IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v102y2013icp55-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biofuel greenhouse gas calculations under the European Renewable Energy Directive – A comparison of the BioGrace tool vs. the tool of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

Author

Listed:
  • Hennecke, Anna M.
  • Faist, Mireille
  • Reinhardt, Jürgen
  • Junquera, Victoria
  • Neeft, John
  • Fehrenbach, Horst

Abstract

The European Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) requires biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 35% compared to fossil fuels in order to count towards mandatory biofuel quota or to be eligible for financial support schemes. This reduction target will rise to 50% in 2017. For biofuel producers this implies that they want or need to calculate their emissions. The purpose of this paper is to compare two calculation tools for economic operators that are on their way to the market: the “BioGrace tool” and the ”Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) GHG tool” for GHG calculations under the Renewable Energy Directive (both of which are freely available). Greenhouse gas emissions from four production pathways were calculated: ethanol from wheat, ethanol from sugarcane, biodiesel from rapeseed and biodiesel from palm oil. In addition, three land use change (LUC) scenarios were calculated: for expansion of the biofuel cultivation area to grassland and to forest (10–30% canopy cover) and for improvement of agricultural practices. Both tools follow the methodology of the European Renewable Energy Directive and exactly the same input data along the production chain was used. Despite this, the results were significantly different. GHG emissions of the pathway ethanol from wheat were 21% lower when calculated with the BioGrace tool than with the RSB GHG tool. Differences were most pronounced in the cultivation phase with 20% deviation between the tools for biodiesel from palm oil and 35% deviation for ethanol from wheat and sugarcane. In practice this means that an economic operator can enhance the GHG performance of his biofuel by 20–35% by using a different calculation tool without improving the production process. We identified the use of different standard values in the two tools, in particular for the production of N-fertilisers, for chemicals and electricity and one methodological choice regarding the calculation of field N2O emissions as source of these differences. This methodological point is not specified in the Renewable Energy Directive, giving economic operators and tool developers free choice. GHG emissions from land use changes varied by −14% to 49% due to differences in carbon stock data, methodological differences in allocation and a lack of precise land use type definitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hennecke, Anna M. & Faist, Mireille & Reinhardt, Jürgen & Junquera, Victoria & Neeft, John & Fehrenbach, Horst, 2013. "Biofuel greenhouse gas calculations under the European Renewable Energy Directive – A comparison of the BioGrace tool vs. the tool of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 55-62.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:102:y:2013:i:c:p:55-62
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261912003066
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Germer & J. Sauerborn, 2008. "Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation establishment on greenhouse gas balance," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 697-716, December.
    2. García, Carlos A. & Fuentes, Alfredo & Hennecke, Anna & Riegelhaupt, Enrique & Manzini, Fabio & Masera, Omar, 2011. "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2088-2097, June.
    3. Alison Burrell & Maria Blanco & Stephan Hubertus Gay & Martin Henseler & Aikaterini Kavallari & Robert M'barek & Ignacio Perez & Axel Tonini, 2010. "Impacts of the EU Biofuel Target on Agricultural Markets and Land Use - A Comparative Modelling Assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC58484, Joint Research Centre.
    4. Schneider, Uwe A. & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-5.
    5. Uwe A. Schneider & Pete Smith, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation and Emission Intensities in Agriculture," Working Papers FNU-164, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jul 2008.
    6. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Pushpam Kumar & Uwe A. Schneider, 2008. "Greenhouse gas emission mitigation through agriculture," Working Papers FNU-155, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Feb 2008.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Inge Stupak & Jamie Joudrey & C. Tattersall Smith & Luc Pelkmans & Helena Chum & Annette Cowie & Oskar Englund & Chun Sheng Goh & Martin Junginger, 2016. "A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-118, January.
