would correspond to less emission attribution per MJ of
the fuel.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
47/59
39
6.3 Comparison with Conventional Jet Fuel Emissions
Figure 11 compares the WTP GHG emissions from conventional jet fuel (jet fuel A) with those
from Camelina based HRJ Fuel. For the Camelina fuel, the emissions results are based on default
values in GREET (energy allocation). For the boundaries set in this thesis, Figure 11 shows that
Camelina fuel would clearly bring about significant emissions savings. This is true even when
considering the uncertainty quantified in earlier sections (-46 to -29 g per MJ fuel). The results
obtained for Camelina fuel from the GREET model are robust and regardless of uncertainty have a
better GHG emission performance than conventional jet fuel confirming the results obtained by
other studies (Shonnard 2009).
Figure 11: Chart comparing WTP GHG emissions from conventional jet fuel with WTP emissions fromCamelina based HRJ Fuel
6.4 Implications of Uncertainty
The following sections present implications of the results obtained in this thesis. It should be
kept in mind that the uncertainty results strongly depend on the thesis boundaries. If these change
(i.e., type of coproducts, energy or electricity mix), the resultant outcomes and implications,
including the importance of the different types of uncertainty, might change.
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Camelina HRJ Fuel Conventional Jet Fuel
WTP GHG Emissions (g per MJ fuel)
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
48/59
40
6.4.1 Quantitative Understanding of Uncertainty
When we assess the WTP GHG uncertainty results presented in Figure 12, we can conclude
that uncertainty due to scenario choices is more significant than parameter uncertainty. The
maximum scenario uncertainty amounts up to 12 g per MJ fuel and the maximum parameter
uncertainty to 6 g per MJ fuel.
Figure 12: Uncertainty analysis results obtained in this thesis
To put the quantitative GHG uncertainty results in perspective, a comparison with the US state
of California is done. California has an annual GHG emission of around 250 million tons from
transportation fuels (California Energy Commission 2011). In 2007, efforts to reduce fuel emissions
led to the enactment of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard focused towards a 10%
reduction in carbon intensity by 2020. This would amount to a 25 million tonnes reduction in GHG
emissions. An effective comparison would be to compare the uncertainty obtained from the results
with the target 25 million tons emission reduction. If the 6 g per MJ fuel parameter uncertainty were
to be scaled up to an annual scale in tones, it would amount to about 10 million tonnes GHG
emissions (California Energy Commission 2011). In terms of the California reduction target, this is
a 4% reduction in emissions. Similarly, a scenario uncertainty of 12 g per MJ fuel would amount to
an 8% reduction in emissions.
At first sight, the value of the uncertainties from this thesis might seem small, especially on
comparison with uncertainty results obtained from other researchers (Malca 2011, Sills et al. 2012).
-47
-45
-43
-41
-39
-37
-35
-33
-31
-29
-27
-25
Energy Based
Allocation
Mass Based
Allocation
Economic
Allocation
GHG(gperMJfuel)
Allocation Type
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
49/59
41
However, it is clear from the above example they can have a significant effect in overall GHG
emissions. In Californias case, they could add up to almost 80% of the target reduction. Hence it
becomes critical that efforts be spent in reducing uncertainty in life cycle GHG emissions.
6.4.2 Reducing Uncertainty
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that co-product allocation, lipid content and the amount of fuel
formed (fuel-coproduct mix) are the dominant contributors to uncertainty. The remaining
parameters do not have as significant an impact on the uncertainty in WTP GHG emissions of
Camelina jet fuel. Identifying critical parameters is important for decision makers because it
indicates which variables to act on and, moreover, the parameters that could be neglected, especially
if it is hard to get detailed information about them. It has to be however remembered that this is
exclusively for GHG emissions. Before concrete decisions are made, effect of other environmental
and economic factors would also have to be taken into account.
Parameter uncertainties such as final fuel percentage and lipid content can be reduced by
effective data gathering. Particularly in this study, a large source of uncertainty can be attributed to
lack of data since there was found to be scarcity in data for Camelina HRJ fuel production and
processing. Hence, for reducing parameter uncertainty, efforts can be focused on large data-
gathering for the production and fuel processing phase. The other major source of uncertainty seen
in this study is from coproduct allocation. Reducing this uncertainty is challenging and would have
to be taken on a case by case basis. As discussed earlier, in some cases it might make sense to use a
combination of approaches to measure the sensitivity of results to different allocation methods.
An interesting question would be the degree to which uncertainly in Camelina fuel WTP GHG
emissions can be reduced. In the end it should be kept in mind that biofuel production process are
complex systems and uncertainty in results reflects our limited ability to accurately predict the
behavior of such systems.
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
50/59
42
6.4.3 Decision Making
It is clear from the results presented in this thesis that uncertainty in GHG emissions of
Camelina jet fuel can be considerable and could have significant impacts on the results of LCA
studies. An LCA outcome ignoring uncertainty could give rise to decision making devoid of the
holistic view point. For example, a government could draft an environmental policy based on an
LCA result without being aware of the risk involved. Hence, it is important that LCA results,
especially those associated with new and developing technologies such as Camelina biofuel
systems, be reported as ranges of expected values rather than single values to provide decision
makers with reliable results.
Policymakers have traditionally preferred discrete answers rather than characterizing
uncertainty and in some cases decision makers would prefer a single value factor as opposed to
dealing with complicated ranges. In such cases, use of mean emission values is understandable.
However, conducting uncertainty analysis is still important since it relates the probabilities involved
and generates awareness amongst decision makers about the risk involved in their decisions.
6.5 Limitations of Study and Future Work
The uncertainty analysis conducted in this thesis provides useful information to assess the
reliability of Camelina LCA-based decisions and to guide future research toward reducing
uncertainty. However, given that evaluation of uncertainty is relatively new in LCA, efforts need to
be focused on understanding and countering the limitations.
One of the primary limitations of this study is that coproduct allocation using system expansion
could not be carried out. System expansion methodology has gained widespread acceptance in the
LCA field and ISO recommends its usage in LCA studies. However, in this thesis due to GREET
software errors, system expansion methodology could not be used. Future work should be directed
-
7/28/2019 Uncertainty in Lifecycle GHG Emissions from Camelina Jet Fuel
51/59
43
towards studying the effect of system expansion and comparing the results with other allocation
methodologies.
Another limitation of this thesis is that results are based on limited data. Estimated
uncertainties are a function of data availability and the analysis conducted in this thesis likely
overestimates the total uncertainty. Future work should focus towards increasing volume of
available data during the cultivation and processing stages of the Camelina HRJ fuel. In particular
efforts should be focused towards gathering data on Came