Greenhouse Gas Balances for the German Biofuels Quota Legislation 07/12/2018 ifeu – Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg, Germany Greenhouse Gas Balances for the German Biofuels Quota Legislation Methodological guidance and default values Horst Fehrenbach, Jürgen Giegrich on behalf of Umweltbundesamt (UBA) Germany Stakeholder meeting to discuss technical aspects of the proposed Article 7a in the Commission proposal to modify Directive 98/70 (Com 2007(18)) July 18th 2007 – Brussels – DG Environment

Introduction  In Germany: law of a mandatory biofuel quota (Biokraftstoffquotengesetz) effective since January 2007. (following the EU Directive 2003/30/EG)  An R+D project on behalf of Umweltbundesamt is started to work out a set of criteria for sustainable biomass production and use.  Intensive discussion and exchange with similar activities in the Netherlands, UK other European states and the EU.

Introduction  Requirements Biokraftstoffquotengesetz: the federal government is authorised to modify the actually acknowledged quota by regarding the real GHG savings. multiplication of the annually sold amount of a specific biofuel with a correction factor. a minimal level of CO2 savings for the biofuels is required. sustainable cultivation of agricultural land. protection of natural habitats.  Authorization to concretize these requirements by an ordinance (currently in work)

R+D Project: Themes The current state of proposed themes and principles to be addressed by a certification system for sustainable biomass. There has to be a significant contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation! Land use practices and land use changes driven by biomass production shall not lead to significant ecological impacts! Increased biomass production shall not lead to worse social-economic situations!

R+D Project: Principles The current state of proposed principles: Significant contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation! Effects from indirect land use changes (competition) have to be considered. Loss of habitats of high conservation value shall be prevented Loss of biodiversity shall be prevented (incl. criteria considering farmland biodiv. and GMO) Negative impacts on soil, water and air shall be minimized Local population shall not drawbacks but participate in opportunities Ownership has to be respected Respect internationally required social standards

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Default values: The emission of GHG shall be calculated in the unit “kg CO2 equivalent / GJ of fuel”. A differentiation has to be made for using default values and using singular case values. The default values are based on conservative but realistic cases for Germany. They have to be applied if no certified singular case values are available. The default values are configured in a modular way according to the different steps of the biofuel production system.

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Biofuel production steps Considered in calculation 1. direct land use change (LUC) carbon balance: (C storage in crop system minus C storage in previous system), time span 20 years; avoided N2O, CH4 emissions from previous system; caused N2O, CH4 in case of burnings. 2. production of biomass GHG emissions from fuel use, fertilizers and pesticide production; in case: energy for irrigation; N2O, CH4 emissions from crop system 3. transport of biomass Depending on the system 4. conversion step I GHG emissions from energy supply, fuel use, auxiliary materials. 5. transport between steps Depending on the system (might be missing) 6. conversion step II 7. transport to fuel storage for admixture (refinery) 8. Indirect land use change e.g. “risk adder” (needs further substantiation)

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Biofuel production steps Considered in calculation 1. direct land use change (LUC) carbon balance: (C storage in crop system minus C storage in previous system), time span 20 years; avoided N2O, CH4 emissions from previous system; caused N2O, CH4 in case of burnings. 2. production of biomass GHG emissions from fuel use, fertilizers and pesticide production; in case: energy for irrigation; N2O, CH4 emissions from crop system 3. transport of biomass Depending on the system 4. conversion step I GHG emissions from energy supply, fuel use, auxiliary materials. 5. transport between steps Depending on the system (might be missing) 6. conversion step II 7. transport to fuel storage for admixture (refinery) 8. Indirect land use change e.g. “risk adder” (needs further substantiation)

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Considering co-products: There are various options to consider co-products. From all these the most appropriate are judged to be… Allocation based on energy figures (i.e. lower heat value) Allocation based on market values (prices) Delivering credits for substitution of other products Each option shows specific advantages and disadvantages. One important requirement is: minimize arbitrariness!

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Considering co-products: e.g. RME vs. Diesel ¬ Advantages for RME Credit - Chem. glycerine - Chemicals - Thermal use Allocation “range“ - Energy content - Mass - Price -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 t CO2 equiv. / (ha*a)

General principles of the “ GHG tool“ Allocation of co-products: All inputs and outputs shall be attributed to the co-products by their share of the lower heat value. This is to minimize the arbitrariness for the objective of the Biofuel Quota Law because it provides a clear and measurable figure to be used as a rule for allocation. An energy figure is appropriate for allocation in this context because the Biofuel Quota Law is about the substitution of fossil energy. Biomass which stays on the land or is returned to it (directly or indirectly) is not treated as co-product but modelled in a closed loop. ( Cross compliance)

Basics of the “ GHG tool“ List of lower heat values (LHV):

Calculation example PME Transp. betw. Conv. steps (indirect) Direct / land use Conversion step 1 Conversion step 1 Transport to refinery production Biomass Transport of biomass 500 km lorry 11000 km sea vessel 100 km truck trans- esterification 90 m2 palm oil cultivation 100 km lorry oil mill 150 km truck 1 GJ PME 27,6 kg palm oil 27,3 kg PME 78,8 kg oil fruits 78,8 kg EFB 15,8 kg kernels 2,6 kg glycerine Sum: 135,8 CO2-Eq. 91,5 from secondary forest to plantation over 20 a 16,6 from fertilizer, machine use etc. 0,3 15,3 from POME, energy plant 4,4 7,3 from methanol, energy plant 0,3

Exemplary calculations exemplary values based on an allocation (LHV) : Ethanol from Methylester from wheat (DE) maize (US) sugar cane BR rapeseed oil (DE) soy bean oil (BR) palm oil (MY) in kg CO2-eq./GJ Land use change 36,0 26,8 39,0 45,1 191,9 61,8 Production of biomass 22,7 25,6 11,4 29,9 5,1 11,2 Transport of biomass 0,4 0,7 0,9 0,3 0,5 0,2 Conversion step I - - 2,9 5,1 5,6 10,3 Transport betw. steps - - - 0,3 3,6 4,2 Conversion step II 40,3 24,5 0,3 6,6 6,7 6,7 Transport to refinery 0,8 0,4 4,2 0,3 0,3 0,4 indirect land use change Not yet implemented Total 100,2 78,0 58,6 87,6 213,7 94,8

Calculation examples exemplary values based on an allocation (LHV) : 220 Land use change (LUC) 200 Production of biomass 180 Transport of biomass Conversion step I 160 Transport betw.conv. steps 140 Conversion step II fossil reference systems gasoline: 85 kg/GJ, Diesel: 86.2 kg/GJ Transport to refinery kg CO2-Eq. per GJ Biofuel 120 100 80 30% saving 60 40 20 wheat maize sugar cane rapeseed oil soy bean oil palm oil Ethanol from FAME from

Points for Discussion Land use change is strongly affecting the total GHG results. How can data reliability be increased? The choice of co-product consideration is of some significance. Which option might be the less “challenging” one?  Which degree of complexity/simplicity is most appropriate?  Is there a way to internationally agreed default values even if national specifics should be respected?