    2. Sastre, Carlos M. & Carrasco, Juan & Barro, Ruth & González-Arechavala, Yolanda & Maletta, Emiliano & Santos, Ana M. & Ciria, Pilar, 2016. "Improving bioenergy sustainability evaluations by using soil nitrogen balance coupled with life cycle assessment: A case study for electricity generated from rye biomass," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 847-863.
    3. Carneiro, Maria Luisa N.M. & Pradelle, Florian & Braga, Sergio L. & Gomes, Marcos Sebastião P. & Martins, Ana Rosa F.A. & Turkovics, Franck & Pradelle, Renata N.C., 2017. "Potential of biofuels from algae: Comparison with fossil fuels, ethanol and biodiesel in Europe and Brazil through life cycle assessment (LCA)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 632-653.
    4. Pambudi, Nugroho Agung & Itoi, Ryuichi & Jalilinasrabady, Saeid & Jaelani, Khasani, 2015. "Performance improvement of a single-flash geothermal power plant in Dieng, Indonesia, upon conversion to a double-flash system using thermodynamic analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 424-431.
    5. Lilianna Głąb & Józef Sowiński, 2019. "Sustainable Production of Sweet Sorghum as a Bioenergy Crop Using Biosolids Taking into Account Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Czyrnek-Delêtre, Magdalena M. & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Murphy, Jerry D., 2017. "Beyond carbon and energy: The challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 436-448.
    7. Sastre, C.M. & González-Arechavala, Y. & Santos, A.M., 2015. "Global warming and energy yield evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation – A LCA that takes into account parameter uncertainty and variability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 900-911.
    8. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    9. Malça, João & Coelho, António & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 837-844.
    10. Obnamia, Jon Albert & Dias, Goretty M. & MacLean, Heather L. & Saville, Bradley A., 2019. "Comparison of U.S. Midwest corn stover ethanol greenhouse gas emissions from GREET and GHGenius," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 591-601.
    11. Murnaghan, Kitty, 2017. "A comprehensive evaluation of the EU's biofuel policy: From biofuels to agrofuels," IPE Working Papers 81/2017, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    12. Bicalho, Tereza & Bessou, Cécile & Pacca, Sergio A., 2016. "Land use change within EU sustainability criteria for biofuels: The case of oil palm expansion in the Brazilian Amazon," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 588-597.
    13. Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Pongpat, Patcharaporn, 2015. "Sustainability assessment of sugarcane biorefinery and molasses ethanol production in Thailand using eco-efficiency indicator," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 603-609.
    14. Peter, Christiane & Helming, Katharina & Nendel, Claas, 2017. "Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 461-476.
    15. Pereira, L.G. & Cavalett, O. & Bonomi, A. & Zhang, Y. & Warner, E. & Chum, H.L., 2019. "Comparison of biofuel life-cycle GHG emissions assessment tools: The case studies of ethanol produced from sugarcane, corn, and wheat," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-12.
    16. O'Keeffe, S. & Majer, S. & Drache, C. & Franko, U. & Thrän, D., 2017. "Modelling biodiesel production within a regional context – A comparison with RED Benchmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 355-370.
    17. Ji, Xi & Long, Xianling, 2016. "A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.
    18. de Man, Reinier & German, Laura, 2017. "Certifying the sustainability of biofuels: Promise and reality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 871-883.
    19. Cho, Hyun Jun & Kim, Jin-Kuk & Ahmed, Faisal & Yeo, Yeong-Koo, 2013. "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of a biodiesel production from palm fatty acid distillate (PFAD)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 479-488.
    20. Han, Xiaoye & Yang, Zhenyi & Wang, Meiping & Tjong, Jimi & Zheng, Ming, 2017. "Clean combustion of n-butanol as a next generation biofuel for diesel engines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 347-359.
    21. Sastre, C.M. & Maletta, E. & González-Arechavala, Y. & Ciria, P. & Santos, A.M. & del Val, A. & Pérez, P. & Carrasco, J., 2014. "Centralised electricity production from winter cereals biomass grown under central-northern Spain conditions: Global warming and energy yield assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 737-748.
