1. Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird
Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems Task 38 Activities
Susanne Woess-Gallasch, Neil Bird
Finland
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Croatia
USA
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries

2. Participating Countries and NTLs 2008
Australia
Annette Cowie
Co-Task Leader
Austria
Susanne Woess-Gallasch
Neil Bird, Task Leader
Belgium
Florence Van Stappen
Croatia
Ana Kojakovic
Finland
Sampo Soimakallio
Kim Pingoud
Germany
Sebastian Rüter
Sweden
Kenneth Möllersten
United States
Mark Downing

3. Objectives of Task 38
Task 38
Develop, demonstrate and apply standard methodology for GHG balances
Increase understanding of GHG outcomes of bioenergy and carbon sequestration
Address policy relevant issues on GHG mitigation
Promote international exchange of ideas, models and scientific results
Aid decision makers in selecting mitigation strategies that optimize GHG benefits
Page 3

4. Task 38
The full fuel chains of a bioenergy (left side) and a fossil (right side) system producing electricity and heat are compared. The bioenergy chain starts with carbon fixation from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, or biomass carbon taken as biomass waste from the agricultural or forest product sector. At the end of the bioenergy fuel chain a certain amount of useful energy (electricity and heat) is supplied. Along the whole fuel chain, all energy inputs and GHG emissions occurring for planting and harvesting the crops, processing the feedstock into biofuel, transporting and storing of the feedstocks, distributing and final use of the biofuels must be accounted for in a life cycle perspective, together with non-energy utilization of by-products in the entire bioenergy chain. Such products play a fundamental role in the global balance because they can be used to displace other materials having GHG and energy implications. The fossil fuel energy system is dealt with in a similar way, including all GHG emissions and energy consumption associated to all life-cycle stages: production of the raw fossil fuel, refining, storage, distribution and combustion. If compared in this manner, the differences between the two systems producing the same product/service can be presented
Page 4

5. Methodology for GHG balance
Task 38
Compare project with reference
Define System boundary
Deliver equivalent service
All greenhouse gases: CO2, N2O and CH4
Consider whole system life cycle
Direct emissions (e.g. fossil fuels during cultivation, harvesting, Land LUC and carbon stocks…)
Indirect emissions (e.g. upstream emissions from production of fertilizer, displacement of land use activities…)
Land Use Change
Direct LUC is quantifiable (C stock changes in carbon pools of forests and agricultural land)
Indirect LUC more difficult to assess (CDM tool ignores indirect LUC)
Efficiencies of energy production/conversion
By-products (expansion of system or energy allocation)
In compliance with ISO and 14044
Page 5

6. Soil carbon paper
Does soil carbon loss in biomass production systems negate the greenhouse benefits of bioenergy?
(Author: Annette Cowie, 2006)
Review includes:
natural processes
impacts of farming and forestry
potential impacts of bioenergy systems
management practices to promote soil carbon
monitoring soil carbon
Systems modelled (with FullCAM):
conventional forestry (2 different systems)
short rotation forestry

7. Austria and USA: GORCAM
Model results: Carbon balance of a fuelwood plantation on agricultural land and bioenergy use of the fuel wood
100
200
300
400
500
600 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time [years]
Cumulative C sequestr. [tC ha -1 ]
Credit for energy substitution
Trees
Litter
Soil
Fossil fuel input is
generally a negative
value and brings the top
line of the pattern down
to the ultimate total
(thick black line)

8. T38 Case studies - GHG balances
Australia:
co-firing biomass with coal; wood fired power plant using timber plantations
Char as a soil amendment
Austria: Maize to biogas for electricity
Ireland:
peat use for energy
municipal solid waste as a energy fuel
Netherlands: biomass import options
New Zealand: bioenergy CHP plant using sawmill residues
UK: small heating systems using conventional forestry and miscanthus
Canada:
pyrolysis plant for bio-Oil production using sawmill residues and thinnings
Pellet production
Finland and Sweden: timber for house construction and residues for energy
Croatia: biodiesel in the Joint Implementation context
USA: anaerobic digestion of animal manure
Reports available at:

9. Case Study Biogas Plant Paldau
Results on covered / uncovered storage of digested material (measurements):
Concerning Biogas:
More production of biogas when storage covered: circa Nm3/a (+1,5%)
Concerning el. energy output:
covered storage: 4.02 MWh/a
+1,9%: CH4 concentration higher in biogas from storage: 63,8% instead 48,8%
uncovered storage: 3.95 MWh/a
Concerning heat:
7.250 MWh/a potential: only 1.15 MWh/a used
Concerning methane losses in the uncovered storage:
covered: ~ 0 t/a
Uncovered: t/a CH4 (+360 CO2 –eq t/a)

10. LCA Biogas Plant Paldau CO2–Eqivalents per year

11. Key Findings 1 GHG mitigation through bioenergy
technology specific
site specific (LUC)
Bioenergy systems using process residues and wastes have usually greatest GHG benefits and least negative impacts;
Synergies between bioenergy, wood production and management for carbon sinks;
Project sites without competing land-use (e.g. non-productive, marginal or set aside land) have less negative impacts on land-use;
Better benefits by cascading use (e.g. production of HWP by log wood, and woody residuals for bioenergy);

12. Key Findings 2 GHG benefits to be optimized (in dependance of goal)
Per ha of land
Per ton of biomass used
Per unit of capital invested
Per unit of energy output
(T38 paper on “Optimizing the GHG benefits of bioenergy systems”. Proceedings of the 14th EU Biomass Conference, Paris, October 2005)
In case of a / reforestation timing carbon sequestration and release during growth and harvest is of high importance
Technology development for efficient production / conversion of biomass energy is essential to keep costs down and use land efficiently

13. Task 38 Workshops
Joint Task 29/38/40 Expert Meeting on “Sustainable Bioenergy” Dubrovnik October 25-27, presentations available: task38.org/workshops/dubrovnik07/
Task 38 International Workshop in Salzburg, Austria, Feb. 5th 2008, “Transportation biofuels: For GHG mitigation, energy security or other reasons?” presentations available: task38.org/workshops/salzburg08/

14. Draft Position Paper: GHG of Bioenergy and other Energy Systems
Based on key statements, supported by literature. The aim is to
Discuss importance of LCA and to cover key aspects
Compare the most important bioenergy chains with their fossil and renewable competitors
Main issues to be covered:
Energy and GHG aspects of bioenergy chains
Comparison with reference energy systems
Deployment strategies for bioenergy

15. RE-Impact: Forestry based Bioenergy for Sustainable Development
Europe AID - Programme on Tropical Forests and other Forests in Developing Countries
Rural Energy Production from Bioenergy Projects: Providing regulatory and impact assessment frameworks, furthering sustainable biomass production policies and reducing associated risks
Emphasis concerning biomass resources
Jatropha
Forest resources
Outputs
Tools to assess the bioenergy production impacts:
Water, GHGs, Social, Biodiversity
Case studies
China, India, South Africa, Uganda
Modular impact assessment guidelines
Policy support
Assess likely land-use changes caused by policies
Assess impacts on forests of increased energy requirements
RE-Impact: Forestry based Bioenergy for Sustainable Development

16. FT Diesel Polygeneration Plant (Feasibility, incl
FT Diesel Polygeneration Plant (Feasibility, incl. GHG and energy balance based on life cycle )
Wood
Biofuel
Heat
Electricity
Wood chips
35,000 t/a
Biofuel
GHG red.
3.4 Mio. l/a
> 80%
Fuel
Electricity
Heat (70/90°C)
15 MWf
1.6 MWel
5.8 MWth
Efficiency
(11%e, 40%h, 29%f)
80%

17. Change of Land Use: From Cotton to Cynara as Energy Crop
Land use change
Source: ACISA

18. Thank you for your attention
Finland
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Croatia
USA
Australia
New Zealand
Participating Countries