1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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!

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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!

10. 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)

11. 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)

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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?