    22. Aleksandra Siudek & Anna M. Klepacka, 2022. "The Logistics Aspect in Research on the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Agricultural Biogas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-9, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mihaela Simionescu & Yuriy Bilan & Stanisław Gędek & Dalia Streimikiene, 2019. "The Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Na Su & Zhenbo Wang, 2022. "Visual Analysis of Global Carbon Mitigation Research Based on Scientific Knowledge Graphs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Galdos, Marcelo & Cavalett, Otávio & Seabra, Joaquim E.A. & Nogueira, Luiz Augusto Horta & Bonomi, Antonio, 2013. "Trends in global warming and human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production considering black carbon emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 576-582.
    4. Steven M. Ramsey & Jason S. Bergtold & Jessica L. Heier Stamm, 2021. "Field‐Level Land‐Use Adaptation to Local Weather Trends," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1314-1341, August.
    5. Powlson, D.S. & Gregory, P.J. & Whalley, W.R. & Quinton, J.N. & Hopkins, D.W. & Whitmore, A.P. & Hirsch, P.R. & Goulding, K.W.T., 2011. "Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 72-87.
    6. Lal, R., 2011. "Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 33-39.
    7. Huarui Gong & Jing Li & Zhen Liu & Yitao Zhang & Ruixing Hou & Zhu Ouyang, 2022. "Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Cropping Systems by Organic Fertilizer and Tillage Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Oliver Lazarus & Sonali McDermid & Jennifer Jacquet, 2021. "The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    9. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Telmo José Mendes & Diego Silva Siqueira & Eduardo Barretto Figueiredo & Ricardo de Oliveira Bordonal & Mara Regina Moitinho & José Marques Júnior & Newton La Scala Jr., 2021. "Soil carbon stock estimations: methods and a case study of the Maranhão State, Brazil," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16410-16427, November.
    11. Ancuta Isbasoiu & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Stéphane De Cara, 2021. "Increasing food production and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union: impacts of carbon pricing and calorie production targeting," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 409-440, April.
    12. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    13. Franco-Luesma, Samuel & Álvaro-Fuentes, Jorge & Plaza-Bonilla, Daniel & Arrúe, José Luis & Cantero-Martínez, Carlos & Cavero, José, 2019. "Influence of irrigation time and frequency on greenhouse gas emissions in a solid-set sprinkler-irrigated maize under Mediterranean conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 303-311.
    14. Anna Kocira & Mariola Staniak & Marzena Tomaszewska & Rafał Kornas & Jacek Cymerman & Katarzyna Panasiewicz & Halina Lipińska, 2020. "Legume Cover Crops as One of the Elements of Strategic Weed Management and Soil Quality Improvement. A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-41, September.
    15. Kerstin Jantke & Martina J. Hartmann & Livia Rasche & Benjamin Blanz & Uwe A. Schneider, 2020. "Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Knowledge and Positions of German Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2016. "Drivers for the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the German Fertilizer Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Miomir Jovanović & Ljiljana Kašćelan & Aleksandra Despotović & Vladimir Kašćelan, 2015. "The Impact of Agro-Economic Factors on GHG Emissions: Evidence from European Developing and Advanced Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Cockfield, Geoff, 2015. "The financial implications of converting farmland to state-supported environmental plantings in the Darling Downs region, Queensland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 57-65.
    19. Zhao, Rongqin & Liu, Ying & Tian, Mengmeng & Ding, Minglei & Cao, Lianhai & Zhang, Zhanping & Chuai, Xiaowei & Xiao, Liangang & Yao, Lunguang, 2018. "Impacts of water and land resources exploitation on agricultural carbon emissions: The water-land-energy-carbon nexus," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 480-492.
    20. Wang, Wen, 2015. "Intégrer l'agriculture dans les politiques d'atténuation chinoises," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/14999 edited by Perthuis, Christian de.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:102:y:2013:i:c:p:55-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.